1964-07-24

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Baldwin.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: I have the pleasure of announcing to the house that the government has authorized an interim policy on feed grains. Henceforth western grain moved by trucks within eastern Canada will also be eligible for freight assistance. Moreover, the government has decided on a new basis for the payment of freight assistance.
These two reforms were necessary. The original policy goes back to 1941. Many changes have occurred since its introduction. Methods and rates of transportation have changed and the fact that freight assistance was available only on inland movement by rail tended to prevent the decrease of certain inland rates. Some inequities in the balance of costs to various destinations have resulted.
We wished to correct these deficiencies immediately in order to follow up the measure concerning reimbursement of winter storage costs in authorized eastern elevators, introduced last autumn by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. This measure, established simultaneously with the extension to barley and oats of the Canadian wheat board's policy of deferred pricing, encourages a more economical movement of grain during the navigation season, and sufficient stock-piling of grains in the east for winter needs. For this reason eastern prices of grains and millfeeds have fluctuated much less during the last year.
The changes now made should therefore permit the most economical transportation of feed grains to their destination. More active competition will lower a number of rates.
As to its consequences for livestock producers, it can be said that this new policy
will result in substantial reductions in the spread between balances of transportation costs payable by producers in various regions. This spread under the former policy ran from an excess of assistance paid over the actual transportation cost of $1.80 to a balance of cost payable by local producers reaching $6.20 in certain areas. Under this new policy we have sought to narrow this spread of approximately $8 to $2.60 in eastern Canada, and we expect truck competition to eventually reduce it to less than $1.60.
All regions of British Columbia will see their balance of cost reduced by $0.60. Northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec will benefit from reductions reaching up to $3.60. There will be an appreciable reduction at most points north of the St. Lawrence, in various regions of the maritimes farthest from ports of entry and in some zones in Newfoundland. Furthermore, in other regions an effort has been made to standardize balance of cost wherever possible, while ensuring a readjustment for destination points receiving assistance in excess of cost of transportation.
I may say that rates to the maritimes are based on water movement. We plan to keep a close watch on supplies as the season progresses and should stocks in storage in the area be inadequate by the close of navigation, the government is prepared to re-examine the matter.
We repeat that our new policy, which will come into effect on August 31 next, is only an interim policy. We are waiting for the report of the house committee on agriculture and the result of certain studies, before establishing a more permanent feed grain policy.
Moreover such a permanent policy must be coherently integrated with overall legislation aimed at the agricultural renovation of eastern Canada.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry, who is now responsible for the feed grain policy, has just announced a temporary program concerning the transportation of feed grain by truck to eastern Canada. That is a step to help the trucking industry and, indirectly, in a small way, eastern agriculture. But in no way is it what we expected today from the Minister of Forestry.

Grain Policy in Eastern Canada
The Minister of Forestry just said he is waiting for the agriculture committee's report on the feed grain situation before bringing forward a new policy. Now, on May 22 of this year he stated on television that he was waiting for that report before introducing his new policy on feed grain.
Mr. Speaker, last year we asked the government to set up a committee to examine the question of feed grain in eastern Canada. The committee on agriculture met several times to consider the situation. A certain number of people gave very valuable information enabling the government to establish a new policy instead of a political scheme and thus ensuring what we, Conservatives, have sought to realize: stability of supplies, price equalization, encouragement for feed grain production in the east and price stability for feed grain throughout eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say that the report of the committee on agriculture is forthcoming, but ever since December 1963 we have repeatedly asked that the committee be reconvened to examine the alarming situation in eastern Canada.
And as things are going, we shall come back to this matter only this fall, in October or November, and once again we shall find ourselves in the same situation as last year. Prices will fluctuate just as they did from August to January 1964, when there was a difference of $8 a ton.
Well, we are not satisfied, even though this statement of interim policy is a step forward; we are not at all satisfied with this announcement and the responsible minister, instead of telling us that he is waiting for the committee report, should force the government to bring pressure to bear on the committee on agriculture to have it submit its report without delay. We are ready. There were always from 15 to 18 members present at this committee, and we intend to see to it that the government gives us the necessary instructions.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to thank the minister for the announcement he made this morning, which I believe was divided into two parts. The first part concerns a change that has been made in the policy previously followed of giving subsidies only to the railroads on the movement of grain inland for feed purposes. There are many areas in which the railroads are not the most efficient means of


transporting grain, and there are other areas solely dependant on road transportation. These areas have not received the benefit of this subsidy.
We believe the policy of extending the subsidy all across Canada is very good. It is one that has been recommended by many members of my party for a number of years because of the disparity which has existed between areas in this country. If this policy is implemented immediately it will eliminate some of thi problems we had last year when storage charges were paid. We found that even in the Ottawa area, which is close to the terminal elevators, the price fluctuated from $5 to $6 during the winter months. In my opinion this new policy eliminates the last reason the feed operators have for making these additional charges.
I believe the minister is completely wrong in the second aspect of his announcement relating to the whole problem of feed grain in eastern Canada. As the previous member has said, the government has shown no interest in having this matter again brought before the agriculture committee. In the committee last year there was general agreement that there should be a marketing agency established similar to the Canadian wheat board which would operate in the eastern feed grain areas. This suggestion was violently opposed by government members, with the result that the committee has not dealt with the problem again.
I think it is wrong to put these two problems together because obviously, in my opinion, they do not mean the same thing. We are now extending to road transport a subsidy that has previously been available only to rail transport. The other problem of eastern feed grain is not going to be solved this easily. It will only be done when the committee gets down to making formal recommendations to which the government can give consideration. I personally hope the government refers this matter to the committee in the very near future.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, of course, members of the house had been waiting for such a statement from the minister for some time. Personally, I brought up the matter many times in the house, and again recently.
Even if we are not completely in agreement or entirely satisfied with the minister's announcement I think we must all recognize

that it is a step in the right direction, a step which we hope will be followed by many others shortly.
Farm organizations in eastern Canada often have made suggestions to officials of the Department of Agriculture and I think the minister should, in the near future, implement several recommendations made by those organizations, especially the setting up of a feed grain agency for eastern Canada. Then feed grain could be controlled directly by that agency, which in turn would follow the directives of the boards themselves.
Another thing I would like the minister to consider is the securing of markets for the farm production he wants to increase with the help of that new policy.
In any case, I feel it is my duty to thank the minister for that first step which, I hope, will be followed by others shortly to better protect the farmers and give satisfaction to the parties concerned.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, we, in this corner of the house, appreciate to a certain extent the improvement that has just been announced with regard to the feed grain situation. Of course, as those who preceded me have stated, we expected a greater improvement. But, as it is often said, when the child begins to walk, it has to take its first steps, and I consider this statement by the minister as a first step toward the improvement of the feed grain market.
On the other hand I am happy, because by allowing the trucking industry to benefit from a subsidy which had always been kept for public enterprise, the government at least made a small gesture toward remedying the troubles of private enterprise, which has been ill-used in the last few years, so much so that it had to pay taxes that the Canadian National Railways might compete with it. This morning's gesture is somewhat of an act of justice toward the trucking industry, because I am sure that with the competition that industry will be able to offer the railways, our eastern farmers will certainly obtain the needed feed grain at a better price.
As do my colleagues, I wish that the committee on agriculture and colonization would take up the study of the feed grain question as soon as possible, so that we may one day see the creation of a feed grain agency for eastern Canada to enable eastern farmers to deal more freely with western farmers in this respect.
Introduction of Bills
Last year the committee on agriculture and colonization left the feed grain question pendant, so to speak, and was to take up its work as soon as possible during the present session. However, I think that "as soon as possible" has been rather delayed, because we have now almost reached the end of the session without having tackled that famous feed grain issue.
Since the beginning of the session the committee has accomplished some very important work, to my mind, but I think that the question of feed grain is most important and that, in a general way, it is of interest to all farmers in Quebec. Indeed, the committee should have been formed right at the start of this session, and the question considered immediately, so as to enable this autumn the eastern farmers to benefit from this subsidy granted private industry.
This subsidy will enable private industry to prove what it can do, in comparison with public enterprise, because the latter reduced its prices, which is help of primary importance for eastern farmers.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister very sincerely and urge him to take the second step as soon as possible.



PROVISION FOR DEFINING LENGTH OF PARLIAMENTARY SESSIONS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-113, to provide for the length of sessions of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: This parliament is one of the few remaining parliaments in the world which fails to foreordain or govern the length of its sessions and much of its own business, and this bill is designed as a first step to correct this situation.
The bill would give everybody who desires to have dealings in or with parliament a better opportunity to plan and perform his parliamentary business. It would give parliament a fixed, mandatory session at the outset and an optional one later in the year. The bill defines for parliament the length of sessions but, Mr. Speaker, it defines for the House of Commons only the length of its sittings. It in no way interferes with the sittings of the other place, which is free to control its own sittings.
There are exceptions in the bill. One is in the case of dissolution and the other is in the

Inquiries of the Ministry case of an urgent emergency of national importance. There is a device in the bill which is of interest, I am sure, to all hon. members because it permits the house to be represented by the Speaker, the Clerk of the house and the Sergeant-at-Arms after the house has concluded sittings. This enables the Senate to go ahead with a bill which it passes without amendment and it can become law. The royal assent procedure can be maintained by this device. There are other interesting features about this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OTTAWA TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-33 (from the Senate), to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SHIPPING


John Whitney Pickersgill: the first reading of Bill No. S-40 (from the Senate), to repeal certain acts of the province of Newfoundland respecting harbours and pilotage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the question I want to ask the Prime Minister arises out of a Canadian Press dispatch from London which appears in the Montreal Gazette. It is headed "Pearson sympathetic to Malaysia's need for assistance", and it goes into some detail.
In view of the fact that the prime minister of Malaysia will be here at the beginning of next week, can the Prime Minister give the house an idea of what the government has in mind to carry out that portion of the communique issued by the commonwealth


prime ministers dealing with assistance? Is there any question of military assistance? If not, is it intended to make available arms and the like by way of gift? What is the concept of the government in this connection? I ask this particularly in view of the unanimous acceptance by the prime ministers' conference not only of sympathy but of assistance to Malaysia in the continuing challenge which that country is subjected to by Indonesia.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman has said, at the recent commonwealth conference all the members affirmed their sympathy and support for Malaysia in its struggle to maintain its independence and territorial integrity. The prime minister of Malaysia is visiting Canada; we expect to see him on Monday evening and Tuesday, and we will have talks with him. It would be premature, Mr. Speaker, for me to indicate the nature of any support we might give him until we find out from him what are his requirements; but I can say at once that the question of sending men to Malaysia is not involved.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the right hon. gentleman not in a position to say whether the government would be willing to provide gifts of aircraft and the like for the assistance of Malaysia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I assume, Mr. Speaker, that the request for assistance will take the form of defence supplies and perhaps some assistance in training; but until we get from the prime minister his requirements I do not think I should say anything more.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Tuesday last the Secretary of State for External Affairs intimated that parliament would not necessarily be consulted in the event that the Canadian government decided to apply for membership in the organization of American states. In view of the very widespread implications of such membership, might I ask the Prime Minister whether we could have some assurance that at least debate on the whole question of the advisability of Canada joining the organization of American states

would be held this fall, or some time prior to any such application being made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if a decision were made in this matter the government would have to take its own constitutional responsibility. But I can confirm what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday, that in a matter of this importance there would be an opportunity for discussion in the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Would there be an opportunity before we had obtained membership or made application for membership, or would it be after?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, the government would have to take a position which it would bring to the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in that connection would the Prime Minister say whether thought is now being given to joining the organization of American states, particularly in view of the very drastic action which that organization is taking at the present time, or is contemplating taking?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there have been no further developments in government thinking on this matter in recent weeks.


John George Diefenbaker: Stalemate.


GREEK REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF BRITISH CONTINGENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he aware of the fact that yesterday the Greek-Cypriot parliament unanimously called for the withdrawal of the UN forces British contingent which is in Cyprus at the present time? Has he also received a statement giving the reasons why the withdrawal of this British contingent of the UN forces was called for?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


SOUTH VIET NAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External
Inquiries of the Ministry Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to inform the house on the official position of the Canadian government relating to General de Gaulle's statement in Paris that a meeting should be called of all interested powers in order to deal with the situation in South Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give more attention to the statement, which was made only yesterday.


DELAY IN ISSUING VISAS TO RUSSIAN CYCLE TEAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether he could give us the reasons why his department has delayed so much the issuing of visas to the Russian team which is supposed to participate in the St. Lawrence bicycle race, because apparently that delay has been the cause of additional expenses of $2,000 for the organizers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I could answer the hon. member's question next week, since this is the first time I have heard that question. [Text]



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to directa question to the Minister of Forestry. Could he indicate whether he had some part to play in the attempts made to settle the strike at the newspaper La Pressed


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, since it is the second or the third time I have been asked that question in the house, may I be allowed to sum up the situation?
On July 5 last I was at the meeting of the Quebec Liberal federation in Quebec. In the afternoon I met some newspapermen with whom I discussed the problem of the strike at La Presse on a friendly basis and in view of my trade union background, from 1952 to,

Inquiries of the Ministry 1,955, when I took part in several collective bargaining agreements and in the settlement of many labour disputes. I therefore discussed with those newspapermen the problem of La Presse.
i In the evening, between seven and nine o'clock, I tried to make a phone call, but all public phones in the Laurentide hotel were busy, so I went to the reporters room to make that call.
' At that time a reporter from Le Devoir was giving a report of the activities of the convention to his information manager, Mr. Michel Roy.
Following the telephone call of that reporter, I asked to talk to Mr. Michel Roy, a friend of mine, and I put some friendly questions to him, especially on matters concerning the strike at La Presse.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieife-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: Beware of your friends.


Maurice Sauvé: I knew then that Le Devoir had received, because my trade union friends had told me so in the afternoon, the text of the employers' proposal in connection with one of the clauses of the agreement.
As I had myself already negotiated several collective bargaining agreements and I knew that union differences are not settled publicly, I asked Mr; Michel Roy whether it would not be better for both parties to refrain from publishing press releases, since it was quite probable that negotiations could result in a settlement of this difference.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the part I played in the matter. As a former union leader I am pleased that I have been able to take part in the settlement of a labour-management conflict.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do you want to control the press?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Is it true that he brought pressure to bear on Le Devoir so that the counter-proposals of La Presse would not be published?


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I direct a supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker? Could the minister tell me whether this responsibility of interfering with freedom of speech and trying to control and influence the press comes under the Department of Forestry?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is sufficiently aware of parliamentary business to know that this dispute does not in the

least come under my duties as Minister of Forestry,


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But, could he assure the house-


Maurice Sauvé: We know very well that many people in the province of Quebec are trying to establish that there is a political and financial conspiracy behind the dispute at La Presse. As proof, they refer to a telephone call, which I did not undertake to make and which would never have taken place had it not been for the presence of a representative of Le Devoir at the very moment I was about to call a friend in Quebec city. Otherwise, I would never have spoken to Michel Roy of Le Devoir, because I had nothing to do with the dispute at La Presse. Everything happened on a friendly basis and following an entirely personal telephone call. [Text]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we thank the minister for that interesting revelation. I would like the minister to tell us what particular branch of the Department of Forestry this comes under, and whether he found he was "bushed" as a result of these discussions.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to know very well that I never had discussions with Mr. Michel Roy of Le Devoir in my capacity as Minister of Forestry. I did it on a personal basis because I have friendly relations with the newspapermen of La Presse and some members of the management of La Presse.
[Translation}


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One at a time, please. [Translation]
The hon. member for Lapointe.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe was recognized.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would counsel the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to direct his questions to the Chair, then it would be a lot simpler for the Chair to try to conduct the sittings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, which, I am sure, is of interest to all hon. members; I simply want to point out to the Minister of Forestry that this conflict is under provincial jurisdiction-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -and the minister was ill advised to try and intervene in a conflict where he did not settle anything.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question of privilege there.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question for the Minister of Forestry, Mr. Speaker. As he dealt, on a purely friendly basis, with the settlement of that conflict, could the minister tell us whether he can see a settlement of this strike in the near future and if he is making efforts to end it as soon as possible and so as to satisfy everybody?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, since then I have had no knowledge of any development in this conflict.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Forestry a supplementary question. Does he intend to rid his forests of devastating pigeons?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Forestry a short supplementary question-


Maurice Sauvé: I have no jurisdiction over provincial forests.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A brief supplementary question for the Minister of Forestry. Does he not believe that by his gesture he challenges the ability of the government of Quebec to settle this conflict as soon as possible following the request of all the writing staff of La Pressed Does he not consider this an insult to his friends from Quebec?


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry, Mr. Speaker.
He stated earlier that the La Presse conflict was a political-financial conflict. I should like him to be a little more specific by telling us what political party is behind this conflict and who are the financiers who are responsible for it, because he certainly knows that? 20220-375i
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Sauve: Mr. Speaker, I said the opposite. I said that in certain quarters there was an attempt to establish that the conflict was the result of a political-financial disagreement. It is nothing of the sort; so far as I know, it is simply a union conflict.
My intervention had nothing to do with politics and was in no way connected with my office of Minister of Forestry. All that happened quite by accident because I had a telephone conversation with the representative of Le Devoir, in Quebec, who is responsible for the news in Montreal.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Resign as soon as possible. [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely we have had enough discussion of this small matter.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: No. I do not think we should entertain any more supplementaries on this matter.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I do not see how there can be a point of order on the decision of the Chair, in the circumstances.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing orders, a member may, if he so wishes, ask a supplementary question. Standing orders permit any member to ask a supplementary question on the same subject during the question period. I have a supplementary question to ask now; it is absolutely in accordance with standing orders and might be as well of interest for all hon. members. That is why, since other members have asked supplementary questions, I would beg you not to prejudge the validity of my supplementary question and allow me to put it.
5926	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In order to get the matter settled, would the hon. member ask his supplementary question; and I would hope it would be the last one.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry whether he can tell us who is trying at the present time to consider the strike at La Presse as political and financial, and can he tell us what individuals are acting along those lines?


Maurice Sauvé: One only has to read the press reports in this connection, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRIES RESPECTING &quot;DO NOT SHIP&quot; LIST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question directed to the Minister of Labour relating to a question which was raised on Wednesday about a Mr. Chutskoff who has been to Montreal to lay his case before the trustees. It is alleged that Mr. Millard refused to see him, and he saw a Mr. Turner. In view of all the facts surrounding this case will the minister have it investigated to see that justice is done?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I had a note yesterday from Mr. Millard in connection with this case, to the effect that following a communication received from this person Mr. Millard had written telling this individual that he was surprised that a claim of injustice had been made, and that the trustees would investigate the case immediately. I had this information, as I said, yesterday from Mr. Millard. With regard to the other points made by my hon. friend, I have no information whatever.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the trustees were prepared to investigate the case, the proper place to start the investigation was to allow Mr. Chutskoff an entrance and an interview. He asked for an interview and was refused.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Labour is now in a position to advise whether he transmitted to the trustees the general feeling, including his own, that they should agree to appear before a committee of parliament to give an accounting of their stewardship and be subject to questioning?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, following a discussion on orders of the day recently

I did have a telephone conversation with Mr. Justice Dryer, and we have arranged to meet at an early date to discuss this particular matter.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. I wanted to ask the Minister of Labour, in his communication with the trustees did he add his personal request that they should now be willing to appear before the committee? What did he mean when he said "We will meet at an early date"? Does that mean he is going to meet with them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped it might be possible to have a discussion on this point with the chairman of the board of trustees either on Monday or later next week. However, the chairman had made arrangements to be on the west coast. Just as soon as he comes back we will have a meeting to discuss the particular point raised by my hon. friend. At that time I hope I will be in a position to indicate my views as to the desirability or otherwise of an appearance before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there any change of opinion on the part of the minister now, since he said "desirability or otherwise"? Is there any change in his views?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, I was just hedging against the next question to be raised.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmasier General):: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day on July 15 the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency asked whether I was aware of the fact that next fall's "national housing parade" will be seriously jeopardized if C.M.H.C. does not change its lending policy concerning builders.
I undertook at the time to deal with his question before the end of this week.
As hon. members are aware, my colleague the Minister of Labour announced on June 23 that the winter house building incentive program introduced last year will again be available for the benefit of prospective home owners during the winter months of 1964-65. Happily the market is readily absorbing the units built under last winter's program.
In these circumstances, and in response to numerous representations from all parts of Canada, Central Mortgage and Housing Cor-

poration is prepared to make available special assistance in the form of direct loans to permit the construction of display houses. Under present lending policy builders must pre-sell to a satisfactory purchaser any house that has been financed by C.M.H.C. loan. This requirement is being waived in respect of two loans only per builder approved for the purpose I have described. I might say that we anticipate that the demand for loans for the construction of these display houses will not exceed 2,500 units, or loans totalling approximately $25 million.
Under this new program prototypes may be built for examination by prospective purchasers, and the merchandising of dwellings erected during the coming winter months will be facilitated by these display houses. I am giving this answer today because of the time factor stressed by the hon. member and because of the importance of national home week in September with its "parades of homes" that are being arranged in many centres in Canada. The availability of several hundred of these model homes in September will, I am sure, accelerate sales and in turn stimulate winter housing activity.
Applications for such loans will be received by the corporation up to the 1st of October of this year.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the minister if Mr. Tom Benson, an executive producer for the C.B.C., has either resigned or been fired. Was he the producer responsible for the Pearson film and, finally, has his leaving any relationship to the fiasco which developed in connection with that production?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely this is a question for the order paper. There is no particular urgency now.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Secretary of State relating to a series of questions I asked him two or three weeks ago with regard to resignations from the C.B.C. Will he make inquiries from the C.B.C., and report to the house thereon, as to whether the producer of
Inquiries of the Ministry the so-called Pearson film has resigned; or has he been fired?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I will, Mr. Speaker.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether any decision has been reached by the cabinet concerning the disposition of the Kitsilano site in Vancouver.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not received any further proposal from the city of Vancouver.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It is a question of importance and also great urgency. It has to do with the prices of cattle on the prairies. I have been supplied with receipts from farmers which indicate that a good steer, weighing 1,120 pounds, sold for 16 cents a pound, while only a few weeks ago it was as high as 25 cents a pound; and a heifer sold for as low as 14 cents per pound, while a week or two weeks ago the price was 20 cents per pound. Canners and cutters are selling for less than a dime a pound. In view of this will the minister not take immediate steps to see that if the stockyards are flooded with more cattle than the markets can handle, the government will take care of the overflow at feed lots until such time as prices level off and become normal again?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are watching this situation very closely. It might be of interest to hon. members to learn that the price of cattle this year is somewhat higher than it was the last time this situation existed, which was 1961. To the best of our knowledge, cattle that have been sent in for marketing have been readily picked up at firmer prices than has been the case for some time. We are watching this situation very closely indeed. I would very much like the hon. member to give me the information he has re-

Inquiries of the Ministry ceived, because it is not the information I am receiving.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Minister of Agriculture, I have these receipts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member send his material to the minister.



RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELECTION OF PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry, who is responsible for rural development, and not for a newspaper.
Could the Minister of Forestry tell me whether at the present time, the provinces, by virtue of agreements entered into in connection with ARDA, determine themselves the urgent projects for rural development or whether it is the Ottawa government who imposes those projects to the provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the provinces take the lead in this field.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, since the minister has not been here for the last couple of days. On Friday last, as found on page 5625 of Hansard, I asked a question of the Minister of Justice and on Tuesday, July 21, as found on page 5745 I followed up with another question. The question has to do with the circumstances surrounding the trial, conviction and sentencing of two R.C.M.P. officers in Quebec for alleged misapplication of funds. Would the parliamentary secretary bring this matter to the minister's attention and ask him to report to the house on it on Monday?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliameniary Secretary to Minisier of Jusiice):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to bring this matter to the minister's attention.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I undertook to obtain for the house a report on the relationship between certain private litigation in which Harold C. Banks is involved and the appeal of his conviction for maiming Captain Walsh.
My information is to the effect that the present attempt to take Banks into custody arises out of private litigation under the civil law of Quebec between Upper Lakes Shipping Company and Banks. I am informed that the company some time ago obtained an injunction against the S.I.U. and certain officers thereof, including Banks, to prevent them from picketing the company's boats. Some time thereafter the S.I.U. was alleged to have picketed a boat at Three Rivers and the company presented a petition against Banks to the superior court of Quebec. The court adjudged Banks in contempt on account of the picketing and imposed a penalty of 30 days or a month in jail. Banks appealed to the court of appeal for Quebec, by which the appeal was dismissed, and an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also dismissed. Now the company is trying to enforce the order of imprisonment.
The federal government has nothing to do with that particular case, and the case in turn has nothing to do with Banks' bail in connection with his appeal from conviction for conspiracy to wound, maim or disfigure Captain Walsh. In that connection the chief justice of Quebec, after careful consideration of Banks' application for bail, admitted him to bail on deposit of $25,000 cash and upon the condition that he surrender himself on September 14, 1964 to abide the result of the appeal. No condition was attached to the effect that Banks remain in Canada. I would emphasize that it was the considered judgment of the chief justice of the province of Quebec that the most effective means of securing Banks' appearance at the appeal was by means of the bail bond deposited.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question with regard to this matter. Is it not a fact that once a person such as Banks has been found guilty of contempt of the high court of a province, the matter then becomes one of criminal jurisdiction; and because of the

connection so far as the administration of justice is concerned between the Department of Justice and the attorney general of the province there is some realm of jurisdiction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not asking for facts; he is asking for a legal opinion. I would point out that, as I have said in the statement I have made, it is a matter of the civil process of the province of Quebec where the order of the court has not been complied with. The government of Canada, of course, like any citizen takes no pleasure from wilful noncompliance with the order of any court, but it is not correct to say it is a matter of criminal jurisdiction falling within the realm of the government of Canada.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the parliamentary secretary state whether the government will give instructions to its lawyers to ask for the cancellation of Banks' bail bond now because of his disappearance?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government will certainly consider that point with counsel acting on the appeal, and abide by his judgment in the circumstances.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the parliamentary secretary inform the house as to what progress has been made in the search for Mr. Banks? We were told yesterday a statement would be made.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that the search is not being made by the government of Canada. The search is being made at the suit of private parties, and just as in any other private litigation it is not the function of the government of Canada to intervene in that type of proceeding.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Another supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Surely the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice is not suggesting that when a person is found guilty of contempt of the high court of a province-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. What is the question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -that the matter does not fall under the administration of justice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman should pose a question and not make a series of statements.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put the question this way. Surely the parliamentary secretary is not suggesting that when a person is found guilty of contempt of the high court of a province the matter does not fall within the realm of administration of justice, either under the attorney general of the province or under the Minister of Justice of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would agree with the hon. member that it falls within the realm of the administration of justice, but I would point out to him that under section 92 of the British North America Act that is the responsibility of the provincial government.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Is the minister in a position to indicate when he might be able to make an announcement concerning the cyclical salary revision of civil servants?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a very interesting question for the order paper, surely.



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question of national importance and great urgency to the President of the Privy Council. Would the president indicate when we can expect a report from the committee investigating a system of collective bargaining for civil servants, and whether such report will deal with-


An hon. Member:: Order paper-


Gerald Augustine Regan: -prevailing rates employees?


Mr. Speaker:: If the president is ready to answer, it might be the quickest way of dealing with the matter.


An hon. Member:: He just has his music there.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Queen's Privy Council):: The advisory committee has been dealing actively with this subject and has been putting forward-


An hon. Member:: It is under active consideration.
5930	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Mcllraiih: Yes, it is under quite active consideration. It is proposed that the prevailing rate employees will be included with the other civil servants. It is receiving close attention at the present time.


Gerald Augustine Regan: May I ask a supplementary question. When will the committee report?


An hon. Member:: As soon as possible.


George James McIlraith: I am a little confused as to what the hon. member means when he asks when they will report. This is an advisory committee to the government and it meets with committees of ministers regularly. I do not know when-


An hon. Member:: This is a loaded question, anyway.


George James McIlraith: I do not think it is loaded.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the President of the Privy Council if the government expects to have legislation dealing with the matter of collective bargaining for government employees ready before the end of this session?


George James McIlraith: I cannot predict the course of the session very well. However, it is expected that legislation will be in the course of preparation this autumn in an effort to try to have it in operation some time during the year 1965.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Can he tell the house which industries were established in Quebec, under the tax exemption legislation, in designated areas and where?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There are a number of questions similar to this on the order paper, and I think if this were put on the order paper I would be able to give an adequate answer.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for 

the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a copy of the resolution passed by the city council of the city of Winnipeg, urging the establishment of a health services program along the lines of the Hall report? In view of such representations, will the government do its best to expedite the holding of the federal-provincial conference on this subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I received no such resolution, but apparently my hon. friend has since he has sent me a copy of it which was addressed to him. We will be considering the matter.



PROVISION FOR SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION IN GALLERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: tTranslation]
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chicoutimi asked me a few days ago whether a simultaneous interpretation system would be installed in the house galleries.
We decided a few months ago to proceed with the installation of the system and we were waiting for the end of the session to do so.
We are now negotiating a price with the company which installed the system now in use and as soon as there is agreement on the price, we shall start installing the system in the galleries and, at the same time, we will put in new chairs. If necessary, the work will be done by night, row by row, in order not to interfere with the work of the house.
It is expected that it will take about two months to complete this change, which will enable the public to follow our proceedings in both official languages of the country.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question of which I gave him notice. Did the minister contact the premier of Quebec in order to set up eventually a national park in that province?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the question of park development in all the provinces, including the beautiful province of Quebec, has been under very active study. I did have occasion some months ago to write the prime minister of Quebec suggesting that if in their studies the subject of a national park was involved we would be willing to co-operate. To that specific letter I have not yet received a reply.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. B. Siewarf (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: On Wednesday last the hon. member for Cumberland raised a question of privilege about an answer given earlier that day to question No. 1,517, which concerned the number of signatures affixed to letters and petitions received by government departments urging a national plebiscite or referendum on a new flag design.
On Monday, July 20, in answering question No. 1,516, which concerned the number of signatures affixed to letters and petitions received by the Secretary of State since September 5, 1945, urging the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag, I had given the figure 149,465.
In June, 1964 a "petition for a plebiciste on the Canadian flag," addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, to which 17,873 names are affixed, and ostensibly prepared under the auspices of the emergency committee to save the Canadian red ensign, was delivered to the office of the Prime Minister. These 17,873 names were included in the total reported in the answer to question 1,516, rather than in the total given in answer to question 1,517(2). After examining the petition I have reached the conclusion that these names more properly belong in the latter answer, so that the answer to question 1,516 would be 131,592, and the answer to question 1,517(2) would be 18,844.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for 20220-376
Loans to Students
the Solicitor General in his capacity as acting house leader. Can he say whether the government will move to have the bill introduced this morning by the hon. member for Spadina dealt with immediately by the house so as to ensure normal working conditions, especially for House of Commons staff?



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Beri Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he give us any information regarding the negotiations going on with the government in Washington concerning the satellite communications system?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that these negotiations have been successfully concluded and I believe an agreement will be signed this afternoon.



EDUCATION


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-110, to facilitate the making of loans to students.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, before you said that the motion was carried on division, I had risen to express a few personal ideas on the third reading of the bill.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, will certainly have taught us-and most other hon. members- a lesson. When I look at it now that its study is completed, after all the arguments that have been advanced, I must say that I am quite pleased that it has been passed and satisfied with the turn of events.
However, as far as loans to students are concerned, several intrusions of the federal government in the educational field have been pointed out.
5932	HOUSE OF
Loans to Students


Mr. Speaker:: In order to keep the record straight I should indicate to the house that when I said "On division" I had not seen the hon. member rise. There is no attempt on the part of the Chair to limit the right of any hon. member to speak. In the circumstances I suggest to the hon. member that he continue his short, few remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I know very well you had no intention-this idea never came to my mind-to impose silence on any member. On the contrary, I think you are to be congratulated for your broadmindedness in that regard.
I was saying that Bill No. C-110 is indicative of a state of mind which exists at the present time in Canada. In this bill we see an encroachment of the federal government in a field reserved to the provinces, that of education. Nine provinces agree to take advantage of this bill, but one province refuses and will act alone in this field.
This is not the first piece of legislation introduced this year and which brings such results. There was the pension plan suggested by the federal government: nine provinces will join this plan and one will not.
The same is true of the bill introduced three weeks ago, concerning the $10 allowance to students aged 16 and 17 years. Nine provinces will join in this plan and one will not.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that more and more such bills will be introduced in the House of Commons and that, more and more, the federal government will try to control all the jurisdiction possible in the nine English speaking provinces, so that, more and more, the nine provincial governments will have nothing to do and we may see their consolidation in the hands of the Ottawa government, whereas, at the same time, the province of Quebec will withdraw from all those joint plans and will administer its affairs by herself. So, before long we shall have only two governments in Canada: the Ottawa government, for the nine English speaking provinces, and the Quebec government for the province of Quebec.
We will then achieve what I forecast yesterday: two governments only, two states, not separated but associated.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this development comes about fairly quickly, more quickly than separatism can progress in Quebec or in any other province, because that is how we will


be able to save confederation, not as it exists at present, with provincial governments, but a new confederation composed of two associated states.
I think the government of the day is in favour of such a development, because it has presented a number of bills along that line. Bill No. C-110 is the fourth one in the course of this one session.
We see the federal government interfering in fields of provincial jurisdiction and nine provinces surrendering their powers to Ottawa while Quebec withdraws from all such programs, having decided it should be the one to look after matters which come under its jurisdiction.
We see Ottawa intruding in the educational field.
It is the tenth measure. The other day, the Minister of Finance said there were nine. With Bill No. C-110, it is the tenth piece of legislation of this type.
The federal government intrudes in the educational field, something to which the provincial government has always objected. The federal government interfered in the field of health, and the Quebec government withdraws more and more from joint plans in this field. The federal government interferes also with regard to highways and the work reserved to the provinces in this connection.
In such a case, we might as well have the same legislation for all. If that is what they want, we have nothing against it. If the other provinces want it, we cannot object to it.
In the field of joint plans, the same thing happens, a single pension plan for the nine provinces and a single pension plan for Quebec. And so on.
In my opinion, it is good to point out the new tendency which now exists in Canada. It is the tendency to have not ten governments but two. The government in Ottawa on one side and the government in Quebec on the other.
That will make up or will enable us to create two states. The state of Ottawa with nine provinces and the state of Quebec with the province of Quebec.
Let us hope that this development will not take too long, so that a new constitution can be drawn up in the light of that new trend, of that new development and that while witnessing that development, Quebec can obtain as soon as possible its autonomy in the fields where it is proud and jealous of its rights, such as education, health, pensions, roads, natural resources, and many others, and that at the same time, Ottawa

will continue-since the provinces want it, since there are nine English speaking provinces that want it and that ask Ottawa for it-to try to achieve as rapidly as possible the union of the nine provinces into one government so that this union of the nine provinces into one government will enable that government and a strong Quebec government to negotiate the terms of a new constitution which will meet the needs of the time, that is in two, three or four years, a constitution tending to settle the problems which could come up between two associate states, the Ottawa state and the Quebec state.
After a thorough examination of all the provisions of Bill No. C-110, I realize that they show a tendency which is nothing new. It has been in existence in Canada for some years. We are heading more and more towards the achievement of that tendency. It is said that, even in Bill No. C-110, the federal government in Ottawa will establish the legal capacity of minors. Then, the federal government will impose regulations to private institutions, that is educational institutions.
Let us recall the words of the Minister of Finance a few days ago, when he said: after all, the majority has some rights in our country.
It is true that the majority has rights in our country, but since when would the majority have the right to bypass the constitution? Of course, if the majority principle was accepted, the majority might impose anything on the minority, and the latter would not be protected by the statutes, the constitution and confederation. Now, the majority has rights, and the fact must be recognized; but the majority in Canada could get its full wishes and rights by setting up a single government for the nine other provinces and a single one for the state of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this trend is not so bad after all. Then, we will arrive at the natural conclusion of what Canada should be, namely the union of two associate states. I do not say two separate states, mind you, but two associate states. Associate means that they co-operate and work together.
I have just been told that if there were only Liberal members in the house at this moment we would not have a quorum. In fact, out of 128 members, there are only five sitting at this time-no, four. I see that there are more than five now, there are six persons, including a member of the New Democratic party who has gone to the Liberal side. There are more on our side, although we are only 13 members. Look, there is 20220-376J
Loans to Students
another one coming in: that makes six. I suppose that they are interested in this legislation-

The AcSing Speaker (Mr. Batten): I suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe that he confine his remarks to the third reading of Bill No. C-110.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, still, you will admit the fact should be pointed out, when, out of 128 Liberal members, there are only five present in the house. Now, I think a few more have come in. In my opinion, the fact should be mentioned, so Canadian electors may know that their Liberal representatives are not at all interested in what is going on in the House of Commons.
I now resume my comments on third reading. I say this: we want, not separate states, but associate states. This is the kind of thing we are headed for. It is a tendency which is becoming more marked. We are not complaining about that; on the contrary, we used to preach it. Bill No. C-110 stresses that tendency.
The reason is that nine provinces favour an increased centralization while the province of Quebec is for autonomy. Bill No. C-110 confirms this situation, since Quebec refuses all intrusion of the federal government, while the other nine provinces welcome intrusion, so much so that before long, in my opinion, the governments of the nine other provinces will have practically nothing to administer because the Ottawa government will administer everything for them, while the province of Quebec will take over more and more of its powers and will look after nearly everything it can. When everyone will mind his own business, it will be possible to understand one another at the "confederal" level, and good relations will prevail between the two associate states.
Bill No. C-110 is the consequence of a long series of historical events. After a union government in 1840-this allows me to do as the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who goes back quite often to the past to make a point-before 1840, we had the colonial system, when there was not even a government in Canada because everything was directed from London. Then there was the Union Act of 1840 which united the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, creating Canada. Everything was in the same basket, Ontario and Quebec. In 1867, they realized

Loans to Students
one thing, that there really were two races in Canada, the French Canadians and the English Canadians. Then, the country was divided into provinces and each provincial government was given-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the remarks which the hon. member for Lapointe is making now are not very relevant to the third reading of this bill, and I suggest to him again that he coniine his remarks to the third reading of the measure before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it seems that it is easy to relate, it is easy to go back to history in order to prove that Bill No. C-110 is the continuation of a series of events. If you please permit me to finish my remarks, they will confirm the views I expressed on Bill No. C-110.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the act of 1867- [Text]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must point out again to the hon. member that on the third reading his remarks must refer to the context of the bill. That is not the case at the moment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if you listen carefully-I do not know if the simultaneous translation is beginning to fail us-I established a relationship between my remarks and Bill No. C-110.
Bill No. C-110 is another step in the development of circumstances prevailing in Canada. I pointed out the preceding circumstances. It seems to me that it is relating the act of 1867 to the period preceding the establishment of the constitution which is being violated by this Bill No. C-110. I am establishing a link between those periods and I am asking you one thing: that is to let me carry on my remarks, and you will see that everything is connected with Bill No. C-110, since a general discussion is allowed on the bill now under consideration.
The 1867 act recognized the existence of the two races and granted each province joint powers. Section 91 of the constitution limited the powers of the federal government, while section 92 limited those of the provincial governments. In the list of powers, reference is made to education. More and more, the period of the B.N.A. Act of 1867 confirms one thing, and that is that there are several groups in Canada, and two nations. Today, with Bill
[Mr. GrSgoire.l
No. C-110 as with others passed since the opening of this session, there is a tendency to hand over to Ottawa powers which the B.N.A. Act of 1867 had assigned to the provinces.
That confirms one thing: the evolution of history is following its normal course and today, through Bill No. C-110 and others which have been passed since the beginning of the present session, an attempt is made to give Ottawa various powers which were reserved to the provinces in 1867. In that historical tendency, the rights of Quebec are just the same recognized and I admit it is recognized that it could not participate in such legislation. It is recognized that the province of Quebec has the right to walk or to act alone, independently of the nine other provinces.
Under such circumstances, I think that Bill No. C-110 marks a complete historic evolution which has been going on in Canada for 100 or 125 years. If we vote against Bill No. C-110, it is not that we do not approve of the historic trend, but simply because Bill No. C-110 does not go far enough in that sense. If we vote against Bill No. C-110, it is because we are not at all satisfied with clause 12. Instead of providing for alternative payments, we ask that Ottawa give back to the province its sources of income equivalent to the expenditures incurred under the bill, so that Quebec could itself participate in all the activities of its jurisdiction in the field of education, so that it could levy taxes and take decisions concerning the spending of those taxes.
It is for that reason-because we believe that Bill No. C-110 does not go far enough, besides the fact that Quebec can opt out of the scheme-because that program does not give the province of Quebec its own sources of income to carry out its own scheme of loans and scholarships to students that we are against this legislation.
And so, we will let Bill No. C-110 pass for the nine other provinces, and we opt out of this scheme; but we will object because it does not recognize that the province of Quebec has the right to levy its own taxes and to make its own expenditures in the field of education.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I did not speak on the bill previously, and as it is a very important bill, not for what it does but for what it does not do, I should like to say a few words.

This is a cheap and very inadequate way in which the Liberal party is honouring an election promise to give education to many people who are now unable to get it. In particular, it is supposed to meet the promise to parents that if the Liberal party were elected there would be scholarships and bursaries for all who need them regardless of which province they are resident in. The Liberal party did not honour this promise of the last election but has come up with a substitute in the form of this bill which will cost the Canadian government approximately $2 million.
Education, Mr. Speaker, as everyone has said, is a very important matter. It is not a field in which we should decide whether a 17 or 18 year old will be able legally to contract a loan which will provide him with an education. We all agree that education should be provided to everyone with the capability of taking advantage of it. That does not mean this assistance should be limited in view of the civil code provisions applying to minors, and matters of bank exchange and other problems which apply in certain provinces although this is the excuse, 1 know.
I think this bill has made two things clear. First of all, the people now know that what the Liberal party promises is not necessarily what it will do. The people who know this are the most important people in the country, the young people who are going to be the leaders of tomorrow as soon as they have completed their education. Second, they will well remember that their education was not granted to them as of right, but that they were allowed to complete their education by a miserable government which lent them money to complete their education, money which should be provided by the nation.
If a person has a college education, taxes will flow into the country, because such people will probably earn three or four times what they would have earned without that education. Therefore in giving to our young people loans of this nature we are not really giving them anything; the $2 million is a very inconsequential figure. If we were to give them $6,000 or $7,000 each to complete their education we would still not be giving them anything.
You will well remember, Mr. Speaker, from personal experience the difference between the income tax you paid when you were earning $8,000 and what you are now paying on your salary, which I think is about equivalent to that of an engineer or others who have had university training. That education has
Loans to Students
raised their standard of living and earning power to that extent. Therefore we are not really giving these students anything; all we are demonstrating is that we in this country have not realized that education is essential. It is still only for the few who can take advantage of it because of the arrangements these people will be able to make.
The $1,000 which we are going to give to a student each year will not put him through university; a great deal more will be required from other sources. For example, the student will have to work part time, or his parents will have to kick through with as much as they had to pay some 10 years ago. As the cost of education grows, so the family will be called upon to put out as much as they did 10 years ago.
This bill has also finally convinced me that the government is not interested in federal aid to education. By passing this bill we have paid no attention to the fact that we in this country should have a national standard of education. It seems to me that if we are going to have a nation, then across that nation there should be a standard of education which each province is prepared to meet. A person going from one province to another should not be put at a disadvantage because of the difference in educational standards which now exist at the university level.
A few years ago, in discussing some of the programs of the military colleges supported by the federal government, we learned that there was one college in one province which had very few graduates from that province, for the simple reason that the educational standards had not been sufficient to enable recruits to meet the entrance requirements; and even when they were given an extra year at military college they were still not up to the academic standing of those in the rest of the provinces. I may say that this province was not Quebec, which we hear has many problems in the field of education.
I think we should face the fact that as far as Quebec is concerned, it already has better legislation than this. Loans to students in the province of Quebec, I am told, are much more attractive than the legislation we are enacting. We are providing this type of credit arrangement in many fields; for example, farm credit, national housing, under the Veterans Land Act, home improvement, farm improvement, fisheries improvement, subsidies to agriculture and mines. We are providing these subsidies on a national basis in many fields, and I wonder why, when we

Loans to Students
lend money to a young lad, we run into the difficulty of opting out. I do not know whether there is any farm loan scheme in the province of Prince Edward Island-I presume there is-but if not I do not think the reason is that the province might not take advantage of it. Why should we scrap a whole scheme because of the inability of one part of the country to take advantage of it?
The same goes for all the other credit arrangements we have made.
We have not asked that everybody participate equally in them; we are not asking this in education. But I think the government caters to the province of Quebec and allows the tail to wag the dog when it allows the province of Quebec and the representatives of Quebec to decide what the rest of the country is going to have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think this is the way it should be. I respect those who represent the province of Quebec, but in my opinion they have a wrong impression of what should be accomplished in higher education and the way this program should be financed and arranged. I respect and honour their position, but I'll be darned if I can understand why they should sabotage the position of the rest of the country.
I think we should make a decision on this matter. I do not really understand why a single Quebec member should have taken part in this debate, because each member prefaced his remarks-certainly the hon. member who spoke before me has always done this-by saying that the province of Quebec is going to opt out of this program. They have said "We are not interested in it. We are not going to participate in it. We only want some money back out of it". They are not really opting out of it; all they are saying is "We will not go along with the rest of the country and how they want to do it, but we want to get paid anyway. We don't want to participate in the game, but we want to share in the prizes".
This country must face up to this situation. If the country gave consideration to the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me I think we would probably get along a lot better in this country. We must face this problem of deciding to let Quebec operate in a different manner than the rest of Canada. I think we had better face that problem, and if they want to do things this way we should have a meeting and make an arrangement and decide how they want to act. If they

want to operate in a different manner, we can operate in the same way. I think confederation is big enough to allow changes, to allow the province of Quebec to pursue a course of its own in which it can guarantee, in whatever way it wants, the civil rights it desires and which we want it to have.
I believe there are some fields in which we could get along and participate and cooperate, and those fields should be delineated right away. We should quit playing around with this kind of legislation. This Liberal government will have us in a position where we cannot possibly make an arrangement and arrange legislation for the other provinces of Canada that is half satisfactory to those provinces. If we dilute the national course of Canada which most of the other nine provinces want, because of the objection of one province, we are not going to satisfy that province or the other nine provinces either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: I think it is time we looked at this situation intelligently and saw where we can get along and where the differences are. We should quit running head on into each other in the fields in which we cannot get along. I think the goverment should give some consideration to setting up a meeting with the provinces and threshing out this question before confederation busts itself up on the rocks of dissension. We should decide where we can get along and where we cannot get along, and then draw this line.
There is no better example of this than the legislation which is before us, with regard to which those who wanted to oppose the legislation had to do it within the framework of nine provinces wanting it and the other province saying it was not going to participate anyway. Yet there are things in this legislation that cause a fundamental conflict with that province and with regard to which its representatives feel they have to take some action.
I would hope that the Liberal government, which is responsible for the leadership of the Canadian people at the present time, will do something to solve this problem. Not all members of parliament on the government side are concerned; frankly, it is only the cabinet who are concerned. They should give some leadership in this field; because I believe they are leading the Canadian people toward a great deal of difficulty. This difficulty is illustrated when we find that our educational system is going to be slowed down-as it has

been slowed down in this case-to the very basic minimum in providing students for our universities this year. If our whole educational system is brought down to this level because of a policy that has to be followed in order to satisfy the Quebec members of the Liberal party, the government should look at some of the other arrangements of which confederation can avail itself and which will provide a much better system and much better legislation that the mediocre, unsatisfactory legislation being provided in Bill No. C-110.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, a few brief remarks only to indicate to the house that some provinces, including Quebec, have very good scholarship systems, better than that presently offered by the federal government. As concerns the province of Quebec, I believe that among the 10 provinces forming confederation, it has the best system.
The federal government could have helped indirectly the students of the provinces, and this while respecting the provisions of section 92 of the Canadian constitution and the autonomy of the provinces. For instance, had the federal government, without any condition, paid the interest on scholarships directly to the minister of finance in each province, or allowed fiscal compensations, he would have reached the same goal, and all the provinces would have been happy. We would not witness the disappointment which was expressed in some parts of the country.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, the students from the province of Quebec are not the only ones who are dissatisfied with this legislation. In fact, the president of the general association of the University of Toronto students was critical and expressed some reservations concerning this legislation.
Moreover, if the minister read this morning the editorials in the newspapers of the province of Quebec, he certainly saw that discontent was expressed on behalf of the population in general as well as on behalf of the university students.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay any longer the passage of this bill. I know that some provinces wish to take advantage of this legislation, and this is their business. I do not want to prevent them from doing so, but as far as I am concerned, I am against this bill and I request that the question be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house ready for the question?
Division


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 9 of the House of Commons, we are asking that the affirmative and negative votes be recorded in the minutes. In other words, we are asking for a recorded vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
The hon. member for Lapointe has already spoken on the third reading.


Mr. Rheaume:: About a million times on the bill, too.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is that the vote be recorded, and this under standing order 9.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Mr. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Lamontagne, moves that Bill No. C-110, an act to facilitate the making of loans to students, be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those in favour say yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: All those
in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: In my
opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Call in
the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee oi supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES Administration and general-
1. Departmental administration including federal share of the expenses of the secretariat for the Canadian council of resource ministers and $120,000 for grants for northern research and for northern scientific research expeditions, $1,591,500.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I presume the minister intends to make a statement.


Arthur Laing: 
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question?


Arthur Laing: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is he suggesting that the Prime Minister at this stage has changed his opinion on the building of this railway?


Arthur Laing: I am dealing only with my own remarks. I have watched that development for a long time, and never have I criticized the building of the railroad there. It will provide an economy in rates which will enable properties that are at present uneconomic to become economic, and by this means we should develop further and further into the north.
I want to pay a tribute to those firms and individuals who have put their faith in the north and invested their money there. At present we have one gold mine which is operating exclusively by air. The firm took in its machinery by air and is operating exclusively by air, and at a profit. The riches are there. Our responsibility is to assist those who will venture in that area, and in addition to provide facilities, air strips and roads, so far as we can economically see the return on that investment of social capital, and it is our responsibility to do these things as rapidly as we can.
I want to say a word now about our parks. Apart from everything else, our national
5940	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs parks are of tremendous importance as a money gatherer and as a considerable factor in the improvement in our balance of our international payments at the present time. I am certain that a great deal of the improvement in recent years in our balance of international payments can be attributed to the attraction of our national parks. I am very proud of them, as I think Canadians generally are. We have recently reiterated our determination to maintain a parks policy which will not permit the exploitation of minerals or forests within them. We think there are sufficient areas in Canada in which exploitation of resources can be carried out without impairing the wilderness aspect of our parks, and that policy will remain.
Last year there were 22 per cent more visitors to our parks than a year ago. Indeed, we are confronted with a crisis in our parks as a result, inasmuch as there has been a complete revolution in the type of person visiting them. Formerly visitors came by train and were relatively wealthy people. Now they are arriving in a veritable torrent of cars on the highways. With a buoyant economy and a prosperous state of affairs generally at the present time, and with the advent of statutory holidays with pay, the average Canadian working man who had not seen the national parks before has put his family into the car and headed for a vacation in a national park; and I think this committee will agree this is one of the finest things that could happen. These people are wanting a type of accommodation different from that which was supplied in the past, and it is difficult for us to keep up with the demand.
I am going to tell the committee frankly that we are being clobbered in some of the parks, though we are moving as fast as we can. People come in and say "Where do I leave the trailer?" or "Where do I pitch the tent?" Many of them have put a large portion of the holiday money into the gas tank and want to spend what is left as economically as possible.
Good highways are, of course, one of the most important reasons for the tremendous increase in the number of visitors to our parks, and in particular the excellent state of the trans-Canada highway has been responsible for the present situation. We have also been concerned about relating our national activities with provincial park activities, and I think this is a good thing, too.
I want to conclude this short review by making a statement on resources. I am sure my predecessor must have given some thought


to the importance and consequence of being the minister of national resources. I have often been described as the minister of "natural resources", and I am sure he was, too. But I am minister of national resources and people sometimes ask "What are these national resources? Are they those exclusively within the Yukon and the Northwest Territories which have not reached provincial status, or is there, otherwise, and elsewhere such a thing as national resources?"
I wish to pay tribute to what I consider to have been one of the most important and valuable conferences ever held in Canadian history, the resources for tomorrow conference held in 1961. That conference produced a document which is, I think, one of the best compendiums of knowledge on natural resources which has been produced by any country in the world. I have not read it all yet, but I have read a great deal of it and I wish this book were required reading for every Canadian. I am certain that the exploitation and development of Canadian resources which has taken place since that time can be attributed at least in part to the revelations made in the splendid papers which were produced at that time.
I am sure some Canadians were hopeful that it would develop immediately into a concrete national resource program. That was not the case, and it is not the case today. I want to say this very frankly. These resources are the responsibility of the crown in the right of the provinces, and the provinces are fully aware of their primacy in this field. It is understandable that this should be so, because their revenues derive largely from them. However, it seems to me that if we are to make the best use of our resources we must come to a concept of national resources as well as regional resources.
To this end we have brought together the resource ministers of the provinces and established a secretariat in Montreal. This is moving in the right direction. If Canadians think we are moving too slowly, I would assure them that because of provincial primacy in this field if we were to attempt to move too quickly we could fail. I may say we have found in a number of instances an increasingly encouraging attitude on the part of the provinces; and I speak of the provinces in unison, not of one province alone. I wish to pay tribute in this regard to the work being done on water resources in the three prairie provinces under the present chairmanship of Hon. Mr. Strom of Alberta. Work is being done with respect to those waters which flow1

from the eastern side of the Rockies, are carried across the three prairie provinces and empty finally into Hudson bay.
Of all our national resources, I want to pay particular attention to water. I will say that in the period immediately ahead water will be the second most important resource, next to the soil itself; and with the attention which is being paid to water at the present time in every part of the world as well as on this continent, it seems to me we should become conscious, both within the provinces and as a nation, of the fantastic resource we have available in our water for multi-use purposes. We shall be asking in the next several years for a considerable increase in the amount of money to be made available for these various studies. The work in the prairie provinces is going ahead excellently, but it seems to me we have to think in extremely broad terms looking one or two generations ahead if we are to use these resources safely at the present time having regard to likely future developments not in Canada alone but on this continent.
It seems to me that particularly with regard to waters which flow across provincial boundaries, here is an example of a field in which we must take action as quickly as we can with the concurrence of the provinces concerned. This is only one example of resource development along the lines of a national concept where making the best use of regional resources confers something to the national benefit; and this, I am certain, is necessary if we are to achieve that power of nationhood which most Canadians want and which I know is within our grasp having regard to the multitude of resources we possess.
That is all I intend to say at this stage. I wish to thank hon. members for the good will which has been shown to me fairly fully in my first year in my present position, as well as for the constructive criticism they have advanced from time to time, more of which no doubt we shall hear today. This is a magnificent department of tremendously wide range. I do not know how long it took the former minister to get a grasp of the department; I have not got a grasp of it yet, though I have been working hard on it. I wish to express my appreciation of the contributions made by members not only on this side of the house but on the opposition benches as well. I am sure that as a result the department will be still further improved.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Could I ask the minister one question? It may be this is not the proper
Supply-Northern Affairs time to deal with it, and perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to answer it later.
Could the minister give some indication to the house, because of the stress on the importance of the north, whether there is a definite northern border in Canada; and could he tell us how many oceanographers and other scientists are working at the present time in defining a true northern boundary for Canada? It seems to me very important that this should be done, particularly with the type of world in which we are now living.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member agree to giving me a little time to give a detailed reply either today or later?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes; thank you very much.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The annual consideration of the estimates, Mr. Chairman, provides members on both sides of the house with an opportunity to extend the little courtesies which not too often flow across the floor of this chamber. The minister in his introductory statement has established the pattern in this respect, and I want to follow suit in seconding the motion he has made so far as the qualities of the service of the officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is concerned. The men and women serving in this department, because it is a new department, have been pioneering along with the politicians who have had responsibility from time to time. I think it is an eloquent testimony to the quality of these men that so many have been moving on recently to other important positions of leadership in the government of Canada. For example, there are no less than two who are now in the service of this House of Commons assisting hon. members in trying to sort out the problems of procedures in adjusting to the parliamentary demands of the twentieth century. I could mention other fields of service to which other former members of the department have gone. However, I should just like to add this proviso, that I hope the removal of so many men of outstanding capacity is not indicative that their enthusiasm for this most stimulating department has decreased in any manner of means, because whether it be in the north or whether it be in the resource field, with its multifarious activities. I do not think you could find a more challenging field of endeavour on behalf of Canada than in this department.
The minister has been very brief in his statement and I hope he will supplement his observations with further detail as we go on to the main headings of the department. So far
5942	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs as we on this side are concerned, I am not going to deliver the main broadside. We have a great deal of talent on this side in the field of northern affairs and national resources, men, young men too, as is the case with so many of the officials of the department, who have taken a special interest in the department's affairs.


Erik Nielsen: The "gold dust twins".


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I shall delegate a good deal of the responsibility for an adequate and thorough discussion of this department to them. Therefore, I would hope that in like manner the minister, as we come to parks, for example, will be able to give us further details on progress of the plans which were going forward when he took over from the former administration. Because in the parks area, which is an important aspect of our resources almost to the same degree as in the area of responsibility for northern affairs, Canada is facing what amounts almost to a crisis situation in meeting the demands of its citizens today.
I would conclude from the tenor of the remarks of the minister that his heart is indeed in the right place. He has caught the vision of northern development as well as resource development, and I would say that we would be very happy to have him on this side of the house. He spoke like a good Conservative in this regard. However I wonder whether he has been able to persuade all of his colleagues to the same viewpoint. Because in the day when I had ministerial responsibility and when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was my predecessor, northern affairs and national resources was one of the departments which came under severe and in many respects unfair criticism from the Liberal party, when it was in opposition. There was a tendency to downgrade the importance of this department by ridiculing the phrase which had keynoted our government's approach to problems of northern development, the "vision" of northern development, and inferring that it had turned into a nightmare, and so forth and so on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
As has been indicated, this is a new department, established only in 1952. There has always been scepticism with reference to Canada's potential in her vast undeveloped, and up until quite recently unclaimed, north. There was no policy, no program. As prime minister Louis St. Laurent said at the time the department was organized, the government of Canada had administered and oc-
IMr. Dinsdale.]


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Including the Prime Minister.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, from the present Prime Minister down. The present Minister of Transport, remarkably enough-a man who should be interested in transportation problems-was one of the chief critics. Just so we shall not forget that these things came out of great trial and tribulation in this house, Mr. Chairman, I am going to refer to the attitude taken by the present Minister of Transport at that time. It is from a very reliable source, namely an article in the Newfoundland Evening Telegram.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There are many references in Hansard, anyway.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This article says:
J. W. Pickersgill, M.P. for Bonavista-Twillingate, made a good point when he said that if the federal government had that kind of money to spend they should use it to start or complete important development projects that have been hanging fire for many years.
Then he went on to mention specifically one or two programs in Newfoundland. The Pine Point railway development had been hanging fire for a period of 30 years. It was my privilege to take part in the inaugural ceremony. Pioneers who had gone into the Peace river country back in the twenties had been promised a railway as far back as those days, and you cannot imagine, Mr. Chairman, what a great day of rejoicing it was when this promise was finally kept about three years ago. I believe we might expect the completion of its construction ahead of schedule-as a matter of fact, by the end of the year-and I am sure this will spark the greatest development we have had in this part of Canada's north in a good many years.
The same applies, of course, to the other problems of resource development. I am just wondering whether the roads to resources program is being pursued with that vigour with which it was carried out under the former administration. We were pleased to hear of the prospects of continuing development in regard to the iron ore deposit in the Arctic circle, on the Yukon and Northwest Territories boundary. These things have all been made possible by the support that has been given in recent years to the private entrepreneurs who have been moving into the north in increasingly large numbers.


Erik Nielsen: What about communications?

Supply-Northern Affairs


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Yukon will speak about the microwave systems, that are going down the Mackenzie river to the Mackenzie delta. I do not want to cover everything in detail; I must leave some of the detail for my colleagues. I hope we might have from the minister a word on tourism in the north because, as is the case in other parts of Canada, I believe the tourist industry is going to be one of the great industries north of the 60th parallel. The Canadian wilderness there is the sort of tourist experience for which North Americans and people from other parts of the world are searching. There has been an encouraging increase in this area, and perhaps the minister at a later stage will give us an up to date report on how the increase in tourism in both territories is moving forward.
Resources have no significance at all outside their development by the human element and the provision for the needs of human resources. The minister made brief reference to the educational program but no reference to the welfare program except to indicate that the housing program that was inaugurated some three years ago is moving forward on schedule.
The human resource aspect of northern development had greater consideration by the former administration than did the natural resource problem. Before you can proceed to develop the natural resources in any developing area or nation you must have a trained labour force. This requires education. You must provide for all the amenities which are a part of the heritage to be expected by people living within the body politic of Canada. This is why we encouraged the vote for the Eskimos. They could not move into the main stream of Canadian life unless they had the stature of first class citizens. This is why a good deal of money was poured into educational facilities in the north. The minister has indicated that 80 per cent of northerners now have the opportunity to attend school. This figure has risen from 15 per cent in the year 1957. It is a tremendous program and one in which Canada can take considerable pride.
The hon. member for Northwest Territories, as an official of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, was responsible for a good part of the welfare program in the western Arctic, and I shall leave any comments in this area to his broad knowledge. There is one comment I should like to make with regard to human resources and it has to do with the problems existing be-


tween the Indian population and the Eskimo population north of 60. The programs are administered by separate departments. There is a lack of uniformity.
I have long been one of those who have supported the viewpoint of Senator Gladstone, the first Indian to sit in parliament, who strongly believes that administrative responsibility for Indians and Eskimos should be brought under the one jurisdiction and should emphasize in no uncertain terms the community development concept. Otherwise we are going to have the same problem that paternalism always brings and which has created such extreme difficulties in our treatment of the Indian population in most parts of Canada over the years. These people must be brought into the main stream of Canadian life on a uniform basis, and by taking into consideration the fact that they can only do so as they move forward as a community.
I know that the department has ambitious plans in this respect. For example, we appointed a director of adult education. It is one thing to educate the youngsters, but in educating the youngsters you are only intensifying the problems of social disorganization because you are educating the children away from the parents. This has been one of the great difficulties in the rapid expansion of educational facilities in the north involving as it does the necessity of transporting these children from their homes to hostel type schools. We were encouraging a local, small family type of hostel unit and I trust this policy is continuing. Otherwise you are going to get a conflict between generations. The children will be educated away from their parents, and this is one of the greatest sources of social confusion and disorganization in any rapidly changing society.
I should like to refer briefly to the Eskimo co-operatives which have been a tremendous success in the north. My last visit to the north in March of 1963 was to attend the first Eskimo co-operative conference at Frobisher. I know that when any minister has responsibility for an important policy of this kind it takes a long time to become fully aware of all its implications. I must say my eyes were opened when I saw these Eskimos from all parts of the Arctic meeting together and discussing their problems in a intelligent and responsible manner.
There was the usual language problem that we have in Canada. The Eskimo dialect of the western Arctic does not correspond to the dialect of the eastern Arctic and the

words of the representatives of the one area had to be interpreted to the representatives of the other area and vice versa. There was also an old Norwegian there whose English was so bad that he had to be interpreted into English. Notwithstanding these difficulties the conference was an overwhelming success.
One of the features of northern development has been the world wide acceptance of the excellent primitive art of the Eskimos. I think one of the most successful good will tours ever carried out on behalf of Canada was that undertaken by Miss Mary Pana-gashoo from Pond Inlet, the editor of the Eskimo magazine, who travelled in several countries in Africa with an exhibit of Canadian Eskimo art. I think that created more good will for Canada than many of the conferences that have taken place at a high political level. It was interesting to note the comment of Miss Panagashoo when she returned. The people who were most interested and most excited about her visit were not necessarily the natives of these countries but rather the Canadians serving in the various embassies. They had never seen a Canadian Eskimo, which indicates just how recently Canada's interest in northern development has emerged.
In recent months Canadian Eskimo art has been replaced in the headlines by Ookpik, the strange little animal that has come to the fore and seems to be becoming the symbol for northern development. I should like to ask some questions concerning Ookpik. Because the Eskimo co-operatives could not supply the quantities demanded, its manufacture has been turned over to commercial interests. This is one thing that we endeavoured to avoid, because the commercialization of Eskimo art in any form results in saturation and a tendency to devalue this art in terms of its monetary return. I hope this point has not been forgotten with respect to Ookpik. Perhaps it would have been better to keep this Arctic animal, the creation of an Eskimo lady at Fort Chimo, in short supply in order to maintain interest because once it gets into the five and ten cent stores and the commercial souvenir market I am afraid it will very rapidly reach the saturation point. I hope that the policy laid down in this respect has not been forgotten by the present administration.
If I may move from the north to parks, everyone is an expert on parks and everyone is interested in parks. We will be hearing from various members on this subject I am sure. I should like to re-emphasize the points
Supply-Northern Affairs that we endeavoured to make when we had administrative responsibility. Recreation and tourism in an age of leisure have precipitated a crisis in our national parks system and to meet the crisis we have got to move a lot faster than we are going at the present time. I hope the minister will expand on what is taking place in the national parks area at this time. There seems to be retrenchment instead of expansion with regard to the policies that were going forward under the former administration. I refer to the establishment of the planning section, the production of reports such as the Oberlander report, park reorganization, the zoning policy laid down in January of 1963 to preserve heavily populated parks such as Banff, Jasper, Waskesiu and Riding Mountain from the damage that will be created if no zoning controls are implemented in these park areas.
Then, there is the policy on recreational parks that we have discussed in this house from time to time. This was to be the next major step forward in the former government's program to meet the rising demand for recreational needs. The camp grounds and picnic grounds program is pretty well completed. The vote indicates it is a rapidly waning program. This has to be met by a broader, more expansive program, namely the recreational parks program whereby the federal government, on the basis of co-operative federalism, will co-operate with provincial governments to provide the recreational parks that are needed in every major urban centre of Canada and which must be provided on a crash program basis if national parks are going to be preserved for future generations which, of course, is their fundamental purpose. We can perhaps discuss this matter at another point in the proceedings.
Historic sites come under parks. There was no mention in the minister's statement as to what is taking place in connection with historic sites. Our program was tied to preparation for the Canadian centennial in 1967. We had launched a program that would have established a major historic site in every province in Canada. Louisburg was the large one, of course, and it received a lot of attention. However, right from Newfoundland, Signal Hill, through to the subArctic regions and the old city of Dawson, the former government had gone ahead in anticipation of the thousands of people who will be coming to Canada in 1967 to present a picture of Canada's historic past that would appeal to the millions of visitors coming to the country. I wonder just how that program
5946	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs is proceeding. There was an idea for animating the historic sites, as has been done with Upper Canada Village and Old Fort Henry. Not only would we have static displays of Canadian history, but we would actually have the historic site presented in animated form which, of course, considerably enhances its appeal to Canadians and the touring public.
I wonder, for example, what are the future plans for the preservation of Dawson city which was rapidly sinking into the permafrost. The whole community had been declared a historic site. While there was criticism from the Liberal party during the period when we had responsibility, I think it was short sighted and I believe it was politically motivated because there were not too many votes involved in the Yukon Territory. The population is small. It was possible to downgrade and ridicule the significance of this historic development because there was not too much political risk involved. This is not the attitude that is required if we are going to maintain a national perspective in the recording and preserving of our historic sites.
I refer on the other hand to the huge expenditures that are going into Expo '67. This will represent an investment of some $165 million, and everybody in Canada heartily approves. Why do they approve? They approve because this is going to be the focal point of our centennial celebration, even though it does involve a deficit of $47 million that will have to be picked up by the federal government. Surely, we are not going to concentrate on one part of Canada, because these millions of visitors will be travelling from Newfoundland right through to the farthest recesses of the north. If we are going to have all our historic attractions, all our recreational attractions prepared for that time, we will have to move a lot faster than we have since the new administration took over.
We talk about the billion dollars that will accrue from tourist spending; we talk about what this will mean in terms of the Canadian economy. The same thing is happening with regard to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. We talk about a deficit of half a million dollars, but we do not talk about the increase of $3 million in tourist revenues that resulted from improved tourist business.


Erik Nielsen: It is $4 million.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am corrected by the hon. member for Yukon. If there is one area of Canada that is universally known, it is the Klondike, because of the poems of Robert Service and the writings of Jack London. It is interesting to note that the Edmonton exhibition has taken a Klondike motif for the past two years and it has been an outstanding success. I hope that the new administration will keep a proper perspective, notwithstanding the irresponsible criticism of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the hon. member for Welland and others with similar ideas.
I come finally to some reference to the resources for tomorrow conference, to which the minister has already referred. I hope the initiative in this regard will continue. I believe my time has almost expired, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: By the light in your eye, Mr. Chairman, I thought you were becoming a bit restive.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must advise the hon. member that his time had expired at that time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I did not want to trespass, and I thank the committee for its courtesy. We must continue the initiative that has been generated by the resources for tomorrow conference. I agree with the minister that this is no easy task because the minister of national resources must assist in providing a program or policy for resources which are substantially owned by the provinces of Canada. I think, Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate just how delicate a matter this is when you consider that at the time we were preparing the resources for tomorrow conference the representative for Quebec was Hon. Rene Levesque who has had something to say about provincial rights and jurisdictions during recent months.
Co-ordination and co-operation are the chief ingredients of success in the field of national policy for resource development. The minister mentioned some of the good things that have already come out of the conference. These are, the national parks association, a voluntary group of citizens that will assist in encouraging public opinion in the support of the fundamental purpose of our national parks system; the federal-provincial parks

conference, which I hope is coming to grips with the recreational parks program that has now been delayed some two years; the ARDA program; the national wildlife federation, which now spans Canada from sea to sea. These are some of the things that have come about already.
The federal government must co-ordinate its activities on resource development. There must be established a council within the cabinet which will bring together the various departments that have joint responsibility in this area. Of course the same must apply to the provinces, but already some of the provinces have managed to co-ordinate their activities. As yet there is no such co-ordination within the government of Canada.
I shall not deal at length with the crisis in water. We had a full scale debate on this matter as recently as last May, and I may say I was amazed at some of the press reaction to that debate, which was a ho-hum reaction-"Isn't there anything more exciting than water to debate?" I think it was a spokesman for the Ralliement Creditiste who referred to the subject as an insipid and colourless one, and the leading editorial in the Ottawa Citizen for May 6 said this:
It was silly of the Conservative opposition to base a want of confidence motion in large part on the great lakes water levels problem-
But as a result of that debate we have become aware that North America, including Canada, is facing a crisis in its water supply, even though we have a large part of the world's fresh water supply within our boundaries. Two conferences have been called on the subject, one by the government of Ontario and the other by the port authority in Montreal. I heartily endorse the minister's remarks when he says we must move forward in the spirit of the resources for tomorrow conference in order to come to grips with the problem as soon as possible. Other hon. members will be talking about power. The export policy that was approved by the former Conservative government has now been approved by this administration. The Columbia treaty project has been approved by this administration. The long distance transmission projects have all been embraced with enthusiasm by this administration and I congraulate it in this regard.
The problem of migratory water fowl has become increasingly difficult in recent years and an international joint committee was established to deal with the matter. Programs of wet land preservation are being carried out, and in my own constituency there is a
Supply-Northern Affairs long lease project extending over a 20 year period that will preserve wet lands for the purpose of the generation of ducks. I would appreciate it if the minister could bring us up to date on how this program is proceeding. Funds must be derived for it. Some consideration was given to the possibility of establishing a duck stamp tax in Canada which would meet the costs of a wet lands preservation program, and I ask whether any progress has been made in this area?
Enough has been said already to establish that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is a most challenging, important and vital department concerned with the interests of Canada's future. The minister has indicated that he accepts the program that was laid down by the former administration. I hope he is successful in persuading some of the doubting Thomases in his own administration to maintain the vigorous pace and pattern of development that took place over the past six years. In particular, with reference to northern administration I hope he will decentralize administrative control into the territories as quickly as it can possibly be accomplished. This is the only way that the north is really going to become a vital part of the Canadian body politic.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When the hon. member for Brandon-Souris commenced to speak I was just wondering if I would have time to slip out and snatch a sandwich before he concluded. I realize now I could have had a seven course dinner.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I have been associating with the hon. member for Kootenay West in the committee dealing with the Columbia treaty and I am afraid I picked up his bad habits. I apologize.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He may have picked up some of my habits as to repetitious remarks and lengthy speeches on occasion, but he never picked up my good policies. As the hon. gentleman said, the estimates do provide an opportunity for these minor courtesies, and major criticisms later on if necessary.
I wish to congratulate the minister on his appointment and to thank him for his prompt attention to any matter I have directed toward him. I wish him every success in all he undertakes to conserve the natural resources of Canada, particularly its water resources.
I also appreciate the attention paid to matters by his parliamentary secretary, who I have heard described as the best looking young sourdough in the House of Commons.
I understand he is mastering his job very

Supply-Northern Affairs well. I read with interest a speech he made in Montreal to a seminar on the lake levels and I thought it was well done indeed.


Mr. Macaluso:: I hope the hon. member is aware of the popular definition of a young sourdough.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not going into that because we have two old sourdoughs who will be speaking this afternoon from the Progressive Conservative ranks.
I followed the minister's opening remarks with interest, particularly his emphasis on water in connection with the future development of our country. I am inclined to say I wished his influence had been somewhat greater in the cabinet in respect to the disposal of certain waters as a result of the passing of the Columbia treaty. He mentioned the question of water that flows across provincial boundaries. This is a very important question and will become increasingly so. I shall not deal with it now but I want to indicate our interest in the subject. Other speakers from this group will be dealing with particular items, and I personally look forward to a report from the minister on the work being undertaken by the council of resource ministers and what they intend to do in the days ahead.
We shall have some interesting observations and questions on the management of the national parks. I want to know if this government continues to build $48,000 houses for superintendents of parks. We shall have some questions to ask with respect to the operations of the wildlife branch, one of the best branches in the department, which is given little opportunity to express its views in this chamber. We shall have some interesting questions to ask oh the national museum and in a manner of speaking, we shall want to go into the gizzards of the national museum.
We also want to know something about the policy of the department with respect to water resources. I am waiting for a report from the minister with respect to the conversations I presume he had with Premier Bennett of British Columbia in connection with the proposed development of the Fraser river. We look forward to hearing in greater detail what has been mentioned previously by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Not wishing to delay unnecessarily the passage of these estimates and because we can ask our questions and advance our views more appropriately under the items concerned,

that is all I am going to say at this time. I shall be back after I have satisfied the inner man.


Bert Raymond Leboe: It seems the house has resolved itself into a quiet state after the last few days and it is hard to get used to it. My hon. friend from Fraser Valley says it is very pleasant.
First I should like to mention that one is in difficulty when dealing with the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, because it overlaps the work of so many other departments, like a mother hen with a brood of chicks. Particularly when we come to discuss the national resources branch we shall need to concern ourselves with the affairs of a number of other departments. If this department is to do its work properly it is essential, in my view, that the government should provide some means of communication between the provinces and the federal government-an agency which would be concerned with many departments of government, not simply with the department whose estimates are now under review. Many of the estimates we are dealing with could be much better handled if there were some body such as a secretariat to act as an instrument of liaison and work with the various governments concerned.


Arthur Laing: Which there is, now.


Bert Raymond Leboe: It would also have to work out the various fiscal arrangements which would allow the government of Canada to take its rightful position with respect to natural resources. It is true that natural resources are the responsibility of the provinces, yet there are over-all considerations which involve every Canadian citizen, and it is with this aspect of course that the minister is most concerned. I think it would be of assistance to him if there were some permanent office to co-ordinate the various efforts made by the provinces and the federal government.
In British Columbia, national resource conferences are held and they have proved very productive. I know that the minister, who comes from British Columbia, is very familiar with the work which has been done by these conferences over the years. Water is, of course, one of the greatest resources of the world and we are especially favoured in Canada in this respect. When the early settlers came to Canada they used the rivers and lakes for the purpose of transportation. As other methods of transportation were found they became interested in water more

from a standpoint of its capacity to generate power. Now we are talking about the multiple use of water, and indeed we are returning to the use of water as an aid to transportation. In this connection I refer to the float plane. I believe a great deal of imagination will have to be used in order to develop a policy which will be of assistance in many places where float plane travel is increasing, and I should like to enlist the assistance of the minister in dealing with his colleague the Minister of Transport in this connection, because I believe the hon. gentleman could exert a considerable influence on the Department of Transport. As he knows, most of the work now being done in the northern regions is made possible through the use of these float planes, and there is a great deal which the Department of Transport could do in conjunction with the department of northern affairs to facilitate the employment of small aircraft in these areas.
Some members of this committee are alarmed at the possibility of power developments taking place at the expense of the salmon fishery. This is particularly true with regard to the proposed construction on the Fraser river. I should like to point out however, since the particular construction proposed on this river lies within my constituency, that there are very few salmon spawning grounds which will be affected; an insignificant amount of salmon spawning would be affected by the establishment of a water reservoir on the north fork of the Fraser or on the McGregor river. This is one of the streams which at certain times in the spring, if it happens to unload its belch of water coinciding with flooding in the lower Fraser valley, has been shown to be an important factor in connection with Fraser valley flooding. I do not think we need to be too concerned in that regard.
As far as recreation and wildlife is concerned, let me remind hon. members that the addition of water surfaces that would follow the damming of these streams would provide a great deal of opportunity for recreation and for use by the float planes we were talking about a while ago. And of course sportsmen could use them for fishing and recreation.
We are interested in our section of the country in this question of providing additional water for the prairies. Evidence was given in the external affairs committee when the Columbia river was under study that water from the Peace river, after it had been used as a source of power, could be diverted successfully to the prairie region. This is one
Supply-Northern Affairs of the studies which needs to be pursued with a view to obtaining water for the prairies from the area which I represent. I think it is a logical step and I think it is one which will provide both irrigation and power to the people of south Saskatchewan. In this connection the use of water for irrigation is often overlooked by the people concerned. They tend to think more in terms of power generation. This is a short range view, though I agree the generation of power is an important part of these developments.
As members know, I come from an area which is recognized as the white spruce capital of the world. We ship enough lumber out of Prince George alone in one year to build a city almost the size of Edmonton; a trainload of lumber leaves there seven days a week, 365 days a year.
This puts one in the position where we must recognize the tremendous value of the forests of Canada. The forests are the natural resources of the provinces, and here again we have an over-all Canadian interest. But I think much more could and should be done. This is where we overlap once more with the Department of Forestry. Therefore we must hope that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will get together with the Minister of Forestry and see whether a much more liberal and broad scheme cannot be worked out to pay much more attention to the forests of Canada than has been paid in the past. I think that when the minister was in British Columbia he dealt with this matter, and I want to congratulate him on the interest he has shown in this regard. I am sure the people of Canada generally will appreciate any efforts made to bring about accomplishment along these lines.
As far as our parks are concerned I have one special interest of which the minister is well aware. I was pleased to note in the Western Producer an article which said that the minister has stated, as he has said to me privately, that when the British Columbia government gets the road from the western boundary of the Jasper national park completed, he will construct a highway from the town of Jasper to that boundary, a distance I believe of some 19 miles. However, I would warn the minister that once "flying Phil" gets moving on that proposition he will be speeding right along, and perhaps he should keep that in mind.
1 hope I am not wrong about this, but I would predict, knowing the good intentions of the minister, that a good highway will be constructed from the western boundary

Supply-Northern Affairs "through to Kamloops, and opened to traffic, before the minister completes construction of his road from the town of Jasper to the western boundary. I do not say this because I think the minister will fall down on his job; I just think that the circumstances will be such as to make it most difficult to be able to get this construction completed in the short time available to him. I do not anticipate that it will be very long before the road I speak of, highway No. 5, will be completed.


Arthur Laing: If the hon. member would not mind the intervention, what I said was that it was not my intention to be present at every gate to meet Mr. Gaglardi, but I expected to be present at that one.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I am afraid I did not hear the last part of the minister's statement; I did not have my earphone on.


Arthur Laing: Well, I think I can advise the hon. member that he will not miss anything until he reads it tomorrow.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Well, we can anticipate what happens anyway. I certainly want to give the minister every benefit of the doubt, but it appears to me that if that road from the town of Jasper to the boundary was completed it would help considerably the traffic going in and out.
Then there is another problem which I am not certain has been overcome entirely, and that is the problem of trucking through our national parks. I have a very strong feeling that sooner or later, in the case of trunk highways going through our parks-and the sooner the better as far as I am concerned- it is essential that there be a right of way along those roads, so that an individual can travel along a trunk highway without actually entering into foreign land. Truckers have told me that it is easier to enter the United States at Sault Ste. Marie and come out, say, at Sweetgrass and Coutts than to go into one of our national parks and come out the other side. I am told that the red tape in such cases is even worse than entering the United States.
I do not believe we should have this sort of foreign land in Canada. The railway companies have a right of way through the parks, and I think the highways system should provide for people not interested in the park itself but merely travelling from point A to point B a right of way. These people should not be put in the position of being stopped and checked, and all the rest of it, on entering a park.


Some of the experiences of the people in McBride and Valemount with regard to moving equipment from Edmonton have been rather disturbing, and the situation there has been a continual source of irritation. Once we get the traffic we would expect and have been experiencing in the Rogers pass, and which we may expect when the highway to Prince Rupert through Kamloops and Yel-lowhead is completed, the flow will be so heavy that in my view it will be nonsensical to let the situation in our parks remain as it is today with regard to people wanting to travel through the parks.
I should like to deal very shortly with the question of the Alaska highway. Here we come to a situation where the department involved is not the Department of Forestry but the Department of Public Works. I know that the minister has on various occasions shown a keen interest in this matter, and I think we agree wholeheartedly on what should be done. However, there are certain obstacles of which the minister is aware. I should like to put on record what I think should be our procedure in connection with the Alaska highway.
This is a road leading to northern resources, and it is a very important road. I think the highway should be built by Canada and by Canadians. I do not believe that we should enter into contracts or negotiations with the United States which would allow the United States actually to participate in the building of the highway. I say that because the value of labour and machinery to the people in the United States compared to the people in Canada is so vastly different that we could run into a great deal of difficulty, which I think should be avoided.
Those parts of the Alaska highway which lie within the known alignment of the final survey of the highway under the reconstruction program should be paved as soon as possible. I do not think that we should wait in this regard for any negotiations with the United States. The minister has received a letter from the minister of highways in British Columbia saying that that government would share the cost on a 50-50 basis of paving the road to the northern border of British Columbia.
I think the federal government should take British Columbia up on this offer. Having done so, negotiations could be carried on with the United States as to what is their responsibility in connection with the Alaska highway. Having decided upon that responsibility in due course, we in Canada would be in a posi-

tion to accept a cheque from the United States with regard to their responsibility. It as a result of these negotiations there is to be reimbursement to the province of British Columbia, because it would then become a three-way split instead of a two-way split with regard to the area from mile 83 to the border, British Columbia could be paid for that portion in view of the change.
I think these are important suggestions, Mr. Chairman, because we all know that in dry weather-and there is a lot of dry weather in that country-a large truck can be travelling on the Alaska highway for miles and miles and miles and the driver will never know whether there is anybody behind him, so that the people behind the truck can never get by. This leads people to commit suicide, in that they get so fed up with the dust and dirt that they are prepared to take a chance on passing the truck. Sometimes it is their last chance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does this happen right in your own riding?


Bert Raymond Leboe: Yes, this is right in my own constituency. I am not very far from home when I am talking about the Alaska highway. I think this type of hazard is something that should be eliminated as quickly as possible. Even a mile or two of paving here and there would allow a truck driver to see, on those stretches of highway, whether there was a line-up of cars behind him, and he could let them get by. It would also alert him to the fact, as he is more or less daydreaming along the highway at 35 or 40 miles an hour, that there are people behind him and it would give him a chance to look out for some place where he could let them get by. I recall very, very vividly a situation where I passed through the town of Golden, and shortly after passing through the town on the Big Bend highway I came behind a truck. The only time I was able to get by this truck was when we passed over the bridge at the Canoe river. For almost 100 miles we were behind the truck and we could not get by. When the truck driver got on to the bridge, he noticed the line-up of cars he had bottled up behind him, and I was one of them. This is the sort of thing that happens on the Alaska highway. I would hope that if these barriers still exist, they can be broken down so that work on this project can be commenced immediately.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to commence my comments on the minister's estimates by adding my endorsation of the
Supply-Northern Affairs praise which he extended to his officials. Both assistant deputy ministers sitting in front of the minister are fairly new to the respective positions they now hold, although Mr. Cot6 was, of course, an assistant deputy on the parks side for some years before assuming his role as deputy minister of the department. I think Mr. Gordon, the assistant deputy minister replacing Mr. Cunningham- and all of us regret Mr. Cunningham's death soon after he left the department-will do an outstanding job, having regard to his past record in the service of Canada. I should not stop there, Mr. Chairman, because the same praise should be extended throughout the department of the minister. I am familiar with many of the personnel in the department, and in all my dealings with them I have found them to be most co-operative, most dedicated and most hard-working in so far as the good of the north and the carrying out of the various responsibilities under their charge are concerned.
I have on several occasions come to my feet in the house and directed questions to several ministers-the Minister of Labour, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and others

with respect to consultation with the people both in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories with regard to federally conceived and federally sponsored schemes which affect the lives and the welfare of northerners. I believe that a major step forward in accomplishing the desires of the people of the north was taken yesterday when the government accepted the principle-of consultation in the student loans legislation which the Minister of Finance had before the house. This is the beginning. I suggested' to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who was in his seat at that time, that there should be the creation of' some permanency about this consultation, because while we may be blessed in the future with benevolent and enlightened ministers of northern affairs, and deputies,, assistant deputies and commissioners, it is undesirable in my view, and in the view of many I am sure, that there should be an assumption by the administration that it is expressing the views of people who live in the north.
One of our main complaints, regardless of which government was in power at the-time, has been that we suffer from the fact that we are 4,000 miles away from the seat of administrative direction here in Ottawa..
5952	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs Many of those who have responsibility for making decisions affecting the future of the people who live in the north have never been there, or if they have been there it has only been for one, two or three days. In this sense we feel we are being governed by remote control. I am sure this complaint has been heard often by the deputy minister, who has been associated with the department for a number of years, and it was heard often by his predecessor. I am sure the minister himself, during his travels through the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, brief though they were, heard the same sort of comment with respect to the people in that part of the country being heard. It is not a new complaint. Indeed, I have in my hand what might be called the initial issue of the Yellowknife Blade, which was published in 1946. It is dated March 14, 1946, and here is the substance of it:
A meeting sponsored by the Northwest Territories association will be held in the community hall on Friday, March 15, at 8 p.m., to protest the actions of the administration; to demand the application of the principle of democracy in our government. We are free men in a free country. Let our voice be heard! God save the King!
This is still the feeling in the north.


Arthur Laing: It is the feeling in Vancouver city, too.


Erik Nielsen: It may be the feeling in Vancouver but I am sure the minister appreciates the depth to which this feeling goes in the north where there is direct responsibility and direct administration by the government here in Ottawa. Most of our activities in the Yukon revolve around decisions of the federal government because natural resources, a sphere in which the federal government is most active in the north, are a direct responsibility of the federal government. The commissioner who is directly responsible for the administration of the affairs of the Yukon, and the same is true in the Northwest Territories, is directly responsible to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, so that whatever the commissioner does reflects, rightly or wrongly, on the minister's own administration. This has always been the case and will continue to be the case until there is a separation of executive and legislative functions in the governments of the two territories.
I believe that great strides were made, particularly during the years 1957 to 1963, in ameliorating this situation. For the first time since the Yukon became a territory a Yukoner has been appointed commissioner


of the territory. This is a very valuable step not only in ensuring that the department will get closer to the views of the people who live there but also because they will have the benefit of the knowledge of a man who has lived for many years of his life in the territory. I am sure it will be a happy day indeed for the people who live in the Northwest Territories when the same policy is adopted there, although I must say the present commissioner, Mr. Sivertz, has a fund of extremely valuable information which he can apply to the problems that exist in the Northwest Territories.
By the amendment to the Yukon Act in 1960 we embarked on the beginning of the road to self government. I do not know what the minister's personal views may be with respect to following the formula which I put before his predecessor in office, and the one before that with respect to development of responsible government in the Yukon. I feel that the minister, whoever he may be and whichever party is in power, must adopt a policy of gradually increasing the size of the Yukon legislative council as the population increases, not as the tax revenues to the federal treasury increase-although these are substantial now so far as the Yukon is concerned. As the population increases, so should the size of the council itself, following a plan similar to that which existed with regard to the former northwest territories which became the province of Manitoba.
I am sure the minister in his reading has come across the efforts of Mr. F. G. Haultain at that time who led the struggle for the development of responsible government in the northwest territories of that day. It is that type of formula I am thinking of, so that when we reach the stage that we have a council composed of a sufficient number of representatives to allow the formation of a cabinet form of government we can look forward then to the development in the immediate future of a province in the Yukon.
Again, there are many people who believe that he who pays the piper should call the tune. This was not the case with the province of Manitoba. At that time the federal government still bore the major cost of developing educational facilities, roads, other resources and communications. There are responsible businessmen in the Yukon who will come forward to serve on any legislative body when the territory reaches the size that we can look forward to responsible government, and who will be just as capable in administering funds, whether from federal or territorial

sources, as are those, capable though they may be, who now perform this function in the administrative side of the government both in the territory and at Ottawa. The same reasoning can be advanced for passing on this responsibility to the elected representatives of the people in the Yukon as was followed in the case of the schoolboard at Yellowknife which administers a good portion of federal funds. The principle is the same in the two cases.
There is one point where I differ with the minister. His predecessor, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, has said that the minister accepts the northern development program of the former government. I have not seen evidence in the north of this wholehearted acceptance. I look around in the Yukon, for instance, and the only development road I see going ahead right now is the last section of the road from Watson Lake to Boss river.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They pooh-poohed the
vision of the north.


Erik Nielsen: All of the engineering is now complete on the road that was approved by the previous administration from Ross river to Carmacks. All the minister now needs to do is to convince his colleagues, as I am sure he has tried to do, to approve construction of that road and the tenders will go out immediately.
While I am on the subject of roads I would ask the minister to detail for the benefit of the committee and for my own benefit the changes in policy which have taken place since the change in administration. I note that there is under consideration now the question of whether or not the government is going to continue to contribute financially to the cost of access road construction in the Yukon. As the minister knows, this was a definite policy of the previous administration. If a mining company had a property which it wanted to develop and which required the construction of a road from an existing communications facility to their property, the federal government would make a financial contribution to the cost of that road. Is that policy being continued? If it is, is it being continued to the same extent as under the previous government? I have some doubts on this score and I should like them to be set at rest because I know of two applications that have been made, one as long ago as 10 months, and the federal authorities have not yet been heard from with respect to whether or not they are going to contribute. I am not
Supply-Northern Affairs going to mention any names but the point is that the applications have been made.
I hope the government will not revert to their pre-1957 policy when the pioneer in the oil exploration industry, Western Minerals, made application for financial assistance in the construction of a winter trail from Flat creek to Eagle plain and were turned down. They did not receive a penny by way of assistance in getting their equipment in to discover the first oil and gas well in the Yukon, which they did in 1959 or 1960. The minister knows that today extensive oil and gas exploration is going on in the Yukon, and the possibilities of combining the exploitation of this resource, which is known to be there, with the huge deposits of iron ore in the Snake river area are beyond comprehension. The combined development of these two resources in this area of Canada will make no small contribution indeed to the over-all fabric of Canada.
I was very happy to hear the minister announce in reply to my question the other night that the C.N.R. is co-operating to the fullest extent with the owner of these mineral claims in the survey of a railroad route, which I presume is going to proceed through the Mayo area into the Snake river area, to assess the feasibility of construction of a railroad to transport the product from its existing location.
Just the other day I read a report by the Peso silver mine, and some very eminent geologists contributed to that report which came into my hands. They estimate that in the Mayo, Keno and Calumet areas there exists almost one billion tons of silver lead ore. The government is extracting from one operating company about half a million dollars a year in corporate taxes, to say nothing of the personal income taxes that come from the 700 or 800 miners who work in the area.
The minister in his travels has said the government intends to place emphasis on private investment in the north. Although I have raised the matter on two or three occasions he has not assured me, and I hope he will during the discussion of his estimates, that by saying that emphasis was going to be placed on private investment in the north, he did not mean the government was pulling in its horns in the encouragement of an operating partnership between the federal government and private enterprise in the development of the north. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chairman, this project of developing Canada's northland for all Canadians, for national benefit, is a joint project which

Supply-Northern Affairs must be undertaken with the federal government assuming its full responsibility in the way of programs which will encourage the investment of risk capital to develop the resources.
What we said, what the then prime minister said in 1957-58, what the minister of northern affairs, now the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, said, was that we must create an atmosphere by government activity in the creation of communications, in the creation of other facilities, which will attract private investment into the north. As a result of the adoption of these policies, and perhaps as a spillover, we see today what the minister has referred to as private investment in an amount never before experienced in the Yukon. There is perhaps one other year which would have come close to this year so far as mineral exploration and development activities in the Yukon is concerned and that is 1953 when the Hudson Bay Mining Company uncovered vast low grade deposits of nickel ore near Kluane lake.
This is what the then deputy-and I am referring to Mr. Robertson who is now the clerk of the privy council-had to say about this partnership when he spoke to the national northern development conference sponsored by the Edmonton chamber of commerce on Thursday, September 18, 1958 in Edmonton:
In developing the material and human resources of the north we are encouraged, on the one hand, by a new readiness on the part of the public to see government accelerate its efforts and, on the other, by a new awareness on the part of private enterprise of the exciting possibilities of this vast and promising area. Government- at both the federal and provincial levels-is responding, and there is every indication that it will continue, on a steadily increasing basis, to do its part in the process of development under our system. It will be the responsibility of private enterprise to follow through with imagination, drive and efficiency-and with a consciousness of its responsibility in this great initiative.
This teamwork for development is not only a mark of the effective functioning of our system and an earnest of our faith in the future but it can and will be a warranty to all our people that the Canadian north will one day hold a place of honour in our progress as a nation.
Specifically with regard to the government's role in development policies, he said this:
It is clear that government, in its role under our philosophy not only provides the basic services expected of government such as health, education, law and order, and necessary administrative and regulatory services, but in a number of other important ways can do much to provide the basis for the industry and finance that can then carry forward with resource development.


But why should it? It is of some importance -both to government and to private enterprise- to be clear and to keep clear the reasons why, in Canada, we have decided throughout our national history that it is a proper role for government to assist private enterprise in resource development.
Now, I hope that is the policy of the minister. I hope that he is not going to leave resource development in the north to private investment initiative. As I said, it would appear that despite what I conceive to be the feelings of the minister in this regard, and certainly from what I gather from the speeches he has made in various parts of the country, there has been a retarding of the tempo of government attention to resource development in the north. The minister was quoted in Vancouver, speaking before the chamber of commerce there, as referring to a bold, booming vision of the north. In this connection he was speaking specifically of the road from Flat Creek which has now reached Chapman lake and which it was contemplated would traverse the Eagle plain and Peel plateau and go through to Fort McPherson.


Arthur Laing: I have been careful to avoid the word "vision".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can understand that.


Erik Nielsen: I commend to the minister the word "vision". It was not right, and I am sure he will agree it was not, nor was it accurate for members of his party when they were sitting on this side of the house to refer to the vision of the north as a nightmare. It was just as inaccurate and improper for the then opposition to have ridiculed and scorned a development program which was conceived, not for the people of the north or for the voters in the north, or because there is only one seat there and one in the Northwest Territories, but because the holders of that vision had the conviction, and still do, that by following a program that was developed within the department as well as within the political caucus it would assist the development of the vast and rich potential of the northern areas for the benefit of all Canadians. I think it is trite to say that these resources belong to the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. What Canadians as a whole I think fail to appreciate, even though it was attempted with great force and vigour to bring this home to them in describing the vision of the north in 1957-

58 and in the years since, is that these resources are theirs, too.
This almost 50 per cent of Canada, to which the minister referred in his opening remarks, belongs to all Canadians, and it is in their interests and in the interests of the nation to develop these resources. It is in the interests of the over-all national economy, just as it was in the interests of the national economy that Canadians should build the Canadian Pacific Railway in the early days of our national development. Had that visionary project not proceeded at that time, where would we be? How late would the country be in developing the vast, potential riches of the west? As my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories points out, being a westerner I would probably be a congressman instead of an M.P.
The minister mentioned tourism and highways. He mentioned water as being second only to the soil as a natural resource. I hope he will have something to say during discussion of these estimates as to what the government is doing about the plans of the United States for the construction of the Rampart dam project. I believe this should be viewed with alarm now by the Canadian government, because once the United States decides to proceed with the construction of the Rampart dam project we run squarely up against the provisions of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and in all likelihood, if that project proceeded, we would be seriously impeded in developing the full potential of the Yukon river watershed which, as the minister knows, contains twice the existing potential of the St. Lawrence seaway project, a power project that the imagination at the moment cannot even conceive.
Once there has been established a national power grid, which was one of the developmental programs that was being blueprinted by the previous government and which this government has, as has been stated in the house, adopted and intends to carry through, there is no reason why the Yukon river hydroelectric power potential cannot be developed, again for the benefit of all Canadians. I find myself in full agreement with the minister when he places such emphatic importance on the water resources of the country.
The minister also spoke of national parks. I shall not embarrass him by asking what progress is being made with the establishment of a national park in the Yukon. That responsibility, at the time of the change of government, rested with the Yukon legislative 20220-377
Supply-Northern Affairs council and I believe it is still in that stage. You have a complete failure of the two groups in the Yukon to reconcile a meeting of minds on this matter. The mining people say that the establishment of any park will curtail mineral exploration and development. On the other hand you have those who are interested in the aesthetic intentions of the national parks principle, and the two cannot get together. In correspondence and in personal discussion, I have expressed my own view to the minister. I hope the problem will soon be resolved, but if it is to be resolved the initiative rests with the local representatives on the territorial council.
When the minister speaks before chambers of commerce in Vancouver, when he speaks in Dawson Creek of communications, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaks of oil and gas policy and the national power grid-all of these involving as they do a national development policy and a northern development policy as part of that national development policy-I cannot help thinking back to speeches such as that made by the former hon. member for Laurier, Mr. Chevrier, who is now the high commissioner in London, when he said in the maritimes that he was sick to his stomach of all this talk of northern development, that money should be spent in the provinces where there were more people and where there was more justification for spending it.


An hon. Member:: More voters.


Erik Nielsen: That is it-more voters. Let us face the fact that that is why we received all the criticism we did of the vision of the north. That is why all this criticism was generated over the Dawson city festival. Now we are spending $8 million on landscaping in Montreal, yet the opposition of that day ridiculed, scoffed and sneered at an investment that not only would have saved an ailing city but would have established a permanent economic return from tourism in the Yukon. The same argument that is now being used to justify a $47 million deficit in world fair expenditure was used by us to justify the Dawson city festival, yet when we sat on that side of the chamber we were laughed at for spending some $700,000 of federal moneys to restore the Grand Palace theatre and the steamer Keno at Dawson city.
I hope that the minister sees it as Pierre Berton does, and I think we are all aware of Mr. Berton's political leanings. As reported in a recent press release, when he was in

Supply-Northern Affairs Charlottetown speaking about centennial projects-
-Mr. Berton was asked about tourist developments in Dawson city and what had happened to what was once a "courageous experiment." He answered that "the courageous experiment was ruined by cowards."
And so it was.
He said that two things were done-a theatre was restored and a famous river boat was restored. People "began to scream that too much money was being spent," he said, "and the next year the government pulled the rug out from under that town and now it stands there with an empty monument and an empty steam boat." He cited this experience as an example of "the lack of faith that people have in this country, the lack of enthusiasm, this terrible dead por-ridgey apathy."
I would urge the minister to take a hard second look at the continuation of the Dawson city festival. The plant is now there. The local visitors association has organized a show in the Grand Palace theatre during the tourist season. It is called "The Drunkard", and I imagine the Minister of Transport would have something to say about that, particularly having regard to his descriptions of Arizona Charlie and his caricature in the Globe and Mail as "Pick's purity patrol," where he was depicted as Carrie Nation with a hatchet smashing up the bottles on the shelves in Arizona Charlie's.
This project is worthy of the minister's consideration. His deputy minister, who now sits in front of him, was one of the strongest enthusiasts for the Dawson city festival. I sat in on a meeting with him, and if the minister has any regard for his deputy's views on this matter he will take a hard second look at re-establishment of the festival. There were others in the department who had faith in that project but there were some, I can recall, at certain meetings who, once it looked as though it was going to be a political embarrassment-and it was successfully made a political embarrassment but by those who did not have that faith they should have had in the ultimate success of the project-deserted it like rats in a sinking ship. They denied any paternity for the project, one which was worth while, which produced tourists, and is still doing so.
Tourism in the Yukon, as elsewhere, is one of the most important industries in Canada today, and could be the most important industry in the Yukon in the very near future if mining development does not proceed with that impetus we expect.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I apologize for
interrupting the hon. member but the time allotted him has expired.


Erik Nielsen: I do not like to ask for additional time, but I would be finished in five or ten minutes if the committee would allow me to go on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is that agreeable?


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the committee for its indulgence.
I have one or two further specific questions to address to the minister. I believe the minister should inform the committee, if he can, precisely what the intentions of the government are with respect to introducing legislation amending the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. Mining companies and the mining industry generally are interested in something more precise than the statement that legislation might be introduced in the fall or next spring, the words the minister used in a personal conversation with me some weeks ago.
I should also like to have a statement from the minister telling us precisely what road projects are in hand for this fall or next summer in the Yukon, and I imagine my hon. friend from the Northwest Territiories would be interested to know what is to be the program in his region as well.
I should like the minister to tell us what has happened to the interdepartmental committee on agricultural development in the north. What progress has that committee made? It made one report at the time the government changed, but that is the only report in existence. 1 have asked about this before. I should also like to know what progress has been made in unsnarling the existing land program in the Yukon. What progress has been made in this regard? What has been done to make it easier for farmers and small holders to obtain property in the Yukon? The last I heard, a farmer who wanted to purchase acreage there had to pay $16 an acre for land, which was certainly not prime land, while land in the Peace river area is selling for around $3 an acre.


Arthur Laing: I doubt that.


Erik Nielsen: I am not sure of that last figure. Having regard to his agricultural background the minister will probably know more about the present cost of agricultural land than I do.
I wish also to draw a very important matter to the attention of the minister in the

course of these few concluding remarks. The minister knows that the Yukon legislative council or, to be absolutely correct, the commissioner in council, has exclusive jurisdiction over the expenditure of moneys from the Yukon consolidated revenue fund. A practice exists-I can only call it a practice, because 1 do not think it has the sanction of law- and has existed for a number of years, of allotting a particular portion of Yukon revenue for expenditure by individual councillors. I speak here of the tax of 25 cents per bottle which is levied on liquor in the Yukon, revenue from which is allocated specifically for community development. This would be acceptable if the revenue in question were placed in the territorial consolidated revenue fund, as it should be, and made subject to the authority of the commissioner in council. But what happens is this: These funds are allocated on a per capita basis to the seven councillors who represent the seven ridings in the Yukon, and these councillors have direct authority to say how these moneys are to be spent and in which communities-


Arthur Laing: And in which years.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, and in which years, as the
minister has properly pointed out. Indeed one of the councillors has accumulated three years of such moneys-to use a kindly term with reference to this practice-and of course we are now in the middle of an election year as far as the territorial council is concerned. He can go around from community to community in his riding and say: We are going to build this and this, and I am going to donate this and this, and I will see that it is done. I believe that is a most undesirable practice. It is as if every member of this house were to be allotted a specific portion of the 11 per cent sales tax, for instance, for disposal as he thought best in a certain direction, and I am sure members of this committee would agreed with me that for more reasons than one this would be an undesirable practice.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. member mind putting his statement into proper perspective by giving the committee some idea of how many dollars are involved? It is a small sum, is it not?


Erik Nielsen: The amount last year was $8,000 per councillor, roughly, and that is not a small sum.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: They are pretty heavy
drinkers in that country.
20220-377i
Supply-Northern Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: It is the visitors from Ottawa.


Erik Nielsen: As pointed out by my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories, the per capita consumption of liquor exceeds that of any other area of Canada, so the sum involved is considerable. But regardless of how much it is, or how little, the principle is wrong.


Arthur Laing: I agree.


Erik Nielsen: It is wrong, and it should be corrected.


Arthur Laing: It has been going on for years.


Erik Nielsen: It has been going on, roughly, since 1953. Under the former Liberal government nothing was said about it, and nothing has been said until now in this house. I bring it to the attention of the minister, now, because I think the practice is being abused. As I pointed out, one councillor has accumulated roughly $30,000.


Arthur Laing: I hope the hon. member will not arouse envy here.


Erik Nielsen: I am not envious at all. I think this practice is a reprehensible one, especially where a councillor is allowed to accumulate between $30,000 and $35,000 to spend, if he likes, in an election year.


Mr. Turner:: Liquid assets.


Erik Nielsen: Obviously it is going to be used in the election campaign. However one looks at it, the principle is a wrong one, and I think it should be stopped.
I thank the committee for its indulgence. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to spend too much time on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. However, the opportunity seems right to ask the minister (Mr. Laing) for some information on a question which he has tried to keep from the house recently.
Among other things, we would like to know how matters stand at present with respect to the negotiations undertaken by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Quebec minister of natural resources concerning the transfer of Eskimo affairs to the provincial government in Quebec.
One hon. member stated that jurisdiction should remain with Ottawa but, under the circumstances, I feel that the province of
5958	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs Quebec would be in a much better position than the federal government to look after Eskimo affairs. Then, the education system for the Eskimo could be integrated into the province of Quebec system and undoubtedly, it would be to the benefit of the Eskimos.
I imagine that the minister, and his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Turner) who is now sitting beside him this afternoon, will recognize that in the province of Quebec, the rights of minorities were always respected. The Eskimos, in particular, are treated on equal terms with other citizens. It will be the same for hospitalization and the rest.
Could the minister tell us where negotiations stand in this matter? Could he tell us whether those negotiations are making progress? Could he also tell us when he anticipates results in that matter and when he expects transferring to the government of the province of Quebec the administration of Eskimo affairs?
This is a very important matter because as long as those people are treated as second class citizens, that is as long as they are administered by a government other than the government of their province of residence, they could not integrate themselves into Canadian life, into the provincial system; they will always remain second class citizens.
Could the minister make a statement on that matter, tell us where those negotiations stand at the present time and give us an approximate date as to the conclusion of those negotiations?
Could the minister make a statement on that matter?


John Napier Turner: In due course.


Gilles Grégoire: The minister is not prepared to make that statement now? I think it could enlighten the members of the house.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, we have had no letter from Mr. Levesque or any member of the Quebec government terminating the arrangements with which we were proceeding. All I know of the situation is what I have read in the press. I have recently seen where Mr. Levesque had made a trip to nouveau Quebec, and I was very interested in his comments because it seemed to me that implicit in them was a broader view of the difficulty than he had hitherto had. I have said to my officials that I am desirous that the correspondence on this subject, which is the care, education and medical requirements of Eskimos and has nothing to


do with such contribution as they might make to the economy of the province in which they live, should be renewed with the government of Quebec. We will be anxious at any time to enter into correspondence with them on this matter.


Gilles Grégoire: When did the last meeting between the minister's department and the department of natural resources in Quebec take place? When were the last negotiations?


Arthur Laing: I am informed by my deputy that informal contacts were being maintained with the officials as late as two weeks ago. The last meeting which my assistant deputy minister had with the deputy minister of Quebec was, I think, April 28.


Gilles Grégoire: When was the last time that the minister had the opportunity to discuss this problem with the minister in Quebec?


Arthur Laing: I would think about a week before that.


Gilles Grégoire: Since then he has had no
direct conversation with Mr. Levesque of Quebec?
In view of the circumstances, does the minister intend to initiate a meeting with the minister of natural resources of the province of Quebec in order to accelerate the transfer of administration of Eskimo affairs? Does the minister intend to take such a step soon?


Arthur Laing: In answering this question I do not want to be committed in any way to the idea that I will hurry up anything, but I will tell the hon. member that I will take into account his remarks and bear in mind that our officials want to work at all times with the officials of the government of the province of Quebec in relation to their duties within Quebec. In such action as we have to take there under our responsibility we want at all times to be good neighbours with the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Can the minister tell us when he anticipates transferring the administration of Eskimo affairs to the government of the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: The hon. member is taking me further back beyond May 28, about one week before. As the hon. member knows, the difficulty had to do with certain conditions which we said were a prerequisite to turning over our responsibilities in this sphere. One of them

involved consultation with the Eskimos. Indeed, if there was-I will not use the word "breakdown" because it was not a breakdown-but if there was a termination of the discussions it resulted from the fact that we had said, and I am on record in this house as so saying, that in our view consultation means just that, that we would consult with the Eskimos in respect to all matters regarding the transfer. That was the reason for the termination. Therefore, I do not want to be quoted as saying now that I will be rushing to make this transfer at the earliest possible date. It would be my hope-and I think my hope will bear fruit-that we will be talking with the officials and the ministers of the province of Quebec in a friendly manner.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, every year when the northern affairs estimates come up since I have been a member of parliament for the riding of Bow River I have always had great pleasure in saying a few words, particularly regarding our national parks. In my introductory remarks I should like to say to the minister that as one member of the opposition I appreciated his statement; in fact I told him so in a note. I thank him for the forthright manner in which he dealt with some of the problems not only of the north but of the parks.
I must say at the outset that I, like the minister, have always been one who believes that under proper rules and regulations free enterprise will do more to develop our parks and encourage and serve the tourists than if they are under government control. If I understood the remarks of the minister properly, he followed that line of reasoning today.
As far as some of our park facilities are concerned, with which I will deal in a few moments, I agree with him that there have been some serious developments concerning our tourists. After all, the Banff national park was the first national park in Canada.
If I may take a moment or two, I should like to say that the national park at Banff is the site where the Kootenay and Shuswap Indians, fleeing from their traditional enemies the Blackfoot Indians, both of which are Indian races now and have a reserve in the constituency of Bow River, settled, long before 1800 when David Thompson became the first white man to arrive in the Rockies. However, not until the railway came there in 1881 in search of a route through the mountains did the community grow.
Banff was known, as the minister and no doubt his officials are aware, as Siding 29. Then after 1885 it became the Banff national
Supply-Northern Affairs park. The area of Banff national park is probably almost the size of, if not larger than, Prince Edward Island and is situated in the mountains, extending from the foothills and up into the mountains bordering the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. The early pioneers of Banff did a tremendous job. When one talks about doing a tremendous job he has to be very careful, because there is that school of thinkers who believe that if you develop anything in a park you might disturb something. I am talking of those people who have done something very important and who, on their own initiative and with their own capital, established certain businesses such as motels, restaurants and various other enterprises, in conjunction with the C.P.R., to build up a multimillion dollar industry, the tourist industry. Last year more than 1,000,000 people went through the gates of Banff national park and spent their money there. As the minister has properly said, and as other ministers have said, this helps our imbalance of trade, particularly with respect to United States dollars.
I agree that there has been a greater influx of tourists, and this has been brought about for two reasons. One is the completion of the highway through Rogers pass and the other is the devaluation of the dollar, which was pegged at 92J cents. I am not going to get into a nasty field here, but this pegging of our dollar was very much criticized by the Liberals during the election campaign in 1962, when we got into a minority position. I have always said it was that issue that put us on this side of the house. The minister says that he now sees a tremendous development in the north, and he spoke in glowing terms about the railway development, and so on. He said to me previously- though not in these exact words-that he did not go along with the Prime Minister, who said that the building of the railway to Great Slave lake was utter nonsense, or something like that. I will read his remarks in a few moments. But today we see the minister in a new position because he is a man of responsibility.
I was speaking about the pioneers in this area, Mr. Chairman. There are fellows like William Simpson, who went in there before 1900 and is still there just north of lake Louise. He has an operation there and a tourist attraction in the way of a motel and other facilities. We have people like Cooper and the early people who went to Banff. These people have made a tremendous contribution in this respect, and they have to be protected

Supply-Northern Affairs because the tourist season, as the minister and his parliamentary secretary know, is a very short season. To date it has been a very short season because basically the parks were developed so that people could come and see the beauty of nature, but also because the influx of people is during the months of July and August when families come to visit the parks.
There is now a new atmosphere developing in this respect. The idea now is not only to attract more tourists during the summer but to develop our national parks-Banff and the lake Louise area-as winter sports centres. Someone told me not long ago-and I am sure the parliamentary secretary will be interested in this-that it is a pretty cheap holiday to go from Montreal into the state of New York for skiing, because they have special rates, and so on. If we are to compete at lake Louise in this respect we have to have winter sport facilities. That is the first suggestion I make to the minister. I know it has been opposed by certain people in the department, particularly one person. I will single him out in a few moments. This gentleman does not believe in developing the parks for this sort of thing. However, I still think we could have the winter games and sports facilities in these parks and would not be disturbing the national beauty of our parks.
I read an interesting article in Time magazine of April 14, 1961. George Hees, then minister of transport and later minister of trade and commerce, was out skiing when they opened up the ski road at lake Louise. He said he had skied everywhere in the world-and he was quite a sportsman-and that no snow, conditions, view or beauty exceeded those existing in this area. This is what appeared in Time magazine. This is why I like the minister's new approach; he has endeared himself to me this afternoon, and I am sure he is expressing the views of his parliamentary secretary in this regard when he says the situation has changed. We are not back in the horse and buggy days. I shall read what somebody said in the department. I never could find out who it was, although I have my suspicions. In fact, he is probably listening to me right now:
Staff members of the national parks branch were less agreeable. Said one: "Private interests naturally are always putting pressure on the national parks system. Hees was going along. He is quite uninformed."
At that time I would have liked to get that gentleman on some skis going down Whitehorse mountain, just to see how he would accomplish the feat, after Hees went


down on that occasion when the Olympic champion was there.
We have had to fight this situation for a long time. I am very pleased therefore to hear the minister say there is a new approach in this regard; that the old, narrow interpretation applied to the parks legislation is now being changed; that we should do things in our parks; that the scope was there all the time and it was only the administrators' interpretation of the legislation that held us back. I am pleased to learn of this change. I am also happy to learn that the minister has been able to sell that change and I want to congratulate him on that; because I and others have tried to sell this idea to the people in charge. That is a pretty tight-knit department, if there ever was one. You only have to go to Banff and talk to the people about this and they will confirm that fact. I am only speaking for them here; I am sure if they were here themselves they would be able to do a better job.
Mr. Chairman, before going on with a few suggestions in regard to the parks, I would like to say something with regard to northern affairs. I have here a map of Canada which shows Melville island, Hubert island, and so on, away up to Alert point. I have just been told by the hon. member for Northwest Territories that Alert point is 2,350 miles north of Winnipeg. From my apartment door in Ottawa to my home in Scarborough, Calgary, it is 2,600 miles; so it is almost as far from Winnipeg to Alert point as it is from Ottawa to Calgary. Therefore we appreciate how vast is the north.
One thing has always concerned me since I became a member in 1958 and sat on the committee dealing with northern affairs. I do not say this in a critical way, but it is very important. No one has been able to tell me just where exactly is our northern boundary. We might go to the north pole; but we have some suggestion through the newspapers, through people who have been up in that area, through little leakages from people on the D.E.W. line, and others, that there are little outposts of other countries established on land which we believe to be Canada's. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is I say to the minister that surely there has come a time in the tide of Canadian affairs when this country must have four boundaries delineated. But we do not seem to have a northern boundary; at least, we do not know exactly where it is. We should work this out. If we cannot finance it ourselves, probably with the assistance of the United States and

others concerned with the defence of North America it could be worked out. We should employ oceanographers and other scientific men in this regard to determine where our northern boundary is and push our civilization further forward to make sure that what we now believe we hold will remain Canadian.
I have said that it is 2,400 miles from Alert point to Winnipeg. This is a vast area of our country. We have heard the hon. member for Yukon on several occasions; we have heard the minister and others talk about the vast resources of the north. Those resources are there. Let us make sure they stay Canadian. To do this we should now take a serious look at the matter of establishing our northern boundary. I put this suggestion forward as a constructive suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and not in the way of criticism. We should establish this boundary, because I have always thought that a country had to have four boundaries. I know we have had a lot of boundary disputes and this question has caused a great deal of trouble in the world.
Next, what about the defence of North America? This is very, very important, and is another reason why our northern boundary should be fixed. Of course, the map I have here is a Canadian map and perhaps we might be a little prejudiced; but it shows a red line up at the north pole, and there is another red line half way down. It may be that the Soviet union or some other countries consider that they own some of this land. Therefore, I say it is time to move, to march in this direction and find out where our northern boundary really is. That is why I posed that question to the minister when he was speaking in this regard. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Yukon talk about the ridicule that was poured on the former government because they had a vision of national development not only for the rest of Canada but particularly for the north.
It was a true vision. It was a vision not only of attracting tourists but of developing resources. That is why the railway and the roads were started, so that we could develop the north as the west was developed. If it had not been for the vision of men like John A. Macdonald in building the railway through the west, and the vision of people like John Diefenbaker in developing the north we would not have the north and we would not have the west and we might even be part of the United States today. Just in case there is any suggestion that I have exaggerated the situation, I want to refer to Hansard for
Supply-Northern Affairs May 11, 1961, page 4673, where the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, had this to say:
I cannot resist the invitation to prolong this discussion for a moment. When the hon. member talks about northern roads-
Here are the words which will be long remembered in the west and by the people of the north.
-whether they are from igloo to igloo or from oil well to oil well or from community to community-
He might have said from oil well to oil well and from mine to mine, because some of the wealthiest mines have been developed in the north. When he ridiculed oil well development, if he did, all I want to say is that it will not be too long before a pipe line will be built from the very area which was ridiculed by this man who had no vision and who criticized the prime minister of that time for his vision. That oil and natural gas resource will be one of the wealthiest resources of Canada.
I say again that I am so happy to see that the minister has not been brainwashed by those Liberals who formerly ridiculed that kind of development, and is now prepared to carry out the Conservative vision of real national development in the north. In fact I must say it is most refreshing. It has made my day for me.


Arthur Laing: Try to do it without all the errors, too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: So much for the north, except that I would mention again the boundary matter to which I have referred, and I also say again: Keep the development going. While I am talking about natural gas I would point out that in Alberta-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did I hear somebody say something? You should be very careful because I do not want to be unkind to you this afternoon. There are 23.7 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves in Alberta. We only need 10 billion cubic feet per year for domestic and industrial use in Canada in the next 30 years. So we have lots of gas to export. The former government was the first to establish a national energy board. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is here because he was the minister of trade and commerce who ensured the first export of natural gas from this country.
We do not know how many cubic feet of natural gas and how much crude petroleum

Supply-Northern Affairs there are in the north, but oil and natural gas have already been found because we are the people who believe in national development. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce swells with pride over selling so much wheat, but he would not have any wheat to sell today if we had not developed the west. The west was developed by the same Conservative vision that brought about the development of the north, and when we have a change of government after the next election that development will go on as usual.
I want to come down out of the clouds to something that is very important to my own riding. It seems funny to talk about these things when you have been on a higher national level, but there are some aggravations in the national parks and we only have the opportunity once a year to discuss them with the minister.
I am not blaming the minister, because he is just one of many ministers who have never been able to prevail over this particular individual in the department who will do nothing in this regard. People come from all over the United States, and the department spends thousands of dollars in advertising Banff park as the most beautiful spot in the world. I agree that it is the most beautiful spot. When these people arrive there many of them get parking tickets-I got one yesterday-for parking in the wrong place. In most cases the first ticket is a warning but in some cases there is a prosecution.
In any city or town in Canada you merely put $1 or $5, depending on where you have parked, in an envelope and send it with the ticket to the officials. But you cannot do that in the parks. This man says no, that such justice would be too quick. In the parks a charge is laid and a great big policeman comes and serves you with a summons. You have got to unpack your suitcases and go back to the motel for another three or four days to await your trial.
This practice has been going on for years. I have dozens of letters. Every minister tells me that something will be done. I have great faith in the present minister. He said to me: I will do this. I got a beautiful letter from him and I wrote Banff and said: "Forget about it; what the Tories would not do the Liberals are going to do for you". Do you know what happened? My friend is clapping. The Liberals have let me down.
The minister has said he will do it as soon as possible. To the people in the park, to say "as soon as possible" is like what the


railway said. They said that it would be developed as soon as possible. That was 1885. The fact is that "as soon as possible" does not mean anything. I do not believe these legal beagles who say you have to amend the act. The minister wags his head. The minister's legal adviser has told him to wag, wag, wag.
The fact is that there have been many unusual orders in council. Let me draw this analogy. We have the order in council that gave Hal Banks a landing permit. I would have thought that would take an act of parliament, but it did not. Surely we could have an order in council in this instance if we are so busy in this place that we cannot amend a little traffic regulation.
As an aside, the federal government says that so far as Hal Banks is concerned they have nothing to do with the matter, but there are two federal men now at Higgins beach, Maine, in the United States. If they are not interested in him, why are they hanging around looking at Hal Banks? That is another question. I must not digress. I just had a telephone call.
I ask the minister seriously to get this other matter into shape because when you charge people like this, whether they are from New York state, Vancouver or some place in Ontario, it is offensive to them.
I want to ask the minister about another matter. I think he should make a clearcut statement on leases. I remember a man by the name of Coleman, director of parks, going to lake Louise. I was there as a member of parliament and I felt so out of place that day. Although I did win the poll in the election I was scared all day because I was treated very unusually on that occasion. I was a Conservative and he was the director. Nevertheless he made them a promise that day without any reservation, and I was quite happy because I figured he would get the ear of the minister, the minister would do something and Eldon Woolliams would be returned to parliament once again. The people were told: You will get a 42 year lease with the right of a 21 year renewal, 63 years. I have piles of letters that have been sent me. I do not want to take all day to read them. The fact is that the people there are frightened about their land tenure. Will the minister tell us if they are going to get leases of this kind?
Because the minister was new in office and did not realize how many votes the Liberals would lose in Banff, he said with a flourish that the government was going to impose a land tax on these people. He has no idea

how much mail I got. Even Mr. Brewster got in touch with my office because he thought the minister had gone off the end a little bit. Mr. Brewster is a very important Liberal in Banff. Seriously speaking, give these people an assurance with regard to their leases. Tell them whether they are going to enjoy land taxes and to what extent. That is what they want to know.
I am not going to say much about expropriation, except that the minister's words are contradicted by the director's actions. A client came into my firm, Woolliams, Kerr and Korman-I am advertising now-and I was not there, but he brought a title in and wanted us to do something about some land. The student went to conduct the search and what do you think was on the title, Mr. Minister? A month or so before these sly little fellows had expropriated the land under some order in council without notifying the client. The minister said this was never done.
This client is a beautiful lady, by the way, and she got a letter. The only reason she got a letter was that the student went down to the registry office and they grabbed the title and said, "That is ours". The student came back and nothing was done until I came home. I phoned the registrar and said, "You have stolen one of our client's titles". He sent it back and written across it was, "expropriated by order in council"-number so and so.
Surely in this country of ours there is still the right of the people to hold land in fee simple. I put this question seriously. I do not own any Canadian Pacific stock, and because I don't I do not criticize the Canadian Pacific. X am a free enterpriser. The Canadian Pacific owns great tracts of land in these parks. If it is all right for the Canadian Pacific to own land in these parks, why is it wrong for anyone else? If you are going to take away all the fee simple land in the park, then let us have no discrimination. I do not know who owns all the stock in the Canadian Pacific. I have read certain lists of stockholders and not all of them are Canadian.
I say to you this: I am not criticizing the Canadian Pacific. They have done a tremendous job in connection with hotels and the service on their trains is far superior to any that is given by any state owned railway.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody said "shame". There is a socialist in that comer. However, that is neither here nor there.


An hon. Member:: Also nonsense.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The gentleman says this is nonsense, but that is probably because he has never been west of Toronto. If he gets out west he will find the difference in the service. I know the socialists, and they have been talking this way for a long time. When we are all on salary and the state owns everything, I hope they will be happy.
I want to come back to this point. Please take a serious look at this form of expropriation. Go and talk to these people. I have a letter here from a client, Steven and Ann Kovacs. In order to be fair, I may say that these people were contacted. They dealt with the land that they owned in fee simple, and then they were told by the government that they would be given so much and if they did not take that, then they were through. This is the kind of letter they have been getting. I say this: Go and negotiate, set up a procedure. If you are going to expropriate the land, let us take everybody's land, including the land belonging to the Canadian Pacific. Then the Canadian Pacific will hire some rather tough legal counsel. I know that in one of these expropriations the government, by mistake, expropriated not only the surface rights but the oil rights of the Canadian Pacific.


Miss LaMarsh:: Are you soliciting?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What did the minister of national health say?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Are you soliciting?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I am not soliciting. I have never done that. I would not like to say what I was about to say.
I am going to leave expropriation for a few moments, and I want to deal with campsites. I want to say that I am a member of the former government party and I am not saying that they did everything in this regard. However, there were definite campsites built up.
Some of the people with large families and a medium income need these campsites. I tell the minister that these campsites are overcrowded this year just as they were overcrowded last year. They have always been overcrowded. The demand has been greater than the supply at all times. We should develop campsites so that a man with an average income can enjoy a holiday. He cannot afford to pay $30 per night at a C.P.R. hotel. He cannot afford to pay whatever they pay now in Banff, where they charge $6 or $8 for golf.
There is another thing I want to mention. I ask the minister to please give some

Supply-Northern Affairs thought to this. He has said he is a free enterpriser. What would be wrong, if there were no golf course at Banff and a syndicate of Banff people wanted to build a golf course so that the average man could play golf in our national park? Some of you people, I know, will be going to Banff for your holidays when we get out of this place.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not unless you sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Be careful; I have been very kind to you this afternoon. I want you to sit there quietly and listen because when you were on this side you were always verbose.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps if my hon. friend would say something so that there would be some point in listening, we might do that. If the hon. member wants us to visit Banff, I suggest that he sit down now and give the committee time to deal with other matters.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I expected that kind of remark from the hon. lady, and I do not intend to answer it. If she does not think that the right of people to their property is important, if she does not think the tourist trade is important, then I will leave her to get on with the pension plan that she has brought down on three occasions. We know what she did for Banff. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, she went over to the Olympic games to sell Banff to the Olympic games committee, and what did we get? We got nothing. This is what she did for Banff.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman. This is the second or third time this hon. member has raised this question. I think it should be known to the chamber and to his constituency how little he knows about the whole situation. The matter has been explained before this. It is obvious from his remarks and from some of the questions in the house that he does not know about the situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not think that is a point of privilege. I thought a point of privilege was something affecting the minister, personally. I think I have the floor, and I ask you to so rule, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps I could ask the minister to state her question of privilege.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is this: In my responsibility as Minister of National Health and Welfare, I was requested by many of his constituents, the people of Calgary and the area who had formed together in a develop-

ment association with a view to that being the site of the winter Olympic games, to go to the Olympic games in Innsbruck last January. At no time before in our history had any representative of the federal government ever shown any interest in the Olympic games by attending. It was the request of that group that caused the Prime Minister to ask me to represent the government at that time.
It was well known to everybody in Calgary who really was interested in the Olympics that no representative of a government could attend at the meeting of the international Olympic association which chooses the site. It was known also that the government could not, because of the international association's rules, make any attempt to influence anyone. Now my hon. friend has sought, by his remarks, to cast aspersions upon me as a representative and indicate I am responsible for this application not being accepted by the international association.
If my hon. friend knows anything at all about the association or about the Olympics, I suggest he contact this group to ascertain that, at their request, the government did everything possible within the Olympic rules. It was only as a result of representations which had been made by other sites and other areas which caused Canada not to be successful. Not only my department, but the department under review, did everything possible.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure the hon. member for Bow River will realize that the Chair was placed in a position where it had to hear the submissions made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I believe there is no question of privilege, at least not a proper one. It is rather a contribution by the minister in this debate, induced by the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to thank the minister for the contribution. She said that if I knew anything about the organization-well, I would say I am a member of that organization and have been a member of it for the last eight years.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You had better learn something about it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was the former minister of national health and welfare, Mr. Monteith, who set up a committee to meet with the people of Calgary and the people of Banff. These were the people who were the spearhead of the plan about which she is talking. So, what the minister of health was talking about in the last few minutes was absolute

nonsense. The Conservative government set up the first money tor the Olympics so that plans could be advanced by the group from Banff and Calgary. This is the contribution that I, personally, and the Conservative party made to the cause. What the lady did when she went over there, we do not know. However we did not get the Olympics. This was her contribution, and it speaks for itself.
Now, I want to get off the Olympics because it is a sensitive point. I would never have gone into it if the minister had not intervened.
I want to come back to the question of tenders for motels and public or private enterprise places being built in Banff. When he comes to discuss the parks I want the minister to explain how the tenders are put out in the newspapers, how the applications are made, who opens those applications, and in what manner this property is located in reference to people who apply through their tenders to be able to build motels and other facilities for Banff national park.
I heard the director of parks myself discussing this question of the service centre at lake Louise, and the question of the government owning motels and other enterprises. I hope the government never gets into that kind of enterprise in this country, particularly in the national parks. It is difficult for any minister and any government to keep out monopoly and patronage in any parks-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member to bring to his attention that his time has expired, unless the committee agrees to let him continue. I might say that I allowed him the few minutes taken up with the question of privilege. Is it agreed that the hon. member has leave to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I had just about finished anyway. As I was saying, I am sure the people at Banff and Lake Louise would agree that the socialization of these facilities would only lead to corruption and lack of service for our tourist trade. I agree with the minister that these things should be run by free enterprise. There should be rules and regulations, but there should not be a monopoly. I can tell the minister that I made representations on behalf of a couple of people who wanted to operate certain things, such as "chicken on the way." The officials said they would never allow that in the parks, yet in six months the director allowed it. I would like 20220-378*
Supply-Northern Affairs to know how "Barney's chicken" got in the parks, because I have a letter directly from an official of the department and the minister at that time stating that they were not going to allow these things in the parks.
Let us take a good look at this thing. Let us keep monopoly and patronage to a minimum when dealing with these facilities. In summary, I would like to hear from the minister on taxes, on expropriations, on the traffic laws, on the campsites and particularly with reference to tenders for motels and other facilities.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, one of the
difficulties about addressing the committee at this point is that that is an awfully difficult act to follow. I say that in the best sense of the word, and I suggest to the hon. lady who was distressed by the speech she just heard that on reading it in Hansard she will find there are many things in it which commend themselves to many members of the treasury benches.
There has been some talk about northern development as it relates to confederation. Twice now I have heard statements by our Prime Minister which distressed me. The first was made in his famous fireside chat when he told the people of this country that Canada is at a crossroads, the crossroads being whether we are going to go on with confederation or go back on it. The second was when the Prime Minister said in the house that the job that faces us in Canada is not nation building but nation saving. Both of these statements are completely wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that 50 per cent of this country is not even in confederation yet.


Mr. Fisher:: In square miles.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: In square miles, fine. For the information of the hon. member for Port Arthur, at one time that was all we had in this country, square miles, and we built a country out of it for people; and if the hon. member had any appreciation of the history of the fur trade he would realize Port Arthur was nothing for many years.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Until long after the fur trade.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I am trying to say that part of the troubles in southern Canada is that those of you who live down here in the south are starting to squabble about all kinds of things that are not really important. You are starting to squabble about language, and quite frankly I am amused when I see the

Supply-Northern Affairs efforts of many people in this chamber, including the Prime Minister, hobbling around on their pidgin French as if this were some kind of contribution.	'


Douglas Mason Fisher: Don't forget John.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: And many others, and the Leader of the Opposition too. It seems to me you are missing the whole problem. You are getting ready to divide the spoils before the country really has anything to divide. Where would southern Canada be today if the early pioneers, who came here by ship and travelled by canoe, had stopped about a quarter of the way west or northwest and began to argue about which language they should use when paddling their canoes or building railways?
This is a great empty country. 1 am not talking now about the Yukon and Northwest Territories alone, although they do have a peculiar shortage of people. I have just finished travelling on the trans-Canada highway from here to Edmonton. This is far south in my terms and I say this land is absolutely empty. We have room for all kinds of people, and I suggest to you if we could somehow or other recapture the great westward and northward push that was characteristic of this country for the first 200 years there were people here, we would be getting over some of our difficulty.
I can tell you that the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories want to enter confederation at some point, and we are going to enter confederation at some point. We have as much to offer as any other cultural group, any other group from any country overseas, and we are not going to let you people who live down here in the south spoil it for us. We are not going to let you ruin confederation so that there is nothing for us to enter.
I opened my remarks with these statements because one of the basic issues the minister just touched on is the issue of self government for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The Prime Minister, speaking at the commonwealth conference, made some tremendous statements about how the commonwealth must show leadership and give equality of opportunity, particularly in matters of citizenship, to all peoples. Presumably this was in relation to the Southern Rhodesian question. Because I believed these sentiments as expressed by the Prime Minister I asked a question on orders of the day and I want to know the answer to it now, when we are discussing these estimates. When does the

Prime Minister intend to get on with giving the right to vote to 10,000 Canadian people who live in the north, nearly all of whom are Eskimo people? When are they going to get the right to vote in territorial elections?
It may come as a surprise to people in this country, indeed to most members of parliament, that there are 10,000 people in the Northwest Territories who are not allowed to vote in territorial elections. The council of the Northwest Territories consists of nine members of whom only four are elected. The other five are appointed by the governor in council, in effect by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The four people who are elected all come from the western part of the Canadian north where there is the concentration of white people, and it is no accident that the only places in the Northwest Territories which have territorial constituencies are those places where there are whites. The granting of territorial franchise to Canadian citizens in the north was something which came about only in response to pressure, and this pressure came invariably only from white people. I do not lay the blame for this situation at the door of any particular administration. All of them are to blame. It has been the fault of the administration generally that it did not think it necessary to give non-white people in northern Canada a vote.
Let me trace the history of these developments. Before 1962, Eskimo people did not enjoy even a federal franchise. It was under the leadership of the then prime minister, who made a categorical commitment in 1959 that another election would not go by in Canada until every Canadian citizen over the age of 21 had the right to vote, that progress was made in this direction. It was in relation to this commitment, and through the medium of the Nielsen bill, that the federal franchise was extended to the Eskimo people of the Canadian north. I want to tell the committee what happened then. For the first time, these people were being consulted in a meaningful way. I refer to the federal election of 1962 which resulted in their having an elected member of parliament.
I may say at this point that the Eskimo people are completely capable in every way of exercising the franchise. Indeed, they showed a lot more responsibility than many Canadians who live in the south, since I believe 79 per cent of them turned out to vote. They began to write to Ottawa on the questions which affected their lives most- matters relating to hunting, trapping, fishing,

education, health and welfare and so on. And the answer they received was that these were territorial matters-that the laws about which they complained, or which they wanted changed, were laws passed by the Northwest Territories council and that these matters should be taken up with their territorial councillors. The immediate reaction on the part of these people was to ask: Who is our territorial councillor? And the answer was: "You do not have one. We have appointed civil servants to the council of the Northwest Territories; we have appointed people who live in Edmonton, Vancouver, and so on-all from southern Canada. We cannot give you the vote in that respect." Mr. Chairman, we gave them the federal franchise-and no one will begrudge it to them-at tremendous cost. But we cannot apparently, create territorial constituencies to give them representatives to whom they may turn directly and who will be accountable to them at the polls.
These people are told, instead: "If you do not like what has been done in terms of territorial legislation, you should see your friendly northern service officer, or see our civil servants. And if you do not like what they are doing, that is too bad." This is exactly what is happening in the Canadian north. As I say, I am not laying the blame on the present minister for this situation, but I say to him that if there was any doubt about whether these 10,000 northern Canadians should have the franchise, surely such a doubt was removed following the 1962 and 1963 federal election campaigns. Surely it was established during those campaigns that it was possible to travel around and visit people- that it was possible for these Eskimo citizens to make a meaningful choice. We know that the Eskimo people are every bit as intelligent as those who live in any constituency in southern Canada one cares to name. I say this: The project upon which the minister must embark before he does anything else in terms of self government is to ensure that these Canadian people have the right to vote in territorial elections. I attend meetings of the Northwest Territories council. We have just finished one. I know how many days are spent by the elected territorial councillors fighting for little things in their own constituencies, bringing to the attention of officials in the department of northern affairs the need for things that are lacking in the constituencies along the Mackenzie river. I know the officials listen sincerely to these representations and take action in accordance
Supply-Northern Affairs with their responsibility to assist these communities. I also know this-and it has been my experience over the years-that in all the council meetings I have attended no one has ever got up to raise his voice on behalf of the Eskimo people of the Keewatin; no one ever raised a problem from a resident in the central Arctic; no one ever said anything about what was going on in the eastern Arctic.
I say to the minister that if 1964 ends before this situation has been rectified, he will have failed. He and his department can figure out new ways of handling parking fines in Banff national park, but if they do not find a way of giving these Canadian people the vote-and it could be done so simply- it were better his administration had never been in office, and better that the department of northern affairs had never existed, because it will only have served to preserve a state of colonialism, after we have received dramatic and graphic proof that these people can handle the vote.
What do the people who live in the Northwest Territories want in terms of a council? We want the right for everybody to vote in territorial elections. That is the first thing. What else do we want? We want a resident commissioner. The executive officer, who in this instance is still a commissioner, should live in the north where we can get at him. We do not want him sitting down in southern Canada, mingling with people from other government agencies and deciding what is good for the people of the north. I do not say this in any disrespectful way. I say it simply as representing a fact of life. If a person lives in Ottawa, he is Ottawa oriented. He does not understand, and regardless of how good his intentions may be, or how well he may be informed, he will not have the trust of the people of the north. We want something else. We want a fully elected council. We are tired of having southern Canadians, particularly senior officers of government, acting as legislators for those of us who live north of the 60th parallel. I have sat in on these meetings, as I have said. People who live in Vancouver, or Edmonton sit around and say: Ho, hum, shall we raise the oil tax in the territories by 4 cents a gallon, or shall we go round the mulberry bush, or shall we have another cup of tea? I am sick and tired of people passing laws when they do not have to live under them. It is a bad principle for any democracy. I am not suggesting that these men are vicious. Far from it. My experience of the appointed members of the council is that without exception they have been fine

Supply-Northern Affairs men who took their responsibilities seriously. But it is not good enough, when people have the right to legislate, that they should take their jobs seriously. It is not good enough to be a benevolent kind of person. If you are not accountable at the polls in Canada for the decisions you make, you have no right to be in any kind of legislative assembly.
How does one bring about the reform to which I have referred? It may sound as though I am asking the minister to make drastic revisions. But he can do it very simply by introducing three minor amendments to the existing Northwest Territories Act in relation to the composition of the council. There shall be nine members, it says right now, four of whom shall be elected from constituencies and five of whom shall be appointed. The hon. gentleman could bring about the situation to which I have referred by simply amending the act so as to say: "The council shall consist of nine members all of whom shall be elected". By making this simple change in the wording of the act the hon. gentleman could give territorial constituencies to all parts of the north, and if he has any doubts about where the boundaries should lie he can get all kinds of help not only from me but from the previous member, the defeated Liberal candidate. Each of us has ample experience of organizing the area. We know it is possible.
The minister has said he is very keen on bringing self government to the territories. He wants to do it. He says he is proceeding fast. I want to repeat an old saying we have in the territories. It is this: You cannot make soup out of caribou tracks. We want more than words from the minister. If, before 1964 expires, he has not introduced into this house some kind of amendment which will give my people the basic democratic right to vote, then I suggest he will have failed.
There is one other matter I should like to bring up, and it relates to what I have been saying.
I have received word today that the department of northern affairs has reduced the relief payable to widows, elderly people and unemployables in the north by $5 a month. They have in some misguided kind of economy measure decided that this is a good way of saving a few thousand dollars. The rates have now been reduced to within 15 cents of the same rate for food allowances for people living in the city of Ottawa. I say this from certain knowledge through consultation. I have here the rates which were reduced in numerous settlements in the Northwest Territories, so I know by how much they were reduced. I

have telephoned the city of Ottawa welfare department and found out that a widow living in Ottawa gets an allowance of $29.15 a month for food, and she has access to supermarkets, the market place, and all that kind of thing. The Eskimo widow living at Baker Lake, which is 350 miles north of Churchill and where food costs are approximately 40 per cent higher than they are at Churchill, Manitoba, gets the same amount.
I would ask the minister, who in the cabinet is responsible for this? Is it the President of the Privy Council, who has been told to make some economies? Did he decide to make this assault on these people? Did he decide that that would be a good spot to save a few dollars? There are only some 2,000 people involved. I know it was not the Minister of National Health and Welfare because I am aware that her department spent $500,000 last year flying out of Eskimo Point, which is a small settlement, some 200 people whose malnutrition and general poor conditions required them to receive hospitalization treatment for t.b. So I know that she did not go to her colleague and tell him to take this $5 away from these Eskimo people. Was it the Minister of Finance, who has never shown any understanding for the people in the north? Before these estimates pass, Mr. Chairman, I want the answer to this, because it is one of the most shameful things which has been done to these Eskimo people for a long time.
I should like to read a letter which I have just received and which caused me to investigate this matter. It was sent by a man who has spent many years in Eskimo country but is no longer with the department of northern affairs. He says, amongst other things:
I gather that all the social assistance basic rates have been radically reduced-just this month- which would constitute a knowing act of assault on the health of the most needy people in the severest part of the nation, where the basic food allowance for an adult was $35 per month-it is now to be only $30-and so on all the way down the scale, ending with the requirement that a five year old child be allowed, presumably, $15 per month for food. Now that original scale was pared down to the bare minimum and anything less than that they know, they bloody well know, is less than even barely enough.
I will be glad to table this letter, Mr. Chairman, because it will be revealing reading to all Canadians.
He goes on to point out he and his wife conducted an experiment. These are people who are well nourished, and had good equipment to cook on. They have cookbooks and know how to save. In this experiment they

attempted to live on $35 a month each for themselves and $15 for the child. They lived like that for one month after the utmost planning. He says that she, his wife, planned the menus for a week ahead knowing what was available in this little community. She figured out the cost. It is a tragic story which he gives of this experiment. He said they did not give up even when they were hungry, and they were hungry all the time that month. Incidentally, this wife pens the note: "The month incidentally was February-the shortest month in the year". Anyway, this is what he says in part:
We failed. Before the end of the month, by which time we were living pretty damn thinly, we were out of a variety of essentials, with theoretically no way of getting them. Despite a lifetime of excellent health and full nutrition, living in a very warm and comfortable house with lots of space, and therefore very little trouble to live hygienically, we were by the end sickly, with colds, running noses, headaches and an increasing feeling of listlessness and weakness. Now, of course, we could have stopped and cheated on the experiment, but we stuck to the assumption that we were relief recipients and kept on with the thing to the end. We knew it would be over at the end of the month and that we did not have to face a lifetime of this.
Now transfer this situation to a man with a t.b. history, who grew up always undernourished, living in a cold, overcrowded house full of equally sickly people, who has lived short of food like this for some time, in the dead of winter when it is near to 60 below-say 85 degrees of frost-with hardly any daylight and in an area where the game is not plentiful at the best of times.
I am not going to read any more of this. I say to the minister, by all means do not throw away money in the Canadian north. No one wants him to do that. I of all people, with my training in the field of social work and with five years experience as an officer in your department, am not anxious to put anyone on relief, and no good social worker is. Save money if you must. But if you want to know how to save money in your department, do not take it away from a handful of miserable people living immediately north of the tree line.
The minister in introducing his estimates said that in the treed country there is wood to burn. At least you have trees and you can build yourself a shelter. But his heart went out to the people living north of the tree line. This is very true. He assessed the situation accurately from his visit, and we know him to be capable of assessing it accurately. But how in God's name does he justify this kind of act by his department in the very area in
Supply-Northern Affairs which he has just told us things are almost impossible for the inhabitants?
If the minister wants to know how to save a few bucks in his department I can tell him how. I would suggest that the first thing he should do is to cancel the plans to go ahead with that multimillion dollar building with air conditioning for the northern affairs staff in the city of Ottawa. If he still needs to save a few more dollars he could cancel the appropriation we have made which runs to many thousands of dollars for field visits by people in Ottawa who go round the north examining this malnutrition which exists there, observing poverty which will be all the worse now that the allowance to these poor wretches has been chopped.
Then there are other ways of saving money. The minister could tighten up the administration of his department. If his field officers -although I doubt this-are passing money out with abandon, then the minister should tighten up. But let him not reduce the relief scale. I also suggest to the minister, in fact I beg him, to reinstate this relief temporarily until we can get the officials of national health and welfare to assess the situation. The Hall commission report has just come in, and I should like to refer to what they said about this. I read this passage into the record the other night, but I will read this damn thing every time I can until this sort of nonsense is stopped. This is a quotation from page 224 of the Hall commission, and this is the situation as it exists today:
"Inhuman"-is the way a public health nurse described, in the course of a conversation, the living conditions of the Eskimos in her community. An apt description indeed. To realize this one has to shed the romantic ideas of Eskimo life, derived from children's books and the movies, and walk through a settlement of Eskimo tents on a cold September night with the wind and rain lashing against the flimsy tents, babies crying and whimpering, and children and adults alike coughing inside.
Surely no one will take this statement I have made this afternoon as any attempt to discredit the minister, because it is not. It is not an attempt to be melodramatic respecting the conditions of the people in this area.
I make it for one reason, and one reason only. I want the minister to go to his officials and say, "Let us suspend implementing this thing until we get the officials of health and welfare, at least, in there", because these officials are invariably ringing the alarm that the health and nutritional levels of the people are still not good enough. On the one hand the minister does this, and on the other hand the department of health and welfare

Supply-Northern Affairs put in the estimates a few hundred thousand dollars to transport sickly people out of that part of the country. Surely we have to stop any further inroads in this respect.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit me to deal with this subject, because he has made a statement that our policy has been revised deliberately in order to reduce the amount of relief paid in those areas. I want to tell him that the system upon which relief was paid in those areas was set in 1962 before he became a member of parliament, and it was set by a Conservative government. The reductions which have taken place in this regard are a direct result of the system put into effect in 1962 and are based upon the cost of food only, without regard for other costs in relation to what they were previously. As a result of the reductions, which the hon. member infers are over-all and carte-blanche-which they are not-I am told there are two settlements receiving an increase of $5 a month, 11 settlements have remained unchanged, 14 were reduced by $5 a month, and two were reduced by $10 a month. But this is all related to the basis upon which relief was paid, which was established in 1962.
I will be very glad to look into this situation. I do not think the hon. member is assisting his cause by these terrible stories of conditions up there. He and I know that this sort of thing goes on in cities in southern Canada as well. I do not think it is going to assist the cause of the people there by overemphasizing the seeming degradation. I would ask the hon. member to agree with me that there is not too much degradation there, and among those people in that country there is a tremendous amount of self-preservation and a great deal of happiness, too.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I understand exactly what the minister is saying. He can do this eggshell dance all day all around this issue, if he wishes to do so. The fact is that conditions in this respect in the Arctic are much worse than they are in the city of Ottawa, for example, and he knows just as sure as he sits there that the cost of living is substantially higher; it is at least 40 per cent higher. I am telling him that the decision to cut these allowances by $5 and $10 a month is unfair; it is unjust, and he cannot stand up in this house and pretend that through some strange formula his officials have arrived at, there is justice in this. I defy the minister to go up into that country and try to survive on the $30 a month that a widow or old person receives. Let him go
[Mr. Rhfiaume.l
to Chesterfield inlet or Pond inlet, for example, and then try to justify what he has said. Is the minister aware that civil servants living in these same areas receive a special ration allowance to compensate for the high cost of living, and this allowance is a lot higher than that received by the people up there?
I am not trying to do the Eskimo a disservice, and I do not want him to do them a disservice either by pretending that somehow or other things are good and we can leave it at that. In 1962 this allowance was established at $35 a month, and the minister says it was written into the plan that it should be lowered at some point, or there was a formula written in. I helped write that damned formula and, no, that was not in there. I do not want the minister to give me this argument that things are pretty tough in the cities, too; because he himself gave the lie to that one when he opened his estimates. He said that conditions under which people have to live north of the tree line are invariably more difficult, and this poses a much more difficult problem for his administration. I know this. I know what the barren lands are like-and so does the minister.
I am not going to belabour this point any more, Mr. Chairman. If the minister insists on going ahead with this reduction I can only say to him that he is making a serious mistake and will be damaging the Eskimo people of these areas-and they are numerous. He suggests that the fact it has not been reduced in 14 communities is some kind of a virtue. Isn't that amazing. I suggest we are going to end up with another item of $500,000 in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for transporting people to sanitoria if he does not reconsider this question. I am just asking him to review this matter.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that the cost of living in these areas has gone up and up in the last few months, albeit by only a small amount. I will leave it there, Mr. Chairman. There is no justification for the minister or his officials cutting down this allowance. When I cool off I am going to try to find out which of these ministers has urged this course of action upon him. I am going to do everything I can in this House of Commons to see that when they decide they are going to save $1,000, they are not going to take it away from a group of people who live north of the tree line, who do not have an elected councillor on the Northwest Territories council to fight for them. I, a single member of parliament, am trying to represent

the largest constituency in the free world, with all the attendant problems this brings with it, and I am going to see that somebody speaks for the Eskimos, if the minister abdicates the responsibility given to him by parliament.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow an interjection? As with most things, I will take a look at this question and see that the proper things are done. But I want to assure the hon. member that the department as a whole is making every effort to get people off relief. I am sure he would agree that is a good thing to do.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: One hundred per cent.


Arthur Laing: This has been done from the days when he was an employee of the department, and of this particular branch. We have been introducing small industries, through our industrial division, and we have cut the relief which at that time was very general and applied to everybody; it was thrown out everywhere-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Nonsense; you don't know what you are talking about.


Arthur Laing: -we have cut it by a small percentage; but this has not reduced the total income of the people, because they are making up for it with the carvings and the industries which we are introducing into the territory. I want to tell the committee that the total revenue from these tiny industries last year exceeded the total revenue obtained from fur. We are going to keep on encouraging people to earn their own money, instead of handing cheques out to them, as far as we can.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the question is and I am not going to argue with the minister, because in the process we may lose sight of the problem involved here. The fact of the matter is this. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that instructions have gone out to reduce the allowance paid to these totally dependant people, people like widows and the elderly, who have no other way of supplementing their income. If my information is correct- and it has come from his own officials-there has been an across the board reduction of $10 a month in several communities, regardless of the circumstances. I will not argue this matter any more, because in getting under each other's skin we may forget the Eskimo people. This has happened so often in the past. Therefore I will leave the matter there. However, I want to repeat in conclusion
Supply-Northern Affairs that I think there are a few things the minister can do to help solve this situation. If he wants to live up to the things he has said, he will take note of my suggestions.
I ask the minister to have a really serious look at this question of giving the vote to the people in Canada's northland. It is almost criminal that in 1964 a member of parliament should have to stand up in this house before the people of Canada and ask, as though it were some favour, that Canadian citizens be given the right to vote in elections.
But I am doing so. I ask the minister to do this because, having given the federal franchise, it would be logical to go ahead immediately with the territorial franchise. I ask him to set a deadline for himself because, believe me, his officials can jump when they are told. Do not let 1964 end without being able to say to Canada, and in fact to Southern Rhodesia if we are going to give lectures, that every Canadian citizen over 21, regardless of where he may live in this country, has the right to vote for his own council.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the committee at all in the consideration of these estimates but I have one question for the minister. Speaking of delay, I note that we spent eight days on the student loans legislation and, so far as the people who were doing all the talking are concerned, I notice that there is not a single French speaking Conservative member here except the hon. member for Dorchester, and none of the Creditiste members who were doing all the talking in the last eight days.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif):: Order. I regret to have to draw to the attention of the hon. member that he is not discussing the matter before the committee at this time.


Maurice John Moreau: I should like to ask the minister a question concerning the problem raised by the hon. member for Yukon with regard to the proposed revision of the quartz mining regulations-


Erik Nielsen: Act.


Maurice John Moreau: -in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Can we have the minister's assurance that these changes in the regulations will be sent to the committee on mines, forests and waters and will not be brought about by order in council, as was done by the previous administration?


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, I am sure the hon. member would not want to mislead the committee. The Yukon Act
5972	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs contains no power to make regulations and can only be altered by parliament, whereas in the Northwest Territories everything is done by regulation.


Maurice John Moreau: I appreciate the comment oi the hon. member for Yukon. I was referring to the order in council regulations in the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Chairman, the theme of my remarks will be somewhat different from that of the hon. member for Northwest Territories. While we do share together quite a large part of northern Canada, my constituency, though not as large as his, is a large constituency. I have often heard the hon. member for Athabasca refer to the 400 miles of undefended boundary between his constituency and mine. I might say that I share a boundary of some 300 miles with the hon. member for Northwest Territories.
In looking over the estimates, Mr. Chairman, I think of how my constituency has been concerned for a long while about another federal park in that part of Saskatchewan, that vast area where everybody goes for recreation, if they can get there. I might say I was somewhat disappointed to see the reduction in the estimates with regard to campsites and grants to provincial parks, because we were greatly assisted in the provision of roadside tables, and the assistance to provincial parks established by the former government has meant a great deal to that part of Saskatchewan. I was very disappointed to see some curtailment in the cooperation with provincial governments on roadside tables, assistance to provincial parks, winter access roads and so many other things which have meant a great deal to this part of northern Saskatchewan. I have had a great deal of pleasure in working with the departmental officials since coming to Ottawa and I am sure the ones I have talked to are not in favour of the reduction in this assistance which means so much to the people.
With regard to winter access roads, a program instituted by the former government and which meant so much, I wonder whether the minister can tell us if there is going to be greater co-operation with the provinces. The former government ran into difficulty with the socialist government of Saskatchewan with regard to the money we wanted to spend to develop access roads and roads to resources. We always had the stumbling block of the Saskatchewan government saying they must handle the whole thing or nothing would be


done. The federal authorities were not permitted to go in and do it. The construction of winter access roads had to be done through the provincial government and we ran into a lot of stumbling blocks.
I might mention, for instance, the access road to lake La Loche that took so much longer to construct than it should have. So much money was spent by the northern affairs department bringing their equipment in in the fall, taking it out, overhauling it in the winter and taking it back. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent in transporting equipment into the job and transporting it out again, but very little work was done. I think this was a shame because there were many private contractors in the area who would have been prepared to move in enough equipment to do the job and we would have got some value for the dollars spent. If we had said we were going to do it some other way the provincial authorities would not have co-operated and consequently nothing would have been done on these winter access roads which mean so much to this part of the country.
We ran into the same thing with regard to roads to resources in Saskatchewan. I think possibly the minister is quite familiar with the very poor progress that was made on the road to Uranium City after the deal was entered into. The route chosen was not the one I would have liked to see followed, but once again the province entered into the picture. After they selected the route and agreed to come in on a 50-50 basis very little was done, for the simple reason the provincial government said they had to do the job. They moved in all their equipment at great expense. Then they found out that they were not road builders and they advocated changing the route to go over to Reindeer lake. These people in the far north have been waiting many years for these roads to resources that were promised them, only to find that now there is a stalemate.
As these estimates progress I wish the minister would tell us what deal the government has made with the new government of Saskatchewan. Has this work been let by contract? Has it been let to private enterprise? Is it on the basis of advertisements for tenders? How is the work progressing on the roads to resources program in Saskatchewan? This is very important.
I should also like to ask the minister whether the road to Uranium City will follow the route first proposed or is it now going to swing off to Reindeer lake, thus for-

getting all about the north? I should also like to hear the minister say something on the plans for winter access roads in northern Saskatchewan. Is it planned to continue the road from La Loche to lake Athabasca and Stony Rapids? These are important matters for the people of my constituency.
I hope that the development programs we started will be continued, that something will be done and that programs will not be handled through the provincial department of natural resources, but that the government will let this work to private contractors by tender and see that it is done. This is one of the obstacles we were up against and I was very happy when, before I entered the political field, the former prime minister came to our area and said they were going to do something for the north and were going to start a program of roads to resources. When I look at the progress which has been made all across Canada I can only say that we have fallen behind in Saskatchewan because we had a government there that did not believe in private enterprise and held up these worth-while projects. These are some of the things I should like the minister to deal with. I should like to know what their plan is and what they propose doing with the continuation of these roads to resources and winter access roads.
I saw some of the most terrible things happen in my constituency this winter. I saw the Department of National Defence send in men to cut the guywires for these radar towers, and let them fall down. I saw these towers topple over. The people of the north could have made use of this equipment, on which the Canadian government has spent millions of dollars, for transformers, radio or television equipment. However, they were allowed to topple over and were sold as scrap. This was done even after the C.B.C. had inquired about these towers and the use which could have been made of them in the north country.
Then, another thing I should like to ask the minister about is the abandonment of the campsite at Gunnar mines. This could mean so much to the north. It is true that Gunnar mines have made so much they do not need to worry about these buildings. The mine has run out of uranium at that point. There are many lovely buildings in this campsite and something could be done with them to assist in northern development. I was wondering if any deal had been entered into with Gunnar mines concerning these buildings, or whether they will be left at this site to deteriorate.
Supply-Northern Affairs These are some of the things that interest the people of the Athabasca region. Certainly, we have a lot of native people in this area. I am sure that many of the buildings in this campsite could be moved on the ice to some of the native settlements and this would make it easier for these people to live. As I say, Gunnar mines are willing to walk away and leave the buildings. Are they going to be left there to be destroyed? Gunnar mines was one of the richest uranium mines in the world, but they have run out of ore and they are willing to pack up and go. I was wondering what is being done about salvaging some of these fine buildings.
I think we have quite a number of tourists going into the north. There are several people that have set up resort areas and fishing camps to which tourists come from a long distance south. I think we should take a good look at this abandoned campsite of Gunnar mines. We should take a good look at what can be salvaged from the radar sites because they could be used to give the people of the area radio and television facilities. These are some of the things that are important to my constituents. I am very much interested in the progress made with access roads and the roads to resources program, as well as the development of our parks. I hope that as the estimates go along the minister will answer some of these questions. As I say, I was very happy to see a program started for development in the north, and I hope it will continue at greater speed than ever.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. member be good enough to permit us to get the answers to some of his questions, and they could be given to him when the particular item is before the committee? We have most of them here, but there are one or two we want to get.


Douglas Mason Fisher: First of all, I must express my pleasure at seeing you in the chair, sir. I have always thought, particularly in view of the recent announcement that residents of Ottawa may be choosing a mayor, that with the experience you have gained in this kind of role you may consider that line of endeavour. I know that it has only been your great admiration for her performance that has kept you from trying for that position; but that is by the way.
I had hoped to speak about the national museum, which is included in the estimates, but I understand that the Secretary of State and the house leader are going to see that we will have an opportunity, on his estimates,
5974	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs to speak about the national museum. Is my understanding correct? Fine, thank you.
I want to make a remark or two about what was said by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. It is all very well, and I admire him for the strength with which he pushes his representation as a member up there, but like the last speaker I also have a chunk of the north, although it is not as far north. However, it does comprise 148,000 square miles. I have a very large Indian population and a rather small Eskimo population, although I do not get to see them very often. It is very difficult. In the contacts that I have had, particularly with the Indians, and these go back to 193738 when I first got involved in mining, and paddling prospectors around, I have seen nothing to indicate that the Indians in my part of northern Ontario, which is above the track, really feel they have gained anything from the extension of the franchise to them within provincial jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the interest that they show in it is not particularly keen. I, personally, have sometimes wished that northern affairs was responsible for the Indians in that part of the country rather than the situation that exists at the present time.
It seems to me they would have a better deal if the general administration in the area, in the widest sense, came under northern affairs instead of being broken down between a number of authorities. I should like also to put on the record, not from any party point of view, that I am quite intrigued by the argument made by the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories on this question of getting provincial status. This is a normal aspiration. I would hope that when the population is larger something like this would really develop. There is nothing that I can see on the horizon to indicate an increase in the population on a scale that would make a provincial organization really justifiable, particularly in economic terms. As I say, it will come and it has to come, but in view of the population, particularly in the Northwest Territories, I do not mind putting on the record that it seems to me this is not feasible or practical at the present tmie.
I am expressing this point of view as an individual member of parliament who is sufficiently interested in the north to read almost everything that comes out in connection with it. I was interested in the book with the very lovely coloured cover that was published not long ago. There is nothing in that book, and there is very little indication


in many of the recent studies that have been published in connection with the north, to indicate that there is going to be some kind of population break-through. It would seem to me that it might be very premature to have a provincial government established when you have such a thin scattering of population over so many points. I have enough experience in my own part of a northern riding to know there is absolutely no connection between Big Trout lake and Lans-downe House. They are both in the north. Big Trout lake is 460 miles north of Port Arthur and the other place, Lansdowne House, is about 420 miles northeast of Port Arthur. They are both in the north. There is absolutely no connection between them, and their lines do not go out to meet at some larger centre. So, you have a problem when you are considering the Northwest Territories, much less the Yukon, because of a situation in which the population is scattered without any kind of nodal point of population having a real influence, that is drawing other communities into their economic orbit or being part of their economic hinterland. It seems to me you have not, as yet, got a condition for a viable province with a provincial economy that has some kind of economic basis that is substantial.
As soon as this begins to really appear it seems to me we would be on our way. I had hoped, as did many other enthusiasts for the north, that Frobisher might be the place, but everyone knows what happened to the dreams and aspirations of that. It is only a few years ago since the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was talking about creating a domed city there, almost like the Houston baseball park, which would have air conditioning and be a model for the world. I was captured by that imaginative glimpse of the future in the Canadian north, but there is a more recent realism that indicates this is some time away.
I hope the hon. members for Yukon and the Northwest Territories will forgive me for getting this far into their territory. I would not want to close without saying I have always noticed in this chamber that the region one comes from is so much more the determinator of performance than the party one belongs to, and I hope the hon. member for Northwest Territories will not mind my saying he reminds we very much of the late Merv Hardy, who also took a very tough and hard line in this chamber so far as the federal agencies working in the north are concerned. I say this to him as a compliment and I hope he will continue being

vigilant and keep giving the minister and the government hell for the inadequacies in the way they treat the people there.
I also want to put on the record a report of a debate which took place here some five years ago. I was reminded of it today because we keep hearing the same speeches over and over again, and this afternoon the hon. member for Bow River gave his annual commercial exploitation in his parks speech. I think it is well for me to put on the record that a number of years ago he also made a fighting, slashing attack on the head hand of bureaucracy that lay over the development of our parks, particularly the ones on the Alberta and B.C. borders. At that time we in the opposition were hooting it up because of his attack on the government of which he was a supporter, but after he had spoken the then minister of northern affairs, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, got up and replied, and according to a report in the Montreal Gazette he said:
I want to make it abundantly clear that I stand for the primary purpose of these parks- the idea that they should be preserved just as they were when the original explorer found them.
It's about time, Mr. Hamilton said, that the millions "who use the parks and love them" band together in an association, free from civil servants and politicians.
How can a minister stand up against the pressures of commercial interests who want to use the parks for mining, forestry and for every honky-tonk recreational device known to man, unless the people who love these parks are prepared to band together and support the minister-?
The report went on to point out that his remarks followed suggestions by a couple of government backbenchers, including the hon. member for Bow River, who suggested that there should be much more commercial enterprise in the parks. It added that the minister said:
If people want to shoot off bullets at a rifle range, or take out electric cars thumping around a circular iron track, or attend open air theatre shows, then I say there are many areas outside the parks which could perfectly well provide such diversion.
I thought it might be just as well to note this because it seems to me the hon. member for Bow River was concentrating this part of his fire on the government as a Liberal government. I think it is worth while noting he also concentrated his fire upon the Conservative government as a Conservative government, on this issue, and the minister at that time stood up to him and issued in effect what I thought was a very effective rebuttal. I would hope the present minister would have the same attitude.
Supply-Northern Affairs
I would like the minister at some time to supply the response that was made to the representations from T. F. Rayner and Judy Rayner of the Marmna development in Jasper, Alberta, where they were developing a ski proposition, and when the matter came up for bid they lost the tender to another organization. They expressed their bitterness over this to a number of members of parliament, since they had a considerable investment in the enterprise not only in the capital sense but in their individual effort, which looked as though it were going down the drain.
I also want to tell the minister I was very surprised when two people in western Canada sent me clippings of a report of a speech he made to the Vancouver real estate board. Each of them was bowled over by certain quotations from his speech, in which he was reported to have said that we could overcome our water shortage by praying for rain. One quotation which was credited to the minister was that if people in the various levels of government would mind their own business we would get along a lot better in this country.
I think that may have been a reporter's paraphrase of his words but it struck me as being unusual and the interpretation put on the minister's words was that everything would be fine in the realm of government if the people in the different jurisdictions would mind their own business. In view of the controversy he has been enmeshed in with the government of Quebec, symbolized by Rene Levesque, this struck me as rather interesting and I wanted to find out more about it.
I sent to the minister's office for a copy of his speech and I was surprised to discover he did not have a text. I do not know whether he spoke without a text, whether he usually free wheels like this, but I was surprised he would appear before such an august body in his own territory and speak without a text, and allow this kind of quotation to appear, which suggested the real solution to the difficulties of the country was to have politicians at certain levels of government to mind their own business.
I would be very interested in hearing from the minister that he did not have a text of his speech. I know the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition, had a great reputation for speaking off the cuff, but one of the things that always intrigued me was when you wrote to his office they could always send you a text.

Supply-Northern Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: May I clarify that for the benefit of the minister. After I have spoken a stenographer taking down the speech makes it available for everyone so that there would be none of the misunderstanding that sometimes characterizes the hon. gentleman.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, this is very true but sometimes, Mr. Chairman, we used to get from the right hon. gentleman's office the text of a speech that was prepared and never given, because of the hon. gentleman's ability to ad lib and take off from his text. I do not think he would be one to deny that. But this practice of the minister, as exemplified by his speech to the Vancouver real estate board, interested me because, as I say, it fitted in with the Quebec controversy, and also took me back to that stirring announcement he made not too many months ago about that magnificent scholarship scheme. There is a text of that speech, I understand, and it certainly raised many hopes. We all remember the magnificent Toronto Star head-fine and we wondered what the minister of northern affairs was doing in this particular field, offering these 10,000 scholarships-come and get them, all you need is your talent.
I hope the minister can gather from these remarks that I and some of my colleagues are interested in his performance in almost every way. We have been intrigued with his relations with the premier of Saskatchewan. I understand the premier of Saskatchewan feels he has only one soulmate in the federal cabinet and that is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I do not know the premier of Saskatchewan very well, but it rather surprised me that he would prefer the minister of northern affairs to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as his liaison, his interlocutor, with the stalwarts in the Pearson cabinet.
Naturally there is a tendency among those of us who are somewhat suspicious of the motives and intent of the premier of Saskatchewan to transfer this suspicion to the minister of northern affairs, as his buddy. I realize this may be unfair of us. In the same way, I sometimes transfer some of my annoyance with the hon. member for Kootenay West to the hon. member for Kootenay East, and if the minister could do anything to straighten us out as to his attachment to the premier of Saskatchewan I think we would all be interested to hear him.
I wish to ask the minister a question now, relating to the salary scales applicable to


teachers within his department. These were recently increased, and I have had placed on the record through questions this session the figures for all the various government agencies which employ teachers. There is no question in my mind but that salaries paid to teachers in this department compare very favourably with those paid by other departments of government. I am not against this, but I should like to know what the governing factors are. The minister will remember that the Glassco commission report was not so flattering to the teaching effort of the department of northern affairs as it was to that of the Indian affairs branch. If I may paraphrase the report of the royal commission in this respect, it is that they were doubtful about the value we are getting for the money spent on education by this department particularly as compared with the Indian affairs branch. I was bothered by this because I have not been much impressed by the value we have been getting out of the schools run by the Indian affairs branch, and consequently I wondered what standards of efficiency were being used. While the Indian affairs branch may be able to do the work cheaper than the department of northern affairs, I am also very much aware that the standard of some of the teachers is not as high as the standard of those employed by the department of northern affairs. If the minister can show me that part of the higher cost of teachers in his department is a consequence of achieving a higher standard of teaching than in comparable government departments, I would be most interested. I have often thought, in the light of the response which the Department of National Defence has achieved in getting teachers for Canadian children in Europe by paying the salaries of the teachers to the school boards in the areas from which they come, that a similar arrangement might well be established in the hon. gentleman's department. It seems to me there is a discontinuity in the teaching of classes, both in the department of northern affairs and in the Indian affairs branch, because it is found difficult to obtain the services of teachers for any length of time, and I should like to suggest that it might be possible, particularly because of the romantic aura which would surround teaching for a year or two in the north, to change completely the teacher recruitment practice which now exists and, for the staffing of northern schools, rely on a policy of the kind followed by the Department of National Defence.

I appreciate that this might be more expensive. I can think, for example, of teachers employed by the board of education of Kapus-kasing, which probably pays the highest salaries in Ontario, going over to teach in Europe and enjoying a salary as high as any paid by the department of northern affairs. On the other hand, one can be almost certain of getting high quality and I am confident that the quality of the teaching in our schools in Europe as a result of the policy adopted by the Department of National Defence is exceptionally high. I think it is above the national standard. In the visits I have made to those schools, as a result of conversations with the teachers I was very much taken by the quality of the staff, and I believe this same quality might be achieved if there were an imaginative recruitment scheme using the services of teachers on loan from schools in southern Canada for a year or two. It may be objected that something would be lost because teachers would not be in the north for a long time and would not become acclimatized to conditions there. I would argue that a classroom, whether in southern Ontario or West Germany or the far north, is much the same. It is the other conditions which change. I suggest that the turnover in the schools in the minister's department is already such that if we could get teachers to undertake a northern assignment for two years there would be just as much continuity as exists at the present time.
I do not wish to close without adding a comment to the minister's own comment about his good relations with, and the good work he got out of, his parliamentary secretary. I often feel that these humble people are not given sufficient recognition, particularly by the opposition. It is rarely that we find a minister prepared to hold up his follower as an exemplar-as someone who is on his way and who is going somewhere. We felt, ever since we got to hear about this particular hon. member, when he made headlines right across the country through his dancing ability, that he would go far in Canadian politics and we welcome this recognition of this new kind of dancing which has caught on with the minister.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.
Genocide GENOCIDE



PROVISION OF PENALTIES UNDER UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, July 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Klein for the second reading of Bill No. C-21, respecting genocide.
Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Neshoba county negro church in Mississippi was burned to the ground on June 21, 1964. Three civil rights students, Mickey Schermer, aged 24, Andrew Goodman, aged 20, James Chaney, aged 21, vanished on first assignment investigating destruction of the church. After arrest for allegedly speeding, they were released and subsequently disappeared. The gutted shell of a station wagon was found ditched near Bogue Swamp outside Philadelphia, Mississippi. Some days later, the lower torso of a white youth, with feet bound, was found in the swamp. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the F.B.I. believes they are dead.
The problem we are dealing with in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is larger than the problems which are encompassed within this house and our country. In its larger horizons today the great struggle is the struggle over colour. We have a great revolution which is engulfing our universe. Just concluded is the recent conference of commonwealth prime ministers in which the question of colour played a very important role. At this conference this country and other members of the commonwealth pursued the diplomacy of active understanding.
Today we are examining a bill which raises important topics concerning the relationship of the Criminal Code of Canada and the rights of free speech. I spoke on this topic in this house during the throne speech debate on March 2, when I raised the point that the sections on free speech were matured in a society very different from our own. We live in a highly articulated society where the mass media of communication are very well organized and where the merchandisers of opinion are using all sorts of scientific techniques to mould that opinion. It seems to me that the arguments of John Stuart Mill which remain very important in terms of civil liberties and the right of free speech are not totally relevant to our society where tens of millions are daily subject to mass merchandising by people who have studied scientifically the process of influencing public opinion. The goldfish bowl of Hyde Park is not relevant to 20th century Canada, and the Socratic debate with which John Stuart Mill

Genocide
was dealing does not reflect the problem of influencing public opinion in our society.
I want to read two quotations from Dean Ivan Rand. As Mr. Justice Rand he delivered one of the most important opinions in the Boucher case, which had a great deal to do with our law relating to sedition. In his memorable judgment he said this:
Freedom of thought and speech and disagreement in ideas and beliefs, on every conceivable subject, are of the essence of our life. The clash of critical discussion on political, social and religious subjects has too deeply become the stuff of daily experience to suggest that mere ill-will as a product of controversy can strike down the latter with illegality.
Recently Dean Rand retired as dean of the law school of the University of Western Ontario. In a dispatch to the Toronto Daily Star he is quoted as follows:
The 80-year-old retiring dean of the University of Western Ontario law school continued: "We are in danger of becoming fanatical about individual rights".
Recognition of responsibilities, he said, is endangered by the continued assertion of the rights of individuals.
"We must accept either the rule of reason or the rule of passion-of hatred. I sometimes wish we could forbid the importation of these hatreds from other countries".
Mr. Rand also said: "In this country we are obsessed with the notion that any departure from tradition is fraught with danger. The first objective in this country should be a reconciliation of clashing demands and ideals. When we achieve this objective, we shall be making headway, but we mustn't be in too much of a hurry: Advances are slow to become part of tradition".
In this debate we have heard a number of excellent speeches. We had the address of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) who introduced the bill, as well as the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) who seconded it. Then we had a fine speech from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and two speeches from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I want to deal with the latter two speeches.
I was impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. In talking of group libel he said that "if our laws are not satisfactory in that respect they should be amended". The hon. member for Peace River quoted a number of sections of the Criminal Code which he felt would deal with the cases mentioned by my hon. friend from Cartier, cases which have concerned this house and deal with the dissemination of vicious literature. The hon. member for Peace River felt that the existing Criminal
[Mr. Gelber.)
Code could deal adequately with these problems. He quoted a number of sections from the Criminal Code. I want to say that at the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) the Canadian Jewish Congress asked for two independent legal opinions, one from Mr. John J. Robinette and the other from Mr. Arthur Maloney, a former member of this house. They have examined each of the sections, except one which was mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River, and they do not feel that the wording of these sections is adequate in the circumstances. One section which is not examined is section 165 of the Criminal Code, and the hon. member for Peace River himself had very strong doubts about its relevancy.
A point made by the hon. member for Peace River with which I should like to deal is this. He said that the common law could deal with these particular problems which we are facing. The Boucher case restricted very narrowly the conception of sedition, and the opinion of Mr. Robinette and that of Mr. Arthur Maloney is that the common law does not apply in view of section 8, since the Criminal Code deals with sedition.
In my earlier remarks in the throne speech debate I suggested that we should look at the code and within the tradition of our law make certain changes which will deal with these particular problems. I should like to refer to a proposal put before the government by the Canadian Jewish Congress in order to make it possible to apply this particular section dealing with sedition to the existing circumstances. They proposed that there be added to the section on sedition the following paragraph:
Everyone who publishes or circulates or causes to be published or circulated orally or in writing any matter intended or calculated to incite violence or provoke disorder against any class of persons or against any person as a member of any class in Canada shall be guilty of any indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was quite right. In the common law, which we share, there is regard, under the provisions relating to sedition, for relationship between groups. I would like to quote from Stephen's Digest of Criminal Law, article 114, 8th edition. I am just quoting an extract. Stephen said:
A seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt.. .or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection among His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.

We have lost that in our code. The hon. member for Peace River felt that the common law took care of that particular aspect of sedition; but the opinions I have brought here today of Mr. Robinette, Mr. Maloney and others maintain that the common law crime no longer exists within our law because of the Criminal Code.
There is another section with which the hon. member for Peace River dealt, and that was section 166, spreading false news. I pointed out in my address in this house on March 2 that the crime of spreading false news is too vague in dealing with the question of public interest. I will read section 166:
Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
It is the opinion of these legal authorities that by failing to define "public interest" the usefulness of this section, in this particular context, is very seriously limited. It is the opinion of the attorney general of Ontario, according to press reports, and it is certainly the opinion of Mr. Robinette and Mr. Maloney, that this section is not effective in view of the fact that the term "public interest" is not defined. I do not feel it would be a radical departure from our law to define "public interest" in terms which would make it effective in dealing with this particular matter. The Canadian Jewish Congress have suggested adding these two paragraphs to section 166 of the Criminal Code:
Injury or mischief to a public interest shall include statements intended or calculated for the promotion of hatred, contempt or hostility against a group of persons by reason of their particular race, nationality or ethnic origin, colour or religion.
The second paragraph is:
No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section by reason only of having published statements relating to controversial social, economic, political or religious beliefs or opinions.
It is my contention, and the contention of these briefs and submissions, that the right of free speech must not be abridged; that the right of debate must be protected: but within the tradition of our law by these changes, as suggested, effective means could be legislated to enable the courts to deal with the particular problem. Another suggestion made by the Canadian Jewish Congress is that section 153 of the Criminal Code should be amended. The hon. member for Peace River stated he felt that under section 153 the term "scurrilous" would be sufficient to deal with
Genocide
literature which is being distributed. These other authorities do not agree with the hon. member for Peace River. It is suggested that section 153 should read as follows:
Every one commits an offence who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering anything that is obscene, indecent, immoral or scurrilous or contains material a principal purpose of which is to promote hatred of or hostility against a group of persons by reason of their particular race, nationality or ethnic origin, colour or religion, but this section does not apply to a person who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering anything mentioned in subsection (4) of section 151.
They suggest the following paragraph also be added:
No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section by reason of making use of the mails only for the purpose of transmitting or delivering statements the primary purpose of which is to examine controversial social, political, economic subjects or religious beliefs or opinions.
Mr. Speaker, there is another importance to these changes. It is that our Criminal Code must express our ideas of law, our ideas of our society; it must express our social ideals. If it is lacking in these particulars as an expression of our social outlook, our view of society, our conception of law, then our code should be strengthened. It is very important that our code represent the ideals for which we stand. This is part of our tradition. The universal declaration of human rights, the various declarations made by members of this house and the courts of law of this country all stand for these social ideals which I believe would be more adequately expressed if these changes were made in our Criminal Code.
There is another importance of our Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a great educator, and I believe that by strengthening it as I have suggested, it would be a more important beacon for the people of Canada. In this age of struggle and turmoil, of great hatreds that are convulsing our society, it seems to me we should look at this question in terms of the society in which we live today, not of 80 or 90 years ago, and express more adequately those things for which we stand. We all have great admiration for the people in the United States who are fighting for civil rights for negro citizens, and the leadership of people like Martin Luther King who have put forward a non-violent protest with great distinction and great spiritual leadership not only to the people of the United States but to all of us who believe in these things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Genocide


Marvin Gelber: It seems to me that this parliament can express again, and more firmly, its solidarity in support of those who are struggling for freedom by saying these are things we shall do to strengthen our law and to express those ideals for which Canada stands.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the bill which has been introduced by the hon. member has taken my interest. I have carried out considerable research on the matter, going back into the debates of 1950, and I have also studied extensively the reports of the standing committee on external affairs which sat in 1952 on the subject of the convention. Before quoting from the remarks made by the now Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in 1952 and from the proceedings of the committee, I intend to discuss the bill itself; that is, its specific provisions.
In the explanatory notes-this, I might say, was what aroused by curiosity originally- it is set forth that the United Nations convention on the crime of genocide was tabled in the House of Commons on March 2, 1950, and in the Senate on March 14 of the same year.
Then there follow these words:
It was approved by resolution of the house on March 21, 1952 and by resolution of the Senate on March 27 of the same year.
Some 14 years after the original treaty was agreed to this bill now comes before us and the question I ask myself is, if the treaty was signed in 1950 and if both houses of the Canadian parliament ratified the convention in 1952, is there really any need for any further action in order to implement the provisions of this convention? The intention of the bill is a laudable one. In addition to the question I asked myself with regard to whether or not there was any real necessity for introducing a bill of this nature I also wondered why, if legislation was necessary to implement the provisions of the treaty, the government had not taken that action in 1952 or in subsequent years. I also went to the provisions of the Criminal Code and having had an opportunity of studying these with specific relations to the crimes of sedition and treason, a matter which I raised in the house some weeks ago with respect to certain statements of Dr. Chaput, I wondered whether these provisions were not sufficient in order to cover the crime commonly known as genocide. In particular, I was concerned about the wording of section 3 of the bill which would make everyone guilty who publishes, by words or otherwise, statements or matter

that is likely to injure a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, by exposing such group to hatred, contempt or ridicule, and which would subject such guilty person, on conviction for the indictable offence which the bill purports to create, to a sentence of imprisonment for five years.
In the course of answering these questions for myself I came across the debates of the House of Commons for May 21, 1952. Commencing on page 2430 there follows the debate on the ratification of the convention, the principle of which the hon. member purports to implement in the provisions of Bill C-21. The resolution introduced by the now Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who was then secretary of state for external affairs, was in these words:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the ratification by Canada of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide as signed by Canada on November 28, 1949, and that this house do approve the same.
On page 2441 of Hansard for the same date these words of the present Prime Minister appear:
The genocide convention is possibly the most important source of new international criminal law which has developed since the last war. Other sources of this law are the Nuremburg principles based upon the charter and judgments of the Nuremburg tribunal, which were formulated by the international law commission of the United Nations, and also the proposed code of offences against the peace and security of mankind, which is still under consideration in the United Nations.
Since it is desirable, I think, that there should be world wide acceptance that genocide is a crime, and since the force of the convention as a source of international law depends upon its general acceptance by states, the conclusion may be logically drawn that it is best to have the widest possible acceptance by states of this convention as a source of law, even although there may be a refusal by some states to accept the enforcement provision in article IX.
He went on to say:
The following question has arisen, causing some anxiety, I believe, in the committee, and it has been referred to today by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon).
This is the question I was looking for.
The question is this: Is any legislation required in Canada to implement within our own borders the obligations which our country will undertake under the convention? On this important matter I should like to quote the opinion of the deputy minister of justice, to whom this was referred for an opinion. He wrote as follows:-
Rather than quote from Hansard where the opinion is only quoted in part, I propose to refer to the evidence that was adduced

before the committee on external affairs in 1952. At page 232 members will find set forth verbatim the letter giving the opinion of F. P. Varcoe, then deputy minister of justice, an opinion which was accepted by the committee and obviously by the government of that day. I should like to read it into the record in its entirety.
Dear Sir:
You have asked for my opinion as to the nature of the legislation, if any, that may be required to implement the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide to which Canada will, I understand, shortly become a signatory and, if required, whether by a general act or by amendments to the Criminal Code. You also asked for a confirmation of your assumption that no legislation on the part of the provinces would be required to implement the convention.
Dealing with your last query first, in my view the provinces are not required to introduce legislation to implement the provisions of a convention which relates in its entirety to criminal law.
I am further of the opinion that no legislation is required by Canada, at this time, to implement this convention. In this connection, I would direct your attention to the wording of article V of the convention. I do not think any legislation is "necessary", inasmuch as I cannot conceive of any act of commission or omission occurring in Canada as falling within the definition of the crime of genocide contained in article II of the convention, that would not be covered by the relevant section in the Criminal Code.
That was the opinion of Mr. Varcoe, the deputy minister of justice at that time, which was called for by the committee on external affairs and which was accepted at the time. At that time the question was considered whether or not any legislation was necessary.


Mr. Walker:: Twelve years ago.


Erik Nielsen: My hon. friend, the chief government whip, says it was 12 years ago, but the provisions of the convention have not altered in that regard and the provisions of the Criminal Code have not altered in that regard.


David James Walker: Certain test cases have taken place in the meantime.


Erik Nielsen: I fail to see how the test cases that I have heard in argument here would affect the opinion of the deputy minister of justice. This is the conclusion I reached before I came across this letter when I was looking into the matter of treason and sedition prior to the bill coming up for debate. The opinion of the deputy minister referred to article V and I think it is important to put that on the record.
Genocide
Article V of the convention is to be found on page 244 of the evidence adduced before the committee in 1952, and I quote:
The contracting parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
The important word in article V of the convention, as was noted by Mr. Varcoe in his opinion is the word "necessary". It says that the contracting parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective constitutions, the necessary legislation, and so on. In Mr. Varcoe's letter he says:
I do not think any legislation is "necessary", inasmuch as I cannot conceive of any act of commission or omission-
And so on. The provisions of the Criminal Code relating particularly to clause 3 of the bill before the committee, it seems to me are quite ample to cover any situation that might arise in Canada with respect to the prevention of that type of crime that the proponent of this bill seeks to make a crime by section 3. It seems superfluous to me to attempt to create an amendment to the Criminal Code under the guise of genocide-I do not say that disrespectfully to the member who introduced the bill-which is going to have no more effect than the existing provisions of the code.
This must have been the position of the government in 1950 and 1952. It must have been the position of the succeeding government and it must still be the position of this government. Surely, if this government felt that any legislation was necessary to implement the provisions of the convention concerning the crime of genocide, this government would have introduced such legislation and not have left that task to a private member. I believe that if the government is of the opinion-and they still have access to their advisers in the Department of Justice- that the crime of genocide as described in the convention ratified by both houses of the parliament of Canada, requires an amendment to the Criminal Code then I believe we, as members of the house, before proceeding any further with consideration of this bill should hear the views of the government on this score.
The matter has already been before a committee. Personally, expressing my own view, I fail to see how anything could be added to the exhaustive examination which took place in 1952 on this question of whether

Genocide
or not any further legislation was necessary by Canada to implement the terms of the convention.
There was a discussion in the committee between Mr. Lesage, Mr. Churchill and Mr. Erichsen-Brown, and we find the following exchange recorded on page 226 of the evidence:


Mr. Churchill:: Then the question is concerning the main purpose of this convention. Is it not a fact that the convention as we have it before us is a compromise document which is much less effective-or, I should not say it is much less effective-is more limited in purpose and intent than the original idea? When this was first advanced in the United Nations, as I understand it the purpose was to make the crime of genocide applicable in time of peace as it has been considered to be a crime in time of war-that is it has been recognized as a war crime but not until this time has it been recognized as a crime that can be committed in time of peace and that can be dealt with in time of peace. In its origin, when they were first discussing this, the hope was that nations and not individuals would be held responsible for the crime of genocide. Is that correct?


Mr.   Erichsen-Brown@: I think there is a certain amount of truth in that. There has been throughout the debates considerable disagreement as to whether the state had to be ultimately accountable or whether you should have to get at the individuals. The convention as presently drafted makes individuals punishable and, if you look at article IV, it refers to certain types of individuals but it does not contain a specific provision making a state as such responsible.
This is something to which we must pay attention. I continue to quote:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then another question. Is it not generally understood that genocide can normally only be carried out by the action or consent of the government? That is, you cannot conceive of genocide as the act of an individual.


Mr. Low:: That is what this says.


Mr. Lesage:: It could be a group of individuals.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The point comes to this-that the genocide convention is dealing with individuals within the national jurisdiction and really has no great effect on government in the international sense.


Mr.   Erichsen-Brown@: There is a considerable danger that persons who are guilty of genocide would turn out in fact to be persons in a position of authority and control, and consequently in a position to prevent their own surrender or prevent their own trial. I think that is an undeniable truth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be very difficult within the state to hold them responsible and try them?
I think this should interest all of the members in so far as the provisions of this bill are concerned. It would appear that Mr. Lesage held the view at that time, and I believe he was a minister of the crown then, that no further legislation was necessary. He said, as reported on page 227:

It is in our statutes.


Mr. Richard:: It is in our conventions and in our law, so I would not say that we are recommending for the first time that genocide is a crime. It is a restatement of the fact that genocide is a crime. We are binding others to admit it, but it is not the first time that Canada has admitted that genocide is a crime.


Jean Lesage: Surely not.
The discussion goes on in the same vein. The conclusion reached, particularly after the production of the opinion by Mr. Varcoe, was that no further amendment to the Criminal Code was necessary. This was summed up on page 244 of the evidence where Mr. Lesage is reported as saying:
The opinion of the deputy minister of justice, which is accepted by the Canadian government, is that the provisions of the Criminal Code as they are now cover all the possibilities and are such that any of the acts mentioned in articles II and III are punishable under our law.
If this were not so, and if the government seem to be of the opinion to send this matter to a committee to do the same work as was done in 1952, if the government felt that legislation needed to be introduced, then why did the government not introduce the legislation? Despite that, despite the government's leaving the initiative to a private member, if the government still feels there is a gap in the criminal law, I believe the members of this house are entitled to hear the government say so. They may find us all willing to go along with any suggestion made, but as a private member I can only see a waste of time and duplication of effort by referring this matter to a committee. It was exhaustively examined in 1952 and the opinion of the Department of Justice has been given. Nothing has been said so far in the debate to put the matter in a different light so far as the opinion of the Department of Justice is concerned. It seems to me the bill is trying to do something which is completely unnecessary.
The crime of genocide, the crime that is purported to be set up by clauses 3 and 4 of the bill are, in my personal view, covered by the existing provisions of the Criminal Code. I have confirmed that personal view. I have satisfied myself and it has been bolstered by the debates of 1952, specifically by the proceedings in committee in 1952, and more strongly by the opinion of the deputy minister of justice which I have already quoted and set forth on the record of this debate.
I have not yet heard anything in this debate which convinces me that any subsequent cases or acts have altered the situation, so

that the opinion of the deputy minister given in 1952 is still just as valid today as it was then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. Granted that his case with respect to the crime of genocide is fairly strong, would the hon. member not admit there have been occurences since 1952 that might make it desirable for us to look at our code, in particular with respect to the crimes set forth in clauses 3 and 4 of the bill now before us? I refer to certain extravagances we all deplore. Might it not be a good idea to have that aspect of the matter looked at and to have the subject matter referred to the committee for this purpose?


Erik Nielsen: In answer to the hon. member's question, I think the government is responsible for taking a little leadership and that we should hear, through the government, an opinion by those officials of the justice department. The hon. member will recall when I brought up the question of sedition in relation to certain statements made by Dr. Chaput. In advancing the opinion of the justice department officials the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) said there could be no question of treason in what Dr. Chaput said, but he has not yet answered the question as it relates to sedition, and that bears on clause 3 of the bill. The delay may be because the justice officials are in doubt, but if that is the case, surely some lead should be given to us on behalf of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Granted that the government should give leadership, but if that leadership is not forthcoming is it not a good idea for private members to exercise their right to do the same?


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps this might be a fair enough suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the whole purpose of this private members' hour.


Erik Nielsen: That might be a fair enough suggestion if we were to obtain the opinion of the officials of the department before the *committee. It seems to me the whole matter could be settled by the answer to one question, and that is, is the opinion of the deputy minister of justice as valid today as it was in 1952? If that question were answered in the affirmative, then it would be a waste of time to take this matter to the committee and to take up any further time [DOT]of the house with it. But if the answer were in the negative then I agree wholeheartedly
Genocide
we should go to the committee to examine the question thoroughly.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: I am
somewhat hesitant to enter the debate as it has reached the stage where it is going to be another battle between legal minds. We have had so much of that during the last few days that I am doubtful-


Stanley Howard Knowles: All the more reason a layman should speak.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The bill before the house is one of concern to all hon. members, and having listened to the different points of view I am satisfied it will be very difficult to arrive at a conclusion that will be satisfactory to everyone.
Reference has been made to the situation that presently exists across the border in connection with civil rights and race riots. We also find of course that the cry of discrimination is raised even in Canada. I am sure everyone deplores anything that is said or done that would build up animosity between peoples or create the situation where hatred would exist between various groups of people. However, the question is whether this is something that can be controlled by law. Perhaps it can to a degree, but I believe something more fundamental must take place than an amendment to the Criminal Code or another statute on the books. Every man and every individual will have to realize, to a greater or lesser degree, the fundamental principles of the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man. This will effect a change that will help us to look at all people in the proper light.
It is essential we remember that human beings, divinely created, have certain rights that are inalienable. These rights and freedoms must be respected and preserved. The question is just how this can be done and I am sure this thought was uppermost in the minds of the sponsors of the bill, both of whom are held in the highest regard and esteem by all members of the house. However the protection of the basic rights must not provide or promote action that will defeat that very purpose and intent. With the greatest respect to the hon. members who have sponsored the bill, and to their reasons for doing so, I suggest that enacting this legislation would create a greater evil than the one we are seeking to remedy. Therefore I believe we ought to approach this with a great deal of caution and concern.
Legislation against hate literature could only open the way for a great many abuses of the

Genocide
laws and regulations and, speaking as a layman, I think there are sections of the Criminal Code which do and would handle the situation satisfactorily. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has just called attention to the opinion expressed by the former deputy minister of justice when this matter was being considered in 1952, and perusing the various sections of the Criminal Code that deal with this matter it would seem as though this problem should be adequately covered by them. However, if that is not so, then I agree again with the hon. member for Yukon that the best way to handle the problem would be by amendments to the Criminal Code.
There is no place in our society for discrimination, prejudice, hatred or anything that would contribute to animosity between various national or religious groups. As I have already said, everything should be done in order to promote recognition of the equality of individuals, recognition of the basic rights that are ours as individuals. It has been pointed out that this matter has been very thoroughly covered and discussed, but I would not have any objection to the subject matter of the bill being referred again to a committee in order that it may question the best way of handling the situation.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughl (Solicitor General):: The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) in his speech last Friday indicated that at some stage a motion would be moved that this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
I think this is the appropriate time to make such a motion because this bill has now been before the house on three occasions and unless unanimous consent is given it probably will not come up again this session. I therefore move:
That this bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on external affairs for further consideration.


@Acting Speaker: Is the
house ready for the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In view of the summary presented this afternoon by my hon. friend from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and in view of the importance of this subject-the Solicitor General said it had been before us three times but in fact it was discussed for just half an hour on the first occasion and for half an hour on the second; this is really the second chance we have had to discuss the matter-


John Watson MacNaught: Would the hon. member permit a brief intervention? I merely mentioned it might be unlikely we could obtain unanimous consent to have the bill discussed again. I have no feelings one way or another on the matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What I wanted to say was this: Would it not be wise to get an opinion from the Department of Justice with regard to the problem raised by the hon. member for Yukon so that we might know whether the opinion expressed by the former deputy minister of justice in 1952 is still valid? Important as this subject is, I doubt very much whether we should hastily refer it to a committee which has other matters before it, or which will perhaps have other matters before it, and then end up, possibly after several meetings have been held, with a conclusion similar to the one which was reached in 1952. I think the house could deal more suitably with a matter such as this if, prior to a reference to the committee, we were to get a statement from the Department of Justice given to us either through the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) or through the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) himself.
My suggestion, finally, would be that pending a report from the Minister of Justice based on the view of officials of the department we should let this matter stand in abeyance. If there is a suggestion by the Department of Justice that the situation has changed in the last 12 years and that there is reason for doing something by way of legislation, then the house can immediately, and without further debate, adopt the motion which has been put before us. I think this would be a more sensible course to follow than simply to refer the question to the committee.
I would not make such a suggestion had those who have already spoken on the subject not gone to such trouble to look into the earlier record. The statement made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) two weeks ago with regard to the criminal law and the record which has been brought to our attention by the hon. member for Yukon are, I think, deserving of attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would my hon. friend permit a question? I wonder if he would consider the possible desirability of doing the very thing he suggests in the committee itself. Speaking as one who happens at the moment to be a member of the external affairs committee, I think the first thing I would wish to do would be to get an opinion

from the deputy minister of justice. In fact, we might have him appear before the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There may be some wisdom in that, too. But this bill has now been before the house and I think we should have this information presented to us. It will be just as expeditious, I think, as the other proposal. It might be that the committee on external affairs would not decide to take the course of action suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It might wish to go into the subject matter at some length before calling for an opinion from the Department of Justice. If the information were reported to this house, then the whole thing would be complete here, and the records would be complete, too; it would not be necessary to jump from the record of a debate in this house to a report of the proceedings of the committee on external affairs.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I do not agree that this bill should go to the committee on external affairs, because there are some of us here today who wish to speak on this measure and who are not members of that committee. I should like, if I may, to read the purpose of the bill as outlined in the explanatory note. It says: "The purpose of this bill is made clear in the preamble thereof". Now I read the first part of the preamble, which states;
Whereas genocide is the committing of certain acts with intent to destroy, wholly or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such-
My definition of the term genocide-and I took it from a legal dictionary-is the extermination of a race. It is not the partial destruction of a race. I think the preamble is wrong. I think the definition of genocide contained in this bill is wrong.
I have in mind a statement made by members of this house on previous occasions with regard to races and religious groups. The paragraph I have read uses the phrase "destroy in whole or in part". I should like to give a definition of the word "destroy". According to the dictionary I consulted, it means to pull down, or undo, or demolish. I am sure that the term "pull down" used in the definition could be applied to statements such as I have made in this house on occasion with regard to religious groups. I do not necessarily agree, but I do not know what a judge is likely to say. I am thinking particu-arly about a discussion which took place
Business of the House
about a religious group in the west which was not paying income tax. Some hard things were said. We were not "pulling it down", but perhaps it could be interpreted that way by a judge.
I should like to know more about these terms used in the preamble and their legal definition, particularly the definition of the word "genocide". Since I became a member of parliament I have become very suspicious about these things. All those who have been speaking this afternoon on the subject have been lawyers and I am suspicious of the language used by lawyers because it does not mean, very often, what we laymen mean. One can find that out whenever he goes to a government department to ask for a definition. I spoke about this the other day, not for the first time, and it will not be the last time. In this the officials are backed up by the ministers because, as I have said before, the ministers are hostages of the departments.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know whether it is necessary to ask about the business for next week. Does interim supply still hold?


John Watson MacNaught: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Monday we will be considering interim supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For how many months interim supply will the government be asking?


John Watson MacNaught: Subject to the possibility of a different arrangement being worked out on Monday, we will be asking for two months interim supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the government like to consider three months, if we complete the dominion-provincial fiscal measure and pass interim supply in short order, and then adjourn?


John Watson MacNaught: No. We have to conclude the item of business after fiscal arrangements, which is, of course, the flag resolution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was just being co-operative and I thought the government side would appreciate a holiday.


John Watson MacNaught: As deputy house leader I appreciate very much the co-operation of the house leader for the Progressive Conservative party.


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

Monday, July 27, 1964