1966-03-17

Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege which I am sure will be appreciated by all hon. members of the house, in view of the fact that many thousands of our Canadian citizens are proud to trace their ancestry to Ireland's emerald isle, I feel sure that all members would wish to join with them in paying homage to Ireland's patron saint on this 17th of March.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, may I join in those noble sentiments expressed by the hon. member.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative in this house of the constituency with the largest number of Canadians of Irish origin, I would like to join in the sentiments already expressed.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Siraih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, may I say it would certainly be most appropriate if the house could be peaceful and orderly on St. Patrick's day.



OATS AND BARLEY-ORDERS IN COUNCIL AND PRESS RELEASE RESPECTING FINAL PAYMENTS

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the house to table orders in council 1966-484 and 1966- 486 relating to the final payments on oats and barley for the crop year 1964-65, together with copies in English and French of the press release being made at this moment by the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave to table the documents in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house of some
recent developments in Indian affairs. It is recognized that many Indian communities do not have adequate homes, either in quality or in number, and that many reserves lack facilities and services such as electricity, running water, bathrooms, sewage disposal systems or good roads.
I am pleased to inform the house that an extensive Indian reserve improvement program, to cost about $112 million in the next five years, will be undertaken. Under the program Indians will receive assistance to provide better housing, safe water supply, sanitation facilities, electrification of homes and improved roads in their communities.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
A comprehensive study of housing conditions on reserves was completed in February, 1965, indicating a need for 12,000 new houses over the next five years to meet the backlog of approximately 6,000 houses required now, and new family formations of about 1,250 a year. In addition, community services are required on many reserves.
Many of the Indian leaders, as well as others, have been suggesting what would amount to a crash program to raise living conditions in Indian communities, particularly housing. The situation was discussed with the national Indian advisory board which met in Ottawa from January 10 to 12 this year. The board called for an accelerated program to eliminate the problem in the shortest time.
Under the accelerated program the objective is to build 12,000 houses in five years. Apart from what may be met from band funds and personal contributions, about $75 million in public funds will be required. The program will be flexible to meet the wide variety of reserve conditions across Canada, but will recognize four general areas of need:
First, there are those who are widowed, aged, indigent, disabled, or otherwise unable to make more than a token contribution toward their homes. Suitable housing will be provided for them largely at public expense.
Second, there are those Indian families living in marginal economic areas who must be helped in some way to provide homes for their families which are of minimum standards for decent living.
March 17, 1966
2802	COMMONS DEBATES
Indian Reserve Improvement Program
Third, .there are those Indian families who live on reserves where economic conditions and prospects are favourable, where through wages or self employment they earn sufficient income to be able to contribute to the cost of their homes. Some assistance will be provided to enable them to acquire a higher standard of home.
Fourth, there are Indian families who wish to take advantage of employment opportunities off the reserve and may even wish to live permanently off the reserve. In order to help these families to obtain and hold jobs away from the reserve, financial assistance will be provided so they will be able to take advantage of normal lending facilities available to Canadians generally for the purchase of homes.
The expanded housing program, therefore, is intended to provide support to Indian families not only to obtain reasonably satisfactory houses but also to upgrade the level of Indian housing across Canada. Of great importance is the supply of safe drinking water and proper sewage disposal. Vast improvements in this field are needed if Indian people are to have the advantages enjoyed by most Canadians. Some $10 million will be spent for this purpose.
It is quite evident that progress on many reserves has been seriously hampered by the lack of electricity. It is necessary to bring electricity to reserves if Indian children are to obtain full advantage from the school program, and if the amenities of life are to be made available and economic opportunities are to be furthered. Power is essential to so many of the facilities we use daily and take for granted. Therefore a rural electrification program will be undertaken using existing public utilities wherever possible. The cost of this program over the next five years is expected to be $7 million and will be directed mainly to communities where Indians lack band funds necessary to extend facilities.
Transportation is of vital importance to provide access to and from reserves, for school children, employment opportunities and economic development. Improved roads on many reserves are a necessity. To this end some $17 million will be spent in co-operation with Indian band councils and other levels of government.
In order to achieve the best results from the expenditure of public funds it is necessary to co-ordinate all aspects of the reserve improvement program. Community planning is essential. This has been undertaken on a

number of reserves, and scores of other communities will be examined as the needs and priorities are considered and established by the Indian communities.
Of particular importance-and on which in large measure the success of the program will depend-is the total involvement and participation of Indian band councils and the Indian people themselves.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first major announcement on Indian affairs policy that has been made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the house since he assumed responsibility for this important department. As I listened to his presentation, Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that there was a strong northern affairs influence in the policy he outlined.
It is well known to all members of this house as well as to the people of Canada generally that one of our most neglected groups, and one of the most neglected areas of social responsibility in Canada has been in the realm of our attitude toward what we sometimes refer to euphemistically as our first Canadians.
It is encouraging to note that in the past few months there has been an upsurge of public interest in this question which is now reflected in the anouncement which has just been made by the minister of northern affairs.
Housing, of course, in Canada is one of our basic problems. That is why the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources gave primary consideration to the needs of the Eskimo population in this connection. In more recent years there has been a problem of increasing proportions, in that good housing programs were available for our Eskimo population but at the same time our Indian population was sadly neglected.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that with this program announced by the minister the two groups will now be able to move along parallel lines. What the minister proposes will mean a tremendous improvement in the family and community life of our Indian people.
We must, of course, recognize that a house is not necessarily a home. I am glad to see that the minister has included in the basic housing program the necessary services and amenities which provide for a reasonable standard of living. I refer of course to amenities such as power, water, sewerage, and the necessary access roads.
March 17. 1966

All this is a good beginning. I would point out to the minister that several of the provinces have seized the initiative in dealing with the larger problems of our Indian population, and have taken leadership in the community development concept. If we are going to really rehabilitate our Indian reservations, which exist at the present time largely as depressed ghettos, I think we have to expand as rapidly as possible the community development concept which makes it possible for the people on the reserves to have a sense of belonging to a community. When our Indian people have that sense of belonging it will give to them that initiative and that motivation to improve which is so necessary to them, as they have lived under the cloud of paternalism for too long.
I trust that in administering this program, Mr. Speaker, we will not forget the special housing needs of Indians off the reserve. I think I detected a hint in this direction when the minister suggested that the special housing needs of our Canadian Indians who are moving away from the reserve system will be taken into consideration. Those people are not able to qualify under the terms of the Central Mortgage and Housing program at the moment, and this fact has constituted a discouraging factor in preventing them from moving into a position of responsibility and equality in the larger Canadian community.
I congratulate the government for taking the initiative in this program. It has been recommended by the National Indian Council for years, and more recently by the newly formed Indian Advisory Council. I should also like to pay tribute to the Indian-Eskimo Association, which has had its eye on this target for the past number of years. I hope it is the beginning of a more dynamic, broader approach to all the basic social problems of our first Canadians.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague from Skeena (Mr. Howard), who is unfortunately unable to be here today, I am making so bold as to comment on the minister's statement, because in my constituency are a great many of our native Indian population.
I think there is no doubt but that the minister is to be congratulated on this move which is being made to correct some of the abuse under which our native Indian population has suffered ever since the white man came to the country. While I commend the minister for the action he has taken, action
DEBATES	2803
Indian Reserve Improvement Program which is long overdue, I hope he will not take it as a criticism of that action when I suggest there are still many things which need to be done.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In the first place, I wish he could have expanded on the question of Indian education. I think we should have some idea of the government's policy in this field. I realize there are difficulties with regard to jurisdiction where education is concerned, but I think the department should make every effort to encourage the attendance of Indian children at our public schools and to integrate them into the population. To this end I believe arrangements should be made with the local school authorities concerning school attendance, the provision of transportation and so on.
Another matter which I believe should be brought to the attention of the minister is this. The level of welfare and social assistance now granted to Indians by the federal authority is greatly below the level of social assistance granted by the provinces, at least by my own province of British Columbia and I imagine by other provinces too. It has long been a sore point with Indians that they are not eligible for the same level of social assistance and welfare aid as their white compatriots.
Something else occurs to me. While it is commendable to make every effort to see that our native population is well housed, we should also realize that the best of houses is inadequate if there is no income upon which to maintain it. There are areas in my own province where there are no employment opportunities of any particular value in close proximity to the Indian reserves, and I wonder whether the minister might not consider sponsoring or initiating the development of employment possibilities on or close to these reserves.
Before I sit down I think it is proper to do something I had intended to do at another point in our proceedings, that is to comment on the death yesterday of an extremely eminent member of our native Indian population, Rev. Peter Kelly of the city of Nanaimo. Peter Kelly was a member of a chiefly family of the Haida Indians of Queen Charlotte Islands.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will allow me to remind him of the terms of the standing order under which ministerial statements are made and comments expressed by representatives of opposition parties. The
2804	COMMONS
Indian Reserve Improvement Program standing order requires hon. members to limit their comments to the statements or explanations put forward by the minister, and it does seem to me that the hon. member is now going beyond the terms of the statement itself.


Colin Cameron: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, our party is quite satisfied with the statement made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), that, under a five-year program, the federal government will make available to Indian reserves more than $100 million for the construction of decent homes, street repairs and the building of sewage and water systems.
I hope that the Indian population in the riding of Roberval and especially that of the Pointe Bleue reserve will benefit more than the last few years from the sums allocated by the federal government.
It is inconceivable indeed that nowadays, in the centre of the Lake St. John area, in the heart of our civilization, there should still be Indians living in tents.
It is to be hoped that the amount provided under this new program will enable each Indian to have at least his own home.
The minister's statement on improvements referred to the building of sewage and water systems. I should like to bring to his attention that with regard to the Pointe Bleue reserve, they will have to start from scratch because there are no sewers, no sidewalks and no paved streets there. There is quite a job to be done in this field.
I should like also to remind the minister that each Indian living on a reserve should profit from the money that will be spent. Labour should be hired in the reserves and not from outside, as was done in previous years. I think that Indians are bright and skilful enough to build their own homes and look after the improvements. There is no need to go and get a group of white people to build those homes and sewers in the reserves.
I think there is room for improvement in this field. Besides, I shall raise the matter again when the estimates of this department are considered, because we have many requests to make for the Pointe Bleue reservation, especially from the administrative point of view.

DEBATES	March 17, 1966


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that we in the Social Credit party are very appreciative of the announcement which has been made this afternoon. In a period in our history when great emphasis is being placed upon the importance of adequate housing and the other amenities so far as the general population is concerned, it is only fitting and proper that we should make a particular effort to see that these things also are brought within the reach of the Indian people.
I would like to refer to three matters in this connection. First of all, as possibly has been mentioned, in the program of construction I think it is essential and desirable that the Indian people themselves be fused into the labour force, not only as a means of providing assistance to them but also to give them the training that is necessary.
Second, in order that these homes be maintained, possibly an important aspect of this program would be to see that domestic training is given to them to enable those who occupy the homes to maintain them and make use of the facilities. Third, in the program of building homes for the Indian people, perhaps care should be exercised in relation to some of the isolated areas where reserves are very far removed from employment opportunities, and consideration given to just going slowly in those particular areas. I am sure the minister will take cognizance of this fact.
We appreciate the announcement which has been made today and compliment the minister on his initiative in this field.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, as chief of one of the bands of the Ojibway people I would like to tell the minister I welcome this announcement and advise him that from information I have received that it is already taking effect. I am sure this is the result of representations made to the department over the last three years by many hon. members including myself. Again I would like to congratulate the minister.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with
March 17. 1966	COMMONS
the agreement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I would like to ask the consent of the house to strike out from the order paper notice of motion No. 3 for production of papers which had been transferred for debate, since the hon. member agrees to its withdrawal.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I agree if this means that the government will table the information requested.


Jean Marchand: Of course, according to the agreement we have.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, asking him whether he has received a communication from the New Brunswick Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals regarding seal hunting, a copy of which was sent to the Prime Minister. If so, does he agree with the suggestion made therein that this seal hunt, referring to this latest event, represents an utterly cruel and barbarous practice completely irreconcilable with humanitarian standards in Canada?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to by the right hon. gentleman was just placed on my desk as I was coming down to the house and I did not have a chance to read it. I wish to state at this time, however, that I do not agree with the reference made in the report as stated by the right hon. gentleman. I have the responsibility of introducing regulations to prevent any cruelty taking place during the seal hunt. At no time would I consider cancelling this hunting altogether, because it is necessary and has to be carried on.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, no one is asking that it be cancelled altogether, but does the hon. gentleman agree that during the hunt at which he was present the seals gave every evidence of terror and distress; that the white coats were often killed in front
DEBATES	2805
Inquiries of the Ministry of the mothers' eyes, and after the whitecoat had been flayed the mother seal would come up and sniff and nuzzle at the dead carcass?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not agree with that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question should not be asked at this time as being urgent because it seems to me, as far as I have been able to gather, the seal hunting is finished for this year.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of his announcement yesterday. Has there been any evidence of a large scale sale of securities or an intention to offer for sale large amounts of United States securities in order to use Canadian capital to meet United States investment requirements elsewhere?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the announcement I made yesterday including a request to investors was designed to prevent any large scale movement of funds from Canada to be used for financing projects in foreign countries. There had been some evidence of offers for sale of securities of this kind, but the information we have indicates that up to this time at least not very many of them have actually been purchased by investors. It was the purpose of my statement to prevent such a development from occurring.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received any assurance from the financial community of Canada that there will be co-operation in support of the minister's request of yesterday?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had no evidence to the contrary, and I am now in the process of signing some hundreds of individual letters to members of the investment community which I am sure they will treat seriously. I have always had from the investment community while I have been minister, as I know my predecessor had while he was in office, co-operation in matters of this kind. I expect there will be co-operation and it is my intention later to find out how much co-operation has been forthcoming.
2806	COMMONS DEBATES	March 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



CYPEUS-CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN PEACE KEEPING FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence, and perhaps I should direct it also to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that yesterday the United Nations voted to extend the Cyprus peace keeping force for three months, and because our Canadian defence forces make up the major portion of that force on the basis of a donation from the Canadian government as far as costs thereof are concerned, I should like to ask whether the government of Canada was consulted prior to this decision. If not, has the Canadian government indicated its willingness to continue this vital but expensive operation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as this is a matter of interest to my department as well as to the Department of National Defence, the Minister of National Defence has suggested that I might reply. Yesterday the Security Council did renew the mandate of the United Nations force in Cyprus for a period of three months, from March 27 to June 26, and the government decided this morning that Canada would continue to participate in that force.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether he anticipates that between now and June a solution to this problem will be found, or whether the mandate should not have been extended for a realistic period of time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the resolution of the Security Council expressed the hope that the parties concerned would make every effort to find a solution to this problem which has been before the United Nations since March, 1964. The governments of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece, in acknowledging with appreciation the decision of the Security Council to renew the mandate, have indicated their determination to do all they can to find a solution.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate what efforts have been made to have other countries contribute? Why should
[Mr. Sharp.)
Canada make such a contribution on its own, and what is the estimated cost of this continuing contribution for the next three months, which ought to have been accepted by other nations rather than be the responsibility of Canada alone?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that other countries in the United Nations should accept their share of the responsibility for the operation of this peace keeping force. Canada, along with other countries, has urged member states in that organization to contribute to the voluntary fund, but participation in the force is circumscribed, of course, by the willingness or the consent of the host country as to participants.
The estimated out of pocket costs to Canada for participation in the United Nations force in Cyprus from March 27 to June 26 is $849,000. I share fully my right hon. friend's misgivings in this regard, but I am sure he will agree with me that notwithstanding the failure of some countries to bear their full share of the cost and to participate in making this force effective, Canada has pursued, and continues to pursue as a member of the UN organization, the right course in its decision to try to use the peace keeping machinery of the United Nations to keep the peace in Cyprus.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, but it is pretty hard on Canadian taxpayers to be singled out in this regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has been very hard on the taxpayers, and I admit that; but I am sure we will all agree that in this matter the Canadian people would prefer to spend their money in keeping the peace thus discouraging the kind of situation that might lead to a more serious conflict.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. A short time ago the mayors of eight western cities asked permission to meet with the cabinet in regard to the discontinuance of the train known as the Dominion. I was informed this morning that the request has been refused. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister can give us the reason for that refusal.
March 17, 1966	COMMONS


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will be very frank with the hon. gentleman. I was so pleased with my reply to the right hon. gentleman that I was not paying attention to his question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I at once pay tribute to the hon. gentleman and say that in both cases he was equally informative.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In all fairness to the hon. gentleman, if he will repeat his question I will try to answer it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, my question was this. A short time ago permission was requested by eight mayors of western cities to meet with the cabinet in regard to the discontinuance of the passenger train known as the Dominion, and I was informed this morning that their request had been refused. 1 wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would tell the house why their request was refused by the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has had the opportunity to hear the question a second time, which has given me a chance to reflect on its legality. I suggest to the hon. member that it should not be asked at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the welcome announcement of the minister relating to a program of greatly needed improvements on Indian reservations, and keeping in mind that these improvements can be expected to assure our Indian people staying on many of these reservations, will the minister consider asking his colleague the Minister of Industry to give consideration to including as many of these reserves as possible in the designated areas program, in an effort to improve the economy as well as the living conditions on these reserves?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question of general policy which I am sure, having been suggested to the hon. minister in question, will be taken into account.
DEBATES	2807
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



INQUIRY AS TO ACCESS ROADS TO RESERVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter F. Foy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I was very much interested in his announcement regarding Indians, and would refer to a private motion by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question.


Walter Frank Foy: The question I should like to ask has reference to that part of the minister's announcement in which he mentioned access roads to Indian reserves. If the reserve is an island, does this include a bridge to the island?


Mr. Speaker:: This is the same type of question as the one asked previously. Perhaps the hon. member would wish to get in touch with the minister and receive a reply.


Walter Frank Foy: Eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



EXPO '67 APPOINTMENT OF U.S. COMMISSIONER GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, about eight or nine days ago the government indicated to its high commissioner in Ghana our intention to carry on normal relations with the government of Ghana. That information has been communicated to the head of the government of Ghana.']
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce of which I have given notice. Is the minister in a position to comment on the appointment by President Johnson of Hon. Stanley R. Tupper, the congressman for Maine, as commissioner general for the United States exhibit at Expo '67, with the status of ambassador?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Although the hon. member gave notice of the question to the minister in charge of Expo '67, I do not think it is a matter of urgency that the minister be required to comment on such appointment.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada as yet extended recognition to the new de facto government in Ghana?
March 17, 1986

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, about eight or nine days ago the government indicated to its high commissioner in Ghana our intention to carry on normal relations with the government of Ghana. That information has been communicated to the head of the government of Ghana.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It arises from the report of the Canada student means survey, to which the Department of Finance has contributed $14,500. Since the survey declares a deficit of $18,000, would the minister inform the house whether consideration is now being given to further assistance to this cause?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take notice of that question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaslon Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell us whether it is true that since the increase in the Bank of Canada interest rate, chartered banks have been compelled to reduce in a manner I would term as dangerous for the country's economy, the number of loans to businessmen, contractors and industry?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might wish to put his question on the order paper.
IEnglish1



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that legislation was introduced yesterday that will provide for collective bargaining for

provincial civil servants and municipal workers in Ontario, can the Acting Prime Minister say when we may expect the legislation that will provide for collective bargaining for the federal civil service?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Inasmuch as we have been endeavouring to find out what the government has in mind in regard to increased old age security, I wonder whether the minister could inform the house if such action will be taken on the Croll report, possibly before Easter?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, all I can tell my hon. friend is that this matter is under consideration. Because it is a matter of policy, it will be announced in the usual way.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I would ask him if he can inform the house whether he proposes to make a statement on motions in regard to the report on immigration by Mr. Sedgwick, which was tabled the other day, so that members of other parties may comment on this important report.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker,
based on the Sedgwick report a memorandum was prepared by the department and submitted to the cabinet. This memorandum is before the cabinet, and as soon as it is approved we shall decide how we are going to introduce it in the house.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Could I ask the minister a supplementary question. In the Sedgwick report there is a proposal to limit sponsorship to spouses and dependant minors. I think this will cause great anxiety among Canadian citizens seeking to bring their relatives to Canada-
March 17, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Can the minister undertake that sponsorship of immigrants will not be confined simply to spouses and minor dependants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood that the hon. member wanted to discuss this question at ten o'clock.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour. It is based upon the unemployment statistics just released, which show the Atlantic region with a rate at least twice that of the national average. Can the minister advise whether the government has any concrete plans to reduce this persistent and painful disparity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question of general policy which should not be asked and perhaps cannot be answered at this time.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Ten o'clock.



MONTREAL-PROTEST AGAINST DECISION OF LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour with regard to the public demonstration of the C.N.T.U. in Montreal to protest against a decision of the Labour Relations Board. Could the minister tell the house whether he will meet very shortly with representatives of the C.N.T.U. and whether he intends to introduce in the house amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, I do hope to meet again at an early date with representatives of the C.N.T.U. to pursue discussions that I have had with them. I might add that since my last meeting with them I have met with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress 23033-1781
DEBATES	2809
Inquiries of the Ministry and of the Railway Brotherhoods. We have further meetings arranged with them for early next week, and the further meeting about which the hon. member has just inquired will not take place until the preliminary ones have been held.
With regard to the second part of the question, if and when the government has any changes to propose to the labour legislation, they will be announced in due course.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I intended to direct to the Prime Minister, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister inform the house when the government expects to receive the report of the commission of inquiry into fresh water fish marketing, which commission is headed by Mr. George H. Mclvor, a former chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, and which held hearings in Manitoba last fall?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the preliminary report has been received from Mr. Mclvor, but I have no indication as to when his final report will be presented.



NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF FISHING ZONES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that a bill to establish exclusive coastal fishing rights up to 12 miles off shore has been introduced in the United States, which indicates an awareness in that country of the necessity for claiming jurisdiction over a larger section of sea coast, will the minister inform the house of the progress presently being made in implementing all the clauses of Bill S-17, and when we can expect the Canadian 12 mile fishing limit to be imposed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this type of question is of a general nature. The hon. member is asking the minister to comment on the progress that has been made in the imposition or realization of certain clauses of a bill, or of legislation. This is so wide ranging that I think it should not be the subject matter of a question at this time.

March 17. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, with due deference to your ruling I would point out that Bill S-17 was introduced into this house almost two years ago. I believe it was in May, 1964; and in view of the fact that it has not been implemented, the fishing industry is eagerly awaiting some action on the part of the government. I believe some statement is in order at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps a statement might be made on motions, or the hon. member might place the question on the order paper. If we have waited two years we might wait another short while.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and ask him whether an advisory committee has been set up to look into the expenditures in connection with the $500 million health resources fund. If it has been set up, have any doctors been appointed to that committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this question should be placed on the order paper.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO INVITATION TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Just as soon as the legislative program will permit, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend knows, Canada has subscribed $25 million to the capital fund of the Asian Development Bank. My colleague the Minister of Labour signed the agreement on behalf of Canada, and ratification will come before the house.']
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for Expo '67. When our official party visited Russia the former Speaker of this house extended an invitation to Russia to bring some of the Hermitage treasures to Expo for display in 1967, and I know he reported that the government of Russia seemed to look on the invitation favourably. Has the government officially extended an invitation to the government of the U.S.S.R., or have Expo officials followed this up; and will these treasures be available for Expo?


Mr. Speaker:: I would invite the hon. member to place this question on the order paper.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that President Johnson yesterday approved a bill providing for participation of the United States government in the Asian Development Bank, which he termed "an economic Magna Carta for the diverse lands of Asia", would the minister inform the house when the government expects to bring forward legislation that would provide for Canada's participation, as indicated in the Speech from the Throne?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Just as soon as the legislative program will permit, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend knows, Canada has subscribed $25 million to the capital fund of the Asian Development Bank. My colleague the Minister of Labour signed the agreement on behalf of Canada, and ratification will come before the house.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as the minister in charge of combines legislation. I ask him whether his department is looking at the large and uniform increases in the prices of newsprint announced by Canadian pulp and paper companies.


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Slanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask him whether he has made a decision about the representation of his department's technical and vocational training branch on the Canadian delegation to the forthcoming commonwealth conference on the education and training of technicians? The urgency of the matter arises out of the fact that I understand the composition of the delegation was required to be completed by today?


Jean Marchand: I have not made a decision yet, Mr. Speaker.
March 17. 1966



COMMONS DEBATES THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he in a position to inform the house of any special policies he plans to implement with regard to the Atlantic provinces, to offset the effect of the government's tight money policy in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: This is again a question of a very general nature.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he this day received a telegram from the "l'union des cultivateurs catholiques" alleging that the problem of inadequate milk prices is taking on critical proportions? Also I would ask the minister whether he has an announcement to make at this time in that regard.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have not had that particular wire drawn to my attention. The government's dairy policy for the ensuing year will be announced before April 1.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, perhaps the Chair should make an ex post facto ruling on the question asked, though I have already made a ruling along these lines. Hon. members should not ask ministers whether they have received a resolution, letter or telegram. In any event, perhaps the second part of the question was in order.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport but in his absence I was going to address it to his parliamentary secretary. However, I see he has been called out, so I must address it to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of the question I asked the minister on March 4 regarding the recent decision to narrow the air lanes across the Atlantic.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Two days ago the minister was good enough to forward me a memo on this question, and my question is based on the contradiction between this memo and the statement that appears in the Globe and Mail with regard to the position of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations who, at Auckland, New Zealand, the day before yesterday announced they were opposed to this and urged all their members not to use the narrower lanes. In the memo forwarded by the minister to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question. The hon. member is saying there is a disagreement or discrepancy between a memorandum he has received and another statement. That might be a grievance. It might even be a question of privilege, but it seems to me it is not a question that could be asked at this time.


Colin Cameron: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to finish you will realize I have to do this to ask the question I wish to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be posed or asked as quickly as possible.


Colin Cameron: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is now prepared to make representations to the International Civil Aviation Organization, which has made this ruling, and point out that our own Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, in concert with all other air line pilots' associations in the world, have rejected this idea.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I shall draw this question to the attention of the Minister of Transport. If there is any contradiction I am sure my hon. friend will agree that the Minister of Transport will not have any difficulty extracting himself from the alleged contradiction.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister of human resources, better known as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
Has the minister received protests from the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) about the very unkind remarks made by Commissioner Sedgwick on page 18 of the

March 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry English version and on page 15 of the French edition of the first report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is out of order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
MeGILL university high altitude

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Defence Production and Industry and ask whether the HARP project-an appropriate name to mention on St. Patrick's day-the high altitude research program of McGill University at Barbados is being delayed by lack of government support, and may have to be taken over by the government of the United States, as reported by the dean of engineering of McGill University?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who the acting minister is, but this question was asked within the last day or so, and the Minister of Defence Production said the matter was now under consideration.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is consideration being given to extending the deadline for the winter works program in the Winnipeg area because of delays in house building caused by the weather? I refer to the extension requested by the Winnipeg House Builders' Association.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, consideration is being given to the request in so far as it applies to the winter house building program. With regard to the other winter works programs, I am afraid that the answer will have to come from my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I do not know what the answer is going to be in the case of the housing incentive but the matter is being considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand from the Minister of Labour that the representations that were made to him by the Winnipeg
[Mr. Prud'homme.l
House Builders' Association are being considered?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They are.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. With the great shortage of skilled labour and help, is the department giving consideration to withdrawing this winter works program?



ST. CROIX RIVER BRIDGE STRUCTURE TO CONNECT NEW BRUNSWICK AND MAINE

Paul Joseph James Martin: the second reading of Bill No. S-15, to authorize the construction of a bridge across the St. Croix River between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will find Bill No. S-15 to be relatively straightforward and therefore no additional statement of great length should be required at this time. However, I will make available to hon. members one or two further details which will not appear from the bill itself.
The government of the province of New Brunswick wishes to build this bridge between the town of Milltown, New Brunswick, and the city of Calais in Maine. This, of course, would be an international bridge between Canada and the United States. Under the provisions of section 92 (10) (a) of the British North America Act, this will be a work extending beyond the limits of one province and therefore it is a work falling under the authority of the parliament of Canada. For this reason the province of New Brunswick has come to this parliament to receive authorization for the construction of the work.
The bridge will be constructed, operated and maintained by the government of the province of New Brunswick in co-operation with the government of the state of Maine. Each of these governments would pay half of the cost of constructing the bridge and the entire cost of all approach works and right of way within its own borders. The two governments would share the cost of maintenance and operation of the bridge once it is completed on the same equal basis. The federal government would make no financial contribution to the bridge and it is intended that the bridge should be toll free.
March 17, 1966

I should explain, Mr. Speaker, that this bridge is going to replace one already existing approximately 65 feet from the site of the proposed bridge. From a procedural standpoint there is to be an agreement between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine which would cover the points arising in connection with the proposed construction, the ones I have just mentioned and such other questions as may arise.
In order to give this agreement its proper status there will be at an appropriate time an exchange of notes between the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) on behalf of Canada and representatives of the United States government in Ottawa, which will indicate the approval of the two federal governments to the conclusion of the agreement.
As I have stated, Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill is relatively straightforward, but I would be pleased to answer any questions from hon. gentlemen when we reach the committee stage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), seconded by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hel-lyer), moves that the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Richard Albert Bell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the bill goes to the committee of the whole house. I have had the opportunity of piloting such a bill at other times and certainly that was the procedure then.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: that the house go into committee on the said bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Cameron (High Park) in the chair.
On clause 2-Approval of bridge.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I put two or three questions to the parliamentary secretary. The first is this. Has the government in mind any general bridge legislation? I believe it has been in contemplation for some time and it does seem to me that ought not to be necessary to come before this house each time an international bridge is to be constructed. It should be possible to set forth in general legislation the principles of
St. Croix River Bridge
management and the procedures of undertaking of these international works. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary could tell the committee to what stage the government has gone in respect of this proposal.
The parliamentary secretary indicated that this bridge is to be toll free. I do not see any specific suggestion to that effect in the legislation except the use in line 13 of the words "for the free use and passage". Is that the only expression in the bill which makes it toll free?
Third, there is no provision in the bill that I am able to see, as I think there is, for example, in the Peace Bridge bill, for the management of the bridge. Is this to be a matter of equal right or equal representation of the two nations? By whom will the managers be appointed, the provincial authority in New Brunswick, the federal government, or by whom? The situation varies from international bridge to international bridge. We should have, I think, a clear understanding as to the authority that will appoint the body which is going to manage this particular bridge.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary spoke of an agreement between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine. This is a matter which interests me. I should like him to explain in his capacity as parliamentary secretary by what technique such an agreement is reached as between a province and a state. Is this to be authorized by some action on the part of this parliament or have we some new technique whereby there is direct contact between a province and a state rather than it being an international affair conducted by the government of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can deal with the hon. member's final question first because the answers to the other two questions which he has raised flow out of it. The procedure that was followed in this particular case was the following. As I mentioned on second reading, there is already in existence a bridge approximately 65 feet upstream from the proposed site, which bridge is operated under an existing agreement between the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
After some preliminary discussions were held between the province and the state of Maine with respect to replacing the existing

March 17. 1988
St. Croix River Bridge
bridge, the request was made by the government of New Brunswick to the government of Canada for authority to enter into more definitive arrangements with the state of Maine with respect to replacing the bridge. The government of Canada authorized the province of New Brunswick to enter into discussions with the state of Maine on several conditions. The first of these was that the draft agreement which it was proposed that the parties should enter into should be submitted first for the approval of the Department of External Affairs. Second, after the agreement was entered into and the appropriate legislation was passed by this house, a contemporaneous exchange of notes would take place between the two international persons, in this case the government of Canada and the government of the United States, whereby the international arrangement between the two countries would be consummated.
I might say that the draft agreement has in due course been submitted by the province of New Brunswick to the government of Canada, and after consideration the government of Canada has authorized the province of New Brunswick to enter into arrangements with the state of Maine in accordance with the terms of that agreement. Under the terms of that agreement it is stipulated that the bridge shall be toll free. Since it will be toll free the question which arose in connection with the Blue Water Bridge-and I think the hon. member mentioned the Peace Bridge at Niagara Falls-of establishing an international public authority to superintend operation and maintenance does not arise in this particular case.
The ownership of the bridge will rest in the entity on each side, in this case the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine, up to the international boundary. The operational costs will be taken care of in accordance with the terms of the agreement and paid on a pro rata basis by the two lesser governments. As I have said, this undertaking is in the agreement which has been approved by the government of Canada that it is to be toll free.
The hon. member raised the question whether this was a new departure or whether an agreement had been entered into between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine whereby in some way the action of this parliament had been circumvented. I would point out to the hon. member, with respect to the treaty making power, that that
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .3
of course is done by executive act in Canada, and it was in acting pursuant to this executive power that the government of Canada authorized the province of New Brunswick to enter into these arrangements. I believe I am correct in saying that the form followed here is substantially the same as the form followed by this parliament in the two bridge bills put through in 1958 and 1959.
The hon. gentleman asked me whether there was any general bridge legislation in contemplation. I know that there has been some discussion about the setting down of general principles with regard to international bridges, but I am not in a position to say if general bridge legislation will be coming forward in the very near future or at all.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, my recollection is that an interdepartmental committee was studying bridge legislation. Does the hon. member know whether that committee is still in existence and whether it is engaged in the active study of the question of general bridge legislation? Second, would the hon. gentleman be good enough to undertake to lay upon the table of the house at a later date the exchange of notes or whatever other documents there may be which have given approval to the agreement between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I regret to say to the hon. gentleman that I cannot advise him of the current status of the discussions of the interdepartmental committee. I must confess I have not been privy to those. I think I can undertake to table in due course, when they have been executed and properly engrossed, the exchange of notes made between the two sovereign authorities.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this bridge. I have been chasing this bridge around for the last six or seven months and I have at last caught up with it. The hon. member who introduced the bill made a slight mistake. The bridge is not between Calais and Milltown. It is between Milltown, New Brunswick, and Milltown, Maine. There is already a bridge existing between Calais and St. Stephen.
It seems to me it is important that this bill should go through at once because the fire departments go back and forth across the river and the present bridge cannot carry the equipment. They have to go down the river, across the St. Stephen Bridge and then up the river again.
March 17, 1966

I was informed by a letter that several lives were lost in a fire. If the fire departments had been able to get their equipment there sooner these lives would not have been lost. I urge the committee to get this bill through as quickly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Authority.
Mr. Ryan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary why it is that power is given in clause 3 to construct the bridge either alone or in conjunction with the appropriate public authority in the United States? Why is the province given the power to construct this bridge alone? Could it not be that such power might prove embarrassing to the federal government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the hon. gentleman would recognize that the parliament of Canada can only extend the authority to build a bridge to the territorial limits of Canada. If the United States had chosen to do so I presume that it could have authorized New Brunswick to build the entire bridge, or rather the portion on the American side of the boundary. The alternative mentioned in the section would give the necessary authority to New Brunswick.
The actual arrangement proposed between Maine and New Brunswick was for each of the parties to build the portion of the bridge on its side of the boundary. In fact the proposal is that on our part we shall be responsible for constructing the bridge out to the international boundary, and I think we can rely on the prospect that it will be constructed in such a way that when the bridge is built from the other side the two ends will meet.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Approval required for assignment.
Richard Albert Bell: May I ask the parliamentary secretary if clause 6 is the usual clause in this type of bill? It seems to me rather unusual that the question of assignment or delegation should be left with the governor in council. I would think if the power to operate and maintain the bridge were to be assigned or delegated the matter should come back to this parliament.
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I point out to the hon. member that there was no provision at all in the 1958 and 1959 bills restricting the power of the entities in that case to assign or otherwise delegate the control of the bridge to any other entity. It seems to me that the chief purpose of the clause is to prevent the assignment at some future date of the Canadian interest in the bridge to some authority not a public authority. Therefore, in answer to the hon. member, this is an innovation in that sense. It is an innovation in favour of stricter control by the federal government rather than less strict.


Richard Albert Bell: I would approve of that, Mr. Chairman. I would venture to suggest to my hon. friend and to the authorities of the Department of Finance and the Department of External Affairs that when they are next considering any such bill they consider whether it would not be wise that this power be exercised only with the consent of parliament and not with the consent of the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, or at the next sitting of the house?


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



OTTAWA TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY

Paul Theodore Hellyer: the second reading of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to make which I hope will answer all possible questions in relation to this matter.
March 17, 1966

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company By Bill No. S-2 the National Capital Commission together with Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are endeavouring to implement the terms of an agreement made between them for the relocation of railways in the Ottawa area, dated October 17, 1963, which provides for the incorporation of a terminal railway company to consolidate and carry out rail terminal operations in the Ottawa area. This agreement was made not at the instigation of the railways but as a step in implementing the National Capital railway relocation plan.
I believe I can summarize in the interest of expedition. The bill was before the other place in 1965 when representations were made by those objecting to the wording, and again this session, the trucking companies objected to certain words which indicated that the railways might be taking over trucking in the Ottawa area. The bill has now been amended to make sure that the railway companies will only operate the normal pick-up and delivery services. There is an arrangement whereby both railway companies will share in the buildings and in the operation costs on a 50-50 basis.
A further objection was raised by railway employees who would be required to transfer to the new terminal railway company. This issue has been satisfactorily negotiated between the companies and the employees concerned so I believe I can now assure the house that all matters dealt with in the bill meet with the approval of all those who are concerned.


Mr, Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary when introducing this bill may, as he suggested, have been all-embracing and sufficient to explain all the problems arising in connection with the measure before us. However, I doubt that this matter can really be settled so easily.
The house may recall that this bill was before us a year ago. The provisions of the measure do, indeed, give effect to its purpose but the method of doing so has caused severe dislocation of traffic in many areas and raises the whole question of the National Capital Commission plan in relation to railways and other transportation arteries throughout the area.
One of the problems presented by the bill is that it seeks to give legality to something which has already been done. The railway 
terminal we are talking about has already been developed and is due to be opened very shortly. There is in Ottawa at the present time, as will be seen from the newspapers, considerable discussion about whether or not a stay of execution can be granted for the present station in the downtown area because of its possible usefulness during the centenary year and because of the architecture of the building and the desire of some to retain it.
The fact that people will no longer be able to reach the central part of Ottawa by rail is a fait accompli. Any effort to change this situation is in my opinion bound to be ineffective. There is therefore no point in making a great issue of it. Nevertheless I think we should bear in mind when considering this bill that for many years we as members of parliament have had no opportunity to discuss with any thoroughness the affairs of the National Capital Commission and the relationship of the transportation system to the needs of this city and to the needs of the whole area within which the commission operates. The plan as set up by the National Capital Commission with the assistance of Mr. Greber many years ago has been modified, changed and discarded. This is only one, small example. It is proposed to set up now a company with capital stock of $30 million to be operated jointly by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways.
What does this really amount to? So far as passenger service is concerned there will be no operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway to be considered in relation to the terminal railway company. The only reason the C.P.R. is interested in this agreement is that there are one or two other joint terminal railway companies already established in various parts of Canada.
Since this bill was first presented circumstances have changed. The C.P.R. no longer provides passenger service between Toronto and Ottawa. It has only one train, the Canadian, coming into Ottawa. The indication given to the Board of Transport Commissioners is that the Canadian Pacific intends to ask for the discontinuation of all its passenger services in Canada. Should such a request be granted the company will no longer wish to operate a service in conjunction with anyone else. As I have pointed out, the situation in which the National Capital Commission is interested has changed and will change still more.
March 17, 1966

Some hon. members are aware that when the new station is completed there will no longer be a Hull railway terminal. The city of Hull will be without rail transportation when the provisions of this bill are fully implemented. I am surprised there are not more representatives of Ottawa and Hull here today because this is a matter which affects the people who live in these two cities. There are many agencies and groups in Ottawa and Hull who are very interested in the move to set up the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company because they know it will affect the whole railway passenger operation and the provision of passenger facilities. If the National Capital Commission is telling the house that this bill is a means of moving the railway out of the downtown section of Ottawa so that it can be located in a less congested part of the city, I suggest the commission is being unrealistic. In fact they have moved the railway lines only about four miles to the Alta Vista area which is growing rapidly. In the last five years the population in the Alta Vista area and the area adjacent to Industrial Avenue has doubled or trebled and possibly more.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In my opinion, from the National Capital Commission's point of view there really is no plan in conjunction with the city of Ottawa to establish the type of development in this area that would be necessary to maintain a freight yard complex such as the Walkley terminal. In my view the National Capital Commission, for which we are responsible has really failed to do anything concrete in respect of the moving of the railway terminal. I am aware of the fact that the federal government really never has given consideration to what we are going to do with our national capital. How are we going to face this fact? I would think that some of the members, particularly those from this area, would be concerned about this matter.
You will be aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the other night spoke of the potholes in the city of Ottawa and the fact that the National Capital Commission had not done much about it. I read a most idiotic statement in the press the other day made by Mr. Heit, a member of the board of control, to the effect that the member for Skeena should either shut up or put his money where his mouth is.
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company I am not sure whether he expects the hon. member for Skeena, who I think has property in this town, to finance the road building program himself. I do not know whether that is what he expects, but certainly the board of control in conjunction with the National Capital Commission really never has decided what it is going to do with the city. The situation is disgraceful in many respects so far as the public are concerned, and it is nothing to be proud of so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned. We are now compounding the problem by moving the railway terminal three miles from downtown Ottawa. Somebody has said that it only takes you a minute in your car to go downtown on the Queensway. That is true, but if you are riding on a train you have not brought your car in your pocket. I do not see what transportation by automobile has to do with railway transportation. If you travel by train you do not have your car with you, nor do you if you travel by airplane.
It is just as easy now to go by train from downtown Ottawa to downtown Montreal as it is to go from downtown Ottawa to Ottawa airport, fly to Dorval airport and then go from the airport to downtown Montreal. Do we have to be as stupid as the National Capital Commission? I do not know; maybe we do. I do not think anybody here is interested in this bill. I think we will pass it without hardly any comment. I am sure one or two of the Ottawa members will have to say something about it, but I really believe we do not care. I believe we have not given any consideration to this matter. We stupidly move the terminal three miles from downtown Ottawa and allow agencies of the government to put up our money for the building. The bill was not passed last year because the Liberal government did not have the guts to pass it when the committee added to the bill a provision that two members of the board of directors had to be French. This meant that the Canadian Pacific Railway had to be instructed that at least one of their directors would have to be a French Canadian. That was stupid. It has nothing to do with the bill or the National Capital Commission's decision in respect of where the terminal should go.
We went ahead and spent the money and built the building. It will be opened in a few months. We put it three miles from downtown and not in the heart of the industrial section. The street is called Industrial Avenue and has on it, I believe, Loeb's wholesale, a
March 17, 1968

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company couple of other small wholesalers and possibly a fruit provisioner, but who would call this the industrial part of Ottawa? I would be suprised if anyone would. We have moved the station three miles from downtown so that one has to hire transportation to get there when we already had the facilities downtown not two blocks from the parliament buildings and the main business section of the city. We did not think about the matter at all. We paid no more attention to the Ottawa terminal location than we paid to the moving of government facilities to Tunney's Pasture and to Confederation Heights, and to all the other stupid moves we allowed the National Capital Commission to make.
Members can pass this bill if they wish. They can modify it or do what they like with it. But I think the people who come after us are going to wonder about members of this parliament being so stupid that they did not ask the N.C.C. for a revision of the plan to bring it up to date. Mr. Greber probably is dead, if he is possibly he will turn over in his grave. The situation is a little like the matter of a house I built. The contractors looked at the plan I used and just did not believe it. Not knowing very much about plans, I modified them and in the end the plan I had bore no relation to the house I finally ended up building. As a result of modifying it here and there, it had no relationship to the plan the architect drew. I am sure Mr. Greber would feel this way about his plan in respect of the city of Ottawa and the whole greenbelt area. I am sure he would feel there is no relationship between his architectural design for the area and the plan we are now following. If .you doubt this, take a look at the plan and see the changes already in effect.
I am not sure what I can do, Mr. Speaker. I come from northern Ontario and this matter really does not concern me. However, I have an interest in seeing that the National Capital Commission as the national capital authority operates in a way of which the people of my area and every constituency in Canada can be proud. I expect there will be trains carrying passengers for some years and I do not like to see them having to arrive in Alta Vista. I should like to see them arrive downtown. When people come here from northern Ontario they are going downtown just as people are when they go to Montreal. If you go to New York city you do downtown. That should be kept in mind in developing new railway facilities. I agree that you do not 
have to take freight trains into the middle of town, but I think that passengers should be able to get off trains where normal transportation facilities are available at the door and where those who wish to walk will find themselves in the downtown part of the city.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have a responsibility. I am going to accept this responsibility and raise these matters again when the bill is referred to the committee. I think there is an obligation on the part of the house to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I do not believe the sponsor of this bill said that he was going to do so. He shakes his head indicating he may not. Frankly, I think the law of the land says it has to go to a standing committee. That, of course, is not for me to decide. I suggest that even the discussion which took place last year indicated that the bill had no relationship to the plans which were developed for the area.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Those from Ottawa who fought the last federal election will be aware of the fact that the Beachburg line is an important part of the Ottawa terminal railway system. It was and is a major concern of many people who live and are normally resident in Ottawa, including some members of parliament who make this city their permanent home. These people are very interested in this committee and should be given the opportunity of appearing before it to discuss this bill. If they are not given the opportunity I hope they will rise in righteous indignation and take to task some of those members of the Ottawa board of control who seem to have ffiends in this house who are willing to support the ideas and changes apparent in this proposal.
I do not think there is anything more I can usefully add. I believe every member will agree that it would be nice if we could save the Union Station but to do that we would probably have to cover a certain area of the canal in order that buildings, parks and gardens could be established above the cement tunnel through which the trains would travel.
I forget the estimated cost of this project which was given to the committee last year, but it was fairly small.
Surely all hon. members will agree that an open cut tunnel providing downtown facilities for the discharging and picking up of passengers would be a worth-while consideration. I
March 17, 1966	COMMONS
am sure the station could be rebuilt, modernized and used for other purposes such as a theatre, although for the life of me I cannot imagine why anyone would want a theatre in that area. That seems to be a pet project of some of the Ottawa board of control members.
If hon. members will think about this bill, surely they will realize that it is not a good one. We are providing the Canadian National with money through the back door to erect a building and adjoining facilities requiring a capitalization of some $30 million for which there has been no provision made yet. That is bad business in regard to any project. Any government that allows this to be done becomes the tail of a dog and it has no control over the wagging of that tail. It only provides the bones to feed the dog, the dog, of course, being the National Capital Commission which has been pushing parliament around for a long time.
The National Capital Commission is the child of parliament and it is the only body involved in the development of the national capital over which parliament has some control. For that reason we must have some say as to its actions. I think the bill now before us is in fact something we cannot change. To attempt to do so would be like trying to change during the consideration of the estimates amounts of money already spent by the government. The money has been paid, buildings have been erected and it is impossible to say afterwards that we are not going to erect those buildings or spend that money.
Perhaps it is my conservative attitude which encourages me to speak about this matter at all but I hope that hon. members, while realizing that the proposition before them is a fait accompli, will also realize that it does not meet the needs or wishes of the people living in the national capital who want a capital that is as beautiful as possible with facilities that will provide the services required for a national capital.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this bill do not meet the requirements of the people of this area nor the general scheme of municipal development. I think it will be evident that others know more about the needs than I, but I am sure that every member who represents a constituency in the general area of Ottawa has received letters demanding that the city of Ottawa be established as a national capital city under the control of the federal government. That may not be in keeping with the wishes of the
DEBATES	2819
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company people of Ottawa but it is in keeping with the wishes of my constituents who have written me on this subject. For that reason I would be remiss in my duty if I did not rise and comment on these problems which in my opinion we are facing in a negative way.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the strictures of the hon. member for Ti-miskaming (Mr. Peters) induce me to intervene very briefly in this debate. Most of the things he has said this afternoon he has said six, seven or eight years too late. He himself has conceded that the location of the railway station and lines in this community is a fait accompli. This afternoon he is simply threshing old straw because he knows he can get his name in the newspapers by this technique and create a considerable amount of publicity on the local Ottawa scene.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is very important to national capital planning. Without this bill it would be impossible to get rid of the many level crossings that exist in this community. It is a sine qua non to get rid of these level crossings.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member now addressing the house to address Your Honour rather than the hon. member for Timiskaming? He might as well be addressing me because I agree 100 per cent with the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was addressing you but I submit it is quite legitimate to look to any section of the house at any particular time when speaking. I say, sir, that this bill, covering as it does the location of the central Union Station, is one in respect of which a decision was taken a considerable number of years ago. Whether or not that decison was wise at the time, it is now too late to do anything about it.
What the hon. gentleman has said this afternoon does point up a plea I have made on at least two occasions earlier this session to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), that all the plans and studies of the National Capital Commission should be referred to a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons for consideration. I do not suggest that the studies of such a committee would constitute an investigation of the commission at all. On the contrary, it would give the commission an opportunity to inform members of this house as to its basic plans and to indoctrinate them on the long range plans for the national capital.
March 17, 196$

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company
There is no use engaging now in harsh statements about what may have been done wrongly or otherwise in the past. It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to say that certain parts of this city are a disgrace and that we cannot be proud of them, but if there are problems in this city they are the result of long term neglect on the part of the parliament of Canada. The straightforward fact is that for many years the only contribution made by the parliament of Canada to the national capital was $100,000. That is why the neglect now shows and that is why it is taking so long to catch up. That is why there is an urgent need for a crash program for the centennial year.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The hon. gentleman mentioned one matter to which I think attention should be given and I hope the parliamentary secretary will make some reference to it when he speaks in closing the debate. I refer to the Beachburg line. My own view is that this particular bill has not gone far enough; it ought to go further, and the agreement ought to go further and provide for the abandonment of the Beachburg line. I am not going into that matter in any detail this afternoon but I shall be glad if the parliamentary secretary will indicate the stage and the nature of the studies which are now taking place in this connection. But I give him and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) notice that when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are before the house I intend to say considerably more on the subject of the Beachburg line and the fact that I believe that in the planning of the terminal and the attempts to abandon level crossings in this community we have not gone nearly far enough.
The hon. member for Timiskaming has put forward many strictures against the National Capital Commission. I believe that the staff and the members of the commission are dedicated people. Frequently I have criticized them and frequently I shall criticize them in the house, but I think the opportunity should be given to them to come before a committee of the house and there expose the long range plans so that we will not be confronted with the situation with which we are confronted this afternoon wherein the hon. gentleman six, seven or eight years too late, raises the subjects that he has raised. If we had before a committee of this house the opportunity to study the long range plans, we would be sure

there would be parliamentary approval, parliamentary sanction and parliamentary backing for this national capital as the true symbol of a united nation.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the parliamentary secretary a question? I was on the transport committee in the last parliament. I am not on it this year. I do not need to ask why. I was one of those on the transport committee who voted for the amendment that the board of directors of the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company should include at least two French speaking members. That does not appear in Bill No. S-2. Another point to which I objected violently in the last parliament was paragraph 26 of the schedule. We were given the bill to consider in committee in November and December, 1964, and the clause then read, as it does now:
Except as otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties hereto, all transfers of land and facilities referred to in this memorandum shall take place simultaneously on the second day of January, 1965.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member's remarks are to be directed toward one particular clause, I would suggest to him that his remarks might be better made when the bill is before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I understood it was not going to go to committee. That is why I was speaking.


An hon. Member:: Committee of the whole.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, in
reply to the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the house that if the hon. parliamentary secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In reply to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) I would say we can only hope, if there is such a paucity of planning in the National Capital Commission, that at least the net result will be as accommodating as the home which he himself built, which I understand is quite a commodious structure. The hon. member said that the Canadian Pacific Railway was getting out of the passenger business. I am a member of the Committee on Transport and Communications, and if I recall correctly there was no indication that they were getting out of the passenger business for at least some years.
March 17, 1966	COMMONS
I cannot answer tor the city of Ottawa or the city of Hull, but I understand there is certainly an accommodation between all parties concerned that this bill satisfies their needs. I made a very brief statement at the opening of the debate on second reading because I felt, as did many other hon. members, that we were speaking now after the preparations had all been made. Therefore it is simply a matter of getting this bill through now as rapidly as we can in order to carry out the plans of those who have been discussing this matter for a number of years. I have heard the hon. member make a similar speech before and must say that when he discussed this question previously it was too late also. I believe this was during the session of 1965.
With regard to the question of whether the bill should go to a standing committee, I would point out that it has been before the Senate committee on two occasions and, as the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) pointed out, it was before a committee of the house. Therefore, all those people who wished to make representations have made representations and if this matter were to be again considered by a standing committee we would probably only be repeating what has already been said.
The committee of the other place heard representations in this connection. They heard representations put forward by representatives of the employees concerned and, I believe, the trucking industry. The chairman of the National Capital Commission was before that committee and pointed out that in so far as the Beachburg line was concerned they had appropriated funds for the purpose of making a study of the question of abandoning the Beachburg line in that area, but a determination would be made on that matter following the report of the firm which had undertaken the study. I regret that I have not the name of the firm that has been commissioned to undertake the study, but I understand it is a very responsible organization.
With regard to the question of representation of French speaking Canadians, I do not know whether the hon. member was referring to representation on the National Capital Commission or the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He was referring to representation on the board of directors of the railway.
DEBATES	2821
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I suppose these directors are appointed by the railway concerned and this would be a matter for them to determine.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Peters:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is it not mandatory that this bill go before the railway committee for it to decide what it wishes to do with it?


Richard Albert Bell: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, is it not true that a public bill goes to the committee of the whole unless otherwise decided by the house when Mr. Speaker is in the chair? A private bill, and this is certainly not such, under our Standing Orders is required to go to a standing committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The comment made by the hon. member for Carleton is correct. This is a public bill and comes before the committee of the whole house, but we are slightly out of order at the moment. House in committee of the whole on Bill No S-2, an Act to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company. Shall clause 2 carry?
On clause 2-Incorporation.


William Arnold Peters: Obviously we cannot pass clause 2 without an amendment. The late Robert A. Emerson is listed as a director of the company and in fairness to the railway, since he died just recently, I would move that this matter be deferred until the C.P.R. has an opportunity to substitute the name of its new president.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might have the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources move that the name of Mr. Ian Sinclair be substituted for that of Mr. Robert A. Emerson.


Arthur Laing: I so move:
That the name of Ian Sinclair be substituted for that of Robert A. Emerson.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we are being asked to pass a Senate bill which was passed by the Senate on March 1, but if we amend it, it will no longer be the bill that was passed by the Senate. If this amendment is passed what steps are necessary so we will be in order?
March 17. 1966

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company


Sylvester Perry Ryan: 1 might be of help on this point, Mr. Chairman. Apparently the bill would go back to the Senate for ratification. It would be a very simple matter.


Richard Albert Bell: For concurrence in the amendment, not ratification.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: For ratification and concurrence in the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-Provisional directors.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the same problem is involved here.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I cannot see any real difficulty here. The name now in the amended bill is Mr. Ian Sinclair and this clause refers to those persons named in clause 2.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 7-Numbers of directors.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, with regard to this clause I do not have as strong feelings on the matter as another hon. member who is now on his way here but I understand his feelings from having sat on the transport committee with him in the last parliament. This is one of the points of contention that came up in the last parliament and before the transport committee. I consider it an ignoring of the expressed desires of the transport committee that this clause should appear in this way when the matter was discussed and gone into at length by the members of that committee a year or so ago and an amendment was adopted by a majority vote of the members. The vote was seven to six, as I very distinctly remember. I think we are entitled to an explanation why the considered opinion of the transport committee of the previous parliament should be so ignored in the presentation of this bill at this time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Since the hon. member has the advantage over me in having been on that committee, would he state what was the recommendation of the committee in this respect?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The committee recommended that at least two members of the board of directors should be French speaking. That was the bone of contention at that time.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I was the one who proposed last year that at least two

French Canadians be members of that committee. I am told that this has been accepted and that they are proud there should be at least two. I am sorry, but I am sceptical and would rather have it specified in the bill. If it is so written, I am sure we shall get them, but if it is not, there will always be people who will come up with some excuse for not finding any.
Some people always claim that French Canadians are not qualified to fill such and such a post. So, if it is specified in the bill, French Canadians will have to be found. That is why I ask that the bill be amended to provide that two French Canadians at least be made members of that company.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I think that we can depend on the good judgment of the people concerned with the appointment of the directors to endeavour to make what might be a more equitable distribution than two, if the names of such people are available to them. Since this is a Senate bill I am sure the committee would not wish to accept an amendment in this regard.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to move the following amendment:

That clause 7 be amended by adding alter the word "Company" the phrase "at least two of whom should be French speaking Canadians."
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there are two difficulties in the substance of the proposed amendment. One of them is that if we adopted the amendment we would have to proceed to a definition of what is meant by "French speaking Canadians". This would present, I suggest, very serious problems.
The second difficulty is that it might very well be that the particular number mentioned by the hon. member for Hull as a minimum would be treated as a maximum. I think that any such definition in this clause would be highly improper.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Chairman, has the Chair ruled on the admissibility of the amendment so that we may speak to it? I should like to give my support to this very reasonable proposition which the committee last year took under advisement and after a great deal of study and consideration agreed to report to the house as a recommendation. Unfortunately, through some machination the committee never reported, so the question
March 17, 1966	COMMONS
was not drawn to the attention of hon. members. However, I think it is important for us all to realize that the members of our own committee considered this matter and felt it was a very reasonable and proper thing to suggest to the house. Really we are giving effect by passing the amendment to the considered judgment of our colleagues who served so long and hard on the committee last year.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend that if we set down a minimum requirement for French speaking members to be represented on the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company, in effect we are also setting down what may be considered a maximum. We are going to get into a difficulty of determination. I myself hope to have property in Ottawa before too long as well as acquiring facility in the French language and becoming French speaking. However, I think this is circumscribing the clause to a degree which would hardly be acceptable.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Before any further comments are made regarding the motion, in view of the comments of the hon. member for Danforth the Chair would like to say that it considers the amendment before the committee to be in order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want briefly to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport on his intellectual and material ambitions. I rise briefly to support my colleague from Danforth, who usually faces these problems from the common-sense point of view. In view of his explanation of the recommendations of the committee I feel he is on sound ground. I also express my support for the hon. member for Hull, who strangely enough is rather different from most people one meets, particularly in public life. I find that the older the hon. member for Hull grows the more progressive he becomes, and I congratulate him in that connection. In view of the fact that the committee studied this question and recommended that not less than two of the directors be French speaking, I believe that this is a very reasonable proposal. As one of those who always stand up for what I term British fair play, I support the amendment.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the parliamentary secretary a question before he goes out and makes a down payment on either property or a French language course?
DEBATES	2823
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company Since this matter was raised in the committee, presumably the incorporators of the proposed company would have taken it into consideration. Has there been any guarantee by them or a statement of some sort that in fact French speaking Canadians will be appointed to the board of directors? It seems to me as simple as that. The other question raised by the parliamentary secretary as to what is a French speaking Canadian can be easily defined and I will define it in French: "Un homme qui parle frangais".


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I thank the hon. member for his definition. I now know I will never aspire to be French speaking. Since it seems to be the consensus of the committee that there is no fear on the part of members that this number may become a maximum and thereby discriminate against the French speaking members, I hope we can let this clause stand-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Ricard:: What a farce.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -for further consideration and go on to the next clause, clause 8. Then we can return to this clause later. Otherwise we may get into a matter of amending an important clause to which hon. members of the other place have given very thorough consideration.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What about the previous
amendment?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I must say I agree with the principle and the reasons set forth by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron). Nevertheless, I wonder if he made himself clear, because we could find here members who, though not of French origin, are able to speak French. That is all the amendment proposes: that they speak or understand French. That is not what was asked. [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
On the other hand, I would have thought that the government had learned its lesson last year and would show us that it had. I am afraid, however, that the amendment will set up a dangerous precedent and that what the hon. member is asking for and which seems to him reasonable, will become a fixed maximum. In my opinion, that is the danger of an amendment like this one.
However, I must support the principle of the amendment and I feel that in a city like Ottawa the directors of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. could easily appoint two representatives of French descent. That would make it
March 17, 1968

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company possible to settle this little fight. As far as I am concerned, it is a detail, but frankly I wish the government could accept the principle of the amendment.
I hope we will not let such a matter bother us.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary suggested that we should let clause 7 stand and consider clause 8. I submit that this is useless, because we studied it in full last year and the Senate studied it also this year, even if it did not propose the amendment.
We are ready to take a decision. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that there might be some danger in going about it that way, but if we find English speaking people who speak French well enough to be appointed, to that company, I feel it would be a recognition given to bilingualism and I would be happy about it. That is why I maintain that we should keep that clause, that is adopt it immediately and not let it stand.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few words to support the remarks just made by the hon. member for Hull. To clarify the situation, I would propose to replace the words "two French Canadians" by the following "two Canadians of French descent"-


An hon. Member:: "French speaking".


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: "Two French speaking Canadians", and then it seems to me that there could not be any misunderstanding and we would give the government the opportunity not only to act, but to take such action as it says it has been wanting to take for some time.
I think that our friends opposite should support their colleague from Hull and exert some pressure so that this matter will be decided immediately, because two parliamentary secretaries have said things that are far from reassuring and lead us to believe that there is some objection to bilingualism recognized in this particular case.
Therefore, I ask our friends opposite, particularly those who come from the province of Quebec, to use their influence to help us get what was promised last year.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in support of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron). I feel he should accept the suggestion made by the member who spoke before me, namely that it should be stated that two directors be of 
French descent, for, after all, I admit that I am slightly surprised to hear members speak in that fashion.
The matter was discussed in committee and it was agreed that there should be two representatives of French descent; but now, today, we find there is absolutely nothing about it in this bill.
What about bilingualism and the government's fine promises? I am willing to believe is might be an oversight but from what the parliamentary secretary said a while ago, I think there are some deliberate oversights.
If we are to continue to work together, English speaking people must show some willingness as we do, and it must be established, once and for all, that bilingualism is not merely something to be written about in books, but that is it meant to be applied here in Parliament.
Mr. Chairman, let the word spread and let there be an end to such repeated and absolutely useless bickering as we now have. If everyone respected, agreements, such things as this would not have to be discussed today. It seems to me it should be natural for a bilingual Parliament as we understand it nowadays. In my opinion, long discussions should not be necessary to obtain the adoption of something which is imperative.
I therefore ask the parliamentary secretary to accept immediately and with unselfishness the proposals now being made.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, I am quite ready to believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Byrne), speaks in good faith when he says that the clause is not as it appears in the bill, and that by tacit agreement, there will be two French speaking directors on the board.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) has protested against such a thing. I understand very well the reasons behind his protests.
As far as Canadian railways are concerned,
I feel that ever since the latter were set up by Canadian legislation, Canadians of French origin have never been much favoured on boards of directors.
If we have to count on the discretion of C.N.R. and C.P.R. officials, who will have to choose the directors of this new company, namely the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company, I think we should entertain some doubts, and I should like to second the amendment of the hon. member for Hull, making a certain reservation concerning the words "of
March 17. 1961	COMMONS
French origin". Perhaps we could stipulate "of French origin and French speaking".
Now, in reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West, it is obvious that there are today in Canada some English speaking Canadians who speak a very good French, but unfortunately there are also in Canada people who were formerly speaking French and who can no longer use that language. So, if a Mr. Lambert for instance or a Mr. Langlois are appointed on this board of directors and if these people after having moved from Quebec to another Canadian province, lose their language, I do not think that the purpose of the amendment of the hon. member for Hull will be served. That is why the words "and French speaking" should be added after the words "of French origin".


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has put words into my mouth which surely were not intended. I have not in any way suggested that we are not giving and are not prepared to give full consideration to French speaking members. I am sure that if I had taken the opportunity to learn the language perhaps we would not have this misunderstanding. Since the Minister of Transport is not with us today, and knowing that he has some very strong feelings about this matter in that it would perhaps circumscribe the intentions of this section, I would ask that we rise, report progress and beg leave to sit again.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later today or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be?


Mr. Starr:: No, no.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I move that the committee do rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Motion (Mr. Byrne) negatived. Yeas, 30; nays 38.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I should like to speak to the amendment. The situation is rather interesting. The leader of the house asked that this clause be permitted to stand because both the Minister of Transport and the Acting Minister of Transport are absent from the house. The committee has seen fit to reject that request, so I have nothing more to say about it.
DEBATES	2825
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company


Richard Albert Bell: Does the hon. gentleman realize that his colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence, voted against the government?


George James McIlraith: That request having been made and rejected, I wish to point out that this is the same amendment that was offered last year. What hon. members have been talking about in their speeches is the desirability of having a bilingual person, or a French speaking Canadian, on the board of directors. This is something with which I believe everyone in the committee will agree. But what this amendment does is to introduce racism as practised in another country in a not too different form within the memory of a great many Canadians. Such a course has never been followed in legislation in Canada, and I would ask the committee to consider carefully the principle that is involved.
As to the desirability of appointing two bilingual or French speaking people, whatever the language of the amendment prescribes, with that I am in complete accord. But I am very reluctant to see the committee carelessly interject this requirement without realizing the nature of the course upon which it has started in the absence of the minister. When we come to another clause and the minister can be here, I suggest we give my colleague the opportunity to consider the point at issue before resubmitting it to the committee.
That is the point I wish to make. There may be other procedures which will take care of the suggestion that has been made. From the speeches which have been made it is clear what hon. members want done, but I feel certain none of them would, on consideration, wish to do it by amending the legislation before us now-


Michael Starr: Don't you think the government was defeated on a motion of non-confidence?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, three points have been raised by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith). First, that the minister and the acting minister are absent. But that is not very important. It is the government that put the resolution before the house and it is up to the house to decide whether or not to accept it. If the minister thought he would not be here, it was up to him to ask that the resolution stand until the day he could be here. I am not at all interested in what the minister did or did not do.
March 17, 1966

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company According to the Minister of Public Works, that is racism. I wonder if he checked the meaning of the word "racism"?
When we ask that at least two French speaking Canadians be members of the committee, they say we are setting a limit. I do not think we are limiting anything when we ask for something reasonable. When I say I am sceptical, it is because past experience has shown that I was right. That is why today I am insisting that we be guaranteed two French Canadians at least. Then, I would be sure of getting them. Otherwise, if things go on like that, we would not get anything and I want to have something.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I realize that at least two of my colleagues have already spoken in favour of the amendment, and if the recent vote on the motion to rise and report progress indicates the view of the majority of the members of this committee it is obvious that the amendment is regarded with favour by a good many members. However, I should like to urge considerable caution before approval is given to this amendment. I admit what everyone knows, that I am an English speaking Canadian. However, I have taken the first lesson in French. I can now say "Vous etes Monsieur Thibault?" But that does not take us very far. That is from the first lesson for members of parliament.


An hon. Member:: You are in the retarded class.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I am in the retarded class. That is right. But I think it would be very dangerous to write into one statute, thereby establishing a precedent for writing into other statutes, that appointments are to be made on the basis of which group in Canada one belongs to, or on the basis of what language one speaks.
If we decide to do this in the case of the particular bill now before us, why should we not do the same in the legislation setting up the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, or the Board of Transport Commissioners or any other of the boards and commissions we set up? Are we to decide that membership on these bodies shall be determined on the basis of differences between one language group and another? And if it is to be decided on this basis, what is to be the numerical division? I am surprised that my French speaking friends in the house who are supporting 
this amendment are prepared to settle for two out of ten.


Mr. Vincent:: That is a minimum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that is the wording. But that is all that would be guaranteed-two out of ten. I submit that this is hardly equality. Moreover, it is putting our attempt to achieve co-operation between the two main groups in this country upon an arithmetical or legalistic basis and I say frankly I think this would be a disservice to the effort being made to achieve co-operation between French speaking and English speaking Canadians.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I might also say that it flies in the face of the whole idea that people should be appointed to such bodies because of their merit and because of their capacity to do the job. If this amendment were passed it would mean that even though there might be people of much greater capacity in the other language they could not be appointed because this proviso has to be given first consideration. I know my hon. friends may not believe this, but in their own interest I ask French speaking members who are objecting to what I am saying, not to settle for a mathematical solution to this problem, not to settle for a least two out of ten and not to be hoodwinked by the idea that they have status if they have it on this legalistic basis.
I think the board should be appointed on the basis of merit and capacity and that we should have enough faith in the capacity and ability of people in both language speaking groups in this country that they will get on these bodies in proportion to their strength, their capacity and the number they have in this country. I think also we should have the faith to believe that we can build a country in which we can work together. I plead strongly, Mr. Chairman, that the proposed amendment is not the way to do it. I know this is only one piece of legislation setting up a body for the running of a station which in a few years might not be here any more, but the principle is serious and I urge members to exercise caution before they rush headlong into voting for the amendment.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, if I did vote in favour of the motion to stand the clause, it is because were are indeed dealing with an amendment which could have far reaching implications. I should have liked to have time to discuss the matter with all my
March 17, 1966	COMMONS
colleagues who share my convictions and speak the same language as I do.
The first thing that strikes me and to which I should like to draw the hon. members' attention is that whenever you insert in some legislation or constitution a clause such as this to protect a certain group, it is because you are assuming from the start that this group is incapable of looking after its own protection and of defending itself by other means. In other words, a form of discrimination is thus created to which I am completely opposed.
I have always been against granting a special status to women in the constitutions of private associations. As a matter of fact, if it is decided that two women must fill two executive positions when there are ten vacancies, I feel that if ten women are qualified to fill those ten positions, all ten should be appointed. You are actually entering into a constitutional and legal field to grant this type of protection. In my opinion, that is not really the problem. It is not that I disagree with the deep convictions of my colleagues who voted for the amendment, because they might realize that under certain circumstances I would go even further than they.
Then, we are working against French Canadians and I think we should be strong enough to demand, through political action and pressure, the representation we are entitled to. Otherwise, it means that to be represented in Canada as we should be, a provision will have to be included in every piece of legislation to ensure that such a representation will be granted to us. Well, I do not accept it on that basis. It is not to the idea that I object, on the contrary, it is merely to the principle.
I think that if there is a tendency to create government bodies, as was done in the past, where Canadians, and especially French Canadians are not adequately represented, we must fight by resorting to the political means at our disposal instead of seeking a legal protection which, in my opinion, shows a certain weakness.
That is why I would have preferred to discuss the matter among ourselves in order to determine the bearing of the section, because it has very far-reaching effects. Now, legal technicalities will arise in individual cases. In fact, what is a French Canadian?
I have just hired one in my department. His name is Duclos and he does not speak one word of French whereas another, bearing
DEBATES	2827
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company an English name, speaks almost exclusively French. This will pose extremely difficult problems.
I feel our aim is to have French Canadians represented on all quasi-judicial bodies according to their capacity, and not by virtue of privilege, under a small legal provision, but under a basic right in all democratic societies where members are entitled to certain representation.
For this reason, I would have wished that this matter could be threshed out among ourselves to be very sure that an acceptable status is being inserted in a piece of legislation.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the minister.
Is the minister in a position to say whether the directors of the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company have already been asked and that there is no French Canadian among them?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of this, but if such is the case, I feel that those who are interested in having a better French Canadian representation should then fight and let that be known, as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has already done before in memorable circumstances.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if it is true that the directors have been asked and that no French Canadian is among them, would this not weaken the argument the minister presented a minute ago?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Chairman, this would not weaken my argument, because if we let ourselves be browbeaten in this way, it means we are not strong enough to assert ourselves. I think that means should be found to achieve our ends apart from a piece of legislation.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I listened with great pleasure to the arguments presented by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) but I noticed one thing. Being new here, he is not familiar with the frame of mind of the house. Indeed, we have been making requests for years and we should not have to come back on that all the time.
A while ago I heard the hon. member for Quebec East, Quebec South or Quebec North-South state that we are going to reduce the scope of the legislation, in other words, that we are not going to reduce anything at this time. We are told that the directors of
March 17, 1966
2828	COMMONS DEBATES
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company the Terminal Railway Company have been chosen and approached and that not one of them is a French Canadian.
If there is not a single one, I want at least two. I am not asking for three or four but for two at least. As French Canadians who do not form a majority but a minority, we have the right to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. I demand the protection of the law. If the minister had been here a little longer, perhaps he would share our belief that we need protection in that fight we are going to wage in the house. It is that fight I am launching today to get the appointment of at least two French Canadians. If, because of an oversight, French Canadians were not approached, there should be a change of heart and they should be approached and asked to sit on the committee.
When it is suggested that perhaps French Canadians do not have the qualifications for this position, I say this is not true. There are French Canadians who are comparable in everything with English speaking Canadians.
When the province of Quebec nationalized the Quebec Hydro, all the engineers were English Canadians. They were replaced by French Canadians who built one of the greatest dams in the world. This was achieved by French Canadian engineers. We had engineers, but no one dared look at them.
That is the reason why today I ask all those who are English, who think differently, to try and open their minds to new developments and to say to themselves that, although this never existed in the past, times have changed. Today, we ask that these new developments be incorporated in the act and that we have the protection of at least two French speaking Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is not giving information to the hon. member for Hull to tell him that this does not include the Hull station. It is entirely in respect of the Ottawa terminal. I have been asked whether people have been approached to determine those who may wish to accept appointment as directors. This information I do not have. We did not anticipate that this matter would be raised this afternoon.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: You should have.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: However, the minister will be back on Monday or Tuesday and I am sure 
the house would wish to allow the Minister of Transport to give that information together with his views on the question of appointments to this corporation.
Earlier I asked for the co-operation of the house to allow clause 7 to stand for the time being and carry on with the remaining clauses in the bill, or if it is the desire of hon. members we could go on with other government business. I would hope that the committee will not see anything irregular in such a step.


Michael Starr: Complete disorganization.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would hope that in all probability we could resolve this matter with much less discussion if the information requested were made available.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago we voted on a motion introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport that this committee rise and report progress. I voted against it because I felt that we wanted to see the nation's business progress in this chamber. In view of what has transpired since the motion was made, it is evident there is a great division in the ranks of the government in respect of this bill. I think the best thing that can be done to expedite the business of the house is for the government to go back to its caucus and try to rectify the situation. They can then return when ready and we can get on with other business in the meantime.


Herman Maxwell Batten: There has been a request to allow clause 7 to stand. Does the committee give unanimous consent in this regard?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Apparently unanimous consent has not been given.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening very carefully to the discussion and while I am very much in sympathy with the objective proposed by the hon. member for Hull I am very much impressed by the statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I think that if we replace the amendment with a guarantee that there will be so many English speaking Canadians on the board the whole situation will appear in a different light. I am amazed at the degree to which some of our colleagues in this house are trying in this way, it seems to me, to admit something that if I were in
March 17, 19S6	COMMONS
their position I would never admit. They are saying that they do not have full rights as Canadians.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, it cannot be said that I make an abuse of being in agreement with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), but it seems to me that the reason why he objects to a deferment of the decision in this connection is that he thinks-and I believe he is right in his thinking-that if we do not come to an immediate settlement of this matter there is a good chance that we will not have on the board the number of directors to which we are entitled.
A few moments ago we heard the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) tell us that there was a threat of racism in the amendment while his colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) told us that there was discrimination in the case of French Canadians.
French Canadians are now discriminated against, for there is not a single French Canadian director on the board at this time.
I agree with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Hull, that this question should be settled immediately and that the necessary action should be taken to guarantee French Canadians at least two directors on the board. Two is not much, but it is a lot better than nothing at all. That is what I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We do not want only two directors, we want at least two. We could have more, but let us start with two at least.
I think the hon. member for Hull would be well advised to demand that this question be settled at once.
Let us stop saying that French Canadians will be given this or that and let us get things done, let us give them two representatives, even if we have to increase this number later on according to the needs.


Jean Marchand: You stated that at present there were no French Canadians?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is the hon. member for Hull who said that.


Jean Marchand: On a point of order. I never said that there was no discrimination in the case of French Canadians.


Mr. Lachance:: Would the hon. member permit a question? He says "We". Can he tell
DEBATES	2829
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company us whether he speaks for all the hon. members of the opposition as well as for the members of the province of Quebec?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: As a French Canadian; I hope you will at least join us.


Georges-C. Lachance: I should like to know
whether you speak for all the opposition members when you say: "We ask".


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should engage in hair-splitting.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, it may be true, as the hon. member for Hull has said, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is new in this house, but I remind hon. members that the minister had a very distinguished career in another public sphere in respect of which no one could for one moment suggest that he was not very conscious of the rights and privileges of the people of French Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: In fact, it occurred to me this afternoon that the minister was the spokesman and the only spokesman I have heard from the French speaking ranks who spoke on behalf of the dignity and self-respect of the French speaking section of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: I am surprised to find that there are so many of my French speaking compatriots who have so low an opinion of the dignity of their racial origin that they are prepared to be fobbed off with this sort of an arrangement. There are countries where this procedure is followed which do not stand very high in the estimation of other people throughout the world. I have only to call your attention, sir, to the Republic of South Africa where a minority is fobbed off with one or two seats in the house of parliament and they are supposed to be satisfied with that situation.
I suggest to my French speaking friends that they should not be satisfied with such a proposal. If there are ten French speaking Canadians who are best suited for this job there should be ten French speaking Canadians on the board of directors. It is a shocking thing to me that French Canadian
March 17, 1966

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company people, with a proud record and proud ancestry, are prepared to pay so little heed to the respect of their own people.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Chairman, to my mind, the member who has just resumed his seat, spoke unfortunate words. There was confusion at the outset with regard to the very subject of the amendment. The amendment does not ask that there be two French Canadians on the board of directors.
This amendment is not, therefore, of a racial nature. It asks that at least two directors speak French. They may be of other origins than French, but at least we recognize the principle of bilingualism in legislative measures and this, to me, is important.
If we do not err at the start, I think we can eventually manage to reach an understanding. I expect, Mr. Chairman, that if you were to read the amendment again, the hon. members would see what this is all about.

May I ask that the amendment be read, please?


Colin Cameron: Would the minister permit a question? Did the minister not hear the French speaking member refer continually in his speech to French Canadians?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I heard, indeed; only, I am limiting myself to the terms of the amendment for that is what will be incorporated into the act, and the amendment we are discussing is intended to confirm the question of bilingualism.
The amendment asks-let us stick to the amendment-that two members be appointed who speak French. I do not think that under those circumstances we are dealing with a racial matter. We are merely confirming bilingualism in Canada. If you confirm it through law, as experience has already proved, we will achieve that goal.


Jean Marchand: With regard to the amendment, it differs from what the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) says; it is not what I have heard personally. [DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Hull reads as follows:
That clause 7 be amended by adding after the word "Company" the phrase "at least two of whom should be French speaking Canadians."
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).)


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Chairman, after hearing you read the amendment, I entirely agree with the Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Cadieux). We do not want the matter to develop into a racial issue, at all, but it is time perhaps to give a concrete example in order that bilinguism be recognized in our statutes.
It is possible that the persons appointed to this board of directors will not be French Canadians, but French speaking, and on that basis, I am willing to vote for the amendment.


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that under the pretext of non-discrimination, discrimination will be sanctioned instead in a statute.
If I understand correctly, Canada is rapidly evolving at present toward the recognition of two majority groups, toward a bilingual, an entirely bilingual, country.
It is to place ourselves in an inferior position to suggest, by passing this amendment, that only two persons will have to be French speaking out of five, seven or ten-


Some hon. Members:: At least two.


Alexis Pierre Caron: At least two.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: It is to admit that five, seven or eight persons out of ten could be unilingual.
I feel then that we should provide instead that all of them should be bilingual, and tend toward this policy.
I think this is exactly the opposite of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) the other day, when he said that the fact of being bilingual does not add anything to a person's competence, because it could simply happen by accident.
In my opinion, to insert this amendment in a statute is to go in the opposite direction and we suggest by the same token that it must imposed to a minority group in our country, when we know that it is the minority which is bilingual. And when it is wished to make the country completely bilingual, especially the higher officials.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), and his statements on the specific and current question seem rather strange.
I think that the Minister, being a newcomer to the house, may not be aware of all the complexities surrounding the institution of this Ottawa Terminal Railway company.
March 17, 1966

This bill was before the transport committee last year, Mr. Chairman, and questions were put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and to the parliamentary secretary who represented him. At the time, I think it was the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) who was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport.
He was asked whether the directors of the company had been approached. The present parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Byrne) does not know but last year it was confirmed in the parliamentary committee on transport that the directors of this company who were to be appointed had been approached by the Minister and that none of them spoke French. Such was the answer we had at the time.
That is why last year, when the bill came before the committee, an amendment was moved that at least two of the directors should be French speaking. Why? Because the parliamentary secretary admitted before the committee that no one speaking French was among those appointed.
In other words, we were in precisely the same situation as that described by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
When it becomes obvious that there are no French Canadian directors, then we will resort to other means including the law. Well, that is what came out last year, that the future directors had been approached and that not one of them was French speaking.
When, last year, by a vote of 14 to 11-if my memory serves me right-the committee felt that it was appropriate to amend the bill so that at least two directors would be French speaking, that was for the specific case of the company which was to administer the railway station here, in Ottawa. It was precisely for that purpose because the facts had shown that there was not a single French speaking director.
In view of the facts, and since the directors have been approached and not one of them is French speaking, there is only one thing left for us to do as legislators and that is to use the law to force the minister's hand. If he acted too quickly in his search for directors for his company, he only has to retreat, to change his mind and to take steps to have at least two French speaking persons appointed.
As things stand now. there is only one recourse open to us and that is to impose them under the law. I do not contend that such an amendment must be introduced in all cases. I am saying no such thing but that is 23033-179
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company what should be done in this specific case. Last year, in the committee, we were told that all the directors had been approached and that not one of them was French speaking, but the committee decided to suggest an amendment. This year, the government comes back with the same bill but without the amendment.
What are they trying to hide? Have promises been made to certain individuals who have served the party well? What is it? Are friends involved? I know that is not the point. I should like to know why the Minister of Transport is proposing the same bill for the second year, but after having taken off an amendment which was inserted last year by transport committee.
I remember quite well that the one-I think it was Douglas Fisher, the former member for-


Clément Vincent: For Port Arthur.


Gilles Grégoire: -for Port Arthur-who had moved or seconded the amendment. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) had seconded the amendment along with Mr. Fisher, who was the member for Port Arthur at the time. English speaking members had voted for the amendment. Only one voted against, and he was a French Canadian, that is the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Quebec South.
Now, the minister is coming back with the same bill, but he has deleted the amendment. Under the present circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration must review his position and understand that we are not dealing with a general case but with a specific case, where they want to force directors upon us, even before the company is formed and before the bill is passed. So I think that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration must review his position and change his attitude now that he is acquainted with the facts.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there are only two points I wish to discuss. There is surely some confusion in the minds of those who took part in the debate and maybe even in the mind of the man who is now speaking. The amendment is not only about language but about French speaking Canadians. It means that an English Canadian who speaks French perfectly would not be covered, could not be considered as someone who answers the legal provision which we want to amend.
March 17, 1966

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company
Therefore, in any case, I think that, since we want to protect bilingualism, if the amendment said that there must be on the committee or commission two people who can understand and speak French fluently, that is in accordance with the spirit of bilingualism.
But if we talk about French speaking Canadians, there is here a connotation which concerns the French Canadians as an ethnic group. It is a way of designating the French Canadians. That is where I disagree. I do not accept that the ethnic group to which I belong should need a legal text to protect itself. I am just saying to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and to the house, and even to the public, that if tomorrow the commission concerned is created and if the biethnic character of Canada is not taken into account, I will join him to make representations. We will fight together about the same thing, irrespective of party discipline. That matter means a lot to me.
However, I do not think that we should fight in the name of the act. Besides, the hon. member for Lapointe should be the last one to want to hang on to means which, in my opinion, are used by groups which recognize their inferiority at the outset.
He knows himself that when he brought up the question of the C.N.R., his intervention was much stronger than if he had only called upon the act. He knows it very well and that is what we must do and not try to say: We need to be protected in a special way in legislation just as it is done in some associations to protect women.
That is what I wanted to say and my remarks must not be misunderstood. I know that, politically, I am on dangerous ground -but it is not the first time-and that what I said can be misinterpreted. As far as the goal is concerned, I am completely in agreement. I am just saying that I do not accept, in principle, a means like the one suggested and I will gladly do some picketing with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and the hon. member for Lapointe if ever the representation is not made on a fair basis.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Chairman, I think we are now getting into a debate which was obviously not anticipated and which might take a disasterous turn.
There are a lot of questions to which we must answer before we can write into the act the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron).
I, for one, always wondered-this may seem somewhat original-but I always asked myself the question, and I was even waiting for the report of the Royal Commission on bilingualism and biculturalism for enlightenment on this matter, what is a French speaking Canadian? Does your name have to be Gregoire, Latremouille or Tremblay to be a French speaking Canadian? Could a man, by the name of Haidasz, for example, not say: I belong, if I want to, to the French speaking ethnic group? That is what I wonder. I say that we are embarking in a very unfortunate way, upon a debate which could well turn into a parody of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada.
I say that it is unprepared that we are launching into this unlooked for debate. These thoughts may seem odd, too many fundamentals are at stake and I, for one-I see the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), who seems to take great interest in this debate-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: No sir-reading every word.


Marcel Prud'homme: Just to make sure you understand, I mentioned that the hon. member for York-Humber, who seems to be following the discussion very closely, might help to define for me what is an English speaking Canadian and what is a French speaking Canadian.

And I say, and I repeat-and I hope I speak slowly enough for the hon. member for York-Humber to understand me-before we ask for something like that in a small section of a small act, in connection with a federal board, here in the national capital-I agree with the hon. member for Lapointe that it is essential, but an amendment could be brought forward to require that all members of the board be bilingual. I see the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who seem to find this debate very funny-I said very funny-


Mr. Churchill:: Leave the personalities out of it.


Marcel Prud'homme: To make sure my hon. friend understands exactly what I am saying, to make sure I am translated accurately, what I just said was that I have never engaged in personalities.

March 17, 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We were not laughing at the hon. member's remarks. We were laughing at the discomforture of the government which cannot straighten out problems among its own members.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. There is no point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well then, my point of order deals with personalities which the hon. member is raising. My name need not be brought into this debate at all.


Marcel Prud'homme: I shall continue in
French. I think it would be better if we were to show a little more serenity in this debate. I never implicated the former minister or the two previous ministers in this debate. All I said was that, in my opinion, in a discussion as serious as this one-

In English it means, seems to involve very much discussion. I do not know what the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska and the hon. member for Carleton said about this, but that is all. There were no personalities. Since I arrived here I have not engaged in personal remarks and I do not intend to, even with regard to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for Hull could not tell us if, with the political climate being what it is now and with the government that has been running the country since 1963, we are not feeling more and more at home here in this house, which was not the case for instance in 1955, 1957, 1958, 1960 or 1962? If we Canadians of French expression-as I prefer to put it-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Order.


Marcel Prud'homme: For the information of the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe-Bagot-

-the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard)-I was a student from 1953 to 1962, I watched him from the galleries of the house. I was here for the pipeline debate and I saw what happened. I was a student at the University of Ottawa and I probably spent more time here than most 23033-1791

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company members opposite who are trying to interrupt me, including the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, to call the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) to order? That is all I am asking. He is telling us about the pipeline debate and all kinds of things which have nothing to do with the matter under consideration.


Marcel Prud'homme: I listened with pleasure to the remarks made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, but I must say that he and his comments are partly responsible for my taking part in this debate.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I asked the Chair to call the hon. member to order.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am asking the hon. member for Hull if it is essential and necessary to include articles in a small piece of legislation, perhaps not entirely without thinking about it because the hon. member for Hull did think about it for a long time, but without more preparation and without getting all the necessary explanations. In my opinion, it is important to hear all the explanations; otherwise, how far would we go?


Clément Vincent: Is the hon. member for Saint-Denis saying that the hon. member for Hull, who knows his party as well as he does, is not entitled to ask for what he wants today?


Gilles Grégoire: That is not fair.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have tried since the beginning to keep this matter out of politics. I talked about it as a matter of right for the French Canadians but not as a matter of general interest for the parties: Liberal, Conservative and others.
I heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) tell us a little earlier that if we are not given any, he will join the hon. member for Lapointe to fight.


Gilles Grégoire: They have been appointed.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is why I want to see it in the legislation. If the minister has made a mistake in appointing them without consulting us, let him change the names of those he appointed. Tomorrow it will be too late.
So, in answer to the hon. member for Saint-Denis, who has just spoken, I say that a French speaking Canadian is a Canadian who speaks French correctly. He spoke about members with various levels. I accept this
March 17, 1966

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company because he speaks impeccable French and I am pleased to hear him. If you want to limit yourself to two, you will not have two. If the spirit in this house is broad enough to give us four or five, there is no need for it to be provided in the act. The only reason why we insist that it be written in the act is to be sure. Otherwise, we will never have any. I am not more confident at this time than I was a year ago. I have been hearing about this for two years. I moved an amendment last year. The committee voted on it.
The minister did not deem it advisable to agree with my amendment. He certainly has something on his mind. I insist that the matter be settled today, as to whether we should agree to one, two or more French speaking Canadians being appointed.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion which could bring together the two ideas put before us today. I have much sympathy with the point of view of the hon. member for Hull. I sympathize with and support the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is something which I suggest is not too difficult to solve. I did not have time to draft an exact amendment, but I suggest to this honourable house that we have here, and we already have examples before us, acts that can be used as examples to solve this problem.
For instance, I have here the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigations Act. Section 58 deals with the establishment of the labour relations board:

It speaks of having members representative of employees and employers.

And also in the act on the Economic Council of Canada -I do not have it before me-it seems to me the act clearly indicates that the government must appoint as members of the Council one representative of labour and one of business. I have not yet had the time to write out an amendment. But it seems to me there is a pressing need for an amendment which would force shareholders to recognize the necessity of appointing as members of their company's board of directors people who speak the two official languages of our country.
That is why I ask the hon. member that this article be allowed to stand. That would allow me, and the members of the government, to speak to the hon. member for Hull

with a view to writing out an appropriate amendment, which would take into account the idea I have just expressed and might possibly bring into harmony the two points of view.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. A little while ago the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration told me if there were not at least two French speaking members in the group, he would fight with me. Here is my question. Further to Question No. 910 the member for Villeneuve put on the order paper, which asks how many civil servants are bilingual in each of the departments, agencies and Crown corporations, is the Minister willing to visit with me the bound of directors of all Crown companies where there are no French Canadians?


Clément Vincent: 12.6 per cent.


Gilles Grégoire: Let us say 15 per cent. Is the Minister willing to come with me before all those boards of directors?


An hon. Member:: Let us start tomorrow morning.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the motion put a few minutes ago was that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. For some reason the committee seems determined to deal with this bill in the absence of the minister and the acting minister.
In view of the discussion since the motion was moved, I wonder whether the committee would be disposed to let this clause stand. If there is a disposition to do this, I would be prepared to make a motion that the committee let this clause stand and proceed to the next clause.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of the progress of the house we would be agreeable to let this clause stand and proceed with the other business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is called "bailing out the government".


Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Chairman, if the minister intends to let the clause stand in order to discuss it further or amend it I am willing to wait for a change to be made, but I think we should have a debate first so that the minister can come back to the committee with an acceptable clause.


Michael Starr: In answer to that, Mr. Chairman, the main thing is to let the Liberals hold a caucus and decide how to proceed.
March 17, 1966	COMMONS


Raymond Langlois: I am willing to let the Liberals hold their caucus but it would be a good thing to have a few opinions first.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it has been suggested that the committee allow clause 7 to stand and that we proceed with the other clauses in order to allow the Minister of Transport to consider whether an amendment is appropriate. At seven o'clock we could then proceed with clause 8, letting clause 7 stand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to allow clause 7 to stand?


Raymond Langlois: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: There is not unanimous consent.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I did not request unanimous consent; I proposed a motion.


Raymond Langlois: May I call it six o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before you call it six o'clock, I would ask the house leader to seriously consider whether he would not think this might be a good day to have a two hour supper break. I think the house would agree to that.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think in view of the date on the calendar and the fact that it is apparent no business will be done now, and due to the rather unparallelled attitude taken by the committee to my request that an important matter like this be permitted to wait till the responsible minister is here to deal with it, it would appear to be a very good suggestion. May I add the personal hope that, in view of the date, each hon. member will enjoy his dinner very much.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. If there is any disposition on the part of the committee to suspend the next two hours of sitting, that will have to be decided with Mr. Speaker in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does it, Mr. Chairman? Since we come back at eight o'clock still in committee, could Your Honour not leave the chair at six o'clock by agreement of the committee? That is the way we used to do it.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It being six o'clock, in order to permit the house to proceed with the consideration of private
DEBATES	2835
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company members' business it is my duty now to leave the chair.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), Immigration-inquiry as to statement on Sedgwick report; the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), Labour Conditions-Atlantic region-steps to improve unemployment situation.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move that the house suspend its sitting until eight o'clock this evening.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried, with the understanding that at eight o'clock we continue with government business.
Motion agreed to and sitting suspended.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company-Mr. Kellyer (for Mr. Pickersgill)-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose at six o'clock, clause 7 was being discussed.


Mr. McNulty:: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley);
That the amendment be amended by inserting the word "and" before the words "at least" and by substituting the word "shaU" for the word "should".
The word "shall" is more imperative than the word "should".


Herman Maxwell Batten: During the discussion of clause 7 the hon. member for Hull moved that the clause be amended by adding after the word "company" the phrase "at least two
2836	COMMONS
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company of whom should be French speaking Canadians". The amendment as further amended by the hon. member for Lincoln proposes that the amendment be amended by inserting the word "and" before the words "at least" and by substituting the word "shall" for the word "should". The amendment as amended will now read-"and at least two of whom shall be French speaking Canadians".


George James McIlraith: I regret that earlier in the afternoon before I rose to speak I had not been able to obtain a copy of the amendment. It was only after the committee rose at six o'clock that I was able to see the amendment. The difficulty we now face is evident from a careful reading of the amendment, because the amendment as worded has no effect whatever other than to express a wish of the committee. The amendment provides no requirement that the railway company or the shareholders of the company should do anything. I am sure the discussion this afternoon proceeded on the basis that the amendment would achieve some definite result.
In any event, as I mentioned this afternoon, the minister and the acting minister are away. The government regards this matter as an important one and I believe it would be in the interest of the committee to give the government an opportunity to draft a satisfactory amendment which could be circulated and which would achieve the desired objective. It is the wish of the government that the composition of the board of directors should be such that it would reflect the bilingual character of the citizens of this country, bearing in mind the local aspect, since this is an Ottawa railway station, the bilingual character of the national capital. It is a question of doing this in a correct way-in a method which will not defeat its own purpose and which will not constitute a dangerous precedent. With this in mind I again appeal to members of the committee that they should permit the committee to rise and report progress.
I therefore move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of National Defence that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


Michael Starr: This motion is, of course, not debatable, but we are prepared to support it provided we are assured that the cabinet has solidarity in the fight that is to come.


George James McIlraith: You will be surprised.
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	March 17, 1966


Mr. Grafftey:: You are going to save national unity.
Progress reported.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Arthur Laing: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act to increase the number of elected members of the council from four to seven; to increase to five thousand dollars per annum the maximum indemnity payable to elected members; to provide for the payment of a maximum indemnity of three thousand five hundred dollars per annum to appointed members; to provide also for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses incurred by members in going to and returning from sessions of the council; to provide that the first one thousand dollars of the indemnity paid to a member be not subject to income tax; to establish a separate consolidated revenue fund for the territories and for the administration thereof; to provide also for the keeping of territorial accounts, for the examination of these accounts by the Auditor General; and to provide further for certain changes in the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief; but I shall be less brief if my hon. friend interferes with what I have to say.


William Heward Grafftey: I have never known you to be brief, but try to be tonight.


Arthur Laing: The proposal is to introduce legislation to allow the act-[DOT]


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. There is a little more noise than usual in the chamber. It is difficult to hear what the minister is saying.


Arthur Laing: There will be legislation introduced to amend the act respecting the Northwest Territories to provide for an increase in the number of elected representatives to the Territorial Council. For some years now this matter has been brought up, largely by hon. members on the other side of the house who have pointed out that in the high Arctic islands and on the eastern side of the Arctic area there has not been afforded to the people of those areas the opportunity to vote in elections in respect of the Territorial CouncT. Indeed that has been the case.
These people have had the opportunity of voting in a national election; in other words,
March 17, 1966	COMMONS
they have had a national franchise, but were not given the franchise in respect of elections to the Territorial Council. I think this was a reflection of the development of the territories themselves, in that most of the people resided, and most of the development took place, in the Mackenzie area of the Northwest Territories. We thought it imperative that at the earliest possible moment we should extend the franchise to those people living in the high Arctic islands and on the eastern side. Indeed, the Territorial Council already has passed legislation to provide for the additional constituencies implicit in this legislation. This will give them seven elected representatives, while we propose to retain five appointed representatives here. This will have the effect of giving the majority of Council membership to the people for election in the territories.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the house it is obvious that, with the somewhat slow but nevertheless increasing population and the investment of moneys in the Northwest Territories, there is coming to the people who reside there permanently a degree of confidence in themselves, and we, I am quite certain, can reflect this confidence from here by transferring to them an increasing amount of responsibility over their own affairs.
We also propose to increase the payment given to the members of the Council. These men have constituencies to service which, judged by the standard of any members sitting in this House of Commons, are many times greater. We feel they are entitled to some reasonable compensation. Thus far they have been paid $2,000 maximum per year, and a small expense account for travelling for the ten days-and there is a limit of ten days-in respect of the sessions they hold. We think that, if they are to service their constituents, they should have a reasonable compensation.
There will be one or two amendments introduced which will have the effect of transferring a greater amount of responsibility to the Territorial Council from the government here. We propose, as we have said, in the future to give them an opportunity to have more what we have termed government on the ground. If that area is going to progress, its future will be largely in the hands of those people who permanently reside there.
This is a general summation of the legislation, and I would be very interested in
DEBATES	2837
Northwest Territories Act having comments, although they might be short, from other members of the house.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Lapointe on a question.


Mr, Gregoire:: Is the new bill which the minister proposes to bring before the house about the same as the bill we had before us two years ago.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, it bears no relation whatsoever to the bills which were introduced. They contained a proposal to divide the Northwest Territories into two parts, which was a proposal initiated by the previous administration. It was to divide the Territories between the Mackenzie and the rest of the Territories. This has no relation to that whatsoever.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I shall follow the good example of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and be equally brief. Normally the hon. member for the Yukon would have been making the comments for the members on this side of the house, but he is unavoidably absent. As we proceed toward legislation which will arise from this resolution there will be plenty of opportunity for further comments by the hon. member for the Yukon as well as by other members on this side of the house.
As a former minister of northern affairs, it is needless for me to say that we wholeheartedly support the purpose of this resolution. It was in 1962 that the residents of the eastern Arctic, as the minister has already indicated, received the federal franchise. It had been anticipated at that time that the franchise would be extended in rapid succession to the territorial area of responsibility. Unfortunately it has required some four years to proceed to this logical and necessary development.
Therefore, as I have indicated, we will give this measure every conceivable support and the minister can be assured there will be no impediment whatsoever thrown in the way of proceeding with this resolution. I think all hon. members of the house, as well as the people of Canada generally, are aware that the progress north of the 60th parallel has
March 17, 1966

Northwest Territories Act been such in recent years that the time has come when we must proceed to give more and more autonomy to the people in this important part of Canada.
I notice, and it is logical of course, that there will be an increase in the elected members of the Territorial Council to cover the rather extensive geographic area which will be brought under the terms of reference of this legislation. I believe the time has come when we might consider giving the Northwest Territories a completely elected council. The principle of part elected and part appointed was introduced to assist the residents of the Territories in their progress toward gradual provincial status during the development period.
It seems to me, from frequent contacts and continuing contacts with the residents of the Territories, and in view of the economic development-which has been noted in this house in the past months, such as the development of new communities, and the opening up of the Great Slave Lake area as a result of the construction of the Pine Point Railway-that this part of Canada is achieving not only economic maturity but also is rapidly reaching out to political maturity.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I would hope at some stage in the discussion in these matters, perhaps when the legislation is before the house, there will be an opportunity to consider some of these wider approaches to the problem, such as greater autonomy in the Northwest Territories. I am sure the people themselves feel that they are now able to assume complete responsibility for administering their own affairs and guiding their own destiny in terms of future development. If a committee has the opportunity of discussing this matter perhaps we will be able to meet with some representations from the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Chairman, that is all we wish to say at this stage but we will have more to say when the legislation is before us.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the members of this party support the spirit and purpose of this legislation, as I am sure all hon. members of this house do. This resolution simply provides for a further development of democracy in the government of the Northwest Territories.
Over a period of 20 years, since first coming to this house, I have on numerous occasions been on committees which dealt with

questions relating to the Northwest Territories. It is very interesting to note, as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris pointed out, the changing circumstances and growing economic developments, particularly since the development of the Pine Point Railway and the mining interests connected with it, that have taken place in the Northwest Territories.
Accompanying those developments there is a natural increase in the demand for selfgovernment, and this, as I said before, is a step in the right direction. As a result of the time I have had to listen to discussions during the consideration of the estimates of this department by various committees I think it is fair to say there have been some excellent persons appointed to the governing body of this area. However, on other occasions there have been appointments of individuals with dictatorial tendencies, such as the one brought to our attention in 1953. I am glad to say that we have made some progress since then.
I personally want to congratulate the minister for his administration of this department and for his understanding of the growing need for self-government in the Northwest Territories and other regions over which he has control. I do not intend to say anything further at this time, as we will have the opportunity to speak at further length when the bill is introduced.
I am very pleased to note this development, because while in the past 15 or 20 years circumstances were such that at times one might have questioned the attitude of some of the appointed individuals, others have been excellent and accepted their responsibilities in the spirit in which they were conferred upon them by this parliament.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question for the sake of brevity, because I do not wish to extend my participation in this debate. Will he indicate what will happen to the Eskimos in the Chimo Bay area? Will they be included in the Northwest Territories as far as representation is concerned, which is their desire?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I understand the meaning of the question.


Mr.   Kindi@: Will the Eskimos in the Chimo Bay area in northern Quebec be included in the eastern Arctic region so far as representation is concerned? I refer particularly to the Fort Chimo area.
March 17, 1966	COMMONS


Arthur Laing: This legislation refers only to the Northwest Territories, and the Ungava area is part of the province of Quebec. Our interest in the Ungava or Nouveau Quebec area relates to the presence of Eskimos, and Eskimos are our constitutional responsibility. We have discharged that responsibility within a province; but this legislation refers only to the Northwest Territories.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say about this resolution. I know that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) is aware of the problem I shall mention. I have referred to it many times in the house. It is an important problem to be solved.
Mr. Chairman, the government is about to increase the number of members of the Northwest Territories Council and to extend their responsibilities and jurisdiction. This is the first step towards the creation of another Canadian province, the Northwest Territories. The same will apply to Yukon and this is where I object. This raises a problem that should be solved without delay.
The Northwest Territories also comprise a whole series of islands around the province of Quebec, situated less than 12 miles from the shore line at low tide. A whole series of uninhabited islands. Being less than 12 miles from the Quebec coast, they are at the same time hundreds of miles away from the rest of the Northwest Territories. The day the Northwest Territories becomes a province, these islands will be 300 or 400 miles from the rest of the Northwest Territories while almost within the territory of the province of Quebec.
At the present time, they are considered as part of the Northwest Territories and seem practically linked to Quebec by land, in spite of which they are included in the Northwest Territories.
Well, I suggest that those islands will create a grave problem for Canada before long, especially when the Northwest Territories are divided into provinces, as this is bound to happen sooner or later.
So we have a problem there. It is geographically abnormal and illogical to include in the Territories islands that are practically tied together but located three or four hundred miles away and this is paving the way for a dispute between two provinces, the province of the Northwest Territories and the province of Quebec. The Canadian government will be the one to be hit on the rebound.
DEBATES	2839
Northwest Territories Act
Now is the time-and I am saying this to the minister-while all those islands are uninhabited, when there is no trade, no industry, nothing there, to hand them over to Quebec, as all geographers and map makers in Canada have recommended.
Indeed, they have recommended that all islands which at low tide are located within those twelve miles be included in the territory of the province of Quebec. You will also note that those islands are uninhabited at present. Today, that could be done quite easily. If the minister remembers-I think that at the time his parliamentary secretary was the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), who answered questions on behalf of the minister at the committee meetings- to the representatives of the Northwest Territories who, for two or three years, came before that committee to look after the interests of the Northwest population before the committee-I think it was the committee on mines, forests and waters-I asked the following question:
Would you object to the federal government taking over all the islands within twelve miles at low tide around the province of Quebec and giving them to the province of Quebec? No one objected to it. On the contrary, they were unanimous to say: "We do not need them; they are situated at many hundreds of miles from the rest of the territory and if ever the administration were forced to look after those islands, that would be very complicated for the rest of the Northwest Territories."
The people of the Northwest Territories themselves would be quite willing to get rid of these islands by giving them to the province of Quebec.
Well, Mr. Chairman, when these islands are uninhabited, when the representatives of the Northwest Territories are willing to leave all those islands to the province of Quebec, when all this could be done without anyone objecting, I submit the minister should decide to hand over these islands to the province of Quebec.
He just has to consult geographers and map-makers and he will realize that at the present time, this is an abnormal and illogical situation from a geographical viewpoint. It is absolutely abnormal. All the shores at low tide supposedly belong to the Northwest Territories. However, if a citizen of the province of Quebec decided to build a cottage along the shores of the Hudson Bay, and to
March 17, 1966

Northwest Territories Act add a wharf, well, just because the wharf would come in the water at low tide, this would be under federal jurisdiction. The shores come under the federal government, although such is not the case for other shores on inland waters.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should decide that those islands belong to Quebec and the time has come to do so.
I urge the minister to take the opportunity of this legislation and include in the bill a clause stipulating that all the islands situated within twelve miles from the shore at low tide be given to Quebec.
I think all hon. members should support such a resolution. This would be a proof of wisdom and foresight. In fact, this would prevent conflicts which this situation might stir up later. I urge the minister to take this into consideration. The minister knows that I have been raising this problem in the House for two or three years. I think that since then, he must have looked into it and should be in a position to offer a solution.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, we are very hopeful that the speeches on these resolutions will be short, and I intend to live up to that hope. One of the reasons for this hope, of course, is that as many of these resolutions as possible be passed so that the legislation may be brought before us. We are very pleased to have before us the resolution outlining the changes intended to be made to the Northwest Territories Act, because we believe that these changes will greatly assist the Territories in the administration of their affairs.
This motion is the second to be introduced by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources which we are very, very pleased to support. The growth and development of that part of Canada is of ever-increasing interest, in a part of our country which so many people feel is a long way away. We will not presuppose the purpose behind increasing the number of elected members of the Council of the Northwest Territories, but with an increased number of members there will be a greater demand for the amenities of life for the people in this part of Canada. We support the measure and commend the minister on bringing it before the House of Commons.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I too support the proposed legislation of the minister, and I find it perfectly in order.
However, although my contribution may seem naive under the circumstances-I should like to put a few questions and offer some suggestions to the minister.
When we speak about the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon, I wonder whether the situation is not becoming a little out of date. The time has come to give some thought to the fact that within five or six years, it will be decided to transform these two areas into Canadian provinces, that is the 11th and the 12th provinces.
Everybody knows the Northwest Territories.
Even though the population is not yet very large in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, thanks to means of communication existing today, they are visited by a large number of sportsmen. Furthermore, mineral deposits and all sorts of natural resources discovered there are now under development. This afternoon we heard the hon. minister tell us that the government intends to invest several million dollars to give to the people of these Territories the facilities we have here. I do not think they will become provinces within the next year or so, but I wonder whether the time has not come to start considering the possibility of the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon becoming the 11th and 12th provinces of Canada within five or six years.
Besides, the time has gone by where the Eskimos were considered here as second-rate citizens, because we did not have the facilities to enable them to enjoy our standard of living and to offer them an education to which they were entitled.
This is outdated and now the governments, both federal and provincial, give them many opportunities.
I submit to the minister that perhaps the time has come to establish a committee to plan a program with a view to giving a provincial status, let us say in five or six years, to those two territories. They would become bona fide provinces within confederation.
I should like to conclude my remarks by saying that I support the wish expressed, probably for the twelfth time, by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), to the effect that the Territories should be divided
March 17, 1966

on a reasonable geographical basis. Like him I say that any other kind of division is illogical and could certainly create misunderstandings and disagreements such as we have never seen.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to answer certain questions we have asked; and amongst others, to speak of the islands problem. He must know about it, since for the last three years I have been speaking to him about it whenever the occasion arose. I should like to hear him on the matter.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I am indeed grateful for the comments of hon. members who have participated in this debate at the resolution stage. I am particularly grateful to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and would agree with him that we are making a rather startling improvement in the economics of the area. The hon. member will recall that when the railway was built there, his government contracted with the railway to use the rails to the extent of carrying
225,000	tons of concentrates per year. His government greatly underrated the future development of the north. Those two lines of rust, as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to this railway the other day, will in this year, 1966, be carrying something like 630,000 tons out of that area. [DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I think it is important for us to know the extent to which the economic value of that area is being reflected in mineral production in Canada. In 1964 the total mineral output of the Northwest Territories was $17 million. In 1965 it was $72 million. This year I expect it to exceed $100 million.
I was grateful too for the words of the hon. member for Kootenay West. What we are endeavouring to do is to extend democracy-if you want to use a generalized term-to the area. I have made the statement that in the long run I think it would be better for the people who reside there to have a greater degree of control over their own affairs, even if they make errors. It would probably be better for us here to grant moneys to the area which they would control, so long as occasionally we sent an auditor to the territories to look after things. But beyond that, they could direct the money to their own intent and purposes.
23033-180 i
Northwest Territories Act
I want to reply to the hon. member for Lapointe, who brought up a point which has been before the house on earlier occasions. He referred to the boundaries of the provinces. I would remind him that this bill does not confirm or amend the boundaries of the provinces. The hon. member is referring in substance to that myriad of granite fingers which point themselves out of the sea all around the northern coasts of Quebec. But not all are pure granite, as he knows; there are two or three extremely valuable islands there upon which there are considerable mineral resources, particularly iron.
I know the hon. member will not wish to hold up the progress of the extension of a greater degree of self-determination to the people who live in the Territories in order to press for an amendment to the boundaries of the provinces. I do not know by what measure the boundaries of the provinces could be adjusted, but certainly not by a measure such as we are discussing at this resolution stage tonight.
The fact of the matter is that all of those islands in the Hudson Bay, indeed those islands in James Bay too, are not part of the provinces of either Ontario or Quebec, but are part of the Northwest Territories. I have said before that the time may well come when they will be allotted to the provinces, but that is certainly not within the compass of the bill under discussion tonight.
Finally I want to thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres for his very thoughtful suggestion. I would remind him in this connection-I had thought some other hon. members in the house would raise the matter-that at the present time a royal commission in the Northwest Territories under the chairmanship of Professor Carrothers is taking a survey of what might be the future of government in the Northwest Territories. It is a very excellent commission. They made the rounds of a number of communities in the summertime and they are now doing the same thing in the depths of winter. The evidence they are getting I have no knowledge of, but from what I read in the papers it is obvious that there is a very healthy ferment in the Northwest Territories which indicates that people are thinking in terms of their future and their ambitions.
Some provinces are proposing that their boundaries be extended to take over the section of the Northwest Territories to their north. However, at this stage I do not think we should prejudge anything. I hope we may
March 17. 1966

Northwest Territories Act have very excellent guidance upon the present state of government in the territories and be given some indication of what it might be in the future when we receive the report, which is expected around August.
There could also be some guidance in the report for the hon. member for Lapointe in his desire to extend the provinces. This has been proposed for many years and is a matter I do not think we should cast lightly aside. However, I am quite certain that this royal commission headed by Dr. Carrothers will bring forward a great deal of information which will be of great value to us. May I thank hon. members for participating in the debate at this stage.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I must say I am not at all pleased with the Minister's reply. He said: "I do not know how to go about setting the limits or boundaries of the provinces."
Well, Mr. Chairman, if he does not know how to do it, let him resign. He is supposed to solve problems. It is not enough to say: "I do not know how to go about it." Let him find out. Together with his officials and his deputy minister, he should find the answer. He asks us not to hold up the adoption of a bill, but he knows that two years ago a bill was held up in committee because it was felt that the "jurisdiction" of the Northwest Territories should not be increased until such time as problems like this were not settled.
This problem must be solved, while the federal government still has the authority to do so; for, when the Northwest Territories have greater "jurisdiction", powers and privileges to govern themselves, then, it will be too late.
It seems to me the minister should have a greater sense of responsibility. He knows that the situation is not normal, that it will be a source of useless bickering and struggles, because the federal government can at present settle the matter. Within ten or fifteen years, maybe sooner, it will have to be settled between the two provinces.
Privileges and powers are being given the Northwest Territories, but once they have them, the federal government will no longer be able to solve the problem of the islands.
It must be settled now. The minister says: Allow the legislation to be passed. We do not know what to do about that but let the IMr. Lalng.]
legislation pass so that its benefits are not delayed.
But if disadvantages are to follow also, should we ignore them?
The minister is wondering if that can be included in such a legislation. Of course that can be the subject of an amendment to the bill that is put before us by the minister.
The minister introduces a bill to give responsibilities to the Northwest Territories. But by giving them such responsibilities he should solve the problems that exist, namely about borders.
It seems to me that it would be easy for the minister to prepare an amendment or a supplementary section to the effect that all the islands located 12 miles from the territory of the province of Quebec, at low tide, belong to that province. That is simple enough and, I repeat, particularly since the minister knows, because he was told when I questioned the representatives from the Northwest Territories, that none of them objected to that proposal. On the contrary, at the present time, they do not know what to do with those uninhabited islands which are located several hundred miles from the Northwest Territories and only a few miles from the province of Quebec.
When the Northwest Territories are made into a province, including the little islands which are located near the borders of Quebec, what will the minister be able to do when the time comes to settle the matter of borders between the two provinces?
If one stands on the shore of Hudson's bay, at high tide, one is said to be on the mainland, in the province of Quebec. On the other hand, at low tide, on the shore, one is in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, when the Northwest Territories become a province, one will have to go to another province for a swim. That does not make sense and the minister knows it.
What would it be for him to add a section which would give privileges or extend the jurisdiction of the citizens of the Northwest Territories and, at the same time, include an other section to settle that problem once and for all by saying: All these islands which lie within 12 miles of the Quebec shores, at low tide, belong to the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It is as simple as that, particularly in view of the fact they are uninhabited and there is no one to object. It is time to settle this problem while there is no opposition. Does the minister prefer waiting until objections
March 17. 1966

are raised? Let us think of it now before objections are made. Would the minister rather wait?
I hope other ministers in the Cabinet who will show him where his responsibility lies, for at present he seems to forget it completely. I hope they will open his eyes to a problem that is bound to come up, but is non-existent at this time and that he could settle without difficulty.
Before long it will be a problem. He mentioned a while ago that these islands are rich, rich with ore.
While this does not give rise to discussions, why not settle the problem now. Because you will have to settle it later when it will not be possible or when objections are raised.


Georges-C. Lachance: Would the hon. member for Lapointe permit a question.


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Georges-C. Lachance: I should not like to minimize the intervention of the hon. member which seems excellent, but does he not think that the provinces should have something to say and should this not possibly be the subject matter considered by a federal-provincial conference?
I cannot see very well how-I hope the hon. member for Lapointe will correct me if I am wrong-the federal government could pass any legislation now without consulting the provinces. Can the hon. member answer that question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, because at present these territories belong to the federal government and not to the provinces: They are within the Northwest Territories, which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.


Georges-C. Lachance: Does the hon. member
feel that if the federal government should pass a piece of legislation, it would impinge on provincial authority?


Gilles Grégoire: I will point out to my hon. friend that the Quebec government and the government of Manitoba have already submitted a request to the federal government concerning the islands situated within their respective territories.
The government of Ontario has made a similar request, for islands lying 12 miles offshore at low tide. But the only government that holds any jurisdiction or authority over the Northwest Territories is the federal government, who alone is entitled to put such a
Northwest Territories Act measure on the statutes. No province will object to that, none would, since it means increasing its territory, as these islands are rich in minerals, easily reached and easily developed. Who would object? Which province would refuse these islands? None, of course; they asked for them.
But the minister does not seem willing to solve this problem and that is rather discouraging, as we are about to constitute a province out of the Northwest Territories. Well, that new province will be about 400 miles from the province of Quebec, it will be Quebec's neighbour in that the Quebec shores, all around the province, will be in the new province of the Northwest Territories. That is the ridiculous side of the situation. Why not settle the problem? It would require only one more clause in the legislation, stipulating that the Northwest Territories, with their new jurisdiction powers and privileges, would be made up of the whole territory extending up to 12 miles of the province of Quebec, at low tide. It would be as simple as that to improve things, Mr. Chairman, and the minister would settle a problem and, mark my word, because this will be on the record. If the minister does not settle the problem at once, within, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years, no matter how far in the future, this will become a serious problem, a source of conflict and disputes within Canada. It will be said then that it would have been possible to settle such a conflict beforehand, if only the minister had assumed his responsibilities instead of being obstinate, as he has been for the past three years, to the point of not even wanting to settle this problem.
I would ask him to state in the house, to answer or at least to commit himself to take the necessary steps in order to settle the problem.
Mr. Chairman, what is even more revolting is that the minister merely smiles, as if that did not even concern him.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pursue the subject upon which we have embarked in the last few moments because it is one that concerns most of the provinces in this country of ours. I can remember, for example, back in the early 1950's sitting in on a conference in northern Manitoba where it was suggested that most of the Northwest Territories be joined to the northern part of the provinces, and a new territory be carved out, to be called Precambria, which I think
2844	COMMONS DEBATES	March 17, 1966
Northwest Territories Act was the name designated at that time. Sir, if we were to embark on a discussion of this kind at the present time, I am sure we should be spending many hours in debate. I agree with the minister that this is something that will have to be considered at some time, but in the proper context and under the proper circumstances.
My reason for rising again is to correct an historical reference made by the minister in regard to the construction of the Pine Point Railway. I know he did not intend to state it in these terms, but I believe he did quote the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition as having referred to two rusted lines into the territory. For the sake of the record I should like to point out to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that the Header of the Opposition was merely quoting the immortal words of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who led when he was in opposition a concerted attack in this house, against the whole idea of the construction of a railway into the Northwest Territories. To climax his argument, he wrote the whole thing off as a situation which would result in a railway line that would eventually disappear because of rust resulting from lack of use.
If our estimate with respect to 225,000 tons of ore per year from the Pine Point mine was what might be called a conservative estimate as a potential in the initial stages, I think the minister will agree that our attitude and our approach to the prospects of economic development in the Territories was much more liberal than that represented by the words of the gentleman who was rewarded for his particularly visionary contribution to the future of transportation in Canada by being made Canadian Minister of Transport under the Liberal administration.
For the sake of the historic accuracy I should also point out that the 225,000 ton figure was reached as a result of negotiations with the representatives of Cominco. We had to work closely in co-operation with them, and we wanted their support because it was a joint project. That company was going to be the chief user in the initial stages, and that was the figure that was regarded as reasonable by the representatives of Cominco.
I think the minister is also aware that we had had preliminary negotiations with the government of Japan, and although we had no concrete commitment from that government, we knew that in a very short time
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
Japan would also be a market for this rich reservoir of resources.
I merely enter the discussion at this stage to make sure that the historical reference is accurate.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I must
apologize for speaking a second time about this matter. A few minutes ago I mentioned that I was in perfect accord with the hon. member for Lapointe in the principle he mentioned, that there is, so to speak, a geographic mortal sin committed with respect to the distribution of territory.
I do not follow the hon. member for Lapointe when he insists that the minister have an amendment right away to settle this question. I think the minister gave a very satisfactory answer, when he said a few minutes ago that there is now a royal commission studying the situation, and that the commission is supposed to report some time in August, if I understood the minister well. Perhaps we should just ask him that, when the report is received, it be tabled. Perhaps this would not be for five, six or seven months; there will be a reasonable delay. Probably the minister would have the right to come back at that time with an amendment along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe, and perhaps go a little further along the lines I mentioned myself some minutes ago.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Laing thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-146, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



YUKON ACT


Arthur Laing: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Yukon Act to provide for the payment of an annual indemnity of three hundred dollars to each member of the advisory committee on finance and for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses incurred by them in attending the sittings of the committee; to increase to five thousand dollars per annum the maximum indemnity payable to members of the Council; to provide for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses incurred by members in going to and returning from sessions of the Council; to provide
March 17, 1966

that the first one thousand dollars of the indemnity paid to a member is not subject to income tax; to provide also for the keeping of territorial accounts, for the examination of these accounts by the Auditor General; and to provide further for certain changes in the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Arthur Laing: I will be even more brief in dealing with this resolution than I was in dealing with the last, because some of the things we have said with respect to the Northwest Territories apply with equal weight to the Yukon territory. However, the Yukon, I must remind members of this committee, is a far older area with greater experience in running its affairs. The Yukon in its heyday had a great number of people and it learned to operate, however roughly, its own affairs at that time. But with the decline in gold production the Yukon went back. It is a happy circumstance that I am able to advise members of the committee tonight that Yukon is on the way up-rapidly on the way up, I think. It depends no longer on gold but on silver, lead, zinc, asbestos and a variety of other minerals. The population there is rising. There are a large number of persons in the area who have acquired a great experience of public life, and we intend to extend to the members of the Council what I called, in the case of the other resolution, a reasonable payment for their services, namely $5,000 a year. There will also be provision for extending to the members of the advisory group on finance an additional $300 a year.
We are very enthusiastic about the Yukon territory. However, I am concerned by the repeated statements of those who live in this territory that they are governed by people who live 3,000 miles away. Again I want to emphasize that as rapidly as possible it is imperative for us to return as much of the government as we can to the hands of those who live in this region. This is the intention of the bill foreshadowed by the resolution before us; this measure contains a number of items transferring entirely to the Yukon jurisdiction over matters which are now administered from Ottawa.
Unlike the Territories, which are so vast, I think the Yukon no longer needs appointed members on its Council. But I would submit that in the case of the resolution we discussed some time ago there is merit in having well known people from southern Canada interested in the progress of the northern parts of this country. We shall not build this country soundly until we build it in depth.
Yukon Act
I have no confidence in those who say the resources of the north should be kept in cold storage until such time as we may need them in the future. I think that if we cannot develop our country in depth and meet the challenges of these difficult areas at least reasonably well, then the chance of our doing anything worth while in any part of Canada is not very great.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It always warms the cockles of the hearts of those of us on this side of the house when we hear the minister of northern affairs wax enthusiastic and eloquent on the prospects of the great northern territories of Canada.
We have heard it said in the past that the minister belongs more on this side of the house than on the other side in respect of such sentiments, and we have always sympathized with him because it seemed he was finding it difficult to persuade his colleagues on the treasury benches to embrace the prospects of the north with the same enthusiasm. However, the fact that we have these two resolutions before us tonight would indicate that at last he is getting the message through to his colleagues.
There used to be a slogan in the department of northern affairs when I was minister-I often chuckled at it when it came across the desk-"Woe unto those who sit on their frozen assets". This was the situation in the north for far too long, and I agree entirely with the minister that the breakthrough which has occurred in the last ten years is something which has been delayed for far too long. After all, Canada is a northern nation, as Professor William Morton of the University of Manitoba has put it. This is a northern nation with a northern heritage and destiny; the sooner we move toward development in depth the sooner we shall reach political and economic maturity.
Everything which has been said with reference to the resolution of the Northwest Territories applies in equal or even greater measure to the Yukon. Again, my hon. friend from the Yukon will have some specific proposals to put forward with reference to the legislation which will flow from this resolution. The Yukon territory is in a position where it could take over completely the administration of its own affairs. Indeed the time is not long distant when the Yukon will be another province with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.

March 17, 1966
Yukon Act
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Unfortunately the gentleman who has been the commissioner for the Yukon Territory during the past five years, Mr. Gordon Cameron, is retiring from that position. I would like to commend to the minister that his successor be a man of similar qualities and of a similar type. Mr. Cameron, while not born in the Yukon Territory, certainly had grown into the atmosphere and spirit of the Yukon. He commanded the respect and the imagination of the people, whether it was as an administrator or as a member of the bagpipe band, in which capacity he used to appear at the various official functions in the Yukon. I think it is a good thing for politicians to have a little bit of musical skill to contribute to their role in public affairs, because we all know music soothes the savage breast. This applies even to the bagpipes-and that is saying a lot on March 17.
I hope in appointing his successor the principle established in the appointment of someone from the Yukon Territory will be continued. There certainly are many men and women of a quality capable of providing the necessary political leadership for the Yukon. I hope too, when the legislation is before us, that we will have an opportunity to discuss some of the detail arising from these recommendations in the committee on Northern Affairs and National Resources. I trust we will again be able to meet representatives from the Council. Recently a committee was in Ottawa in connection with financial matters and, following from afar their deliberations and listening from afar to their comments, it certainly appeared to me that in the Yukon Territory and in the Northwest Territories they are wanting more and more self government, more and more autonomy. This might be the time, because the Yukon has provided the pattern which will be followed by the government of the Northwest Territories, when some executive responsibility could be given to the Yukon Territory Council. Again, as I said at the outset of these brief remarks, I welcome the minister into the family of boosters for northern Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when this resolution is being considered by the house we miss the hon. member for the Yukon. I am sure he would have been very pleased to have taken this opportunity to discuss this resolution at possibly greater length than the member for Kootenay West.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
Let me explain, Mr. Chairman, that I have just been chosen by a special caucus of our group to deal with this resolution because I have two particular qualifications. The first is that on one occasion during a political campaign I tramped 15 miles on snowshoes to address a meeting of 16 people, and 15 miles home the same way. So I am considered to be somewhat like Yukon Erik in that respect.
The other reason is when I was a very small boy I was nursed by a famous lady who came from Dawson City when the trail of 1898 folded up and when the mining and forestry development was commencing in the Kootenay country, namely Miss Yukon Iola. It was quite an innocent flirtation.
Mr. Chairman, we simply wish to express our support for the spirit and purpose of this resolution. As I said in respect of the previous resolution, there have been great developments in the Yukon during the last ten years. In the early days there was a great boom, and then the Yukon went into sort of economic and social obscurity for a great many years. We know that at the present time it is coming back and that developments are taking place.
We are very glad that this resolution provides for a reasonable indemnity and expenses for the financial advisory committee, because persons have to be properly compensated if they are going to do the job required of them. We also are glad there is a provision for an increase in the indemnity and expenses for the Council members.
Again, as I said, we are very pleased to see we can rely on the eagle eye of our Auditor General to make certain that the accounts in the Yukon are checked, as well as those accounts in the other parts of Canada which relate to the departments of the federal government. I am sure when we check those accounts, and after listening to the hon. member for the Yukon, we will find that no one commenced military service in the Yukon at nine years of age.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I support this resolution even if it should be only because the members of the council will be better paid and in a position to travel more easily.
Earlier, the minister, in another resolution mentioned the size of the North West Territories and of the Yukon. I realize the situation better than anyone, being the member for one of the largest ridings in Canada. I understand the attitude of the members for the Northwest Territories and for the Yukon.
March 17, 1966

I am pleased to hear from the minister that soon the Yukon Territory will get provincial status. This is an indication that our country is developing and making steady progress and I am happy to see that the minister is dealing with this aspect of the situation. He said that our natural resources should be inventorized and developed. I fully agree with his opinion. The natural resources being developed nowadays would not have been useful a eentury ago.
It may be that in a year's time we shall be developing natural resources which it is not necessary to develop today.
That is why I agree with the minister that we must know the extent of our natural resources to make them available to all Canadians as soon as possible.
For all these reasons, we support this resolution, and when the bill is brought forward we shall do that. The minister can count on our support concerning this resolution.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is another for the bringing forward of which we wish to thank the minister. We, too, are very happy that the minister is full of praise for the Yukon Territory.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We would like to point out that one of the great concerns of the people of the Yukon-and I am sure if the member for the Yukon were here he would be the first to mention it-is the reconstruction and the paving of the Alaska Highway. When we get a closer knit government in the Territories and the Yukon, better compensation and more adequate travelling expenses to take care of people moving from one place to another, this will be a way in which the federal government can give some very real assistance to the area.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West, and it seemed to me that he did not want to be left out of recent headlines. I can say to him that I do not think he will be left out.
Mr. Gordon Cameron, I think, exemplifies the type of individual many people would say is the desirable type to be a part of the governing body of the Yukon. It is with regret that we understand Mr. Cameron has left. One of his close supporters has told me that Mr. Cameron was very much in agreement with these proposals now before us. I hope that when a new government is set up
Yukon Act
in the Yukon along the lines suggested by this resolution it will exercise its prerogative in seeking the co-operation of the province of British Columbia. I am certain it will find that British Columbia is anxious to assist and co-operate in any way possible in the development of the Yukon.
British Columbia cannot separate or isolate itself from development in the Yukon, no more than the Yukon can separate itself from the province of British Columbia. Very close knit co-operation is essential to the proper development of both British Columbia and the Yukon. These areas have many things in common and there are many areas for such development. From what the minister has said tonight I am sure he will spearhead the drive toward total co-operation between the Yukon and British Columbia, which together will co-operate with the rest of Canada. I hope he will keep his attention on the development and reconstruction of the Alaska Highway because it is one of the keys to the development of that area.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I should not want the opportunity to pass without my making a contribution in respect of our regard for Gordon Cameron. Filling his position is not going to be easy because he is a relatively young man, extremely active and knows the Yukon like the back of his hand. That type of individual is not easy to find and I did want to pay a compliment to him. I agree with all that has been said about him. I do not know why he is resigning and I have not asked him, nor do I intend to ask him. He is a relatively young man and I believe he felt there was an opportunity to do better elsewhere. That is a good indication, because that condition has not been characteristic of this area of the country for many years.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Brandon-Souris for his suggestions. I thank the hon. member for Kootenay West and I am quite certain that his continuing durability is entirely due to Iola. I want to thank the hon. member for his reference to the Trans-Canada Highway. I do not think I will be divulging any secrets when I tell him we now have in hand the report on the Alaska Highway. We are reviewing that report now with the intention that it should be published as a document. There are certain private matters within it which we will have to extract, due to the nature of the inquiry made, but I do not think that will affect the value of what I believe will be one of the
March 17. 1966
Science Council of Canada most interesting documents published some time.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Laing thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-147, to amend the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Speaker, the next item on the order of business is item No. 4, a resolution preceding a bih affecting the National Research Council Act. Following that item of business it is proposed that we consider item No. 15, which is a resolution regarding the establishment of a Science Council of Canada. In view of the fact that the Science Council of Canada is dependent upon the amendments to the National Research Council Act to some extent I suggest that we might, with unanimous consent, proceed to item No. 15 and then deal with item No. 4, rather than doing it in the reverse order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been suggested that the house proceed with item No. 15 to be followed by item No. 4. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the establishment of a Science Council of Canada and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the Council and for the payment of the remuneration of the chairman and of travelling expenses of the members and associate members of the Council, also for the payment of the remuneration of members of the Council for additional duties: to provide further that all expenditures for the purposes of this measure shall be paid out of money appropriated by parliament therefor.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, in every enlightened nation there has developed, within recent years, an awareness of the impact of science and technology upon every facet of life; an influence that is reflected in the economic growth, the health and well being of peoples, the physical comforts, the release
IMr. Laing.]
from drudgery, the provision of time to practise and enjoy the arts, indeed in the entire social fabric not the least component of which is the political relations within and between nations. Equally well recognized is the implication that if science, in its many ramifications, is to serve the community and the nation to best advantage there must be some rationale, some orderly progress, some planning that takes into consideration the needs, the aspirations, the resources, the capabilities-yes, even the conscience of a people. For science must serve-not control-not only the greatest possible number of individuals, nor only one nation, but the great international community of man.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In many countries, Great Britain, Sweden, Germany, the United States, France, Japan, to name but a few, the serious need for long term planning in science and technology has been recognized for a number of years and appropriate action has been taken by the governments concerned to establish organizations charged with the duty of obtaining competent expert opinion on scientific and technological matters and providing governments with recommendations and advice upon which policy decisions can be based. As may be expected, the character of the organization is not the same in all countries but varies with the size, complexity and political philosophy of the individual nation. All, however, have developed formal organizations concerned with advising the government on the formulation of scientific policy.
It will be recalled that the Glassco Commission, in examining the situation in Canada, found that the mechanism by which objective and independent recommendations in respect of scientific policy could be brought before the government was not functioning. The commission proposed, therefore, that there should be established an advisory committee composed of people knowledgeable in science and its applications, which would have the responsibility of examining the several facets of science in Canada and of making recommendations to government upon which policy could be formulated. The commission emphasized that the advisory body should be independent and not directly associated with any operating agency.
As the house was informed by the Prime Minister on April 30, 1964, the recommendations of the Glassco Commission were studied by Dr. C. J. Mackenzie, a former President of the National Research Council, and following

for
March 17, 1966

his recommendation the government later that year established the science secretariat in the office of the Privy Council. Dr. Mackenzie noted at the time that before an advisory committee could be brought into being the role of the National Research Council should be re-examined and its position in relation to the proposed advisory committee defined.
Based on studies made in consultation with the National Research Council and other interested parties it has been decided to establish an advisory body to be known as the Science Council of Canada to advise the government on matters concerning broad national scientific policy. This decision takes account of the interests and functions of government departments and agencies whose activities are related to science and technology. Lest there be some misunderstanding of the term "science" in the name of the proposed council, it should be clearly stated that in this context it includes all the natural sciences over the broad spectrum from "pure" science to "applied" science, from the search for new scientific knowledge to its application in the service of man in such fields as engineering, medicine, agriculture and industry.
The purpose of the Science Council will primarily be to define and determine feasible long term objectives for science in Canada, to suggest appropriate paths for reaching them and to consider the responsibilities of the various segments of the industrial, academic and government communities in this field. The Council will be less concerned with day to day problems than with developing principles and evolving a philosophy upon which future courses can be charted. Other countries have experienced very rapid growth in science and science-based enterprises during the past five to ten years. In some cases the possible effects of growth were not anticipated or recognized, with the result that there developed an imbalance in the size of government agencies involved, in the disciplines supported and in the geographic distribution of scientific and industrial activity that, because of its magnitude, is now difficult if not impossible to correct. In Canada, although we have made notable advances in some areas, there is every indication that the next ten years will see a particularly rapid growth period in science and technology, especially perhaps in industry, and in the

Science Council of Canada universities which must produce the manpower for the envisaged expansion of all science.
A particularly difficult and complex problem in the modern age is to determine the priority that should be accorded to the growth of a particular branch of science or technology at a given time for the optimum benefit of the country. It is obvious that Canada, with its limited means, cannot afford full support to all areas of science and consequently we must, during the period of rapid growth that lies immediately ahead, utilize our physical and human resources to the best advantage by exercising a degree of selection and making a resolute effort to determine the areas upon which support should be concentrated, while at the same time availing ourselves of the experience of other countries. It is our hope that the Science Council will undertake to develop basic concepts which will serve as guides for the allocation of these resources.
In this respect the Council will provide advice to the government upon which policy in respect of science and technology can be established. It will be the duty of the Council to assess in a comprehensive manner Canada's scientific and technological resources, requirements and potentialities and to make recommendations thereon to the minister. The Council will be advisory only and will have no direct authority over expenditures or budgets of any government department or agency.
Whatever policies may be adopted for the future of science in Canada, one thing is certain, that unless there is a sufficient number of well trained, intelligent and enterprising personnel skilled in the exploration and application of science the desired objectives will not be achieved. The effective development and utilization of scientific and technological manpower will be a primary concern of the Council.
As science is but one of the several components of modern society that together determine the course of human affairs, any studies that are made to determine the role and the objectives of science must inevitably take into account the possible effects on the society in which we live. Matters such as public health, employment patterns, the safety and survival of communities, the enjoyment of liesure and of old age, the philosophy of culture and of law, the entire fabric of the economy and many others can be profoundly affected by scientific and technological change
March 17, 1966

Science Council oj Canada whether internal or international. The Science Council in delineating feasible objectives will be expected to consult and collaborate with other agencies and organizations in different fields to ensure that fullest consideration is given to the correlation of its objectives with the broad spectrum of social needs.
Science, in its many ramifications, has within it the potential to serve not only individuals but communities and the entire nation by providing better living, new employment opportunities, easier communication and countless other social and economic advantages. But the complex problem of determining the attainable objectives and of defining the role that science and technology can play will require for its solution the serious attention of enlightened, intelligent and public-spirited people who are aware of the implications of science in our economy and our society. We earnestly believe that the Science Council of Canada as it is now proposed will provide a particularly effective means of obtaining factual information and thoughtful opinions and of correlating them to form a most suitable background for the formulation and construction of government policy.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, in rising to support the resolution the minister has just put forward in the name of the government, let me just say that we on this side of the house really feel that the government and all parliamentarians have a real and active role to play in encouraging what we recognize as individual and national excellence. I think that if we support the resolution the minister has put forward in a real and tangible way, we will have moved at least one step forward in encouraging in this nation individual and national excellence. To my mind individual and national excellence means one thing, that as legislators we should expect nothing but the best from our nation and each and every citizen in our country which we call Canada.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Tonight I think I speak for all members on this side of the house when I say that while we recognize there is much yet to be done we should be very proud of the role which the National Research Council in this country has played in the past. I think the minister will agree that this is a Council of which Canadians should be very proud. We should also be proud of the role that our scientists have played in general, apart from the role 
the National Research Council has played in particular.
In my brief remarks this evening I should like to touch on an idea mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the House of Commons a few nights ago. We in Canada living north of the United States of America, a country which has the highest standard of economic living in the world, are in a particular vulnerable position. It seems to me that in attempting in an economic sense to keep up with the Jones, we invariably enter into areas of activity into which we in fact have no business to go. The facts of everyday life dictate that living north of the United States we in Canada are obliged both at home and abroad to enter into various fields of activity, economically, politically and, if you will, socially.
However, too often we pay attention to the bigness of our ventures rather than the quality of our enterprises, and it is for this reason I am most interested in the fact that in his very good speech this evening the minister used the word "selection". This will be one of the jobs of this council.
I believe that rather than paying attention to the bigness of our ventures we should base our national activities on the idea of individual and national excellence, and we should moreover underline specialization and selectivity. Specialization and selectivity should keynote our national approach to economic ventures. I am very glad the minister mentioned the word "selection" tonight because it does fit in with the general remarks I have to make.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, we should support the idea of individual and national excellence, and we should go on to support the resolution, the work of the National Research Council and the endeavours of this new body which the minister is setting up, as well as the endeavours of Canadian scientists.
The minister has very ably said this evening that in a country like Canada, which has vast resources but a small population spread out from Atlantic to Pacific, we must select the areas of scientific activity which we are going to support. But this is a very difficult thing to do. Because of this fact it is impossible for us to give the kind of support to all the scientific endeavours which we should like to give at the present time.
However, with this in view, I would put before the house the suggestion that as a country up until now we have not allowed-I
March 17. 1966	COMMONS
do not blame any government entirely tor this-sufficient importance to be placed on the support of scientific research in Canada. It is my belief that the government and the country that does not support adequately enough scientific research is merely killing the goose that lays the golden egg. For every dollar spent to assist a scientist in Canada, the United Kingdom spends $5 and the United States government $10 to $15.
In my short remarks this evening on this resolution, while I am not going to enter into a debate on this question, I realize it is of very great concern to the minister that this country is faced with a scientific brain drain. We have listened to both sides of the question, and I will be the first to admit to the government that it is a very difficult problem to discuss and resolve especially this evening. But I think that on balance this country is faced with a brain drain of scientists who are seeking employment outside of Canada. It is not an easy problem to solve, but I suggest that support of this resolution would help the minister to find a solution to this problem which is presently facing the nation.
I hope I will not be out of order if I refer to another reserach council which falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry. I am referring to medical research, a matter which I hope will receive priority. The other night I mentioned in the house that in my view, Canada is facing a very serious shortage of doctors. Approximately the same number of medical graduates graduated from our medical schools last year as were leaving ten years ago. Yet, some 400 of the 1,000 medical graduates who graduated from our universities last year left the country. At the same time hundreds of qualified students are being turned away from our medical schools. Why? The reason is we lack teachers.
Why do we lack teachers in our medical schools? And I am told that if we are going to have enough teachers by 1970, excluding all considerations relating to medicare, we will need 2,000 medical teachers for our medical schools. At the moment we have only 1,000. In the United States last year, 90 per cent of the assistance given to scientific research in medical schools originated from the federal government and amounted to approximately $1,300 million.
Contrast this with the state of affairs in Canada, where governmental assistance amounted to about $15 million. I am not blaming the government for this. There has been a long tradition of inadequate assistance
DEBATES	2851
Science Council of Canada in this field. Therefore I hope one of the priorities in this new study will be medical research. Otherwise our teachers as well as our medical students will flee to the United States, and Canada sooner than later-and I say much sooner than later-will be faced with a crisis owing to our shortage of doctors. This is just another reason we should underline the urgency of this timely resolution which has been placed before the house by the minister this evening.
I cannot help but introduce this oomment at this time. A few weeks ago when I was in New York state testifying before the legislative committee on automobile safety, many of the legislators and officials in New York state felt that the National Research Council had a real role to play in assisting them in the United States in the final completion of their prototype safety car. I think this matter should be of great interest to the Minister of Industry, who already knows about it. If the Council does play this kind of role I am sure that many benefits both direct and indirect will redound to our nation in general.
I have touched upon just a few specific topics, Mr. Chairman, relating to this important resolution the minister has put before us tonight. I hope my brief remarks will only go to underline the fact that this resolution merits the support of every member in every corner of the house.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, some ministers welcome comments on resolutions which they sponsor; other ministers presumably do not. I hope this minister is not in that latter category because I should like to make some comments on the resolution before us relating to the establishment of a Science Council for Canada.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It is pretty difficult to visualize just what will be the eventual role and function of this Science Council, beyond noting what was said by the minister in his opening remarks on the resolution. Certainly, in so far as this measure goes it receives the support, I am sure of almost all members because there is a crying need in this country for expanded science research facilities and capabilities, if we are to be able to say that we are doing our best to improve our industrial productivity, economic efficiency and so on.
The second annual report of the Economic Council of Canada makes it pretty clear, Mr. Chairman, that the industrial development of our country depends directly on the quality and quantity of our institutions of education and scientific research.
March 17, 1966

Science Council of Canada
Through the provincial governments of this country we have been accelerating our efforts in education. However, I am not so sure about the scientific research aspect, and our responsibilities toward that aspect in the 1960's, because I have gained the impression from the few journals I have read that Canada is somehow lagging behind other countries in the expansion of science research institutions and facilities.
If we are really concerned, as I believe we are, about our industrial productivity-and this is the term we hear so often in this house and across the country-and if we are really concerned about our competitiveness in the export markets of the world; if we are really concerned about the adequacy of our scientific and industrial research capability, and if we are really concerned about the so-called brain drain, which is another term we hear so much about, the federal government must lead the way in expanding the size and scope of our post graduate institutions in their role as centres of scientific research.
Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is that scientific research should not be regarded, as it seems to have been regarded up to now, as something almost exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces. This whole matter is related to education. I suggest that the time is ripe for the federal government to assert a greater degree of leadership in helping to expand scientific research facilities in Canada.
I believe there are several compelling reasons why the federal government should be taking the lead, and I do not think that the establishment of an advisory council type of project is adequate to the task that lies ahead.
What are some of these obvious reasons to which I have alluded? What are some of these obvious reasons why the federal government should undertake greater responsibility in this field? One reason, Mr. Chairman, is obvious. It is that scientific research is a costly proposition. Therefore attempts should be made to avoid duplication and overlapping as between the different universities under different provincial jurisdictions. Another reason is that if there were greater federal leadership, if there were federal coordination, specialization in scientific research could be effected. There must be specialization as between the different institutions that go in for science research. It seems to me that we have to attempt to obtain the economy of 
scale and the economy that comes with specialization in research. This can be achieved to a much greater degree if there is federal leadership.
I would put forward yet a third reason, Mr. Chairman. That is, that our industrial productivity and export positions are matters relating to our entire Canadian economy. It follows therefore that industrial or applied science research, as it is sometimes called, must be national-economy oriented. However, industrial research or applied science research in turn is dependant upon the research that is carried on in our postgraduate science faculties, because it depends for its personnel on the academic centres, especially on the universities. Those academic centres must turn out, and must graduate scientists. Some of those will stay in the academic community. Some of them obviously would then be available for our industrial research centres.
Canada has not been doing very well at all so far, Mr. Chairman. The previous speaker made some references to scientific research performance in Canada, as compared with that in the United States and Great Britain. One reason why we have not been doing too well in this country is that many of our people upon graduation leave for the United States. There is greater opportunity in the United States for them. It is contended by some people that this so-called brain drain is somehow counterbalanced by the immigration into Canada of scientists from Europe, and particularly from Great Britain.
I would submit that the scientists and personnel that we do get from the old country are, for the most part, at a lower level of achievement in their careers than those leaving Canada for the United States. Men holding degrees at the doctorate level leave Canada for the United States. People at the bachelor level in science emigrate to Canada from the old country. Canada is losing all the while. This has to do with lack of opportunity here.
In the minute or two left before ten o'clock I should like to take an opportunity to quote some sentences from a letter written by a science graduate of Canada to the editor of the journal Physics in Canada. I quote:
Dear Sir:
In the near future I will be faced with the prospect of being forced to desert Canada (which will have "invested" over ten thousand dollars in my education) for the brighter research opportunities in the United States.
March 17, 1966	COMMONS
Unfortunately Canada's political elements seem to be unaware of the seriousness of the situation. I therefore suggest that it would do far more good to send this and similar articles directly to individual Members of Parliament-
-pointing out the problem.
For obvious reasons, Mr. Chairman, I need not name the writer.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Francis Andrew Brewin: This afternoon I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question about the Sedgwick report on immigration he tabled a few days ago. I am glad to take this opportunity to expand my question.
Mr. Sedgwick is an eminent lawyer. Whether he has any experience in immigration matters I do not know. His report contained some good suggestions, but there are other recommendations which cause great anxiety and I would urge the minister to repudiate them promptly. I refer to the recommendations in the report that sponsorship of immigrants be limited to spouses and minor children.
Members of this house will know that in recent years there have been two main streams of immigration. The first group has been selected on the basis of special skills and qualifications and has been based directly on economic motives. The second group has been admitted on social, family and humanitarian grounds. The basis of selection here has been on the ground of relationship to Canadian citizens and residents.
In his report Mr. Sedgwick makes a derogatory reference to large numbers of what he calls unskilled and functionally illiterate adults who have come to Canada through the sponsorship movement. If he were more aware of the facts he would know that a very large number of these sponsored immigrants have become established in a whole series of useful occupations and have made a useful contribution to this country.
The admission of unskilled immigrants to Canada in the past was due to deliberate
DEBATES	2853
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion government policy of selection, when it was thought advisable to seek unskilled labour to do some of the jobs Canadians did not care to do. I protest that Mr. Sedgwick's suggestion would practically eliminate considerations of family obligation and humanity, from our immigration policy.
In my view an attempt to base our immigration policy solely on economic considerations and to eliminate family and humanitarian considerations would be unworthy of Canada. It would, for example, prevent sons or daughters bringing their aged parents to this country, though they might well be in a position to do so. It would prevent the possibility of a successful immigrant bringing over his children, if they were over 21, or his grandparents, or orphaned children from Hong Kong-a case I have in mind.
The whole trouble is that Mr. Sedgwick maintains a restrictionist mentality. He keeps on saying that no alien has a right to come to Canada. He ignores the clear intention of parliament, as expressed in the present act, to give a limited statutory right to persons who are qualified and who do not fall within the prohibitions in the act or in the regulations. He apparently does not know that this has been pronounced by the Chief Justice of Canada who specifically referred, in one particular case, to the statutory right to bring qualified persons to Canada.
I hope the minister will give us an assurance that the government has no intention of preventing Canadian citizens who have the means to do so from bringing close relatives to Canada other than husbands, wives and minor children. If he gives this undertaking he will relieve a great deal of anxiety, for there are many people in Canada who look forward to bringing members of their family here when the time comes to do so. I hope the minister will use his good judgment in accepting the good parts of the report and rejecting the bad parts, which include the basic philosophy that parliament has given no rights in the field of immigration.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, a generous humanitarian immigration policy is not only in accordance with humanity but is also in Canada's own best interests. I hope the minister will be able to give us assurances on this matter.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned this afternoon, following the
March 17. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Sedgwick report, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration prepared a brief which has now been submitted to the cabinet.
The point he raised is extremely important. I know to what extent it can affect a great number of Canadians. It is a point we shall consider very earnestly and closely. Unfortunately, I cannot give him the assurance he is asking for tonight without prejudice to the cabinet's decision. I do not think I should give any further reasons. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) understands very well that in the house, outside the cabinet, I cannot commit myself on behalf of the government.
We have based ourselves on two criteria: professional skills and qualifications, and the second one, sponsorship, that is, by the immigrant in Canada who, according to our statutes, was entitled to send for his relatives. I believe that the second point, namely, sponsorship, should remain one of the basic criteria of our immigration to Canada.
We are not accepting machines, they are men with problems, men with relatives. In short, this might seem a bit ridiculous, but if Canada needs an engineer and finds one in Germany, if the latter finds out after getting here that he is unable to send for his mother whom he was supporting back in Germany-some provisions may seem very harsh, but at any rate this is a very sensitive matter and I regret to be unable to give him the assurance he is asking for.
On the other hand, I can assure him that I shall consider with a great deal of attention the remarks he made tonight.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-ATLANTIC REGION-STEPS TO IMPROVE UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Queens.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I note that neither the Minister of Labour nor his parliamentary secretary is present. I assume this is inadvertent rather than studied discourtesy. I will address myself to one of the minister's colleagues, in this case.
Time after time we have read with anxiety and concern the unemployment figures which reveal that in the Atlantic area the unemployment index stands at twice the national average. Figures released today show 10.9 as against 3.2 and 3.4 for Ontario and for the 
Prairies. These regional disparities are not and should not be the concern of only those who come from the Atlantic region; they should be of concern to the whole national economy.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
As the Economic Council so rightly points out in page after page, it is one of their great priorities, as they see it, to do something to rectify the imbalance. So, if the Prime Minister were here and recalled his admonition to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) to be grateful for what the government had done, we would say in reply that this is not one area which makes us burst with gratitude. There has been insufficient attention to this problem, and on occasion definite acts and actions have aggravated and exacerbated the difficulty, such as the closing down of the enamel heating plant at Charlottetown, the closing down of the naval training centres, and the failure to move with rapidity on the much heralded $25 million grant to the ailing mining industry of Cape Breton, something with which my colleagues from the other island have acquainted the house many, many times. I should not like to bewail the past, but to urge whichever minister is going to reply and is going to take an interest in this matter that he, or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), set out in terms of high priority an effort to remove the Atlantic region from this painful and persistent economic inequity which we have undergone for so long. I should like him to move forward on many fronts in co-operation with his colleagues in an effort to do something about this chronic state of high unemployment.
I could suggest to him that he seek to motivate his colleague, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), to get ARDA finally off the ground. I could suggest that the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) finally move and make the whole region a designated area under his legislation.
I might suggest, too, let us use a little imagination and realize that certain antiinflationary measures in other parts of the country are just as possible of being helpful to the Atlantic region. We need further acceleration of certain building projects. This is something that can be done without alteration to legislation, but with a little more common sense in administration. We want building projects further accelerated, not retarded; and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. March 17, 1966	COMMONS
Mcllraith) could be very helpful in this regard. We would like national establishments to be centred more in the Atlantic region, and the federal government can assist in the decentralization of industry. I should like more attention paid to our natural trading advantages.
Finally I invite the government to look upon this very painful situation, this blot upon the economic fagade of a great and prosperous country, and to call in others. This is a great government for conference and inquiry. I ask that it get together with the Atlantic premiers, who are setting a fine pattern of co-operation. I should like the government to call a meeting with the premiers, with the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and the Atlantic Development Board, which should have a great increase in its capital fund. I should like them to call a meeting with the appropriate ministers of the Atlantic region, and there are only three of them now. I should like to see the minister look upon this one area as something in connection with which he, in his term of office, can show imaginative leadership and vigorous action. In this way he may do something about it, so that month after month we will not find the Atlantic provinces, where confederation began and whose presence in this was absolutely necessary, with these economic inequities under which we have laboured for 98 years.
I hope the minister will show some appreciative and appreciable area of amelioration and call upon the government to do these things. I am not interested in the Atlantic region aspect. I do not make comparisons with the circumstances of 1957, although they could be made; but I do say, in the name of the Atlantic region and, more particularly, in the name of a strong united Canada: Let us have some action.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this
DEBATES	2855
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion question can only be answered by the cabinet, because economic development involves not only the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or Manpower, but also the Department of Labour, and the Department of Finance, the Departments of Industry,. Agriculture and Forestry. Indeed, I think the whole cabinet is concerned.
Therefore, I shall set aside the remarks that were made and simply try to give a few ideas I have on the subject.
Among them, one I feel is of such significance, that among problems facing Canada some could, at a given time, bring about the dislocation of the country. Among these are not only the language problems and the problems of relations between ethnic groups, there are also the economic problems.
Canada, to my mind, cannot survive with areas not progressing at the same rate, or nearly at the same rate if you will, as the overall prosperity manifest in the rest of the country. In other words, for a country to hold together, the spread between the lowest and highest incomes must not be too large, as otherwise dislocation eventually occurs.
When the Maritimes are mentioned, I think it is justified, but a large part of Quebec should also be included, I mean everything south and east of Quebec City which economically, is more closely related to the economy of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island than to the general economy of Montreal and Ontario.
In any case, we really have a major problem here and I do not know what the budget holds in store for us, since even when you are a member of the cabinet, you are not told about all the secrets contained in the budget.
I do hope that the budget will take into account the points that were made and which, in my opinion, were very sound.

Friday, March 18, 1966