1964-05-04

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to make a brief statement to the house with reference to provisional standing order 39A, under which certain questions are debated after ten o'clock on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The chairman of the subcommittee on procedure, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), undertook on Friday that the operation of this standing order would be reviewed in the light of certain misunderstandings of last Thursday night. That subcommittee has reviewed the matter, and the results of its deliberations thus far were reported to the committee on procedure and organization at noon today.
As a result of our discussions the Chair feels that it will be possible to interpret standing order 39A in a way that will be fair to all hon. members, and the Chair expresses confidence that with the co-operation of all hon. members, difficulties of interpretation can be avoided. The subcommittee has suggested certain guide lines which the Chair feels will be most helpful. If further difficulties arise the subcommittee will recommend an appropriate amendment to the standing order, but it is hoped that this will not be necessary.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to let the twenty fifth anniversary of the national film board, a corporation which Canada should rightly be proud of, go by without mentioning that fact to the house.
It was on May 2, 1939, that the royal assent was given to the bill establishing the national film board. If we look up the record, we see that the members unanimously recognized the necessity of creating an agency whose function would be to produce and distribute films in the national interest.
The act clearly defined the role of the
board: to produce, among other things, appropriate films which would get Canadians to know one another better and make everybody more deeply aware of the scope and diversity of their country. In the National Film Act, as revised in 1950, one of the tasks of the national film board was defined along the same lines but in a broader sense. The new act provided that the board should produce and distribute and also promote the production and distribution of films designed to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to dwell at great length on how well the national film board has achieved those stated objectives. I believe this has been amply proven in the past 25 years. Moreover, recognition has been won throughout the world in open competition against the best films that other countries could produce. National film board productions are being shown to groups in communities here and abroad as well as on theatre screens and on television in Canada and in more than 100 other countries. Every day brings further evidence of the value and influence of national film board productions as a positive force for telling Canada's story effectively.
On this twenty fifth anniversary of its formation I should like to extend sincere congratulations to the national film board, its management and its personnel for the effective results achieved in its first 25 years, together with the wish that the future may enhance the board's usefulness to Canada and add further laurels to the many it has already won.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the statement just made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) is concerned, I would not like to miss this opportunity to add our congratulations to the management of the national film board for the wonderful work that organization has accomplished in the last 25 years. It has trained technicians, specialists and qualified people in the field of film industry.
But even if we celebrate today the twenty fifth anniversary of the national film board, this should not be a time to rest on our laurels, especially when there is a very pronounced trend in Canada toward the setting

Statement on Uranium Stockpiling up of a film business even more extended and developed. I think it should be time for the national film board to take the responsibility of creating, maybe in another field of the film industry, full-length films which are not made in Canada at the present time. I think that this is essential in view of the efficiency of Canadian technicians and because of the value of the artists we have in Canada-to whom I take pleasure in paying a tribute- because of the numerous stories and writers we could use to produce full-length films. It is an industry which is practically non existent in Canada and which could be set up.
Now that the national film board is entering into its second quarter of a century of existence, it should participate in the setting up of an industry of full-length films in our country.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the statement of the Secretary of State. The New Democratic party joins with others in wishing success to the national film board in its next 25 years. The teaching profession of Canada is well aware of the good work done by the national film board. They have made many films which have been shown in Canadian schools and have been able to interpret the various parts of the country to each other. I suggest to the Secretary of State that these films have been in rather short supply in many of the provinces, and it might be a very good idea for the centennial for the film board to consult with the departments of education of the various provinces for the purpose of seeing that more films interpreting Canada to Canadians are prepared. The film board has done a good job in this connection and we wish them well in the future.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, no matter how hard one tries to expedite the business of the house one finds it is impossible because of the proliferation of parties. All of us must have been in agreement with what was said. Because all would be in agreement I neglected to add my words to what had been so well said by the Secretary of State.



URANIUM


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to make the following statement regarding uranium stockpiling. The

government has reviewed the uranium situation in the light of the latest available information and has come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to extend the stockpiling policy beyond the one year period specified in the Prime Minister's announcement of June 26, 1963.
By the end of this period the government will have invested about $25 million in a uranium stockpile. This policy was designed to provide a breathing space for the affected communities by enabling certain mines to maintain employment until July 1, 1964.
While the present stockpile will be useful in ensuring continuity of supplies, it is the government's view that continued stockpiling would have a depressing effect on the markets for uranium. It would hold back the revival of demand for which, as the Prime Minister said in his June, 1963 statement, the eventual prospects are good. In the meantime the government is continuing to explore the development of alternative sources of employment in the communities where there are uranium mines.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the announcement just made by the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce may I say that I know this announcement will come as a great blow and shock to the people of the Bancroft area. Some will perhaps say that the mining industry in any locality is not permanent, and this is to some extent true; but in order to provide hydro, water services, accommodation, schools and churches to meet the demands of such industry the local municipalities and councils must make plans and spend large amounts of money. With the cessation of operations the taxpayers of the area are then left holding the bag and must somehow meet the extra taxes and debentures that are levied against the municipalities.
I said a moment ago that the announcement would come as a blow and a shock. I say this because many of the people of the area had put their faith and trust in the statements made before the last election, and at this time I should like to read into Hansard a statement which appeared a few days before the last election.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Statements on motions should be short and factual.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I assure you it will be factual. The statement is contained in a full page advertisement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe this point arose last week and was ruled against. The fact is that this is not the time to do this.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, this morning just before lunch I received a telegram which I should like to put on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not the time for debate. This is the time for short comment on the statement made by the minister.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I will not read the telegram. I will produce it later. Once again the government is befuddled and is making decisions before it has the facts straight. Would it not have been better to call in experts in the field of uranium and electrical power production and get the views of these experts?
It has been stated in the evidence submitted concerning the Columbia river treaty that electrical power can be produced for as little as four mills per kilowatt by means of thermal power. Only this week the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that Canada had moved to the front in the world production of nuclear power projects. If no provision is made to keep the present uranium mines in production at the termination of the present contracts this summer, two uranium mines will be left in Canada, one a crown corporation with contracts to 1967 and the other a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign company with contracts to 1970. With two uranium mines to provide fuel for nuclear power, these two mines will benefit from increased prices for their product and no nuclear power industry will suffer as a result of the lack of fuel supply. A reasonable stockpile of uranium would cushion the impact. Mines encouraged to operate at a reduced rate over a period of slack demand would be in a position to assume a normal operating role and sustain a normal nuclear power development.
The people of Bancroft, Mr. Speaker, will think of this as black Monday rather than black Friday, a day for which the Liberals are now famous. The people of Canada are again living in fear because they do not know what those who occupy the front benches will bring forth next.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for his spontaneous, objective and non-partisan comment on the statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe the Prime Minister's observation was improper. He knows very well the promise he made to the people of Bancroft.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may speak to a point of order, since the right hon. gentleman intervened, I would point out to him that this
4,	1964
Statement on Uranium Stockpiling government has invested $25 million in order to give these communities a chance to get out of the mess in which the previous government left them.


John George Diefenbaker: This does not answer the fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -that the statement the Prime Minister made with regard to Bancroft was entirely unjustified by subsequent events, and that is the reason there is objection to the reading of what the hon. gentleman wished to place before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bum-aby-Coquitlam.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I had not quite finished my statement. A few days ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do hope the statement will not continue too long, and that it will be conciliatory in tone.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: It is very brief. A few days ago, in reply to a question asked by a member on this side of the house concerning low water levels in the great lakes, the reply from the Liberal benches was "Pray for rain".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This has
nothing to do with the matter under discussion.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: am not aware that remarks on motions are supposed to be non-partisan, Mr. Speaker. This is certainly a new interpretation of the rules. The comments of the Prime Minister are hardly likely to set a good example in that regard.
There will be widespread disappointment in some of the mining areas of Canada at the government's announcement that it is going to discontinue the stockpiling of uranium after the end of the year. I have not got a copy of the minister's statement, but I gather from his remarks the government feels that to continue stockpiling uranium would, in some way or other, adversely affect any recurrence of demand that might take place in the future. That is a very difficult contention for me to accept. It seems to me if the government is convinced that there is going to be a recurrence of demand, this is all the more reason for having a stockpile on hand to meet that demand.
What is even more important is that steps be taken to keep the uranium industry alive as a viable operation against a demand which the government itself says is likely to recur in the near future. I hope the minister and the government will give further consideration to this before finally cutting off the present stockpiling arrangements which will

Statement on Uranium Stockpiling mean the end to many communities, and which will mean the day may come when we will want to produce uranium and shall find we have not the necessary industrial organization to do so.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think the government would be very well advised to reconsider this sudden cutting off of the stockpiling measures introduced a year ago. With some pride Canada has been the leader in the development of the peaceful uses of uranium. On a number of occasions the Minister of Trade and Commerce has mentioned this to the house, and this step in cutting off the program will have a severe impact on many communities which it has kept going through periods of slack demand.
As I say, I think it would be advisable for the government to reconsider this matter and perhaps introduce a gradual decline rather than a sudden cut-off.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, on hearing about this very important question of uranium production in Canada, I could not help thinking of the riding of the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Pearson), namely Algoma East, where Elliot Lake is situated and where people had to rely on their savings and energies eight or ten years ago to survive.
That municipality is not the only one of that kind. Last night I was in the Asbestos mines area, in Thetford Mines, where between 650 and 700 employees and heads of families who had been working for 15 or 20 years will be laid off within a month or 60 days. The question is the same all over the country.
Mr. Speaker, the uranium question was very important just a few years ago, when we had a Conservative government with the present Leader of the Opposition as prime minister of Canada. At that time we could have obtained 25 year contracts with Great Britain, but we were satisfied with the promises of the Americans who told us: We will give you better orders.
Today we are facing problems which should have been settled four, five or seven years ago.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not true.


David Réal Caouette: This is true, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: No, a complete invention.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is true, and he knows that Elliot Lake was going exactly where it is today when he was the prime minister of Canada.


Mr. Speaker, that situation is not new. It repeats itself, for instance, year after year, or every five or ten years.
Today the Prime Minister of Canada is faced, in his own constituency, with the problem arising now in Thetford Mines, concerning asbestos.
I will say this: as long as we have a government, be it Conservative or Liberal, which plays up to financial interests giving orders from the United States, we shall never become masters of our economy.
There is not a single one of us who does not want to help all his fellow citizens, be they from Elliot Lake, Thetford Mines, Rouyn-Noranda or wherever they may be in Canada. We wish to help them, but we will do so only if we assume our responsibilities.
In my opinion, under the present circumstances the Prime Minister of Canada and the present government must assume their responsibilities and not to do as I saw on T.V. a few days ago, when the Quebec premier told us that we were becoming our own masters in Quebec while the General Motors Corporation was establishing an industry in the Montreal area, namely at Ste Therese de Blainville. Who will profit by that industry? The workers? No. Who? The General Motors Corporation. Who owns the General Motors Corporation? The Americans. Who owns at the present time any important corporation in Canada? The Americans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not General Motors and the potential establishment of a factory; the question is uranium mines.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that we want to control our own economy. But, on the other hand, it is up to the Canadian government to assume its responsibilities. In so far as it will do so, we, members of the Ralliement Creditistes or of the Social Credit, shall support the government, but we shall refuse to go along with freakish or nonsensical projects unlikely to bring about any improvement in our province or in other provinces.
Indeed, we want to become responsible for, as well as control our own economy. To this end the government must necessarily assume its responsibilities. And we are ready to endorse the government to that extent.



On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, following the

announcement today with respect to uranium would the Prime Minister be prepared to say whether there was any basis for the advertisement in the Stirling News-Argus of April 4, 1963, which read as follows: I am just taking an excerpt:
In the near future the present contracts will be terminated and Conservative government has not committed itself to any action to continue the mines.
Mr. Pearson has promised the Liberal candidate-
That is William A. Shannon.
-that if he is elected he will invest in the future and will maintain the mines in operation and stockpile uranium until required.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of having made that statement in that form, but I will be glad to look into it.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Friday, May 1, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on estimates, presented to the house on Friday, May 1, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What was the gross and net Income of the C.N.R. in 1962-63?
2.	What were the expenses of the C.N.R. In 1962-63?
3.	What is the total debt of the C.N.R.?
4.	What was the increase of that debt in 1962-63?
5.	How many former railways did the C.N.R. acquire since its inception?
6.	What amounts were paid for the purchase of each of those railways?
7.	How was the payment made in each case?
8.	What was the amount of the debt taken over in each case by the C.N.R.?
9.	What is the amount of interest the C.N.R. has paid toward each such debt since the purchase of those companies?
10.	Does the C.N.R. intend to acquire other companies in the immediate future?
11.	How many miles of railroad does the C.N.R. own in the United States?
12.	What agreements govern this property in the United States, and when are they renewable?
20220-182J
Questions
13.	What was the total amount of business of the C.N.R. in the United States in 1962-63?
14.	Is the C.N.R. governed by the same regulations as the American companies in its operations in the United States?
15.	Does it benefit from special privileges, and, if
so, what are they?
16.	Does the C.N.R. employ American personnel and, if so, how many, in what positions, and what salaries were paid them in 1962-63?
Answer:	The management of Canadian
National Railways advises as follows:
1.	Gross railway operating revenues: 1962,
$701,622,754;	1963, $725,181,334.
Net railway operating income or (loss): 1962, $(5,819,337); 1963, $5,011,665.
2.	Railway operating expenses:	1962,
$707,442,091; 1963, $720,169,669.
3.	Total long term debt as at December 31st, 1963: $1,791,253,526.
4.	Long term debt decreased in 1963 by $51,092,340.
5.	6, 7, 8, 9. The subject matter of the question involves capital revision proposals which have been submitted to the government in relation to the financial structure of the system. As it involves complex technical calculations, the proposal, in order to be understood, must be reviewed in the whole and, therefore, it is not possible to give a brief answer.
10.	Nothing in contemplation.
11.	1,593 miles.
12.	There are no agreements governing the company's property in the United States.
13.	The railway operating revenues of
U.S. subsidiary companies were:	1962,
$69,038,691; 1963, $72,826,478.
14.	Yes.
15.	No.
16.	Yes, there are 6,873 persons employed in the company's United States operations.


MACTAQUAC DAM
Mr. MacRae: Has any study been made of the possible effects on navigation between the Mactaquac dam and the mouth of the Saint John river after completion of the dam, it being generally understood that the water level of the river would be reduced and, if so, what were the conclusions reached?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The executive director of the Atlantic development board advises that:
The federal Department of Public Works has made studies of the effects of Mactaquac on navigation on the lower Saint John river in co-operation with the provincial authorities. It is not expected that the operation of the dam would have any appreciable effect on average water levels.

Questions


GRANT TO PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Does the government intend to give a grant to the Canadian peace research institute and, if so, when is this to be done and what is the amount contemplated?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: At present the government is not contemplating a grant of funds to assist the Canadian peace research institute. In response to requests by the institute for advice and other assistance the appropriate departments of the government have responded favourably and have attempted to meet these requests. To the extent possible, informal assistance of this kind will continue to be provided.


MACTAQUAC DAM
Mr. Flemming (Victoria-: Carleion):
Have studies been made as to the effects of pollution of the Saint John river following construction of the Mactaquac dam?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The executive director of the Atlantic development board advises that:
We are informed that the New Brunswick electric power commission and the New Brunswick water authority have already carried out certain studies on this matter, and further studies are under way.


MEETING OF EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITIES
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government giving consideration to the requests of the Canadian teachers' federation made in their brief to the Prime Minister in November 1963 "that the federal government take the initiative in calling a widely-representative meeting of provincial ministers of education, their advisers, and those national bodies most vitally concerned, to consider the feasibility of co-operation in searching for a means of alleviating the inequalities" fin education) "which now exist"?


Mr. Davis:: At the federal-provincial conference of November 1963, the Prime Minister referred to the representations which the Canadian teachers' federation had made to the federal government. These had been received some two weeks earlier. As there was no response from the provinces it could only be assumed that, in their opinion, this matter should not be subject to federal-provincial consultation at that time. Nor has any representation since been received from the provinces which would suggest any basic change in their position regarding this matter.


RESEARCH INTO EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	What research has the Department of National Health and Welfare carried out on the general effects

of water fluoridation upon the human body in general, in addition to research on its effects on the teeth?
2.	How much money has been provided for such research?


Mr. Munro:: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare, in its studies, primarily investigated the dental effects of water fluoridation. However no ill-effects of a systemic nature attributable to the presence of fluoride in the water supply have been reported by the health authorities or by the practising physicians in the fluoridated cities studied by this department. The medical aspects of fluoridation have of course received a great deal of careful scrutiny in the world scientific literature.
2.	Cost estimates are not applicable.


FEDERAL LABOUR CODE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 63 7-Mr. Langlois:
1.	What progress is being made toward the establishment of a federal labour code?
2.	Who are the officials on that committee?
3.	When will this project be completed?
Mr. MacEachen:: 1. Proposals in the labour standards field are under active consideration at this time.
2.	No special Commons committee exists for this purpose.
3.	It is hoped proposals will be placed before the house later this session.
water LEVELS, GEORGIAN BAY AND LAKE HURON


Mr. Hynard: 1.	What studies have been made on the extremely low water levels in Georgian bay and lake Huron?
2.	What has been the annual precipitation per year over the last 12 years in the Georgian bay area?
3.	Has there been any communication with the international joint waterways and, if so, what have been the findings?
4.	Is any consideration being given to a dam at Sarnia similar to the one on the St. Mary's river?


Mr. Stewart:: 1. Water levels and run-off in the great lakes basin, including lake Huron and Georgian bay, have for many years been recorded and studied as part of a continuing program of research into major Canadian water resources. Special studies have been made from time to time in response to requests from the international joint commission; in this context, see the statement by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the House of Commons on April 14, 1964 (Hansard, page 2126).
2.	The annual precipitation (snow and rain) per year over the last 12 years in the Georgian bay area has been as follows:
1952	31.25	inches1953	32.24	"1954	37.99	1955	29.61	tt1956	31.19	**
3.	Although the international joint commission has not been asked to study the matter of levels of lake Huron, some consideration was given to the question as part of the investigation of factors affecting the levels of lake Ontario under a reference to the commission from the governments of Canada and the United States dated June 25, 1952. The commission was not, however, requested to make any findings in so far as the levels of lake Huron were concerned.
4.	No. Consideration is being given to the placing of submerged sills in the St. Clair river which would have the effect of improving the low levels of lake Huron and Georgian bay.


MACTAQUAC POWER DEVELOPMENT, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What program is envisaged lor multi-purpose development ol the Saint John river valley resources under ARDA?
2.	II the Mactaquae hydro electric project is proceeded with, what is the estimated expenditure on behalf ol the federal government?
Questions
3.	What officials ol ARDA are specifically involved?
4.	Has a firm of consultants been engaged to carry out studies in this regard?
5.	What is the estimated expenditure of such projects on behalf of the federal government and on behalf of the government of New Brunswick?
6.	What departments of government are involved other than the Department of Agriculture?


Mr. Sauve:: 1. There has been some discussion between officials of ARDA and the government of the province of New Brunswick regarding the possibility of ARDA being involved in the development of the Saint John river valley. To date no request has been received from the government of New Brunswick for consideration of an ARDA project in this area.
2 to 5. N/A.
6.	Both the departments of agriculture and forestry have been involved in these discussions.


ARDA PROJECTS APPROVED, MANITOBA
Mr. Stefanson: What projects have been approved with the province of Manitoba which come under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act since January 1, 1964, giving date of approval and the cost of each project?


Maurice Sauvé: Five projects have been approved in the province of Manitoba under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act since January 1, 1964. These projects the date of their approval and the cost of each are listed as follows:
Project	Date	CostA study of the interlake region with the objective of facilitating rural development.	Jan.	30,	1964	$67,000To investigate various types of well development and construction in glacial till.	Apr.	3,	1964	15,000To continue work in Manitoba in connection with the Canada land inventory during 1964-65.	Apr.	10,	1964	21,500A study to determine those factors which influence occupational aspirations and school drop-outs in the interlake area.	Apr.	13,	1964	10,750To investigate and evaluate ground water supplies in southwest Manitoba.	Apr.	13,	1964	39,000


INQUIRIES ON ARDA PROJECTS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	In implementing ARDA, what amounts has the federal government paid to each province in 1962-63 and 1963-64?
2.	In implementing ARDA, what amounts has the federal government granted to each province for drainage and water conservation?
3.	Under ARDA does the federal government authorize payments to the provinces only for specific and jointly approved projects?
4.	Under ARDA, if a project is accepted by a provincial government, is it accepted automatically by the federal government?

Answer: 1. In implementing ARDA, the federal government paid to each of the prov-

Questions
inces, for the year 1962-63 and the year 1963-64 up to now, the following amounts:
Province	1962-63	1963-64Nfld.	-	$73,038.04P.E.I.	$14,984.43	777.10N.S.	29,861.59	60,433.94N.B.	62,100.66	90,446.81Que.	216,649.82	481,486.17Ont.	-	32,089.61Man.	56,530.89	640,429.76Sask.	161,672.72	586,885.34Alta.	-	221,011.13B.C.	-	30,549.442.	In implementing ARDA, the federal government granted to each province for drainage and water and soil conservation, for the fiscal year 1962-63 and 1963-64 up to now, the following amounts:Province	1962-63	1963-64Nfld.	-	-P.E.I.	$ 4,761.99	-N.S.	16,648.00	$38,253.68N.B.	30,750.00	41,645.68Que.	216,649.82	360,336.19Ont.	-	*-Man.	15,985,85'	466,672.01Sask.	33,699.54	44,942.12Alta.	-	109,621.49B.C.	-	-3.	Yes.4.	No.


PRESERVATION OF EUCHALON RUNS, PACIFIC COAST
Mr. Howard: Has any complaint been brought to the attention of the government regarding herring seiners on the Pacific coast catching euchalon in their nets and, if so, what was the nature of the complaint, the area involved and the suggestions, if any, made to preserve the euchalon runs?
Answer: The department's attention was drawn to allegedly large catches of eulachon by herring seiners. The allegation was to the effect that eulachon were being taken in quantities from a few pounds to thousands of tons.
The facts are that on March 8 because of poor fishing three herring seiners moved into Iceberg bay in the Nass estuary to prospect. This was not normal in that sets for herring are not usually made above Somerville island. One seiner made a set and found eulachon rather than herring. He immediately spilled the net. However, some eulachon did hang up in his net and they were sold with the herring he had.
It is felt that the circumstances were unusual and that present protection for eulachon will be ample.


* CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATES, MR. AND MRS. JOSEPH BUCKIE, HAMILTON, ONT.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Has one Joseph Buckie of Hamilton, Ontario applied for and/or received a certificate of Canadian citizenship and, if so, what was the cost thereof to him?
2.	Did Mrs. Buckie have to pay any money regarding her Canadian citizenship and, if so, how much and for what reason?
3.	When did Joseph Buckie come to Canada and what age was he then?
4.	Did Joseph Buckie serve in the armed forces of Canada and, if so, during what dates did he so serve and in what areas of the world and for what purposes?
5.	Was Joseph Buckie wounded during his years of service in the armed forces and, if so, how many times?
6.	Is Mrs. Buckie a natural bom Canadian?
7.	Does any authority exist for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the governor in council to refund the moneys paid by Mr. and Mrs. Buckie and, if so, will that authority be exercised favourably?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. Yes. Mr. Buckie applied under section 10(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act and was granted a certificate of Canadian citizenship on March 12, 1964, paying a statutory fee of $10.
2.	Mrs. Buckie was born in Canada but lost Canadian status upon marriage in 1945. She reacquired Canadian citizenship on October 22, 1963, under section 10(3) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, paying the statutory fee of $1.
3.	Joseph Buckie came to Canada on December 1, 1926, at the age of 11.
4 and 5. I am advised by the Department of Veterans Affairs that a Joseph Buckie served in the armed forces of Canada from September 19, 1939, to June 26, 1945. He served in Canada, the United Kingdom and continental Europe, and participated in the raid on Dieppe. Mr. Buckie served as a private and as a lance corporal in the infantry. His unit was the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry. Joseph Buckie was wounded on two occasions during his period of service in the armed forces of Canada.
6.	Yes.
7.	No authority is provided by the present legislation for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the governor in council to refund the moneys paid by Mr. and Mrs. Buckie. In view of the circumstances, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is writing to Mr. Buckie today and, as a gesture of gratitude and respect for his war service, Mr. Tremblay is forwarding to Mr. Buckie a personal cheque in the amount of $10. The fees at present required under schedule-B of the citizenship regulations have received study by the minister and are to be the subject of recommendations to the government.


PROPORTION OF PAYMENTS UNDER ARDA
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Are the 50 per cent federal payments to the provinces under ARDA conditional on the payment by the provinces of 50 per cent of the value of work done?
2.	In carrying out an ARDA project, can a provincial government obtain payment of part of its 50 per cent share of the cost of the project from the taxpayers living where the work is performed?

Answer: 1. In order for the government to make a payment to a province, that province must have in fact incurred some expenses. The federal government computes its payment on a part of those expenses.
2.	The amount of expenses shared is supposed to be that of the net expenses incurred by the province after deduction of any income or reimbursement collected by the province.


INVESTIGATION INTO PRICE FIXING IN STEEL
Mr, Priiiie: Has the government reviewed the action of the anti-trust division of the department of justice of the United States wherein six anti-trust charges have been laid against steel producing companies since 1962 and, if so, has the director of investigations and research (Combines Investigations Act) carried out any investigation during the past 12 months to determine if there is any evidence of price fixing by steel producing companies in Canada?


Mr. Favreau:: The director informs me that press reports of these proceedings in the United States have come to his attention. The general practice, however, is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry has been or is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals, unless and until a report is published.


FLOODING OF C.N.R. RAILWAY LINE BY MACTAQUAC DAM
Mr. MacRae: What is the value of the Canadian National Railway line that will be flooded as a result of the building of the Mactaquac dam?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The executive director of the Atlantic development board advises that:
We are informed that the cost of relocating this line has been estimated at approximately $11 million.


HEALTH STUDY, LOWER SAINT JOHN RIVER
Mr. MacRae: Have studies been made as to the effect on public health of the lower level of the Saint John river between Mactaquac and Saint John city resulting from the construction of the dam?
Questions


John Whitney Pickersgill: The executive director of the Atlantic development board advises that:
Since in the opinion of the provincial authorities the level of the river below Mactaquac would not be appreciably affected by the dam, the matter has not arisen.


SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNITS NECESSITATED BY MACTAQUAC DAM
Mr. MacRae: 1.	How many sewage disposal units will be constructed following the construction of the Mactaquac dam?
2.	Where will they be located?
3.	Will the city of Fredericton be reimbursed for expenditure for any sewage disposal plant made necessary by the lower level of water resulting
from the dam at Mactaquac?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The executive director of the Atlantic development board advises that:
We are informed by provincial authorities that the question of sewage disposal on the Saint John river is a matter of continuing study.


* INTERPROVINCIAL GAMES, QUEBEC
Mr. Marcoux: Has the government agreed to pay a share of organizing the next interprovincial games to be held in 1966 at Quebec and, if so (a) is there any reason for delaying the announcement wtih regard to the payment of any such grant (b) have representations been made to the province of Quebec to have the games postponed until 1967, the centennial year?


John Carr Munro: The possibility of federal aid for the interprovincial games for 1966 has been receiving active consideration. The president of the Canadian amateur sports federation, which has requested support for the games, has been asked to supply certain information regarding capital costs. When this is received it is hoped that a decision can be given regarding federal aid to the project.
(b) No.


REPLACEMENT OF LAND FLOODED BY MACTAQUAC DAM
Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-: Carleton):
Will the government undertake, under the ARDA program, to secure land of satisfactory quality to replace cultivated land to be flooded by the Mactaquac development on the Saint John river in New Brunswick which has been proven to have special characteristics for growing special crops and, if so, what portion of the total cost of such land will be paid by the federal government?


Maurice Sauvé: Although there have been discussions regarding studies being undertaken under the ARDA program in connection with the Mactaquac development on the Saint John river in New Brunswick, no submission has yet been made by the government of New Brunswick to Ottawa under the ARDA

Questions
program. Accordingly, no details are available as to what will be requested and no commitments have been made by the federal government under the ARDA program.


TELEVISION RECEPTION, CHICOUTIMI DISTRICT, QUEBEC
Mr, Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Have surveys been made in the parishes of L'Anse Saint John, Petite Saguenay and Riviere Eternity to determine the quality of the reception of television programs from station CJPM-TV of Chicoutimi and station CKRS-TV of Jonquiere?
2.	Is consideration being given to the erection of control towers or relay stations?

Answer: 1 and 2. In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned, the answer is "No".


M.M.R.A. MOTOR VEHICLE TENDERS, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	For what reason was the firm of D. A. Casey Limited, Amherst, not invited to tender on three of the four motor vehicles purchased by the M.M.R.A. in Cumberland between April 1, 1963, and March 31, 1964?
2.	Was a Ford dealer invited to tender on the motor vehicles purchased by the M.M.R.A. from Cameron & Wilson Ltd. on two occasions and Rivers & Dickinson Ltd. on the other occasion?
3.	Did G. H. Harrison Ltd. tender on any or all of the four motor vehicles and, if so, where is this firm situated and what automobile agency do they hold?


Maurice Sauvé: 1. None except that D. A. Casey Ltd., Amherst, did not handle a vehicle having the specifications required for two of the three vehicles.
2.	No Ford dealers were invited to tender on the three vehicles as Ford vehicles did not meet the specifications required for two of the vehicles.
3.	G. M. Harrison Ltd., Church street, Amherst, who held a dealership for Chrysler, Plymouth, Fargo and Valiant products, tendered on one of the four vehicles.


ANNUAL REPORT OF POSTMASTER GENERAL
Mr. McBain: 1.	How many copies of the annual report of the Postmaster General for the year ending March 31,
1963,	which was tabled in the house on April 3,
1964,	were printed?
2.	What was the total cost of printing?
3.	Were there errors in the first report?
4.	Was a second printing carried out in order to correct pages 3 and 5?
5.	Was the whole report reprinted, if not, what portion?
6.	What was the cost of reprinting this corrected report?
7.	Does the Postmaster General assume full responsibility for the errors?


Mr. Nicholson:: 1. 1,550 (English); 400 (French).

2.	$1,750.81 (total cost including reprinting).
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes, the whole report.
6.	$308.63.
7.	Yes, to the extent that the minister is responsible for clerical errors made by employees of his department. The errors in question were detected by the minister and immediately corrected as reported in Hansard of April 16.


WANIPIGOW, MAN., POSTMASTER
Mr. Slogan: Has a postmaster been appointed for Wanipigow post office in Manitoba and, if so, what applications were received and what is the name and address of the successful applicant?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes. Applications were received from the following: Mr. Lyle Edwin Barker, Mr. George Bushie, Mrs. Lorraine Moneyas.
The appointment of Mr. Lyle Edwin Barker, Wanipigow, has been approved.


CHARCOAL PLANT, FORT ALEXANDER INDIAN RESERVE, MAN.
Mr. Slogan: Has a request been received by the government for the carrying out of a feasibility study for a charcoal plant or other industry at Fort Alexander Indian reserve and, if so (a) will the Department of Citizenship and Immigration be participating in this study (b) what part will it play (c) what financial assistance will be given to this project by the Indian affairs branch (d) when is it anticipated that such a study would be carried out?


Hubert Badanai: Yes. (a) Yes; (b) and (c) the extent of departmental participation and financial assistance is under consideration; (d) during 1964.


NEW INDUSTRIES, BRANTFORD AREA
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many new industries have settled in the "designated area" of Brantford since the order in council was passed?
2.	What are the names of these new industries?
3.	What are the estimated incentive payments that will be made to each firm?
4.	How many employees are presently employed by each firm?
5.	How many of these firms are American subsidiaries?
6.	Where were they situated before moving to Brantford?


Mr. Drury:: 1. Since this legislation was enacted on December 5, 1963, and up to date May 4, 1964, 16 new businesses have declared their intention to establish in Brantford in such a manner as to benefit from the designated area tax incentive program. This was contained in paragraph 3 of the resolution on the Income Tax Act adopted by the house on April 28.

2.	Any announcement of a particular firm's intentions regarding location, type of business and planned employment is made by the firm itself. Premature disclosure by the government could affect adversely the establishment of a new business.
3.	Eligible businesses receive a three year exemption from the federal income tax and special capital cost allowances on machinery, equipment and buildings. No forecast of the value of the advantages to the new businesses is available.
4.	The planned employment reported by the new businesses is 1,313. No breakdown is given for the reasons shown in 2 above.
5.	The program is administered irrespective of the national ownership of the new businesses. According to such information as is available, four firms are subsidiaries of American companies.
6.	Two only of the new businesses have vacated premises elsewhere to locate in Brantford.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD.
Mr. Nugent: 1.	When was Northern Transportation Company Limited formed as a separate entity from Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited?
2.	Who are the present shareholders of Northern Transportation Company Limited, and what is their present shareholding?
Answer: 1. Northern Transportation Company (1947) Limited was incorporated in 1947 under the Companies Act, and in 1952 the name was changed to Northern Transportation Company Limited. The company is the successor of a company known as Northern Transportation Company Limited, organized in 1934 under the laws of Alberta. In 1936 all shares in Northern Transportation Company Limited were acquired by Eldorado Gold Mines Limited. These shares were a part of the assets of Eldorado Gold Mines Limited (which in 1943 became known as Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited) acquired by the Crown when the shares of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited were expropriated by order in council P.C. 535 of January 27, 1944.
2.	Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, 1,514 shares; each of six directors, one qualifying share each, held in trust for Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited.


ELDORADO MINING LIMITED PROFIT
Mr. Nugent: 1.	Does order In council P.C. 535, January 27, 1944, expressly state that Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited shall not make a pecuniary gain to the company?
2.	Did Eldorado make a profit and, if so, how much while this order in council was in effect?
3.	How much of this profit, if any, was attributable to the operation of Northern Transportation Company Limited?
Questions
Answer: 1 and 2. Order in council P.C. 535 January 27, 1944 states in part as follows:
"Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited is hereby declared to be a body corporate and politic within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, but, on the issue of letters patent by the Secretary of State, as hereinafter provided, shall be a body corporate and politic without share capital, and shall consist of such persons as are from time to time named by the minister of munitions and supply, and shall have for its purpose the exercise and performance in Canada or elsewhere, without pecuniary gain to such corporation, of such of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the minister of munitions and supply as the minister of munitions and supply desired to delegate to such corporation."
Pursuant to this order, a charter was issued by the Secretary of State to Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited (under the name of Eldorado Mining and Refining) which charter replaced the charter originally issued under the Ontario companies act.
By order in council P.C. 8265 October 27, 1944 the incorporation was approved of a company known as "Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited", to which was to be conveyed, transferred and assigned all property, assets and rights of Eldorado Mining and Refining in consideration of the assumption by Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited of all the obligations and liabilities of Eldorado Mining and Refining, and the issuance of fully paid up shares of the capital stock of Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited in an amount approximately equivalent to the net value of such property, assets and rights, all of which shares (other than the qualifying shares of directors) were issued to the minister of munitions and supply in trust for His Majesty the King in right of Canada. No pecuniary gain, therefore, resulted to Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited while the said order in council P.C. 535 was in effect.
3. Answered by 1 and 2.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.- PAYMENT OF TAXES
Mr. Nugent: When did Northern Transportation Company Limited begin to pay (a) federal tax (b) provincial tax (c) municipal tax?
Answer: (a) 1952; (b) has always paid applicable provincial (or territorial) taxes; (c) has always made grants in lieu of municipal taxes.

Questions


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.- OPERATION OF TUG
Mr. Nugent: Did Northern Transportation Company Limited ever operate its tug Radium Dew on the Mackenzie river without proper licence and, if so, was it prosecuted for so doing?
Answer: Yes; no.
NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD._____


LICENSING OF EQUIPMENT
Mr. Nugent: 1.	Is Northern Transportation Company Limited equipment licensed for the whole of the area in which it operates i.e., the Athabasca region and the Mackenzie river area?
2.	Was it always so licensed by the board of transport commissioners?
3.	If not, when was the licensing changed and why?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	1956-to obtain flexibility in operation.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.    MOVING OF EQUIPMENT
Mr. Nugent: Has Northern Transportation Company Limited moved any of its equipment from the Athabasca area to the Mackenzie river area and, if so, how much and in what years?
Answer: Yes; all equipment except one tug was built at Waterways in the Athabasca area. Since 1956 the movement of barges between these areas has been as follows: 1956, 24 built, used on Athabasca and moved to MacKenzie; 1958, one moved, Athabasca to MacKenzie; 1960, three moved, MacKenzie to Athabasca^ two moved, Athabasca to MacKenzie; 1963, five moved, Athabasca to MacKenzie, one for use of Yellowknife Transportation Company. The other four plus two more already in the MacKenzie area were utilized on Colville river operation.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD. PROFIT
Mr. Nugent: Does Northern Transportation Company Limited carry any D.E.W. line freight at a profit and, if so, how much is the profit and on what sections is the profit made?
Answer: Northern Transportation Company Limited carries D.E.W. line freight of the waterways to Tuktuk, the Hay river to Tuk-tuk, and the Norman Wells to Tuktuk sections of its route, and to the extent that a profit is generated on these sections, D.E.W. line freight contributes to that profit. The company's costing system is not designed to segregate costs and profits on D.E.W. line and other freight.


ELDORADO AVIATION LIMITED, HELICOPTER SERVICE
Mr. Nugent: Does Eldorado Aviation Company Limited make a profit from its D.E.W. line operations with its helicopter service?
Answer: No.


ELDORADO AVIATION LIMITED, WORK FOR NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LIMITED
Mr. Nugent: 1.	Does Eldorado Aviation Company Limited haul any freight for Northern Transportation Company Limited?
2.	Does Eldorado Aviation Company Limited haul any Northern Transportation personnel?
3.	Does Eldorado charge Northern Transportation for this work and, if so (a) at what rates (b) are they posted rates (c) are they authorized rates and, if so, by whom are they authorized?
Answer: 1. Yes; Eldorado Aviation Ltd., hauls supplies owned by and used by Northern Transportation Company Limited.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes, at cost, in accordance with the contract between Eldorado Aviation Limited and Northern Transportation Co., Ltd., referred to in the air transportation board class 5 licence issued to Eldorado Aviation Limited.



WESTERN AND CENTRAL D.E.W. LINE SUPPLY CONTRACT


Mr. Nugent: Has the government built wharves at Bell Rock, N.W.T., and McMurray. Alberta, at government expense and, if so, are these docks utilized by companies other than Northern Transportation Company Limited?
Answer: At McMurray, no. At Bell Rock, yes; used by companies other than N.T.C.L.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.  COLVILLE RIVER OPERATION
Mr. Nugent: 1.	Did Northern Transportation Company Limited bid a job on the Colville river in Alaska in 1963 and did this expand its operation?
2.	When this job was bid, was Northern Transportation Company Limited licensed for operation in the Colville river?
Answer: 1. Yes; yes, without expanding equipment.
2. Yes.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.-TYPE OF SERVICE
Mr. Nugent: Has there been any change by Northern Transportation Company Limited during 1963 from the type of service formerly offered by the Hudson's Bay Company in its Arctic operations?
Answer: No.


ARCTIC SERVICE, NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.
Mr. Nugent: 1.	Is the Banksland purchased from Hudson's Bay Company still being used?
2.	If so, how many points are served by this ship and what is the total tonnage carried?
3.	How many points in the Arctic now are served by Northern Transportation that were not served by (a) Northern Transportation before (b) Northern Transportation or Hudson's Bay Company before?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2.	All points in the western Arctic from Alaskan border through to Boothia peninsula. 1963 tonnage: 2,053.
3.	(a) Colville river, Alaska; and various points between Alaskan border and Boothia peninsula formerly served by Hudson's Bay Co., are now served by Northern Transportation Company Limited, and were not so served before purchase of Banksland.
(b) Colville river, Alaska, now served by Northern Transportation, not served by Northern Transportation or Hudson Bay Co., before purchase of Banksland.
Questions


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.  CARGO RATES
Mr. Nugent: What is Northern Transportation Company Limited ton-mile rate for general cargo between each of the following points and in each case what is the mileage between these points (a) McMurray, Alberta and Fort Fitzgerald, Alberta (b) McMurray, Alberta and Bushell, Saskatchewan?
Answer:	(a)	4.97 cents; 302 (on main
route); (b) 7.29 cents; 273 (off main route).


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.  PETROLEUM RATES
Mr. Nugent: What is Northern Transportation Company Limited ton-mile rate for bulk petroleum products between each of the following and in each case what is the mileage (a) Norman Wells. N.W.T. to Port Radium, N.W.T. (b) Norman Wells, N.W.T. to Yellowknife, N.W.T.?
Answer: (a) 16.8 cents; 298 miles; product put in barge, moved 80 miles, offloaded to storage tanks, pumped across eight-mile portage to other tanks, reloaded in barge, moved 40 miles, offloaded into storage tanks, then reloaded into large barges for delivery to final destination; average tonnage is only about 8 per cent of the comparable tonnage hauled on the Norman Wells-Yellowknife route.
(b) 2.7 cents; 695 miles; product placed in barge at Norman Wells, not rehandled until delivery at Yellowknife; and product constitutes a backhaul.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.  MACKENZIE SECTOR TONNAGE
Mr. Nugent: 1.	What was the total tonnage hauled by Northern Transportation Company Limited in the Mackenzie sector in 1963?
2.	How many barges were utilized in this sector during 1963?
3.	How many do they have licensed?
Answer: 1. 47,147 tons.
2.	Northern Transportation Co., utilized 52 barges in the Mackenzie sector in 1963, and chartered 1 barge to Yellowknife Transportation Co., Ltd. Mileage on Mackenzie sector 1,936 miles.
3.	97.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.  ATHABASCA SECTOR TONNAGE
Mr. Nugent: 1.	What is the total tonnage hauled by Northern Transportation Company Limited in the Athabasca sector during 1963?
2.	How many barges were utilized in this sector during 1963?
3.	How many do they have licensed?
Answer: 1. 71,411 tons.

Questions
2.	37 barges were utilized by Northern Transportation Company Limited in the Athabasca sector during 1963. Mileage on Athabasca sector 692 miles.
3.	97.
4.	Did Canadian Industries Limited make a survey at Chandler in order to determine if the rock required for the work could be obtained on site and, if so, when was the survey made, how much did it most, and what did it establish?


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION LTD.-D.E.W. LINE FREIGHT
Mr. Nugent: Of the tonnage hauled in the Mackenzie sector during 1963, what percentage was D.EW line freight?
Answer: Classified information.


COMBINES ACT AMENDMENT
Mr. Starr: Does the government intend to repeal section 34 of the Combines' Investigation Act, or amend the act, as proposed in the brief submitted by the value stabilization council of Canada on April 9, 1964 and, if so, when does the government intend to take this action?


Guy Favreau: The brief submitted on April 9, 1964 by the value stabilization council of Canada together with the brief submitted in 1963 by its predecessor, the distributive trades advisory committee, are receiving careful study and any decision to amend the legislation will be made known in due course in the proper way.
Answer: 1. No model was made of a deep water harbour and breakwater at Chandler. A model study was, however, carried out on possible breakwater protection for the existing wharf.
2.	No.
3.	Cost sharing with Gaspesia Pulp & Paper Company Ltd. on the basis of 65 per cent of the construction cost to be borne by the crown, up to a $975,000 limit, was approved in principle by the treasury board, but no formal agreement was concluded with the company.
4.	A survey for suitable rock was carried out in late 1959 and early 1960 by the department, and a quarry opened up to determine the quality and quantity of rock available. Canadian Industries Limited advised on blasting techniques. The cost of this work was approximately $25,000, and it established that suitable rock is available.


EMPLOYMENT OF OLDER WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 826-Mr. MacRae:

Mr. Rynard: Has the committee appointed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to study the effects of pamate yet made a report and, if not, when can such a report be expected?


John Carr Munro: The committee of experts appointed to advise as to what special restrictions, if any, are necessary on the future sale or distribution of drugs such as parnate and parstelin had its first meeting on April 6. It is now studying the medical and scientific information on this class of drugs and met again on April 29 and 30. Although recommendations will be made as soon as possible, the committee must be given the time necessary for a careful study and a full discussion of this difficult subject.


DEEP WATER HARBOUR, CHANDLER, QUE.
Mr. Vincent: L Has the Department of Public Works made a model for the construction of a deep water harbour and breakwater at Chandler, Gaspfi?
2. Has the Rimouski office of the Department of Public Works drawn up plans and specifications for this work and, if so, when were the plans drawn up, and what was the estimated cost for carrying them out?
3. Did the former minister of public works and the former deputy minister make any agreement as to cost sharing for this work and, if so, what agreement was made?

1.	Up to the present date, how many workers over the age of 45 have been placed in employment in Canada through the offices of the national employment service as a result of the program by which their salaries are supplemented to the maximum of $75 per month out of public funds?
2.	What was the total cost of the advertising program in connection with this plan?
3.	To whom was the advertising contract awarded?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. See answer to question 485, page 2350, House of Commons Debates April 20, 1964.
2 and 3. See answer to question 130, page 936, House of Commons Debates, March 16 1964.	'


POST OFFICE EXTENSION, EDMONTON, ALTA.
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has a definite date been set for the calling of tenders for the extension of the postal terminal and post office in Edmonton, Alberta and, if so, what is the date, and what is the date of closing of the tender period?
2.	Assuming usual procedures, what would be the anticipated date of commencement of work, in the light of the answer to part I?


Mr. Deschaleleis:: 1. Yes, tenders have been advertised with a closing date of June 30. 1964.
2. Subject to satisfactory tenders being received and allowing for the usual procedures, it is estimated that the contractor will commence work on this building by about the third week of July, 1964.


FINANCING OF UN CYPRUS CONTINGENT
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to continue to finance the Canadian contingent in Cyprus after the three month period which expires on June 27, 1964?
2.	Will the government continue to press to have the UN forces in Cyprus made a collective responsibility of all UN members?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. If the UN peace keeping force is maintained on Cyprus after the initial three month period, it will be necessary to study the methods of financing the force for any additional period of service. The decision of the government concerning financing the Canadian contingent will be made in the light of circumstances prevailing at that time.
2. Yes.


TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS BY DRUGS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What percentage of cases of tuberculosis are arrested or cured following the use of antibiotics or drugs?
2.	What complications or disabilities have followed the use of such antibiotics and drugs?
3.	Are there any indications that fewer patients are responding to treatment by the use of antibiotics or drugs?
4.	How many new cases of tuberculosis have been discovered in Canada in the past year?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. During 1962, 7,210 active cases of tuberculosis were treated in sanatorium. Activity on discharge was as follows: inactive-1,780 cases (24.7 per cent), active improved-4,167 cases (57.8 per cent), active unimproved-505 cases (7.0 per cent), undetermined-27 cases (0.4 per cent), quiescent-731 cases (10.1 per cent).
Treatment is usually continued for a prolonged period following discharge from sanatorium and the ultimate cure rate is believed by tuberculosis experts to lie between 90 per cent and 95 per cent.
2.	The most common complications following drug treatment of tuberculosis are minor gastric disturbances. In older individuals deafness and giddiness may be a problem. Allergic skin reactions may occur rarely.
3.	No.
4.	In 1963, 5,715 new active cases of tuberculosis were discovered.
Questions


RETURNS UNDER CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS ACT
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How many (a) corporations (b) labour unions, have made returns under the Corporations and Labour Unions Act?
2.	What is the estimated number of (a) corporations (b) labour unions, that are required and failed as yet to make any returns?
Answer: 1. (a) For the reporting period 1962, complete returns have been received from 29,245 corporations which were required to report under the act. (b) For the same period, returns have been received from 96 international and 43 national unions.
2. (a) The total number of corporations required to report under the act is not yet available, although all corporations known to be reporting corporations under the act have submitted the required returns for the 1962 reporting period. Information is being sought from 450 additional companies in order that their status under the act can be determined and until this information is provided it will not be known whether or not these corporations are required to file complete returns.
(b) All international labour unions required to report under the act for the 1962 reporting period have submitted a return. For the same period 43 of the 54 national unions covered by the act have submitted returns. While 11 national unions have not filed complete returns for 1962 reporting period, five of these unions have reported for the 1963 period.


WINTER WORKS APPLICATIONS, KAMOURASKA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many applications for winter works subsidies were received during the winter of 196364 from municipalities in the constituency of Kamouraska?
2.	How many applications were approved, and what amount was granted to each municipality receiving such subsidy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Eighteen applications were received from the municipalities in the constituency of Kamouraska under the municipal winter works incentive program 1963-64.
Questions

2.
Kamouraska (county)
Kamouraska (village)
Tourville (village)
St. Alexandre-de-Kamouraska (parish) St. Andre-de-Kamouraska (parish)
Ste. Anne-de-la-Pocatiere (parish)
St. Athanase (parish)
St. Germain-de-Kamouraska (parish) St. Helene (parish)
St. Louis-de-Kamouraska (parish)
St. Pacome (parish)
St. Pacome (village)
St. Pascal (parish)
Totals


TRAINING OF OLDER WORKERS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Has the government received any reports from employers as to the "on the Job" training of
workers over 45?
2.	How many workers have received such training?
3.	Has the training been such that these workers are now able and equipped to hold jobs in competitive industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No.
2.	1,811 workers have been placed and are receiving on the job or other training.
3.	Insufficient time has elapsed under the program to provide this information.


MULTI-MILK SALES
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Why are multi-milk sales not reported by the dominion bureau of statistics with the figures on whole milk sales, 2 per cent milk sales and skim milk sales?
2.	What are the sales of multi-milk in 1962 and 1963 for (a) Toronto, and (b) Montreal milk sheds?
Answer: 1 and 2. Multi-milk production is reported to the dominion bureau of statistics as a concentrated milk product rather than as a fluid milk product. Monthly volume of production is included with other whole milk products in the report Dairy Factory Production. Sales data are not collected.


ST. SIMEON, QUE.-WHARF CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISORS
Mr. Belanger: 1.	How many supervisors were hired by the government for the works under way at the St. Simeon wharf?
2.	What are the names of these supervisors?
3.	What salary do they receive?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Three.
2. Flavie N. Belley, Paul Elmile Fortin, Georges LeBlond.

	Estimated
No. of	fed. govt.
projects	payments
4	$24,180
2	10,800
1	1,000
1	2,400
2	1,980
1	4,500
1	9,000
1	3,600
1	4,800
1	9,240
1	1,380
1	3,000
1	2,700
18	$78,580
3. The rate of pay is $1.90 per hour.


WHARF IMPROVEMENTS, SUGAR LOAF, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	What are the plans of the department concerned for wharf improvements at Sugar Loaf, Victoria county, N.S.?
2.	How soon will these improvements commence and at what estimated cost?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. It is planned to renew the stringers and deck plank over the entire wharf. Minor repairs to the fender system are also under consideration.
2. The work is expected to start in late May at an estimated cost of $3,500.


SALARIES OF CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. MacRae: How many civil servants in Canada are in each of the following salary brackets (a) less than $2,000 per year (b) $2,001 to $4,000 (c) $4,001 to $6,000 (d) $6,001 to $8,000 (e) $8,001 to $10,000 (f) $10,001 to $12,000 (g) $12,001 to $14,000 (h) $14,001 to $16,000 (i) $16,001 to $18,000 (j) $18,001 to $20,000 (k) over $20,000?
Answer: Information available on number of federal civil servants in Canada, as at September 30, 1963, in each of the following salary brackets:
(a) less than $2,000 per year, 524; (b) $2,001 to $4,000, 51,044; (c) $4,001 to $6,000, 63,633; (d) $6,001 to $8,000, 12,470; (e) $8,001 to $10,000, 5,110; (f) $10,001 to $12,000, 1,936; (g) $12,001 to $14,000, 735; (h) $14,001 to $16,000, 516; (i) $16,001 to $18,000, 131; (j) and (k) $18,000 and over, 40.


FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN MINES CONVENTION
Mr. Lalulippe: 1. Was the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys represented at the convention of the Canadian institute of mines and metallurgy held

recently at the Queen Elizabeth hotel In Montreal?
2.	Did the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys subsidize in any way the organization of the convention?
3.	If officials of that department took part in the convention, what are their names and in what capacity did they participate?
4.	To what extent did the federal government participate in that convention?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. Yes, (a) The minister was represented by Mr. Jean-Paul Drolet, assistant deputy minister, at the annual meeting of the John T. Ryan safety awards held on Sunday, April 12, 1964. The meeting and annual dinner were held in the Queen Elizabeth hotel.
(b)	The minister was also represented by Mr. Jean-Paul Drolet, assistant deputy minister, at the Monday luncheon held the following day, April 13. Mr. Drolet greeted the delegates (approximately 2,400) on behalf of the minister.
(c)	The minister was present at the annual dinner of the Canadian institute of mining and metallurgy held on Tuesday evening, April 14, in the Queen Elizabeth hotel.
2.	No.
3.	The following representatives of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys took an active part in the convention:
Mineral resources division:	Mr. W. K.
Buck, Mr. H. D. Worden.
Geological survey of Canada: Dr. L. W. Morley, Dr. D. W. McCartney, Dr. R. Thor-steinsson, Mr. E. A. Schiller, Dr. C. S. Lord, Dr. R. E. Whitmore, Dr. R. W. Boyle, Mr. L. L. Touchette.
Mines branch: Dr. John Convey, Mr. T. Cochrane, Dr. J. Walsh, Mr. J. Reeves, Mr. A. Hitchen, Mr. V. Haw, Mr. D. Parsons, Mr. L. Casey, Mr. R. Collings, Mr. D. Pickett, Mr. J. Ingles, Mr. F. Kelly, Mr. A. Ignatieff, Mr. L. E. Djingheuzian, Mr. H. Woodrooffe.
The above 25 representatives all had a part to play in the annual meeting. Most of them presented technical papers while the others acted as chairmen of technical meetings related to their work. It should be pointed out that only 25 were official representatives of this department; several others, with the authorization of their branch directors and also of the deputy minister, were given permission to go to Montreal for one or two days in order to attend technical meetings of interest to the department. In this latter case, their expenses were not paid by the department.
Mr. Jean-Paul Drolet, assistant deputy minister, also attended the said meeting to act as the official representative of the minister of mines at various functions. Mr. Drolet was awarded the gold medal of the institute for 1964 at the annual dinner of the C.I.M.M. Tuesday evening, April 14.
Questions
4.	The answer to this question is included in answer No. 3.


SKINNING ALIVE OF BABY SEALS
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	How many complaints has the Minister of Fisheries received as a result of certain film sequences shot during the seal hunt in the gulf of St. Lawrence, which sequences show baby seals screaming as they are flayed alive?
2.	Who, in the Department of Fisheries, is responsible for the supervision of seal hunting in the gulf of St. Lawrence?
3.	Has the Minister of Fisheries received a report on this matter from his subordinates and, if so, what is the nature of such report?
4.	What steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this state of affairs?
5.	Did any hunters have their licences revoked or were any fined, and, if so, how many of the hunters fined have paid, and what was the amount of the fines?
6.	What sections of the Fisheries Act might be amended so as to prevent any repetition of such actions?
Answer: 1. Several hundred letters of protest have been received but it is not possible to determine which letters resulted from reports of film sequences taken during the seal hunt.
2.	The fishery officers located in areas where sealing operations are conducted.
3.	Reports containing information on all aspects of sealing operations have been received.
4.	A thorough review of sealing operations is being made and more restrictive regulations will be in effect before the opening of the 1965 season.
5.	No.
6.	New regulations are made by amending the seal protection regulations enacted under authority contained in the Fisheries Act.


REINSTATEMENT OF SEAFARERS UNION IN C.L.C.
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Has a report been received by the Minister of Labour from the board of trustees concerning progress made regarding the reinstatement of the seafarers' international union as a member of the Canadian Labour Congress and, if so, what was the general content of the said report?
2.	Have representations of any kind been made to the minister by the C.L.C. on this matter?
3.	By whom were they made and of what nature were they?
4.	Were the trustees of the board invited to study these representations and, if so, what observations did they make?
5.	If the trustees were not invited to study these representations, for what reasons were they not invited?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No.
2.	No.
3,	4, 5. Not applicable. It might be added that a liaison committee has been established by the Canadian Labour Congress to deal with the trustees. This liaison committee was established some months ago and the trustees

Questions
have worked closely with it. The Canadian Labour Congress has also, I am informed kept closely in touch with developments.


POST OFFICE, WILLOW BUNCH, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	Is the government giving consideration to building a new post office in Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan?
2.	Who owns the present post office building in Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan?
3.	What is the present cost per year for post office accommodation in Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan?
4.	When does the present lease expire?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. No.
2.	Mr. Jean Champigny of Willow Bunch.
3.	$1,750 per annum.
4.	October 31, 1965.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Does the Income Tax Act provide for a maximum deduction of 10 per cent of net income for charitable donations and, if so, is this provision applied uniformly across Canada?
2.	What procedures do departmental officials follow when processing income tax returns claiming deductions not exceeding 10 per cent and accompanied by receipts for charitable donations?
3.	Are receipts for charitable donations ever questioned and, if so, are deductions ever arbitrarily reduced by departmental officials?
4.	In the reduction of allowances for charitable donations are officials acting within the authority of the Income Tax Act or by some special authority granted to the Minister of National Revenue and exercised with his knowledge?
5.	What appeal is open to taxpayers who feel that they have been dealt with in an arbitrary manner?

Answer: (a) Yes. (b) Yes.
2.	The amounts claimed as deduction are granted except if there are good reasons to believe that the submitted receipts are not genuine or that the amounts for which they were made out are mere estimates and not based on any bookkeeping with regard to the sums actually received from each donor by the charitable organization.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) No. Not if it means "without reason". If a charitable organization does not keep books showing the amounts received from each donor, and if the total deduction claimed by all donors is higher than the total amount actually received by the organization, the deduction claimed by each donor may be reduced in consequence.
4.	Within the authority of the Income Tax Act.
5.	The taxpayer should first of all communicate with the district taxation office and supply detailed information concerning the contributions he actually made to the organi-

zation concerned as well as every available evidence or proof thereof. If he is unable to convince the officers of the taxation office that the amounts involved are higher than the deductions granted at the time of assessment he may produce a notice of opposition on form T400A. Two duly filled-in copies of that form should be sent by registered mail, within 90 days of the mailing date of the notice of assessment, to the deputy minister of national revenue (taxation), in Ottawa.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Peters: 1.	How many civilians have been carried in
R.C.A.F. aircraft between (a) January 1,	1963
and December 31, 1963 (b) January 1, 1964 and March 31, 1964?
2.	In each case (a) what was the name and address of the civilian (b) what was the extent of the flight (c) why was it approved by the air force in each instance?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Secretary of State for External Affairs tabled the statement made by the secretary general of the United Nations regarding the situation in Cyprus. I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, as a result of the proposals contained in that statement, the situation has improved any and if there is some hope that we can prevent it from degenerating into what the leader of the opposition in the British parliament has called "supervised genocide".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Cyprus has very considerably improved since the additional objectives and steps were outlined in the report of the secretary general to the security council. As a matter of fact some measure of tranquility began, as my hon. friend will recall, the day before.
While I am on my feet, I may say that Australia and New Zealand have agreed to send police detachments in answer to the request of the secretary general. Austria has already sent a police component and a hospital unit. There are some grounds for thinking that another country may send a battalion of troops.

Inquiries of the Ministry



MALAYSIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I apologize for not having sent him notice. Has the hon. gentleman taken note of the so-called "action command" of President Sukarno of Indonesia to 21 million volunteers to fight to crush the Malaysian Federation, and would he tell the house whether any action by way of consultation or otherwise is proposed by the Canadian government either in connection with the commonwealth or with the United Nations in order to meet the threat?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have taken note of the declaration made by President Sukarno in this instance as well as his other declarations on the situation in Malaysia. Malaysia, as a commonwealth country, will naturally continue to receive the interested concern, not only of Canada but of other commonwealth countries, with respect to the problems resulting from this declaration by President Sukarno.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house whether he is giving the same consideration and expressing the same concern with respect to the declaration made by the government of the United States in relation to operations in Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: While there is no relationship between the two questions, the hon. gentleman will recall the very satisfactory reply I made to his question along those lines the other day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman did not tell me a thing.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
Over the week end the minister stated that thousands of immigrants are needed, in Canada and in the province of Quebec, to ensure our country's economic expansion. As an economist with a high reputation in some quarters-not everywhere, in some quarters only- could he tell us what steps he intends to take so that our 500,000 unemployed can find reasonable work to ensure Canada's economic development?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would put this on the order paper. The reason I am asking is that questions should not be of a nature requiring a lengthy and detailed answer.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I ask that my question be dealt with at ten o'clock tonight.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SECRETARIAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Could the Prime Minister give the house some details regarding the central secretariat which is to determine and co-ordinate the federal-provincial policy, whose establishment was announced during the week end by the Minister of Justice?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to prevent any short answer but it seems to me that this question requires quite a detailed and long answer, and under the rules as given to me I suggest to the hon. member that he might put it on the order paper.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the only observation I have to make is that the Minister of Justice announced the formation of this secretariat during the week end, and I would think that as it involves government policy the Prime Minister might like to let the house know something about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the formation of this secretariat was also announced in the house some weeks ago.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister, in Espanola, spoke of symbols when referring to flags, is it his intention to give Canada two flags, the red ensign and the maple leaf?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this question has been answered

Inquiries of the Ministry more than once in the house. It is too bad my hon. friend does not listen to these answers.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke of several symbols, of several flags.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under our standing orders the hon. member has not any right to insist on an answer.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive a telegram over the week end from the mayor of Moncton, New Brunswick, about activities in Moncton of the so-called Christian action movement and the Canadian intelligence service, and will the strange manoeuvring of this fringe group be fully investigated consistent with our basic freedoms?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram which was on my desk this morning, and I am looking into the matter. I appreciate its importance.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The government having seen fit to name the airport in North Bay after the late Hon. John Garland, with which action I agree, would it not now name the new veterans home in Saskatoon the "Harry Frank Jones home" in memory of the late member of parliament for Saskatoon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very appropriate suggestion for the hon. member to make, of course. As to the first part of his question, which I take it is not related to the latter part, this announcement was made after a unanimous request made to the government by the North Bay municipal council.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister give the house an assurance that no final government decision will be made on the question of the disposition of the Kitsilano R.C.A.F. base, transferring that land either to the C.N.R. or to any other government agency or department, until after the delegation from the city of Vancouver has been heard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to discuss this matter with my colleague the Minister of National Defence.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
MINISTERS' conference
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister if he is in a position to advise the house whether, despite Ghana's objection to Southern Rhodesia's representation at the prime ministers' conference, Canada's position is that Southern Rhodesia should have representation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As we have not yet been consulted on this matter by the government of the United Kingdom, which is the host government to the conference, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on it. However, the prime ministers of independent commonwealth governments, including Canada, would naturally expect to be consulted before invitations to attend a commonwealth prime ministers meeting were issued to the representatives of countries which are not fully independent. Until we are approached in this matter, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make any statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with the Prime Minister. He tells the house that there has been no presentation made by the United Kingdom government as yet. This being so, the right hon. gentleman's answer completely satisfies us.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



FAILURE TO DEVELOP CANADIAN WATER RESOURCES

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: 
Mr. Winch:: May I ask the hon. member a question. Is he now going to bring in what the Conservatives did in the six years following the statement to which he has referred?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am preparing the way for the amendment I shall move, and I think the hon. member will discern fairly soon the direction in which I am heading. This is my introductory statement, and I am sure that in a very short time the hon. member will have the precise statement of the amendment that will be moved.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you going to leave out the six years you were in office?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps I might continue with the statement I was making. I was pointing out that the second vital aspect of the program was to use tax incentives in order to encourage research activities in every part of Canada. This has since become a part of federal government programming. It was recognized in those days that Canada was far behind at all levels of fundamental research.
The question of Canada's vulnerable position in relation to trade was also mentioned. It was at that time that the problem of the disastrous imbalance of trade was brought before the house, and policies were initiated by the previous Conservative administration to stimulate Canada's trade. These basic policies have largely brought about the very beneficial situation that prevails today.
The speech also made reference to industrial development and the necessity of the government of Canada encouraging the trend then naturally under way by virtue of the very process of social change. This was also to become part of the policy introduced by the former Conservative administration to encourage industrial development.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member what the point of grievance is that he is raising?

Canadian Water Resources


Mr. Graffiey:: This is not a grievance period.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The next major step forward in this program was the statement made in February, 1958 in the city of Winnipeg by the then prime minister of Canada, now Leader of the Opposition. That was the occasion when in specific detail the national development program of the government of that time was put forward. The city of Winnipeg was chosen for a very good reason. It is right in the centre of Canada geographically. It has always been regarded as the gateway to the west and the north, and it would seem to be the pivotal point around which any major, massive, national development program should take place.
I want to pick out one specific point that was raised on that occasion. At that meeting the prime minister of that time called for the convening of a conference on conservation, on the wise management and multiple use of Canada's renewable resources. The challenge issued was a challenge to all the people of Canada. AH levels of government and industry as well as the educational leaders of the nation were challenged to come together in a conference that would be convened by the federal government in order to deal with the critical situation in Canada's natural resources.
The crisis was all the more urgent and deepseated because of the long years of neglect to which I have already referred. To show how quickly the challenge was met, I point out that the first meeting to bring about a conference of this kind took place on November 17, 1958, I believe, and the response to the challenge as demonstrated at that meeting was overwhelmingly positive. It was a clear indication that all levels of government, particularly the provincial governments, were aware of the situation that had been outlined by the prime minister. A steering committee was formed which was made up of representatives of each of the provincial governments, and plans proceeded rapidly to bring about a gathering of Canadians from all walks of life in order to meet the challenge of the crisis that had been created by long years of neglect.
Perhaps it would be useful to outline why the situation had been allowed to deteriorate to the serious level which made such dramatic action necessary. It was only in the early part of this century that Canadians began to realize that our resources were not unlimited. We had been largely motivated by the frontier concept of there always being new worlds to conquer; therefore we had proceeded to waste our rich heritage of natural resources, particularly our renewal resources.


The first attempt to which I have referred briefly, occured in the early part of the century, but it was a conservationist approach in the negative sense. The problem was approached from the static concept which conceived of saving or preserving resources rather than making the best economic use of them. The challenge that was issued by the prime minister in 1958 involved a new, positive concept of wise management and the planning of the development of our resources in that it was geared to the economic needs of the nation. Instead of being a static, preservationist concept, it viewed the development of these resources in terms of the economy into which Canada was moving in the post-war world.
The basic problem, of course, in meeting a challenge of this kind is that of overcoming the areas of jurisdictional dispute. The resources belong to the provinces. The initiative to develop national policies belongs to the federal government. I think this is the major reason why for years there had been such serious neglect. The old buck passing or log rolling technique had been used with a vengeance by both the federal and provincial levels of government. If a problem was brought before the house it was ignored simply by making the statement that this was a matter that came under provincial jurisdiction. In order to get anywhere with a national development program the buck passing technique had to be overcome. The fundamental approach, therefore, of the planning for what became known as the resources for tomorrow conference was to deal with this area of dispute as between provincial responsibility and federal responsibility.
The warm, positive response of the steering committee was manifest from the outset and was a demonstration of the success that was going to crown the efforts of this important federal initiative. More important even than the steering committee, made up of provincial ministers, were the advisory committees that were organized to develop and support the efforts of the steering committee. There was brought together for the first time a group of Canadians who represented a broad body of knowledge in the field of renewable resources. This was the first time any attempt had been made to bring together Canadian human resources capable of meeting the challenge of this problem.
During the period of preparation, which occupied some two years, there was brought together a group of experts on soil, water, wildlife, forest conservation, and so on. Background papers were prepared numbering more than 80 I think, important as the conference itself was, this great body of experts and body of information that was brought together in

order to make that resources for tomorrow conference the great success that it was, when it finally took place in 1961, was even more important. I believe too that it was the first successful model for the type of co-operative federalism that has been mentioned in recent months. This discussion and preparing of plans for our renewable resources was described as an exercise in co-operative federalism. It was quite a different exercise from those that have taken place in recent months. This was consultation in anticipation and not retroactivity. In other words the federal government, realizing it was making initiatives in a very sensitive area of federal-provincial jurisdictional dispute, consulted with the provincial leaders. As a result there was complete harmony when the conference took place which ushered in the positive results with which I shall deal in a moment.
Unfortunately this term "co-operative federalism" has been bandied around to such an extent that it describes all sorts of encounters between the provinces and the federal government. It is almost in as much disrepute semantically as the word "peace" used to be in the days when those who were not necessarily in pursuit of peace used to refer to themselves as "the peace loving peoples of the world". If you are going to get co-operation in dealings with the provinces, I submit to the government you cannot get co-operation after the event. We have had enough experience with the problems that have been created by the failure to consult, by the failure to give recognition to the area of authority of the provincial government in recent months. You must consult in anticipation rather than following frustration in dealing with these problems.
As a result, even before the conference itself was held various positive results began to be seen, and this in the face of changes of government at the provincial level while these preparations were going on, changes of ministers at the federal level and at the provincial level. For example, the so-called quiet revolution in Quebec took place during the period of preparation for the conference, and it was thought that there would be difficulty with the new administration in Quebec. The minister who joined the steering committee representing Quebec was Hon. Rene Levesque, who was the holder of certain viewpoints concerning matters pertaining to federal-provincial co-operation. Mr. Levesque joined the steering committee, and it is interesting to note he became one of the most enthusiastic supporters for the idea of the resources for tomorrow conference, an excellent illustration of how a reasonable and responsible approach to these matters can achieve re-
Canadian. Water Resources suits. When it was decided to proceed with the program it was decided that the resources ministers council, backed by a secretariat, would be located in the city of Montreal. Incidentally, it was to be a completely bilingual secretariat. This action represented a new concept in overcoming this jurisdictional problem in that it was a secretariat responsible to Ottawa and responsible to the provinces, and also at the service of the universities, and private industry. Canadians interested in the resources field felt that this was a major break-through in real co-operative federalism.


John George Diefenbaker: Just for the record, what was the date of that?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The establishment of the resource ministers council took place in September, 1962, I believe, and the meeting was held in the city of Toronto.
In order to demonstrate the sincerity of the intent and purpose of the federal government, to indicate that we were following what could best be described as a basis of co-equality between the levels of government-because when you are in the sensitive area of resource development it has to be approached on the basis of co-equality-the device of a rotating chairmanship was created. The chairman of the steering committee was the federal minister. He was also chairman of the conference, and the first chairman of the resource ministers council. The chairmanship then passed on to the representative of the province of Ontario. The next chairman was the representative of the province of Quebec, and it was during the period of his chairmanship that the character of this program that could genuinely be called co-operative faderalism was initiated. The current chairman is the minister of resources for Prince Edward Island, and the fact that this is the centennial year for Prince Edward Island was one reason the torch was passed to that minister during this very important period in the history of that province.
Here is a successful and genuine effort at overcoming one of the major problems of national development by an exercise in co-operative federalism in anticipation instead of by hindsight.


John George Diefenbaker: After frustration.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, after frustration. As I was pointing out, this enthusiasm, contrasted with the frustration in programs of mutual responsibility today, was such that the governments agreed to proceed with the major program of resource development before the conference had even met. I refer to the ARDA program, the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act passed by this house in the

Canadian Water Resources spring of 1961. The conference did not take place until the fall of 1961. Here is a major breakthrough in rural redevelopment, in the wise management and the multiple use of our renewable resources. If it is applied with the initiative that is necessary at the federal level it could go a long way in dealing with the problem I am specifically going to bring before the house this afternoon.
The national wildlife federation emerged out of the resources for tomorrow conference. It is the first attempt in this country to bring together, on a national basis, the problems of conservation in the important area of wildlife. The federal-provincial parks conference was another by-product of the resources for tomorrow conference, but unfortunately it has been dormant in recent months, again because the initiative must come from the federal government level.
In the interest of recreational development and the wise management of all our renewable resources, the national parks association got under way early last year. This was a spontaneous response by the people of Canada to the conference. It is not connected with any government. It is the coming together of people interested in the wise management of resources. One of the leading figures in the movement is Mr. William Baker, who had been the co-ordinator for recreational and parks matters in planning for the resources for tomorrow conference.
As could be anticipated, Mr. Speaker, there was participation in that conference at the top level. The Governor General launched the conference. The prime minister of Canada made a major statement, as did the premier of Quebec and other leaders representing the other parts of Canada. The prime minister's statement was most significant because he was the leader charged with the responsibility of continuing the momentum that had been established by this very excellent conference.
Realizing that he was dealing in the sensitive area of resource development he prefaced his proposals with the words "with the consent and co-operation of the provincial governments," but we in the federal government had to bring something to a head. We had to take advantage of the good will that was generated by this important conference. I shall mention three of the proposals which the then prime minister made. His first was that there should be regular conferences of this type in order to continue the momentum. That was pointed out three years ago, but unfortunately in the interim there has been a slowing down of the momentum.
Second, he proposed the resource ministers council which has now become a reality, and is operating most successfully in the city of Montreal. Third, he urged the establishment of

a national advisory land and water use board, and he specifically emphasized the urgency of the matter in respect to water resources because already the crisis was upon us. Unfortunately, up to the present time nothing has been done in this area. There has been a whole slowing down of the process of coequality, intergovernmental co-operation, and the initiative represented by ARDA, the federal-provincial parks conference, and the other matters to which I have referred, all because there has been a lack of leadership at the federal government level.
Indeed, there has been so much dispute, controversy and misunderstanding during recent months that one could hardly anticipate it would have been possible. I have reviewed the history because unless we reviewed the sudden change in the co-operative climate of Canada which has taken place since April, 1963, it would be impossible to appreciate the enormity of that change. In the resource area we moved together with absolute understanding and co-operation, and I may say this is the most sensitive area of federal-provincial jurisdictional dispute. Unfortunately the whole picture has been blurred and disrupted just at the time when the conservation crises was becoming most severe.
Why did the right hon. Leader of the Opposition suggest and urge that a national advisory board be established on water conservation? The answer is abundantly clear. It became abundantly clear during the preparation of the resources for tomorrow conference that we had reached a point of no return in the wise management of this basic resource. Water is basic to the well being of the nation. It is basic to all human life. Though the North American continent, and Canada in particular, seemingly has an abundance of fresh water resources, Canada, with its relatively small population as compared with other industrialized nations of the world, is already faced with critical problems in the water resource area.
Right here on our doorstep we have water pollution in the Ottawa river. This is one river which has been badly polluted in recent years. We have a water shortage in the great lakes. There is a critical water shortage problem throughout southern Ontario. It is a problem that covers the whole area of the Canadian economy as well as all aspects of life. Whether you fish in it, whether you sail boats on it-this is the recreational aspect- whether you put it on crops or whether you build summer cottages beside it, water is; vital and fundamental to the continuing progress and prosperity of the Canadian economy.
It is the one vital renewable resource and, if it is to be wisely managed for the future, it must have applied to it the multiple use

concept that was put forward in that speech in Winnipeg in 1958. Why have we neglected it thus far? The remarks I made with reference to our general attitude to renewable resources apply here. There is the seeming abundance of it.
The British North America Act was a very wise document but it failed to recognize the interrelationships that exist among all our renewable resources, and up until recent times the only federal initiative in the area of water resources was the interest of the Canadian government in navigation and fishery matters. It was the provinces who led in attacking the problem. They were forced to because there was no response from the federal government. The province of Ontario, under a Conservative government-and it is more than coincidence that Conservative governments have always been identified with positive approaches to conservation matters- established the water resources commission in order to deal with the problem in Ontario. But a province by itself cannot deal with it. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will be fully aware that it is beyond the capacity of an individual province to deal with.
In bringing this matter before the house this afternoon I do not have to go into details. We have the documentation of the resources for tomorrow conference, three volumes of which spell out in detail the message that the crisis is upon us. It was for this reason that the prime minister of the previous Conservative government put his finger on this one aspect as the most urgent and critical problem. It was for this reason that the previous Conservative administration introduced the sewage disposal plan which has been so eminently successful, at least in one area, that of dealing with the problem of pollution which had reached such a crisis that the major cities of Canada were short of adequate, fresh water supplies. It was for this reason that we used the Canada Water Conservation Act, which had been on the statute books of Canada since the early 1950's but had never been used, to support such major watershed control programs as the metro Toronto water conservation program where, for the first time in Canadian history a comprehensive and massive approach is being made to resolving the water problems of that city. It was for this reason that the government proceeded with the construction of the Saskatchewan dam, which project had been criticized by the previous Liberal administration, with the exception of the minister of agriculture Hon. James Gardiner, who was one of the first to congratulate the government of Right Hon. John Diefenbaker when it made the decision to go ahead with
Canadian Water Resources this vital, multiple-use water control program on the prairies. It was for this reason, too, that the water control program on the Saint John river was proceeded with.
These all went forward in the comparatively short period that the Conservative government was in office, and the initiative was indicated by that important statement that was made in 1958. I would suggest to the government, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a slow down; there has been a tragic loss of momentum. The problems were urgent and critical a year ago; they are more so now, because there has been no new initiative of any kind in this area, notwithstanding the promise of the present government of 60 days of decision that would shake the nation. There has been no new initiative in this area of renewable resource development. Therefore, Mr. Speaker-and others will be specific concerning ARDA and other problems that I have merely outlined to the house in preparation of the amendment-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after "that" and substituting therefor:
This house condemns the neglect of the government in failing to establish a co-ordinated national water policy and in ignoring the imminent national crisis in water resources management, which is evidenced by the critical low water levels of the great lakes and other national waters, the increasing pollution of national waters-
Perhaps we could-just by way of aside -have included in that "the increasing pollution of the political life of the nation", but that is not in the amendment here. It says- and I repeat the last few words-
-the increasing pollution of national waters, and the urgent necessity of conserving water resources for the benefit of national resource development in Canada;
And urges the government, in the interests of national development, to take immediate action to make up for their year of neglect of this problem by forthwith:
(1)	establishing a national advisory committee on water resources to assist in co-ordinating national resource development;
(2)	accelerating the application of ARDA policies to the problems of national resource development, and,
(3)	vigorously continuing and expanding the water and other resource development programs conceived and established by the previous Conservative government.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to wait my turn until later, but if no other hon. member at this moment is prepared to speak on this very important subject, I would like to speak on it myself, with particular reference to water levels. I would particularly mention the very serious problem facing this country in connection with water levels on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway system. There

Canadian Water Resources are actually two grounds of complaint that I wish to put forward in supporting this motion, which sets out the very clear and consistent policy of resource development that was initiated by the previous government, and the fact that no continuation of this policy is in evidence.
I want particularly to mention first the failure of the present government to recognize the dangers of the situation which has developed since last summer with regard to low water levels; and second, the complete breakdown as far as we can see of any co-ordination of effort on the part of the government. These are the two particular subjects with which I wish to deal. As far as the first is concerned, the failure to recognize the dangers of the situation, despite persistent questioning by members of the official opposition over the past several weeks, there is no evidence of any real concern on the part of the government in regard to this serious problem. When any individual member of the government is pressed into a corner by persistent questioning, we get the general answer which is, in effect, "There is nothing we can do". We have pressed our questioning on various members of the government in an effort to find out whether they really understand that there is a serious situation and that something can be done about it.
Despite many useful suggestions with regard to courses of action that can be taken, we have had no indication from the government that any such action is contemplated or is under consideration. It may be said that there is not anything that can be done, that this is an act of God and is caused by a lack of precipitation, and that we just have to pray for rain, as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) once stated. There are many people in this country, and I am one of them, who believe that there is something that can be done. There is something that can be done on a short term basis, and there is something that can be done on a long term basis.
For example, last week we had indications in the press that there were major works being contemplated at the exit from lake Huron by the United States corps of engineers. They are proposing to construct certain concrete weirs or, as they were described today in answer to a question from the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), submerged sills, which will have the effect of slowing down the outrush of waters from lake Huron which ultimately find their way out of the St. Lawrence river and into the sea. We did have an indication that this was being done. Last week another hon. member and myself raised this matter and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) answered it in
IMr. Aiken.]

general terms. He said that there was a water problem but made no reference whatever to the question of co-operating with the United States corps of engineers.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that an inquiry should be undertaken into the amount of water being taken out of the great lakes at Chicago and elsewhere. This question has been raised year after year and we are still in doubt as to whether or not the amount of water being removed from the great lakes system at Chicago is that which is contemplated by the international agreement. Many people believe that there is more water being taken out than is realized. There is before the house at the present time a notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) concerning the grand canal concept, which is a diversion of waters from the Harricanaw and other rivers flowing into James bay to be taken into the great lakes system. It is interesting to note that the United States authorities have indicated that this seems to be the only answer they can devise to offer any long term solution. We have not heard anything from this government as to whether or not they are going to undertake feasibility studies on this project. Since this is the only answer which has been forthcoming on the long term, surely the government is giving some thought to the question; and I am sure that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue will be raising the matter again at the very first opportunity. It is something which can be done, even if it is a long term project. Feasibility studies on this project would undoubtedly prove successful and we hope that the project can be undertaken.
Another project which can be undertaken, Mr. Speaker, concerns temporary access to wharves on the great lakes and on Georgian bay. I am glad to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) in the house because he made a statement on Friday during the course of his estimates with regard to dredging. I agree that as far as he went there is ground for caution in connection with dredging along the edges of wharves which are now troubled by low water conditions. I am sure that this is something which has to be dealt with carefully. But there is an aspect about which I questioned him the previous day and which he did not deal with, and I should like to draw it to his attention now. This is the question of access to wharves where there is sufficient water but where the wharf is now five or six feet above the surface of the water. For example, in my riding two or three major wharves on Georgian bay have plenty of water for boats to get in, but there is no way of reaching the

surface of the wharf from a small boat, or even from a medium sized boat. Temporary-emergency measures are required in order to provide steps or a temporary platform, or something by means of which people can reach the top of the wharf. I am sure there are many wharves in this position.
I have been told that on one of the wharves on Georgian bay at Pointe au Baril people have to beach their boats some distance away from the wharf and walk around to it. A week last Saturday night a man fell off the wharf while trying to get onto it from his boat, because the top of the wharf was too high above the level of the water. Emergency measures should also be undertaken to construct walkways where there is insufficient water to use the wharf. I think these matters must be considered, and in addition dredging is feasible in some places. Here are four or five definite projects which could be started on immediately, one of them long range, others short range and immediate, to reach the waters and to keep navigation going.
This is not just a local problem on the great lakes and Georgian bay; it is a national problem. Its first and major effect is on shipping, and not just on the small boats but also on the larger vessels. It affects the carriage of grain, which in turn affects all of Canada. There is difficulty in getting into some of the elevators. There is a difficulty in connection with elevator facilities. I am told by the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble) that some of the grain boats are finding difficulty in getting into the Owen Sound elevators. I am also told by the hon. member for Simcoe East, who is listening, that there are problems involving delays to shipbuilding at Collingwood. These problems which I have mentioned concern more than just small boat navigation; they are major problems.
Then there is another point relating to small boats, which is directly a tourist problem; and unless some action is taken immediately or some long term project is promised, I am sure there is going to be a serious discouragement to tourists and a decline in the use of tourist facilities. It is going to be very serious this summer. People are prepared sometimes to put up with minor inconveniences if they expect to put up with them for just one season, and that the following year there will be improvement; but unfortunately the forecast I have seen is that there may be, and most likely will be, a water shortage again next year.
I believe it is essential that the government give some indication that they are doing something about this problem and can give us some hope that late in 1964 or in 1965 this work will be done. Many people believe that a quick answer is available with regard 20220-183
Canadian Water Resources to the slowing down of the outflow of water from lake Huron, but we have had no indication of this. If the tourist business suffers this year it will result in one of Canada's major sources of foreign currency being badly cut down. Since about 1961 there has been a constant increase in our currency exchange with the United States, owing to tourist revenues. Prior to 1961 the situation was bad in that regard, but it has gradually improved, and if this improvement is now damaged by the discouragement of tourists we will have not only a local problem on the great lakes and in Georgian bay but a currency problem for all Canada.
We also have loss of water resources. If it is true that there is an unusual outflow of water from lake Huron and that it is escaping more than ever into the St. Lawrence river and thence into the sea, we are losing all of those benefits which come with water. I have tried to outline only some of the serious dangers we are facing in Canada in this regard. I hope the government is undertaking measures which will relieve the fears of so many people, but so far we have had nothing except evasion, and evasive answers to questions.
The purpose of this motion and of my complaint is not to place the blame for the low water on anyone. It is a situation which we have to face. My hon. friend from Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) indicated that a water resource policy had been embarked upon, but that it seems to be slipping. Regardless of what has happened in the past, it is obvious from the figures that the levels of water in the great lakes are seriously low. I do not blame the government for this in the short term. I am trying to show-and I hope to be able to prove this before I am finished-that low precipitation is not the sole cause. This is where blame attaches to the government; they have accepted too easily this plausible explanation-lack of rain. Certain figures were given to us today in answer to question 661. It is true that precipitation has been lower, but the shortage of rain does not seem sufficiently serious to explain the results in terms of the significant lowering of water levels. There must be other causes. I have suggested some of them, and I think the government would do well to recognize that the present situation is a result of causes other than lack of precipitation. If the government really believes that this is just a matter of insufficient rain, and that we shall have to wait until more rain falls, then I think the administration deserves the condemnation of the house.
I blame the government for not having taken action when the problem became apparent. I blame them for not making a full

Canadian Water Resources inquiry into the situation. I blame them for not having taken action to meet the immediate difficulties and I blame them for failing to indicate long term plans designed to prevent a similar situation in the future. The government's attitude, I believe, was succinctly summed up by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) when he told us to pray for rain. I would remind the hon. gentleman of another saying: "The Lord helps those who help themselves" and I think we shall have to do something in this case to help ourselves, not merely sit back and wait for rain. Lack of precipitation has simply been used as an excuse for not taking action. Certainly, precipitation was lower in 1963 than it was in 1962 and previous years. But it was not lower by very much. In answer to question 655, it was stated that precipitation for 1961 in the upper great lakes area amounted to 28.58 inches. For 1962, it was 27.19 inches, and for 1963, 25.30 inches. There has been a decrease of about three inches in total precipitation in those three years. But in 1956 precipitation amounted only to 27.01 inches, and this is not abnormal.
We were given an answer today to question 661 in relation to a slightly different area. We find that in 1961, precipitation amounted to 30.52. In 1962, it was 28.62 and in 1963 it was 27.32. It is true there was a slightly smaller amount of precipitation in the latter year but the decline is not related to the great difference of between three and five feet in lake levels over the same period of time. The one situation cannot be the sole cause of the other.
This brings me to the question of lake levels. In 1962, according to the answer to a question asked recently, the United States corps of engineers deepened the channel between lake Huron and lake St. Clair by some six feet. It has been stated on several occasions that since the water levels of lake Huron and lake St. Clair are approximately the same it would not really matter whether they deepened the channel by 20 feet-the outflow would be no different. But in question 655 I inquired as to the lake levels of lake Huron, lake St. Clair and lake Erie. The answer is a direct indication of the flow of water. The figures began in 1955. According to the international great lakes datum the level of lake Huron was 579.01 feet. Lake St. Clair was 574.11 and lake Erie, 571.49. In other words, lake St. Clair was five feet lower than lake Huron and lake Erie was two and a half feet lower than lake St. Clair.
In 1963 we find the level of lake Huron was 576.51 feet; lake St. Clair was 571.78 feet and lake Erie was 569.44 feet. These figures indicate that there is definitely a very


considerable difference between these lake levels, and therefore that any outflow of waters would be seriously increased by the deepening of the channels. We also find that between 1962 and 1963 the level of lake Huron went down by one foot, and lake Erie only by six inches-these are average levels. This indicates an uneveness in the outflow of water from lake Huron. These figures belie the casual statement that there is no difference in the outflow of waters caused by channel construction. It is obvious that there is a difference, and it is a serious difference.
We also notice that the level of the St. Lawrence at Montreal has not declined to the extent of the upper waters; while it is lower, the difference is not serious. So we are faced with a situation where water is being drawn out from the upper lakes and allowed to flow through the St. Lawrence seaway to the ocean. We would like to know whether more water is escaping from the upper lakes than ought to be escaping.
I mentioned the United States corps of engineers. Very recently we found they were experimenting with weirs or sills to see if they could slow down the outflow of water from lake Huron. I believe the very fact they have been undertaking these experiments indicates their belief that there is another factor besides precipitation involved and, in the second place, that there is something which can be done about it. The Canadian government has certainly given no indication that it is any more than casually interested in these experiments.
Last week I gave the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) the opportunity to state that his department was involved in these experiments. Both the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Foy) and myself raised the same question on the same day and became involved in a sort of competition to see which of us could get the right to make use of the adjournment debate procedure. In fact we both were successful in getting the right to speak in the adjournment debate on the subject of the experiments being undertaken. The Minister of Transport spoke for three minutes in answer to the question of the hon. member for Lambton West and for three minutes in answer to my question and he never mentioned the experiments at all. We wonder how much co-operation there is and how interested the government is in seeking a solution to the problem.
Another indication is the levels of the inland lakes. If the problem was purely a lack of precipitation one would expect to find that the water levels in most of the inland lakes would be low. This is not the case. The water level of lake Nipissing, which empties into the Georgian bay through the French river,

on April 23, 1964 was one foot higher than it was last year and approximately the same amount over the level in 1962. This surely does not indicate that there is a shortage of water. Certainly lake Nipissing has a control dam by which, under an agreement, the level is kept as close as possible to where it should be, but if the water was just not there the level certainly could not be maintained no matter how many dams were installed.
The same thing applies to the Muskoka lakes. I reside in that area and I am very well acquainted with them. The Muskoka lakes are normal-a little bit down, a matter of inches, but in effect their levels are normal. In most of the other inland lakes in Ontario about which I have inquired the levels are normal, and if the problem were a straight case of no precipitation then surely the levels of these lakes would be down as well. These are the things that make us wonder whether the very simple answer, lack of precipitation, is in fact the whole answer. I think there is something more involved.
After expounding on what I believe to be the lack of action on the part of the government and an improper assessment of the real situation, I should like to go on to my second point. It concerns the lack of co-ordination in the government with regard to this particular problem. No one has tried to tell us that there is no problem. One needs only to look at the pictures that appeared in the Globe and Mail last week and in the Parry Sound North Star, which is closely associated with the problem, to see that all the large wharves are right out of the water. You can walk around them on dry land. There is a problem, and no one has denied it.
But we have not seen that real concern about the problem which has brought about a cabinet group, or has brought the cabinet as a whole together to try to find an answer to it. We in the opposition have to try in the question period to ferret out from the government what they are doing and who is acting. We began by addressing our questions to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Des-chatelets). The hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble) was persistent in his questioning for a number of weeks and we got very casual answers. Then we started to address our questions for a while to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) because he is concerned with water resources as such. He answered our questions for a short time, until he made that unfortunate statement about praying for rain. We have not had an answer from him since.
When the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources seemed to be no longer connected with the problem we started to 20220-1831
Canadian Water Resources ask questions of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) because the news release concerning the U.S. corps of engineers said that they were working with the Department of Transport. The Minister of Transport started to answer our questions. He took advantage of the adjournment debate to deal with a couple of questions. He stated that he knew there was a problem, that he had discussed it with the Minister of Public Works and they really could not see anything they could do. This was the effect of his answer. He said, as found on page 2698 of Hansard, that he had discussed the matter with the Minister of Public Works and they did not see that much could be done because "the water just is not there".
Here again in my opinion is an indication of the lack of concern. On April 15 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) about the matter. If you cannot get answers or acceptance of responsibility from other ministers, then you ask the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said on April 15 that the water problem seemed to be cyclical and that he did not know of any conversations with the United States about the problem. Two days later he tabled an appraisal of water levels by the international joint commission.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), because of his connection with the international joint commission, has made a number of incursions into this problem. He tabled a document, made an evasive answer and then withdrew leaving the field to some of his other colleagues. We have never had any definite answer from him but he has answered the odd question and made the odd statement.
As I mentioned, the Minister of Public Works came back into the act again when his estimates were before the house and made a statement about dredging. He said that they did not think dredging could do anything to solve the problem because it would undermine certain wharves. If that is the case I cannot argue on that point, but there are other things that can be done. That was the sole statement he made.
The Minister of Transport said that possibly ARDA was one of the answers and, along the lines set forth in the motion, he suggested that we have to develop our natural resources and that perhaps the development of more forest cover would be helpful. We are somewhat confused at the moment with regard to whether we should address our questions on this point to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) or the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve)

Canadian Water Resources or to whom we should address them. But certainly we have had no statement from either of these ministers.
In summary, there has been no collective or co-ordinated effort on the part of the government to deal with this problem. I do not know whether there is any cabinet committee. If there is not there certainly should be, but there has been no announcement in the house and no indication of any collective action. This is why we complain. If the problem is what they admit it is, then surely the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and any others who are essentially interested could get together and draw up a statement telling us what they are doing in order to relieve the minds of people in the tourist business, shipping and various other commercial enterprises. This they have not done. The whole system has broken down. As far as we can see, there is absolutely no coordinated effort. It seems to be a case of returning to the days when the Liberals were formerly in power, at which time each of the ministers attended to his own department and did not concern himself at all with the others. It appears that this is actually what is happening at this time.
We believe that the problem is not being regarded in a serious manner. We believe that the government is not looking for short or long term solutions to the problem. We have seen no evidence of it. We believe that the government has not co-ordinated its efforts along lines that are absolutely necessary, and that there has been a complete breakdown in the government's approach. We have, therefore, to make the strongest condemnation. We ask them to pull themselves together, to get going on this problem and to give the people some answers. Even if they cannot suggest an immediate solution, they should tell us that they are doing something and tell us what they are thinking about the various solutions I have mentioned, as well as other suggestions that have been made. The only suggestion from the United States authorities has been the grand canal project, and that is certainly a long way in the future. We do need this, it is true, but we also need some immediate action to alleviate the problem, not only this summer but next year as well.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that the matter is almost as dry as the water situation in the great lakes at this time.
I think that there are so many important problems in Canada on a national scale that


the official opposition might have found another subject matter which the whole population of this country would consider truly significant. This proves without doubt a certain lack of imagination on the part of the official opposition, that is the Conservative party. It shows also the lack of imagination of its leaders and of those who previously dealt with this matter. I have to admit that you would need genius to speak on a matter such as this for two days, and the Conservative members are rather bold to inflict it for two days on the house.
Mr. Speaker, there would have been some important problems-I see that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) considers this a laughing matter. But would it not have been more appropriate at this time to discuss and examine a significant issue like agriculture in this country?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: I see that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau)-[DOT]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, but not two at the same time; I am very sorry, but each one in his turn.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member for Lapointe knows the rules well.

The hon. member is well aware of standing orders. Perhaps the subject does not please him, or perhaps he forgot to talk about it. However, he must specifically speak to the subject matter moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would not suggest this subject is not important, but I may say that some others are much more important, at the present time, in Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a question?


Gilles Grégoire: The subject chosen by the Conservative party shows its lack of imagination, and that is indeed the reason why it was defeated in the last election.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I only wish to direct a question to the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; is the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm rising on a point of privilege or to ask a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: To ask a question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think Your Honour should rule on the point of order. The hon. member should remain on the subject. It is broad enough, and surely he has some pertinent remarks to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I presume the hon. member for Lapointe has a copy of this amendment before him. I hope that during the debate which will follow he will stay as closely to the subject matter as possible.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wish to put a question to the hon. member for Lapointe. If he reads the motion, he will see that he can deal with ARDA, which is an exceedingly important program: agricultural rehabilitation.
Does the hon. member not believe ARDA could, in the long run, greatly assist all social classes, including farmers?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I can say to
the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that I have read the motion so well that I have prepared an amendment concerning paragraph 2 and ARDA.
However, if I read the motion over again:
Accelerating-
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that we received this motion in English only. Besides, that is customary for the Conservatives; that is what they usually do. While we try to supply our motions in both languages, they do not show us the same courtesy.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We had two copies of the motion in French. The hon. member should know that.


Mr.   Cole@Chicouiimi: We did not get any.


Gilles Grégoire: The group to which the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) belongs did not receive one in French either. If there are any, they should send them to us.
I am precisely quoting the paragraph concerning ARDA:

-accelerating the application of ARDA policies to the problems of national resource development-

Since when does the development of natural resources come under the federal government? The constitution always taught me it was a provincial matter. That goes to show once again the centralizing tendency the Conservatives always followed when they were in office.
Mr. Speaker, I shall stick to the matter now before us, but you will understand, as I do, that this matter, not only does not belong to the category of our most important
Canadian Water Resources problems, but also flies in the face of the general outline of the Canadian constitution.

This house condemns the neglect of the government-

They are always ready to criticize, but they neither consider nor realize what they did themselves for five whole years. Still, they are ready to criticize.
Since it came into office, the Liberal party has not pulled out of the muddle. We still need lots of improvements, the government should bring us a sensible policy in order to improve the economy. The Conservatives are always ready to criticize everybody while, for the five years when they were themselves in office, they did nothing at all, except put Canada in a state of economic stagnation.

-to establish a co-ordinated national water policy-

Who is in charge of rivers? If there are power resources in the province, do they come under the control of the federal government? Who is responsible for rivers, for the development of our rivers and all our waters? These things are under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
Since when are centralizing programs like that one established?
And he goes on to say:

-ignoring the imminent national crisis in water resources management-

In other words, who is responsible for the co-ordination of water resources, if not the provincial governments?
After that, when they are in opposition they do not hesitate to give us wonderful speeches against the centralizing leanings of the government, but they overlook what they did themselves when they were in office.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to put forward an amendment which would delete from the motion everything which does not concern the federal government. I intend to base my amendment on subsection 2:
Accelerating the application of ARDA policies.
Not necessarily in relation to national resources development problems, no, but in relation to ARDA itself, the rural development program.
It is probably one of the main problems which we have to solve in Canada at the present time, and it is probably the cause of

Canadian Water Resources stagnation in our country today, especially in eastern Canada, in the maritime provinces as well as in the province of Quebec.
I have noted, for example, in my constituency or in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, some farmers who have an average annual income of $1,500, $1,600 or $1,800. And this is not a new condition. Let the Conservatives tell us what they did, which was any more than the Liberals, to help the farmers of the province of Quebec. It is a well-known fact that farmers in western Canada could benefit from several thousand dollars a year in the form of loans, while in the province of Quebec, there were scarcely 100 to 105 a year under the Conservative government. But why did they not accelerate the application of ARDA policies, as they say in their motion? They certainly did nothing of the sort in our area, in the maritime provinces or in the province of Quebec.
Those policies were drawn up with western farmers in mind, and they saw to it that those farmers benefited therefrom. We have nothing against the fact that western farmers were able to develop. On the contrary, we are happy about it, but we ask that farmers throughout Canada get the same treatment.
Why are our own regions not offered the same advantages as western areas? We do not wish to take anything from western regions which have benefited from that legislation. On the contrary, we are happy for them, but at least the same thing should be done for our province and the maritime provinces, so that it would apply all across the country and not only to some provinces where the farmers may develop their business and see their economic situation benefit therefrom.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about waterways, drainage of lands and a little of everything in that field. What has been done in the eastern part of the country under ARDA, regarding drainage? Absolutely nothing, when it was to the great advantage of some individuals. I refer to the ARDA program- I shall remind the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Bechard) that ARDA is also a program for land drainage and other purposes. He should read it over again, and he would see that this is so. But in the province of Quebec or in the maritime provinces, it was not put to work. Action was taken only in some regions of the country.
Mr. Speaker, all this means that when the time comes to consider a motion like the one before us, which will be debated for two days, there are very important problems to discuss and there is no other opportunity to do so.

This is the second supply motion presented to us and it is the second time that the opposition offers us dull subjects to discuss at the national level.
The House of Commons is certainly not to blame if it rains less or if the water level is dropping. Perhaps there are remedial measures to be taken. But have the technicians considered these remedies carefully when the Conservative party was in office? Never. Clear evidence of this is that no investigation was ordered at that time. Such motions should have been used instead to call the attention of the government to important problems such as agriculture.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the amendment we intend to move, so that we may at least deal with a matter of national importance.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule), that the first paragraph be deleted and that, in the second paragraph, all the words be struck out after the word "action", as well as paragraphs 1 and 3, so that the motion reads as follows:
That, in the interests of national development, this house urge the government to take concrete steps immediately to accelerate the application of ARDA.
That, Mr. Speaker, is relevant to the main motion which has left us a very narrow opening indeed. We will now be able to discuss a more particular point, the application of ARDA in the east as well as throughout Canada.
Let us now come to the point. There is in Canada at present a definite set of facts and economic situations. I shall relate all my remarks to that later on, but I should like to start with a few preliminary observations.
We are concerned over unemployment being rather high, but we are taking very weak action to alleviate it, as for instance the winter works program. This cannot really be called a planned or broad program to put an end to unemployment in our country. It is just like bringing coal to Newcastle, and that started a few years ago. Now we are giving Canadian citizens pick and shovel work in winter in order to lower unemployment.
However, there are causes to the unemployment situation. If we care to examine the problem closely, we will see that one of the causes is, partly, the stagnation of our agriculture at the present time.
I will give an example in my own region of Saguenay, many farmers are leaving their farms to go and find work in the city. This increases, nevertheless, the number of unemployed in our municipalities.
Here is another example. It is noted that in the province of Quebec there is, at St. Hilaire, a sugar beet factory which produces

a small percentage of the table sugar used in our province and in the country as a whole. Now, if we were to organize, within the framework of ARDA, other sugar beet industries, say, in the Saguenay area, the Gaspe peninsula and New Brunswick, then, a good many farmers of the surrounding districts could work and earn a substantial income from that product. At the same time these sugar beet industries could provide work for a number of city workers. This would at least alleviate unemployment and concrete results would be obtained in both cases. It would help some farmers and some unemployed to find work.
What is being done instead? Our sugar is bought somewhere else, when we would be able to produce large quantities of very good sugar in eastern Canada.
Previous governments, however, have always neglected agriculture, as known in eastern Canada, to consider exclusively the wheat problem. They forgot that there existed land capable of producing sugar beets, potatoes, onions, carrots and green peas, etc. Subsidies were given to western Canada only. Once again, we have nothing against these people out west who got those grants. But why not do the same thing in the eastern part of the country where crops are still more diversified?
If we had had more sugar beet factories, if that had been possible under ARDA, then our farmers and workers would really have been helped. Instead, we merely import our sugar from elsewhere, and since the troubles with Cuba-not us but our friends south of the border-we see the price of sugar rising tremendously and, once again, the Canadian consumer suffers the consequences.
Mr. Speaker, some people recently boasted -and this is a good illustration of what I am going to say-that there were signs of economic development, because some large corporations, like General Motors, had established themselves in the province of Quebec. It is true that this corporation will give jobs to a thousand people or so in Ste Therese de Blainville, and around Montreal, but why always wait for foreign industries to build plants and reap the profits and the dividends? But what about us in Quebec and Canada, in that context? We are only wage earners, employees, whereas foreign industrialists build up their business in this country, and remain its masters, getting the profits, and we poor Canadians always remain employees, wage earners in those foreign industries.
Mr. Speaker, that is the great drawback of our economic system. We are unable to assume our responsibilities and develop on our own, to remain the masters and owners of our natural wealth, of our industries and our
Canadian Water Resources trade. All we do is wait for some foreigners to settle here and do it instead.
I admit that the management of the General Motors Company has been bright enough, and had enough initiative to realize that there was a market for 100,000 cars a year in this country, and hastened to build this plant at Ste Therese de Blainville. Now, why should our economic system not allow us to build our own automobile industry, which we would own and control completely, so that we could have our own brands of cars, like many smaller countries, such as Belgium, Yugoslavia and Sweden?
I believe a sugar beet industry could easily be developed if we accelerated the program under ARDA. Had this been done in the past, had this program been applied throughout the country, secondary industries such as canning, could have been established, and the sugar beet industry could have been developed, along with others, and we would not be faced with this situation at the present time. Farmers are no longer able to live on their farms, they leave for the cities and overcrowd the labour market; they contribute to increased unemployment.
If we considered developing our economy in all sectors, in all fields, if we exerted ourselves to diversify it and profit by it, instead of waiting for foreigners to come and do it for us, then, we would be the masters. Why not try to produce at home what we can use, instead of importing? I remind you of the example I just gave, that of the sugar beet industry, which could be developed in the province of Quebec. At the present time, we produce only a small percentage of the sugar needed for Canadian consumption. We would be able to produce much more, and we would thereby avoid importing almost all the sugar we use in Canada.
Then, the farmers would work and enjoy a much happier life. They would have better living conditions and the number of unemployed would be reduced.
What I mean is that we do not feel capable of progressing by our own means. Let us do it ourselves.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member?
I know that in theory his suggestion to the effect that we become masters in our own house is excellent. But would the hon. member think that the Arvida plant should be closed because it is owned by foreign interests?


Gilles Grégoire: For those who are superficial, that may seem true at first sight, but I was explicit in the statement I made at the outset of my observations, when I specified the condition of the industries which could be developed at the national level, that is by the
2890	HOUSE OF
Canadian Water Resources country itself. That is an industry of a national character. The aluminum industry in Arvida is an industry of an international character, because it imports bauxite from foreign countries such as Venezuela, for instance, to process it in Canada. The finished product is then sold on world markets. It is typically an industry of an international character, but when I talk about the sugar beet, which is primarily a raw material which could be processed and sold here, the matter is quite different.
If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm were a little less superficial, he would analyse the kind of industries according to their own nature and would realize that it is possible to develop our industries ourselves and for ourselves, while some other industries have an international character which it would be difficult for one country such as Canada to control. If, for instance, Venezuela should nationalize the bauxite industry, Canada would be seriously affected, and then an industry of an international character could not be maintained.
On the other hand, a number of purely national industries, like the sugar beet industry which I just mentioned as an example, might be developed. As I say, of all our industries, the sugar beet industry is one with a national character; we have the raw material, and it could be developed and we would have a market for sugar.
All that should be installed, organized, put into operation as soon as possible, by accelerating, as it is requested in the motion, the application of ARDA, as provided in the act. Why is it not done? Because it seems that the government does not want to take long term, middle term or short term steps in the efforts it makes in all fields.
The policy of this government seems rather directed at alleviating certain conditions by half-measures, like for instance, winter works. Men are required to work with pick and shovel to build drainage systems, in order to give work to the greatest number of unemployed. That is the purpose of winter works. Why not put them all to work by giving them table spoons and putting machines and steam shovels in garages? Why are those men not used to build industries in the country, to build the country and develop it? There are claims to the effect that we need power developments, electric grids. Why not take our unemployed and put them to work on those projects according to a definite development program? In so doing, Canada would experience a rapid development, our economy would be put back on its feet and we would be doing Canadians a service. The government has only been able to find half-measures which are far from being the solution to the


development of this country. They simply tend to alleviate slightly the existing unemployment, and only in areas which are of benefit to but a few regions, such as with winter works. Where the climate is more severe, where snow stays longer than elsewhere, winter works are affected and those regions cannot benefit from the measure to the same extent as regions with a more temperate climate. The latter can derive much greater benefit than the former.
We do not approve this motion in its present form because the development of water resources comes under the provinces. To infringe upon that field would be to advocate centralization. It would accelerate centralization and transfer to Ottawa a sphere of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. For instance, paragraph (1) states the following:
-establishing a national advisory committee on water resources to assist in co-ordinating national resource development.
I say that watercourses do not come under the federal government but under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the government now has at its disposal an act which, if applied more elaborately, more rapidly and more extensively, could help to improve and strengthen our economy.
For instance, if ARDA was adapted to all areas of the country, in the east as well as the west, it could be useful. But, as I already said, it is not adapted as it should be. In western Canada it is easy to secure a $25,000 loan. I think that for a farmer with 1,000 acres of real estate, it is easy to secure a loan. On the other hand, in the province of Quebec the farmer has 100 acres only, but if these 100 acres are well developed, if the farmer uses modern machinery, he can produce as much, from the standpoint of value, as the western farmer who cultivates 1,000 acres but grows wheat only.
But today the Farm Credit Corporation lends much less to the eastern farmer, to the Quebec farmer. Why? Because the Quebec farmer has only 100 acres in land, whereas the western farmer has 1,000 acres, ten times more. Then, the eastern farmer gets a loan five times smaller.
And yet the eastern farmer can in all probability develop his land, get it to produce as economically as the western farmer whose farm covers 1,000 acres.
No help was given the eastern farmer to enable him to modernize his operation and put it on a more economic basis. That practice is not followed in eastern Canada. Why? Because the fact that eastern and western Canada go in for a different type of farming was not recognized.

I am happy to note that Canada enjoys such a diversified farm production. We produce wheat in the west, but we must also take into account the production potentialities of the east. That production might be extremely diversified, and I am glad of it, but I also think that we must pass legislation and accept principles, in short regulations, allowing all kinds of culture, and not the development of only one in quality and quantity.
The ARDA program is not achieving its purpose at the present time in the eastern part of our country because it is not adjusted to the type of farming which can be done there.
It is for those reasons that I am going to move a subamendment, and I will send you a copy thereof, Mr. Speaker.
I am sorry that I have only one copy and that I did not have time to prepare it in English. I apologize to my Conservative friends, but the amendment was submitted to us at the last moment, and since I prepared my subamendment from my seat-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Both languages are official. Preach bilingualism by your actions and not by your words.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I know that both languages are official, but when it is an official document, such as a motion, an amendment or a subamendment, a copy of which is sent to other members, I feel that it is only a matter of courtesy and good will to make available to them a copy in both official languages. This contributes to make bilingualism more official. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East:
That the first paragraph be deleted and that, in the second paragraph, after the word "action", the other words be deleted, as well as paragraphs 1, and 3, so that the motion will read as follows:
That in the best interests of national development, the house urge the government to take concrete steps immediately to accelerate the application of ARDA.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, in my comments this afternoon I want to concentrate specifically on long term planning for water development. Water serves many needs. Some of these, particularly the consumptive uses, are becoming more demanding with the passage of time. Canadians have traditionally thought of water as a great source of energy, a source for the production of hydroelectric power; but increasingly it is becoming important for industrial purposes, for irrigation, for pollution control, process steam, and so on. These other needs are becoming more valuable. In many areas the usefulness of 20220-184
Canadian Water Resources water for power production purposes is still unchallenged, but in time this will certainly change.
Not only are these needs changing in character, and their nature becoming less oriented toward power production, but they are becoming crucial in widening areas of the country. A few decades ago there were only one or two spots in eastern Canada where water was in really short supply. This need has now extended to other areas. It is reaching the proportions of river basins. For example, the St. Lawrence river basin is now in some difficulty, and as these consumptive needs increase the effect of shortages will become more acute. This is a progessive development, not year by year because there are significant cyclical fluctuations but over the longer term; and certainly provision must be made to look after these requirements as they develop. They are moving from purely local problem areas to broader regional areas. In the United States they have become of great consequence from an inter-state point of view. They are becoming national in importance and I would underline the expectation that in the longer run they will also become of great concern on a continental basis. River basins will no longer be regarded as isolated one from the other; water diversions will be made from one area to another in order to relieve shortage. Surplus water areas literally hundreds of miles away from areas in which water is in short supply will be called upon to meet these increasingly valuable and urgent requirements.
I think one might look many years ahead and conceive what might be termed a broad continental approach to water development. If we look far enough into the future it would certainly seem unlikely that all our great northward flowing rivers would flow in their whole amount and uninterruptedly to the sea. Their flood waters, in part at least, will be turned southwards and redirected toward the areas of greatest requirement. They will be directed across the continent in an eastward direction as well as generally southwards. This water will be picked up at points of very high elevation and will swing down around the contours of the continent, so to speak, and used where it is most precious. This will happen earlier in the pre-Cambrian shield area. There is one minor diversion presently in existence, that of the Ogoki, whereby waters flowing into Hudson bay have been diverted ever since the early forties into lake Superior, and this has helped to relieve the initial problems of power production in that area and consumption problems in the great lakes area.
2892	HOUSE OF
Canadian Water Resources
With the passage of time we will be looking at schemes such as the grand canal scheme, which will turn-


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is an amendment before the house. Now, it seems to me that the hon. member is still speaking about the main motion while, according to standing orders, he should be restricting his remarks to the amendment now submitted to the house. This amendment precisely deals with the speeding up of the ARDA program while the main motion deals with another subject about which the hon. member is now speaking.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, I wish to point out to Your Honour that, according to the practice, we should discuss both the main amendment and the subamendment at the same time. Moreover, even if we were a little more severe in enforcing the rules, the hon. member's remarks would still be relevant, because while discussing the subamendment specifying the deletion of some elements of the main amendment, there is reason to discuss whether or not those provisions of the main amendment should be deleted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it seems to me extremely difficult to separate the subamendment from the main amendment. It has been customary in debates of this kind to deal with both at the same time. I have not before me a copy of the subamendment. I imagine that copies will be available, but as the hon. member read it I gathered that it strikes out all references to water conservation and river pollution and confines itself entirely to a discussion of ARDA. I do not know how the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) can discuss the merits of the subamendment, which narrows the whole discussion, unless he discusses the importance of the much broader question. It seems to me that to confine him to a discussion of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act is to narrow the debate in a manner which would not be in the best interest of a full discussion.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I too do not have a copy of the subamendment, but in following the remarks of the hon. member who now has the floor I think the area he is covering does have ap-

plication to ARDA if we include the whole context of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it would appear that if the hon. member who now has the floor is not permitted to speak on the main motion there would be some question whether the amendment proposed by the hon. member of the Ralliement Creditistes would or would not be in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I might refer hon. members to citation 172 (2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says that an amendment to the amendment on a motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply is-
-intended to strengthen or weaken the amendment to which it must be relevant and upon which it is dependant.
My understanding of the practice in these debates is to consider both the amendment and the subamendment at the same time and not to be too restrictive so as to eliminate all discussion which might not be strictly relevant to the subamendment.
I think we should take into account that in order to be acceptable the subamendment must relate in some way to the main amendment. This would indicate that remarks of the type now being made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano are relevant.


John (Jack) Davis: I should like to continue by painting briefly a picture of the type of diversion I have in mind. On the Harricanaw river there are freshets flowing into the James bay area during the late spring and early summer, none of which can be captured on site for power production. The great part of this water flows wastefully into the sea. How much better it would be to make use of this water by pumping it back to the divide in the Canadian shield and allowing it to flow into the great lakes system. Power which was, apparently, lost in the course of this operation could be recovered at Niagara falls and at the seaway plants. Thus, the power capacity which was involved near James bay at a very great distance from the main centres of consumption could be recovered ultimately at such points as Niagara and Lachine, where transmission difficulties are relatively slight and where the economics of distribution are much improved.
One can conceive in the fullness of time of water being brought from the northern part of British Columbia and from the Yukon to points further south where it is urgently needed. This is an area of high precipitation, a region where the winds coming across the Pacific drop most of their water burden. It

falls on those high mountains and, by and large, it flows to the sea through the Mackenzie and Yukon rivers. Great opportunities exist for diversions, by pumping and the building of canals, which would bring water down to the prairie provinces. As shortages develop in Alberta and central Saskatchewan, this water could be made progressively available in this way by diverting rivers such as the Athabasca and, subsequently, the Peace river. Later, the Liard and other rivers could be diverted, working backward to the great sources of water I have mentioned. This is one way in which use could be made of all the water that is picked up in the great areas of the Pacific and dropped in those northern mountain regions.
Later on it will be necessary to bring water in some quantity to the arid areas of the prairies. Conceivably, those diversions could be continued even to the great lakes basin. In other words, after decades of time and after the progressive evaluation of planned development, great schemes could be put in hand, not only for the diversion southward of water now running to the north but also for the diversion of water resources in British Columbia and the Yukon east across the prairies to the great lakes system. In this instance, as well, there is a need to put in energy in order to raise this water over divides. I would point out that it is possible to develop power plants earlier in those areas because there is an on-site need to do this. And it is possible to recover a large part of that energy in another place, notably in central Canada. Some of this pumping could be done in the northwest using fossil fuels; perhaps a use could be found for the vast quantities of energy which exists in the oil shale deposits of northern Alberta. There is even the possibility that this water flowing through canals, in some places, could serve as part of a transportation system, at least in summer.
So there is a multi-purpose aspect, here- water, energy production and transportation. Certainly, irrigation is a great consumptive requirement which will have to be met on the prairies, and provision will have to be made for the growing needs of southern Ontario, as well. There is, indeed, a whole field here, for exploration. Some of the projects which could be undertaken are small and are of relatively modest proportions. We should at least ensure that these individual projects fit into a broader plan for the optimum water resource development of this continent.
There is also the whole question of exporting water. I think we have to face this in much the same way as Canadians have belatedly faced the problem of exporting
Canadian Water Resources hydroelectric power. Once we commit ourselves to the long term export of water we cannot hope easily to repatriate this resource. It involves a service which moved flow into the factories and homes of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people on the other side of the boundary. Thus, we have to be most careful about the such commitments. I think it is obvious that the only way to supplement the water supplies into the St. Lawrence system in a substantial manner is by diverting the waters which flow northward into James bay and Hudson bay. They are creating a fair amount of havoc in the north at the moment. They are contributing to the muskeg and to conditions which are not favourable to agriculture and the growth of harvestable forest cover. These diversions will, therefore, conceivably improve the prospects of the far north. But they will, inevitably, be associated with the United States because, by entering into a great watershed half of which is in Canada and half of which is in the United States, they will become more fully available to both countries.
We are faced with a special situation in the diversion of water at Chicago into the Mississippi. There are only a few feet of difference in elevation between lake Michigan and the upper tributaries of the Mississippi river system. Indeed, it only takes a shallow ditch to divert water from the St. Lawrence into the Mississippi. This was discovered years ago. At one time, more water flowed south from the St. Lawrence system into the Mississippi than is flowing today. The United States has from time to time considered making larger diversions but it has, in fact, limited those diversions. I believe the United States has behaved in a neighbourly manner in this respect when one considers that the value of this water and the useage to which it is being, and will be put, are rapidly increasing.
We have an opportunity here, I think, to capitalize on the moneys which could be raised for diversion purposes, and we must carefully assess the long term consequences of diverting rivers such as the Albany and the Severn which flow into Hudson bay so that part of this water would, perhaps, flow out to the Chicago diversion.
We must explore such matters as these in great depth and consider carefully all the contractual relationships involved before any commitments are entered into. Perhaps we have at hand a device by which the water shortages of southern Ontario can be solved along with the water problems of those states of the United States which border the great lakes. In the case of power, different ways
2894	HOUSE OF
Canadian Water Resources have been found of generating electricity. Operations have become larger in scale and cost has steadily decreased. For this reason it is now possible for us to enter upon long term power export commitments with a sound expectation of being able to repatriate the export power when we need to do so. There is as yet little indication that water can be produced cheaply.
There is some hope that nuclear power plants run primarily for energy production can also be used to produce water. They throw off a great deal of waste heat and most of this at least can be used to make sweet water. Programs of that kind will undoubtedly develop in areas like California and along the Texas gulf coast. Conceivably they can be fitted into an export program which Canada could contemplate. In other words, progressive repatriation may be possible. But these are only possibilities and their economic justification has yet to be proven.
I should like to refer to the financing of great projects of this kind. We have an interesting example embedded in the protocol to the Columbia river treaty. In that instance there has been a substantial need in the United States which has been growing more rapidly than our Canadian need for water and for power. It has therefore been possible through advance lump sum payments to have various interests in the United States finance major developments in Canada. Some of these major diversions, first, the waters flowing into James bay and Hudson bay and perhaps later waters in the northern Rocky mountains, could be financed in this way.
Literally hundreds of millions of dollars could be raised in the United States, They could be accumulated as lump sums. They would be anticipating the revenue over many, many years from the sale of the water. Over such a long period of time the lump sums involved would be very large. More important still to Canada, I think, is the fact that they could be raised at lower interest rates than are generally available in Canada and certainly to individual Canadian provincial governments or utilities. In other words, large amounts of capital could be mobilized cheaply in this way. I believe that they will be offered within a few years time. They will be offered in effect at very low interest rates and their very size will reflect in part the lowness of the interest rate. The lower the rate the higher the lump sum commitment, and Canada will be well advised to look very carefully at these commitments with a view to accelerating the development of some of our northern water resources.


Robert William Prittie: Would the hon. member permit a question? He has been referring to the


Columbia river treaty. Would he agree that some of the water that will be stored in Canada, if the treaty passes, will be used for consumptive purposes in addition to power purposes? Would he also tell me if there is anything in the treaty that will compensate Canada for consumptive use in the United States? I am thinking that some of this water will find its way to southern California yet.


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) knows, there are provisions in the treaty which permit both countries to divert for consumptive uses, and it is this use which I am attempting to stress in my speech today. In other words, the waters of the upper Columbia may, during the life of the treaty, be diverted, for example, to the prairies.


Mr. Cooper:: Does the hon. member concede that there is a rider to the treaty that the water cannot be used for power purposes? We need water on the prairies, and the Columbia river project is selling our birthright to the United States.


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member is reflecting the concern that a lot of Canadians have voiced in years gone by about hydroelectric power. We have the right to divert for consumptive purposes. During the life of the treaty we do not have the right to divert for purposes which are exclusively the production of hydroelectric power, and I think hon. members will discover that this protects us from diversion in the United States as well.


Mr. Clancy:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Have we got the right to divert water for domestic consumption?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes. The Columbia river treaty quite specifically states that Canada reserves the right to divert water for consumptive uses.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: What clause is that?


John (Jack) Davis: I am afraid I do not recall, but it is a clause in the treaty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I asked him what clause it was.


An hon. Member:: Clause 13.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have attempted in a very general way to sketch out these long term opportunities. I have also tried to emphasize that we should be looking ahead with respect to these great alternatives with a view to ensuring that the projects we undertake in the next few years, over the next few decades, are consistent with a more comprehensive plan of development. I have

struck a note of caution about the difficulties involved, political and legal, in the export of water. I think they are akin to those which we have experienced in respect of power, but I think we will overcome some, if not all of them.
Finally, I should like to refer to one even larger concept, the diversion of the waters of the upper Yukon river. These can be pumped over into the Peace river system and in turn brought down across the prairies to eastern Canada. This river, if no needs develop in northern British Columbia and the Yukon, will be developed largely in Alaska. It will be developed by the U.S. army corps of engineers and other United States federal government agencies in much the same way as the Columbia was developed in Washington and Oregon in the Pacific northwest. Gigantic vested interests will accumulate in Alaska. They will utilize these flows and it will become politically at least, if not in terms of treaty arrangements, more difficult to divert the waters of the upper Yukon when Canada needs them. Were we to enter into some vast scheme ultimately with the United States whereby the diversion eastward of some of the flood waters of the upper Yukon would be undertaken at a relatively early stage, this would anticipate the other difficulty of repatriating water supplied from the Yukon in the years to come.
In speaking specifically to the amendment and focusing particularly on the current difficulties around the great lakes, I might point out that this water supply problem can only be resolved by essentially long term planning. Five years, six years, maybe even a dozen years may be required to carry out the initial stages of these major diversions. Hence a shortage which is occurring today, a little more than 12 months after the present government came to power, cannot be blamed on inadequate measures taken by the present government. Works to look after these shortages in any very specific way would have had to be started in the late 1950's or by 1960 at the latest. In other words, we must look well ahead. We must not be blaming each other for the current shortage, which may pass for a few years but will become inevitably more difficult to solve with the passage of time unless we do something about it.
So we need long term planning. We obviously need the co-operation of the provinces who own these resources. We need to be very careful about measures such as the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which defends the national interest so far as rivers are concerned, and make sure that the provinces do not open great holes in that act so that in the future it becomes virtually impossible
Canadian Water Resources for the federal government to co-operate with the provinces on an interprovincial or interregional basis.
I should like to leave hon. members with the thought that we certainly need more long term planning, more co-operative effort, more discussion with the provinces. I agree with the first speaker that the first resources for tomorrow conference was an excellent one. It was well executed and a number of ideas were brought forward then which have been invaluable in the formation of the first plans of this government. But we need more of these conferences and I am sure we will see more of them in the future under the present government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the hon. member a question? I understood him to say that the Columbia river protocol did not permit the diversion of water to be used exclusively for the generation of hydroelectric power. May I ask him where he gets the word "exclusively"? I cannot find anything in the protocol which says that water cannot be diverted where it is going to be exclusively used for hydroelectric power, or if it is going to be used for hydroelectric power at all.


John (Jack) Davis: In answer to the hon. member, I must admit that I am not a lawyer. I have discussed the subject matter with lawyers who agree that this is so, and certainly the government has taken the advice that this is so.


Clarence Owen Cooper: I agree in so far as the hon. member is talking about three or four years, but I want to look at it for 30 years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; is the hon.
member rising to ask a question?


Clarence Owen Cooper: I am asking a question. I want to know about the situation 30 years from now. What are you going to do about the prairies if you sell our birthright to the United States in this Columbia project? What are we going to do for water on the prairies? I am thinking in terms of the Saskatchewan river dam which will be completed in two years. It is said that about 10 per cent of the water from the Columbia, which is a very small diversion, will double the flow of the Saskatchewan river, and in 20 or 30 years western Canada is going to need that water. You are talking in terms of four or five years-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but perhaps he should ask a question if that is what he intends to do.


Clarence Owen Cooper: Thank you. Are you looking ahead in terms of 20 or 25 years when this water will be needed in western Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: I should like to reassure the hon. member that the Columbia river treaty

Canadian Water Resources certainly looks ahead. It provides for the diversion of water out of the Columbia river in Canada at any time for purposes which are primarily consumptive, for instance, irrigation. Incidentally, this diversion can take place without having to pay compensation to the United States for the interests affected, whereas prior to the Columbia river treaty we would have had to pay that compensation. In other words, we are freer to divert water for irrigation on the prairies than we were before.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Would the hon. member explain to me how he can take the water right back, when he has given it away?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I call on the next speaker, I might perhaps mention, in connection with the subamendment submitted to the house, the Chair has before it at the moment only the English version of the amendment and the French version of the subamendment. During the last few minutes the Chair has attempted to relate the one to the other in order to find out to what extent they can be connected. It seems a very difficult task. Perhaps over the dinner hour the Chair might have a chance to see both the French version of the amendment and the English version of the subamendment. While the subamendment may not be out of order at the moment, unless something be clarified during the translation there may be some question as to whether or not it is regular in form.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, you may rest assured that I will inform our whip of the statement you just made.
I must say I found the comments of the hon. member for Lapointe rather strange, because, after stating at the outset that our amendment was of no interest to him, he nevertheless succeeded in dealing with it for at least 30 minutes. I take this opportunity to congratulate him.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the amendment now before us is concerned, I intend to deal with three subjects:
First, I shall refer briefly to the record of the Conservative party in the field of national resources.
Second, I wish to take the opportunity afforded me by this debate to criticize the initiative of the present government in that field during the past several months.
Third, I intend very seriously to make a few definite and constructive suggestions.

Before I proceed this evening, Mr. Speaker, and since I anticipate the possibility of points

of order, I should like to inform hon. members exactly the basis on which I intend to proceed. I believe the only possible way in which to better the problem we have before us is by improved co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. If there has been success in the field of resource planning, be it in the field of water or other resource planning, if there have been successes or failures, those successes or failures have depended, in my view, primarily on the state of federal-provincial co-operation.
I know many of my hon. friends opposite have often lamented the lack of polarization of debate in this house. I should like to underline the clear difference of approach toward the subject under discussion as between the two major parties in this house. I am not saying that the government I supported in this house was perfect in the field of federal-provincial co-operation. However, if we did have successes in planning in the resource field, if we did have success in our experience with ARDA, it was because the Conservative administration which I supported knew the true and basic meaning of cooperative federalism. We did not just talk about it. This is the reason I want to doubly underline the successes mentioned by the hon. member who led off in this debate this afternoon.
The government I supported understood the real meaning of co-operative federalism and the facts of life of confederation in 1964 as well as in 1957 or 1958 at the time this party came into power. It is no accident of history that a Conservative government understood the true meaning of co-operative federalism because we were the party of confederation. The longer the present administration remains in power the more the people of Canada will realize that, although we may have made mistakes and I am the first to admit that we made mistakes-we did not make the colossal mistakes the present government has made since it took office. During the years we were in power the ARDA program was the result of a dynamic, new and constructive approach to the field of federal-provincial relations. It was not just a pragmatic sort of ad hoc shooting from the hip; it was based on our party's principles.
I know hon. members opposite smile. They have adopted pragmatically the notion of co-operative federalism in the year 1964. It is an adoption of convenience because a party which has for years supported a doctrine of centralism cannot turn a somersault in five minutes and support the idea of co-operative federalism.
If the present government has failed to initiate and carry out new ideas in the field

of resources, water, and ARDA, it is because it does not understand, or care to understand, the true and basic meaning and the principles of co-operative federalism. It has only adopted the slogan because it thinks it is a good slogan to adopt in the year 1964. Our party, between 1957 and 1962, with its ARDA approach and the establishment of the resource ministers conference, established the real and basic idea of co-operative federalism, based on the principles of our party.

When the former minister of finance (Mr. Fleming) succeeded, in agreement with the premier of Quebec at that time, Mr. Sauve, in settling the problem of university grants, the news was not published in the papers the next morning as an extraordinary fait accompli. Indeed, it was only natural that a Conservative government had entered into a discussion and reached such an agreement with the provinces.

I would like to say, sir, when the right hon. prime minister of the day, with Mr. Fleming, the then minister of finance, reached the accord he did with the province of Quebec and its premier of that time, the late Paul Sauve, relating to university grants, it was not spoken of in headlines across the nation, for the very simple reason it was only natural that a Conservative government, realizing what it was to co-operate with the provinces, naturally did this sort of thing.
As I say, our treatment of the provinces and our co-operation with them between 1957 and 1962 was not matter of convenience. It was no accident of history because the party of confederation, under the direction of the right hon. prime minister of that time, deeply felt and knew the necessity for maintaining national unity and confederation by thus cooperating. So, we saw at that time real and dynamic leadership in the field of resources, in ARDA and in relation to many problems such as the development of our water resources that we are discussing this afternoon.
What are these principles of our party? We recognize that while we must have a strong central government, there is also the need to decentralize in a country like Canada. We also believe that the father of many of our party's principles, Burke, knew what he was talking about when he elaborated the principle of local self-agency, which simply means that very often people on the local level know what is best for them and how best to govern their local affairs.
I agree with the present right hon. Prime Minister when he says-and it is obvious-
Canadian Water Resources that each government, be it provincial or federal, must remain strong and able to carry out its responsibilities as given to it by the constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say briefly to the house that if the Conservative party had such a success with regard to national resources, just after it came to power, it is mainly because of its co-operation with every province of the country.

Sir, now I come to the second general theme which I want to treat this afternoon. I would like to ask myself and all hon. members the question: Why has there been a slowing down of the momentum, as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) so ably described it a while ago, in relation to any dynamic program for the development of our resources? Many people in all corners of the country are wondering why there has been a slowing down, not only in this program but in all major .economic programs that were meant to be undertaken by the government.
I find it amazing that people should be surprised that there has been a slowing down, because in this day and age, on May 4, 1964-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to inform the hon. member-


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member makes remarks from his seat. I understand he is one of those bright, new sophisticates in the Liberal party who speak from their seats. He is intellectually emancipated.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of order?


Rémi Paul: 
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure of one thing, there was no point of order there. Perhaps the hon. member will be able to understand the rules better after a few years spent in this house.

Business of the House
I should now like to go on with my observations.

It should not be surprising that such a state of affairs exists on May 4, 1964, not a slow down but a complete cessation of activities not only in the field of resources but in the field of all economic activities that the government meant to undertake. The hon. member continues to babble from his seat. I would like to ask him to extend to me, while I am speaking, the courtesy that I intend to extend to him when he makes his maiden speech in this house, if he has not already made it.


Mr. Turner:: He has made it.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, there should be no surprise on the part of the Canadian people that such a state of affairs exists. While hon. members opposite have, as I said in my initial remarks, called for a polarization of debate I would simply like to say-I have said it many times and I say it this afternoon with a stronger voice than I have ever used before-that the party of centralization bases its activities on the doctrines so often expounded by the Secretary of State, bases its activities on the Pearson plan, and on the book called "Troubled Canada". I ask all hon. members if they will not admit that the Pearson plan, the book by the Secretary of State, and the book by the Minister of Finance are all exposes, if you will, of the doctrine of centralization. Let us stop trying to bring red herrings into this debate; let us put our cards on the table.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling it six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock are as follows: the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) on negotiations with the United States in respect to the Passamaquoddy project; the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Boutin)-

-as concerns unemployment insurance in the case of Canadian lumbermen who travel to the state of Maine in order to work; [Text]
third, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the closing of Miller Bay hospital in British Columbia.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.



COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith (for the Minister of Finance) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Dinsdale, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gre-goire.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As I indicated prior to six o'clock, the Chair had some difficulty in relating the context of the subamendment presented in the French language with the context of the amendment presented in the English language. I indicated that through the dinner hour I would have the opportunity to look at the two texts and try to relate them to one another. Having done so, the Chair is of the opinion that to give effect to the subamendment as proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and as set forth in the last paragraph of his motion, certain alterations should be effected as follows, so that the French text would read:

That the amendment be amended as follows:
In paragraph 1, delete every word after the words "this house".
In paragraph 2, delete the words "and it" in the first line, delete every word after "immediate action" and replace them with the following words: "in the best interests of national development, to take concrete steps immediately to accelerate the application of ARDA".
I might mention that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and the hon. member who seconded the motion have accepted that this change in form be made. If the house will give its unanimous consent, the change will be made.

Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks before six o'clock, I stated that if our Conservative government, under the leadership of the then prime minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), was really successful in the field of resources, it was because our Conservative government had readily realized the necessity of cooperating with the provinces. That is why we were successful in our ARDA policies, as well as in the setting up of a council of resources ministers.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, as I did at the outset of my remarks before six o'clock, that if the

government I supported had success in the resources field, in the field of ARDA, it was because our government, supported by a party and directed by a prime minister who knew the true meaning and spirit of co-operation with the provinces, brought these things into being. I would like to state again that I believe there has been a slowing down of the momentum in these programs. Why? Again I say, because the party of centralization has been basing its activities on the doctrines so often expounded by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) and on the Pearson plan. Far too many people blame the ministers, but it is the Pearson plan that is underlined by a high notion of centralization which cannot be applied to the facts of federal life in 1964. This government has been basing its activities on the book called "Troubled Canada", and all these ideas expound the glories of centralization and leave no room for any idea of co-operative federalism; there is no room for any idea of co-operation with the provinces.
Why then, we should ask ourselves, has there been failure in planning for resources by the government that sits opposite? It is just not an accident; it is because they have based their governmental activities on the doctrines of centralization, which they are doing their best to disown but which they cannot disown.
I say the Liberal government's failure under the Pearson plan, its failure in policy in the field of resources, is based on the same reason for their having failed in all their economic activities as a government. It is because they have failed to consult with the provinces; they have failed to consult with local authorities; they have failed, as ministers, even to consult among themselves. One minister makes one sort of speech on economic planning, another minister makes another sort of speech. I often wonder whether Mr. Kent vets these speeches out, or whether he should not start doing so pretty soon. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this government might mouth the glories of co-operative federalism, but they do not believe in co-operative federalism.
The next remark I want to make is this, Mr. Speaker. I have made it very often before inside and outside this House of Commons. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is surrounded on the treasury benches by some very senior and very able ex-senior bureaucrats. I happen to be one of those-and I am not just saying this to flatter-who think that we Canadians are blessed with one of the finest of civil services in the world. But the right hon. Prime Minister, an ex-senior bureaucrat himself is surrounded by whom, and from whom does
Canadian Water Resources he take his advice? He takes it from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and his book "Troubled Canada". Does this not underline the glories of centralization? The Prime Minister takes his advice from the Secretary of State, (Mr. Lamontagne) who wrote one of the great exposes on the glories of centralization and who just the other day, because he thought it was convenient, did a somersault and said, "You know, ladies and gentlemen, that was in the province of Quebec. I think, after all, that decentralization is really a very good thing for federalism".
There is a senator in the other place who said just a few years ago that his party, the Liberal party, was wallowing in the quagmires of pragmatism. Well, Mr. Speaker, they cannot turn somersaults and get away with it that easy while we are in the opposition. Our successes in these fields were based, again I say, on the principles of our party. Those who surround the Prime Minister today have shown time and time again that this notion of centralization cannot be applied to the facts of federal life in 1964. From whom does the Prime Minister take his counsel in regard to economic matters? We have seen that the Pearson plan and the right hon. Prime Minister himself are dominated by the centralizers. This leaves no room for the party that forms this government to advance sincerely any notion on co-operative federalism with the provinces.
With many other Canadians I rejoiced the other day when it seemed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) attained a certain amount of agreement with the province of Quebec with relation to the pension plan. I rejoiced, as I think did every other hon. member, thinking of the old people of our country and putting country before party. But what about all this nonsense that the premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada have saved confederation? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if a friend and I were to set fire to a house and we watched it bum, and then just before the house was almost destroyed we called in the fire brigade and with the fire brigade we saved that house, could we honestly be credited with saving the house? The Prime Minister with his centralist activities nearly sabotaged national unity and the spirit of co-operative federalism, which is so necessary to put programs like this into operation. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) added a little gas to the fire and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) added a little more gas to the fire. Then they called in the fire brigade, and all the Liberals in Canada stood up and said they had saved confederation. This is just so much palpable nonsense.

Canadian Water Resources
The facts of life, Mr. Speaker, are that Mr. Rene Levesque, realizing that Liberalism in the province of Quebec does not say the same thing as Liberalism here in Ottawa, which is based on the centralist approach, is demanding the separation of the Liberal party in Quebec from the federal wing. There is no other reason-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am wondering if the hon. member does not feel as the Chair is inclined to feel, that he is digressing to some extent from the motion before the house.


William Heward Grafftey: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to develop the theme that most Canadians are beginning to realize, that it is not just an accident that the Liberals are not having success with getting action on economic programs, such as the ARDA program and resource programs, because their whole system of activity is based on the idea of centralization, which cannot be put into effect today. While it might seem that I am getting out of order, I am relating my remarks to the subject before the house today in an attempt to show why the government are experiencing such failures.
I think that spokesmen for the government in Ottawa as well as spokesmen-I hope I am not out of order in saying this-for the government of Quebec are doing national unity and the future of our country great disservice when they confuse-I will not say intentionally, but if it happens too often in the future I shall have to say intentionally- ordinary, every day problems concerning provincial rights with the problems of bilingualism and biculturalism. I submit that in many ways they are two distinct things. I think the present government of Quebec and the government at Ottawa are doing a great disservice to this country if and when they intentionally confuse these two matters.
In relation to federal-provincial relations, Mr. Speaker, we are told by many people that all of a sudden the present government have a new plan. They are going to come to the House of Commons and put forward legislation, and then after consulting with the provinces, etc., they are going to be willing to amend this clause, that clause, and so on. I am not going to argue that a certain amount of this under present day conditions is not necessary, but I am going to say that this is no excuse for the past performance of this government in regard to federal-provincial relations. This government has put legislation time and time again before this House of Commons without any consultation with the provinces, and subsequently they have wondered why their whole [Mr. Graiftey.l
economic program, including resource planning which we are discussing today, has floundered on the rocks. It has floundered on the rocks because they do not believe deeply in co-operative federalism; they only talk about it. I ask the Secretary of State how he, having written an expose on federalism a few years ago, can suddenly adopt overnight the Conservative principle of decentralization and at the same time keep a straight face?


Maurice Lamontagne: Have you read the book?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, I have, and in many instances 1 congratulate the minister for writing a very interesting and good book. But if the minister's mind really turned a somersault overnight I cannot congratulate him either for his sincerity or his pragmatism. This new idea of introducing legislation in this House of Commons without consultation with the provinces and then saying that the government are willing to amend it in the spirit of co-operative federalism is just a pure lack of preparation.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to stress something that I have often stressed in this house before with regard to the problem we have at hand. I do not believe that this government are going to make any advances in the field of resource or water planning, in the field of ARDA, or in the field of any economic activity, unless they improve relationships with the provinces immediately. Without improved relationships with the provinces there will be no improvement in the situation mentioned by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) this afternoon. It must be realized that the Canadian constitution is the first constitution in the world which combines a federal system of government with a parliamentary system. A federal system of government seeks to combine a measure of unity with a measure of diversity. I should like to quote a remark made by the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King after the publication of the Rowell-Sirois report. He remarked:
This arrangement of continuity and permanence is necessary, because co-operation between the dominion and other provinces is too vital a matter to be left entirely for intermittent conferences and to correspondence between governments.
Mr. King made this remark after the government of Nova Scotia at a prior federal-provincial conference had spoken out regarding the necessity for the establishment of more sophisticated approaches to federal-provincial affairs; after the province of Nova Scotia had spoken out for the necessity of creating a permanent secretariat for federal-provincial affairs. What did the Rowell-Sirois

report have to say on this subject, Mr. Speaker? It said:
But co-operation between autonomous governments is difficult to achieve. Administrative authorities responsible to different legislatures are not always interested in co-operation; indeed, non-co-operation may on occasion serve their immediate interests.
Autonomous governments may thus tend to become rival centres of power rather than agencies for co-operative pursuit of the public weal.
I do not pretend that the problem facing the present government is an easy one to solve. But I am saying this: It will have to initiate and adopt more sophisticated measures than have been used up till now; it will have to create, or help to create, more sophisticated bodies for the guidance of federal-provincial relations than any which exist at present if any headway is to be made in economic planning or the planning of resources, such as we are discussing this evening.
The Rowell-Sirois report, in dealing with this aspect of the subject, states:
There may be certain disadvantages in not having a single department in each government charged with the responsibility for inter-governmental communications. Each province must, of course, decide for itself the expediency of establishing such a department, but the commission is inclined to think that the delay and inconvenience of having the voluminous correspondence, which is today necessary between governments, conducted by one department would make the suggested innovation undesirable.
The commission goes on to recommend the establishment of a permanent secretariat, and I believe that although the Prime Minister has taken upon himself responsibility for federal-provincial relations, the initiative shown up to this point has not been sufficient. I understand initiative has been shown by certain departments of government, among them the Department of Labour. I understand that certain officials in various departments have been in contact with their counterparts in the provincial governments. This is commendable, but it is not good enough. I repeat: A permanent secretariat for federal-provincial relations must be set up on the premiers and Prime Minister level; otherwise the federal government in its dealings with the provinces will go from one crisis to another, and they might as well forget about planning in the field of resources, the field of ARDA, or any other economic venture.
Hon. gentlemen opposite should put first things first and get on with this job. It is all very well to have reached an agreement a few days ago regarding pensions with the province of Quebec. But at what price? The minister laughs; but I happen to live in the province of Quebec and I know what takes place when we have Liberal governments in Quebec and in Ottawa saying one thing inside
Canadian Water Resources the province and another thing outside it. Yes, "conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription"-I am not too young to remember that; and hon. members opposite are doing the same things today. Before an agreement was reached on pensions, this country was divided as it never was before. Mr. Levesque knows that; he realizes Liberalism means one thing in Ottawa and another in the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Same old bunch.


William Heward Grafftey: I know some hon. members thought I was getting off the subject, but I am dealing now with one of the reasons for the failure of the government in the fields of economic and resource planning. They think all the wisdom resides here in Ottawa and that the centralizers and the ex-bureaucrats have all the answers. But that is not true. While we rejoice in the arrangement made in the pension field, unless such a secretariat as I have mentioned is established, and established soon, the Prime Minister has simply stuck a little band aid over a major wound. Unless co-operative federalism is not merely preached but sincerely put into operation, confederation will suffer again as soon as we are confronted with further provincial problems. I think most Canadians realize this.
I know that in debating this subject this evening I have gone far afield. I believe the observations I have made in entering into this debate could be repeated from time to time with a direct bearing on most of the activities of the present government. The government has already failed dismally to show any initiative toward improving the economy of this nation, and if hon. members opposite are sincere in their protestations about co-operative federalism they will soon make sure that the former senior bureaucrats, and those others who have the Prime Minister's ear, change their notions about relations with the provinces. I say this not only in a partisan sense but as a young Canadian who is interested in the unity of this country in the future. Rather than stumble from crisis to crisis with the provinces it is time the government did some long range thinking and began at least to initiate the establishment of a secretariat along the lines I have advocated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has rendered the house a service by directing the attention of the chamber to this very important question of the need for a water conservation policy in Canada.
We have been very slow in Canada in recognizing that water is a commodity of basic importance to our economy. It is essential,
2902	HOUSE OF
Canadian Water Resources as hon. members know, for the generation of hydroelectric power, for industrial development, for domestic use and for recreational purposes. On occasions, it has even been used for drinking purposes as a last resort. Our friends to the south, in the United States, were much quicker to recognize how important water is. In this northern half of the continent we pride ourselves on having almost limitless supplies of water and we have done very little to conserve our water resources. But during the same period the Americans, who had gone through the industrial revolution much earlier than we, became aware of the fact that the growth of their economy was largely dependant on the supply of water which could be made available to the great urban and industrial centres. This is why during the 'thirties, while we were keeping roughly a million people on relief in Canada, the Americans spent hundreds of millions of dollars building some of the largest dams in the world both for the purpose of water conservation and for the generation of hydroelectric power.
Since the war, the Americans have used their army engineers to work with the state governments to launch tremendous water conservation projects in almost every part of the country. They have piped water hundreds of miles in order to turn their deserts into gardens and make possible the extension of their urban communities and the establishment of new industries in places where it would not be possible without adequate supplies of water. But we in this country are only beginning to appreciate the problem. If anyone had told us 20 years ago that in the southern part of Ontario, surrounded by the great lakes and close to Niagara Falls, the day would come when we would be threatened with a water shortage, such a person would have been laughed to scorn. The fact is that the problem is already upon us and it will increase with the passing of the years. There is a drastic need for the government of Canada in conjunction with the provinces of Canada to work out water conservation and water usage programs.
The amendment which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has moved draws our attention to the fact that there is an imminent national crisis in water resource management and it makes reference to three things: First, the low levels of the great lakes; second, the increasing pollution of national waters and, third, the need for a conservation of resources program. May I say a word about each of those very briefly.
The question of the critical low water levels of the great lakes is, of course, of tremendous importance to the provinces of Ontario and EMr. Douglas.]

Quebec, not only because of the supplies of water for domestic purposes but because the great lakes have become the great inland transportation network of industrial Canada. The necessity of doing something about water levels on the great lakes is something which I am sure no one needs to stress in this house.
The matter of water pollution is a subject which has been long neglected. We are polluting most of the rivers in Canada and a number of lakes. It is hard to believe that in this age of sanitary engineering there are cities in Canada which are still discharging raw sewage into our rivers and lakes, polluting our water resources and killing fish. Industrial effluents are being poured into our national waters which are having a damaging effect on the use of the water for livestock and other purposes.
This amendment asks the house to condemn the neglect of the government in failing to establish a co-ordinated national water policy and for ignoring the national crisis in water resources management. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how we can select this particular administration for condemnation. I think each successive government in Canada has been negligent in dealing with this matter. Both this administration and the previous one have been negligent.
The first move that was made to conserve water was taken back in the 1930's when Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, minister of agriculture in the administration of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, introduced the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Under this legislation a very good staff was built up over the years. They did excellent work on the prairies by helping farmers to establish small dugouts for their livestock. They built a number of small dams which had very beneficial effects on the prairies. This organization could have done much better work had it been given more money, but I think credit must go to it and particularly to the former director, the late L. B. Thomson, for the work which was done and for the foundation that was laid for a much broader program which has not yet materialized.
P.F.R.A. and its staff laid the groundwork for considering the South Saskatchewan river development project. Here I think that credit has to go to the previous administration under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). For 20 years the Liberal government had talked about the South Saskatchewan dam. In the 1945 election the Liberal party went so far as to say: We have the money, we have the men and as soon as the material is available we will begin to build the South Saskatchewan dam. But 10 years later, although the money and the

men and the material were all available, nothing had been done about building the dam.
I have some rather unhappy memories of those days when the federal government kept saying to the provincial government: If you will just offer to contribute a little more to this project we can go ahead. In spite of repeated offers an agreement was never signed. I give credit to the government of the present Leader of the Opposition in that when they came to office we were able to negotiate an agreement and work was started on the South Saskatchewan dam.
Lest members from other parts of Canada go away with the idea that the federal government is paying all the cost, I think I should point out that when that project is completed the people of the province of Saskatchewan will be paying a little better than 60 per cent of the total cost and the government of Canada will be paying about 40 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come off it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did somebody say "come off it"?


Clarence Owen Cooper: Are you speaking of the building of the dam?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My friend from Rosetown-Biggar knows the story very well and he can be sure I will give all the facts, if he will just sit still. On the building of the main reservoir the federal government is putting up 75 per cent of the cost and the provincial government 25 per cent. But this represents only in the neighbourhood of $100 million while the total cost of the project will run to well over $165 million. When the hydro installations are put in, when the ground is levelled, when the canals are built, when the lateral ditches are installed, when the land is prepared for irrigation and the ancillary works to take water into the Qu'Appelle valley are completed, the people of Saskatchewan will have put up better than 60 per cent of the total cost of the whole project.
I say that for the information of members from other parts of Canada. I do not say it to detract in any way from the generosity of the federal government in proceeding with the project. I am convinced that the construction of the dam will be a turning point in the economic life of the prairies and particularly western Saskatchewan because it will make possible not only irrigated land on which there can be diversification of crops, the growing of sugar beets, the building of sugar factories, market gardening, canneries, quick freezing units, but it will also mean backing water up into the hills so that in many areas livestock can be raised where
Canadian Water Resources they could not be raised before because of lack of water. It will make possible urban growth, recreational facilities and industrial development. In my opinion it will be a great forward step in western Saskatchewan and, indeed, in all of western Canada because the South Saskatchewan dam will back water up for 142 miles so that there will be a great lake 142 miles long and about five miles wide. The effect of that body of water cutting across the Palliser triangle will be tremendous so far as the climatic conditions in that semi-arid plain are concerned. I give full marks to the government of that time for proceeding with that project.
I give them credit also for the resources for tomorrow conference which was well organized and well conceived. It brought together a number of top flight people across Canada who were concerned about the problem of resource conservation. I think that out of the conference there came many good ideas and the foundation was laid for a real attack on this problem. Out of this conference came the idea of ARDA which also was a worth-while concept.
However, Mr. Speaker, when you have said that you have said it all. A conference, in itself, does not conserve resources. The ARDA program, although it contains the germ of a good idea, has not yet produced any great projects to deal with the problem that has been raised in this amendment. I therefore return to my thesis that none of the governments of Canada have really tackled this problem. To blame the present administration, which has been in office for about 12 months, it seems to me is something like the pot calling the kettle black.
I believe that instead of trying to apportion blame, and I am not trying to do that, we have to recognize that both the major parties have made some obeisances to the need for doing something about water conservation but we have never, in Canada, tackled this problem on anything like the scale on which it needs to be approached. We have not even closely approximated what our friends in the United States have done, even having due regard to the difference in population and financial resources of these two countries. Apart from the South Saskatchewan dam, we really have not done anything of major proportions about conserving some of the great water resources of this country.
We have done nothing at all about river pollution-neither this Liberal government nor the Liberal government that was in power for 22 years or the Conservative government that was in office for some six years. None of them did anything about this question of river pollution. I recognize the necessity for

Canadian Water Resources the co-operation of the provinces and municipalities in connection with this problem. We cannot continue to pollute the national waters of this country without paying for it and our children and our children's children will pay for poisoning of our rivers and our lakes with industrial effluents and raw sewage. Unless we tackle this problem fairly soon, the bill will be delivered in the not too distant future.
When we speak of water conservation- and members on both sides of the house paid tribute to the value of conserving water- it seems to me somewhat ironical that the party that has moved this amendment and the party against whom it is directed have both entered into an agreement to turn over the entire flow of the Columbia river to the United States. This is the fourth largest river on the North American continent, and we have not only allowed the United States to determine the flow of that river, the extent to which water will be diverted from it, but we have actually limited ourselves for the life of the agreement in connection with our right to divert water.
This afternoon the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) talked about our right to the consumptive use of water from the Columbia. He said, we cannot take it exclusively for the generation of hydroelectric power. I asked him where he found the word "exclusively", and he said some lawyers told him it was there. He said he was not a lawyer, and neither am I, but I know that no lawyer, by even the most subtle interpretation, can put a word there that is not there. Article 1 of the treaty, clause (e) defines consumptive use. It says:
(e) "Consumptive use" means use of water for domestic, municipal, stock-water, irrigation, mining or industrial purposes but does not include use for the generation of hydroelectric power;
The protocol which was supposed to rectify this situation contains nothing but mild generalities and says:
Canada and the United States are in agreement that article XIII (1) of the treaty provides to each of them a right to divert water for a consumptive use.
In other words, water can be diverted but only for the purposes which I read a moment ago from clause (e). It can be diverted for irrigation or municipal purposes, but it cannot be diverted if the generation of hydroelectric power is involved. As every member knows, in this modern age it is uneconomical to divert water except for a multi-purpose project, and the only thing that makes possible a large scale diversion is the use of water for several purposes. You can use it to develop power, pass it through the turbines and use it for stock-watering, for irrigation, for

domestic and industrial purposes. Unless it can be used for all of these purposes, then it becomes uneconomic to divert water. Here are two parties, one of whom drafted the agreement and the second is now in the process of putting it through the house, who pay lip service to water conservation, and in the same breath they give away one of the greatest assets in this country, the tremendous volume of water which we have at hand. Before long we shall be condemned for this failure to discharge properly our stewardship in looking after these resources, of which we are only the trustees.
Someone sent me a rather interesting clipping from the Phoenix Gazette, printed in Phoenix, Arizona under date of April 7, 1964, which tells of a meeting in Arizona in which the engineers and other experts were concerned about how they were going to get enough water in Arizona. I quote:
It was agreed that the 1.2 million acre feet which could be provided by the central Arizona project from the Colorado river would still leave the state with a water deficit of almost two million acre feet a year. Better water conservation practices could wipe out some of the deficit, but long range planning indicates the need for a larger and more permanent source of water, it was noted.
Then the article goes on to outline how they hope to get enough water down in Arizona.
It says:
So this leaves outside sources, and while officially no one would say just where these sources might be, privately some agreed that the huge Columbia river probably would hold best promise of a future supply. Water experts have said the state might possibly get up to 12 million acre feet annually from such a source.
Then it says:
The Columbia river is in the Pacific northwest.
Well, I do not suppose the people in Arizona care whether it is in the Pacific northwest or not, or whether it is going to come from Canada. What they are concerned about is that they get 12 million acre feet of water a year sent across the line into the United States, with no controls whatever as to how it is used, how it is diverted and where it is diverted to; whereas on the Canadian side we are going to have our hands tied, and are going to wait for the next 60 years with this valuable resource pouring across the line, at 90 million cubic feet per second, into the United States.
This debate has been concerned with the matter of water resource management, and I had expected someone from the government side would tell us what the government's policy is going to be with respect to water. So far the only statement was that

by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), who is the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, and I hope to heaven he was not speaking for the government because he outlined a great program of diverting our rivers from northern B.C. and northern Ontario down south, for the purpose of exporting water and selling it to the United States.
They used to have a saying in the army, "If it moves, salute it, and if it does not move, paint it." The Liberals seem to have a slogan, "If it is profitable, export it." They seem to look upon Canada as a great source of raw material, from which we will export pulpwood, oil, minerals, aluminum, gas, electric power and water. Last year we exported nearly 40,000 people to the United States.
I would like to think of Canada, not as a country of only 20 million people, developing extraction industries to sell raw material to the United States where it can be made into manufactured products and shipped back to us, but of Canada some day being a nation of tens of millions of people, using its energy resources, its water resources and its natural resources to develop not only extraction industries but secondary and tertiary industries to retain employment opportunities in this country, and to develop a great nation. No country ever became a great nation by being merely a hewer of wood and a drawer of water.
I must confess that when I listened to the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister this afternoon I was absolutely frightened at the prospect that now, in addition to exporting power and raw materials, we are going to set about exporting the great water resources of our country. Surely we, as Canadians, have got more imagination and a greater sense of reality than to think that the only use that can be made of the resources of the country is to see how quickly we can get rid of them.
I had hoped that the government would give the house the benefit of its ideas with regard to what it was going to do about water conservation and utilization. Up to now we certainly have had no intimation as to what the government's policy is.
I do not join in condemning the government for the fact that it has failed to establish a co-ordinated national water policy and ignored the imminent crisis in water resource management. It has only been in office about a year. These are problems which have gone on for a long time, but I think the house is entitled to a statement from the responsible ministers as to what the government is going
Canadian Water Resources to do, in the course of the next few years, about our water resources. I hope they will tell us something better than the statement made this afternoon, that all we can think of doing about our water resources is export them to the United States. The only consoling thing about the statement of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano was what he said about it taking decades of time. The Liberal party always seems to think in geological terms of time, and I think that is why it is moving as slowly as the glaciers.
It probably will not happen quickly, but I seriously ask the government to formulate a policy, because time is important. Already in the great lakes area of southern Ontario water is a problem. On the prairies water is a problem. The prairies have now reached a maximum of agricultural production under dry farming methods. If there is to be increased agricultural production on the prairies more water is a necessity. The big crops of the past two or three years were due to the fact that rain came at the right time. If it were possible on the prairies to have, not irrigation, but a sprinkler system through plastic or aluminum pipes, so that a very small amount of water could be sprinkled on the fields at exactly the right time, production per acre could be increased by five or eight bushels.
Water is vital to the future development of the country. Fortunately we have great resources of water, more water than our friends to the south, and that is why our friends to the south would be very happy to spend a few billion dollars in Canada if they could get access to our water resources. But if we are going to build a country that will have a great future we must plan how to regulate our water resources, how to make water available to the areas that need it, and how to keep free from pollution the great national waters which constitute the life blood of our country and its economy.
I hope the government will not treat this question lightly. I do not offer words of condemnation but I make an urgent appeal to the government to take action very quickly in setting up the kind of machinery by which the provincial governments and the federal government can sit down and plan a water conservation policy, map out the necessary programs, and then find the required financial resources to put those programs into effect.
This country will grow only as fast as it is able to make water available to a growing and expanding economy. I hope the government will rise to the challenge and, if it does, it will have the gratitude of future generations. If it does nothing about it, and we continue to drift, with water levels dropping,

Canadian Water Resources with large areas of Canada in a semi-arid condition, then those who come after us will feel we have been very poor trustees of the responsibilities given to us by our forefathers.


Mr. Marcoux:: The hon. member has talked about a planned economy. I would like to ask him how socialist planning would prevent the exporting of our wheat and grain to communist China and Russia?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have never objected to exporting. Any country lives by exporting. There is a great deal of difference between exporting wheat or exporting shoes or lumber on the one hand, and exporting things we need in our own country, such as supplies of water, gas and electric power especially if those resources can be used in Canada to turn our raw materials into finished products. We can turn our raw materials into finished products and export them. I do not quarrel with exporting surplus goods to the United States or any other country; as a matter of fact, we must do that in order to live. But my contention is that for too long Canada has been content to develop extraction industries which give employment to relatively few people per million dollars of capital investment, to ship these raw materials to the United States, to ship to the United States the energy and electric power to turn those raw materials into finished products, and then to buy them back.
I think we could use those same resources in Canada, manufacture the finished product and then export it. What we have been doing, really, is exporting jobs. I think we ought to start exporting finished products or semi-processed products wherever that is possible.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. gentleman would permit one further question. I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard him say that P.F.R.A. was introduced under the government of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King. It is my impression, although perhaps I am mistaken, that P.F.R.A., although perhaps under another name, was introduced by the Bennett government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not make myself clear. The legislation was introduced in the last year the Bennett government was in office, but the administration was set up mainly by the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this opportunity on a supply motion to have the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) select the subject matter for a two-day debate. I think this is one of six supply motions that must come before the house, and it is a very

welcome opportunity for some of the members of the opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to determine what the subject matter for that two-day debate shall be. Having said that, it seems to me they have successfully moved an amendment pointing to a very serious problem in Canada and then the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) have proceeded to actually condemn the administration that was set up under their own government during the years in which they had the power to do something about the problem raised in the amendment.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, because the third point they raise in the amendment is this:
-vigorously continuing and expanding the water and other resource development programs conceived and established by the previous Conservative government.
If there had been resource development programs actually established and under way to retain the water levels in the great lakes, I suggest that the first part of their amendment would not be valid. That is to say, they condemn the government of today for "ignoring the imminent national crisis in water resources management, which is evidenced by the critical low water levels of the great lakes"; and surely no reasonable member would suggest that the critical low levels of water in the great lakes today is something that has happened in the last few months. Surely if there had been satisfactory programs established such as the amendment says, this problem would not have been before us today. I join with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) in suggesting that these problems which are facing Canada today, and which are accurately described, I think, as amounting to an "imminent national crisis in water resources management", are something for which the immediately preceding government will have to shoulder the blame as well as the present government.
Getting back to the question of water, Mr. Speaker, and the preservation and conservation of our water resources, I think it is well for us to consider the position of Canada today in relation to the water resources that we have, and also to rely on some of the experiences other nations have had, so that we can in fact look into the future and develop programs that will help Canada to avoid these other problems. I think that one of the first requirements in developing a national water resources program is to accept the statement that was made by Kenneth Holum, assistant secretary of the interior for water and power in the United States. He says this:

Experts estimate that our needs for water will triple by the year 2000.
This is the United States. Then he goes on to say this:
One thing, however, that there would be no more of, is water. The aggregate amount of water in the rivers, streams and lakes, in the underground aquifers, in the clouds floating across the skies, and in the seas and oceans would be substantially the same as it is today.
That is in the year 2000. Then he says:
We can't produce more water. Our job is to use what we have. We have to learn to use the water we are wasting, and to use it over and over and over again. We must do a better job of maintaining quality, so that water can be reused, and improve the quality of poor water so that it is usable.
The United States have come to some pretty agonizing conclusions respecting this matter of using the water which they have, and it is interesting to note the price that they put on water today. For example, in the issue of the Christian Science Monitor of March 18, 1964, there is an article captioned "Water for everyone" which says this:
The problem is that nature's water system just doesn't coincide with human requirements, says a world famous geophysicist as he describes the research frontiers this presents in the last of ten articles on "on the water challenge passed by growing water needs of the United States.
In this article he quotes Nathaniel Wollman of the University of New Mexico and says:
Nathaniel Wollman.. .has concluded that the money worth of water in the United States adds up like this:
This is all over the United States:
Industry-$3,000 to $4,000 per acre-foot.
Recreation-$250 per acre-foot.
Agriculture-$51 per acre-foot.
If you compare that with some of the water resources that are available in Canada today, it certainly points up the fact that we had better look after these resources now.
During the course of the debate which took place in this house on March 5 mention was made of a report of a study made by the engineering firm of Crippen-Wright. I think this survey and report was paid for by the government of Saskatchewan and it dealt with the cost of diverting some of the water now running into the Arctic ocean and Hudson bay from the southern prairies. It was pointed out that to divert water from the North Saskatchewan river and the Clearwater river into the South Saskatchewan river through the Red Deer river would cost about 40 cents per acre foot. Compare that, Mr. Speaker, with the value which the United States puts on water of $51 per acre foot. In addition to that, there was a second possible diversion, which was to divert the Athabasca into the North Saskatchewan, and I think subsequently into the South Saskatchewan as well through the Red Deer river,
Canadian Water Resources at a cost of $1.60 per acre foot, making available 4,500,000 acre feet. A third possible diversion was from the Peace river into the North Saskatchewan which would allow 19 million acre feet to be developed at a cost of $2.70 per acre foot. Then there was a fourth possible diversion from the upper Fraser into the Athabasca at a cost of $3.10 per acre foot, making available for development 1,090,000 acre feet. The fifth in order of cost was the possibility of diverting 5,430,000 acre feet from the Columbia at a cost of $4.60 per acre foot.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the gross cost?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, gross cost, that is correct.
One other very important program in Canada which could be undertaken and which has not yet been touched, and which I suggest is cheaper than any of the diversions referred to in the report I mentioned, is the building of upper level storage on the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains. Outside of some very small reservoirs on the Bow river there are no dams and no storage facilities provided in the upper regions of any of our rivers coming through the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains. I know that shortly there will be in the Peace river dam, but on the tributaries of the North Saskatchewan river and on the South Saskatchewan river there are, outside of the Bow river, absolutely no storage facilities or what is called upper storage. There are sites which I think are reasonably cheap in terms of cost and development, at which large storage facilities could be built at a cost of even less than 40 cents per acre foot, which is the cheapest of the diversions to which I referred.
We in southern Alberta have had quite a lot of experience with irrigation. I think that today most of the irrigation projects in western Canada which have been undertaken -that is, the major irrigation projects-are in fact located in southern Alberta. We know there are times, such as in May and June when there are large flows of water, when we simply have to let this water go by because we do not have any storage facilities to contain it. This water is water which flows naturally into river basins without diversion of any sort. We also know that it is impossible for us to divert into irrigation reservoirs even 10 per cent of this water when it goes by in the months of May and June during the high run-off period.
Therefore I want to put this very positive proposal to the government. I suggest that one of the first undertakings with regard to water conservation should be the large scale development of upper storage on the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains. I say that because whenever water is stored at its

Canadian Water Resources highest position it is obvious that everyone downstream can make optimum use of that water for all purposes. It can be used for irrigation; by municipalities which rely on these rivers for water, as well as providing a uniform flow of water for hydroelectric generation. In my opinion that is the most important project which should be the first to be undertaken.
Following that consideration should be given to some of these diversions of water into areas which require it. However, it appears to me that it will be 40, 50 or perhaps 60 years before we will be able to utilize all of the natural flow which runs down the South Saskatchewan river even now. This water will have to be conserved on a 12-month basis, because something like seven million acre feet of water flows annually down that river at the present time. I am not quite sure of those figures but I think that more than four fifths of that water escapes us during the high flow season when we simply do not have the storage to make use of it.
If I may turn for a moment to the question of the utilization of this water, I want to say to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), and to other hon. members who may think that building a large irrigation system and building large structures necessary to deliver the water to the land means that you have reached the point where you are going to have a lot of prosperous farmers, that we have found over the years that we run into very serious difficulties, particularly during the first 20 or 25 years, in getting farmers to make proper use of this water. As far as their growing grain, cereals and other crops is concerned, compared with the lower cost of operation of dry land farming they have felt that these units are economic failures. The day may come 50 or 60 years from now when the value of cereal grains and the market for cereal grains will be such that they can be successfully and profitably grown on acres which are under the ditch. But that is not true today. We know there are crops which can be grown successfully and profitably, such as sugar beets, vegetable crops and a certain amount of beef and dairy production, in irrigated areas of southern Alberta. There are some very serious problems, however, in the marketing of these crops which have not as yet been fully resolved. I think there is a very real case for both the federal government and the provincial governments to set up some kind of processing and marketing facilities for these crops in the initial stages. We know, for example, that into Alberta today thousands of carloads of fresh vegetables are imported, mostly from the United States, which could be grown right in southern Alberta. We know


there is more than one reason why this would be beneficial. For example, there is our international balance of payments which keeps cropping up as a problem. I suggest there are millions of dollars worth of these crops we could grow right at home if we only had the processing and distributing facilities available to us.
This is not an easy matter. It is difficult to get anyone to invest money in processing plants and distribution channels until there are a relatively large number of farmers in the area successfully growing the crops which it is intended should be produced on a larger scale. On the other hand, it is difficult to get farmers to begin to grow some of these crops and to gain experience unless there is a processing plant and a market available so that the work is profitable. I think the solution is to have producers co-operative enterprises underwritten by financing from both levels of government.
In addition, there is a very real need for a national sugar policy which would put some kind of stability into sugar prices both for the benefit of the consumer and the producer. We know that during the last two years or so sugar prices have been very high. In my opinion they have been too high. The sugar beet producers in my constituency agree that the price does not need to be as high as it is today. If they could be given some assurance that there would be a long term price guarantee in exchange for lowering the price a little now, they would be very happy to accept this.
I believe the government has been offered sugar on a long term basis at a price substantially less than Canada is paying today. All the government needs to do to take advantage of this is to commit Canada to buying the sugar over a period of seven or eight years into the future. This, in my view, would have a doubly beneficial effect. It would lead to an immediate reduction in the price of sugar to Canadian consumers and, second, it would provide that long term stability for which the beet producers have been asking for years. I hope that when we consider the better utilization and conservation of water we will also remember that these other problems of marketing and processing exist, and that it is the business of government not only to set up the capital works in the first instance but to follow through with some kind of assistance; and I suggest some kind of financial underwriting of these establishments would be the most useful, so as to see we make the optimum use of this water when it comes.
There is one other matter I wish to deal with and it relates to the subject of ARDA, which is dealt with both in the amendment

and in the subamendment. There is another vitally important water resource which has been barely touched in Canada, namely groundwater reserves. As hon. members who are interested in this subject know, the Alberta research council has been doing a great deal of work to find the extent of our groundwater reserves and has been successful in finding some aquifers. There is an important one running right into Medicine Hat and I am told there is an enormous one going across Montana into Saskatchewan-it is probably the old river bed of the Missouri river.
I do not know that this ground water reserve has been completely delineated and I suggest there is some important work which could be done in drilling of the area to find out where this reserve runs, to mark its edges and to determine its capacity. It is of particular importance this summer because in southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan the traditional source of water from the spring run-off has been almost non-existent as far as surface water for stock watering is concerned. I think that under P.F.R.A., or under the auspices of any other government agency, such as ARDA, there is a very real need to do further work to locate the groundwater resources we have. It would make it much easier for farmers to drill wells if they had a reasonable assurance that they were likely to find water at certain levels.
I think it is a good idea for us to have taken part in such a debate as this. It seems to me there is general agreement in all political parties that some discussion on water resource management is needed. But I do not believe we can lay all the blame on the present government for the particular difficulties we are experiencing at the moment.


John Napier Turner: I listened with interest this evening to the observations of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) and also to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas) who, in analysing the water resource policy of this country, thought it well to say that the erosion of generations could not be laid at the door of a government which has been in office for just over 12 months, and that the responsibility for water management in Canada, although subject, quite properly, to review in this house from time to time, is not a matter upon which condemnation ought to be levelled against the present government.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment is phrased as an attempt to hold the present administration responsible for the work of generations. When one reads it, it
Canadian Water Resources becomes evident that it attempts to hold a government which has been in office for 12 months responsible for low water levels on the great lakes, although any student of the situation or any reasonable citizen of Canada will realize readily that this is a cyclical process dependant on factors altogether outside the scope of any particular administration in the short term.


Mr. Smith:: What about dredging?


John Napier Turner: I would say that this afternoon the official opposition certainly had to dredge up a pretty weak argument-


Sydney John Smith: Just dredge our harbours.


John Napier Turner: -and muddy the waters, if I may say so, in an attempt to find some subject on which to criticize this administration. So far as water levels are concerned, and the cyclical trend, I will cite figures later to show that this has been a gradual process.
Let us look at the second subject, pollution. I might say that no steps of any consequence were taken by the previous administration with regard to pollution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: I see there is a lively reaction on the other side. The first concrete step that was taken was the reference earlier this spring, as the result of a debate held in this chamber on March 9, of the matter of pollution to the 10 provincial ministers of natural resources by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), so that the Canadian council of resource ministers could make a study of this problem.
I have mentioned the first two headings under which the government is being criticized, low water levels and increasing pollution, and the third heading is the conservation of water. At the outset I should like to draw to the attention of the house that the first legislation enacted in this country, involving the various provincial, municipal, regional and federal bodies having jurisdiction over the water resources of the country, was the Canada Water Conservation Act which was enacted on the 14th of May, 1953 under the former Liberal administration.
I cite this history, Mr. Speaker, because in listening to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) it was hard to divine just what he was criticizing the government for. He began by talking about what he called the long years of neglect, and we wondered for a moment whether we were being criticized in this amendment to a supply motion in May, 1964, for what had happened prior to 1957. It was quite coincidental, I am sure, that the
2910	HOUSE OF
Canadian Water Resources hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who after all should know the facts and should know better since he once held the national resources portfolio, did not cite any facts with which to back up his argument. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the facts prior to 1957 do not bear the type of scrutiny that he avoided.
What were the facts? I have cited the Canada Water Conservation Act of 1953, the first conservation act passed by a federal parliament. Prior to 1957 there were agreements made with Ontario concerning the Shand dam, the Fanshaw dam and the Luther marsh dam.


Erik Nielsen: For the Saskatchewan dam?


John Napier Turner: My friend knows his geography better than that. One of my confreres suggests to me that in the circumstances perhaps I am being a little generous in making that remark. In any event, the policy initiated by the government prior to 1957 was continued by the previous Conservative administration, but only in 1961. It was four years before another agreement was signed. The upper Thames conservation authority agreement was signed in 1961 and the same year the metro Toronto and region conservation authority and the Parkhill dam project were initiated.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has either inadvertently or purposely left out the agreement in 1957 concerning the Napanee river conservation authority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I have to advise the hon. member for Prince Ed-ward-Lennox that there is no point of order.


John Napier Turner: I was citing a particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I doubt whether the learned member opposite could fit the particular project he has in mind into the particular piece of legislation I was citing.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: On a point of order, the conservation authority signed an agreement with the Ontario department of development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: It is the same category.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should point out to the hon. member and to the house that if the hon. member disagrees with anything the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is now saying, he has the opportunity of refuting it when he rises to speak but his objection to anything the hon. member is saying now constitutes neither a point of privilege nor a point of order. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


John Napier Turner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Subsequent to April 8, 1963, under legislation to which I have been referring we have under negotiation Fraser river diking at an estimated cost of close to $5 million. If I may turn to other legislation prior to 1957, the Red river basin investigation was started in 1950 and completed in 1953 at which time the federal government prepared, as the house well knows, comprehensive plans for flood control. I would also recall to the house the lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba board, the purpose of which was to study the resources of water flowing into and out of lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba. This study was initiated in 1956 and the reports were submitted in 1958.
Then there is the Fraser river board which was established in 1949, reconstituted in 1955 and directed to report its findings with respect to the effective regulation of that great river for flood control and power generation, and the resultant effects on fisheries, navigation, silting, erosion and irrigation. This is my answer to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris who said that in the matter of the control, management and conservation of water resources there had been long years of neglect.
Then he went on to say that he wished to criticize the present government for the slowing down of momentum. He referred to it as a tragic loss of momentum and said that there had been no new initiative in the area of renewable resources. Let us look for a moment at the momentum which existed, if it did, in the years 1957 to 1963.


Erik Nielsen: Did it ever.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hear the voice of that speedy Gonzales from the north. When he is not flying home he is flying by the seat of the pants in the house.


Erik Nielsen: It is better than flying blind.


John Napier Turner: What were the facts between 1957 and 1963? The hon. member for Brandon-Souris said he did not want to go into details, and I do not blame him at all. He mentioned the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in Winnipeg in 1958. What happened after that speech? There were three silent years. Finally, in October, 1961 there was the resources for tomorrow conference, which was a considerable achievement. But where was that momentum?
What explains that three year vacuum between that great speech at Winnipeg and the conference that was finally held in 1961? If that is the record we are supposed to emulate I can say with some confidence now that we have no fear that record will be surpassed

under this administration. The previous administration, if this is moving with deliberate speed, waited until October 1961 before it finally established the Canadian council of resource ministers, and a plenary meeting was held in September of the next year. There was a four and a half year period that elapsed before the first plenary meeting of the resource ministers council which was forecast in Winnipeg, that central point in our confederation. If that is the type of speed we are being asked to emulate, again I think I can say on behalf of those on this side that we have no fear of being able to equal or surpass that type of record.
When this administration took over, there was just the shell of a program. The first meeting of any consequence was held last fall, on November 20 and 21. For the first time the ten provincial ministers of natural resources and the federal minister of resources met under the chairmanship of the minister from Quebec, the Hon. Rene Levesque-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr, Turner:: -who, I might say, was a very able chairman indeed. For the first time some substance was given to this organization. As a result of these meetings all the present resource agreements between the provinces, and between the provinces and the federal government are being looked into by a permanent secretariat. The secretariat was set up by this administration, after four long years of waiting, following that great speech in Winnipeg. There was nothing but an idea, virtually nothing but a vision for four and a half years under the previous administration, and this project was finally put into action by this administration.
As I say, currently the renewable resource agreements between the provinces themselves, and the provinces and the federal government are being reviewed by this permanent secretariat which was set up by this government. There is being undertaken, under the jurisdiction of this national council of Canadian resource ministers, a review of the existing wildlife and fisheries agreements of this country. There is being undertaken an assessment of the ARDA program so that there can be a full discussion of the adequacy or otherwise of the ARDA projects at the next plenary meeting of the council this June in Prince Edward Island. Participation and planning of Canada's part in the international hydrologic decade was approved by this council last November. Preliminary work is now under way in connection with further important aspects of water conservation and water resources, among which I have already mentioned pollution. Now, this being so in
Canadian Water Resources so far as federal-provincial resource management of renewable resource development is concerned, this administration has nothing of which to be ashamed. On the contrary, within the last seven or eight months, the Canadian council of resource ministers has begun to function as a permanent body with a full time secretariat with projects which it can accomplish and which should be a credit to the country.
Let me say that I listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) whose efforts must have exhausted him. He spoke about co-operative federalism. He accused some of us of smiling. Perhaps there were some of us who were thinking of that great project of co-operative federalism in the area of water resources undertaken during the term of the administration which he was so bravely defending, the Columbia river treaty. He talked about the necessity for consultation between the federal and provincial governments. Here we have a treaty signed with great ceremony in November of 1961 and, lo and behold, someone came to the realization that the provincial jurisdiction over the resource, the entity whose water it was and the people who had the primary access and right to that water, had not given any agreement to what had been transacted by the federal government.
If this is an example of the co-operative federalism which the hon. member from Brome-Missisquoi had in mind, of course we had occasion to smile. Surely no greater example has been given to us in the history of the federal process as it deals with the resources of this country of a lack of proper consultation, of a lack of proper agreement, than the failure of the last administration to take the province of British Columbia into its confidence before signing an international treaty.
Without the protocol, Mr. Speaker, without the sales agreement, British Columbia would not have participated. It was through the efforts of this government and the negotiating team led by the minister of external affairs in this administration that what was once a hopeless morass, became something fulfilled, something truly co-operative.
The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam said he was frightened by what the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) had said. He outlined an argument he has used before, as has his seatmate tonight, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Because they are unanswerable.


John Napier Turner: Unanswerable?-they have been answered for five weeks in the committee on external affairs.

Canadian Water Resources


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: By whom?


John Napier Turner: It is strange, you know, that a party that prides itself upon its imagination should really be so reactionary, so frightened, about dealing in Canada's natural resources and dealing with the future of this country. It is possible today to divert one watershed into another. Modern engineering has given scope to this country and utilization of its greatest natural resources for the benefit of all the people of Canada. Does he not realize, Mr. Speaker, that given the engineering feasibility, at any point in time, any kind of engineering solution can become economically practicable, and Canada has unlimited horizons, unlimited possibilities to develop its natural resources?
I am turning now, if I may-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When did you change your mind about the Columbia?


John Napier Turner: I always had my mind made up about that particular treaty, when properly negotiated.


An hon. Member:: Like the hon. member for Kootenay East.


John Napier Turner: There was a parks policy mentioned this afternoon. Let me say to the house that for the first time, on November 18 to November 20, a federal parks conference met not merely at the technical level as had occurred under the previous administration, but at the technical and ministerial level, so that for the first time there was an opportunity to combine technical management and policy. I might say that as a result of that conference in November this country can now look forward to a review and a development of certain of the important aspects of our parklands. At that meeting there was discussed the assessment of non-urban park-lands, the factors relating to the selection of parklands, the relationship between provincial lands and national parks, park planning and design, and zoning as a step in the over-all planning of large parks. Finally, in co-operation with the ten provincial jurisdictions and the federal government, we have a co-ordinated parks policy.


Erik Nielsen: What about the territories?


John Napier Turner: I would not, of course, overlook the territories and I think the learned member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will quite realize that, but for the moment I think the general term federal be wide enough to encompass the lands he has described.
Nothing could be more important to this country than water. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) was citing water levels to the house and was trying to relate them in terms of a recent change


in climatic and geographical conditions to the responsibilities of the government. I want to read into the record the water levels for lake Huron during the last four years, all taken during the month of March. The long term average level over the period from 1860 to 1963 was 578.36 feet above sea level. In March 1961 the level of lake Huron, below that average level, was 0.53 feet; in March 1962 it was 1.02 feet; in 1963 it was 2.11 feet and in March of this year it was 2.97 feet.
I am citing these figures to illustrate that this trend or cycle in water levels had begun as early as March 1961, and was part of a long term cycle that has been prevalent in Canada over the years. Let me now deal with the annual outflows from lake Huron. The long term average over the same years was 189,000 cubic feet per second, or 11.6 inches of the drainage basin. In 1961 the annual outflow was 182,000 cubic feet per second; in 1962 it was 177,000 cubic feet per second and in 1963 it was 163,000 cubic feet per second, so that the trend as long ago as three or four years, was the same trend that we are experiencing today.
I now wish to emphasize to the house that the outflow from lake Huron has decreased in relation to the increase in water levels. To make the figures clear, I have to set out the annual inflows into lakes Michigan and Huron, where the long term average has been 189,000 cubic feet per second. In 1961 the inflow was 165,000 cubic feet per second; in 1962 it was 149,000 cubic feet per second, and in 1963 it was 153,000 cubic feet per second, so that the inflow below normal of a small amount has a large effect on the lake levels,' because the level also of the drainage basin, was lowered from the long term average of 11.6 inches to 10.6 inches in 1961, 9.1 inches in 1962 and 9.4 inches in 1963. Here again the trend has not been a sudden one. The trend was something that was foreseeable, something which has been a gradual process.
This government is conscious of the value of water, and tomorrow we hope to illustrate to the house what its policy is with respect to its management as a resource. It is not merely a question of level; it is a question of the interaction of all the interrelated resources. It has to do with the runoff from timber lands, the run-off from cultivated rural areas, the increased consumption of water, and precipitation. It has to do with a number of interrelated factors which are all brought together to an end result, so that any water policy must take into account not only the present yield and profit of water but also the inventory and the deferred benefits.

We will suggest to the house that in a well managed watershed we need an interrelation of forest policy, of agrarian farm policy, of preventives against erosion, against the waste of soil, control of industrial use and of sewage in order to control pollution, together with a fire prevention policy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before I yield the floor to the hour this evening may I say that I feel the official opposition in presenting this motion and in trying to attribute water levels, that have been developing in cycles, to the actions of this administration is merely indulging in a partisan manoeuvre. The management of our water resources is something in which we are all vitally interested as Canadians, and the official opposition is trying to convert this problem into a trumped up motion of want of confidence.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: I would like to ask the acting house leader if he can forecast the business for Wednesday and the rest of the week?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday we will take the final budget resolution, namely the Estate Tax Act resolution. When that is completed we will take the second reading of Bill No. C-92, an act to amend the Customs Tariff, then the resolution to set up the special committee on defence matters, and finally the second reading of Bill No. C-90, an act to amend the National Defence Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about Friday?


John Watson MacNaught: I cannot forecast Friday.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with provisional standing order 39A, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that this house do now adjourn. The hon. member for Queens.



PASSAMAQUODDY


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question upon which I would like to spend much time. It is a question of great concern to the Atlantic region,
4,	1964
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion a region which is greatly needing those factors of industrial growth which have brought prosperity to other parts of the country. We are greatly concerned about these matters in the Atlantic region because, according to the latest returns, 13 per cent of our employable population is unemployed.
We in the maritimes, and this is not confined to New Brunswick alone, have been much interested in the prospect of the great potential development of the Passamaquoddy power project. We feel that this might be an important and major device which would assist us to help ourselves economically, along with those other great projects which I could list in order of priority as the causeway, the corridor road and the Chignecto development.
This Passamaquoddy development should concern all of us in this national parliament. I have been wondering in recent months whether the government of the nation is in fact as concerned as it should be about this important matter. I have read what Premier Robichaud has said; I have read what the leader of the opposition, Mr. Sherwood, has said; and we all know, thanks to his brilliant head and fine mind, what Brigadier Wardell thinks. We know how he has galvanized the interest of the maritime provinces in this matter as well as in other laudable projects. We in the maritimes, who have lost so many brains, have finally received one from another area. Brigadier Wardell is in the foremost category of such persons and he has become a tribune of the maritimes.
We are interested, too, in the tremendous concern which the United States, at the congressional level and at the state level has in this project. The executive level and the state of Maine have shown they are tremendously interested. Their government has moved motions to have something done about the Passamaquoddy. We ask, what is the government of Canada doing; what is it thinking? I looked and listened the other day when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) reported on the Canada-United States meeting. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, with all his many virtues, is not one given to laconic brevity, but out of his fulsome report we found only this: "We heard from the United States their ideas on the possible development of Passamaquoddy tidal power." I ask, Mr. Speaker, for some of the ideas of the present government on this hopeful, important, tremendous potential development of the Passamaquoddy.
Is the dominion government interested? What steps will it take, other than listening to the suggestions of the United States, which is apparently prepared to extend tremendous amounts of money to provide for us power at cheaper rates than we have ever had
2914	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion vouchsafed to us before. I hope that the dominion government-and we have some ministers from the maritimes-will be able to tell us that Canada is at least as interested as the United States; that they will listen to their colleague Premier Robichaud, who on this matter is very perceptive, very persuasive, and will bend their energies in this direction. We would like to know, what is the concern of the Minister of Fisheries in this regard. "Passamaquoddy" is an Indian world meaning bay of pollock. Perhaps it is sardines rather than pollock.
What is the reason for seemingly so little interest? I will not even take up all my seven minutes, Mr. Speaker, because I am solicitous of the Minister of Fisheries. I want him to tell us, in the most fulsome way possible, what this government is doing about this particular matter. In the maritimes we had new hope for six years; we found many things that were long neglected were being looked after. We do not want the clock turned back. We do not want the continuation of that neglect which all of us regretted so much in our hearts and souls for a good many years.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member with regard to a question which I was prevented from replying to, through no fault of mine, on Thursday last. I agree with the hon. member that we in the maritimes are much interested in the development of the Passamaquoddy project, and I want to assure the hon. member that the government of this country is interested in any project that will benefit the maritimes. He has asked, what is the government of Canada doing? I answered that question which was directed to me on Friday last and which is reported at page 2830 of Hansard. The question was asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). As I said, I met with the secretary of the interior, Mr. Udall. We discussed the Passamaquoddy project, particularly its implications on the fisheries of the bay of Fundy if such a project were carried on by the United States government. I want to assure the hon. member that no definite commitment has been made to the government of this country by the government of the United States regarding the Passamaquoddy project. Meetings have been held but they have been exploratory.
I want to assure the hon. member that if a decision is reached to proceed with the project we will see to it that a full study is made as to the effects it will have on the fishing industry. I know that during the last six years the maritimes have had new hopes. But the maritimes cannot live on hopes alone, and in the years to come they will have action.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to deal with tonight has been raised on several instances in the house. It has to do with the unemployment insurance of Canadian lumbermen who go to work in the state of Maine.
Indeed, the question has been brought up here for more than ten years, and very seldom has a minister of labour been able to give a satisfactory reply.
The delay in solving this problem is rather hard to understand, considering that the two governments involved get along so well together when it comes to signing an agreement on nuclear arms or sending troops to a foreign land. This goodwill between them should not keep them in the clouds; they should come down to earth and realize that the thousands of people who live near the Canada-United States border wish to see their problems solved satisfactorily as soon as possible.
Agreements have been signed between Canada and 46 American states so that Canadians and Americans who go and work across the border are still entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Only four states, namely Maine, New Hampshire and two others, have not yet come to terms with Canada in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the reasons why such an agreement cannot be reached with the state of Maine in favour of the lumbermen who go over there to work.
I would like the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) to tell us, on behalf of the government, the reasons why an agreement cannot be reached with the state of Maine concerning Canadian lumbermen.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a simple exchange of correspondence between that state and the Canadian government is not good enough to settle that ticklish problem and, futhermore, I do not know whether serious meetings have been held between officials of that state and the Canadian government. I would like to obtain information in respect of meetings which may have been held between the authorities concerned, and if no negotiations have been undertaken I would ask the Minister of Labour to negotiate an agreement with the state of Maine on behalf of the Canadian government.
I hope the Minister of Labour will permit me to offer him a solution to that serious problem. Could he not include in the Unemployment Insurance Act a provision whereby any lumberman going into a neighbouring

state, especially Maine, to work at his trade would be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits upon his return.
In my opinion the lack of an agreement to this effect between the state of Maine and the Canadian government constitutes a burden for the latter, since a growing number of bush workers have stopped going to the United States because they find that, when they come back to Canada after working over there five or six months, they are unable to get unemployment insurance benefits. We find such cases especially in my riding and in the neighbouring constituencies of Beauce, Lot-biniere and Bellechasse, where more and more bush workers are unemployed.
The minister is a very hard worker who wants to reduce unemployment and help the jobless in Canada.
Therefore, I wish he would tell me what obstacles stand in the way of such an agreement between the Canadian government and the state of Maine in particular.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In the short moments at my disposal I should try to give the hon. member the information he desires in this connection. There is no lack of desire on the part of the Canadian government or of the unemployment insurance commission to enter into a reciprocal arrangement with the state of Maine. Negotiations between the commission and the state of Maine on this problem have continued for a period of 18 years, and shortly after I became the Minister of Labour I discovered that in all those years the state of Maine had said neither no nor yes to the proposals which had been made by successive Canadian governments.
I undertook last September to go down to the capital of Maine where I met with the governor and the head of the employment security commission, and put forward as forcibly as I could the strong reasons why Maine ought to agree to an arrangement of this sort between herself and Canada. The assurance I received was that Maine would give a definite answer. Five or six weeks later the chief commissioner received a letter stating that Maine would not enter into this kind of reciprocal arrangement.
The hon. member will understand the reasons for this refusal; they are understandable if not commendable. Because of the experience-rating system operative in the state of Maine under the employment security arrangements, the less employment prevailing in any industry the smaller the rate of contribution by the employer, who is the exclusive contributor to the unemployment in-20220-185
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion surance fund. This constitutes a vested interest in denying coverage for Canadian workers who would otherwise enjoy the benefits of unemployment insurance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the minister, whose time has expired.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Knowing that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in hospital I should like to wish her a speedy recovery. I hope she overcomes her difficulties as quickly as possible.
The royal commission on government organization, commonly known as the Glassco commission, made the following recommendation in one of its reports, with respect to Indian health services. I should like to quote from page 201 of the third volume of the report which advises-
-that a positive program be developed for the more rapid transfer of Indian health care to normal community facilities in populated areas of the provinces.
Because of this and because of the government's decision with respect to veterans hospitals I raised this matter by way of a question to the minister on the 30th of March and I got the answer that there was to be no change, and that there would have been an announcement if there was going to be a change. Subsequently I received a copy of the local newspaper, the Prince Rupert News. It contained an article quoting the speaker of the provincial legislature and a reference by him to the minister of health of British Columbia. The effect of the article was that the Miller Bay hospital, which comes under the jurisdiction of the federal department, was to be closed.
Based upon that report I asked another question. Finally, on the 13th of April I received a lengthy, detailed answer read by the parliamentary secretary to the effect that the Miller Bay hospital would be closed at some time in the future as a hospital for the treatment of tubercular cases and as a hospital for general care purposes, but that no time limit had been established. I posed a supplementary question and got an answer by way of a letter which I think should be put on the record because it should have been put on Hansard in the first place. The letter is dated April 16, 1964. It is from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-Marsh), and the relevant part reads as follows:
Any special grant made on behalf of the Indian population would have to be the subject of a

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion request from the Prince Rupert general hospital and would be dealt with on its merits when costs involved were presented to the department.
Because of the implications of that letter I think it should be on Hansard so that the general public, and particularly the people involved in Prince Rupert, will be able to see it. There are reports circulating in Prince Rupert and in the Miller Bay hospital at the present time, which reached their peak a day or two ago, to the effect that the Miller Bay hospital is to be reduced from its present 187 bed capacity to only 14 beds by the end of 1965, and there are also rumours that it will be closing shortly thereafter. But nowhere has there been any official declaration that this is not to be the case. Consequently there is great concern.
This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, because the hospital is the only one of its sort in northern British Columbia. Between five and ten thousand native Indian people are involved, and in my opinion the government should make a statement of policy about its intentions not only with respect to the Miller Bay hospital specifically but with respect to all the hospitals which come under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. We would welcome such a statement so that everybody will know where they stand. I would ask the government to keep in mind that the minister herself had no difficulty in getting into a hospital, but if the Miller Bay hospital happens to close many native Indian people in northern British Columbia who may want to get into a hospital will not be able to because the facilities will not be there.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that in the answer to his question given on April 13 last it was pointed out that this hospital was originally to service tubercular Indians, and the case load of tubercular Indians has been reduced to such an extent that the hospital has been gradually converted to a general hospital. In the answer it was also pointed out that the hospital was not going to be phased out, so far as use by the Indians in the area is concerned, until such time as the Prince Rupert general hospital had adequate beds available for the Indians. The reason given for even contemplating the phasing out of the hospital at Miller Bay was that it was of old wartime construction, was not an adequate facility, nor by implication safe.
I am sure that the department is concerned, as a result of the hon. member's representation, that the Indians have proper medical care. However, I do not see anything in the answer which is indicative of the policy of the department which should unduly disturb either the hon. member or the Indian, because it is clearly stated there is no intention of closing out the hospital. I do not believe we should be too concerned about rumours the hon. member may have heard, since there is no intention of closing out the hospital until adequate facilities at the Prince Rupert general hospital are available to take care of the Indian.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Tuesday, May 5, 19G4