1966-03-03

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex East) presented the second report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to present the said motion?


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Speaker, if the motion is to apply to today only, I agree; but if it is for more than today, I refuse.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, this report applies to today only and its purpose is to enable the committee to complete the taking of evidence that was begun this morning. In general it is to enable this committee to carry out the duties entrusted to it by the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the unanimous consent of the house I move, seconded by Mr. Blouin:
That the first report of the standing committee on transport and communications presented to the house on Tuesday, February 22,	1966, be now
concurred in.
That report which was tabled was to allow the committee to sit while the house is sitting to enable representations to be heard from delegations from the Canadian Pacific Railway on a matter referred to that committee by this house on February 8, 1966. We anticipate that we will require this delegation to be here today and tomorrow, and perhaps next week, but I am asking for unanimous consent in regard to today and tomorrow only.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I gave last week when the adoption of the report of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs was 23033-1331 moved, I objected to the committee sitting when the house is in session. Today the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) asks again that the committee sit at the same time as the house. I think this would be nonsense; with the 22 committees we have, if all committee chairmen ask for the same permission, we will never have a sufficient number of members so that the house can sit.
We have a responsibility toward the House of Commons, and that is why I object. If the hon. member wants the committee to sit today and tomorrow, I see no objection to it. On the other hand, if he is trying to get permission to sit next week, I do object, because I feel that is not necessary.
I am told that C.P.R. officials have arrived; I could not care less, and the C.P.R. president can come back; he can spare the time. I would not object, however, if these people were from out of town. Similar requests have been made in the past and I have voiced my objection every time. I am just as much against it today as I was when in opposition. I was very happy to see that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) changed his mind so quickly to support me. If there is not enough time for committees, Wednesday afternoon sittings of the house should be cancelled to allow committees to sit. I have always objected to granting a blanket authorization in this regard, and I am objecting again today.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Hull that the hours of sitting of the committee should not be extended to while the house is sitting, particularly in view of the fact that we are sitting long hours in the house now and I think it would be rather foolish if we divided the strength of the house into committees at the same time.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, for the same reasons, I object to the committees sitting at the same time as the house. I remember quite well that, during the last election campaign, a minister criticized us for not attending committee sittings, but he forgot to say that committees were sitting
March 3, 1966

Committees of the House at the same time as the house. We were blamed at the time for not attending committee meetings while the house was sitting, and if the same policy is to be followed, steps should be taken to enable members to be present in the house and in the committees. On the other hand, we should not be asked to dislocate ourselves. We are already too few to be required to submit to dislocation and, besides, we do not suffer from that disease.
If the hon. member wants this permission only for today and tomorrow, that is fine with us, but if it is for a longer period, we object and we shall ask for a vote on the matter.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: So far as
we in this party are concerned we realize that while it may be a strain for some members to attend committee meetings while the house is sitting, at the same time we have to realize that it has been difficult to get all the business done during the session. So far as we are concerned, we are prepared to give consent to some of these committees to sit while the house is sitting because this privilege has not been abused. I believe the only time this permission has been used extensively has been when witnesses have been called to Ottawa from long distances. Certainly we should be able to do that.
However, if there is a great deal of objection to giving blanket permission for the balance of this session, then I would think there probably is a misunderstanding, and perhaps the mover of the motion would agree to have that motion apply to today and tomorrow only. Following that there should be some negotiation between what is called the usual channels to see if we cannot arrive at some agreement with respect to what we are going to do with these motions to allow the committees to meet while the house is sitting.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West can only speak a second time with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member on this side of the house who objected had listened to the motion, I only asked that it apply today and tomorrow. I asked for unanimous consent for the committee to sit today and tomorrow because we do have the president, the vice president and other officers of the Canadian Pacific here with us now.
[Mr. Gregoire.l


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member should have leave to amend the motion so that the report will be to the effect that the committee can sit today and tomorrow?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, if I may, with all due respect I did not move for blanket consent. I moved that the committee sit for today and tomorrow only.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Translation1


Alexis Pierre Caron: With the amendment that was introduced? Mr. Speaker, if the motion is amended as mentioned, I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West has explained very clearly that the motion is to take effect today and tomorrow only. This is the motion which has been agreed to by the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. S-2 (from the Senate), to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to inform the house whether the cabinet, having met, has come to a conclusion regarding the request I had made several times for the setting up of a royal commission to inquire into the ramifications of international crime in Canada. I would ask him whether he has communicated with any of the provinces to secure co-operation in this regard, and whether he does not believe that the almost unbelievable circumstances of the theft of gold yesterday in Winnipeg adds further argument to the necessity for the fullest investigation of the crime situation.
March 3, 1966


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet has been considering this matter and will be considering it again. Alter the cabinet has given such further consideration, of course, and in the light of the consideration given, there would be a requirement to communicate with the provinces. After all, if this commission were set up it would be inquiring into the administration of justice in the provinces, for which the provinces would have responsibility. So it will be some time before I am in a position to announce a decision in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister say whether there has been any communication with the provinces, or any of them, to secure their co-operation in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are considering the matter as a government. When that consideration has been completed, or at the least the first part of it, we will then get in touch with the provinces.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Justice of Quebec has recommended such an inquiry by a royal commission made up of provincial and federal representatives? If so, does the Prime Minister envisage or fear that, in such a case, Quebec might withdraw from such a joint program after having proposed it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have learned about these considerations which have been advanced by the Minister of Justice of Quebec only from what I have read in the newspapers. No doubt I will get further information if and when we get in touch officially with the government of Quebec.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of our being reminded by news reports from the United Kingdom that a general election in that country can be held within three or four weeks, is the government considering proposing any amendments to the Canada Elections Act at this session so that particular kind of improvement, as well as other changes might be made in our own election machinery?
Inquiries oj the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a question which is so urgent that it requires an immediate answer on the part of the government. Perhaps it can be placed on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you sure, Mr. Speaker? [Later:]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Will the Canada Elections Act be referred to the committee on privileges and elections at this session for a study of possible amendments thereto?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the house Leader or members of the government, so I am not in a position to answer at this time.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does his suggestion last night in Regina, in which he expressed favour toward the recommendation of the Senate committee on aging that there be a guaranteed annual income for every Canadian citizen mean that he is intending to introduce such legislation in this house in the immediate future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this question is not of the same type as the one asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I doubt that it should be answered at this time.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised last night by the minister, and from his speech it seemed to be something which he was intending to implement immediately as government policy.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
ENCOURAGEMENT TO UNEMPLOYED TO WORK IN GOLD MINES On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the future minister of manpower. Since the shortage of skilled labour is one of the main reasons why a mine was said to be closing down this month in the Timmins area, could he tell the
March 3. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry house whether he intends to take steps to direct our Canadian unemployed toward the mining industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the question is of such a general nature that it could be put on the order paper.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the Minister of Industry I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is based on yesterday's announcement by President Johnson in which he asked that nation-wide safety standards for all vehicles be made mandatory if after two years the industry has not voluntarily adopted standards deemed necessary by the government.
My question is this. In view of the fact that codes relating to safety standards in motor vehicles are now being drafted by the government, can, the Prime Minster assure the house that the government will seriously consider such mandatory provisions for all motor vehicles produced in or imported into Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to look into this particular aspect of the question, so that I may give him a reply as soon as possible.



REQUEST OF COUNCIL FOR INCREASED GRANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare; I have given him notice. In view of the fact that the Canadian Highway Safety Council has ambitious plans for the promotion of all aspects of highway safety, will the government give early assurance that a respectable increase in the grant will be forthcoming for that organization?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question be placed on the order paper.


Percy Verner Noble: I think this is important, because the council will be holding its annual meeting in May. It is a promotional meeting, and they want to know what funds will be available to them.


Mr. Speaker:: If the meeting to which the hon. member refers is to be held in the month of May, there is a chance he will get a reply.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Can the minister advise the house as to the manhunt at present going on for the bandits who stole a gold shipment at Winnipeg airport on Tuesday night?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is addressed to the Secretary of State. Will the minister recommend to the centennial commission that as a centennial project the grave of one of the fathers of confederation, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, be marked with a suitable monument, and that funds be provided for the upkeep of that grave in the future?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be put on the order paper.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker, and ask him whether instructions have been issued that Canada Pension Plan deductions must be made from payments to part time government employees such as members of boards of referees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, even in cases where those deductions are also being made from the individual's regular earnings.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into the matter of what instructions have been issued. Generally speaking all wages which are paid are subject to pension plan deductions. Any employee's overpayments be-
March 3. 1966

cause of having too much deducted by employers are refundable to the employee at the end of the year.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if there is not some way in which this duplication can be avoided, by means of the use of social insurance numbers. I thought this was one of the purposes in having them. I should also like to ask what is the rate of interest which is paid on these double deductions when they are refunded.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to look into the matter, to see whether there is a method of avoiding the duplication of deductions when people have two jobs, such as being members of parliament and having some other occupation. However, I do not think any easy method can be found for avoiding duplicate deductions.
I do not think overdeductions made during the year would be subject to any interest payment at the end of that year. I should like to point out to my hon. friend that the maximum deduction under the Canada Pension Plan is $79.20, and that the amount of interest on a total deduction of $79.20 spread over the year would not be very much during the year.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact still that the Unemployment Insurance Commission will not be able to recover the overpayments where duplicate payments have been made in respect of members of the boards of referees and other officials?


Edgar John Benson: Quite correct, Mr. Speaker.


John Angus MacLean: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if the Canada Pension Plan Act provides for duplicate or triplicate payments. I am interested in the legal principle of this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member realizes, he is asking for an interpretation of law with respect to a statute. I suggest that type of question cannot be asked at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Is the hon. minister aware that the newspapers of my region are reporting cases of death due to trichinosis, and if so, does his department intend to take emergency measures to prevent the spread of the disease?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member repeat his question? I was unable to hear it.


Mr. Mongrain:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare aware that the newspapers of my region are reporting cases of death due to trichinosis, and if so, does his department intend to take emergency measures to prevent the spread of the disease?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I understand that the provincial and municipal authorities are aware of this occurrence, and that the Department of National Health and Welfare will assist the province if requested to do so.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare; I have sent him notice. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation which would freeze contributions by workers to private pension plans affecting workers 45 years of age and over, restricting withdrawals of contributions to 25 per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the hon. member giving me notice of this question. I have looked into the matter, and though it affects my department it rests more directly with the Minister of Finance. I would be glad to take the question as notice for my colleague and let the hon. member have an answer later.



MONTREAL-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES AFFECTED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister.
March 3, 1366

Inquiries of the Ministry
Can he give to the house information about the fire which left 30 families homeless in Montreal this morning? Can the federal government help those striken families?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no doubt that this question is urgent to a certain extent, but only in a certain area and I suggest to the hon. member to communicate directly with the Prime Minister's office or to put his question on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister now in a position to answer the question I asked him a week ago with regard to conditions aboard the R.C.N. vessel Cape Scott?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I believe the report has now been received and I will be in a position to answer the question on Monday.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I like addressing questions to a compassionate lady who believes in justice. My question is based on a report that a Winnipeg C.B.C. producer was suspended from a program that was supposed to be uncomplimentary to German troops in Canada. He says he has been relegated to devotional programs to "contemplate my sins". Mr. Edmunds-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions
should not be prefaced by long statements. I would invite the hon. member to put his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just arrived at that point, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Edmunds mentions that the statement he made was that no doubt the Germans were glad to leave our prairie weather, and that some Canadians were glad to see them go. That was an objective and true statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Mr. Loiselle.l


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister investigate the circumstances surrounding the suspension of Mr. Edmunds from his program?


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



REPORTED STRIKE DEADLINE BY WRITERS AND PERFORMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question to ask the Secretary of State. Is the minister in a position to reply today to the question which her parliamentary secretary took as notice a few days ago, in relation to the dispute between the C.B.C. and some of its employees? I asked whether the minister could make a full statement with regard to the strike which is being proposed by the writers and performers.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been in touch with the president of the C.B.C. on this subject and can report the following to the house.
As has been reported, the president of the C.B.C. has wired Mr. Comor of ACTRA offering to meet with him informally tomorrow to explain the reasons behind corporation policy in regard to increased work opportunities for Canadian talent. Mr. Ouimet informs me that he is meeting Mr. Comor for lunch tomorrow.
Mr. Comor has, at the same time, sent a telegram to the Prime Minister requesting a meeting with various members of the government to discuss the situation. Consideration is now being given by the government to this request.
As to the issues in dispute, I think the house should note there is no disagreement over the basic principle involved, namely that increased work opportunities should be provided by the corporation for Canadian writers and artists. The corporation's agreement with this principle has been stated several times both by its board and its chief executive officers, and was implemented in the C.B.C.'s announcement of February 23 that it has committed an additional $850,000 of its 1966-67 operating budget to provide increased work opportunities for ACTRA members. This represents a very substantial increase, about 20 per cent, in funds committed to this specific purpose.
The point currently at issue is whether this public commitment should be formally written into the union contract as a work guarantee. The corporation, for its part, has taken the position that such a procedure would be
March 3. 1966

unacceptable in that it would limit essential program flexibility. The result of such a step, in the C.B.C.'s view, would be of real benefit neither to its performers nor to the listening and viewing public.
Mr. Speaker, that in brief is the current situation, I am informed.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: On a point of order, I respectfully submit that the Secretary of State has done an injustice to the bargaining procedure by making a statement in this house which sets out the reasons why the employer refuses to put something into a collective agreement, without at the same time telling us the reasons why ACTRA want it put into the agreement. I, as one member, object to this being done.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not referred to the standing order which the Secretary of State is supposed to have transgressed. I suggest there is no point of order. There may be an argument, but no more.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Would the Secretary of State advise the house whether there is an application before the Canadian Labour Relations Board for recognition of the Societe Generale de Cinema et de Television, and if so, what is the government's attitude toward such an application?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The urgency of this question is not readily apparent. I suggest the hon. member put it on the order paper.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter F. Foy (Lambton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister any up to date information on the progress of negotiations between O.C.A.W. and Polymer Corporation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I think I answered that question yesterday. Perhaps my hon. friend would look at Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Frank Foy: On a question of privilege, I was wondering whether the minister had some up to date information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think that inquiry merits an answer. At the request of the union
Inquiries of the Ministry concerned, a conciliation officer has been designated; he is probably in or on his way to Sarnia now following the matter up.


Walter Frank Foy: I appreciate that.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Thank you.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orliliow (Winnipeg North):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has reached a decision yet on the application of the railways for deferment under part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. If not, when will he be making that decision?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The matter is under study.


David Orlikow: Is the minister aware that in meetings with the unions concerned his deputy minister assured the unions that an early decision to end deferment would be made?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Of course I am familiar with the announcement made by my deputy, but I said a decision has not yet been made. When it is made it will be announced. [Translation]



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marlial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In a speech made in Montreal, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) stated that the government would make an announcement to the effect that bilingualism would be one of the criteria for promotion within the civil service.
Can the Prime Minister tell the house if the government intends to take such action soon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under consideration for some time by an interdepartmental committee. That committee has made its report, and the report has been considered by a cabinet committee of which I was chairman. The cabinet committee now will be reporting to the full cabinet, and I will be making a statement in this house on the matter next week.
2104	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



GHANA-INQUIRIES AS TO PRESENT POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has any information to confirm the news stories reporting that the deposed leader of Ghana has today been installed as the new leader of Guinea.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows there has been a loose constitutional relationship for some time between Guinea and Ghana, which are separated by the territory of the Ivory Coast. This loose constitutional relationship might now become a closer one, but we have no official information on this as yet.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Prime Minister concerning Ghana.


An hon. Member:: Not Guinea?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: No, not Guinea. In view of reports that nationals of certain countries are being asked to withdraw from that country, has there been any interference with Canadians in Ghana, or any suggestion that they be returned to this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of the latest information I have received there has been no interference with Canadians In Ghana.
Perhaps I should clarify my earlier answer when I spoke about the loose arrangement between Guinea and Ghana becoming closer.
I had in mind that there might be a closer relationship between Guinea and the former head of state of Ghana.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-*sioke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. In the light of the almost certain attempt of the former president of Ghana to return to his country, and in the event of hostilities ensuing between the present regime and his forces, is this government prepared to make any statement regarding its position in the event of such hostilities breaking out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question at this time appears to be hypothetical.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-
(Lennox): Mr. Speaker, my question also is

DEBATES	March 3. 1966
addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the government any plan or policy which will deal effectively with the rapidly rising cost of living which now is a hardship on so many Canadians of limited means?
Mr. Speaker:: The question is in very general terms and refers to a matter of policy, and should not be asked at this time.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State. In the light of the fact that the Board of Broadcast Governors will not be hearing the application for transfer of channel 3 on April 26, could the minister tell us whether the board will now call publicly for other bids in respect of this public channel?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker. My information is gleaned from the same source, I assume, as the hon. member's information; that is, the newspapers.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman any other plans for reform of the other place?


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Could the hon. lady inform the house whether she is aware of and taking any action in respect of the possibility of a demonstration by the members of the C.S.N. in Montreal, Quebec city or Ottawa?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know to what the hon. member refers; what demonstration?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the uncertainties surrounding regional air services these days, may we expect an announcement of policy from the government which would enable these services to maintain their present runs?
March 3. 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think not too soon.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with that announcement, would the minister consider the possibility of a subsidy to these regional air lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should think any reasonable proposal would have to be considered.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister referred to two letters which the government had received from its pen pal, Victor Spencer, and I asked whether the government would table those letters. Did the Prime Minister come to any decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The first communication signed by Mr. Spencer is one which could not possibly be tabled on security grounds and in the public interest.


John George Diefenbaker: To whom was it directed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was a statement directed to the officials who had conferred with him, and signed by Mr. Spencer. As my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition will understand, since he was Prime Minister, there are many things in this communication which could not be made public without prejudicing the security services of the state.
As I think I indicated yesterday, the other communication was addressed "To whom it may concern". It was a letter drafted by Mr. Spencer and made available to certain officers, doctors and nurses who had been looking after him. It was dated in January. Although I would have no objection to making it public, I do not think this could be done without Mr. Spencer's approval.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: January 15, 1966.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this question is supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Would the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government received any letter from Mr. Spencer's solicitor in Vancouver at about the same time as the letter of January 15, and whether that letter has as yet been answered; and if not, when it is intended to answer it.
Committee of Supply


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the only communication I received-although I would be glad to check the files-from his solicitor concerning the Spencer case was one requesting the order in council which dealt with the dismissal. That was answered and the order in council was sent to him.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Perhaps the Prime Minister said this and I may not have heard him. Would the Prime Minister look into the question of whether the solicitor followed up that letter with another letter asking for a further explanation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to look into that and consult my colleagues who might have received something.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and is further to my question which I asked on February 22. I wonder whether the minister has looked into the possibility of an inquiry into the passenger transportation service given by the C.N.R. on la Baie de Chaleurs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did direct the hon. gentleman's previous inquiry to the appropriate authorities and I have not yet received a report, but I will make inquiries.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who is the Acting Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and who we understand is going to assume the responsibility for these estimates today, intends to make an opening statement? I may say that we urge him to do so because I think it would have the effect of shortening the debate and that is the desire of all hon. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I misled the committee inadvertently last night when I tried to guess who would be the acting minister. I thought it would be the

March 3, 1966
Committee of Supply
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I now think it is the Minister without Portfolio. I do, however, stand by my statement of last night in that the Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources is perhaps the greatest expert on water in the house. I am sure he will be glad to assist the second greatest expert, who is the Minister without Portfolio, and I know that in that event the house will be well illuminated on the subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, can we have it clear what the order of business is for the day? According to Hansard of yesterday we were supposed to revert to the estimates of the Department of Justice today. I know that the government house leader spoke to me during the lunch hour as to the possibility of making a change but it seems to me that we should have it regularized. We in this party were expecting to go back to the justice estimates today and if we had a choice that is what we would be doing.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, I readily admit that there is some real ground for confusion as to which estimates were to be called first today. Unfortunately I had to leave the chamber last night before the adjournment. A good deal of discussion took place in my absence and matters took a change with a rather different outcome than I had anticipated.
Perhaps I can clarify this matter now in an effort to move forward in an orderly way. I should say that we will first be calling the estimates of the Departments of Mines and Technical Surveys, Northern Affairs, Labour, and Citizenship and Immigration. In view of what I believe is the wish of some hon. members I will undertake that we will call the estimates of the Department of Justice first tomorrow, when we reach the stage of calling estimates, regardless of which estimates we have before us when we adjourn tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if that undertaking is as clear as I understand it, namely that no matter which estimates we are considering at the adjournment tonight we will take up the estimates of the Department of Justice as the first estimates to be considered tomorrow, we will be happy with that arrangement.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I have indicated the first four departments we propose to call today, but I should like to feel free to
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
call any of the other departments except justice later in the day. I will be in consultation with the leaders of the parties during the afternoon as to what estimates we should call after the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr.   Kindi@: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the house leader whether he thinks it is correct and proper to consider the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys in the absence of the minister.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it is for several reasons, the main reason being that the matter was settled yesterday by the members of this house. That having been done, I think it is completely correct and proper for these estimates to go forward without the minister being present.


Mr. Slarr:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may say a word or two on this matter. I fully agree with the government house leader that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves now, where there is a willingness to make a co-operative effort to try to deal with these estimates, we almost have to schedule ourselves from day to day depending on the circumstances. It is quite agreeable to us to follow the program outlined. We realize the minister was not here but we agreed last night to another minister piloting these estimates through the committee. We are very happy that the young Minister without Portfolio, with the assistance of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, will be able to get his feet wet today. We are agreeable to the program that has been outlined.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I must say that we are somewhat surprised at the turn of events.
In fact, we learn at this very moment that the first estimates coming up today are those of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and that after that we will consider those of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
We thought we would start with the Department of Justice and the government house leader did not deem it necessary to notify us. We have had no notice this morning that we would start consideration of the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and that we would then carry on with those of the Departments of
March 3, 1966
Northern Affairs and National Resources, Labour, and Citizenship and Immigration.
I think that, as far as the other departments are concerned, the government house leader would do well to keep us informed of what is happening, as otherwise there will come a time when we will have to object, if we are given only two minutes notice about the business of the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we do want to co-operate with the minister and go on right away to consideration of the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, but the house leader has known for a few days that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) would be away from Ottawa.
Why did he or the government not allow the house to consider the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys while the minister was here?


An hon. Member:: That is what we wanted to do yesterday.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, that should have been done at the time because it was known beforehand that the minister would be away.


David Lewis: We tried.


David Réal Caouette: As I have just said, we do want to co-operate, but the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is quite right when he asks that we be advised beforehand about the business that the house leader wants us to consider.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should clear up two or three matters. First of all, on February 9 the expected absence of these ministers was announced, so that members of the house could have that information. I have tried my best to call the estimates of the various departments in a way that would be agreeable to most members of the house and I worked as closely as I could in co-operation with the house leaders to arrange a suitable sequence. Having said that, I have to plead guilty to the latter charge of not having advised the house leaders in time as to what department we would call first. But I must say that my difficulty in that connection was very real, because I did not know this morning what departments we would call or in what order they would be called. I could not very well advise anyone about something I did not know. I apologize, however, for any embarrassment which this
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys arrangement for today may have caused hon. members.



DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS

[Stage Direction]
Administration services-
1. Departmental administration, including the administration of the Explosives Act and Canada's fee for membership in the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History, $2,506,600.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, now that we
have settled the question of what business we will actually be dealing with I hope we may expect that before too long the government will settle the question of which ministers are responsible for the various aspects of business. It seems to me that we have seen today an example of the hopeless and confused state of administration on the part of the government. One can but hope, bearing in mind the important matters and problems that are confronting us, that this situation will be cleaned up as soon as possible. I do not know whether we are supposed to expect answers from two ministers. I see that the senior acting minister is leaving so I suppose- [DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Churchill:: He is coming in again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I beg his pardon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You will have a double dose.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it that the two ministers, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Minister without Portfolio, will be answering questions. I should like to repeat my question, which I thought was a simple one although it gave rise to a good deal of rather confused discussion. Does either of the ministers propose to make an opening statement with respect to the work of the department and particularly with respect to the policies which will guide the government as it sets up and administers the new Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to thank members of the committee for having permitted us to proceed in this way. I am quite certain that all of us regret very much that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has been called away today. The Minister without Portfolio and myself will do our best to deal with the estimates and endeavour to answer all the questions put to us.
The only preliminary statement I would make, and it will be very short, is that I

2108	COMMONS DEBATES	March 3. 1966
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys think there is general agreement in the house, and certainly I feel there is in the country, that there is a great advantage in bringing together under one department the consideration and administration of the resources of Canada so far as they come within the federal responsibility.
We are a resource rich nation and I would remind my hon. friend from Kamloops, who knows this as well as I, that in the field of resources those resources which lie within each separate province are jealously guarded by the province concerned. After all, the resources that lie there are their main sources of revenue; they are the main means by which they can develop industry and enhance the economy within their own provincial boundaries. It would be unusual, indeed I think we would agree that the provinces would not be doing their duty if this were not the case, if they did not keep a jealous eye on their resources.
However, from a national point of view we must recall that the resources of Canada were not shared equitably when they were placed by divine Providence. We must remember too that there are tremendous advantages in using these resources as broadly as we possibly can and living off of them within Canada without importing by extending the products of resources, for example, power, to more than one province. Therefore there is a very great place for a national policy, national incentives and national leadership.
That being the case, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister decided in co-operation and consultation with the ministry to put the resources of Canada in their national context under one minister. I wish to compliment that particular minister because he has been placed in charge of a most interesting department dealing with falling water, electrical energy, thermal energy, atomic energy, the possibility of having strings of wire across this country serving more than one province and the study of the rivers of Canada. Again, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kamloops and I are very conscious of those values to the provinces themselves since we come from British Columbia where we think we have a potential in excess of 30 million kilowatts of falling water electrical energy alone. We have in recent years gone a very great way forward in supporting the provinces in these fields and I am quite certain that with the new dispensation in respect of the department we shall move forward very quickly indeed.

I think there is general agreement within the house that the new minister is young, energetic and extremely able. I believe he will develop this department very well indeed and to the great credit of Canada. What we want to do, in all these matters, without invading the rights of any province, is to bring together the collective advantages of the resources that lie within the provinces and utilize them in such a way in a national sense that, hopefully, they will mean more than a simple addition to the resources within the various provinces. That is our objective, of course.
I wish to pay a compliment now, as I have before, to the work of one of my predecessors who in 1961 convened the resources conference in Montreal. I have said, and I say again, that I wish this great report were required reading for every Canadian because there is contained in it a tremendous amount of valuable information concerning all Canadian resources.
I hope the new minister will redouble the efforts we have made in recent years to bring together the resource ministers of the 10 provinces and keep in constant touch with them in order to get their co-operation, add together the collective resources of the individual provinces and by a national and purposeful policy make them more valuable than they are today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for having made this statement although I would wish it might have been somewhat more enlightening as to the bases upon which this policy is to rest. I think this would have been helpful in that we do not wish to prolong debate at this stage for a variety of reasons but we would like to have had a statement on the position of the government. Such a statement could have been considered in the meantime and would have served as a starting point in considering the estimates of the year 1966-67 when they come before us.
In light of the fact that we are prepared to extend our co-operation with respect to expediting the passage of these estimates, I think we might well have been favoured with a somewhat more detailed statement of the position.
However, perhaps we can leave it on the basis that during the course of what I have to say I will serve notice as to areas which we feel are of greatest concern and which we will discuss when the new estimates are before us. At that time we shall expect the
March 3, 1966

fullest information. We take this position because we do not feel we should take very long in the discussion of these estimates. After all, although we have a new minister these are the old estimates for the year 196566. Eleven-twelfths of them have now been spent. We intend therefore to leave the main discussion for the 1966-67 estimates, at which time I think the new minister, to whom we extend the best of personal good wishes as he undertakes these very important responsibilities, will perhaps be more fairly expected to be thoroughly conversant with the matters about which he will be questioned.
But we are dealing here with what is one of the most important fields included within the area of government responsibility. We therefore do not intend just to pass this subject by without stating some of the considerations which we think should apply in developing policy in this field. After all, Mr. Chairman, the field of resource policy, which embraces the whole complex and vital area of water use, the area of energy development, distribution and marketing, the area of mines and minerals development and the policy regarding the disposition of the products of the mine-all this comprises a policy field which to no country is more vital than to Canada.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
For it is true that in this area there lies the potential for Canada's future greatness. It is also an important and basic truth that in wise policies and only in wise policies for the development and conservation of our resources in these areas lies the answer to the question of whether we shall have a Canadian identity and continue in the future to exercise control of our own affairs. In the existence or in the absence of such wise policies lies the answer to the question of whether or not we slide down the slope called continentalism into the extinction of anything which might be called nationhood on the basis of which we could have a separate Canadian identity.
This is the vital question, the solution to which I feel lies in the fields we are discussing today, the fields of energy, mines and resource development and the development of policies which should govern those fields. We will naturally be expected to watch the government and to watch the new minister with the greatest interest, and we are entitled to expect from the new minister and the government an early and full declaration of the policies and the principles which will guide
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the new department which has the opportunity to play such a fundamental role in the future of Canada. We shall then serve notice now as to some of the areas about which we will expect full discussion and action by the time the estimates for 1966-67 are before us. I should also like to lay down on behalf of the Conservative party some of the principles that we feel should guide the development of policy in this field.
We feel, first, there should be the earliest possible assessment of Canada's full potential in terms of resources and of Canada's full potential requirements for those resources. After all, a knowledge of your inventory and a knowledge of your needs is the cornerstone of any sound policy. We hope, therefore, to receive assurances that there will be, by means of the conference of resource ministers and other agencies, the earliest and most aggressive pursuit, in co-operation with the provinces, of the completion of the inventory of Canada's storehouse and of the inventory of Canada's present and future requirements.
Second, we urge upon the government that all policy and action in this field be based upon the general principle of conservation to meet Canada's known and potential requirements. There should be a statement of the perimeters of these requirements and of this principle as the basis upon which all Canadian policy will be founded, and without it there should be no negotiation or consideration of negotiation for the disposition of these resources beyond our borders.
Third, and equally important, of course, as a cornerstone of policy in this field, is the necessity of the utmost co-operation with the provincial governments in every aspect of resource development policy. This has been alluded to by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and I confirm my complete agreement with him in his statement of that position. I think it is important not just to say we intend to co-operate but that we should avoid taking any position in this area, especially publicly, which appears to involve a statement of federal policy and objectives in an area which lies within provincial jurisdiction before the matter has been discussed fully with the provinces. 1 think it is not unnatural that the provinces are expressing concern about these matters and about the future of confederation when they find that so frequently the federal government is stating publicly its objectives and its positions on matters which are also of provincial concern, without such discussion. I
March 3, 1966
2110	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys have referred to this matter before and I am not going to go into detail again. But such a course naturally rouses the greatest resentment on the part of the provinces and is the one thing calculated to frustrate co-operation rather than advance it.
Fourth, sir, I would lay down as a basic principle which should serve as a guidepost of policy the co-ordination of federal agencies and the working out of sensible, steady and progressive federal initiative for action. We have had some discussion already of the proliferation of agencies in the field of water use and control policy. I have a feeling there are similar examples of the proliferation of agencies and committees in many other areas of resource development and policy. Therefore I endorse, on behalf of the Conservative opposition the general statement made a moment ago by the minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources when he said that there was great advantage in bringing together in one department the consideration and administration of the resources of Canada in so far as they lie within the field of federal responsibility. That is an admirable statement of the purpose to be served in the setting up of the new Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Unfortunately, sir, it is a statement of purpose which far transcends the pattern already set by the actions which have been taken, from which we must gather what will be the final result. Here we come to the very important consideration of the details of administration in this field. Certainly we should have co-ordination of responsibility for the development of policy with respect to the resources of Canada gathered in one department and made the responsibility of one minister. But this is far from what we are going to have.
If you look at the Order in Council P.C. 1965-2284, contained in the Canada Gazette for January 12, which transferred to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, as he now is, responsibility for the administration, and duties and authority which we understand are to be his when legislation formally setting up the department is introduced and passed, you will find there is a very important and very substantial gap in the sphere of his responsibilities. A huge hole has been torn out of the side, as it were, of the structure which is here being erected.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I refer, of course, to the conspicuous omission from the sphere of the new minister's


responsibility of the whole of resource policy for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Just think of the implications of this, Mr. Chairman, in the light of what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said when he was making his statement about bringing together under one department consideration and administration of the resources of Canada in so far as they lie within the field of federal responsibility. The only area where the federal government has undivided and exclusive jurisdiction is in the territories, an area of vast importance in terms of the amount as well as the strategic importance, of the resources of Canada. Yet, sir, as I read this Order in Council-and I may say I checked this also with the minister's office-this whole area is to be left out of the responsibility of the person who will be minister of the new Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It will be left presumably with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Now I can well understand the conflict which has been going on here and I can well understand the position of my hon. friend who is a minister from British Columbia. I like to see him have a good deal of administrative responsibility. I also understand his reluctance to part with that responsibility. This is an important and a growing area; it is an area of increasing importance in the policies of the government of Canada. But it is illogical in the extreme-"illogical" is a mild word; a far stronger word would do-to allow personal considerations to govern the sound administration and sound outline of government policy.
In fact it is farcical, and I do not hesitate to use that word, to set up a department with a great fanfare and to say: We are now going to co-ordinate policy in the field of resource development, and then to carve out of it one of the most substantial and important areas, if not the most important area, in the field of federal responsibility, leaving the minister responsible for resource policy co-ordination and development with only part of the jurisdiction.
Compare what is happening, Mr. Chairman, with the expectations aroused by the Prime Minister when he was discussing the setting up of this department. I should like to refer to a report in the Toronto Star, which I do not think could be considered unfair to the
March 3, 1966

government. In its issue of December 18 last, there was the following:
A department of resources and energy.
The aim here is to bring all energy and resources affairs under one cabinet roof.
Certainly that is a logical and proper objective. The article continues:
At present they're scattered among a number of departments and ministers.
The new department-under Quebec's 41-year-old Jean Luc Pepin-will take on the job of producing a national water policy, and this involves the hot issue of exports to the water-hungry United States.
How can you have, Mr. Chairman, a national water policy administered by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys when one half of the responsibility, one half of the area of our water resources, is excepted from his jurisdiction? The article continues:
"One focus of federal responsibility is needed," said the Prime Minister in his announcement of the new department, "in order both to make possible closer co-operation with the provinces and with industry and to achieve a more integrated national (energy) policy."
What the Prime Minister said is a statement of fact with which we are all in accord. So why did he not carry this policy out? Why did he not set up a department which would reflect in fact the statement of principle he enunciated?
Let me make this quite clear, Mr. Chairman. It is not our suggestion that responsibility for the administration of northern lands or of lands in the territories should be taken from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and vested in the new Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. But we do say that the responsibility for the development and co-ordination of policy in the resource field-responsibility in the whole field of resources embraced within the compass of this new department-should come within the purview of the minister of that department.
There is nothing new in the idea of responsibility for the development and coordination of policy being with one minister, and the detailed administration being with another. I want to make it clear that we do not suggest that the new department be burdened with or have added to it the responsibility for the administration of northern lands or resources. But we do say that it is incongruous, that it is a contradiction in terms, in purpose and in fact, to say that you will set up a department responsible for the development of policy in the field of resources and
DEBATES	2111
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys energy and then to except from its responsibility with respect to policy probably one half, certainly a very substantial portion, of that field so far as it lies within the responsibility of the federal government. So I give notice now that unless the legislation setting up this department takes account of these views and includes responsibility for development and co-ordination of resources policy overall, it will fail to command our support.
There are a number of other areas with regard to which we think we should serve notice now. One is the field of hydroelectric power so far as it lies within the jurisdiction of the new department. Recently some very far reaching announcements in this field have been made, announcements which I am sure will have aroused a measure of approval and support on the part of all the people of Canada. I am sure that none of these is more characteristic in that respect than the announcement of agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba with respect to the Nelson River project. This announcement, in the light of the general information so far available as to the basis of agreement, has our full support.
Incidentally, we note that the exchange of letters between the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys on the one hand and the premier of Manitoba on the other does indicate that one of the objects of the arrangement is to ensure that from this great project there will be a potential supply of power to neighbouring provinces, the immediate ones being, of course, Saskatchewan to the west and Ontario to the east. This brings to mind at once some questions in the field of power development which we think important to raise now, because the relationship of the Nelson river project to these questions typifies the situation which we find in many parts of Canada.
We are in full support of the Nelson River project and we will support its implementation and completion at the earliest possible date. But we are critical of the federal government because the government has not made clear its ultimate plans and intentions. We believe we in this house are entitled to, and the country requires, an early statement on ultimate plans and intentions not only with respect to the Nelson River project but also with respect to the whole question of power production and distribution in Canada generally.
Again bearing in mind that this must be a co-operative field so far as resources within
2112	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys provincial jurisdiction are concerned, there is nevertheless urgent need for the federal government to work out with the provinces a policy and to let us know how these great projects such as the Nelson fit into that policy, particularly with respect to a national transmission grid.
Because we attach particular importance to this field we decided that it would be appropriate for me, on behalf of our party, to write a letter to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys before discussion of his estimates commenced today. I will be frank and admit that the letter did not give much notice and therefore I will not complain if no full answer is given. Indeed, we have now agreed to leave detailed discussion of these matters until a more appropriate occasion but I think I should place on record now, so that it will be available and will be in context for consideration of the matter, the general outline of what concerns us here and the information which we think we should have.
I should like to quote from that portion of my letter in which I deal specifically with these questions. I start as follows:
Specifically, we would wish to receive information-possibly by way of an opening statement by you-on the following:
1.	Progress made in, and the present status of, studies of a national transmission grid, with specific reference to the current view of the feasibility of such a grid and any estimates of the timing and staging of its construction.
2.	The policy and plans of the federal government with respect to furthering the project.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
3.	The relationship between a possible national transmission grid and the Nelson River project, and an outline of plans for the integration of the Nelson River Project into the national grid.
4.	The same information as requested in paragraph 3 above, with respect to the Hamilton Falls (Brinco) Power Project. Have any discussions been held, or are any contemplated, with the provincial governments concerned in this regard? If discussion have been held, what has been the result?
5.	The same information as sought in the last two preceding paragraphs with respect to the Columbia and Peace Power Projects.
6.	What studies have been made of potential power development on the Yukon River? What is the present thinking on the integration of such developments into an east-west transmission grid?
7.	In the light of certain projections which seem to indicate that, as the market load requirements in Canada grow in the future, and as other sources of energy-including atomic power-become more available, hydro power will be used more for peaking purposes, it is important to obtain some factual-
The word in the letter is "actual" but it should be "factual".
-information as to the economic factors involved. Specifically, it would be desirable to have information as to the comparative costs (actual and

DEBATES	March 3, 1966
potential) of production and distribution of hydro power in the various regions of Canada; and as between Canada and the United States. It will be appreciated, therefore, if you will be prepared to answer questions in this field as well, in the course of the discussion of your estimates.
Sir, it may be that the minister will feel that he can give us some answers in this area now. I think he will agree with me that in the field of energy these are very important questions to have answered and that it is essential for the government to have an over-all program or plan and an over-all objective in mind with respect to the use of a national power grid, and to have this clearly concerted with the provinces in order that they may intelligently discuss and make arrangements with respect to that now and so that the various individual power projects as developed will fit into that concept.
One other area, sir, that perhaps should be mentioned is the area of water use and pollution. A number of questions have been asked in this session on orders of the day, I regret to have to say that so far most of these questions have not been answered. They have been met generally with such statements as "We are going to discuss that with the chairman of the International Joint Commission tomorrow" or "we will discuss it with the Ontario government next week" or "this is one of the matters which will come up for discussion with the government of the United States the week after next". But we have had no answers to our questions so that we might be able to discuss the problem here, in the House of Commons, this week.
We have not had any answers which have indicated an intention, for instance, to get on with the job of instituting a program of anti-pollution and de-pollution in the Great Lakes system. I certainly hope that this is one of the areas the minister will be discussing in Washington. This is one of the areas that he should have discussed two weeks ago with the government of Ontario rather than tomorrow or next week. I hope the government will lose no time in getting on with the discussion of this and other very important and pressing matters in the field of water use and pollution.
One could go on, Mr. Chairman, with an outline of the important considerations in the field of oil and gas development. We have seen again very important announcements made in the last 48 hours in this regard. I should like to ask the minister if he would let us know about that situation before these
March 3, 1966	COMMONS
estimates carry or perhaps answer this question. What, if any, further clearances at the federal level, either by the government or any agency of the government, are required in order to implement the applications to which reference has been made in the press recently, that of Trans Canada Pipe Lines Limited on the one hand and that of West Coast Transmission on the other.
The application of Trans Canada Pipe Lines Corporation is to build a line south of the lakes through to Sarnia and that of West Coast Transmission is to double or, as I am told, triple the rate of export of natural gas to El Paso. What further steps involving federal approval are necessary in these matters?
In view of the undertaking we gave to expedite the consideration of these estimates, and in view of the desire of other hon. members both in this and other parties to participate in the discussion, I think I should conclude now. There is a great deal more I had wanted to say. But I think I have said enough to convince the minister that we are expecting much from this department and from the co-ordination that should follow in the policy fields I have mentioned.
We shall be expecting much and we shall be holding the government very strictly accountable primarily because in the whole field, the field of wise plans for the early development and use of our resources on the one hand and the field of wise policies with respect to their conservation to meet the requirements of future generations on the other, lies the basic solution of the problem of whether Canada is to maintain her identity as a nation. I assure the government that we have every good wish for the success of the minister in his work but we shall be holding him strictly accountable in that light.
The only other matter I wish to mention is the responsibility of the department with respect to the Dominion Coal Board. My hon. friend from Cape Breton South has already indicated his intention to raise questions in this respect and with respect to the details of the implementation of the government's promise made at election time that $25 million would be available for Nova Scotia coal, a promise delivered in person by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be here to explain his promise and to answer with respect to its implementation, while my colleague from Cape Breton South takes it up in detail.
DEBATES	2113
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist once again congratulating the hon. member for Kamloops and the Progressive Conservative party for swinging in behind the New Democratic Party in support of our demand for a national water policy. It does my heart good to see us co-operating in this respect. I know other hon. members want to make a few remarks-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall have to reassess my position if I find the hon. member's party is such an ardent ally.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman need not reassess his position. He will be following a good lead. Like the hon. member, I should have liked to hear the minister give more information as to the government's purposes and objectives with respect to a national water policy. I realize the difficulties. The government must recognize the responsibilities of the provinces. There will be conferences and discussions and a water policy is not going to be devised overnight. I should like to have the minister tell the house what the government's purpose is and what its objectives are so far as the future is concerned. Like the hon. member for Kamloops-I am quite sure hon. members have heard me say this on a number of previous occasions-we believe that there is a necessity for an inventory of our water resources in Canada and an inventory of our needs for this generation and for some generations to come.
I want once again to pay tribute to General Andrew McNaughton who recently brought this matter to the attention of the Canadian people through an address to the Engineering Institute of Canada and, I think, to the Canadian Club in Montreal during the election. I notice that various candidates discussed the questions he raised more fully after his address. In that connection may I draw the attention of hon. members to an article written by Mr. Walter Stewart, found in the Star Weekly magazine of February 26, 1966. I want to quote briefly from the article because I think it says very succinctly what the hon. members for Kamloops and Kootenay West wish to say in this regard:
We were "skinned alive".
"With the knowledge that water is going up in value 10 or 15 per cent a year . . . the average over the 30 years (the first stage of the treaty) can certainly be taken at $10 an acre foot. To show you that's not unreasonable, the value of water today in a citrus field is about $70 an acre foot. So 15.5 million acre feet made available is $155 million a year-
March 3, 1966
2114	COMMONS DEBATES
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
The reference to $70 an acre foot is in the United States.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The value for power purposes was put at $501 million for 30 years, whereas if you take $155 million a year as the figure, even allowing the Americans a good discount because they are paying in advance, you'll find it works out to $2.65 billion over the 30 years.
"In other words, the consumptive uses of the water, which are not provided for in any way in the treaty, are worth five times more than the power benefits paid Canada."
I am glad to see that the house is not divided on this occasion and that the majority of the members here are not going to let this happen again so far as the disposal of our water resources is concerned.
Recently I had occasion to attend the annual meeting of the Royal Geographical Society. Professor Trevor Lloyd was the guest speaker. He gave what I thought was a most interesting address. I wish to quote briefly from it because he concluded by in effect supporting the approach taken by General McNaughton, an attitude which has been adopted by numerous other engineers in this country. His address is reported in the Globe and Mail of Friday, February 25, in an article headed "Scheme To Divert Canadian Water Assailed". The article reads:
A leading Canadian geographer last night described a scheme to divert Canadian water to the United States as "an exercise in sophomore civil engineering"-
He described the NAWAPA scheme in these terms:
"Water from the Canadian cordillera will be turned south to meet the supposed needs of the United States Southwest. Anything which survives after passing Southern California will go on to the arid areas of Mexico.
An incidental but unavoidable result of the scheme would be to drown out most of the usable level land in interior British Columbia.
The water needs of Canada are not overlooked. The Prairies will be allocated at least as much of the water as will Mexico."
He took note of plans under the scheme for a seaway to James Bay, "where, as is well known, the offshore waters are so shallow that even a canoe cannot be assured of getting within sight of land at low tide."
Prof. Lloyd called for the formulation of a national water policy for Canada, but placed consideration of diversion to the United States last in his list of seven policy requirements.
He noted he had "ventured outside the usual academic pale to comment on public policy. It is apparent that water has now become a subject of major concern within Canada and that it will influence relations between this country and the United States in the years ahead."

I may say that I agree with him in this respect and so do other members of this group. The article continues:
"It does not appear, for example, to have worked smoothly in relation to utilization of the Columbia River water. The suggestion has been made that, in a strictly technical sense, Canada has not always been sufficiently skilful to maintain its authority in the partnership."
He cited water demands in California as an example of increasing pressure on Canada by the United States and quoted the governor of California, Edmund Brown, as saying: "Whether we bring it from the Snake, the Columbia or the Volga, we will have to have it."
I place this on the record because I am in the habit of sending out copies of Hansard to a number of people in my constituency and this is a cheap way of letting them know what Professor Lloyd had to say on this occasion.
I turn now to another aspect of this matter. It appears there has been considerable trouble over the construction of the High Arrow Dam. In fairness to some people who are closely connected with this job, I cannot say much about what they have told me. To be quite safe I will quote from the Nelson Daily News of February 24, 1966. Under a headline "Error Delays Arrow Dam Project" we find the following:
Vancouver sources reported Wednesday that the construction schedule at the dam has been hard hit by inaccuracies in engineering data supplied to the dam builders. Core drillings reportedly showing solid bed rock proved false when the underlying structures were found to be weakened by dirt seams and cracks.
The project is really in much greater difficulty than would appear from this article. I think this proves that General McNaughton's scepticism before the committee was well justified. Then the article goes on to say:
Nearly 10,000 extra cubic yards of rock will have to be removed from the north end of the dam site. Misinformation will cause an added three weeks work to be crammed into an already rigid schedule, the sources said.
The article continues:
The north end is not the only unknown factor. A centre section of the concrete half, running about 300 feet along its baseline is as yet unexplored. Rather than waste time by drilling, crews are blasting the surface of this area off in layers to reach solid ground.
The article then goes on to deal with other difficulties which are being experienced. I mention this because of General McNaughton's expressed concern about the foundations of this dam when he was giving evidence before the External Affairs Committee.
March 3. 1966

As a result of the signing of this treaty we have what is known as a permanent engineering board. I understand there are two representatives of this country and two representatives of the United States. Provision is made in article 9 of the agreement for regular reports. The article reads:
As required by Article XV of the Treaty the board will make reports to the governments of Canada and the United States at least once a year. Reports to the government shall be made through the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for Canada and the Secretary of State for the United States. The initial report by the board will be submitted by December 31, 1965.
I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to table this report, for it is one which will be of great interest not only to members of this house but to many people throughout the country. I understand that the information contained in the report is already available to people in the United States. I am sure it would contain some most interesting information as to the amount of money spent up to December 31, 1965, on the construction of the three dams in question, on the clearing of the reservoirs and in compensation to various owners who have been approached to date by B.C. Hydro. I trust the minister will agree to tabling this report for our information.
I have referred to these few matters briefly. I realize there is a long road to travel before we can finally have a national water policy. As I say, I wish the minister would inform the house more fully as to the government's purpose and objectives in this respect after it has had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the provinces particularly concerned.
I have always been interested in keeping our water clean and free from pollution. It is a serious question and one of growing concern in the area I have the honour to represent. There is pollution in the upper Columbia. There is pollution in Kootenay Lake. There is some pollution in the lower Columbia before it enters the United States. This situation has caused alarm to rod and gun clubs, chambers of commerce and labour organizations who believe we can only deal effectively with pollution of rivers of this type when we have a national policy which will provide for co-operation between federal, provincial and municipal governments.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
That is all I have to say at this time. I shall look forward to what the minister has to say
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys with regard to our request for the tabling of this very important report.
[Translation1


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we are now studying the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. The people I represent are very much interested in mining development and the development of new mining industries in Northwestern Quebec.
I note, in the estimates of the department, that an amount of $16 million is allotted to help the gold mines in Canada. I have not made a break-down of the subsidies granted each mine, but we have a table of these figures.
I feel the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys should give far more attention to gold mines than it does at the present time.
Here is what I read in the report on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act:
The annual average of the weekly buying prices in Canadian funds at the Royal Canadian Mint in 1964 was $37.75 per fine ounce of gold. This compares with $37.75 in 1963 and $37.41 in 1962. The price of gold in Canadian funds is governed by the fixed buying price of $35 per fine ounce in United States funds by the United States Treasury and the exchange rate between the Canadian and United States dollars. Since May 2, 1962 the value of the Canadian dollar has been set at $0,925 United States funds. At parity, the Mint buying price for gold is $37.84 per ounce in Canadian funds. The market value of the Canadian dollar may be permitted to fluctuate by 1 per cent either side of parity. Thus, the Mint buying price in Canadian funds may vary between $37.46 and $38.22 per ounce. In 1964, the Mint price varied from $37.54 to $37.86 per ounce.
When the government starts helping the gold mines or granting subsidies to the gold mines:
The average cost of production per ounce of gold, computed on all ounces of gold produced from the mine during the designated period, must exceed $26.50.
-and not more than $45.
It means that the government helps between $26.50 and $45, for a total of $12.33 per ounce, which is the maximum rate paid to gold producers in Canada.
On page 9 of that blue booklet, one can read:
The Gold Export Act and Disposal of Canadian Gold
The Gold Export Act, passed in 1932, authorized the Governor in Council to make regulations regarding the export of gold from Canada. On March 21, 1956, the regulations, which prohibited the export in any form except under licence issued by the Minister of Finance, were revoked. Thus, since March 1956, producers have been free to sell their gold wherever they wish.
March 3, 1966
2116	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
Mr. Chairman, I think that practice is not followed at all although it would be practicable since there are countries which would pay more than $35 or $37 per ounce for gold produced in Canada.
But here is the problem with regard to assistance to gold mining. In my region, and the other gold producing regions, the employees, those who work in a gold mine are paid $1 or $1.50 in some cases, less than those who work in other mines such as copper, nickel, zinc, etc.
In gold mines, we still have people working at an hourly rate of $1.40 or $1.45, and subsidies are paid to mines to keep them in operation.
I see no objection to that, sir, and I would even urge the government to give more subsidies so that a greater number of gold mines remain in operation, but those supplementary subsidies should be subject to the provision that the wages of miners working in those mines are to be adjusted so that their standard of living is as good and as high as that of miners working in other mining enterprises.
I believe that is a very serious shortcoming that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys should correct as soon as possible. We have been asking for several years to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to consider the question-not on the surface but in depth-in short to consider the situation as it is.
A few months ago, I attended the official opening of a new gold mine in our region, the Wasamak mine located about six or seven miles from Rouyn-Noranda, and the owners of that mine make applications to, and apply the pressure on the government in order to derive profits from their operations.
Those who provide capital and equipment for the operation of a mine want to make a profit, and you cannot blame them. In my region, a number of mines only make a profit because of the grants received from the federal Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. They cannot, of course, raise miners' salaries so that the men would make a decent living, and that is the problem.
A miner working eight hours a day, either underground or in the plant, is putting in a hard day's work. He has a rather serious responsibility and must often work under dangerous conditions.


Therefore, I urge the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) to study the question of gold mines in our region and to consider the possibility of helping them or of suggesting to other departments, the Department of Industry for instance, the establishment in our region of secondary industries to process the ores, either for the domestic or the export trade.
But one point on which I want to insist is that adequate subsidies be paid to the producing gold mines in our region to enable their owners to grant salary increases to the miners who could then give their families better living conditions. It is not that they do not want to but they are unable to do so because of the economic conditions resulting from this niggardliness on the part of the government which will not give more help for the operation of gold mines in our region.
When I think that Canada is giving millions of dollars to other countries to help underdeveloped and needy people, when I hear the ministers, one after the other, talk about fighting poverty and misery in Canada, I say that the gold mine employees are now the victims of that poverty and that it is the responsibility of the government to help them by increasing subsidies for gold production. Not to increase the wealth of company presidents, but to enable the companies to pay their employees higher, more adequate salaries, taking into account the present needs in our area and in all similar regions.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to pursue the subject, but I strongly urge the minister concerned to study thoroughly and in detail this matter of gold mines and the industries which could be established in our region, so as to help increase Canadian production including that of our province.
I strongly urge that the problem arising in my region be considered and that the different cases be studied and dealt with, not by means of political partisanship, but effectively, so that our people may receive fair and equitable treatment.

[DOT] (4:3C p.m.)


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, because of our concern for the Nova Scotia coal industry and our greater concern for the number of miners and their families involved in this industry, it is most important that we impress upon the government today the need for assistance. I regret very much that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is not available today and that we have to put our case to two ministers
March 3, 1966

who are quite far removed from the problem, although we do have present the Minister of National Health and Welfare, not because of his own initiative, I might say, but because of an arrangement made by his house leader.
Since the house opened we have been denied on any number of occasions the opportunity of pinpointing this particular problem. The Minister of National Health and Welfare gleefully hides behind a ruling of the Chair to the effect that we can no longer ask questions of ministers on the basis of the province from which they come but only questions which refer immediately to their departments. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has been able to hide behind that ruling which has been invoked during this session but which was never before applicable.
I hope it will be possible before the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys are passed to hear some answers from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the meantime I hope the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will listen to the arguments put forward today and realize that the government has to take immediate action in order to salvage and save the Nova Scotia coal industry.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Kamloops for making reference to the fact that I would have something to say regarding the Dominion Coal Board. However, I intend to range a little wider than that. In thanking him I am reminded that this was not his only concern or the only concern of the government of which he was a member. The former Conservative government took every possible step to assist the Nova Scotia coal industry and met every demand made by that industry. In fact, on one occasion, in order to extend the life of a colliery that was to be closed, the government of that day offered assistance but the company did not see fit to accept it with the result that we lost one coal mine.
The importance and urgency of this matter are with us every day. We have had another mine closure and we are now expecting to have a mine opening. I should like to take exception to what the hon. member for Kamloops referred to as a political promise made during the election campaign. I want the government and the three ministers now present to understand that it was not a political promise. In that regard I can quote
DEBATES	2117
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who said in a statement made in Halifax that it was not a political promise, not a part of their platform at all, but was a definite commitment on the part of the government to make $25 million available to the island coal industry.
In order to emphasize this matter I state here and now that the minister and his colleagues in Nova Scotia relied heavily on this $25 million commitment to the Cape Breton coal industry to get elected. Again I emphasize the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare said this was not a political promise or a part of the Liberal party's platform but was a definite commitment on the part of the government.
To back up the fact that this was a commitment I should like to quote from the instruction that every Liberal poll worker in Cape Breton South had. This instruction reads:
The Liberal Government and Allan MacEachen got 25 million dollars for the coal industry. No matter how you voted in the past Liberals should have your vote this one time. The Liberal is Joe MacEachern. Voters should be shown the sample ballot In this book.
Again I say to the minister that I have every indication that a number of Liberal workers who are more concerned about the coal industry in Nova Scotia than they are about the Liberal Party are prepared to sign an affidavit to the effect that this was the instruction they were given on election day.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
instruction pointed out that the candidate running for the Liberal Party in Cape Breton South was Joe MacEachern. They were depending on confusion between the names MacEachern and MacEachen with the hope that the name MacEachen might provide some incentive to the people to vote for the Liberal candidate and provide him with a victory in that area. I am told that there was confusion and the result was not what they expected. The result was the opposite of what they expected.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We got 5,000 more votes, Donald.


Malcolm MacInnis: For $25
million the return was not too good. With respect to how they emphasized the $25 million in aid for the coal industry I should like to refer to the headlines in the local papers,
March 3, 1968

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys and the publicity in which the Liberals basked. Again I suggest they depended on this commitment, not promise, to be successful. Under the heading "Massive Aid Pledge For Nova Scotia Coal Industry" there are the subheadings: "New mine assured." "Ottawa prepared to invest 25 million dollars." I might say at this point that since this announcement was made the government has been hiding behind what they refer to as the Dr. Donald report which had nothing to do with the $25 million. In this regard I can quote the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, when speaking of the $25 million in aid, spoke of it as being an accomplished fact. I will remind the minister of his own words and indicate where and when he said them. It is imperative that we get this money and get that mine operating within the time limit mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The article to which I referred states:
The federal government will dip into the treasury for at least 25 million in a long range gamble to shore up Cape Breton's erratic coal industry.
Labour Minister Allan MacEachen held court at b press conference in Halifax Tuesday and in less than 500 words spelled out a formula that could herald a new era for coal.
Mr. MacEachen said the government was prepared to "invest" at least 25 million dollars in -Cape Breton coal mining future including the first major mine opening in more than two decades in the Province.
"Good news." "Fantastic." More than we had hoped for from the federal government was the immediate comment from District 26 President, Bill Marsh who sat beside Mr. MacEachen for the official announcement. Dominion Coal Company President Earl Clubb checked in fast with similar words of praise.
"This announcement will be received with enthusiasm by the people of Cape Breton", Mr. Clubb said. "This will do much to stabilize the industry."
Mr. MacEachen said that 10 million dollars would be spent to open a mine at Lingan and another 15 million allotted to rehabilitate and automate the coal mines now operating.
It was Allan MacEachen's stature in the cabinet that was the turning point in the long negotiations.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
One of his high priced hired help who was along at the time made this statement to the press:
He had an extremely rough time last week convincing certain ministers that the expenditure was warranted.
Every bit of publicity in the press about this tremendous aid to the Cape Breton coal industry was, of course, accepted by the minister as his complete responsibility, despite the fact that he had a hard time con

vincing some of his cabinet colleagues that

the expenditure was necessary. Then there is this quotation:
$25 Million Boost for Coal!
Pit for Lingan
It was a day of good news-multimillion dollar news-yesterday for the ailing Nova Scotia coal industry.
In Halifax Labour Minister Allan MacEachen announced that about $25 million in federal funds would be invested in the coal industry to provide for a new mine at Lingan and to modernize production machinery at other mines.
An estimated $25 million funds will be poured into the Cape Breton coal industry to provide for the capital investment of opening a new mine at Lingan and modernizing production machinery in other mines in the area, Labour Minister Allan J. MacEachen announced yesterday.
Mr. MacEachen made the announcement to a chorus of praise from U.M. Workers' President, William Marsh and J. E. Clubb, President of the Dominion Coal Company.
On many occasions during the election campaign the former minister of labour continued to quote the praise that was uttered by the President of the U.M.W., Mr. Marsh, and the Dominion Coal Company President, Mr. Clubb, in regard to this federal program.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Right.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister says "Right." I hope Hansard has recorded the minister's remark:
I am sure the announcement will be received with enthusiasm by the people of Cape Breton-
He was quite sure.
-as the government's decision will do so much to stabilize the industry, Mr. Clubb added.
Mr. MacEachen estimated the opening of a new mine at Lingan could provide up to 900 jobs. He termed it a capital investment by the federal government in Cape Breton coal fields.
An estimated $10 million will go to the proposed Lingan mine, which is situated on the Sydney side of Lingan Beach.
Reference was made also to the fact that this new mine opening could be used to tap both the harbour seam and the Phalen seam and that plans to do just that have gone ahead. The only thing that is holding them up is the $25 million which, according to the former minister of labour and the former minister of mines and technical surveys, was all but delivered to Cape Breton. Yet they hide behind Dr. Donald and his report.
I inquired about Dr. Donald only last week from officials of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the U.M.W. executive. I asked whether Dr. Donald had visited Cape Breton and gone underground. To their knowledge he had not. Nobody could say he had and nobody could say he had not, but
March 3, 1966

nobody could support the idea that he had gone underground.
What is Dr. Donald going to do? My understanding of Dr. Donald-I am not criticizing him because I have no idea what the man's particular job is and I am waiting with interest the results of his report-is that he is an engineer in the chemicals field. The name of the former minister of mines and technical surveys was mentioned and I will get tc him a little later. I might also say that the former minister of labour took great exception to the remarks made. He happened to get bumped down to National Health and Welfare but nevertheless he is still representing Nova Scotia and should take the opportunity under our practice to enlighten the people of Nova Scotia in respect of his commitments prior to the election, what his intentions are now and whether he will meet with the same success with his cabinet colleagues. Here I quote the minister himself:
And just last week I had the great privilege, and it was a privilege because I had worked hard to bring it about-
I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not take objection to these words. They are his own and I will repeat them:
And just last week I had the great privilege, and it was a privilege because I had worked hard to bring it about, to announce the new plans of the federal government for the coal industry, bringing relief and a sense of particular joy to the coal miners and their families living in so many communities in this part of Nova Scotia; a plan that will modernize and re-equip the existing industry; a plan that will make it possible to open a new mine, something that has been sought and asked for, something that has now been done by a federal Liberal government at Ottawa.
I emphasize the minister's own words:
-something that has now been done by a federal Liberal government at Ottawa. This is quite a story of achievement, in my view, for the people of Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia. It has been done by a government that is deeply interested in developing all parts of Canada.
I can say, I am sure with absolute certainty, that no government in the history of this country has done as much for the island of Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia than this present government at Ottawa in 30 months of its life.
Here again I may say-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, may I ask my hon. friend a question? I am not denying the words at all but I would like to know what he is reading from. Is it a newspaper account? I would just like to know the source of that quotation.
2119
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Mr. MacEwan:: Don't you remember the words?


Malcolm MacInnis: As the
hon. member for Pictou has said, you would think the minister would remember his own words.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to know the source of this quotation.


An hon. Member:: He wants to know who dared print it.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is
going to be very difficult for the minister to eliminate these words because they were used in a radio address and I have a direct copy from the tape. I cannot possibly use the tape here but I will give the minister the date.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All I wanted to find out was the source of the quotation and I thank my hon. friend for telling me that it is from a tape.


Malcolm MacInnis: If the
minister wants to know what the source was, he was the source. The minister went on to say:
And I want to say as well-
I emphasize the "I":
-that I have been at the cabinet table as a native Cape Bretoner. putting forward the needs and problems of the people of this island, and I believe that my advocacy has some real results. Because of the list of accomplishments I have been able to mention to you tonight, it hasn't hurt at all to have a native Cape Bretoner as a cabinet minister sitting at the council table putting forward the needs of this island.
I believe that we now need a majority government, a majority government in Canada, with support in all parts of Canada, so that we can carry on with our programs of development in eastern Nova Scotia and elsewhere. And I believe that on the basis of this record that I have mentioned it is appropriate for me to appeal to all the voters of Cape Breton Island and all the voters of eastern Nova Scotia to help us get that majority, to help me continue my work in Ottawa for Nova Scotia, by giving me the support of Liberal members elected in all these constituencies.
This is what I am asking, I am asking the people of Cape Breton to support the Liberal policies of growth that have done so much for Cape Breton in a short space of time, and the best way to give that help and to ensure a continued application of these policies, is to support all the Liberal candidates on Cape Breton Island.
I appeal for support myself in the riding of Inverness-Richmond and Cape Breton west, whose people have been so generous to me in giving me support in many previous elections, but I appeal also to the voters in Cape Breton North-Victoria to give us a hand by voting for the Liberal candidate, and the same appeal I make to the voters of Cape Breton South.
March 3, 1966

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys All the ridings of Cape Breton can, I believe with a good heart, support this present Liberal government, because no government in the history of Canada has done as much for Cape Breton as the present government at Ottawa.


Robert Muir: How many times is the pronoun "1"
used?


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Malcolm MacInnis: I think you have heard enough of that particular speech. I will give you another one. Again, if the minister is concerned with the source, he is the source.


Mr. Stewart:: They are very good speeches and should be put on the record.


Malcolm MacInnis: Oh, we
hear from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. Are we to get these remarks on the record?


Robert Muir: Get off your brains and speak.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I said they were very good speeches and should be put on the record.


Malcolm MacInnis: I know the member for Antigonish-Guysborough thinks they are good. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, who originated them, has other thoughts on them at the moment. He did not recall where they came from or who made them but I have identified them as being his words.
e (4:50 p.m.)
I should like to quote the minister again:
On October 5 of this year I announced that the federal government would make large scale investments in the Cape Breton coal industry. I also stated that the opening of a new mine at Lingan is a necessary part of a long term program for the coal industry. Large amounts of money are involved-for example, one estimate for the opening of Lingan itself is ten million dollars.
This firm decision by the Liberal government- it is not a promise or part of a campaign platform-
I take exception to the reference by the hon. member for Kamloops who said this was a campaign promise. I prefer to depend on the words uttered by the former minister of labour when he said this was not a promise or part of a campaign platform.
-has long been asked for by miners, union leaders, clergymen, and mayors of the coal mining towns. It is not surprising that the President of the United Mine Workers described this decision as a blessing, a godsend, and more than asked for.
[Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South).)
Here I remind you, sir, that throughout the campaign the former minister of labour, now Minister of National Health and Welfare, continued to quote what was said by the President of the United Mine Workers of America, that it was a godsend. I continue the quotation:
Mr. Marsh is quite right. This policy represents a major breakthrough for our economy, for the miners, their wives and families. No other government in Canada's history has demonstrated such willingness to support and maintain the coal industry of Cape Breton.
I am sorry that Premier Stanfield and his followers have failed to appreciate the significance of this tremendous undertaking.
I interrupt at this point to emphasize the fact that this was not a political promise, it was not a campaign promise and it was not part of their platform, but boy did they use it.
Fortunately their negative attitude has received no support whatsoever from the miners and their leaders. The miners realize that without this decision the coal industry would have a very short life indeed.
I repeat the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here on his own initiative but because his house leader arranged it and I would ask him respectfully to pay attention to his own words.
Now, it has a chance to survive and, we hope, to prosper. I also stated on October 5 that a comprehensive long term procram for the coal industry would be introduced in 1966.
We are still waiting.
The decision announced by the federal government on October 5 is the most important ever made in the life of the coal industry and it will place this vital industry on the kind of firm foundation that is necessary for its survival.
There is a notation on the bottom of this statement that the preceding was sponsored by the Liberal party. This had nothing whatever to do with politics; it was a firm commitment. It was something that was accomplished.
I want to refer to the fact the former minister of mines and other ministers came into the area. Unfortunately these other ministers had no responsibility for these estimates. Nevertheless there were other ministers along to hear what the former minister of mines had to say to the people of Cape Breton:
Canada's Minister of Mines, the Honourable J. Watson MacNaught, expressed the hope when addressing the Liberal rally here Thursday night that the people of Cape Breton North and Victoria will vote for a Liberal government in appreciation of what had been done for the coal industry of Cape
March 3, 1966	COMMONS
Breton in form of the recently announced investment of the federal government of twenty five million dollars in this particular industry.
He termed this move on the part of the federal government as one that would without doubt give new blood to the coal mining industry. In fact, he added: "This move will assure the stability of the industry and income for miners in this area for many years."
Here we have $25 million for 5,000 votes and $20,500 a year for the former minister of mines for making that statement and for no other reason. I cannot think of any appointment the government has ever made more ridiculous than the recent appointment of the former minister of mines to the position of chairman of the Dominion Coal Board. It is an insult to the employees and officials of the coal board. This man who has now been appointed chairman of the Dominion Coal Board has been described by many people. I have nothing but sympathy for the many men on the Dominion Coal Board who have worked so hard in an effort to bring about improvement in the coal industry of this country and who are now to be saddled with a chairman who does not know anything and who will not learn enough in the next 20 years of his life to take even a minor position with the coal board let alone the position of chairman.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the members of the Dominion Coal Board to know how many of them are competent to take this position. However, I know from experience that there must be many men in the employment of the board who could do a very good job. Since I am not familiar with too many of them I will mention one name in particular, Mr. Alec Brown. I might point out that the former minister of labour was very busy in Cape Breton last summer promising the position of chairman of the Dominion Coal Board to a number of people in that area.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman. I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw this misstatement because it is a total misstatement.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is a
strange thing, Mr. Chairman, but we operate in this house under most peculiar circumstances. The Chairman can rest assured that I am going to withdraw the remark. I am withdrawing it for only one reason but at the same time I object. Despite the fact a member may say something that is truthful, he is required under the rules to withdraw it if there is an objection from the other side. Now. Mr. Chairman, only because the rules 23033-1341
DEBATES	2121
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys of the house demand that I withdraw this statement unless I am prepared to make-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order-


Malcolm MacInnis: Will
the minister allow me to finish?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend suggested quite categorically-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: Order. Is the hon. gentleman on a point of order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am on a point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I must insist. This is a question of privilege.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The minister is rising on a point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
rising on a question of privilege.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: My
question of privilege, sir, is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was about to make remarks in respect of what I had to say and I have not completed my remarks. It is possible that when I complete my remarks he will have no point of order. Furthermore I would remind you, sir, I was on my feet and I did not relinquish the floor. The former minister of labour, without recognition from the Chair, was prepared to speak on a point of order.
My question of privilege is, as I have stated, that the rules provide I must withdraw a statement if there is a protest from the other side despite the fact it may be a true statement unless I am prepared to bring before the house an actual affidavit to the effect that in this case he did approach, let us say, a certain person in the city of Sydney to accept the position of chairman of the Dominion Coal Board. I am not prepared to involve individuals any more than I am prepared to ask Liberal workers in Cape Breton, who I maintained earlier are more concerned with the coal industry, to give me an affidavit on this particular statement. The minister raised no objection at that time on this particular matter. I have finished my remarks so let us hear his point of order.
2122	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member has now stated his question of privilege. The Minister of National Health and Welfare.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rise on a point of order based on the statement made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that I had promised the position of chairman of the Dominion Coal Board to several persons in Cape Breton. That is a completely false statement. The point of order is simply that these events are within my own knowledge. If I state it to be a matter of fact within my own knowledge, then under our rules of the house another hon. member must accept the statement. If he refuses to accept it his recourse is very clear.
DEBATES	March 3, 1986


Robert Muir: Sounds like Trudeau before conversion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, what estimates we were on while I was listening to the hon. member. It was very hard to tell.


Mr. Nielsen:: He is talking about the former minister of mines.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will accept it, Mr. Chairman, but I will bring the question up with the particular individuals involved at a later date. Perhaps I will then come forward with an affidavit and the minister will have to withdraw. In the meantime I accept the statement of the minister.
I was speaking of the former minister of mines, the situation which has developed in regard to the Dominion Coal Board and the callous approach of the government to matters concerning a vital industry and the miners and families connected therewith. I should like for a few moments to refer to a recent article which outlined the capabilities of the former minister of mines. The article appeared in the Toronto Star of March 1, 1966, and I think it is something which should be placed on record because it once again indicates the attitude of the government toward a very vital aspect of our economy. The article reads as follows:
It's a good indication of how disillusioned Ottawa has become with the Liberals' so-called "new politics" that no one here was very upset or surprised when the Prime Minister last week once again used loyalty to the Liberal party as his criterion in appointing the latest batch of senators.
I might say that the heading of the article refers to the former minister of mines and is entitled: "A Leg Up For 'J. Watson Mac-Zero'". The article continues:
What did anger Ottawa insiders was the appointment (announced the day before the new Senate list) of Hon. J. Watson MacNaught as chairman of the Dominion Coal Board.
This resentment was based on the feeling that naming partisans to the Senate, where they can do little harm to the governmental process, may
be a commonplace.
But it becomes a matter of grave concern when a failed politician is placed in a responsible position within the public service, where competence and knowledge, not party affilation, must be the decisive factor.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, if the minister cannot understand my references to the Dominion Coal Board, perhaps he had better go back to licking stamps. If he cannot understand me I suggest that he move over and sit with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Robert Muir: He does not know what the coal board is.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
article continues:
J. Watson MacNaught has seldom demonstrated either quality. He's a gentle nonentity from Sum-merside, P.E.I. who earned a reputation as the Liberal government's least effective minister and was known by the irreverent in his party as "J. Watson MacZero".
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare is interested in the origin of that remark, it comes from within his own party.
Pearson's appointment of McNaught demonstrates a strange approach to the public service from a man who was, for 20 years, one of its most distinguished members.
Even John Diefenbaker, who strongly believed in rewarding his faithful followers, was much more circumspect about making appointments of this nature.
He did name the former M.P., A. D. McPhillips, to be a member, though not chairman, of the Tariff Board.
But in 1961 when the Conservatives had to pick a new chairman for the Dominion Coal Board, Diefenbaker chose Colin Lewis O'Brian, a 40-year-veteran of the public service.
O'Brian, who is a professional engineer-
I might say here that so also is Mr. Brown who was overlooked.
March 3, 1966

-had served with distinction on the coal board for the preceding 19 years, was the author of many technical papers on coal and energy, and was generally regarded as the most knowledgeable expert in his field.
While chairmanship of the Dominion Coal Board is hardly one of Ottawa's more important positions-
That, of course, depends on your point of view.
-it's not a trivial appointment either. The chairman (paid $20,500 annually, which is $5,500 more than a Senator) is responsible for a $22 million a year budget.
It's essentially a technical department of government, concerned with administering coal subventions and recommending policies to the government on the production, import and distribution of coal.
The coal board chairman, along with seven members of his board, recommends, through the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, what the government's policies should be.
O'Brian is now succeeded in this responsible post by the Hon. J. Watson MacNaught. An active Liberal since he was a law student at Dalhousie University in the late twenties, MacNaught practised criminal law on the island and became law clerk of the P.E.I. legislature.
He won a Liberal seat in the 1945 election, lost it in 1957. And won it back in 1963.
When he picked his first cabinet, Pearson put MacNaught into the Solicitor General's office, then the most junior of portfolios.
During the next three years the P.E.I. lawyer established himself in Ottawa as a man very nearly innocent of the arts of statesmanship.
During a private dinner given at Ottawa's Country Club, shortly after the government was sworn in. he interrupted two Quebec ministers deep in animated conversation and repeatedly asked them to speak English.


Mr. Trudeau:: Can you speak in French?


Malcolm MacInnis: I would give you some Gaelic if that were permissible in the house.
The government used him for routine assignments such as representing Canada at the inauguration of a new president of Mexico, on December 1, 1964.
Official Ottawa was baffled when in the summer of 1965, MacNaught was suddenly promoted to the mines and technical surveys portfolio. This seemed particularly illogical since P.E.I. happens to be the only province of Canada which has no known mineral resources.
"I'm going into the department with a very open mind," MacNaught stated firmly at the time. When he was being sworn in, MacNaught was asked what he intended to do about the Dominion Coal Board. "I guess I'll have to look into it, if that's the word," was his reply.
Later he explained his appointment to a reporter from the Sudbury Star, after touring a mine shaft for the first time in his life: "Mr. Pearson just thought I was the best man for the job. Many government representatives are appointed to posts about which they have little or no previous knowledge."
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
In the 1965 election. MacNaught probably had more going for him than any other cabinet minister, since shortly before the campaign started, the government had pledged $148 million toward the construction of the long-promised P.E.I. causeway.
That is considerably more than the $25 million which the Minister of National Health and Welfare had.
But he lost both Liberal seats on the island, including his own. He managed this feat by deliberately neglecting to invite Walter Shaw, the premier of P.E.I., and a Conservative, to the sodturning ceremonies for the causeway, which MacNaught had thoughtfully arranged for just three days before the November 8 vote.
"Narrow and nasty."
Now MacNaught has been assured a sinecure as chairman of the coal board. One reason he was not appointed to P.E.I.'s existing vacancy in the Senate was that a delegation of progressive Prince Edward Island Liberals descended on Ottawa a few weeks ago imploring the Prime Minister not to name MacNaught, thus perpetuating his political power on the island.
By choosing instead to place him in a responsible position within the public service. Lester Pearson appears to be bidding a final farewell to the "new politics", which he described in the hopeful springtime of his stewardship as the abandonment of "narrow and nasty, short-sighted and selfish partisanship".
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: He never said hello to him.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, we are again faced with the situation that the livelihoods of miners and their families in Cape Breton depend not on words of the former minister of mines or the Minister of National Health and Welfare uttered as a political promise but on a commitment referred to as an accomplished fact, referred to by the former minister of mines and by the chairman of the Dominion Coal Board as something that has already been delivered. The question that is often asked is, "In which bank did they put the $25 million"?
We are now told that the Donald report is going to have some bearing on this matter despite the fact that on one occasion the minister said that the Donald report would be used only as an aid. I am interested to find out what is going to be uncovered in the Donald report that has not already been covered by Lord Robbins and Mr. Sheppard of the United Kingdom Coal Board as the result of studying the situation. What about the organization set up under the Minister of Finance? What has it come up with? Why wait on Doctor Donald before doing something that has already been referred to as an accomplished fact, something that is most necessary to the coal industry in Cape Breton?
2124	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
Again I refer to the fact that the Minister of Transport said last night that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was so interested in the matter that he would be here. He is not here of his own initiative this afternoon. I hope he takes the responsibility to see that there is payment of the $25 million immediately because the company is prepared and ready to go ahead with its plans. Let us hear from the minister now despite the fact that he is here at the insistence of his house leader rather than on his own initiative and not because of his interest in the Cape Breton coal industry. Let us hear him explain to the Cape Breton people why there has been this delay. Let him also elaborate what the government is prepared to do in respect of providing protection for the market that may be available for coal.
I also want to call the minister's attention to the fact that investment in the Cape Breton coal industry is wise at this particular time because the need for coal today is increasing. If the minister wants some further authority in that regard, despite what Doctor Donald may report, despite the fact that the former parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, the hon. member from British Columbia whose constituency escapes me-


An hon. Member:: Coast-Capilano.


Malcolm MacInnis: -advocated cutting back on coal production, despite the fact that the Rand Commission recommended a reduction in coal production,
I point out that he will find it if he takes time to refer to the recently issued Dominion Coal Board report for 1964-65 which indicates that there is an increasing need for coal in this country.
I suggest that the minister go back to cabinet and then come back to the house and report that he has got the money for the Cape Breton coal industry. Let us get on with the opening of the new mine at Lingan which the minister said would employ as many as 900 people and would be opened in a short time. There is not much time to be lost if that is to be done. Now is the time to make the money available. Now is the time to start the machinery which will result in the opening of the mine at Lingan. The minister fully realizes that No. 18 colliery closed down in January and 700 more miners are idle in that area. If the Stanfield government had not concerned itself with the welfare of the miners in that area by making available voluntary retirement pension plans to allow some men to

DEBATES	March 3, 1966
replace others, those people would be in a bad way.
Let us have some action from the minister. Let us have some action from the government. Let us have delivery of what was referred to as an accomplished fact on a number of occasions. I repeat that the minister said it was not a political promise but was a commitment. I pointed out that the commitment was said to have been made because of the minister's hard work in cabinet sessions. There was reference to the hard time the minister had in convincing his colleagues that such consideration was necessary. The Prime Minister referred to the fact that there was very considerable discussion of the matter before this policy statement was made. Having made the policy statement and that policy statement having been supported by a number of cabinet ministers, it is time for the government to report to the people, to report to the Cape Breton miners and to the coal industry that this promise will be implemented, that this government will carry out the commitment that was so strongly emphasized during the election compaign.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this discussion and opportunity to express my view on the matter of coal policy and, in so far as I am capable, to bring the house up to date on this particular aspect of government activity. Before I do so I should like to tell my friend from Cape Breton South that I am in the house today as a result of my own initiative and my own readiness to participate in the debate and not as a result of any discussion with the house leader. I have had no discussion whatsoever with the house leader with respect to these estimates.


Erik Nielsen: You would not be speaking on them if you had.


Malcolm MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I want to explain fully why I made references to the fact that the minister was here because of an arrangement by the house leader. Last evening, when the question was put whether we should continue discussion-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. There is no point of order. The hon. gentleman is making an explanation.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
point of order is that I was informed that the house leader, just before these estimates came up, had made arrangements that the minister would be here. The minister is denying that.
March 3, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I respect the ruling made by Mr. Speaker in the chair that questions with respect to the coal industry should not be answered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, I want to assure the house and my friend that I am quite anxious, quite eager and willing to answer questions with respect to any matter within my responsibilities. If the Speaker had permitted the questions I would have answered them on the spot.
I take considerable exception to the effort of the hon. member for Cape Breton South to suggest that there was a lack of willingness on my part to deal with this important matter in the house. The only reason I did not deal with it is the ruling of the Chair which I respected and will continue to respect.
As a matter of fact, the speech made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South was unnecessary. It has contributed nothing to our understanding of the coal problem. He has made no constructive suggestions in his speech nor in any other speech that he made in the last parliament in connection with the coal industry. It would be a welcome change for the hon. member for Cape Breton South, instead of addressing himself to destructive comments about members of the house and persons not in the house, such as the newly named chairman of the coal board, to address himself to the problems of the Nova Scotia coal industry and make some contribution to the solution of an important and great problem.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
You can search Hansard in the last parliament and in the speeches of the hon. member you will not find a shred of an intimation of a hint of a constructive proposal on his part with respect to the coal industry of Nova Scotia. His speeches in the house in the last parliament were totally barren of any constructive ideas and we have had a repeat performance this afternoon-


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in an effort to blow up-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It is obvious that the hon. gentleman who has the floor does not wish to receive a question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in an effort-


Malcolm MacInnis: Is the
minister going to accept a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I will.
DEBATES	2125
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Malcolm MacInnis: Will he explain his criticism when he says I have never brought forward anything constructive either this session or last session? Will he explain that statement in the light of the fact that 90 per cent of the words I used today in my speech were quoted from his own words?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If reading extensive quotations from my speech is a defence, surely I do not have to call witnesses to defend my statement about the hon. member's performance.
I did not originally intend to make any comment about the hon. member from Cape Breton South but I thought it was unfair that he should have devoted a large part of his speech to an attack on the newly named chairman of the Dominion Coal Board who is beginning to carry out important functions not only for the government but for the industry and for the hon. member's constituency. It is unfair that within a week of Mr. MacNaught being named he should be subjected to a vicious personal attack by the hon. member for Cape Breton South who, completely aside from the quotation from the article by Mr. Peter Newman, said that Mr. MacNaught would not learn anything about the coal industry even if he had 20 years in which to do it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I said "not learn enough".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member's approach to this problem has been completely negative, completely partisan and invariably destructive and there has been no greater evidence of his destructive capacity than his attack on Mr. MacNaught who is no longer a member of the house. He sat in the house in the last parliament and was in a position to defend himself so far as the coal board was concerned but no effort was ever made by the hon. member to get him into debate. I had occasion to come to this house, as did other members, just after the former member for Inverness-Richmond, a former opponent of mine, had been named chairman of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. It was a good appointment and nobody on the Liberal side undertook a week or two after it had been made to undermine his capacity to perform his functions as chairman. It was a political appointment, of course. He was a defeated Tory candidate and he was appointed by the former prime minister. He is
2126	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys continuing in his job without partisan criticism, as he should be allowed to do. I wish the hon. member had followed that custom this afternoon.


Malcolm MacInnis: He had
a professional background.


David Réal Caouette: Would the minister permit a question? When he says a Tory candidate was nominated for political reasons and so on, is he saying at the same time that the appointment of Mr. MacNaught was definitely a political appointment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I stated that Mr. Mac-Lellan's appointment was a political one. Of course it was. No attack was made against him and he was allowed to carry on his work as Mr. MacNaught should be allowed to do. This is why I commented on the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South who has been running wild in this house and who feels himself above the Chair and above the normal courtesies which ought to be followed here. I think he has descended to a new low in his attack on the chairman of the coal board. He has blown up quite a storm about a so-called departure from government policy with respect to the coal industry.
On October 5 last I made a statement on behalf of the government of Canada on coal policy so far as it affects the province of Nova Scotia. That statement was made in public. It has been circulated. I have a copy of it here and it still stands as a statement of government policy. There has been no departure from it. It is the result of a cabinet decision. This decision was incorporated in the statement on government policy which I made on October 5. In that statement the government of Canada undertook to make large scale investments in the Cape Breton coal industry in the immediate future and it undertook to introduce a comprehensive long term program for the coal industry early in 1966. The statement says "early in 1966", not "late in 1966". That still stands. The government undertook to assist in the financing of the opening of a new mine at Lingan which we regard as an essential part of a program to make the most effective use of the capital to be invested in the Nova Scotia coal industry.
In my statement I referred openly, frankly and extensively to the fact that we had secured the services of Dr. Donald, that he had been commissioned by the government of Canada to undertake special work in connection with the coal industry. He was asked to

DEBATES	March 3, 1966
prepare as a matter of urgency, with the aid of a special committee of government officials, comprehensive recommendations for the organization, modernization and re-equipment of the industry. That still stands. The study is being carried on with the co-operation of the industry, trade unions and the government of Nova Scotia.
The hon. member read from a television broadcast which I made. It was a political broadcast, of course; we were a week away from the election. I am sure the hon. member was making non-political telecasts during that week. I was making political statements. I have a copy-


An hon. Member:: Surely they were truthful.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course it was truthful. I will read it to hon. members in order to illustrate the sincerity of my intentions as a member of the government, because my statement on that date is exactly on all fours with the statement I issued on October 5, and it is on all fours with the statement I will make today in the house on behalf of the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What greater consistency could there possibly be?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister permit a question on the basis of the statement he has just made? Does he not thereby stand convicted himself of making a political issue out of a matter of government policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the coal industry is a magnet for political discussion it falls into the same category as any other.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then do not complain that members of the house are making a political issue out of it.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not complaining about that. I have not complained that a political issue has been made of it. Naturally these are political issues and I hope they will continue to be political issues. What I am saying is that my hon. friend is accusing the government of departing from its policy pronouncement of last October. There is no departure whatsoever. I should like to read the final paragraph of this telecast.


William Arnold Peters: Would the hon. minister permit another question?
March 3, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. I am sorry, but I want to complete this. In this telecast, the transcript of which was read by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I made this statement:
I also stated on October 5 that a comprehensive long term program for the coal industry would be introduced in 1966.
That still stands.
Dr. J. R. Donald, the consultant especially appointed for this purpose will produce comprehensive and detailed recommendations for the reorganization, modernization and re-equipment of the industry. This program will be prepared in co-operation with the industry, the U.M.W. and the Government of Nova Scotia. All interested parties-


John George Diefenbaker: They did not get any
funds.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -will have a chance to express their views, offer their advice and ask any questions they wish.
That was a statement made a week before the election. That is still the attitude of the government of Canada. I wonder what all the storm is about? What is the fuss all about?


Malcolm MacInnis: Twenty five million dollars.


Erik Nielsen: The $25 million.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We designed a policy for the coal industry that was long tested, long needed and long demanded by the miners, the leaders of the community, the union leaders, the clergy, and all the people who represent the best interests of the people in the coal industry. They have been asking for this for a long time.
I have a letter here from the town clerk of Glace Bay commending this policy. There are innumerable quotations from the United Mine Workers commending this policy. It has been acclaimed in many parts of the province of Nova Scotia. It is a good policy. It still stands as part of the policy of the government of Canada. So what is all the fuss about?


An hon. Member:: We just want some action.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What is all the anxiety about?


Malcolm MacInnis: Do you
want an answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Just let me finish the point. We have a new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys who has been called away to carry on important work in Washington.


Malcolm MacInnis: His most important work is in Canada and not Washington.
2127
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am delighted that we have as Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys a man with the capacity, the intelligence and imagination that the new minister possesses. I am glad about it. However, I want to assure the house in his absence, that the minister-


Erik Nielsen: He said he is going to resign.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -is very seriously interested and very seriously concerned about this problem and about implementing the policy of the government of Canada. It is a long term policy; it requires the development and the proper use of the manpower on the Island of Cape Breton. It involves a rationalization of the coal industry.
These mines at present need new capital in order to become productive and efficient. If the new capital is not available these mines will have to close down. There is no doubt about that. We have a very big problem here. It requires not only the participation of the government of Canada but also the participation of the government of Nova Scotia, the industry and, even more than any other, the co-operation and interest of the union leaders and the miners in order to solve the great manpower problem.
The purpose of the government of Canada is to reach a solution that will produce maximum employment opportunities on the Island of Cape Breton and stabilize the economic levels, the production of coal and employment in that industry in Cape Breton. We did not require the intervention, although we welcomed it, of the hon. member. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys had already decided to go to Nova Scotia to visit at first hand those who are responsible for the development of new policies along with the federal government.
In March I hope to join the minister in consultation with the provincial government, the industry and the union leaders in respect of our policies for the industry. We still are awaiting the report of Dr. Donald. Nobody misled the people of Nova Scotia on this point. It was clearly stated last October and November that the development of a long term policy was contingent upon the receipt of the report from a special government commission. So we are completely consistent not only in the declaration of our policy but in the implementation of our policy.
I should like to assure the hon. member for Cape Breton South that we are serious about this matter, that our policy has not changed
2128	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys and that it is going to require the co-operative effort of a lot of people including himself in order to reach a good solution to this problem.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would
the minister permit a question now? Since the minister has indicated that there has been no deviation from policy, how can he explain the fact that there has been no delivery of any funds to initiate the policy at Lingan or to assist the colliery in that area in as much as he and the former minister of mines and technical surveys referred to this as an accomplished fact and in addition the minister also stated that Dr. Donald's report would be used only as an aid? This report has nothing whatever to do with the allotting of $25 million to the Cape Breton coal industry, which was referred to by the minister himself and the former minister as an accomplished fact before November 8.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is an involved question. It is an argument. However, I can say that we have repeatedly stated that Dr. Donald's report was necessary in order to develop a long term policy for the industry. The report is an aid; of course it is an aid. Any reference to an accomplished fact is nothing but a simple logical reference to the tact that a basic policy decision had been taken by the government of Canada with regard to the coal industry, something the government my hon. friend supported failed to do. That is all we are talking about when we speak of an accomplished fact, it is, that a specific policy decision was taken which we are implementing in accordance with the statement made last fall.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister to withdraw a false statement he made with reference to the former government failing to do anything, because I have written evidence from many in the mining areas to support my statement that the former Conservative government offered money for the extension of the life of No. 4 colliery at Glace Bay but Mr. Fairley, the president of the company, did not accept the offer. I would ask the minister to withdraw the remark he made in respect of the former government.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: 
Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, the hour is getting late and I shall try to make my remarks as brief as possible. I was very much impressed by the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I thought, however, that there was more heat than light in what he had to say about the coal industry. He mentioned that he would bring us up


to date on the situation in the coal industry but in his mind there is only one coal industry and that is in Nova Scotia. He fails to realize that in western Canada we have about 7 per cent of the world's supply of coal. How can the minister, when speaking for the coal industry of Canada, overlook that fact? I know the question of politics is involved in regard to Nova Scotia but this does not excuse him not bringing us up to date in regard to the situation in the coal industry in all parts of Canada.
Before this debate started I asked whether the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys would be present and the house leader gave us the answer to that question. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is an easterner and as substitutes for him we have two good ministers from the west. I am sure they will listen attentively and give the coal industry of the west a fair deal.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is from the east, as I have said, and my guess is that the knows little or nothing about the west or the western coal industry. Therefore I would suggest that the two hon. gentlemen who are substituting for him bring to his attention the fact that we would like the minister to come out west. We would like to get to know him and we would like him to become educated as to our problems.
I have said on other occasions in the house that when he comes west he should talk to the right people. Let him talk to the Members of Parliament in those areas. If the minister gets in touch with me I will be glad to take him to the Crowsnest Pass and vicinity and introduce him to people with knowledge of this industry so he will be able to come back with some real knowledge about the problems of the area. I would be very glad to do that. I see that the Minister without Portfolio smiles but he knows that what I have said I mean. I leave that matter there, Mr. Chairman.
At this time I shall not find fault with the Dominion Coal Board but will leave that to another time. However, in my opinion the chairman of the coal board should come out west and familiarize himself with our problems. Speaking of the coal board, I wish to pay tribute to one of the greatest civil servants in the whole body of the civil service of Canada. I refer to Mr. O'Brian the former chairman of the Coal Board. He was always approachable; he had a job to do and he did it. I have not met anybody who has said anything derogatory about the services, ability or anything else in regard to this great
March 3, 1966
civil servant. I pay that tribute to him. As head of the Coal Board for a period of years he did an excellent job.
In 1957 the government of Japan lost the traditional source from which they purchased coal. They used to get it from Manchuria. There was some difficulty between the government of Communist China and the Japanese so the Japanese had to find other sources of supply of coal. They obtained some of their coal from the United States, some from Australia and some from Canada. With regard to the coal they obtained from Canada, this development took place in about 1957 and as a candidate in the Crowsnest Pass I was the one to make recommendations for the export of coal to Japan. I promised the people of the Crowsnest Pass that if elected I would ask my government to do everything possible to get coal moving to Japan.
When I was elected in 1958 I approached Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker and his cabinet with a recommendation that a subsidy be paid to help start the movement of coal to Japan. That was done. At first Japan bought our coal on an experimental basis. We shipped a few tons because the Japanese wanted to make tests; they wanted to mix it with their own coal and utilize their own product. They wanted our coal because of its high bituminous content for metallurgical purposes. Therefore they imported coal from Canada to mix with their own.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business in accordance with subsection 3 of standing order 15.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), Labour Conditions -Windsor-lay-off of Ford workers; the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), Agriculture-inquiry concerning new dairy policy; the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), Canadian Centennial-suggested restoration of grave of D'Arcy McGee.
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that private members' hour be deferred tonight so that we can continue with the discussion of estimates in committee of supply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to suspend private members' hour and continue with the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Administration services-
1. Departmental administration including the administration of the Explosives Act and Canada's fee for membership in the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History, $2,506,600.
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, in 1957 when the Canadian Pacific switched over from the use of coal burning engines to diesel engines there was a tremendous amount of unemployment and distress in the Crowsnest Pass area. Many of the people were at their wits' end to know what they were going to do. Some people moved out. However, the shipments of coal to Japan, the winter works program and other things gave some employment to the people who remained in the area and enabled them to remain in the area until times got better.
The subvention which was first paid on these coal shipments was around $4.25 per ton whereas today it is $2.73. The cost of transporting coal from the Crowsnest Pass to Port Moresby jumped from $5.13 per ton to $5.28 per ton, another 15 cents. This brings me to the point I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. At the time these coal shipments to Japan were arranged our understanding was that after these shipments had reached a certain volume there would be a reconsideration of the question of subventions. I may say that these shipments have reached approximately 800,000 tons, which amounts to a considerable business. The present government went along with the program and paid the subsidy on another 200,000 tons, bringing it up to around 800,000 tons.

March 3, 1966
2132	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys This action by the present government gives me a lot of satisfaction because I was the originator of the coal shipments to Japan. I fought like a tiger to bring them into being and to make sure that economically it was a sound development.
As a matter of fact, everyone in the coal business of the West is solidly behind this development. Where are we now? We want the Canadian Pacific Railway to cut the cost of transporting the coal from the Crowsnest Pass to Port Moresby. As I have said, they are charging $5.28 per ton. Our intention was, if we could get volume shipments, to have the Canadian Pacific cut their cost a little bit, that the operators would perhaps take a little less profit, the handling charges at Port Moresby could be lowered a little bit and we could get the Japanese to pay a little bit more and thus do away with the $2.73 subvention. These shipments are made for the most part in Japanese bottoms.
That was our intention at the beginning. Today, after some six or eight years, we have reached the position where the operators are within sight of accomplishing that end and we could increase the shipments of coal to two million or three million tons. The Japanese want the coal. Lord knows, we have enough coal of that type to last us for 2,000 years. We need not feel that we are digging into something we are going to need tomorrow.
Our sales of coal to Japan are going to help the economy of western Canada and help employment in the industry. The Crowsnest Pass area is going to boom. It is going to help Canada's exports. This is an economic development of great value to Canada. I hope that the log jam which is now preventing that development from taking place can be removed. What is the log jam? It is the fact that the Canadian Pacific, instead of lowering their rates, increased them by 15 cents a ton in October during the last election campaign. The rate is now $5.28. If the Canadian Pacific would give us a commuter train from Coleman to Port Moresby, a quick turnaround train such as they have in the United States, we would be able to cut the cost of transporting the coal by $1.50 per ton. If this is done I believe that the $2.73, by taking a chip off here and a chip off there, could be eliminated and the operators could obtain contracts with Japan for increased coal shipments amounting to two million or three million tons.


[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
That is where we stand on the shipment of coal to Japan and on the whole problem of exporting coal from western Canada. May I summarize what I have said by asking two or three questions? First, I wonder whether the minister is familiar with the problem? If he is not, let him go out west and find out. This is what we want. We do not want any more fooling around with this thing. We have been talking to him gently in the hope he would see the light and be interested enough in western Canada to go out and familiarize himself with the problem and develop an action program in co-operation with the people out west. Then we want to have a discussion with the Canadian Pacific to get this idea across. How active have the minister and his associate been in helping to arrange the C.P.R. commuter train desired by all associated with the industry? What attitude does the C.P.R. take with respect to commencing a commuter train service, cutting costs and bringing about this entire development?
These are questions to which I hope the new minister will provide answers, Mr. Chairman. I shall reserve any further discussion until the estimates for the coming year are before us for debate during the course of the next few weeks.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief comments on these estimates. Before I do so, however, I should like to recall the attention of the committee to some comments made while the hon. member for Cape Breton South was reading from an article which I understand was written by that great worshipper at the shrine of Liberalism, Mr. Peter Newman. When the hon. member came to the part where the article stated that the former minister of mines, now chairman of the Dominion Coal Board, had interrupted two French speaking individuals to suggest that they speak English the hon. member for Mount Royal-I am sorry he is not here-who was formerly designated one of the three wise men but who is to my mind now one of the three unwise men, interjected to ask, "Can you speak French?"
I do not know what he meant by that, Mr. Chairman, but I will say this. Had it been a Conservative cabinet minister who made a statement of that nature I can well imagine what would have been said by the hon. member for Mount Royal and others on the other side. I can imagine the uproar, and
March 3, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	2133
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
certainly I do not approve of a statement of that nature.
What the interjection meant from the unwise member for Mount Royal I am unable to understand. My colleague from Cape Breton South and myself regretfully, know only a few little words in French. We also know a few words of Gaelic, which is a quite common language on the island of Cape Breton. I am sorry we are not fluent in the French language. I just bring that to the attention of the committee as well as the hon. member for Mount Royal.
Before I go further I should like to take this opportunity of extending my congratulations to the new minister of mines and I wish him well. My spies have told me that he has shown a very keen interest particularly in coal mining and I trust and hope that this will continue. I am sure he must feel highly honoured today in that we have the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well as the Minister without Portfolio-I should say "Member of the Administration"; that is his new title-filling in for him while he is in Washington. It appears that it takes three cabinet ministers to replace him when he is out of town.


Mr. Turner:: It is a very important subject.


Robert Muir: Yes, I realize it is a very important subject. I wish to quote what the minister, according to the Ottawa Journal, is reported to have said in Montreal yesterday. The heading is, "Pepin Threatens To Resign", and the article continues:
Jean-Luc Pepin, federal minister of mines and technical surveys, said Tuesday that if bilingualism and biculturalism do not become realities soon "I will resign."
If he does not act in the manner we expect him to act in regard to the coal mining industry and show as much interest as we in Nova Scotia and the coal mining areas in Canada expect from him, then I suggest that he should resign. If he wants to make marks for himself in the coal mining areas, all he has to do is to indicate how soon something will be done about the announcement by the former minister of labour, now Minister of National Health and Welfare, which was made on October 5. I do not know why the statement was made at that time, although there was an election on November 8. I hope he will do everything he can.
I was going to invite him today to visit the coal mining areas. The Minister of National
Health and Welfare said the new minister was planning to do this. I think it is an excellent idea to go to the scene and to see at first hand what a mine looks like. Perhaps the minister has been down coal mines before. I do not know, but I think it is a very good idea and I commend it to the minister. He will receive a very warm welcome, I am sure, in Cape Breton, provided that he attends a press conference there and spells out in detail just what the $25 million which supposedly has been appropriated for assistance to coal mines is going to do.
At this time I should also like to pay tribute to the retiring chairman of the Dominion Coal Board, Mr. C. L. O'Brian, who is rounding out, I understand, 40 years in the civil service. He is a man who has been most capable and still is. He very graciously stayed on in his position at the request of the previous government and the present government. He is a man who came to the old fuel board, as it was known, in 1935 and became chairman of the Dominion Coal Board in 1961. He will certainly be a great loss to the coal industry, though I hope he will not be leaving the public service entirely. I would suggest that the government retain Mr. O'Brian in an advisory capacity because his services are certainly going to be needed.
Some mention has been made of the new coal board chairman. I am not going into that other than to say that I am firmly convinced that the new chairman is going into a field for which he has no background whatever. Contrary to what has been suggested by the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning an appointment as chairman of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission made by the previous administration, the former member for Inverness-Richmond was well qualified for a position of that nature. He was a professional man and has certainly made his mark as chairman of that board.
I should also like to pay tribute to members of the house who are with us no longer, the late Hon. George Nowlan and the late Hon. Paul Comtois. Mr. Nowlan and Mr. Comtois worked very well together. Mr. Comtois was minister of mines and did a very good job. Did the hon. member wish to interject?


Walter Frank Foy: No, carry on.


Robert Muir: I thought the hon. member was commenting on my statement about the late Mr. Comtois.


Walter Frank Foy: No, I would not do that.
March 3, 1966

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Robert Muir: I would not expect you to do that.


Walter Frank Foy: You are right in your expectations.


Robert Muir: As I was saying, this gentleman worked well as minister of mines and had great interest in the coal mining industry. The late Hon. George Nowlan, the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia, worked with Mr. Comtois in the previous administration. They did a tremendous job when the coal mining industry was facing very serious times, and through no fault of the government. If one were to check the amount of money spent in subventions and other assistance to coal mining in Nova Scotia, I am sure you would find that from 1957 when the Conservative government came into power this expenditure increased very greatly.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
It was through the action of the Conservative government, Mr. Nowlan, Mr. Comtois, Mr. O'Brian of the Dominion Coal Board and others who were very interested in this industry that eventually we got into the Ontario hydro market. Because of these people subventions were provided which have allowed the coal mines to operate comparatively steadily ever since.
Another point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister concerned is that I hope the government has no intention to have the Dominion Coal Board swallowed up by the National Energy Board. I do not think this would be good for the coal industry. I think the interests of the coal industry would be lost and the coal miners also might be lost if this were to happen. I hope that the minister who is replying will make a statement whether the government contemplates such an action in the future and that the reply will be negative.
My colleague from Cape Breton South and the Minister of National Health and Welfare quoted from a statement made by the minister on October 6. I want to go into this a little further. In the Cape Breton Post of April 6 the minister is quoted as saying in relation to the coal industry:
Mr. MacEachen said other measures will be taken to stimulate the Cape Breton economy. He would not elaborate.
I do wish he were in the house at the moment. If someone has nothing better to do they might send a message for him to come

to the house because I think this is most important. He indicated he was vitally interested in the coal problem.


Erik Nielsen: He shot his bolt.


Robert Muir: He said he did not have to be persuaded to be here. However, I do hope he will be here later tonight to provide answers to the questions that we are going to put to him. It would ue unfair to expect the "member of the administration" and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to have answers at hand. I am sure that one so fully familiar with this matter as the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be only too glad to come into the house and provide all the answers necessary. The news item continues:
There was no clear cut definition of the terms of the grant to Dominion Coal. It appeared to be almost an outright gift although it was possible the government would become a shareholder in the company to permit a certain amount of policing.
I would go along with that. I do not think that this government or any government should hand over $25 million to any company and not have it policed. In fact, I suggest to the government that when it finally comes through with this arrangement, and I hope to pose some questions about this later, it will insist on having a representative on the board of directors of the Dominion Coal Company to look after government interests respecting this grant, or whatever it may be, of $25 million.
To go on:
Mr. MacEachen said that these details will be worked out at a later date.
The federal government has directed the National Energy Board to study and report on the best means to bring about the further use of coal for thermal power on a substantial scale to feed the Maritime provinces grid.
The article then says "furthermore" which I presume means "in addition."
Furthermore, Mr. MacEachen said, "the government commissioned a distinguished industrial consultant and engineer. Dr. J. R. Donald, in June to prepare, as a matter of urgency, comprehensive recommendations for the re-organization, modernization and re-equipment of the industry.
This work is being carried out with the co-operation of the industry, the trade union, and the government of Nova Scotia, which also has appointed a special committee to deal with certain aspects of the coal industry."
The article continues:
Mr. MacEachen stressed that Dr. Donald has been asked to consider not only the situation of the Dosco mines but also that of the independent coal operators.
March 3, 1966


An hon. Member:: That was last June.


Robert Muir: I am pleased to see that is in there and that every consideration will be given to independent coal operators with regard to any moneys that should be forthcoming from the government to assist the industry. I continue quoting:
"Pending the completion of the comprehensive review now in progress, the government will provide substantial capital for immediate needs."
He says, "pending the completion of the review". You will note in this news item that $10 million is for the new mines and $15 million will be to rehabilitate and automate coal mines now operating. This is an afterthought with reference to Doctor Donald. I cannot see why a recommendation that may be brought in by Doctor Donald should have any effect on what the government is going to do financially.
I should also like to refer to an item in the Cape Breton Post of October 29. I see that the minister has just arrived in the house. I hope he will listen intently and be prepared to answer all questions that are posed before we adjourn tonight.
This news item is headed, "No Information; $25 Million Questioned." Then the article relates how the minister announced this on October 5.1 continue with a quotation:
The following day Premier Stanfield wired Hon. Mitchell Sharp-
How in the world the Minister of Finance got into this I do not know. The normal method of doing things in the province of Nova Scotia is to have the cabinet minister from Nova Scotia look into the matter. It was handed to an inter-departmental committee. The next thing that happened was that the Minister of Finance had something to do with it. I presume that is why Premier Stanfield wired the Minister of Finance. I continue quoting:
The following day Premier Stanfield wired Hon. Mitchell Sharp in Ottawa as follows:
"Have read press accounts of Minister of Labour's announcement regarding coal mines in Nova Scotia. Welcome willingness of government of Canada to invest in new mine at Lingan. Assume government of Canada has decided to support market for coal large enough to avoid closure of any existing mine when new mine comes into production. Please advise size of market for Nova Scotia coal government of Canada is prepared to support. Minister of Labour further announced that government of Canada will make large scale investment in Cape Breton coal mining industry. Please advise me the amount of such investment that has been authorized."
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
The article continues:
On Oct. 9-three days after the Stanfield telegram, -there arrived from Mr. Sharp the following telegram to Mr. Stanfield:
"Re your telegram re Nova Scotia coal mines, since Minister of Labour made original announcement I have asked him to reply to you after consultation with me. Warm regards."
That is all there was in that telegram. There was nothing from then on until October 25 when the then minister of labour had time to reply to the premier of the province.


An hon. Member:: They were busy with the next election.


Robert Muir: Yes. He wrote a letter and said:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp, minister of trade and commerce, has told me that you have been in touch with him following the announcement I made in Halifax on Oct. 5, pertaining to the Nova Scotia coal industry.
As you know, there is an important additional source of coal in the Lingan area. It is expected that a new mine to tap this source could, with modern equipment, produce coal at a lower cost per ton.
The comprehensive review, which I have mentioned, is being made to determine what additional steps might be taken in co-operation with the industry.
In case you have not seen a copy of the press release issued in connection with this announcement, I am attaching one for your information.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Allan J. MacEachen.
Mr. Stanfield's comments on this letter were:
Clearly Mr. MacEachen has not answered my questions. He says nothing about the size of the investment the federal government is prepared to make. He says nothing about the size of the coal market the federal government is prepared to support. He says nothing about the market for coal. He doesn't say the coal from Lingan will be marketed in addition to the output from existing mines. In fact, he doesn't say anything.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I should like to pose several questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask him this question.
Regardless of what the Donald report says, is it the intention of the government to go ahead with this $25 million grant? Would the minister tell me also that it is not the intention of the government in the foreseeable future to agree that there shall be a cut-back in the work force of the coal mining industry as suggested in an issue of the Financial Times, I think it was? It was suggested there that the work force would be cut from 6,000 to 4,500 men. Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare met with representatives
March 3, 1968

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company and said he would be agreeable to making this degree of assistance available, that is to say, the $25 million, provided there was a cutback in the work force? Can the minister ensure the committee that if and when this assistance is made available the government will not curtail or reduce subventions in connection with the transportation of coal to the central Ontario market, subventions which are absolutely necessary to the industry? Can the minister assure the committee that the government has no intention to reduce or eliminate the tariff on United States coal?
When the minister was speaking I noticed he emphasized the need for changes in the industry. He emphasized the question of manpower. That is why I put these questions to him. Is it possible that it is hoped to reduce the number of men employed in this industry consequent upon this offer of assistance?
I do not wish to hold up the committee for very long provided we get answers to some of these questions. I am sure everyone was pleased with the announcement the minister made and with his timing of the announcement during the election campaign. He said a few moments ago that he had been commended by everybody on this announcement. This is true. Everyone is happy and pleased. But we want action and we want to learn just what the government has in mind. We are concerned about possible deals-I do not want to use that word-we are concerned whether everything has been told us by the government about the arrangements which may have been made in connection with this grant.
I note that the president of district 26 of the United Mineworliers of America has stated, along with others, that there is a market for coal and that there is certainly a market for the production from new mines. So I hope there will be no curtailment of employment. I see a comment by Mr. Marsh of local No. 12, U.M.W., in the Cape Breton Post of February 23. This report reads:
Mr. Marsh said he saw no point whatsoever in the Donald study, that the coal industry was studied and restudied hundreds of times over and the federal government had adequate information on hand to guide it in directing financial aid to the coal industry. He said that the government had committed $25 million to aid the industry and no delay should be made in directing this to the revival and expansion of the industry.
I had posed one or two questions before the minister came into the chamber. One of them was: Are there any plans which would


lead to the absorption of the Dominion Coal Board by the National Energy Board? I do not think this would be good. I hope the minister can tell us something about this.
There have been many comments on the proposals which have been made affecting the future of this industry, most of them reflecting uncertainty. Here is a heading from an article in the Post of October 26: "Seek Details of Coal Aid". A local union is asking its officers to seek an early meeting with the hon. gentleman to clarify the matter. Here is a heading from the Herald of November 27: "Top-Level Meetings Urged In Bid To Get $25 Million Grant". On December 3, in the Post: "Coal Loan Questioned-Wants Details". On December 22 we find the headline appearing, "No Sign of Vital Report". The reference is to the Donald report. Here is another heading which appeared on December 29: "Dr. Donald Says Findings May Be Submitted In Two Parts".
Can the minister tell us whether any part of this report has yet been received? The Herald on January 20 said, "Government Waiting For Coal Report". The next day we find a story under the heading "Coal Report In 'A Few Weeks' ". So the headings go on and on. There is nothing concrete.
I must say I was pleased that my hon. friend from Cape Breton South succeeded in rousing the minister to the point where he finally provided some information. I was also pleased that last night, in reply to a question which I put to him, the Minister of Transport said:
I can assure the hon. gentleman that the undertaking which was given by the government was not given lightly, and that it is the intention of the government to carry it out.
We were all happy to hear that. The question now is one of time. While the minister was absent from the house I referred to his statement, to be found a little later on in the text, when he referred to the work of Dr. Donald and added: "Pending the completion of the comprehensive review now in progress the government will provide substantial capital for immediate needs." Would the minister advise us what capital has been provided for immediate needs during this period when the Donald report is being awaited? I will let the subject rest for the moment and hope to participate in the discussion later in the evening after we have heard from the minister.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in hearing this afternoon a discussion between representatives of one section of
March 3, 1966
Canada and their minister. I wanted to ask whether that minister believes he has authority to speak on behalf of the Department of Mines and Technicial Surveys and make this promise of $25 million. If there are possibilities of this kind we in other parts of the country are interested in adopting the minister for ourselves.
I noticed that the hon. gentleman was willing to defend a new appointment to the coal board and he made a number of statements about appointments and patronage such as goes on in the maritimes. It seems to be a fairly open subject in that part of the country. I am not saying it is bad but if there is a constitutional basis for this kind of representation I should like to know what it is because some of the rest of us would like to have it. I am sure hon. members from British Columbia would find a minister of this kind very valuable if he were willing to make the same kind of commitment as that which has been made with respect to the Maritimes.
I was also interested in the remarks made by hon. members with regard to the coal situation in the Maritimes. There is no coal in my area or in northern Ontario generally but there is a great similarity between the problems there and the problems which face the Maritimes. We are dependant on natural resources and on the mining industry for much of our wealth and we are now facing a situation which people in the maritimes have been facing for a long time, the closing of mines which are coming to the end of their operation. We do not seem to be doing anything about it.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
We are not particular about having promises such as they seem to have had in the Maritimes; they certainly seem to have had a whole lot of them. There have been many promises of a political nature in the Maritimes in the last two years in respect of what was going to be done. I think the problem in the Maritimes is one which has to be solved, because when a solution is found it probably will apply also to the mining industry in northern Ontario.
I am interested in another field today. I am well aware of the fact that the two ministers here probably are more competent in the field of water resources, since I have had some experience with them in a committee on this subject. I should like to go into the matter of the diversion of water from James Bay and
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Hudson Bay into the waters of the Great Lakes chain, because I am sure we probably would get more answers in this regard than in some other fields. However, I think the other fields probably are more important to the people whom I represent.
I will be a little like the hon. member from the Maritimes and will speak mainly of an area in northern Ontario which has problems very similar to the problems to which the hon. member from the Maritimes referred. I am referring to the area encompassing Sudbury, Timmins, Timiskaming, Cochrane and several ridings on the Quebec side of the border. One of the problems we have is in relation to the gold mining industry. If there ever was anything closely connected with government, it certainly is the gold mining industry because of the manipulations which have been carried on by governments not only in Canada but throughout the world with regard to this very important commodity, gold.
I am not particularly sure that we should go back to the gold standard but I am of the opinion that the Canadian government must give consideration to what they really want to accomplish in respect of gold and other precious metals and the relation these have to our international trade, the international monetary fund and, yes, the gold of the Canadian nation. We allow gold to be sold at a fixed price in the United States when there are markets across the world which will pay two or three times the amount of money that the United States is prepared to pay.
Our whole gold system in Canada is in chaos. We, as are other countries, are faced with the fight that is taking place in respect of the backing of currency by gold or by the United States dollar. I think it would have been interesting if Mr. de Gaulle had been a few years younger and had had a few more dollars in bullion under the bed to recall in gold the money lent by the United States to France and then decide whether the backing for United States dollars should be by the International Monetary Fund or whether gold should be the commodity.
It is interesting, when speaking about the role of gold in currency, to point out that when the United States was in serious difficulty in the early 1930's President Roosevelt raised the price of gold from $28 to $35 and at the same time put in a clause to the effect that under the same Act gold could be raised to $50. It is also interesting to note that when

2138	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the Republicans at a later date decided to raise it to $50 they found there was a clause there which meant that the whole matter had to be reviewed again in the manner which President Roosevelt had followed and the government of the day did not decide to do this.
I think the Canadian people should consider gold as another commodity. We should either keep it in Canada and decide for ourselves what the commodity should be worth -I presume we could sell it internationally at $70 an ounce-or we should decide to keep it in Canada in the reserves of the nation so that we too could deal with the United States in terms of currency and leave the gold in storage in Canada until something is done about it internationally.
It is fair to say that this government has no intention of increasing the price of gold; it is also a fact that the previous government had no intention of increasing the price of gold. I think it will be some time before a minister of finance from Canada will go to the international monetary fund with a few of his colleagues and ask for an increase in the price of gold, even with the support of some of the other nations who are going to ask for it.
I think we should be prepared in Canada to decide for ourselves the price of gold and to allow such prices for that commodity in the gold mining industry which would expand that industry so that it can pay wages and operate the mines. This would result in a great increase in the production of gold and in the development of many areas in Canada. If we do not intend to do this, then let us close down the gold mines and do something for the people of those communities and not keep dragging our feet to the extent, as the member for Timmins pointed out, that gold mines in Timmins have had to close down.
If gold is a commodity which we can sell and is a worthwhile commodity, then let us decide nationally to support it to the extent that we can mine it or, if not, get out of the field. I suggest that, if the solution is an increase in the emergency gold mining assistance program-we are paying a large sum of money at the present time to that industry-let us do it in such a way that part of it will go to the miners in the form of wages and part of it to the communities to enable them to pay the taxes to operate the municipalities rather than make it necessary for the people living there to pay abnormally high taxes to support education in areas in

DEBATES	March 3, 1966
other parts of Canada when they are not going to get the benefit of the training that is not now being provided in all the northern areas. Had we done this in the first place, sums of money would have been available to the gold mining communities of northern Ontario to enable the industry to pay wages and subsidize the maintenance of new industries until they were vibrant.
There are other industries in the mining field which have not received much assistance. One of them is the silver industry. I can remember Mr. Lynch, the former president now deceased, of Siscoe Mines going before the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives and telling them that if they did not face the problem of finding a method to allow silver to seek its natural level they were going to have to debase their coinage. They have now had to do this, as Canada will have to do as well, because they did not take the advice of the people who were completely familiar with the history of the silver mining industry and the maintenance of sound solid sterling currency in their own countries.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The silver mining industry in Canada has been a very important industry. It has made Bay Street, it has made St. James Street, it has made fortunes and has supported many industries in all parts of Canada, as has the gold mining industry. I think these industries deserve some guarantee as to their future just as I believe the gold mining industry deserves some guarantee as to its future. The solution to this problem is easy and can be effected in my area if the government has the guts and courage to take action.
There is a new captive iron mine opening in my area which is owned by a Pittsburgh steel company. I suggest that the production of iron in that area has been subsidized in many ways, including cheap transportation over our provincially owned railway, to such an extent that we receive no royalty at all for the iron taken out of the ground. The only benefit we receive in this regard is employment for 200, 300 or 400 people in the area. It seems to me that if this industry was operated properly and a steel mill was established in northern Ontario there would be jobs for 2,000 to 5,000 individuals, each of whom would pay provincial taxes, municipal taxes and federal taxes. I am sure in this way the money necessary to develop that steel industry would be repaid in less than 20 years.
March 3, 1966

Do we want a Canada or are we just to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the United States? We are going to have to think about this. I agree with everyone who says that one small mine will not support a steel mill but a Timagami mine is being opened by Dofasco. I refer to the Sherman mine, It is to be financed independently and has no captive-market. It is going to sell its own ore. This ore could go to a most lucrative market if there was a steel plant in that area.
The minister from the Maritimes is interested in developing projects in the Maritimes.
I suggest he has a difficult proposition because he has not faced the problem referred to by a previous speaker, that is, where are the markets to be? We have markets in northern Ontario for steel to meet Canadian demands which are not being met in Canada today. We have iron ore right at Cochrane. There are two or three deposits in my riding and there are deposits across the border in Quebec. I suggest there are enough iron ore deposits in my part of northern Ontario to supply such a steel mill for the next 50 years, but even that amount would not satisfy the entrepreneurs who would develop this steel mill. They would need a longer guarantee of supply than 50 years.
If we want to develop a long range steel production project in Canada we should consider the iron ore deposits on Belcher Island in Hudson Bay. There is enough iron ore there to make it economically feasible to bring it to northern Ontario to supply a steel mill there for at least another 50 or possibly 100 years. When that iron ore has been used I am sure there will be much more found in that area because in my opinion the surface has only been scratched.
Such a project could be carried out if the government really wanted to do something in this way, but it will have to put up the money. I don't give a damn who runs the mill, whether it be private industry or the government. I could not care less. But there are legitimate reasons why the company that already has a mill established in Pittsburgh will pay any type of premium and make any kind of investment to obtain a captive mine in Canada, particularly when the government makes arrangements for the iron ore to be transferred to the United States at the lowest possible cost. I do not blame the entrepreneur in Pittsburgh in this regard but I believe that if we are really anxious to be Canadians and have Canadian industries we are going to have to put up some money.
DEBATES	2139
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
I have heard a lot of wisecracks made by western members about the steel mill in Regina. I suggest that if there ever was an illogical place to put a steel mill it is on the baldheaded prairies where there is no market and no iron ore. However, a steel mill was established there with government support for the simple reason that the west needed steel to develop an industrial empire on the prairies. The provincial government put up money to make sure that a steel plant was developed there. Sdme may point out that there have been difficulties encountered since its construction but steel is being manufactured on the baldheaded prairies. In my opinion that is not a place where the officials of the Department of Industry would recommend that a steel mill be built because you cannot establish an industry unless you have the basic materials and resources in the area where it is to be established. You also require a consumer market.
I suggest that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has been a useless asset over the years so far as the communities of northern Ontario are concerned. It is true that the department has done a great deal more in other fields than mining, and much of the difficulty has revolved around the fact that natural resources come within provincial jurisdiction. For that reason the provincial departments of mines have a much greater responsibility than the federal department. On the other hand, I do not believe the people in Toronto would try to discourage the federal government if it were willing to invest money to develop the industry in northern Ontario. I am sure they would not be in disagreement provided it did not cost them anything.
I used the iron ore industry as an example but what I have said is also true of the copper industry in the Timmins area. This is also true of zinc and silver mines. It is interesting to note that the Timmins area will provide a great amount of ore over a long period of time and will have great influence on copper production in Canada. I think it is a disgrace if the companies involved are allowed to export this raw material to other countries.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been interested in the export of ore from Canada. I am sure he is aware of what happened in Australia not long ago when the government told a Japanese company that it could take part of the ore mined in Australia out of the country if
2140	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys in return it developed a processing mill in Australia. The government told that company that if it did not agree to these terms it could not take any ore. Why should we be so generous with the United States because the interested people there have a few bucks? Are we willing to sell our souls, our Canadian nationalism and our Canadian nationhood for a few dollars and cents? I am sure if you ask that question of the businessmen of this country their answer will be yes, as long as they pay us more bucks than we can get in Canada. I do not think that is true of the Canadian public and I hope to God it is not true of the Canadian government. Surely it is time now for some of our government officials to stand up and say that this is not true.
We hear a lot of talk about gold and silver and the fact that they are only precious metals which do not make the wheels of industry go around, but there are a lot of people engaged in space exploration who will tell you that without silver there would not be much activity in that field. I think that argument can be carried into the basic metals industry. We have an abundance of these metals in northern Ontario.
I have often said that we should not be interested in moving people from one industrial area to another. We must bring industry to the areas where these people live. You can say that the people who live on Belle Isle are poor and depressed, you can say that the people of the Maritimes are poor and depressed, but let me point out that some miners in northern Ontario are working underground for less than $2 an hour.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I say that is a depressed wage. This situation creates a depressed area and something must be done for these people. I suggest that if you agree with this proposition you also have to agree that the solution is not in uprooting the people from the areas in which the mining industry has developed very up to date communities; the solution is in helping the mining industry rebuild their communities, particularly in those areas where the industry has changed and where the type of industry lends itself to the development of other industries.
The Prime Minister came into northern Ontario. I had the benefit of having him start his campaign in my riding. I hasten to say that I do not disagree with what the Prime Minister said in my riding, because he said he would see that something was done about industrial development in Timiskaming. He

DEBATES	March 3, 1966
said he would do something for the farmers in Timiskaming. He said he would help industry develop in northern Ontario. With these objectives I agree. I suggest that if a Liberal or a Conservative had been elected in Timiskaming they also would have come to Ottawa and demanded government assistance to develop the industries of our area.
The people of northern Ontario, no matter with what political party they are affiliated, are first northerners and second politicians. I believe they are all convinced that if we in northern Ontario are to survive something must be done for the industries in this area. Certainly the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows something of this problem because he had something to do with it. He knows there is a great reluctance on the part of the people of northern Ontario to move out of this part of the country into the cities, even though the jobs there pay a great deal more money. He knows it is difficult to move people from Glace Bay into Toronto and Montreal. He knows it is difficult to move people from any area in which they live and have been raised if they are satisfied with everything in the area but the lack of business and employment opportunities. If the minister agrees with what I have said, he has no alternative in my opinion but to support the proposition that the federal government through the Department of Labour, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Industry, should take the resources that we have, subsidize them if necessary, and create around them viable industries that will grow and develop in the area. If private industry does not do it, I suggest that the governments of the provinces in co-operation with the federal government will have to do it.
I am very pleased to live right on the border of the province of Quebec because I have heard that their Minister of Resources, Mr. Rene Levesque, went into Noranda and told one of the richest, most despotic and dictatorial companies ever to exist on the North American continent that if they did not do something to improve wages in the base metal industry he would do something about it, and nationalize them. I do not think he has to nationalize them; all he has to do is threaten to do so.
It is about time this government considered what happened there, because the company settled its differences with labour very shortly afterwards. Mr. Levesque called both labour and management representatives to
March 3, 196G

Quebec city and told them, "Sit down and negotiate a solution to these differences or I will run your mines and make the decisions for you". We are told that this is a government of free enterprisers, if there is such an animal left. Free enterprisers is a term applied to the gold mines, because we give them a million bucks a month to run the business they want. Yet, they are not willing to pay proper wages to their employees or contribute anything to the well-being of the community.
I come from a community in which one individual has made millions of dollars but has not put one red cent into the community. He did build lovely parks in Welland and established beautiful estates in Bermuda, but he did not put one cent into the community in the form of assistance. Yet these are the people we are willing to subsidize, not the workers, communities or industries that are capable of developing.
The government says this area does not meet the criteria. Criteria be damned; the Department of Industry has no criteria. The Prime Minister sits down with the Premier of Ontario; they play shuffleboard with the criteria and decide, "This place in my riding will be designated and in return I will designate one area in your riding". Is that applying criteria? It is about time we threw this idea of criteria out the window and decided to do something fundamental in regard to developing industry. This can be done. It has been done in the Scandinavian countries.
I do not think I should agree to any concessions in regard to the departments which we are considering because this government has not through its ministers made any concrete proposals in keeping with the suggestions the Prime Minister made in my riding, when he promised he would help solve the problems of the distressed areas, those of the gold mining industry and the lumber industry, and establish a program for the base metal industry that would provide the people there with more than minimum wages for digging out the minerals.
The mineral wealth of northern Ontario is beyond comprehension. I do not think there is any geologist in Canada who would dare to estimate in hundreds of billions of dollars the amount of mineral wealth that will come out of northern Ontario in the next 100 years. In return for this great potential I believe we the people of northern Ontario, yes, we the people of Canada, deserve action on the part of the government to assist this
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys industry. Something should be done about developing the natural resources of our nation for the betterment of the people of Canada.
I certainly hope that the minister who is going to represent northern Ontario, whether he be from Montreal or Vancouver, will stand up and say he is prepared to recommend to the government that they do something about the desecration of our raw materials in northern Ontario and help us produce the wealth which is there and get the benefit in Canada of the wealth we are producing.


Mr. McLelland:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few briefs remarks at this time and ask the ministers responsible whether the federal government has taken the necessary steps to see that the waters which flow into and make up the South Saskatchewan river will have strict controls placed on them as to water pollution substances.
As everyone knows, the dam being built on the South Saskatchewan river will create a large lake practically in the centre of southern Saskatchewan. It is of great importance that these waters be kept free of all pollution, because if they are not the lake that will be created could become a natural cesspool in years ahead.
We hope the federal government has a rigid pollution policy that is acceptable to the provincial governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta so that the necessary safeguards can be applied in order to keep these waters relatively free of all pollution. Saskatchewan has waited many years for this project to become a reality and waits with pride and expectation to the time when it will have a recreational area in what was once considered a dust bowl in Saskatchewan. This lake will be used as a recreational area by many people from all parts of Canada in years to come.
For this reason I would plead with the federal government to put into effect a rigid water pollution policy governing these waters as well as other waterways in western Canada. I would expect that if the federal government takes the initiative they will receive the co-operation of the provincial governments concerned. This is of importance at this time because the lake has started to become a reality and steps should be taken now regarding water pollution.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Howard Russell MacEwan: I wish to make a few remarks on the estimates of the Department
March 3, 1966
2142	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys of Mines and Technical Surveys. First of all,
I should like to refer briefly to the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he mentioned the hon. member for Cape Breton South. He said the member had not brought forward any constructive ideas about coal mining in the province of Nova Scotia in this or any other Parliament. I remind the minister, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and myself come from coal mining areas. The very fact that these members have been sent here by their constituents shows that they have a right to get up in this house and speak on behalf of their constituents. The hon. member for Cape Breton South is well versed in the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia, having worked in the mines. The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria broke his back working in a coal mine. I worked in a mine, too, and although I do not know how much coal I got out, I was brought up in a coal mining family, a fact of which I am very proud.
May I just remind the minister we are not back in the old days of the former Liberal regime, when our people came to Ottawa with their hats in their hands to see the great white father. This idea went out the window in 1957. At that time, I was pleased to come to Ottawa, with my two colleagues, and put forward representations from the coal mining areas. We intend to carry on for some time to come.
You ask, what is the problem in the coal mining industry? The hon. member for Ti-miskaming thought that perhaps markets were our problem. Until a few years ago this was the case. I am going to quote briefly from the Dominion Coal Board report for 1964-1965, page 10, where I find this:
Coal production in Nova Scotia in the year under review was 4,316,000 tons. The decrease of 159,000 tons reflected circumstances at the mines and failure to meet production targets, not lack of markets.
The report goes on to point out that the trouble with our mines is their inability to generate the capital required for a systematic renewal of equipment. In other words, there are two problems. This fact was pointed out in a brief presented by the United Mine Workers of America not long ago when they appeared before the provincial government at Halifax. I believe they want to come up and visit this government. The minister asks the question, what is the hurry? I think there
[Mr. MacEwan.l

have been a lot of resolutions coming from Cape Breton. I received a copy of one from the Sydney Board of Trade. The people of Cape Breton, the people of Nova Scotia, are getting most impatient. They want to see this undertaking commenced immediately.
There are two problems. There is the matter of the older mines in which it is costly to produce coal, and there is the matter of setting up new mines, which will provide enough coal to satisfy the markets which we have. Perhaps in this regard I could point out briefly the problem in my own constituency. In that area, we have two independent mines. I hope the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will not forget to give assistance to the independent mines. There is one mine owned by Dosco, the McBean mine which, according to the latest figures has a life of approximately three years. I am glad to report that just last week the United Mine Workers of America executive met with the officials of the department of mines and with the United Mine Workers executive in my own area, and a decision was made to do some drilling in that area in order to find new seams to open up a new mine in the Pictou County area. I do not expect the minister, or indeed our Nova Scotia minister, to do anything at this time except co-operate with the provincial government in order to find a possible opening in that area.
I made a statement on this matter before coming to Ottawa, and I attempted to raise it in the house. However, I was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. I fell that the federal government should provide assistance to find an opening in our area. I am led to believe that $25 million will be necessary for the modernization of the mines in the Cape Breton area and the new opening at Lingan. I am asking for an additional amount to assist in the opening of a new seam in the Pictou County area. The McBean mine employs about 400 men. During the last few years we have secured new industry in the area, namely the Scott Paper Company pulp mill, as well as the Clairtone Sound Corporation. I know that this company intends to venture into colour television sets in the spring. As has been pointed out, and this is most important, we cannot replace present industry with other industry. We must keep our present industry as well as get new ones. I put before the minister, and indeed before our Nova Scotia minister, the necessity for a guarantee that there will be adequate assistance for a possible opening in our area.
March 3, 1966	COMMONS
The cost of our coal is high. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, we had some contracts during the last few years with the Ontario Hydro Commission. These have been a great help and we hope they will continue.
I believe, as was pointed out by the efficient chairman of the Dominion Coal Board at the meeting in Victoria, that our hope for years to come for the production of power is in the thermal plants. As pointed out in the Dominion Coal Board report, this substantial rise in bituminous consumption largely reflects the accelerating rate at which coal is now being used in Canada for electric power generation. So far as I have been able to ascertain in my research, this is the area toward which most authorities in Canada look today in the matter of coal production. Our hope lies in supplying coal for the production of power in thermal power plants. My own area has one such plant, at Trenton which I hope will be enlarged. It is for this reason I am pressing for the new opening. This plant has used a great deal of coal in the last few years and it looks as if it will use more.
We do not have a sufficient supply of coal to look after our domestic needs, so we have to import coal from the former Island of Cape Breton. Certainly, we like to use that coal. I do not know whether it generates any more coal dust than was generated in the chamber this afternoon. In any event, I want to agree with my two friends, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria and the hon. member for Cape Breton South, whom I will call the coal dust twins. I completely endorse the remarks they made in this debate.
In conclusion, I will turn from coal for a minute to the matter of technical surveys. I am going to make a speech which I have made in this house every year since I have come here. It will only take two or three minutes. I refer to the Canadian hydrographic survey ship Acadia which has been berthed in my riding at Pictou since 1947, along with the C.H.S. Cartier, which probably will not be used too much longer and is now on the Great Lakes. I have been referring to this subject since Hon. Paul Comtois was minister and visited our area and the coal mine where my father was the manager. I have pointed out to successive governments that the berthing of this ship in that area during the winter period when it is not used, has certain advantages.
DEBATES	2143
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
The crews are located there, they have their homes there. The local shipyards have an opportunity to do the refit work and the local suppliers provide supplies. I hope that the minister will read these remarks in Hansard and that these ships will continue to be berthed in the port of Pictou.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Before I close, sir, perhaps I could recall to mind a song with twenty some verses concerning coal mining, one verse of which went something like this:
Down in the coal mine underneath the ground,
Little rays of sunshine never can be found.
Little dusty diamonds shining all around,
Down in the coal mine underneath the ground.
We members who came from that area- the minister himself comes from a coal mining area-know what this means. We must keep those little dusty diamonds shining all around.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not be too hasty in calling me to order if I preface the few remarks I want to make by quoting a section from the Fisheries Act. Section 61 says, in part:
Every person who causes or knowingly permits to pass into, or puts or knowingly permits to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, dead or decaying fish, or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust or any other deleterious substance or thing, whether the same is of the like character to the substances named in this section or not, in any water frequented by fish, is liable, for the first offence, to a penalty of twenty five dollars and costs-
The section then goes on to provide that for second and third offences the penalties will be increased.
The reason I have quoted that section of the Fisheries Act is that as far I am aware that is the principle, and almost the only, piece of legislation in the federal sphere that deals directly with the question of the pollution of the water resources of our country. I have quoted it because there is a reaction, and a very understandable reaction, on the part of the people who find serious pollution at their doorsteps, immediately to say "There should be a law which stops this''. Up to a point I think this is certainly true. However, I would agree with opinions which I know are held by other members of the house, that this is not the only and the complete solution to this question.
I am sorry that the minister who is to become the minister of energy and resources and who will take a particular interest in this matter in the future is not with us today, but

March 3. 1966
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys I am glad the minister who is taking his place for the time being happens to be the minister who has had the matter of water resources under his jurisdiction up till the present time, and is therefore familiar, not only in his capacity as minister but also, I am sure, in his capacity-to go back to a reference which was made a little earlier-as minister from British Columbia, with the importance not only of the question of the general use of our water resources, but also the question of conservation in the sense of avoiding the ever increasing pressure to pollute those resources.
When we were considering the estimates of the Department of Industry the other night, and there was considerable discussion about designated areas, I suggested that as far as some communities in Canada were concerned they should perhaps be designated as areas rapidly becoming unfit for human habitation, because of the level to which pollution of the water and also of the air was reaching.
I have been seeking some information about the activities in which the federal government has been engaging to deal with this question, in particular its activities in the field of research. The Minister of Industry, when I raised the question in respect of the activities of the National Research Council, said that he would inform himself and then inform me. Possibly the minister who is piloting these estimates through may be a little more immediately knowledgeable on this question, and if he has some information on this subject which he could briefly give the committee I for one would certainly welcome it while the subject matter of this department is before us.
I would draw to his attention, as I did to the attention of the Minister of Industry, the fact that I have on the order paper a question which was put there on February 9-perhaps that is not an undue length of time in view of the nature of the question-and which asks for specific information about what is being done by various departments or agencies of the federal government in the field of pollution control research.
I am not going to attempt at this time to launch into this question with the eloquence with which the hon. member for Timis-kaming made his plea for development of the mining industry in northern Ontario. If the minister from the maritimes whom he named would ship some of his coal to the smelter in northern Ontario, then if they run out of iron ore perhaps I could send some iron ore from

my constituency to the maritimes, this would provide a real example of national development and unity, and incidentally provide a lot of business for the railways. However that may not be the most feasible solution to that particular problem.
One other question I would specifically like the minister to answer relates to a forthcoming event of which I know he is fully aware. I refer to the conference to be held this fall in Montreal on the subject of pollution and our environment, under the sponsorship of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers.
I have in my hand a pamphlet which indicates some of the details of the planning of this conference. It also indicates that a brochure is being prepared and distributed, outlining further details. This brochure is being distributed throughout Canada to interested governments, institutions, associations and individuals. Then it goes on to say that invitations to the conference will be extended by the federal and provincial governments.
One of the questions I should like to have answered is whether or not the government of Canada is going to extend such invitation to members of parliament who might be interested in participating in that conference. I find myself rather impatient, even though I recognize there are some complexities in planning this matter, at the fact that we are not any further along the way toward an effective dealing with the acute problems of pollution which exist in some areas, including at least two areas in my constituency which I could name, than to be thinking about a discussion or a study conference on the subject next fall.
Nevertheless, from what little reading I have done about the planning for this conference, I readily agree that there may be some quite worth-while things come out of it. I only hope that its results will reflect themselves very quickly in effective action both at the federal and at the provincial levels of government.
The bulletin to which I referred earlier contains this statement, made by the man who I believe is currently chairman of the Resource Ministers Council. He says:
The continuing pollution of our water, of our air and of our soil rests upon our conscience. It is a problem to which every Canadian must turn his attention.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, this is a statement with which a great many of my constituents would agree. I do want to say, without further
March 3, 1966

prolonging my comments, that a good many of my constituents are becoming increasingly impatient with the continuance of the situation, and the conditions under which they have to live. Unless some effective action is forthcoming rather speedily following this conference, they are going to become even more impatient than they are at the present time.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the committee wants to get on with the passing of these estimates, and I as a member of the official opposition on this side of the house have refrained from taking part in the debate so far. However, I should be remiss in my duty to my constituents if I did not direct a few remarks to the minister about the development of heavy water in Canada. Recently, when I directed this question to the Minister of Industry I was informed that it did not come under his purview. I feel justified in bringing the matter before the committee at this particular time.
Just to recall a few of the facts, hon. members may remember that this matter was introduced by the Minister of Industry one year ago last November, at which time he went through the process of explanation in the house. It was stated, and carried forward then, that a heavy water plant in Canada was nearing completion at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. The minister announced that a market was available; that it was time Canada took steps to see that a second heavy water plant was developed. Tenders were called and, I believe on January 29, 1965, which was the deadline, four responsible companies made a bid. I think all members of the house will recall the excitement and anticipation engendered in certain areas that thought they might be affected by this development. There was much excitement and approval at Estevan as a result of that announcement. Estevan is in the province of Saskatchewan, and I make these remarks because of the importance of this subject to my riding.
Hon. members may recall that Estevan was selected as the site for the erection of this heavy water plant, as a result of a supplementary statement by the minister. Naturally as a result of the minister's statement that Estevan, Saskatchewan, was the site and Western Deuterium Limited of British Columbia, the successful bidder, the city immediately took steps to be prepared for this development.
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
Considerable sums of money were spent; facilities were built to accommodate the extra industrial and technical populace which would be coming in to develop this plant, which it was anticipated would take three years to complete, and which would have from 500 to 1,000 workmen working on it. The city aldermen and various other authorities took steps to improve facilities such as sewers, water, and the like.
Then it was realized, in July 1965 to the great consternation of the city of Estevan, that Western Deuterium Limited was not going on with the proposed plant. The authorities in the city were under the impression that a positive announcement had been made by the minister about the development, similar to that made with respect to the heavy water plant at Glace Bay.
It turned out that although Western Deuterium Limited had acted properly, there was nothing cut and dried. The whole scheme was just a proposal, and must have been a premature announcement on the part of the government. It was to be, in the first place, an announcement of policy. If that announcement had been cut and dried, and the contract to develop heavy water undertaken, things would have turned out differently. Naturally we are still very much interested in this. After that, when inquiries were made, we learned that Atomic Power Corporation of Calgary, the second lowest bidder, would be invited to take over the contract of Western Deuterium Limited. This also failed to carry through.
Then, the latest information was that Canadian General Electric of Peterborough were invited, some three months ago, to make a follow-up survey of the prospects of building a second heavy water plant, and of discussing as soon as possible where it should be constructed.
I have done my best to inquire into the determinations of this policy. A lot of money has been spent in my constituency, and there is still a vague shadow over the policy surrounding this proposed project.
I would ask the minister if he could advise this committee now as to what actually is the status of this heavy water plant, and when it is expected to have something finalized about it. I am sure that the people of Saskatchewan and the people of Estevan Point, Saskatchewan, are very much interested, as I think the government is. I hope we shall hear something definite before long, because the people
March 3, 1966

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys in my constituency and particularly Estevan have been put to a great deal of expenditure and have faced much uncertainty.


Robert Muir: I wonder if the minister from Nova Scotia is in a position to reply to the several questions that I posed to him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether I can answer all the questions which have been put to me by the hon. gentleman. However, before I attempt to answer any of them I think I should refer to a comment made by the hon. member for Ti-miskaming who wondered why a minister of national health and welfare is taking on the role of answering for the coal industry.


Michael Starr: Do not start a fight; you want to get your estimates through?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, the Nova Scotian representative in the cabinet is usually held accountable in that province for whatever happens in any department of the federal government. It would be as unrealistic for a minister representing Nova Scotia in the cabinet to ignore coal as it would be for a minister representing Saskatchewan to ignore wheat.


Erik Nielsen: Precisely.


An hon. Member:: Which minister represents Saskatchewan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been an accepted tradition in the past that the Nova Scotian minister involves himself very deeply in coal policy. That, of course, was characteristic of my immediate predecessors, the late Hon. George Nowlan and Hon. R. H. Winters. For that reason I have involved myself in this problem. Because of the request of the hon. gentleman opposite I have attempted, in the minister's absence, to give some answers.
I would say in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria with respect to the Coal Board, for example, that I would take as dim a view as he does of any liquidation of the Dominion Coal Board, in the existing circumstances. There has been no discussion and no decision, to my knowledge, with respect to any alteration in the traditional system of subventions. There has been no discussion or decision to abolish the tariff on United States coal. Policy decisions with respect to investments in the coal industry stand on their own feet. In other words, the government has made a

decision with respect to investment in the Nova Scotia coal industry, and that decision stands.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
One of the purposes of the development study is to provide assistance in determining implementation of the long term policy for the coal industry. It is clear to me from my study of the industry that there are various proposals, and various combinations of proposals which could be considered in respect to the expenditure of various amounts of capital. We are looking forward to the Donald report to provide assistance in reaching conclusions on some of these points.
The hon. member for Pictou talked about the independent mines. It is true that Dr. Donald is paying particular attention to the independent operators, one or two of whom are in my own constituency of Inverness-Richmond, Cape Breton West. Most of the industrial complex we have been discussing this afternoon is in the constituencies of the members for Cape Breton North and Cape Breton South. I hope the constituents of Pictou and Inverness-Richmond will also be beneficiaries of this policy which will, I trust, assist considerably the operations in those other two ridings.
These are all the answers I have at the moment to the questions asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. I would conclude by saying that my reference to manpower had to do with the services of the department of manpower, which the government would want to use in its implementation of long term policy. The purpose of the whole exercise is of course to create and to maintain maximum employment opportunities in the Cape Breton area.


Mr, Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to make one or two brief comments. Am I to take it from the minister's reply that the provision of this assistance to the coal industry is not contingent upon the restriction of coal production to its present volume, or reducing it from the present annual figure? Would he give us an assurance, too, that this assistance is not contingent upon there being any reduction in the number of workers in the coal field, say from 6,000 to 4,500?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All I can say in reply to that question is that no decisions have been taken with respect to production levels or manpower requirement. Only when we have received the report of the Donald commission,
March 3, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	2147
and then in consultation with the provincial government, the industry and labour would it be possible to reach any conclusions about these very important points. The effort is, of course, to maintain maximum employment. But no decisions have been made about those matters.


Robert Muir: One further question. The minister ended his statement by saying that pending the completion of a comprehensive review the government would provide substantial capital for immediate needs. Would he advise the committee what capital has been granted to the companies concerned, if any, and for what purposes? Has any money been provided during this interim period while the report is being awaited?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I recollect, there was a particular coal mining machine which was under investigation for possible use in the industry. It was intended that capital should be available so that this machine could be used for testing purposes. I am not sure what capital, if any, has been spent on this project, but I will draw the attention of the minister to this question and get an answer.


Mr. Nasserden:: I have only a few remarks to make at this time but I do not think I should let this opportunity pass without referring to what has been perhaps the most spectacular development in mining in Canada during the past year. I refer to the development of potash in the province of Saskatchewan.
Most of the latest developments in this field are within the boundaries of the constituency I have the honour to represent. We are looking forward to great things from this industry. As a province we have the welcome mat out for those industries which will be complementary to the potash development. The provincial government is anxious that such industries be established to make full use of the resources we have in this respect.
I should like to point out that there still remains a problem with respect to taxation of solution mining in Saskatchewan. I believe some steps have been taken in an effort to clear up this situation, but the difficulty has still not been settled to the satisfaction of the companies concerned. While this is possibly not of direct concern to the department of mines, it is one of the matters with which this government should be dealing.
I should like to compliment the Minister without Portfolio. It is pleasant to see a
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys young man seeing these estimates through the house today. Of course, he is sitting beside the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who is a favourite of mine, and if he follows in his footsteps he should do all right.


Richard Russell Southam: Could the minister answer the question I put to him a few minutes ago, before this item passes?


John Napier Turner: With the permission of the committee I intend to comment on a number of questions, taking them together.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is
interesting to note that nobody on the other side is aware that the estimates of Atomic Energy of Canada have already passed the committee under the guidance of the Minister of-


Some hon. Members:: Finance.


Malcolm MacInnis: Well, Finance-under the heading of Defence Production or whatever portfolio he is holding. This item has already been dealt with. Yet we have ministers who are willing to accept questions on matters which have already been passed by the committee.


John Napier Turner: As a matter of courtesy we listened to the hon. member for Moose Mountain, who had not been given an opportunity to ask the questions he wanted to ask on the other estimates.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: But this is a government which is always talking about the importance of rules and procedures. Now they are not only willing to give an hon. member the opportunity to revert to ask questions on other items, but they are willing to revert to an entirely different set of estimates. I had asked the same question and when I got my answer I left it at that, fully realizing that whoever gave it to me did not know what he was talking about. I did not pursue it, simply because it emphasized the fact that a number of the statements which have been made in this committee about heavy water were in contradiction to statements made by other ministers.
To get back to the minister from Nova Scotia for the time being. I would ask him to enlarge upon his answer to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria with regard to a possibility of a reduction in coal production. The minister said in effect that no decision had been taken. I hope it is not
March 3, 1966
2148	COMMONS
Supply[DOT]-Mines and Technical Surveys correct to gather from that answer that somebody within government circles is leaving the impression that a reduction in the production of Cape Breton coal should come about.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I fully recognize the danger which was pointed out some time ago by a former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, when he was talking about a cut-back and about subventions. I recognize there is a danger in even discussing this matter, although it may be connected with the recommendations of the Rand report, a report which in my opinion is full of contradictions. At one point it talks about the potential of the Cape Breton coal industry, while the next minute it refers to a cut-back in production. This is contrary to the expressed opinions of the Dominion Coal Board. According to the latest of the annual reports in recent years, a distinct upturn in demand for coal is in progress. I would ask the minister to keep that in mind and not allow those who want to discuss a cut-back in respect of Cape Breton coal to get off the ground. I would ask him to explain the circumstances surrounding the decision of the federal government to convert the central heating plant from coal to gas. This has cost the coal producers a loss of about 18 thousand tons of coal a year. Would the minister also explain why this decision was announced by an official of the gas company at the same time the minister was discussing ways and means to assist the coal industy. Last September, from his own department in the Jackson Building, 300 people had to go home because there was no heating for their offices. This also has caused a great deal of discomfort in the offices of the House of Commons here in winter. I could get support in this regard from members on the minister's own side of the house who have complained about the heating since the conversion took place.
The late Hon. George Nowlan, during his period of office from 1957 to 1962, met many delegations representing the clergy, municipalities, and other people speaking on behalf of the coal industry. I would ask the minister why it is that since this government took office no such meetings have been convened in Ottawa? Why is the minister not meeting the situation in Cape Breton or Nova Scotia today with the same approach that was taken by the late Hon. George Nowlan in dealing with these questions? I think it is interesting to note that no such meetings


have been held since the government changed.
I would also ask the minister what a long range program has to do with the opening of a new mine at Lingan? This is something which is short term and which should take place immediately to provide for the 1,100 men who were laid off in January. The company is prepared to go ahead with this immediately, provided the government makes available that portion referred to specifically by the minister, the $10 million, to open that new mine.
This is not a long range program. The minister has made the statement that this mine could be in operation in two or three years. I have no objection to a government's taking precautions to ensure, when any money is spent by an industry or a company in respect of mechanization or a new opening, that some person is there as a watchdog of the federal government to see that every cent is used out of every dollar of federal money put there. There are persons who are available to the federal government, and I might mention in particular Mr. Alec Brown of the Coal Board, a most competent man, who could be the necessary watchdog. I do not wish to connect the term watchdog with Mr. Brown, but I am sure he would be capable of ensuring that the expenditures made by the government to open a new colliery at Lingan immediately would be very well taken care of. In this respect the government would not have to set up some commission and bring in somebody else to ensure that their money was well spent.
This is not a long term plan. The minister himself refers to getting into production in two or three years. He may have exaggerated the number of people who may be working there and may also have exaggerated in respect of when they hoped to get into full production. Nevertheless that requirement is there, and he also has assurance from the Dominion Coal Board that markets can be found for the expected production. There is absolutely no reason that we should wait for the Donald report in order to make available that $10 million to start the new mine at Lingan.
I would hope the minister would take this into consideration and disregard the statements made by others in respect of what is required there. I am sure the minister can recall the statement he made about this, and statements made by the leader of the Liberal
March 3, 1968

party in Nova Scotia today; you remember the Liberal leader, the former member for Halifax.


An hon. Member:: He has gone to the Senate.


Malcolm MacInnis: No; the
childish member. These are not my words. The former speaker referred to him as the childish member, and he is still acting childish. The leader of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia wanted to come up and meet with the minister, but the minister said there was no need for Mr. Regan to come to Ottawa. The opening of the new mine at Lingan is not something which is long term. It has absolutely no bearing on the Donald report. I would like the minister to make available at once the $10 million required for the new opening, and I would ask him to point out, if he can, whether any provisions are made for the advancing of this money, in the estimates or anywhere else?


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, when the minister replies, would he give us his view in respect of the suggestion I made earlier this afternoon to the effect that the services of the former coal board chairman-or the almost former chairman in a day or so I understand-be retained by the board, because I am sure his knowledge and experience in the coal industry is certainly valuable to all of us in Nova Scotia and to the rest of Canada.
I also would like to have the minister's view on the suggestion I made earlier this afternoon with regard to the statement I made when we were dealing with the $25 million grant, when I pointed out that the government should have a representative, as it were-and this also has been suggested since by the member for Cape Breton South-sitting on the board of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, if they are the people who will get these millions. I would like to have the minister's view on that also.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I hope, so far as I am concerned, that this is a wrap-up with regard to the coal industry. I share the high regard that the hon. members for Cape Breton North and Victoria and Cape Breton South have expressed for the retiring chairman of the Dominion Coal Board. It seems to me to be a good idea that his services be made available on a consultative or continuing basis. I share also the high regard expressed for the technical officer of the
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys board, Mr. Brown, whose services are valuable and essential to the efficient operation of the board. These comments certainly will be kept in mind by the government.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
On the matter of production levels of the Nova Scotia coal industry, hon. members will recall that an understanding, to put it in its weakest terms, was reached in the days of the former government that subvention assistance for the coal industry would be maintained at or around the four million production level. That policy has been continued. This government has not departed from the subvention policy and the understood production levels that had been accepted as realistic by the former government. No decision has been taken to depart from that policy, and I certainly will keep in mind the comments made on this point by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
The shift from coal to gas in one of the government buildings was a matter of discussion among myself, the government and the minister of mines of Nova Scotia. The Minister of Public Works and I discussed and considered this. I have not had an opportunity to refresh my memory as to details, but at any rate the level of production involved, though important, was not great, and because of other reasons, in accord with established fuel policy within the department, this switch was made.
Having regard to the matter of delegations, the premier, for example, has not requested a meeting with the government regarding the coal industry, and normally he has led these delegations to Ottawa. If he did make a request I am sure that we would be quite glad to meet with him and any other person who might be part of his delegation. It is true that the president of the United Mine Workers has requested a meeting with the government at an early date, and it is my expectation that as a first step the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and I will be in a position to meet with interested parties next week to exchange views.
I do agree, as I have indicated, with the comments made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South regarding the Lingan opening. The rationale for the opening of the new mine, is, of course, to provide a reduction in the production per-ton cost of coal and to give a sweetening effect, in the economic sense, to the total output of the industry. In that way the production and the new opening

March 3, 1966
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys at Lingan is related to the total production of the industry itself. I have had in mind, and have had discussions on, the question whether it would be possible and realistic to consider a decision about Lingan itself before the elaboration of our total policy in the coal industry, and in that sense I appreciate the remarks of my hon. friend, the member for Cape Breton South.


Robert Muir: I should like to ask the minister whether it is correct that the executive officials of district 26 of the United Mine Workers of America have asked for a meeting with the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Robert Muir: What are the minister's views with reference to the possibility of having someone from the government on the board of any company that is going to deal with these millions of dollars?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That would be a matter for the government as a whole to decide, but I certainly share the view of the hon. member that if public funds are to be made available the government ought to set up a mechanism to ensure that the funds are spent for the purposes intended and in the most efficient way. I am sure that, whatever arrangements are made, ultimately this will have to be done, and it may be that the suggestion of my hon. friend will receive consideration. This is a matter for the government to decide. While there has been consideration, no decision has been taken.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, may I say first of all that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and I, along with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, appreciate the courtesy of the committee in allowing us to defend and pilot these estimates in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
I should like to make a few brief comments relating to the remarks of hon. members opposite this afternoon and evening. First of all I should like to say that we listened with great interest to the contribution made by the hon. member for Kamloops. We do not disagree with much of what he said. We believe that Canada's future depends on what type of national resources policy we have in Canada, and that Canadian identity is closely linked to that resources policy. I am sure the hon. member knows that the minister of northern

affairs and I are on record in respect of this subject.
We believe in a national resources policy. We believe in a co-ordinated policy between federal and provincial governments for the development and management of our water, our soil, our air and our minerals. We believe that this national policy must be achieved in co-operation with the provinces, but by way of a national catalyst or initiative-by federal co-ordination with the provinces on policies achieved on a national basis.
We believe also, Mr. Chairman, that the growth of Canada depends on development on a national basis of our natural and renewable resources. Although I will deal with this more specifically, I want to say to the hon. member for Timiskaming that in our vocabulary, this growth must be developed profitably for all Canadians in Canada. This is true of everything that we have on and under the ground and in the water. We believe that the development of a national resources policy includes as a corollary a resources policy for all of Canada and particularly for the northern areas of the country.


David Réal Caouette: It is possible.


John Napier Turner: I admit that and I shall discuss later the particular problem of the member for Villeneuve.

I suggest that we need national co-ordination of various provincial policies. We need research into what we are doing because facts must precede policy. We believe that an inventory, as mentioned by the hon. member for Kamloops and others, is absolutely a prerequisite to such a policy. We need at the same time to develop a cost benefit ratio for the development of these resources and to set priorities, if necessary, on a national scale as to the resources we can profitably bring into production in series.
I should like to list the steps of what we conceive to be a national resources policy for this country. First of all we have to make an inventory of these resources. There are already programs in this country for the setting up or establishment of a Canadian land inventory. I feel we also have to proceed with an evaluation of our water resources and needs. We must analyse the quality of the air above us, and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni made special reference to that. So we are talking in terms of an inventory of our
March 3, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	2151
forests, lands, recreation fisheries and wildlife and, particularly within the text of this department, our mineral resources.
After having made that inventory we conceive that Canada must have co-ordinated management of those resources, and that the federal government must achieve through the national council of resource ministers some standardization of inventory and management, as well as some recognition of the amount of budgetary support that each province will have to devote to the development of any particular resource.
Once the inventory and co-ordinated management policy have been worked out with the provinces, we believe that priorities related to production ought to be established between those resources and various areas so that the development of these resources can follow. We believe this should be linked with a policy directed toward increasing the processing of these resources in Canada. We believe also that a deliberate national development of resources depends on certain ancillary policies, and that we must co-ordinate our tariff policies so the whole range and purpose becomes consistent with what we are trying to achieve.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Taxation must reflect this policy as well, and tax abatement and accelerated tax depreciation must be co-ordinated with the development of those resources. Fiscal and monetary policy can also be used to the same effect, as can transportation policy, whereby the government of Canada provides access to markets and access to development by road, rail, water and air. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the tremendous results of the Roads to Resources policy initiated by the previous administration. In other words, resource development in our vocabulary means growth, and growth means manufacturing complexes within Canada, bringing employment and people with them.
Turning to another point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, with which we disagree, he pointed out that to his mind the setting aside of the resource development north of the 60th parallel and leaving it with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources lacked consistency, because if Canada were to have a co-ordinated national resource policy the resources of the north should be brought under the jurisdiction of the new minister of energy, mines and resources. I suppose we might discuss with
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys profit on some other occasion the difference between the policy of the management of those resources and their administration. But I would say to the hon. member that to our mind northern development that is development in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, needs to be under the jurisdiction of the same administrative authority responsible for the development of the resources which should go along hand in hand with the economic and indeed the political development of that region of Canada.
In order to develop the north, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would need to have under his jurisdiction the resources of the north. We intend therefore to leave-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what the minister's colleague said this afternoon. But let us not get into a debate on that matter now.


John Napier Turner: I think the minister would agree that he and I have had as intimate a chat on the subject as the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Yukon, who I noticed were in earnest discussion on this subject. I think we could reach agreement on it quite easily. In any event, we want to leave the Territories with their resources for the future political and economic development of that region.
The hon. member for Kamloops referred to the Nelson River development and put some questions in that respect. Because of the detailed answer required, with the permission of the hon. member I will bring to the attention of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys his contribution as it appears in Hansard and hope that when the minister's estimates for 1966-67 are before the committee he will deal with this matter. I wish to thank the hon. member for giving notice in this respect.
On the question of pollution, Mr. Chairman, I can provide the hon. member for Comox-Alberni with all the information he needs with respect to the conference in Montreal entitled "Pollution in Our Environment ' which will be held in October and November of this year. I will put to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys the suggestion that perhaps members of parliament with a particular interest in the subject should receive invitations.
I am limited in time but I would not want to neglect the hon. member for Kootenay West. I think he knows where this government stands in terms of a national water
March 3, 1966
2152	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys policy. In any event, he knows the position of the ministers sitting here since we have continually kept him on our mailing list and have enjoyed the correspondence we have received from him in reply.


Mr, Herridge:: I appreciate it.


John Napier Turner: With regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), I shall call the attention of the minister concerned to the gold mine problem in his riding. I realize it is very important for the region he represents, and when the estimates for 1966-67 are introduced by the minister himself, I think he will discuss this particular problem more specifically.

The same would apply to the hon. member for Timmins and the hon. member for Ti-miskaming with regard to special provisions relating to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. If these hon. members would allow me to draw this matter to the attention of the minister, he will deal with it in detail when his estimates for 1966-67 come before the committee, shortly.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman,
would the minister permit a question?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: I appreciate the position the minister is in but I should like him to realize that 250 families in Timmins have only until the end of this month to wait for the minister's 1966 estimates. We had to wait a year and a half for the 1965 estimates to come before us, so it is not a very encouraging picture for these 250 families.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we hope the estimates will be referred to the committee next week. In any event, I shall ask the minister on his return to get in touch with the member on this particular subject.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Napier Turner: Other hon. members raised questions, Mr. Chairman, but I see there is the unanimous opinion that I should sit down.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question to ask the minister. In concluding my very brief remarks I asked whether the minister would table the report of December 31, 1965, of the permanent engineering board.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we will table it tomorrow when Mr. Speaker is in the chair.
[Mr. Turner.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Splendid.
Item ageed to.
Research in astronomy and geophysics-
55. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment. $1,749,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On vote 55, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could say a word with regard to the timetable of the aeromagnetic survey. Is that survey reasonably well up to schedule or does something more have to be done in order that the survey may be completed in accord with the planned schedule?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that it is progressing well, but I will see that a direct answer is given to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Administration and general-
1. Departmental administration including a contribution to the Canadian Council of Resources Ministers in an amount equal to one half the aggregate contribution of the provinces but not exceeding $55,000 and $145,000 for grants for northern research and for northern scientific research expeditions, $1,817,000.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: With the spirit of co-operation that prevails in this chamber tonight, I think we can safely conclude we will be able to complete the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs by the time we are ready to rise at the normal hour at ten o'clock. I think I should point out that the members of the opposition, in co-operating in this fashion, do not want in any respect to neglect a thoroughgoing discussion of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, as it used to be. We are co-operating because of our desire to help out the government which, as a result of its own maladministration, has boxed itself into this unfortunate position. We are also co-operating because we are so far behind in the schedule for the consideration of the 1965-66 estimates. We realize, however, that it will be only a comparatively short time before we will have an opportunity for a thoroughgoing discussion on the reorganized Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
This department has had a rather checkered career since it was first inaugurated in 1952. When I was the minister responsible for
March 3, 1966

it there were many interesting facets of operation and administration that were not directly concerned with northern affairs or even resources, as such. It had come out of the old department of resources and now, if all goes well in the reorganization contemplated, a good part of the administrative responsibilities of northern affairs will return to the new department of resources. I believe without prejudice we can say that many of the functions that came out of the old department of resources are returning to the new department of resources in a considerably enhanced state. I was pleased to hear the Minister without Portfolio in his brief enunciation of the schemes and programs contemplated to achieve a co-ordinated national resource policy indicate that they stemmed Erom the blueprint that was laid down by the former administration.
My colleague the hon. member for Kamloops has dealt with, and I feel adequately, :he problems of resource developments as :hey refer to power and water resources. These policies again were laid down with considerable care and detail by the former administration. There has been a slowing iown of the forward momentum during the past two years and I hope that with the [DOT]eorganization contemplated the pace will ;tep up once again.
I would just like to repeat for the sake of brevity tonight the three fundamental points hat emerged out of the Resources for To-norrow conference in 1961 and which were aid down by the then Prime Minister, the 'ight hon. member for Prince Albert, when ae recommended the establishment of a na-ional resource council, the establishment of a lational advisory land and water use co-irdinating board and the convening of peri-idic conferences in the field of resource man-igement. We have the Resource Ministers Council functioning as an organization. Un-ortunately there have been difficulties be-ause of frequent personnel changes among he staff of the secretariat. I do hope, in the nterests of continuity and in the interests of o-ordination, that we will be able to gather ogether a permanent secretariat of the high-st possible qualifications who can get on /ith the job of assisting in the task of wise lanagement and the multiple use of Cana-a's resources.
However, nothing has been done with re-pect to the National Advisory Council of fater Resources. This was regarded as a
Supply-Northern Affairs fundamental necessity in 1961. The need has become more urgent in the intervening five years and the problem now, is recognized by all concerned as having long passed the point of no return. I remember some two years ago when this party moved an amendment to the motion to go into supply which recommended the establishment of an advisory co-ordinating committee of water resources, that several members from various parts of the house, as well as the press, yawned in boredom because they believed that the subject of conversation of water resources as a topic for a supply amendment was moving into an area in which there was a complete lack of necessity for discussion. This was only two years ago; but since that time we have had views from many groups in the country urging immediate action to get a national perspective on the management of our water resources.
I trust that under the new reorganization contemplated, Mr. Chairman, this point No. 2, which I think was just as important as and which indeed springs out of the establishment of the National Resource Ministers Council, will be given primary consideration. Indeed it is unfortunate that the National Resource Ministers Council itself has not come to grips with the establishment of such a national advisory committee on the management of our water resources. That is all I intend to say on this subject at this time.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The third point is of course being carried out in the pollution conference which will be held in Montreal under quite similar circumstances to the original conference in 1961. This is the first convening of a conference dealing with specific areas of renewable resources since 1961. It is a five-year interval and I hope in the future we will be able to move at a much more rapid pace.
Now coming specifically to northern affairs,
I am going to cut down my remarks and deal with only two aspects of current responsibility. As in the past, when we had responsibility for administration, we carried out policies on an organized and co-ordinated basis. I am therefore going to call upon my colleague from the Yukon Territory who win deal with some of the specifics of northern administration. I am sure we all agree there is no one in the house more competent or qualified to speak on this subject, and certainly no one in this chamber who has made a greater contribution to bringing the needs and problems of the north
2154	COMMONS
Supply-Northern Affairs to the attention of this house as well as to the attention of the people of Canada as a whole.
I shall depend on my hon. friend from Jasper-Edson to deal with the current problems through which parks are passing.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister of northern affairs which I feel indicates shortsightedness and that lack of the vision which is necessary if the program of northern development that was launched with such great enthusiasm in 1957 is to contine to move forward.
I refer to the decision to change the location of the new administrative headquarters for the department of northern affairs. At the time we left office the decision had been made to add the new northern affairs building to the interesting complex that had been developing in that section of the city of Ottawa known as Confederation Heights. It seemed entirely fitting to me as the minister responsible that the department which had to do with the development of Canada's last frontier should occupy an important and prominent position among the complex of buildings at Confederation Heights. As the current minister knows, plans were finalized and completed to proceed with the construction of a building that would not only be useful and functional but also symbolic of the fact that Canada is a northern nation with a northern heritage and a northern destiny.
We wondered why the delay in proceeding with this particular project. The story has now become available in the current report of the Auditor General, which indicates that the minister made the decision to continue the location of the northern affairs headquarters in the heart of the nation's capital on the ground that our administrative facilities were becoming too widely scattered; that everything should be crowded into the downtown area. This seems to me to be entirely the antithesis of the thinking of a department which concerns itself with the development of the last frontier, the wide open spaces, the million and a half square miles of area which makes up the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory.
I have been continually amazed since I came to Ottawa as a member of parliament in the early fifties to understand why those who are responsible for the planning of the nation's capital have such a myopic and narrow perspective of architectural development and city planning prospects. It seems that unless
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
DEBATES	March 3, 1966
everything is crowded within a few blocks of Parliament Hill, then we have not got the proper planning perspective.
In visiting other capitals, for example the capital of our neighbour to the south, the attractive feature of the city of Washington in the District of Columbia is the wide open thoroughfares and spaces which have been made possible by deliberate planning in consonance with the broad developmental viewpoint of the United States administration.
It is a retrograde and a backward step to reverse the decision to locate northern affairs in what was regarded as the most strategic location site of Confederation Heights. Overlooking the R.A. Centre and facing towards the north, what could be more symbolic of the new forward step in the nation's thinking and planning? The change was made at considerable expense to the public treasury, as the Auditor General pointed out. The architects' fees had already been paid and the plan had to be scrapped. As I recall, some $200,000 went down the drain.
The new building is not owned, it is rented. It is the Campeau Confederation Towers. It borrows the name from Confederation Heights but has the confederation symbolism in name only because it certainly does not carry the architectural and planning motif that is present in the Confederation Heights development. I understand the buildings are rented, according to the Auditor General's report, at an annual rental of $688,000, almost double the rental formerly paid for northern affairs facilities in Ottawa.
Even though the responsibilities of northern affairs have diminished substantially, with museums departing, with resources departing, with water resources departing, with tourism departing, as well as other areas of responsibility, the cost of rental has doubled.


John Napier Turner: There is the Indian affairs addition.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, there is the addition of Indian affairs. Whether that makes up for the diminished responsibilities I am not in a position to say.
To sum it up, we find that over the leased period provided for it will cost the government and the people of Canada almost $14 million, which is considerably more than the cost of the original building, which had been so carefully planned. This expenditure of nearly $14 million results, of course, in nc tangible asset by way of public buildings around the city of Ottawa.
March 3. 1966

I know that the decision has been made and that the move has been made. But I suggest to the minister that he might well review and consider the original plan for the new building, and when the five-year period has expired-I believe the lease is for five years, renewable for ten-he might then reconsider the prospects of reverting to what I felt was an excellent plan in harmony with the functions of the department of northern affairs. Of course, it may well be that there will be another administration in office within five years making this decision, and we will certainly have no hestitation as to what would be the decision in this regard.
There are one or two further brief matters. As I have already intimated, my hon. friend from Jasper-Edson will be dealing in some detail with parks. However, I repeat once again what should be entirely obvious to everybody concerned in these matters, namely that there is a great and urgent need for expanding Canada's park facilities. The pressure on our national parks is reaching beyond the point of endurance, month after month, year after year, yet no dynamic steps are being taken to deal with the urgent demands of an age of leisure as well as the growing economic demands of a rapidly expanding tourist industry.
As I have told the minister and his colleagues in the government times beyond number, it is high time we got cracking, to use a good air force phrase, on a recreational parks development program, something which was in the works when the government changed but on which no specific action has been taken.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I notice the National and Provincial Parks Association in the current edition of their excellent magazine, put forward a program of their own, which they call the Recreational Parks Development Program. They say it is an entirely new idea. With respect, it is not a new idea. They talk about it as a national recreational reserves development program. Now that we have the support of that group primarily concerned with the development of our park resources, I trust that we will at long last have the ear of the administration.
I want to ask questions now about historic parks. A program was launched, in 1961, to ensure that there would be a major historic park development in each of the provinces and the territories to make sure that parks would be available for the influx of visitors during our centennial year.
Supply-Northern Affairs
We are hearing how much Expo '67 will cost. How much is it now? It goes up day by day. An hon. member tells me that the cost will be $84 million. What will visitors coming to Canada to take part in the celebration of 1967 do, after they have seen the great centennial world fair? They are going to spread out across the rest of Canada, we hope. I should like to remind the administration that we have got to present other aspects of Canadian history than will be presented at Expo '67 at such tremendous cost.
The program of developing historic sites extended, from Signal Hill in Newfoundland, Louisburg in Nova Scotia, right up to the old gold rush city, in Dawson City. Dawson City was declared an historic complex. No doubt there will be a tremendous influx of visitors into Dawson City next year.
Through the writings of Robert Service, and the writings of other famous authors such as Jack London, perhaps one of the best known sites in Canada is old Dawson City. I trust that the minister, who I understand is still responsible for these matters, will be moving forward to ensure that in each province we have a major development ready to receive the visitors. I hesitate in mentioning the keystone province, Manitoba, because I might be regarded as prejudiced in this regard.
However, I hope that Fort Garry is proceeding on target. Something that would make historic sites interesting, I think, is animation. We had planned that these historic sites would be animated much along the same lines as Fort Henry which has become one of the great tourist attractions in the province of Ontario, a tourist attraction which has been developed by the government of Ontario. 1 trust that the same sort of animation will be implemented in each of the major centres in each of the provinces.
I do not think I need take more time of the committee at this stage. I will pass the torch to my colleagues, as I have intimated. However, I did notice the minister in recent weeks and months has been making regular announcements about roads, airports, railways and so forth. I want to congratulate him on carrying the torch that was ignited by the former administration. As I look at the roads policy, announced I think during the last election compaign, and as it is presented in the current issue of the magazine North, it seems to me that I have travelled those roads before. It seems to me a regurgitation of the northern development roads policy laid down
March 3, 1366

Supply-Northern Affairs by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and reinforced by myself when I became minister. I see no new roads indicated in the development program, as it is outlined in the magazine North. The airport construction program especially has a familiar ring.
We are flattered by your acceptance of our programs and policies. We wish you would only get on with them with the same expedition and enthusiasm that was applied during those wonderful years of 1957 to 1963.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, I want this evening to talk about national parks. I wish to take some time to point out that 58 per cent of the land area of the national parks of Canada is in the province of Alberta. I want to take some time because, as I mentioned in the Throne Speech debate, some 7,000 people living in the national parks in Alberta are second class citizens and do not have the rights enjoyed by the people in other parts of Canada.
For the past seven or eight months there has been a continuing fight between the minister and the people residing in the parks. On January 18, shortly after this session opened, I asked him whether he was ready to set up a committee of inquiry to study this problem, and he answered at that time as reported at page 26 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, we have had a continuing series of discussions with the people living in our national parks and have arrived at certain understandings. I cannot accept for one minute the statement made by the hon. gentleman in his question that there is great consternation in those areas.
He goes on to say:
I am stating the facts, and I am in touch with the people living in those parks.
This prompted the people in Jasper Park to send a telegram to the minister, which reads as follows:
The following is a copy wire sent to Honourable Arthur Laing this date. "Your statement appearing in January 19th Hansard regarding situation with respect to residents of Banff and Jasper Park is generally misleading because first, great consternation and uncertainty still exists among the people residing in these parks and second we are definitely out of touch with you since our last meeting took place in Jasper on September 12th 1965 without any understanding being reached".
That is the end of the telegram. There is not any understanding. There is great consternation. Both the minister and the Prime Minister in the recent election campaign assured these people that they would be given a fair hearing. I want to suggest to the minister at the outset that in view of the fact he is going to bring in national parks legislation,

he give immediate consideration to setting up a joint committee of this house and the other place to study the question of a national parks policy. I am not alone in my concern, because hon. members from Bow River, Lethbridge and Macleod are also concerned about this. It is not just our concern, it is the concern of the province of Alberta. We had something to do with getting people living in the parks to approach the premier of Alberta, to request his support in this regard.
1 am sure that the minister has recently received a copy of a brief from the minister of industry of the Alberta government. I want to quote extensively from this brief because, Mr. Chairman, it is excellent. It is a brief that I hope the minister will read carefully and will take into consideration. It reads as follows:
The thesis of this report is that National Parks Policy is unfair to the citizens of Alberta and of serious detriment to the third largest industry in the province-tourism. This conclusion applies to both the written policy and the administration of the policy by the federal department in charge.
I shall have something more to say about the administration. The brief goes on to say:
The people of Alberta are equally concerned about the contravention of citizens' rights implicit in the new policy as it affects leaseholders in the National Parks in Alberta. The legal and moral aspects of this problem have already been the subject of an urgent letter from Premier Manning to the Prime Minister, and they are dealt with in greater detail in an accompanying brief.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I want to say something with regard to the letter from the Premier of Alberta to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister's reply. The Prime Minister's reply showed that the right hon. gentleman is not aware of the situation. This is a continuing operation of the senior civil servants in the minister's department-a fog thrown over the facts to try to hide behind the great conservation wave, away from the basic issue. The basic issue is the question of the townsites in these parks, the question of these people who have been invited into the parks in earlier days being allowed to live in them like Canadians, with a full concept of what is meant by the national parks as their guide. We think the minister has not allowed them a fair hearing. I believe he has been taken in by the senior civil servants in his department, who have for a number of years tried to turn themselves into the commission. They do not believe there should be townsites in the national parks. They are so unaware of the
March 3, 1966

situation in Alberta that they do not appreciate the distances involved.
They have no idea about service centres in an area such as Jasper, which is 230 miles from Edmonton. They have no idea how to look after the increasing numbers of people who have come to these parts since the development of better roads. Their thinking with regard to the proper development of these parks is at cross purposes. When this party formed the government we brought out a policy of zoning, providing for wilderness, recreation and service areas. We must have zoning of this type in Jasper, Banff and Waterton.
The conservationists tell us: The wilderness will be spoiled. They say we are going to turn the parks into a Coney Island. Nonsense. Immediately we criticize the administration of the national parks we are called Coney Islanders. They have gone so far as to solicit support from the press by giving them biased material on which to write articles. They have done this, apparently, with the approval of the minister. I prefer to believe, as a westerner, that he has been taken in.
There is a better way to run our mountain national parks. And, let me say, there is no similarity whatsoever between the running of national parks such as we have in Alberta, particularly the Rocky Mountain parks, and national parks in the rest of Canada. There is no similarity at all. The National Parks Act says these areas should be set aside for the benefit and enjoyment of Canadians. What does "enjoyment" mean according to these people in the department? It means the enjoyment of nature. We need a public inquiry with regard to the interpretation of this word because the present interpretation is not the right one. I want to quote something in this regard, later, from the brief of the Alberta government. To suggest that the enjoyment of our national parks is only to enjoy nature, is nonsense according to the normal and com-monsense interpretation of the word and, I am sure, according to the interpretation which was in the minds of those who established this legislation back in 1930. Their interpretation would mean, I suggest, that we could have recreational facilities within these parks.
In our mountain national parks we have more than half the entire area of Switzerland. In Switzerland they have all these mountain resorts, five or six major towns and between five million and six million people. We have 7,000 people living in the cities in
Supply-Northern Affairs the centres of these parks, taking up one per cent of the available area. We have roads leading to only about 5 per cent of the area of these parks. Are we going to desecrate the wilderness if a program of the type advocated by some of us on this side of the house is adopted? The Parks and Recreation Association of Canada, which has supported the attitude taken by the department on occasions, has now come round to our way of thinking and suggested that part of these parks be turned into recreational reserves within the parks system. What is this if it is not zoning for recreational purposes? How far is this away from zoning for service centres?
Reference has been made to congestion in the parks. I can give the minister the whole picture. The idea that in a 4,000 square mile park where you have at the most 100 acres taken out for a townsite there is any real likelihood of spoiling the wilderness, or that you cannot have proper regulations for the development of these towns, is an absurd one. I know the parks department officials would like to see these towns moved out altogether. They fail to appreciate that Banff and Jasper were there before the parks were set up. Jasper was a railroad town, and it still is. Jasper is as concerned about keeping the concept of the national parks as are the people in the department. But the people who live in Jasper are democratic Canadians and they feel they can do a better job than the civil service can.
It comes down to the question of the townsites and how they are to be administered. The feeling became so bad in Banff that the advisory council, which is an elected body, would not talk to the minister. I could read into the record verbatim reports of that meeting; it is not of any credit to the minister. These people deserve representative government and the right to the self-determination of their local problems within their town-sites without having to come to Ottawa about every minor decision. This is only just.
What about leaseholding? The minister suddenly wants to change the system of leaseholding and prevent families concerned from building up estates within the national parks. He is going to turn our buildings into sheds or temporary structures which will last just the length of the lease, and then revert to the government. He knows that many of the services which have been provided have been supplied by family concerns, and he intends to get these people out. The parks department seems to think that everybody in
March 3, 1966

Supply-Northern Affairs Canada wants to live in the mountain parks. They will not even allow anyone who has moved out of a park for six months to be buried there. This kind of thinking is archaic. It cannot be understood by reasonable people and it is contrary to common sense.
I suggest the minister should give consideration to these points. I want to call attention to what Hon. A. R. Patrick had to say last Friday in the Alberta legislature with regard to the policies of this government:
Calling the policies "unfair to the citizens and of serious detriment to Alberta's tourist industry," they can only result in "poor construction, drab facilities and higher prices for visitors," he said.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The minister steadfastly has refused even to listen to the delegations which have come to him from Banff, Jasper and Waterton. He has convinced the Prime Minister to send this letter to the Premier saying in part-and I quote from the Prime Minister's letter to the Premier:
From this point of view I would certainly be disturbed if even the legal exercise of governmental powers resulted in the serious disturbance of any present leaseholder of park lands in his occupation of these lands or caused significant damage to the operator of any legitimate business enterprise in the parks.
What about these people who will lose their businesses, because the government has taken them over? Has this not already caused some disturbance in our national parks, and yet the Prime Minister writes that letter to our Premier. He goes on to say:
In the case of residential leaseholders they are assured of continuity of tenure for at least another 42 years with compensation at fair market value-*
This was obtained only after representation was made to the minister. Additionally in this letter he says:
In short, there seems to be no evidence that the substitution of a term of at least 42 years from the present time in lieu of the so-called perpetual renewal clauses has had any significant effect on the present day worth of the leasehold interests concerned.
Now, if anybody is going to be asked to swallow that, it is absolute nonsense, because all property in the national park has depreciated at least 20 per cent since the minister announced his policy. He knows that as also do the people in his department. The Prime Minister went on:
I do not believe there is anything in this government's policy which will prevent a continuation of the rapid growth in public use of these areas experienced in recent years.

That is absolutely false. The situation in Banff, Jasper and Waterton is at the stage where there is not sufficient accommodation for the people who go there in the summer time to service our tourists. No new lots have been made available in Banff in years. We finally have had some made available at Jasper, but there is a crying need for more accommodation in the town of Jasper; there is a crying need for land for churches and service club buildings, which it has been very difficult to get out of the department. I could go on and give examples of applications which took years to be processed through that archaic department which the minister has the honour to head.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
I can assure you that policy of this government is to depend to the greatest extent possible on the private sector of the economy to establish and operate the commercial aspects of park operations.
How are you going to get private enterprise to go in there? The park and departmental officials do not want private enterprise to go in. The senior officials of the department would like to own everything in there, and have so admitted. They would like to get rid of the school of fine arts and other activities.
The Prime Minister says to the Premier that there is no difficulty. I have a letter here from Waterton that tells us of part of the difficulty. There is no disturbance in the ordinary business in these national parks? The businessmen there are having trouble getting insurance. In a telephone call the insurance agent who handles quite a large percentage of the insurance in Waterton informed me that the owners of property in the Waterton Lake and national park area were no longer considered to be a good risk by the insurance company and that these companies would no longer give complete coverage on park property. And this did not disturb business in these parts? Surely the Prime Minister was led down the garden path in that regard.
I would hope that the minister would follow through on the pleas made in the past in respect of the national parks and that he would allow these people an inquiry here in Ottawa. I would hope that he would back up the Prime Minister in his speech in October in Calgary when he promised the people in the national parks in Alberta that they would receive a fair hearing. I suggest to the minister that with the acquisition of the three hon. gentlemen who joined the other place the other day, from the province of Alberta, that they have sufficient numbers in the other
March 3. 1966	COMMONS
place so that we could provide our part of the committee, and that we should form a committee to delve into this problem of national parks policy.
I believe this is necessary if we are going to develop these townsites, which will remain despite the fact that the director of the national parks does not believe that they should be there. They will remain. Let us have a realistic look at this and not just play politics with it as has been done on occasion. It is necessary to have this inquiry so that interested groups on both sides of the fence, the purists, the sensible people, the residents of the parks, the province of Alberta and other provinces which have national parks-if they are contemplating the creation of other national parks-will have an opportunity to enter into the discussions.
I suggest that now is the time to define the policy and make sure that the residents in these parks know about it, and know that it is not something that is slipped through. Let us have this committee of inquiry; let us have a joint committee of the house and the Senate set up to investigate this matter and bring in a recommendation in respect of national parks. Surely it is only right that there should be a body where interested people and groups, such as the Association of National Provincial Parks of Canada and others could come to express their views.
This is a most important matter so far as we in Alberta are concerned. The 1972 Olympics may be prejudiced by this federal policy. I am sure the officials of the department do not want to see the Olympics at Banff, but there are many of us who do and I am sure it is the general consensus on the part of the people in Canada. These are important questions in respect of the national parks, and these questions have to be resolved. It is not enough that the minister should go and fight with the advisory council in Banff, and the advisory council at Jasper and Waterton; it is not enough that he should try to push it down their throats. It is necessary that we have an inquiry and that the people have an opportunity to express their opinions before a committee. The minister did not get a standing ovation from the residents of either of the three national parks, and did not get very many votes either.
Let us have a realistic look at these town-sites; let us restore the policy of zoning. Let us give these people some self-rule in these towns so that the minister does not have to 23033-137
DEBATES	2159
Supply-Northern Affairs be the mayor. They are paying as much in taxes as any other town in Alberta.


Arthur Laing: What a statement to make.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Each individual home owner pays as much as in any other town in Alberta.


Arthur Laing: We have a report on this-35 per cent.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The minister is wrong and is again taking the word of the civil servants, who are not aware of the facts.
Why could not the minister set up a federal towns act which would allow these people to govern themselves within the framework of the concept of the national parks? The parks officials do not want that; they want the loose, dictatorial control which will give them authority to tell people where they can put a nail and where they cannot put a nail.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Immediately after he accomplished this he could do away with patronage and that would be a good thing. Let us put these leases out for tender on an equal basis and do away with the idea that one must put on pressure or know somebody in order to speed up lease applications through this archaic institution, and speed up policy decisions made by the office, in order that these people who live in national parks can lead a reasonable life.
The minister suggests that there has been trafficking in the sale of leases, yet there was only one man involved who made a major sale of a family business that was built up over a period of 40 years. Is he not entitled to any profit? I am defending this man and he is probably the best Liberal in Banff.
These things are important not only to the people who live in these national parks, but they are important from the point of view of the province of Alberta. As I said earlier, a major portion of national park acreage exists in the province of Alberta. We depend on tourism in these areas and we think that we can maintain these wilderness areas in the concept established when they became recreational park areas. We believe there should be some reasonable and sensible approach to the question of townsites within national parks.
Again I urge the minister to give serious consideration to the idea of setting up a committee of the house and the other place to investigate national park policy with particular reference to the mountain parks of British Columbia and Alberta, because the parks in British Columbia abut those in Alberta. The
March 3, 1966

Supply-Northern Affairs major roads from Alberta to British Columbia run through these parks, as do the major railways. We must have a more realistic and common sense approach to the administration of our national parks. I say this not only on behalf of the people of Jasper, Banff and Waterton, but on behalf of all the people of Alberta. I commend the excellent brief of Hon. Mr. Patrick and state that we support it wholeheartedly. I hope the minister along with the Prime Minister will fulfil their election promises and set up this inquiry without delay.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, now that we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources I should like to refer in particular to a question or two regarding Indian affairs, as the responsibility for this department was transferred to Hon. Arthur Laing earlier this year.
Before commenting on this problem in relation to the Christian Island band I should like to pay public tribute to Hon. Rene Tremblay who, for a while, was minister of immigration and Indian affairs. When the estimates of this department were being considered a year or two ago I asked the minister if he would give consideration to the very earnest request of the Ojibway Indians on the Christian Island reserve in the lower Georgian Bay area for the establishment of a radio telephone service. I pointed out at that time that the Indians were still being forced by the department of Indian affairs to communicate with the mainland by smoke signal in the same manner Indians communicated with Christopher Columbus. Hon. Mr. Tremblay immediately busied himself with that request to establish a radio telephone system connected with Midland. As a result there was established a radio-telephone service, a stop and go system, but the Indians thought it was a tremendous operation compared with the system they had been forced to use for the past 300 years. Only last fall under the able administration of the cabinet this stop and go telephone system was greatly improved and, with the co-operation of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, a mobile exchange was put on Christian Island. There are today 45 telephones in the homes of Indian families on Christian Island and they are able to communicate with people at any telephone number on the mainland, despite the separation of a mile and a half by water.
I should like to thank Hon. Rene Tremblay myself and on behalf of the Ojibway band of

the Christian Island reserve for what he did, and the cabinet for carrying on even after Rene Tremblay left the department of immigration. I feel certain that Hon. Arthur Laing will pay as much attention to their present, sensible demands as did the minister before him.
The Christian Island band of Indians, who are of the Ojibway tribe, some years ago with the very earnest co-operation of Colonel Jones, who was a senior official of the department of Indian affairs, were able to establish a pheasant farm on Christian Island. They raise about 4,000 pheasants a year and it is possible to go and hunt there for seven months of the year. You are certain that there are birds before your gun; it is not a case of going into the wilderness hoping there is game. When you go to the Christian Island reservation pheasant farm you know there are birds there which were released the day before you arrived.
The problem that is facing the Indians today is this. There is no overnight accommodation available on the island for hunting. The nearest hotel accommodation to the Christian Island reservation is at Penetan-guishene, 11 miles away. Very few hunters who go to Christian Island in the morning and have to go back to Penetang in the evening return to the island a second day. The Indians would like to have the hunters stay for two or three days at a time and they have made efforts to establish a hunters' lodge on the island, for which they could charge accommodation.
I have a letter in my hand written two weeks ago today by Chief Monague of the Beausoleil band of the Ojibway Indians on Christian Island. This letter reads:
Dear Mr. Cowan;
We had funds made available from supplement construction program and approval to erect a hunters' lodge to accommodate pheasant hunters. Some are reluctant to come, even though reservations for hunts had been made, due to the short length of time they would have here, there being no accommodations for them to stay over so that they can have a complete day. Inadequate transportation is also a source of trouble.
Since the approval and funds were made available for the lodge we have been advised that the plan has since been rejected.
I feel as if I am stepping over the heads of the Indians Affairs Branch to reconsider their decision but the Council felt that when we introduced the plans at our Council meeting this would help boost our revenue tremendously from the pheasant and tourist projects.
Please, may we have your assistance through your office to approach the Minister, Hon.
March 3, 1966

Mr. Arthur Laing, to have the Branch reconsider their ruling to our favour.
The phones are a godsend to us. the best way to contact our families who are off the Reserve. Thanking you.
Yours truly,
Leonard J. Monague Chief, Beausoleil Band.
I should like to point out that this pheasant farm, which was established originally with the co-operation of Colonel Jones under the previous administration, and which has been encouraged ever since, has been a great source of revenue to the Indians, so much so that they are now considering establishing a wild turkey farm on Hope Island, and are considering putting deer on Beckwith Island. This will give them commercial hunting revenue similar to the revenue received from some of those big game farms in the United States. When this is accomplished we will have wild turkeys available for the purpose of hunting on Hope Island and deer on Beckwith Island. I am certain that these ideas are good and that they will work.
While I am on my feet, and I only want to speak for another minute or two, I should like to suggest to the minister of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources that he give very serious consideration to the acquiring of title to Giant's Tomb Island in the lower Georgian Bay area for the purpose of a national park.
Giant's Tomb Island is the biggest island south of Manitoulin Island and it is at the present time in the hands of an estate. We now have the Beausoleil Island national park, just off from Midland. Giant's Tomb Island lies between this national park and these three Indian reservation islands, Christian Island, Beckwith Island and Hope Island.
The province of Ontario has taken a great forward step under Premier John Robarts and Kelso Roberts, the minister of lands and forests, in acquiring 2,300 acres of land on the south shore of Georgian Bay. There are plans for a provincial park on this shore property, which is opposite Giant's Tomb Island, to be known as Methodist Point provincial park.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
With Beausoleil Island already a national park, with the tremendous new provincial park which is coming up and the three Indian reservation islands, the acquisition of Giant's Tomb Island as a national park would be a mighty step forward on the part of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The five islands I have named and the new provincial park, Methodist Point
23033-137J
Supply-Northern Affairs Park, will be within 90 miles of metropolitan Toronto with a population of two million. There will not be another large national park within the Dominion of Canada so quickly and easily available to so many people as a national park developed in the lower end of Georgian Bay.
While Giant's Tomb Island is in the hands of the estate of a lady who recently passed away I would urge very, very sincerely that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources look into the possible acquisition of this property to round out a beautiful system of national and provincial parks on the north side of Simcoe County in lower Georgian Bay. I hope the minister will make certain that the Indians are able to erect their hunters' lodge at this time. The pheasant season is open until March 31 on commercial game farms and then is closed to September 1. I trust the minister will look into my suggestion, of acquiring Giant's Tomb Island for development as a national park, in the same way as we have been operating Beausoleil Island for	the past many
years.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman-


Erik Nielsen: The government house leader cannot get away without a few remarks from me on the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Mr. Chairman, I should like on behalf of those of us in this party to direct my first words to the excellence, high calibre and dedication of the personnel in government service who go to make up the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I have known a good many of the personnel in the department for a number of years now and have for the most part had the most excellent co-operation from these government employees. We do not always agree. We did not always agree when I was sitting on the government side and no less do we find complete agreement now that I am sitting on this side of the house.
I think it appropriate, and I am sure the minister will agree with me, to draw the attention of members of the committee to the fact that the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory is sitting in the Speaker's gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: I believe also, though I cannot see them from where I am standing, that the three-member advisory committee on finance, all members of the Yukon Legislative Council, are here as well to discuss with
2162	COMMONS
Supply-Northern Affairs departmental officials the estimates of the Territorial government.
My remarks this evening will be directed to a matter that is becoming an increasing problem to the federal government, to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and one that is becoming one of increasing concern to the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I was going to make some remarks in connection with the hon. member for Northwest Territories, but I shall refrain from doing that until another time when he is in the chamber to hear them.
I believe the minister will agree with me that one of the most important features of any democratic institution is the amalgamation of the executive with the legislative arm of government. The progress which has been made toward that end in the Yukon Territory, made under the previous government when the Yukon Act was amended to increase the size of the council from five to seven members and to establish the Advisory Committee on Finance of three members selected by themselves from among themselves, was a first step in achieving that executive control which is necessary before any institution can be called democratic.
Our ambit'on, notwithstanding the brief that has been submitted to the Carrothers Commission by the government of Alberta, notwithstanding the suggestion of Premier Bennett of British Columbia and notwithstanding several representations made by others in this regard, is to achieve full provincial status in due course. We in the Yukon, and I know the feeling is the same in the Northwest Territories, do not wish to become any provincial backyard.
I am sure these sentiments find favour not only with the minister and his officials but with the government as well. Having said that and having recognized, as I know the minister does, that there is a rising tide of resentment in both Territories against the continuing situation whereby people living in these Territories have no direct control over the development of their respective Territories, there must be evolved now some kind of plan which will bring us to the point of autonomy in the near future.
The provisions of the British North America Act, particularly those of section 146, provide the machinery whereby provincial status can be accomplished. In the Yukon we are moving in that direction. We have had over 65 years of history in the development

DEBATES	March 3, 1966
of the institution of government and of an acquaintanceship with the machinery of that kind of government. Those in the Northwest Territories are not so fortunate.
Members of the committee will, I am sure, be aware of the fact that in the Yukon Territory the council is wholly elective, whereas in the Northwest Territories a minority of four holds elective office and an appointed five councillors hold the balance of power. I know this will be changed in the amendments to the Northwest Territories Act to be introduced during this session.
We believe that we in the Territories exist in a state of vassalage. We are ignored in all high level deliberations. It is not good enough to say with respect to the functioning of federal-provincial conferences that we can send an observer. There must be participation. Policies and projects cannot be evolved affecting the development of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories unless there is participation in the design of those policies and projects by those who live in these Territories.
All of the countries of the Commonwealth which now enjoy representative institutions and responsible government have passed through a provis;onary period. That has been our history in Canada. That has been the history of any evolution of the territorial form of government through to the state or provincial form of government. There has to be a growth of population; there has to be a certain degree of political training which will prepare emerging areas for the responsibilities of autonomy.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I draw to the attention of the minister and members of this committee, and I do so now because when amendments to the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act come up for discussion-I give the minister fair notice now-it will be our object to seek certain amendments to those pieces of legislation which will, we think, ach eve the desired end of accomplishing this planned progress to autonomy in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The Yukon was established as a separate district as far back as 1895. Well before the western provinces became provinces, the Yukon was already a separate district. In 1889, it was created a separate territory and at that time a council was set up. We have, therefore, evolving for well over 65 years a territorial form of government in which there has been participation in
March 3. 1966

legislative function, and in that function only by the citizens in the Yukon.
My proposals, very briefly set out are these, and they are what the minister can expect as amendments proposed to the Yukon Act. I propose, first, that the administration of justice be passed from federal to territorial control in the Yukon. I am not speaking now of the Northwest Territories. The Yukon has been prepared for some years now for the acceptance of this responsibility, I mean some recent years. There should be set up in the Yukon an attorney general's office with full responsibility for the administration of justice. The remarkable, and I say this without any reflection intended whatever, increase in the thousands of dollars being now paid out to crown counsel and to other officials in connection with the administration of justice in the Yukon would seem to fully justify this proposal.
From a point prior to 1962, where the average for the previous decade was $12,000 to $15,000 a year paid out for this kind of fee and expense, it has increased in the last three years to $25,000 and $35,000 per year. This amount of money will support, and easily support, the establishment and existence of an attorney general's office. It will also allow salary scales to be raised to a level where capable professional people will be attracted. The minister knows the difficulty we have been experiencing in obtaining legal counsel there in the last three years. We have not found anyone yet. The reason is simple, the salary scale is just too low.
Second, I propose that the lands administration function that is now carried out in Ottawa by the minister's department in so far as the Yukon is concerned, be transferred to Whitehorse. It seems a ridiculous situation where you have a territory comprising about 207,000 square miles, and where it takes two, three or more months to obtain title to a 50 by 100 foot building lot. This situation simply is not acceptable any longer. I know the minister will agree with me that the accelerating influx of industrial activity in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, particularly in the Yukon, demands that decisions be made on the spot. Industries that are in the Yukon to set up mining complexes want decisions of a municipal nature now. They do not want to be bogged down by an exchange of correspondence taking months between officials in Whitehorse, officials in Ottawa and themselves. This is where time is consumed.

Supply-Northern Affairs
The next step in the evolution I suggest is increasing the size of the wholly elected council from seven members to 15. I know the minister is going to consider that a rather large jump, and will want some justification for it. Probably his officials will want to test the merit of that suggestion as well. I suggest 15 because of the existence of a state of affairs now where the 7 man council has developed into nothing more nor less than a sort of permanent opposition to the administration. Everything that is proposed in council by the administration is opposed by the council, and it is because there is no division of opinion on the council; it is because there is not that division that is found in a house such as this or in a house such as exists in the democratic institutions of the provinces. You cannot have a division of opinion with seven representatives.
I believe, although it may be more or less than 15, that that kind of division of opinion can only be had if you have a sufficient number of individual representatives on the council so that you are going to have emerge a majority opinion and a minority opinion. The second reason for increasing the size of the council is to attract to the elective offices the calibre of individual which it is so desirable to have form any representative institution. People of that calibre do not wish to run, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that they do not want to have a part in constantly opposing the administration, which is the situation now and will continue to be unless either my suggestion or some equivalent is adopted.
There is another reason for increasing the size of the council. By increasing its size you will allow that kind of flexibility which will permit the extraction from it of at least five representatives from among the members of the council who will be able to accept executive responsibility. I am opposed to any retrograde step or alterations of the suggestion I am making now to increase the council whereby you would appoint members to the council or to the legislative assembly. This principle of appointment denies the very principle of the democratic institution itself. The only argument of which I am aware in support of appointing people to legislative bodies in the state of development in which the territories are now, is that they will provide the expertise necessary and which perhaps the elected members of council in the Northwest Territories, for example, do not have. This is no justification because this
2164	COMMONS
Supply-Northern Affairs expertise can be had by calling before council, as we have been doing in the Yukon for years, the necessary expert advice and testimony, including that of the very capable employees of the government from time to time. As a matter of fact, I can remember when the present member for the Northwest Territories appeared before the council to advise the council on the implementation of hospital insurance in the Yukon.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The next step would be increasing to five the size of the advisory committee, which now consists of three. These five members would be selected by the leader of the majority of the elected council of 15. In other words, you would have emerging from the 15 man elected body, a leader of the majority opinion, whether you called them red and white, Grit and Tory, or Socialist and Social Credit. You would have a split of opinion and the leader of that majority selects from it his advisory committee. There would have to be the clothing of that executive committee with executive responsibility. I do not know whether the minister is shaking his head indicating disagreement with these proposals.


Arthur Laing: I was just wondering what would happen when the friendly little group became invaded by five parties.


Erik Nielsen: This is a real problem and we discussed the question the minister has raised with several of those in the Yukon. I had anticipated this problem, as had others. But if you think for a moment, no matter how you cut the pie, with 15 members you are not going to wind up with the undesirable situation that you have in this House of Commons. Regardless of how you cut it you are always going to have a majority numerically-and I mean a numerical majority. I am sure the minister will agree with me that even though you might find within a majority group shades of opinion, particularly in the Yukon, you are going to get from 15 members that kind of opinion that is close enough among seven or eight members so as to form a majority opinion. I do not know whether I have put across that idea to the minister, but none the less that is what would happen. There simply is not that kind of probability in the Yukon, as is the case in this house.
As the minister and his officials know, we in the Yukon are now looking after education; that is administered there. The whole forestry function is carried out in the Yukon, even though it is a federal responsibility. The

DEBATES	March 3, 1966
game function is carried out there. We have the welfare function carried out in part there, though the administrative function could all be carried out there. The public works function territorially is carried out there. It is the plan to transfer the administration and the maintenance of the Alaska highway from the federal Department of Public Works to the territorial department of public works, or to highways or the engineering department, in April of 1967. So that these administrative functions are now being, or will be in the near future, carried out in Whitehorse.
It is but a short step to pass executive responsibility to the five-man nucleus of the cabinet that I suggest. At the moment, as the minister knows, the council has only one fiscal prerogative. It has only one control over the executive, and that is to refuse to pass supply. They had the same kind of power in the early days in Manitoba, in 1879, just before the district of Assiniboia became the province of Manitoba. The minister will well recall from his reading of history when Frederick Haultain led a group of dissatisfied Manitobans and refused to pass supply, and the civil service had to go out and cut wood to pay the rent and to eat.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the people of the Yukon will revolt in that fashion, but I am suggesting that the feeling in the Yukon, not only among the general population but among the employees in his own department and territorial civil servants, has now reached the stage of almost antiimperialism. Our commissioner is resigning. It is embarrassing for me to refer to him when he is sitting above me, but as I understand it, what he is saying is that he cannot drive a team of horses with reins 4,000 miles long.
Because of the role the members of the council have adopted of constantly opposing the administration, this has placed the commissioner in the position of being torn between two responsibilities. He gets static from Ottawa because he cannot keep the council in line, and he gets static from the councillors because he cannot get what they want from Ottawa. So there has to be some kind of coming together of the legislative and executive functions there.
The opponents to this kind of reform will say that he who pays the piper should call the tune.


George James McIlraith: Carried.
March 3. 1966


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the minister will bear with me a moment or two. They then advanced the second argument, that there is not sufficient population in the Yukon to justify this kind of reform. I suggest that on both counts these arguments fall to the ground.
There is precedent for the population argument, since in the province of Manitoba you had a white population less than the population today in the Yukon upon formation of the district of Assiniboia into the province of Manitoba. At that time the province of Manitoba was heavily subsidized by federal moneys, yet executive control was passed over. Even today the province of Newfoundland and the province of Prince Edward Island are heavily subsidized by federal funds. The province of Prince Edward Island has a population of 100,000 people, with four members in this house and with Senate representation. There is no Senate representation for the north at all and there is no executive responsibility.
There is the precedent of yesterday and the precedent of today for saying that the fiscal argument should not affect this decision, as well as for saying that the population should not affect the decision. Surely the test should be: Is it or is it not desirable to erect democratic institutions in that part of the country where the people are going to have a real and effective voice in their own local affairs? This is not the case in the Yukon. You can pass resolution after resolution and give opinion after opinion, but this is not the same as evolving policy. A denial of this kind of reform is simply saying to the people of the Yukon that they do not have the kind of individual who is responsible enough to look after the territorial taxpayers' dollar and the Canadian taxpayer's dollar. Yet we are giving them this kind of responsibility now particularly in the field of education. As the minister knows, there is the whole structure of the territorial civil service quite separate and distinct from the federal civil service which now exists in the Yukon and has for many years, and which performs a wholly territorial function.
We bargain for federal moneys-indeed, this is one of the reasons the advisory committee is here now

on the same basis as the provinces. We negotiate separately and sign separately the same kind of federal-provincial fiscal agreements as does any province. We pay taxes in the territory. Granted, we do not pay enough to maintain government and services, but no more so than Manitoba did when

Supply-Northern Affairs it became a province and no more so than Newfoundland and P.E.I. do today. However, there is representation from those provinces on the decision-making bodies which prepare and complete the fiscal agreements with the provinces.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
What earthly reason can there be for having no representation when these fiscal decisions are made under the federal government and the territory. Instead of that, what happened was that the federal government said, "Here is the contract; you sign it." That was the end of it. You could not say yes, no, or maybe.
It would be my suggestion, to round out these reforms that I proposed to the minister and to the committee this evening, that these executive responsibilities should be passed in the fields I have mentioned, to the enlarged executive committee. I do not suggest for a moment that water resources, oil and gas or mineral resources should leave the federal jurisdiction, no more than they left the federal jurisdiction when the western provinces were created in 1905.
A period is required during which the elected council must gain the skill of government before the important resource responsibilities pass to it. It took 25 years in the case of the western provinces. In my submission, perhaps it would take as much as three or four sessions of the new kind of assembly that I envisage in the Yukon to be ready to assume the whole resource responsibility.
I am suggesting that the term of the council be extended from the existing three years to four years. I suggest that the council be allowed to set their own indemnity. Surely if we have a representative institution that we are going to clothe with any kind of responsibility, the first kind of responsibility we must entrust to it is that of setting its own indemnities, instead of being told by this house how much they are going to get.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Erik Nielsen: I have another five minutes, if the members of the committee will bear with me?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
216$
March 3, 1966

Supply-Northern Affairs


Erik Nielsen: I thank the members of the committee for their graciousness in extending
to me this time.
I know that the proposal will very likely be made, in the amendments to the Yukon Act to be brought before the house, that the house be asked to set the salary. Let the members of the council set it themselves. They are the ones who are going to have to accept the reaction of the electorate up there. If they set it too high they will not get back into office, and perhaps the taxpayers of the Yukon and Canada will be better off if that decision were left entirely up to the council.
I suggest, too, that the prohibition-and of course this would be a consequential sort of amendment that would follow upon the adoption of the reforms I have suggested-contained in section 24 of the Yukon Act be removed in so far as that provision affects the executive responsibilities in those departments which I have suggested should be transferred to the executive of the enlarged assembly.
Education, public works or engineering, or whatever it might be called, health and welfare, education, justice, revenue and finance, resources, except oil, gas, water and minerals, but including game, tourism, forests, would be transferred. These would pretty well take up the energies of the five man executive committee that I propose.
I urge the minister to take these very broad proposals which are alterable in the main into consideration.
Economic events of recent years in the Yukon should indicate to the minister the tremendous potential of the country itself. Problems that are arising because of this tremendous acceleration are becoming more serious as each day passes, and something has to be done. I believe the reforms I have suggested are reasonable reforms. They are not radical.
I believe that the real control of the federal government representing the taxpayer of Canada as a whole will be the fact that the federal government will retain control over the major resources responsibilities; therein lies the basic economic reality that the Yukon has to offer to the over-all national economic fabric.
When the amendments to the Yukon Act are placed before the house I would very sincerely hope to see incorporated in them the proposals I have put to the minister, or alternatives bearing very close resemblance to them.
[The Chairman.]
May I thank the committee for its indulgence.


Mr. Duquel:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity afforded me tonight by the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to call the attention of the minister (Mr. Laing) to something which is dear to my heart and which, in my opinion, will also open a chapter in our history: it is about a park located in the riding of Quebec East where, in 1935, set foot the discoverer of our country, Jacques Cartier-


David Réal Caouette: In 1535, not 1935.


Gérard Duquet: Yes, that is right, in 1535. Mr. Chairman, 1 wish to point out to the minister the fact that this spot was made into a public park about ten years ago. Numerous representations have been made by the authorities of the city of Quebec, by public bodies such as the Societe St. Jean Baptiste, citizens' leagues and others so that this historical site would be developed at last and steps taken so that the people could commemorate by a monument and visits, the event I mentioned, that is the discovery of Canada.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be appropriate on the occasion of the centennial celebrations to give the development of the Cartier-Brebeuf park all the attention it deserves.
I would also like to point out to the minister, as I said before, that many representations were made over a number of years.
I remember that, during the 1958 election campaign, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) paid a visit to that park and I remember also that he definitely promised that within a few years or months, the park would be built.
I would like to believe, Mr. Chairman, that there was no ill-will on the part of the present Leader of the Opposition, who later became Prime Minister, but I must point out just the same that nothing was done and the park is still waiting to be developed.
I call the attention of the minister to that matter and I dare hope that, when his next estimates are considered, or even before, he will have found it possible to do something to realize that project-


David Réal Caouette: Ten o'clock.
March 3, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	2167


Gérard Duquet: -which the people of Quebec city, particularly the people of the riding of Quebec East, hold so dear.


David Réal Caouette: Ten o'clock.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Chairman, I do not think-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman-

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I call it ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, could we not agree to sit, and could we not ask the hon. member to agree, so that we may get some further estimates completed tonight. I believe that is the wish of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the various house leaders have agreed that the estimates of this department should be passed as soon as possible.
We have been discussing item 1 since 8.15 this evening. During that time we have heard three speeches by Conservative members.
Now, if the understanding is that only the Conservatives are to be heard, well, for my part, since it is quite enough for me to have to listen to them all day, I do not see why I should be forced to listen to them all night.
Therefore, I object to our discussing those estimates any longer. When the Conservatives are able to understand that we are also entitled to voice our opinions, to say what we have to say, then we shall be more understanding and co-operative than I am now.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to your attention the fact that it is ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether we could not agree to go on further tonight with these estimates in an effort to finish them tomorrow. The situation will be quite serious if we do not finish them tomorrow. I think it is the consensus among most hon. members that it is possible to do this. I know that at these times there is always someone in the house who feels that someone else should not have taken up the time of the committee. But after all, this is a free society and all members have their rights. So perhaps we could show a little forbearance and try to go on. I wonder whether the hon. member for Vil-leneuve would consider permitting the committee to continue?
Supply-Northern Affairs [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, would the leader of the house state how much extra
time he requires? He has already been granted five minutes.


George James McIlraith: I think the government time required would be less than one minute-not even sixty seconds.
tTranslation1


David Réal Caouette: May we now have the assurance, Mr. Chairman, that Conservatives will not cause any further delay during consideration of these estimates?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Members of the committee will not be surprised when I say I share the view of the hon. member for Villeneuve. But I also acknowledge the point made by the leader of the house, that it would be desirable to get along a little if we can. I think the leader of the house might be able to exercise some persuasion on the hon. member for Villeneuve if we could reach some kind of agreement as to how much we propose to do and how long we intend to sit. I think what bothers us most about these overtime sittings is the open-endedness we sometimes experience.


An hon. Member:: It is the open mouth, not the open end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we could finish up this department in half an hour or forty minutes I think it might be possible to sit on, but I do not think the minister should ask for any other department tonight.


Michael Starr: I should like to speak for the official opposition. We have 97 members as compared with nine or 21. Consequently there are obviously members who wish to speak on particular items. However, if the clock is not seen until twelve o'clock we are prepared to finish this department, the Department of Labour, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Fisheries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: If the hon. member for Villeneuve does not want to listen to us, Mr. Chairman, he can go home.


George James McIlraith: Could we agree that the hon. member for Villeneuve be heard for whatever time he wishes on this department-or a member of his party, whomever he wishes. I think he should be heard now. I
March 3, 1966

Supply-Northern Affairs would like to get through, this department and the other departments the house leader for the official opposition has indicated. If that is agreeable to the other parties, I think we should have some understanding that the official opposition would curtail their speakers within limits, because they have had a very good evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the house leader would make more headway in his negotiations if he would confine his wishes to this one department.


Michael Starr: I still repeat, Mr. Chairman, that in our responsibility and in looking over the estimates, we are prepared to pass the estimates of this department, the Department of Labour, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and the Department of Fisheries tonight before twelve o'clock.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, we in this group are prepared to go ahead and carry on with the estimates of this particular department. I would suggest that we do so and see how we get along with the estimates now before us, and then proceed to decide whether or not we should go ahead with any further estimates.
[Translation1


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the aim of the Conservatives is to force us to stay here all night to listen to them. I have always maintained that it is ten o'clock. We have to put up with them during the day, but we do not want to hear them at night. Mr. Chairman, would the government leader give us the assurance that the estimates of those four departments will be passed before midnight?


George James McIlraith: I would think, to the extent that any one person here can, that I can give that assurance. Certainly there will be no hold up on this side, and the official opposition have made their position clear, that they would pass those departments. I hesitate to bring this up, but a serious situation is developing if we do not finish by Friday night.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, could the house leader tell us whether we shall only hear Conservatives, because they are 95-they are not 95 at present-but will they be the only ones to have the right to speak here or will the Chair recognize us also?


George James McIlraith: No. I am quite sure I would have the unanimous consent of the house to ensure that the official opposition would not take all the time between now and twelve o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you give us assurance that only the ministers will speak on your side of the house.


George James McIlraith: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre can safely leave that problem with the government house leader.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I have five minutes-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Do I understand that the hon. member for Timiskaming has called it ten o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think I can speak for the hon. member for Timiskaming. The reason he has tried to call it ten o'clock is because the government house leader has showed no interest in our suggestion that we try to finish this department before considering anything else. He is asking too much.


Michael Starr: The government house leader is not bootlegging any departments in. He is trying to carry out his responsibility, and we have offered to co-operate with him by passing those departments which I have enumerated. At your end we are getting no co-operation in the conduct of the business of this country.


George James McIlraith: I have a right to point out that I am not engaging in any bootlegging activities. The hon. member is quite right, if by that he means that I am trying to get departments through, because I know perfectly well what the consequences will be if these estimates are not passed.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Because we are well aware of the consequences if these estimates are not completed, I am quite sure it is not the wish of hon. members in any part of this house, who think about this, to needlessly delay items that can be carried. The consequence of a failure to carry these items would be an inability to pay money to people in this country who need the money and use it for their daily living requirements.
March 3, 1966

Mr. Chairman, I have hesitated to bring that fact before the house. I have not mentioned it publicly before because I thought the situation was well understood by all hon. members. I am sure most hon. members understand this condition, and I mentioned it in the spirit of goodwill so that we could arrive at a solution which is fair to all members of the committee, and will allow us to get on with our work.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee agreeable to the suggestion?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman, it is ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again later this day.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house or later this day, as the case may be?


An hon. Member:: Later this day.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that we should request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
That this house continue to sit this day until twelve o'clock midnight.


Mr. Fairweather:: Now we will see the Socialists squirm.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It has been moved by Mr. Mcllraith, seconded by Mr. Pickersgill, that under the terms of Standing Order 6(2) this house continue to sit until twelve o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: This is not a debatable motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If this motion had been of an open-ended character we would have objected, but since the minister has proposed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the minister has
proposed-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not debatable.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to sit down because of these cat-calls.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This motion is not debatable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion now before the house is not debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even though it is not debatable, I could object to it; but I was announcing the reason we are not objecting.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, vote No. 1.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES Administration and general-
1. Departmental administration including a contribution to the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers in an amount equal to one-half the aggregate contribution of the provinces but not exceeding $55,000 and $145,000 for grants for northern research and for northern scientific research expeditions, $1,817,000.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, we have taken almost 20 minutes to decide what has already happened in the past 10 to 15 minutes. I am quite willing to cut my speech down to about five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: There are a number of points that I must bring to the attention of the minister because my constituents have asked me to do so; otherwise I would sit down and say nothing.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member kindly to come to the substance of vote No. 1 immediately.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just ready to proceed with my remarks on this vote. In essence I want to return to the question of national parks, and particularly Waterton Lakes. Nothing has yet been said to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources about the people of Waterton Lakes.
2170	COMMONS
Supply-Northern Affairs
We want to bring out some policies asked for by the people of Waterton Lakes. The people there are asking for winter sports to be introduced in the park. I know the minister has said something about unsanitary conditions, and so on, but they are not troubled with this matter at Jasper or any of the other parks. Therefore why should it be necessary to use this reason as a roadblock for preventing winter sports taking place at Waterton Lakes?
The people of Waterton Lakes are asking that another amenity be provided in the park. When the surrounding farmers and others visit the park on Saturday or Sunday they would like to be able to play a game of baseball and then enjoy the beauties of the park. They are unable to play baseball because there is no diamond and no accommodation for them. Many resolutions which have been passed and submitted to the parks department have fallen upon deaf ears.
The third point I wish to make deals with the policy of this government as stated by, the minister with respect to the security of the people who live in the townsite of Waterton Lakes Park. We held a meeting there last fall


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. If some hon. members wish to hold conversations perhaps they could do so in an undertone so that hon. members who wish to listen to the hon. member who now has the floor will be able to do so.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that we attended a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Waterton Lakes last year, which the hon. member for Lethbridge and myself attended. The people in attendance were above all concerned, and deeply concerned, about the policies of this minister and the government with respect to the security of the residents of that park. The people of this area think there is something drastically wrong with the attitude of the minister and this government with respect to this wilderness area.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
It seems as though the government wants to get rid of the residents in the park. These people have made investments there and are enjoying their stay, but they want some security. There is no reason on God's green earth why these people should not have security. What is more, whether this government thinks so or not, with the clamour there is from the people, they are going to get this security.

DEBATES	March 3, 1966
I have lived adjacent to this wilderness area and I know something about it. We have a wilderness area extending 2,000 miles north. You can fly over that country, as I know the minister has, look down and see a tremendous lake with nothing more than a goose on it. You can do the same thing in the national parks. Certainly we want to preserve the naturalness of natural parks, but we also want to have people living in townsites. with security, in order to give service to the people coming from the outside to visit those parks. This is all I intend to say at this time. I hope the minister will call a meeting of representatives of this house, bring in witnesses and get at the underlying principles to smooth out government policy with respect to these park areas.


Mr. Simpson:: I realize the committee expects everyone to be as brief as possible. I did have quite a number of things to take up while the estimates of this department were being discussed, but I will try to be brief. I want to point out one thing before I launch into my remarks. I have heard observations in the last three or four days, we heard them last night from the acting house leader and again tonight, to the effect that the government is anxious to get these estimates through. I also heard two people the other evening on the local television station, I believe Colin Parker and Mr. Tom Earle, say that if the Conservative opposition continued the filibuster the civil servants would not be paid.
I should like to say for the record at this time that if the government had handled the business of the country properly, if we had come back last September, as promised by the Prime Minister, we would have had time to scrutinize these estimates in the way the people of Canada expect us to do.
I should like to make a few comments with regard to the Roads to Resources policy. I know the minister or the chairman might say this Roads to Resources program has now been put under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Mackenzie, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources directed the question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys who said, more or less, that a number of the provinces had not yet spent their allotment under this program.
Now, in the last session we were asking questions concerning the plans of the government for extending or re-establishing the
March 3, 1966

Roads to Resources program. We were told at that time the government intended to come up with a different type of program which would be much better. If the program they have evolved is the program for the Northwest Territories, if that is the one they have substituted for the Roads to Resources program, I should like to suggest to the minister it will be of no help whatever to the people in the northern parts of the provinces. These people were grateful to the previous administration for inaugurating the Roads to Resources program. The Minister without Portfolio mentioned he thought this was one of the better programs that had been introduced in the last few years. I certainly agree with him. When we do not get an answer from the government regarding any extension or re-establishment, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has probably convinced his colleagues in the cabinet that, as he said once before, this would be nothing but roads from igloo to igloo.
I do not want to keep harping on that statement of the Prime Minister, but he did make it. If we do not hear something from the government fairly soon, the people in the northern parts of the provinces will become convinced that possibly this is the attitude of the government. I hope that the minister or his colleagues in the cabinet will study this situation, because if you talk to mining people and lumbermen and people in the tourist industry, they will tell you, if it is not already realized by those on the front benches, just how much necessity there is for a continuation of this program.
I want to speak very briefly on a subject which may not seem of too much importance to the committee tonight, with everyone being in a hurry, but it relates to one aspect of northern affairs, the Canadian wildlife service. I have discussed several matters with the director, Dr. Munro, who has been very helpful. At the present time we have this huge development coming along in Manitoba, the Nelson River power project. We have recently had other power projects developed in Manitoba. I feel, as do all members in the game and fish associations as well as interested persons in Manitoba, that a very thorough look should be taken by the Canadian wildlife service at the wildlife habitat in the Nelson River area. Correspondence has passed back and forth between the minister and various game and fish associations, and the minister has advised these associations that wildlife in the provinces, and renewable

Supply-Northern Affairs resources, come within the jurisdiction of the provinces. However, I would point out that under the Migratory Birds Convention Act the federal government has a distinct responsibility.
On looking at the estimates I see that the amount of money allotted to the Canadian wildlife service is very small, which means it is not always possible to do the work they feel they would like to do. Therefore I would suggest to the minister that he take a look at this with his officials to see whether it would be possible under the migratory birds treaty for the Canadian wildlife service to send men into this area to make sure that the wildlife habitat as far as geese and other migratory birds are concerned is well protected. I would ask the minister to ensure, particularly in view of the diversion of the Churchill River into the Nelson, which might result in lower water levels, that nothing will be done to disturb to a great extent, or disturb to any extent if possible, the wildlife habitat in the area.
The wildlife service has admitted that the watershed of the Nelson River in its northern region is recognized as a great potential geese habitat, something which must be protected for the benefit of future generations. However, I am not going to spend the time tonight on this subject, although I should like to; as I said, I do realize the situation.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I should like to spend a few minutes on some of the problems facing the Indian people, not only of the area which I represent but of northern Canada. Indian affairs, as I understand it, come under the Minister of Northern Affairs, with the new addition I believe of "Indian affairs." I know that the officials of the Indian affairs branch over the years have been spending countless hours trying to come up with some solution to the tremendous problems which face our Indian people. I do not profess to have the solution but I do feel that I have some constructive suggestions to make and I feel that the time is long past due when some of those programs should be adapted. In the area which I have the honour to represent there are 17 Indian reservations comprising some 13,000 or 14,000 people of Indian blood. They are still living on reservations. Over the last ten years that population has increased to its present figure from 7,000 to 8,000.
As the people in the Indian affairs branch realize, if something is not done about their
March 3, 1966

Supply

Northern Affairs problem soon, it is going to become much greater within the next 15, 20 or 25 years. People in the Indian affairs branch realize that something should be done, but sufficient money is not provided. I know that the director of the branch, Mr. Battle has a genuine interest in the welfare of the people, as have many of his officials. I also know that he is handicapped by insuflcient money to spend. One thing which would not cost too much money is for those people who wish to remain there-and it is my intention to see that those who wish to remain there shall do so,-to have their conditions improved as quickly as possible. If the government keeps its promises, it will improve the situation of those Indian people. We have glaring examples in my constituency-


An hon. Member:: Let us see some co-operation.


Robert Simpson: -of situations which do not compare very well with some conditions which prevail in other reservations.


An hon. Member:: It was twenty to twelve the other night.


Robert Simpson: I would suggest to the minister that one of the most urgent considerations is to provide Indian people with electric power. I know that this seems to be almost impossible. I can tell the minister that in the province of Manitoba the provincial agency in charge of power has the equipment on hand, is prepared to go in and do those things, and do it now. It is just a matter of getting some financial assistance from the Indian Affairs Branch. I think the minister should look at the situation to provide financial assistance as quickly as possible, because if this is not done these people are going to be without these services for many, many years.
I hear people at the far end of the house and on the government side saying, "Let us get on with the estimates." However, I can assure those hon. members that I am not standing up here for any political reason. I am standing up here and speaking for 14,000 Indian people in northern Manitoba who sent me down to speak for them. I should like, in conclusion, to say to the minister that on some reservations conditions are quite good. For instance at Island Lake, conditions may be better, because it is the location of an agency. At Island Lake they have a saw mill; they have inaugurated a net hanging project

which last year brought in between $6,000 to $10,000 in revenue for the people.
The people can do these things themselves under supervision. They instituted upgrading courses. They are very successful and in general they have a well run reservation. On some other reservations, nothing is done for them. No guidance is given to them, possibly for lack of funds. I say that improvements to these reservations could be made for very little money. Instructors must be sent in to guide these people. In more favourable circumstances these people could lead a much better life.
There is one final point I wish to make. It relates to the designated areas and I hope the minister will not say that I should be raising this subject with the Department of Industry. The area of which I have been speaking is one which I have been trying to get the minister concerned to recognize as being a designated area for two or three months. He tells me it does not meet the criteria-that the unemployment figures do not correspond with the figures which are acceptable.
I implore the minister to have his officials check with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He will find that unemployment officers nearest the areas where these people live and where they would have to register are so far away that there are no figures whatsoever. On my way to Ottawa at the beginning of this session I ran into two people each of whom was willing to go into northern Manitoba and put up a fish processing plant costing in the neighbourhood of $200,000. They would put the plants up tomorrow if this was a designated area. Skilled labour is not necessary in this kind of work. The Indian people could do it. Each of these plants would provide work for 60 of the Indian people-they would need no more than a week's training.
I trust the minister will have his officials look into this matter as quickly as possible to see whether this area of northern Manitoba could not be declared a designated area. Whatever this might cost, the benefits would far surpass that cost.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to co-operate also with the Conservatives in stretching out the debate as much as possible so that midnight comes fast.
We are now studying supply for the Department of Northern Affairs and National
March 3, 1966

Resources. I should like to know if the imbroglio between Ottawa and Quebec, with regard to the Quebec Eskimos, has been settled; if the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) has complied with the requests, made time and time again, by hon. Rene Levesque, that Quebec be given jurisdiction over the Eskimos in Northern Quebec? We should like the minister to tell us who has jurisdiction over Eskimo affairs in that part of Canada, namely in Northern Quebec.
A lot has been said about national parks these past few hours. Under that item, the department will spend this year $13,551,000. A number of national parks are listed from all parts of western and eastern Canada: Banff, Elk, Jasper, Kootenay, Revelstoke and Glacier; Prince Albert, Mount Riding, Wat-erton Lakes, Yoho. But there is hardly any mention of expenditures for another park, although it does come under jurisdiction of the federal government, I mean the Gatineau park in the Ottawa area.
I appreciate the fact that the department has already spent large amounts on the development of Gatineau park to accommodate tourists, but there are in the Gatineau, as most hon. members who have visited the area know, unlimited possibilities.
The population of the Ottawa-Hull area is almost as large as the population of Saskatchewan, that of Alberta or of the Maritime provinces taken together. This park contains beautiful lakes which should get more attention from federal authorities. I point out to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that his department should pay more attention to the Gatineau park and develop more facilities there for tourists who come not only from Ottawa and the area, from eastern and western Canada, but also from the United States.
If the department can spend $13.5 million on national parks, it seems to me it would be possible to take part of that amount or increase it, if the minister decides to do so and the cabinet agrees, in order to improve the Gatineau park.
In another field, the minister is doubtless aware of a plan put forward by a Sudbury engineer, Mr. Kierans. This engineer established a realistic plan to feed the great lakes from James Bay, Hudson Bay and the Arctic Ocean through the Harricanaw river crossing Chapleau riding and part of Villeneuve riding, to raise the levels of the great lakes. This is a vast project involving hundreds of millions of dollars, but the minister surely knows
Supply-Northern Affairs that the United States has to raise the level of lake Michigan for instance, on the shores of which stands the great city of Chicago.
It would certainly be to Canada's advantage to make a thorough study of the project conceived by Mr. Kierans, the engineer, which, if it were carried out, would provide for a wonderful development all along the Harricanaw river and even along James Bay, into which this river empties. Then, it seems to me, Canada could export that water to the great lakes and the United States, while helping those Canadian cities which, at the present time, are complaining about the fact the water level of the great lakes is getting lower and lower each year.
Mr. Chairman, those were the few remarks I had to make and I hope that item 1 will be passed right away.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. This arises out of a statement made by the minister the day before yesterday, which appears in a sentence on the right hand column at page 1948 of Hansard. This is a part of what he said:
... I shall later, but I thought it was an unusual brief because I find that with respect to the total park space in the provinces, combined federal and provincial parks, the province of Alberta is in third position because it has not provided provincial parks to any degree whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, that statement is not only wrong, it is unfair and a callous and arrogant disregard for the viewpoint of the administration of the province of Alberta. The minister knows very well that all the Rocky Mountain area along the continental divide in Alberta is national park area, except for a very small piece in the Crowsnest Pass. How in the name of common sense can we have provincial parks where there already are federal parks? That statement is wrong because there is more national park area in the province of Alberta than in all the rest of Canada put together. I intended to get the exact figure, but I think there are more than 60 provincial parks in Alberta. There are five provincial parks in my own riding and that is not unusual in respect of other ridings. That same pattern is followed from the United States border to well north of Edmonton.
Mr. Chairman, the minister's statement is one of the most unfair and incorrect that have been made in this house. Let me suggest to him that this is not the kind of attitude the government and the people of Alberta expect
March 3, 1966

Supply-Northern Affairs from federal cabinet ministers, if there is going to be any kind of co-operation in evolving policies in respect of national parks which will be satisfactory to the people of Alberta.
I could say a great deal more on this subject but I will leave my remarks at that, because of the pressure of time.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I must answer those remarks at once. The hon. member by his own words has confirmed what I said as recorded on the page from which he quoted. He pointed out that 60 per cent of national park acreage in Canada is located in the province of Alberta. What I said was that the combined area of national-provincial parks in the province of Alberta was only in third place, notwithstanding the fact that 60 per cent of national parklands are in Alberta. The point is that Alberta has given very little attention to the establishment of provincial parks. That is all I said.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is the statement to which I took exception.


Arthur Laing: If that sort of factual statement on my part justifies the type of language used by the hon. member toward me I regret it very much indeed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is exactly the statement I objected to. The minister claims that the province of Alberta, and I use his own words:
-has not provided provincial parks to any degree whatsoever.
He was referring to the province of Alberta.


Arthur Laing: That is absolutely correct.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is absolutely not the case. As I said to the minister a few minutes ago, there are more than 60 provincial parks in Alberta. There are five in my riding alone and that is not unusual. On the contrary, that is the pattern right across the southern half of Alberta. In fact, in so far as there is any density of population, these parks extend to somewhere north of Edmonton.
Mr. Chairman, I should like again to state that it is impossible for the provincial government to establish provincial parks when the federal government has all this so-called wilderness area where the topography is suitable for parks. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most of the citizens of Alberta, Alberta has made good use of the land which is suitable for parks and which is not already a part of national parks. When the minister says that the province has not provided any

provincial parks to any degree whatsoever he is simply not being very careful with the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
National Parks-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including wildlife resources conservation and development, administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and payments to land owners who maintain migratory bird habitat in accordance with agreements entered into on terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, payment to the National Battlefields Commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of an Act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec and grants as detailed in the estimates, $13,551,000.
Mr. Loney:: Mr. Chairman, before vote 15 is carried I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. My question deals with historic sites. In order that the minister will realize the significance of the question I wish to review briefly to my correspondence with the department. While my question is directed to the minister and, as I have said, concerns historic sites, I would point out that the correspondence dates back to August 21, 1963, and was directed at that time to Mr. W. F. Whitman, General Manager of the Real Estate Branch, Department of Transport. At that date I inquired as to the future usage of the lighthouse site at Point Clarke in the county of Bruce. On September 3, 1963, my letter was acknowledged and I was provided with this information:
The lightstation has now been converted to an automatic light thus making the lightkeeper's dwelling and the 2.13 acres of land and land covered by water forming the site, surplus to departmental requirements.
A number of people have shown interest in acquiring this property as well as the National Historic Sites Division of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and no action will be taken towards the disposal of this property until we hear from that department as to whether or not this site is required as a national historic site.
The letter closes by saying:
Should it develop that this land is not required as an historic site, then in keeping with departmental policy, as a number of parties have shown interest in the property, we will arrange to have it advertised for sale by public tender.
That letter is signed by the minister of the department, George J. Mcllraith. In November of 1963 I made representation on behalf of the Bruce County Historical Association to learn what had happened with regard to the possibility of this property being put up for sale and disposed of, being
March 3, 1966

aware of the fact that the department thought it could possibly be acquired as an historic site. This representation was acknowledged on December 10, 1963. At that time I inquired into this matter on behalf of the society and was provided with information concerning the structure of the lighthouse. To show the significance of this historic site I wish to quote this paragraph:
Unfortunately no plans or detailed descriptions are available since the structure was erected in 1859. However, we are able to inform you that it has a masonry exterior and is 35' x 22' x 12' high to the eaves.
On August 13, 1964, I again inquired of the minister what decision had been reached relative to the disposal of the department's holding at Point Clarke. On August 18 my correspondence was acknowledged and the minister stated:
As previously mentioned to you, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has indicated an interest in this property for a national historic site, and I am now informed that we are still awaiting a reply from that department before a decision can be reached. You may rest assured that we will keep you posted on any future developments.
On September 30, 1964, in answer to a question which I placed on the order paper I received this reply:
The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada has been asked to study this matter at its next meeting to be held this October. After the Board has presented its recommendations on the historical and architectural significance of the Point Clarke lighthouse, the minister will be in a position to reach the decision.
That was September 30, 1964, and I still have not received the decision.
On February 17, 1965, I placed this question on the order paper:
Did the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources arrive at a decision regarding the acquisition of the Point Clarke light site for a national historic site when the historic sites and monuments board met in October?
The minister replied as follows:
The historic sites and monuments board of Canada have not made any recommendations with respect to the Point Clarke light site.
Since we are now into 1966, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister once again if a decision will soon be handed down?


Robert Norman Thompson: There are two comments I have to make under this item, one of which is related to general policy of the present government in relation to national parks. I just fail to understand the arrogance and determination-there are no other words to use-of
Supply-Northern Affairs the government to impose upon the people who live in these parks a policy which does not make sense, rhyme or reason to me as well as a lot of other people. The type of answer we have had here tonight, is indicative of this. The only thing we can say is that the minister is determined to completely end the existence of his party in the province of Alberta, because this is exactly what is going to take place. It is not just those who belong to the political party to which I belong, but the members of his own party and the citizens of the province of Alberta as a whole, who feel this way. The claim of the administration that they are retaining the wilderness of Canada for the good of the citizens of Canada is something we all accept and recognize as being correct.
But the park area should be developed in a logical way not only for wilderness beauty, and to deny such development is something that does not make sense. All of us who know Switzerland realize that the beauty of Switzerland has been enhanced by the development that has taken place in that country. As long as we have the natural beauty that we have in our own lofty mountain areas, anything less than the development of all aspects of them would be sheer folly. To separate, shall I say, the sport of skiing and other seasonal sports that quite logically fits within the natural setting of the mountainous area we have, is to deny the recreational facilities that are second to none in the entire world.
The attitude in regard to the proposed establishment of the winter Olympics in 1972 is indicative of a shortsighted, narrow minded policy. There is the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway going through Banff national park and the Canadian National going through Jasper. There is No. 1 highway going up the centre of Banff park and also an important highway going through Jasper. There is no reason why there cannot be an area on both sides of the highway and railroad reserved for commercial development, thus giving the people who live within the townsites confidence that we will adopt a system which will allow those who live in the area to serve the tourists and other essential services.
There is no reason why facilities cannot be developed for recreation in the summer and recreation in the winter. There is no reason why the hundreds of square miles of wilderness cannot be preserved in its natural beauty for other types of recreation that attracts
March 3, 1366

Supply-Northern Affairs so many tourists to the area. It seems to me that any logical park policy has to be adapted to three purposes, so far as the Rocky Mountain parks are concerned. First of all, the rights of the citizens who live within the park to service the facilities within the park, cannot be denied. These Canadian citizens earn a living that way. They are not just a lot of promoters and money makers either. They are Canadian citizens with just as much right to make a living in this part of Canada as anybody in any other part of the country. So let us be logical and give them an area where the commercial development which is required in parks can be situated. Let us provide facilities for sport and general recreation which is required by the Canadian people, and at the same time let us preserve the natural beauty of our wilderness areas. We not only can provide the type of recreation and sport facilities and essential business operations which are necessary, but we can enhance the beauty of our parks as well if we act properly.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
I will be saying more about this in the estimates for next year, but I do want to bring to the attention of the minister just one example of administrative inefficiency which does take place sometimes in our parks. Rather than speak on the matter myself I should like to quote a letter which condenses the particular problem much more adequately than I could express it. It is written by the pilot of aircraft CF-NTS who, on February 26, had occasion to fly into the Banff townsite expecting to land at the airstrip there which is adjacent to the town, bringing with him certain personages on a charter flight. He says:
Before making the flight I checked with the Department of Transport and they were unable to give me any information as to the runway and its condition. I then placed a telephone call to the Parks Department number given to me by the Department of Transport and there was no answer, so I then telephoned the R.C.M. Police in Banff, and they informed me that the strip was plowed, but only to a width of 45 feet and 1500 feet long. I, therefore, took off on this flight with three passengers on board, and before landing I flew down low over the strip and from my observation it looked safe to land. Upon landing I found that the strip had only been plowed to approximately 20 feet, and that on the right hand side of the strip there was a ridge of snow approximately 3 feet high. I further wish to state that at the end of the supposedly plowed runway, there was an airplane stuck in the snow, and that evening some seven of us pushed It out and it was taxied into a little small alcove near the trees. At this time I observed approximately half of the runway had been plowed, and the other half just
[Mr. Thompson.!
partially plowed. I deemed this strip so dangerous that 1 had my passengers get a U-Drive and drive into Calgary. I was lucky enough by the grace of God to get off this strip by myself after dropping my three passengers, their baggage, and everything in the airplane that could be taken loose.
Is this the kind of service which is rendered by our national parks in servicing an essential airstrip, essential both at this time of the year as well as in summer. It seems to me that something better than this should be given those who wish to use this type of facility, certainly better than appears to be the case here. I trust that the minister will investigate this matter and see that something similar does not happen again.


Edison John Clayton Loney: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister would assure me that immediate consideration will be given to the question I put. I also have a similar file on a property of the department at the Griffiths Island lightsite.
I do not wish to hold up the estimates but I should like the assurance of the minister that he will meet with me and discuss this matter.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much to hear from the hon. member that I have written him such a large number of indecisive letters. I will look at this question first thing in the morning and will try not to write him any more indecisive letters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern administration-
45. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, authority to make recoverable advances for services performed on behalf of the government of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, authority to sell electric power and fuel oil (and to provide services in respect thereof), in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, to private consumers in remote locations where alternative local sources of supply are not available and to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to provide in respect of Eskimo commercial activities for the instruction and supervision of Eskimos, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other Act. the sale of such finished goods, $27,008,700.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have looked at the details of this item, and I am interested in the $27 million which is being spent on Eskimo commercial activities for the instruction and supervision of Eskimos, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods.
March 3, 1966

Some time ago we had an opportunity to speak on this matter in connection with Eskimo handicrafts, and I was pleased at that time that the minister was willing to work toward the establishment of a copyright for native handicrafts in Canada. That gives some Canadian distinction, apart from the merits that such things are sold as native handicrafts.
While I do not want to ask the minister about what has been done and how extensive this is, I am as concerned as he is with problems that came out of the meeting one or two years ago when a meeting was held with some officials of northern affairs with respect to the problem of the development of the east shore of Hudson Bay, with relation to the control and monopoly of many of the activities of Eskimos by the Hudson Bay Company. The charges made at that time that the Department of Northern Affairs was really not acting on behalf of the Eskimos but was acting as a buffer between the Hudson Bay agents and the Eskimo population bothered me, because it seemed that the result was that the Eskimo got low prices for handicraft which was sold for much higher prices, and the middleman got all the profit.
With respect to Indians, the situation in my area, where there are not many, is that they do produce a small volume of goods. In northern Ontario I know that there are instances were a municipality has made a contribution which has resulted in a much more formal development of this handicraft business. In Quebec, close to my area, there is a fairly large Indian reservation making and selling merchandise, mainly outside the tourist industry. This is a fairly haphazard type of occupation. The Indian does not get much by it; the people who buy it pay more than it is worth.
I should like to ask the minister this question: How successful has the minister been in the establishment of a copyright for Indian and Eskimo handicrafts? How successful has been the operation of policing this type of designation. Second, is the department in a position to offer assistance to Indians in a similar manner to that in which it is offered to Eskimos?
[DOT] (11:10 D.m.)
Personally I am very pleased that the department has taken this interest in the handicrafts of the Indian and Eskimo population, which have benefited them in some areas considerably. I think it has done something for the market in other parts of the country as well. This is a worth-while effort.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration It has created between the Department of Northern Affairs and the Eskimo an atmosphere which has long been desirable. Many more Eskimos than formerly are now well disposed toward the department. An acquaintance of mine from northern Quebec tells me that if a vote were taken now they would be in favour of the "big government" rather than the "little government". I know the minister would regard this as an accomplishment.
I realize it would be more difficult to carry on a program of this kind among the Indian population because so many of the Indians are working in other industries as well. However, in the area I have in mind a great deal of this industry is of the cottage type. I hope therefore that the minister will give some consideration to extending this scheme to the Indian population in borderline areas where they might be able to profit from it.
When the estimates of the department next come before us I hope we shall see in the details a better estimation of the work the department has done, work which I believe has been successful and for which it should be given full credit.


Arthur Laing: I think the hon. member's intervention is worthy of a reply. We were successful with respect to the Eskimo carvings. We took time by the forelock. It will not be so easy in the case of Indian work, but we intend to try. Some of these Eskimo carvings were put in the name of the Queen so that should imitations arrive in this country it might be a matter for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to deal with. It will not be so easy in the case of Indian work, but we certainly intend to make an investigation to see whether we can provide some protection and set a standard whereby Canadian buyers will know they are buying the genuine article. We shall do as much as we can to support this effort.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Indian affairs-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants, contributions and special payments including those specified in the sub-vote titles in the estimates, recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the governments of the provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of social assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, authority to make grants and contributions pursuant to agreements entered into with the governments of the provinces or the
March 3, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration territories or other groups or authorities approved of by the governor in council for the provision of welfare and other services to Indians and to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other Act, the sale of such finished goods, $60,261,600.
Mr.   Barnell@: As all members of the committee realize, this particular item appears in an unusual position. It is listed under the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Perhaps for that very reason it should not go unnoticed. Though I do not intend to speak at any length on this matter, let me say that this administrative change to another area of the operations of the federal government may in the long run prove to have been a valuable move.
One of the results would be that the whole situation in respect of the Indian people in the country will receive an increased measure of attention in line with what I think has been a dream not only on the part of the government but on the part of parliament. I would have liked to make several speeches on this particular question; but tonight I wish to deal only with one which, in my view, raises some of the more fundamental issues with regard to the Indian people in Canada, and that is whether we of European ancestry are going to be able to hold up our heads before them.
This question, so far as I am concerned, relates to what is going to happen on a matter that was the subject which brought about the introduction of several bills in the recent period of parliamentary activity. On December 14, 1963 the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced Bill C-130, An Act to provide for the Disposition of Indian claims. As members of the committee will recall this bill had its genesis in the joint committee on Indian affairs which brought out a report in 1961; but Bill C-130 after a preliminary stage in the house, was circulated widely throughout the country, and then on June 21, 1965 we had a successor bill, Bill C-123, which was to have been referred for consideration last fall to a special committee for detailed consideration.
At this time arrangements were under way for the appearance of Indian people and others before that committee, until the bill, along with a number of other things, came to an untimely end with the dissolution of parliament. I might also draw the attention of
[Mr. Laing.J
the committee again to the fact that in addition to the bills introduced on the government side, to which I have referred, there was in 1963 Bill C-67, entitled An Act Respecting the Canada Court of Indians Claims, introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Skeena. When we left here last fall for the recess, those of us who had been following this matter fully expected that this would be immediately the subject of a great deal of discussion and consideration in the special committee. We hoped that out of that would come changes in the bill, as it was introduced, in line with the thinking of the Indian people which would bring us near to what might be termed a complete solution of the ancient wrongs that were done to the Indian people, so far as it was humanly possible that it be done.	_
As we all know that bill died. Now, I would like to refresh the minister's attention and refer to a question which the member for Skeena asked him on February 14. This is found on page 1157 of Hansard. The hon. member said:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. When may we expect the introduction in the house of a bill regarding the Indian claims commission? When the minister answers that question perhaps he might also indicate whether that bill has been delayed up to now by revision of any previous bill.
The minister will recall that he replied in these terms:
Mr. Speaker, the delay that has eventuated has had more than one cause. It has come from the quarters with which my hon. friend and myself are familiar, namely, the province of British Columbia, where the Indian people seem to prefer to take a concentrated second look before proceeding.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
Some Indians of British Columbia indicated they would prefer to consider their particular position in negotiation prior to introduction of the bill. I have told the legal adviser of the Indians in the province of British Columbia that I am prepared to discuss with them this subject, and I have had a preliminary meeting with him, before any action is taken.
Mr. Chairman, I think the answer the minister gave to the house on February 14 re-opened this whole matter in several very important respects. It particularly re-opened the question as far as the Indian people of British Columbia are concerned, but it also leaves unanswered what the minister may have in mind as far as the Indian people in the rest of Canada are concerned in relation to the proposals that were put forward in the
March 3. 1986	COMMONS
.government bill that went down the drain when parliament was dissolved.
I realize that the minister was limited because this question was asked on orders of the day, but I think it is important, now that we have the estimates of the Indian affairs branch before us, for the minister to take this opportunity to expand somewhat on the brief preliminary statement he made in answer to that question which itself raised some very important and fundamental questions as to what he has in mind. I hope the minister will give a somewhat expanded statement and that it will be one which will be, shall I say, encouraging as far as I am concerned.
I might just remind the minister before he replies that some of us recall an attempt made in 1927 to settle this whole Indian question by a special Indian grant of $100,000 per year in lieu of treaty money, as it is often described, to the Indians of British Columbia.
I mention that fact because I am hopeful that when the minister talks about negotiating with the Indian people of British Columbia in respect of the Indian land question and its settlement, in a broader context than was set out in the Indian claims bill, he is not thinking in terms of the kind of settlement that was made in 1927.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, there is no item in the estimates which deserves more detailed study than this dealing with Indian affairs and that is why it is a particular hardship to discard a carefully prepared speech. I want to mention only three things, sir. We expect early action during this session for the establishment of an Indian claims commission. We expect immediate action in respect of a complete revision of the Indian Act and an end to the stalling with respect to pigeonholing of the report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Indian affairs. We expect that the estimates of the department will be referred to the standing committee, and referred as soon as possible for study.
The year 1967 is the centennial of confederation, but that is a mere incident in the long history of the Indian people of this country. Let us, who are the inheritors of this great nation, plan now to assure that the year 1967 will be the year in which the ancient rights of the Indian people will be safeguarded and extended so that the Indian people can be given new opportunities and take new pride in this their native land.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I also intend to be very brief in my remarks on this item. I
DEBATES	2179
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration believe that here in Ontario we are having a great deal of difficulty in respect of Indian problems. This situation has been brought to the attention of the public through television programs emanating from the Rainy River-Kenora area in the last few months.
I wonder if the minister when he replies would be willing to tell the committee the details of the arrangement he has made with the province of Ontario in relation to these welfare payments, whether this is a general program upon which the department has embarked, whether they have turned the responsibility for welfare completely over to the provincial governments, and what arrangement is made between the provinces and the federal government for the payment of welfare.
I notice that under the grants item the cash payments to Indians have risen considerably. I remember the remarks of the hon. member of a few years ago, the late Mr. Hardie, when speaking of the hardship that was worked on the Indians and the very small amount of money being paid to them in many parts of the country. If the grants were doubled, tripled or made even higher than that these people could still not afford to maintain a decent standard of living.
We have a responsibility, as the hon. member for Carleton has said, to solve these problems that have been facing us for a long time. I believe there is general agreement that there will not be much difficulty in establishing the Indian Claims Commission. During the election campaign I heard many candidates speaking of this commission as though it were an established fact and I heard many government members indicating that this was already part of the status quo. If this is true, I suppose there really is no objection to it. But we are interested in this question, and if the minister does not want to give us the information now perhaps he would send it to me. I should like to know the details of the agreement that has been worked out with the province of Ontario to solve the problem that has arisen in parts of that province and which has resulted in a change in the method of handling welfare payments.
The reason for my concern is not that the Indian will not be better off under the Ontario welfare scheme than he was under the federal government scheme, because I think it is a fact that he will be better off. He will probably be twice or three times as well off under the provincial scheme. But I believe
March 3. 1966

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration we should not slough off all the problems that arise in relation to our Indians by thinking that integration can cure them. Integration is not what the Indian wants. Many Indian people have now received enough education to know they have a heritage that should be protected. Hon. members will have noticed from some of the magazine articles written recently about Indians that the Indians themselves are now doing something about their problems. This attitude has not been very apparent for many years.
If the federal government gives up responsibility in this whole field, it seems to me that while it may produce a financial gain at this time, in the end it will probably eliminate the ethnic background of the Indian peoples by reason of their integration. I do not believe that is in our interest or in the interest of the Indian. It is all well and good to have claims settled in regard to treaties that existed and were signed many years ago, although these claims should have been settled a long time ago; but there are other parts of the country where the Indians did not have signed treaties and no formal arrangement was made. In this field the federal government must maintain some type of support for the Indian.
I should also like to hear from the minister about the negotiations with the province of Quebec with regard to the Indian situation in that province. I should like to know what has been done in Quebec and, again, what is the over-all intention of the government with regard to the question of Indian problems and Indian claims.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


William Arnold Peters: I had intended to sit down, Mr. Chairman, but somebody said "filibuster" so I shall probably go on for another 15 or 20 minutes. We have a very interesting problem in connection with our Indians and it generates a great deal of enthusiasm if one puts his mind to it.


An hon. Member:: You forget there are other people in this house.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, they wanted to stay, they are staying, so they might as well listen. I have no intention of passing this item without giving it consideration. If they don't like it, that is just too bad; it couldn't interest me less.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is absolutely appropriate; it couldn't interest you less. The only thing that does is the sound of your own voice.


William Arnold Peters: If you wish to make a speech, stand up and make it.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have some self-discipline.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Exercise it, then; you certainly do not appear to be.
I do not intend to ask the minister to give an explanation now. There are many parts of Ontario that are very concerned with the problem that has only come to the attention of many people recently. I think the minister should be in a position to provide information concerning the intention of his department. Fundamentally the province may have jurisdiction in the social field, but we hope that the federal government will remain in the ethnic field to protect the Indians themselves. I leave it to the discretion of the Minister as to how he will provide this information.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 15 carry?


Mr.   Barnell@: I have no desire to make another speech but I rather hoped to hear from the minister on the questions I raised with him. Perhaps other members may wish him to deal with questions they raised.


Arthur Laing: So that the hon. member does not have to make a third speech, I will deal with his question now. He asked what the situation was with regard to the Indians in British Columbia who had suggested to us, through their lawyer, that we should not proceed at the present time with the Indian claims bill but should first of all dispose of the B.C. land question. They are anxious that we proceed to do that first before introducing the bill. I told them, and their lawyer, I would be prepared to wait two or three weeks to see them and hear their proposals because they said they thought they could possibly negotiate the matter in a day or two. I did ask the lawyer how many of the Indians of British Columbia he thought he could definitely say he represented. He said he did not think it would be over 50 per cent.
However, they are anxious to dispose of the so-called British Columbia land question before proceeding to the claims bill. Since a considerable number of Indians live in British Columbia, I thought there would be little harm done in giving their legal counsel two or three weeks to discuss the matter.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Did the representations the minister receive indicate that at least a substantial number of Indians in British Columbia felt the bill simply did not embrace

March 3, 1966

within it the mechanism tor dealing with the Indian land question of British Columbia?


Arthur Laing: As my hon. friend knows, the Indians there think they could not get proper redress unless the provincial crown was involved. Of course, this house cannot act in such a manner; we can deal only with the responsibilities of the federal crown. The history of the coming of the white man into British Columbia has resulted in the Indian contention that the treaties that should have been made and lands which should have been set aside after the province entered confederation were not done. This deprived them of their historic rights and this is the B.C. land question which they want to discuss first.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The committee will now proceed to a discussion of the estimates of the Department of Labour.


[Stage Direction]
1. General Administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates; the expenses of the international labour conferences; the promotion of labour-management co-operation; the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker; the promotion of programs for combatting seasonal unemployment; the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and the manpower consultative service, $4,833,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Carleton who had a full dress speech ready on the subject of Indian affairs but was willing and able to compress it into a few remarks, I had planned a full speech on the first item of the Department of Labour but I, too, will shorten it. I wish I could copy the hon. member for Carleton in one further respect. I wish I could say that we expect certain things from the Department of Labour in this session with the kind of confidence which I thought he exuded. My fear, from the experience we have had with the Department of Labour under this government, is that we cannot hopefully expect very much in so short a period of time.
Let me remind the present Minister of Labour, whom I congratulate on his appointment to this important post, that this is the fourth session of parliament since the present Liberal government was elected in 1963. There were three sessions in the last parliament, so that this is the fourth session since this government came into office.
Supply-Labour
In the session immediately before the present government came into office the Liberals, who were then in opposition, featured very strongly in debates on labour matters. They supported all the progressive proposals that were put forward. They also put forward a number themselves. They led us to believe that if only they could get over on the other side of the house we would get all this progressive labour legislation. They promised it in the election campaign of 1963, and of course they did not have to work very hard to put those promises together because they had had them ready since 1919.
In the first session of the last parliament, which was the first session after this government came into office, we were assured that early action would be taken on all the elements of a labour standards code; also of a labour safety code; that there would be legislation amending the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act to bring employees who come under that legislation under the same protection provided under the other labour legislation; that there would be a revamping of the Unemployment Insurance Act; and that there would be a study in depth and the consequent amendments of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
In November 1962, when the new government had been in office only a short while-


Mr. Munro:: We were not in office in 1962.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, 1963; I thank my hon. friend from Hamilton for that correction.
In November 1963, just a few months after the government came into power, we were assured that action would be taken on all these matters I have listed.
In the second session of that parliament we did get action on the labour code, at least the standards part of it. I would remind the minister that at the beginning of that session we were assured that we would get both the labour standards code and the labour safety code that session. We were also assured that the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act would be amended so that the effective date of the amendments to that act would correspond with the effective date of the labour code.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we did not get the labour safety code in that session, and we did not get it in the following session. Neither did we get the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. We did not get it in time so that its provisions would be effective at the same

March 3, 1966
Supply-Labour
time the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code were to begin.
Today people are working on contracts coming under federal labour jurisdiction who do not get even the minimum wage provided in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code; their protection is only that afforded by the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act as it now stands. The previous minister was categorical in his promise that a way would be found to make sure that the protection afforded in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act would be the same as that provided in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, and that it would be effective on the same date. This has not been the case.
The minister will say that the bill to amend the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is now on the order paper, and I am glad to see it there. But its being on the order paper does not give the benefit of its protection to those who come under it We still have nothing at all before us with regard to overhauling the Unemployment Insurance Act. We still have heard nothing at all with regard to the study in depth being made of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
I suggest to the present Minister of Labour that the record of the Liberal party and the Liberal government in these matters is not good. It has created an image that the Liberal party is for labour. But I suggest that this is a myth which is readily exploded when one looks at the things which have been promised and at the slow process of implementing those promises. As I say, I wish I could make my speech with the kind of confidence displayed by the hon. member for Carleton. Perhaps I should give the new minister a bit of a chance. The last minister was Minister of Labour for three sessions, and he put through only one piece of legislation. I hope that the unfinished business of the last parliament-the labour safety code, the amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act-will be accomplished at this session. I suggest that nothing less than this program is worthy of the present Minister of Labour.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I will not take more than a minute or two to draw something to the attention of the committee, which

has to do with the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I want to point out to the members of the committee that, while that statute is on the statute books, as far as I can see the effect is that not a single, or almost not a single employee coming within federal jurisdiction who has not already got the 40 hour week under a collective agreement, or a wage higher than the minimum one provided under the labour code, is getting any benefit under that code. A question is on the order paper asking the ministry to provide the names of industries which have asked for deferment. That has not yet been answered.
Someone took the trouble to help me go through the Canada Gazette. Almost every major organization, such as the C.B.C., railways, trucking firms, air lines, and so on have asked for deferment with respect to section 11, which deals with the minimum $1.25 wage. This can go on for 18 months, and the minister can then give to those industries a deferment for another 18 months.
There is no reason in the world why the Department of Labour should not by now make up its mind, and why the minister should not make up his mind with respect to the applications listed in the numerous sheets of the Canada Gazette for deferment. There is no purpose to having a statute on the statute books if it is not being applied.
As I say, as I looked through the Gazette there were literally hundreds and hundreds of names of firms, who were simply asking that the minister should let them stand. There is no point in having a statute on the statute books, when in fact it is not being applied except in situations where employees have already won these things through collective bargaining and agreement. As I looked through the list of, literally, hundreds and hundreds of firms under various headings I was astounded that the minister should let this stand. He has made decisions in the case of flour and feed mills, if I remember correctly; in the case of grain elevators and so on-decisions on deferment of wage increases which I am sure he reached after careful consideration. I am not criticizing those decisions. But he has not made decisions involving highway transport, shipping firms, longshoremen, stevedores or the trucking firms in every province which have asked for one deferment or another, mainly of hours. In my submission the strike of trucking employees in this province might either not have taken place or would be greatly shortened had the minister made up his mind about the applications for deferments.
March 3, 1966

I do not want to belabour the point, but I think it is a great disappointment to all of us interested in these matters to find an act on the statute books which is being prevented from having its effect because of long delays on the part of both the present minister and the previous minister with regard to applications asking for decisions.


Mr. Regimbal:: We had been looking forward to a long debate on manpower and labour, but considering the mood of the committee and the urgency of passing these estimates we shall restrict our remarks to the minimum. I will make these suggestions as rapidly as I can, so hon. members will not have to bear with me for more than six or seven minutes.
tTranslation1
Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by offering my heartiest congratulations to the future minister of manpower on his appointment to that post and we should not envy him the double task he has to face, that of getting used to his duties both as a member of the house and as a minister. We congratulate him also for having decided to devote his energy, his experience and his talent to public affairs and political activities which he has had the opportunity, as I had myself, in the past, to criticize sometimes bitterly, especially with respect to labour and social legislation.
We feel confident that the presence of an expert in industrial relations both in the Department of Manpower and in the Department of Labour, is liable to speed up the taking of concrete steps that will make possible a climate of understanding that both management and labour need on the part of the legislator to develop their sector in an atmosphere of security and industrial peace.
The first lesson which one learns in the field of industrial relations is to avoid long speeches and broad definitions of principles and to concentrate one's efforts on the application of these principles to actions and facts.
I shall try to observe these rules in my remarks, especially as the opposition is willing to co-operate fully so that we may finish examination of these estimates.
However, Mr. Chairman, allow me to point out that co-operation must be a two-way street, and that the debate has lasted until now because the ministers have either refused to answer legitimate questions such as the ones concerning the Department of National Defence, or taken advantage of the debate to make long speeches on all sorts of 23033-138
Supply-Labour
subjects, as Mr. Pickersgill did, or refused to consider seriously concrete suggestions which we know to be fair, as in the case of the Justice Department.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out that the co-operation we show by limiting our remarks is a sacrifice that the members of the opposition are willing to make to get the government out of difficulty because it has been two years already since the estimates were considered last and since that is the time when a member can deal with local problems which interest his constituents. It is a real sacrifice.
Let us not forget that the estimates should have been considered last September and that it is because of the needless elections held in November-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I think that his remarks should deal with the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Roger E. Régimbal: In any case, Mr. Chairman, the elections delayed everything and that is why we now have to speed up the business of the house to get the government out of the embarrassing situation in which it placed itself. If there is any delay, the responsibility falls entirely on the Prime Minister-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I am sorry to interrupt again the hon. member-


Roger E. Régimbal: We will come back to that, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat?
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; I must say that I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member, and in this instance I think that the matter to which he has been referring happens to be covered in the estimates of the Department of Labour. While the responsibilities have been transferred to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, these matters still seem to come within the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Chairman, I feel it is important to remind the government, the pubic and the press of this truth which is too easily forgotten. It is all the more important because we will again be limited, in the next debate, to 30 days according to the amendment to standing orders.

March 3, 1966
Supply-Labour
In return, I feel we should be entitled to asking the various ministers to listen with particular care to the requests we might put to them directly-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but this is the third time the Chair has to intervene. The hon. member is referring to various departments, various attitudes of the government; 1 feel he should speak specifically of the Labour Department.


Roger E. Régimbal: Agreed, Mr. Chairman.

I should also state that in matters of labour and manpower there was a great disappointment concerning the labour department, in respect of unemployment insurance for fulltime farm workers and increased training allowances. It is significant to note that not a single new project has been brought up. This is the reason we will follow the activities of the new manpower department with great interest and expectation. If nothing new comes up, it would appear that this government figures that all is well on the labour front. Let us take another look.
We hope that the government will not make the mistake which it made in the late 1940's and early 1950's in not relying on the unemployment commission funds for the onslaught of a recession. Now is the time to set up the projects and crash programs to see us through as difficult a period as we will have to face probably after the centennial year.
The government knows very well that when the Conservatives came in in 1957 they were left with run-down conditions, a sick economy, and a deficit trade balance. It was left to the Conservatives to pick up the pieces, and get the country going again with progressive legislation and programs. The previous government did not seem to have a worry in the world because of the unemployment insurance commission's funds. In next to no time the cupboard was bare, because the whole country was made to suffer while the savings effect of new legislation was able to bear fruit.
It is significant to point out that the only working plans which we have today came out of that era, and still remain as progressive as the day they were born under Conservative management. I refer, first to AR.DA, second to the winter works programs, and third, to technical training assistance through vocational schools. These are the types of projects

that the present government must set up now to keep our labour force moving.
What have we had for labour since 1963 except efforts to keep these plans alive? Nothing new. As a matter of fact the slowness which has been shown in forwarding payments for winter works projects very often has created problems for our smaller communities which have been prevented from undertaking new work in the summer season because their credit was blocked at the bank for failure to pay commitments on time. Might we suggest that this be avoided in the future by faster procedures.
The $500 building bonus we will not even mention, because this government more than washed it way by imposing an 11 per cent tax on building materials, which it still stubbornly refuses to remove; and I am sure the electors will remember a long time the fact that government members voted against our amendment on this subject. We suggest that the government consider our recommendation to the effect that they make city and school taxes deductible from taxable income up to $500, as a direct assistance to the home owner and wage earner.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in case the Chair does not know what comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour let me suggest that the $500 bonus in respect of winter works does come within his jurisdiction.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I was just making the observation to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes that in so far as possible he should relate his remarks to the Department of Labour.


Michael Starr: That is what he was doing.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to contain myself a little more but it is very hard to speak on one subject, cutting off completely the many ramifications which are interwoven. I will do my best but perhaps you will keep reminding me.
Small industries must be made to prosper in our outlying districts from coast to coast and the minister must bring all pressure to bear on the Department of Industry to help create and develop small industries, because there is little use in offering training programs if the workers have to abandon our small towns for lack of work.
Training is all well and good, but something must be done by the manpower department to stop the drain of high priced talent to the United States labour fields.
March 3, 196B

I should like to quote from the C.N.A. Review dated February 19, 1966 as follows; under the heading "Lost to Canada"
What is the cost to Canada of the so-called 'brain drain'? Figures newly made available by United States authorities provide some indication.
They show that in the two-year period June, 1963, to June, 1965, more than 100,000 Canadians emigrated to the U.S. Over half of these-50,709 out of 101,149-were wage or salary earners who entered the U.S. labour force.
Among them were 1,765 engineers and scientists, 1,187 technicians, 163 industrial designers, 258 university professors, 820 physicians and surgeons, 725 accountants and auditors, 2,040 trained nurses and 2,610 managers, officials and proprietors.
An underpopulated but growing country such as Canada can ill afford to lose its best educated and most highly skilled people at such a rate. We can't prevent them going, but we can improve the incentives to stay by appropriate changes in personal income tax rates, changes which would allow individuals in the middle-income groups to retain a larger share of their earnings than at present.
Do not cut me off yet. The last paragraph states:
Such action has to come sooner or later and as can be seen there are compelling reasons why it should be sooner. Your move, Mr. Sharp.
I would add to that, incentives yes, but manpower policies too; trade crusades as well to keep our labour force abreast of changing times.
Your attention is called to the province of Quebec particularly where almost 50 per cent of our unemployed are located-75,000 out of 171,000 in November, 1965. You know as well as I that after the building rush for the Expo year is over we will be in deep trouble. So again I say now is the time to prepare for this situation.
Finally, a human note on the application of unemployment insurance policies. Most of the people who are unemployed know nothing about the law and very often make innocent incomplete statements which deprive them of their benefits. Many lawyers, and I might add, many M.P.'s who are lawyers, are doing quite well in interpreting the law for them at a cost, without, however, batting one thousand as far as setting the victims straight and as far as obtaining benefits is concerned. A corrective measure for this would be to instruct the local officials, who are very competent, mind you, to act as counsellors and arrange things so that at least a tie will go to the runner, especially where older workers are involved who have paid insurance for years and who are barred from benefits because they were not properly counselled when they made their applications,
23033-138J
Supply-Labour
[Translation1
Mr. Chairman, I cannot close my remarks without mentioning the pitiful state of the legislation governing civil servants. I hope the future minister of manpower (Mr. Marchand) will spare no effort to solve the problem and set up a system whereby collective bargaining for civil servants will be unquestionably recognized. He has never been too enthusiastic, I know, about reducing or limiting the right to strike.
The Quebec experience is showing what damage can result from a strike in this field. It will be very interesting to watch the outcome of disputes in months to come. I am sure that he does not feel too proud at the memory of the developments which led to the postal strike last summer. This was the first time in my 20 years of experience in industrial relations that I heard an employer boast about having settled a strike.
A strike is a state of bankruptcy, a recognition of failure, and it seems to me that the minister of the day would have had more satisfaction and justification if he had avoided the strike.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we appeal to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and the minister of manpower to offer their services and their advice in order to avoid the disquieting conflict that seems in the offing between our main trade unions.
It is less important at this time to concern ourselves about provincial or federal jurisdictions than to anticipate and avoid trouble which could jeopardize the progress and the benefits acquired through so many years of efforts.
Mr. Chairman, as I say, we only touched upon these problems, but we look forward to coming back to them in a more precise and detailed way when we have more time at our disposal.


Mr.   Chairman@: Carried.
[DOT] (12:00 midnight)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, has the minister anything to say on these questions, and in particular can he tell us his intentions with regard to legislation in this session?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I will only take a moment or two. In view of the excellent co-operation that I have received in trying to expedite the passage of these estimates, I should like first to thank hon. members for the reminders they have given me of

March 3. 1966
Supply-Labour
things to be done. I agree entirely that there is no purpose in having an act, such as the Labour (Standards) Code if requests for deferment are to be permitted to defeat the real purpose of the act. I assure hon. members that it is my intention to do everything within my power and responsibilities to bring about the real purpose of the act that was passed last session.
I should also like to thank the first speaker and the last speaker for their comments and for their congratulations. I think that perhaps the last speaker intended some of his kind remarks for my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I would also point out that the hon. gentleman overlooked two additional items of legislation that were referred to in the Speech from the Throne. If he had heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speak earlier this evening, he would have heard that hon. gentleman mention the amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and to the Safety Code, which were also mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It is our intention to introduce this legislation as soon as the legislative program for this session makes it possible for us to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, will there be legislation this session with regard to amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The Speech from the Throne contains the assurance that the government intends to proceed with legislation amending or bringing up to date the Unemployment Insurance Act. The work is well advanced in connection with these proposed amendments. An interdepartmental committee has been studying this matter and I have been following their work very closely. If we continue to make the progress such as we are making tonight, I think I can give the assurance that we should be dealing with the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act very shortly.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to ask one question so as not to delay the proceedings. We know that a problem has arisen, a dispute has flared up in the field of labour, since the C.N.T.U. asked to be recognized as bargaining agent for the C.B.C. employees in Montreal.
We have asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) many times for a statement in this

connection. I know that he has now as a colleague, a former president of the C.N.T.U. who must have kept some of the convictions he had then. It is not merely a matter of union recognition. Indeed, I feel that the problem goes deeper than that.
If we do not take the opportunity afforded by the Department of Labour estimates, in spite of the time, it will be very difficult to obtain information on this matter. Some people promote the idea of a single labour union for the whole of Canada, including C.B.C. employees, C.N.R. workers and crown corporations workers. On the other hand, a large number of Quebec workers would prefer the C.N.T.U.
I want to uphold the cause of the workers who want to join C.N.T.U. I know that the future minister of Manpower, if he wanted to, could be a better spokesman than I. He has more experience than I have in this field and I know that he is quite familiar with the administration of the C.N.T.U. Even if he is a cabinet member, he should clearly state his position in this regard.
This is not only a fight between two unions. There is more than that. A large group of Quebec workers want to be represented by the C.N.T.U. rather than by an international union.
There is also the principle of the freedom of association. Some fought a long time-and they will know what I mean-to see that right recognized. The first right is that the worker must have the right to choose freely the association he wants to belong to.
If, most of the employees decide to belong to that union or that association and that afterwards the Canada Labour Relations Board prevent the certification of that union, then the principle and the right of freedom oi association is denied.
The future Minister of Manpower must understand what I am saying now. Even if it is late-and that does not matter-there is a more important principle than the lateness of the debate to fight for.
I think that the Minister of Labour should make a statement about that, as well as the future Minister of Manpower, not later than tonight, because that problem has been pending for a long time. We must not wait until all the doors are closed, until everything is decided because then it will be too late to change the decisions taken.
I think that the decision or at least the recommendations of the Minister of Labour to the Canada Labour Relations Board can be
March 3, 1966

made before it is too late. Can the minister give us an answer?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, it would take considerable time to deal with the subject raised by the hon. member for Lapointe. I might say, that I have had more than one meeting with the union representatives and the union organizations that are involved in this dispute to which reference has been made. I have met with the C.N.T.U. officials twice; I have met with the C.L.C. and I have met with the Railway Brotherhood. They all have points of view to put forward. I can assure the hon. member for Lapointe that if he will agree to come to my office tomorrow I will give him a full outline of what has happened.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could the future minister of manpower make a statement on this matter?
Now that we are considering the estimates of the Department of Labour for 1965-66, I feel it is important for the future minister of manpower to give us an idea of the action he intends to take in order to protect the rights of Quebec workers who want to be represented within the C.B.C. by a Canadian union, such as the C.L.U., instead of an international union.
I think the future minister of manpower should make his plans clearly known to us in this respect.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the responsibility in this particular field still remains with the Minister of Labour. If the hon. member will come to see me tomorrow, I hope to be able to satisfy him of the soundness of the course we are following.


Gilles Grégoire: One question for the Minister of Labour: Has the minister of manpower made any representations to him concerning that problem?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In view of my oath as a Privy Councillor, if he had I could not tell you, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Technical and vocational training assistance-
15. Payments to the provinces to carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder and payments under agreements providing for the
Supply-Labour
sharing of expenditures for research projects to provide information relating to vocational training and manpower requirements, $116,988,000.
Mr.   Pailerson@: I wonder if the minister,
under item 15, would give us a breakdown of the payments to the provinces to carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act? I am not asking for that information tonight, but perhaps the minister could let me have some information as soon as possible.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If my memory serves me correctly the information has been suppled in a recent answer to a question on the order paper. In any event, if it has not I assure the hon. member that he will get the information he has requested.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[DOT] (12:10 a.m.)
Annuities Act-
20. Administration and government's contribution to annuities agents pension account in accordance with regulations made pursuant to vote 181, Appropriation Act No. 5, 1961, $1,197,300.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, what are the arrangements in relation to annuities and grants in view of the Canada Pension Plan?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot answer that without any officials here with me but I will undertake to write the hon. member and supply the information promptly.


William Arnold Peters: It is my understanding that in some fields these annuities have been discontinued and the Canada Pension Plan substituted, with a certain amount of freezing of assets in the annuities branch.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There was a decline in the volume of government annuities in recent years, but I am happy to say that since rates for individual annuities and group annuities were improved in 1964 there has been a marked increase in annuity sales, up 135 per cent over the three previous years. This improved rate seems to have encouraged employers who may have discontinued plans to continue them.
I might also say that the advent of the Canada Pension Plan has removed to some extent the disadvantage of the $1,200 a year maximum, and it is expected that since the Canada Pension Plan is not intended to provide all of the retirement income which many Canadians may require, government annuities will be used for that purpose.


William Arnold Peters: One final question. Is it the intention of the government to allow the withdrawal savings on the part of those who

March 3, 1966
Supply-Labour
wish to discontinue this form of retirement pension in expectation of a retirement pension under the Canada Pension Plan?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That matter is under study.
I have had some discussion with my colleague the Minister of Finance, but I cannot give an answer tonight, and perhaps not for another day or two. I will do so at an early date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: This concludes the estimates of the Department of Labour.
The committee will now proceed with the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Twelve o'clock.


Richard Albert Bell: We would be very glad to finish this department in 15 or 20 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Twelve o'clock.


Michael Starr: I think everyone on the opposition side was given the opportunity to participate in the discussion of the estimates since ten o'clock. Would it not be the wish of the members of the committee-I think we would agree on this side-to sit for another 45 minutes to get both departments through, Fisheries and Citizenship and Immigration?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. The staff of this house has to be back here at eleven o'clock this morning. We passed a motion to sit till 12 and it is now past twelve o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the House leader for the Conservatives, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) told us at 10.10 o'clock that he expected that consideration of the four departments" including Citizenship and Immigration would be finished by midnight. It is now twelve fifteen and two departments remain.
It seems obvious that he has little to lead in the house and that he is not the one to rule our actions. When he says everything will be finished within an hour, his statement cannot be relied upon. Really, we cannot be expected to remain credulous all night long.
There is a saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but that you can't fool all the people all the time. This applies to the hon. member for Ontario.


Michael Starr: I readily admit I have no control over the hon. member for Lapointe; indeed,

no one has in this house. As I said before, all members have had ample opportunity to speak and debate has not been curtailed. It is nobody's fault that we have not got everything through. We have a good objective in mind, and if we sat for another 45 minutes we could pass two more departments.


David Lewis: I am not questioning the sincerity of the hon. member for Ontario and I will not take up time by making a speech. I just repeat that as far as we are concerned it is twelve o'clock, and the hon. member for Ontario and any other member might just as well save his time. We are not going to be dragged on from 10 till 12, and then from 12 till one and from one to two. That is a child's game and we are not going to take part in it.


George James McIlraith: The original motion was that we should sit until twelve.


David Lewis: That is right.


George James McIlraith: It is now twelve. Without unanimous consent we cannot go any further.


David Lewis: Of course it is twelve.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I understand that one hon. member has called it twelve o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the late hour, before you call for the motion to adjourn, I think it would be preferable as far as I am concerned to defer my question until next Monday night.
I think the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) also agrees in order not to give additional work to the official reporters.
If the member of the New Democratic Party agreed, this evening, we could adopt that attitude.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In view of the desire of the New Democratic Party to get to bed early I would imagine they would be the first to agree to postpone their question until Monday night. I would agree provided they will agree. If they do not, I intend to go ahead.
[DOT] (12:20 a.m.)


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
March 3, 1966
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for Waterloo South.


Clément Vincent: What about the staff? That is the N.D.P., look at them.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo South):: On
Monday I raised a question concerning layoffs of Ford workers in Windsor. The minister replied he was looking into the matter, that he recognized the urgency of the situation and would inquire into it and answer on the following day. This, he did, and I should like to express my appreciation to him for having looked into the matter so quickly. However, the lay-offs are to begin tomorrow and this is why it is important to have an answer from the minister or from his parliamentary secretary tonight-so that we, and the workers in particular, may know how they stand in terms of these lay-offs and what success has attended the representations made by the minister on their behalf.
I think the importance of this matter goes beyond the case of these specific workers in the Ford Motor Company now threatened by lay-offs. It is important to find out the attitude of the government in relation to the Canada-U.S. agreement on automobiles. We in this party have not objected too violently to the program outlined by the Minister of Industry because we considered there was some merit in the proposals of the organized industry. Our chief concern has been the attitude which the Departments of Industry, Manpower and Labour would take when dislocation of employment became imminent.
It is important that a statement be made at this time not only in terms of what success the minister has had in his representations to the Ford Motor Company but also as an indication of what he intends to do in the future as these problems arise. A brief from union local 200 U.A.W. points out that Canadian tool work is being replaced by United States tool work and that almost 95 per cent of the tools and dies used are coming in from the United States, though we have sufficient workers and industrial facilities to produce them here in Canada.
This raises a larger problem. The automobile companies are already doing much of their research in the United States, as is perhaps understandable. But if they begin doing all their tool work in the United States and leave Canadian workers merely slapping fenders on cars when they go by on an assembly line, this has serious implications
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for Canada. We shall become primarily assemblers and many of our most skilled and talented people will be drawn off to the United States unless a policy decision is made.
I think it is important we should know there will be employment opportunities for young Canadians when they graduate from our schools and that our schools will not be used as training grounds to provide the United States with skilled tool and die workers because there are no opportunities in this country.
I appreciate the urgency with which the minister has approached this question and I hope a statement will be forthcoming tonight which would indicate he intends to make a serious effort to speak boldly to the automobile companies. When I asked the minister whether he could give the house an assurance that no lay-offs would take place while we were negotiating, he apologized and said he had no authority to give such an assurance.
If the minister does not possess this authority, I think he had better get the authority, because fundamentally we have to make a decision in respect of whether the minister is going to make this kind of determination about our labour force, about protecting our labour force and securing jobs for our labour force, or whether the Ford Motor Company is going to make it. I would prefer to see the minister make it on behalf of the Canadian people.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday or the day before, we have sent two men to Windsor, one representing the Department of Industry and the other representing the Department of Manpower.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; the house entered upon the adjournment procedures here this evening, and I would call your attention to the fact that we no longer have a quorum in the house. Despite the wishes and desires of the New Democratic party to satisfy their concern about the staff of the house, we are carrying on with the discussion of a question they put before this house, without a quorum.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I always have had a very high regard for the member who just spoke and I am glad to see how concerned he is about the staff of this building, but I am sure he must recognize that if it
2190	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion were not for the urgency of the problem facing the workers in Windsor-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat.
I think it is recognized that at this time we do not count the number of members in the house.


Jean Marchand: We sent two representatives, one from the Department of Industry and one from the Department of Manpower, to meet with the parties, make inquiries, and try to find a solution. Today I have received a brief report stating that those two persons will be able to make a preliminary report on the whole situation tomorrow. That is the information I received today.
On the other hand, I know that 15 men are supposed to be laid oil tomorrow. That is the situation as I know it tonight. Now, when the hon. member said I should find the authority to intervene, I would like to know what kind of authority he has in mind. I know of no law that will authorize me to compel the Ford Motor Company of Canada to keep those men.
Of course we can intervene and we can exercise moral pressure on the Ford Motor Company of Canada. This is what we are trying to do. How successful we will be, we will see tomorrow. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement. I think in those cases it is unjustifiable that an enterprise or union refuse to co-operate in order to avoid company lay-offs or the opportunity to look ahead so that an attempt can be made to place those men or arrange some settlement.
[DOT] (12:30 a.m.)
In this case I am not sure that the Ford Motor Company of Canada has co-operated with the union in order to solve this problem properly. Of course I must proceed with the instruments I have in my hands, just as the unions must proceed with the instruments they have in their hands, and that is why we must wait for the report of those two men. I hope I will have it tomorrow. If we can take some action I will be very happy to take it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, D'Arcy McGee has been dead for 98 years. I do not think he would mind if I stood my question over until Monday night, provided the house will give me permission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member to stand his question over until Monday at ten o'clock?

DEBATES	March 3, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 12.34 a.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]


[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Administration services-
1. Departmental administration including the administration of the Explosives Act and Canada's fee for membership in the Pan-American institute of geography and history, $2,506,600.
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including common use field survey equipment, $458,000.
5b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including common use field survey equipment, $215,000.
Field and air surveys, mapping and aeronautical
charting-
10. Administration, operation and maintenance including purchases of air photography and the expenses of the interdepartmental committee on air surveys, authority to make recoverable advances not exceeding the amount of the share of the United States government of the cost of binding annual reports and maintaining boundary range lights, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $7,779,200.
10b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $40,000.
Marine surveys and research-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international hydrographic bureau, $7,771,000.
15d. Administration, operation and maintenance- To extend the purposes of mines and technical surveys vote 15 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to permit oceanographic and hydrographic ships to carry out work in extraterritorial waters during the fiscal years 1965-66 and 1966-67, notwithstanding the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys Act, $1.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,560,000.
20b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $179,000.
Geological Research-
25. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the cost of the geological liaison office, British Commonwealth scientific conference, London, England, Canada's fee for membership in the international union of geological sciences and $150,000 for grants in aid of geological research in Canadian universities, $6,976,700.
March 3, 1966
[Stage Direction]
30. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $754,000.
Mining and metallurgical investigations and research-
35. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the cost of the Commonwealth committee on mineral processing and $50,000 for grants in aid of mining and mineral processing research in Canadian universities, $5,736,000.
35b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $49,000.
40. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $653,000.
40b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $261,000.
Geographical surveys and research-
45. Administration, operation and maintenance including the expenses of the Canadian permanent committee on geographical names and the national committee for Canada of the International Geographical Union, Canada's fee for membership in the international geographical union, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $758,000.
Research in astronomy and geophysics-
50. Administration, operation and maintenance including the expenses of the national committee for Canada of the international astronomical union, Canada's fee for membership in the international astronomical union, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $2,433,800.
55. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,749,000.
55b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,414,000.
General-
60. Polar continental shelf project, $1,657,200.
62d. Payment of subsidy to San Antonio Gold Mines Limited during the 1965-66 and 1966-67 fiscal years in accordance with an agreement entered into by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, with the approval of the Governor in Council, and the Government of Manitoba, the total cost of the subsidy to be borne in equal shares by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba, the payments by the Government of Canada not to exceed $45,000, $45,000.
B-Dominion coal board-
65. Administration and investigations of the Dominion Coal Board, $183,000.
70. Subventions in respect of eastern coal under agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $600,000.
70b. Subventions in respect of eastern coal under agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $130,000.
75d. To extend the authority granted by Mines and Technical Surveys Vote 75b, Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964, to increase to $22,500,000 the amount that may be expended annually in each of the 23033-139
Supply-Items Passed
five fiscal years commencing on the 1st day of April, 1965, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, as payments in connection with the movement of coal in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council for the purpose of enabling Canadian coal to be laid down in prescribed markets at a price competitive with imported coal and imported residual oil; additional amount required for 1965-66, $7,557,000.
[Stage Direction]
Water resources-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the International Executive Council, World Power Conference, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of the province of Manitoba and of the province of Ontario of the cost of regulating the levels of Lake of the Woods and Lac Seul and the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $3,638,000.
30d. Administration, operation and maintenance, $168,500.
35. Construction or acquisition or buildings, works, lands and equipment and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $989,400.
40. Contributions to the provinces toward the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces, $9,400,000.
Administration and general-
1. Departmental administration including a contribution to the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers in an amount equal to one half the aggregate contribution of the provinces but not exceeding $55,000 and $145,000 for grants for northern research and for northern scientific research expeditions, $1,817,000.
lb. Departmental administration-To extend the purposes of Vote 1 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include the grant detailed in these estimates, to raise the limit of the contribution to the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers to an amount not exceeding $76,919 and to provide a further amount of, $125,719.
5. Contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council by Canada with the provinces, to assist in the development of roads leading to resources, $6,665,000.
10. Contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them for campground and picnic area developments, $75,000.
[Stage Direction]
March 3, 1966
Supply-Items Passed
12b. Subventions under agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act in respect of electric power generated from eastern coal during the fiscal year 1965-66, $1,800,000.
National parks-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including wildlife resources conservation and development, administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and payments to land owners who maintain migratory bird habitat in accordance with agreements entered into on terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, payment to the national battlefields commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec and grants as detailed in the estimates, $13,551,000.
15b. Administration, operation and maintenance- To extend the purposes of Northern Affairs and National Resources Vote 15 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include authority to make preliminary expenditures on the proposed new national park in the area of Kejimkujik Lake in Nova Scotia and to provide a further amount of, $130,600.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $15,002,000.
20b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To extend the purposes of Northern Affairs and National Resources Vote 20 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include authority to make preliminary expenditures on the proposed new national park in the area of Kejimkujik Lake in Nova Scotia, $1.
Northern administration-
45. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, authority to make recoverable advances for services performed on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, authority to sell electric power and fuel oil (and to provide services in respect thereof), in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, to provide consumers in remote locations where alternative local sources of supply are not available and to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to provide in respect of Eskimo commercial activities for the instruction and supervision of Eskimos, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $27,008,700.
45b. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1.
45d. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates. $425,000.
50. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the government of the Northwest Territories of expenditures on education and vocational training, authority to make recoverable advances in respect of services provided and work performed on other than federal property when only the department
is capable of performing such service or work, and authority for a program of construction or acquisition of housing for Eskimos and the sale of houses to Eskimos on such terms and conditions and at such prices as the governor in council may approve, $14,155,800.
Loans, investments and advances-
Northern Administration Branch-
L50. To authorize loans to the government of the Northwest Territories, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, to assist in the design and construction of a water and sewer system at Hay river, Northwest Territories. $840,000.
Northern Canada Power Commission-
L55. Advances to the northern Canada power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with section 15 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, $3,630,000.
L60. Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $19,858,000.
[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants, contributions and special payments including those specified in the subvote titles in the estimates, recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council with the governments of the provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of social assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, authority to make grants and contributions pursuant to agreements entered into with the governments of the provinces or the territories or other groups or authorities approved of by the Governor in Council for the provision of welfare and other services to Indians and to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $60,221,600.
15b. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants, contributions and special payments including those specified in the sub-vote titles in the estimates, $220,000.
15d. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants, contributions and special payments including those specified in the subvote titles in the estimates and authority to make grants and contributions pursuant to agreements entered into with the governments of the provinces or the territories or other groups or authorities approved of by the Governor in Council for the provision of welfare and other services to Indians $3,358,500.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including construction or acquisition of works for Indian bands, the operation and control of which may be transferred to the Indian bands at the discretion of the minister,
March 3, 1966
[Stage Direction]
expenditures on works on other than federal property, assistance to Indians and Indian bands for the construction or acquisition of housing and other buildings and related works, land and equipment, and recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council with the governments of the provinces and the territories and with local school boards in respect of the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, $14,300,000.
20d. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including construction or acquisition of works for Indian bands, the operation and control of which may be transferred to the Indian bands at the discretion of the minister, expenditures on works on other than federal property, assistance to Indians and Indian bands for the construction or acquisition of housing and other buildings and related works, land and equipment and recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council with the governments of the provinces and the territories and with local school boards in respect of the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, $1,061,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Citizenship and Immigration-
L15d. To provide that the total amount of outstanding advances at any one time with respect to loans to Indians under section 69 of the Indian Act, notwithstanding subsection 5 thereof, shall not exceed $1,500,000, $1.
[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates; the expenses of the international labour conferences; the promotion of labour-management co-operation; the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker; the promotion of programs for combating seasonal unemployment; the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and the manpower consultative service, $4,833,500.
Labourlb. General administration, $1,065,000.
Id. General administration, $345,000.
5. Payments to carry out the purposes of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and agreements made thereunder, including undischarged commitments under previous agreements; payments to provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council for the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and to authorize payments in accordance with agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council by the Minister of Labour with provinces, employers and workers in respect of labour mobility and assesment incentives, $1,280,000.
5b. Payments to carry out the purposes of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and agreements made thereunder, including undischarged commitments under previous agreements; payments to provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the Governor in Council for the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and to authorize payments in accordance with agreements entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council by the Minister 23033-1395
Supply-Items Passed
of Labour with provinces, employers and workers in respect of labour mobility and assessment incentives, $115,000.
6d. Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council to provinces and in respect to Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1965-66 and 1966-67 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding fifty per cent of the cost of labour incurred in the period from November 1, 1965 to such day or days in the fiscal year 1966-67 as may be determined by the Governor in Council, and in the case of projects in designated areas within the meaning of the Department of Industry Act and in areas determined by the Minister of Labour to be areas of high winter unemployment, sixty per cent of such cost; and to authorize payments in those fiscal years to provinces in respect of previous municipal winter works incentive programs, $54,000,000.
Special services branch-
8d. Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council under the winter house building incentive program during the fiscal years 1965-66 and 1966-67 of $500 per dwelling unit substantially built during the period November 15, 1965 to April 15, 1966; and to authorize payments in those fiscal years in respect of previous winter house building incentive programs, $17,000,000.
Technical and vocational training assistance-
10. Administration, $828,900.
lOd. Administration, $35,500.
12b. Acquisition of the buildings, works and lands commonly known as the Missisauga Indian village at Elliot Lake, Ontario, for the purposes of the Elliot Lake Centre for Continuing Education, $437,000.
15. Payments to the provinces to carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder and payments under agreements providing for the sharing of expenditures for research projects to provide information relating to vocational training and manpower requirements, $116,988,000.
15b. Payments to the provinces to carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder and payments under agreements providing for the sharing of expenditures for research projects to provide information relating to vocational training and manpower requirements, $42,000,000.
15d. To extend the purpose of Labour Vote 15 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to pay to or in respect of persons resident in designated areas within the meaning of the Department of Industry Act up to 100% of the costs, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, of (a) allowances; (b) developing experimental training methods and techniques; and (c) related activities including training programs. $30,000.
[Stage Direction]
March 3, 1966
Supply-Items Passed
Annuities Act-
20. Administration and government's contribution to annuities agents pension account in accordance with regulations made pursuant to Vote 181, Appropriation Act No. 5, 1961, $1,197,300.
Government employees compensation-
25. Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $123,100.
25b. Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $6,000.
National employment service-
30. Administration of the National Employment Service, including the transfer of labour to places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council, $22,078,300.
30b. Administration of the National Employment Service-to extend the purposes of Vote 30 of the Main Estimates for 1965-1966 to include a grant of $2,500 to the Canadian Association for Adult Education to assist in defraying the expenses of a founding conference for a Canadian Guidance and Counselling Association, and to provide a further amount of, $4,237,000.
35b. To authorize, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, grants to workers who move from one place in Canada to another place in Canada where employment is available to provide for payment of, (a) the actual cost of their transportation and that of their dependents, (b) the actual cost of movement of their household effects, and (c) an amount in respect of resettlement and other incidental expenses, $5,000,000.
35d. To extend the purposes of Labour Vote 35b in supplementary estimates (B)	1965-66, which
provided for the establishment of a manpower mobility program, to authorize, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, grants to or in respect of persons who are moved from one place in Canada to another place in Canada in connection with the manpower mobility program, $1.
Loans, investments and advances-
Labour-
L28b. To authorize the establishment of a special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be known as the assisted movement fund from which loans to workers who move from one place in
Canada to another place in Canada where employment is available may be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, to cover.
(a)	the actual cost of their transportation and that of their dependents,
(b)	the actual cost of movement of their household effects, and
(c)	an amount in respect of resettlement, repayments on such loans to be credited to the account; to authorize the Minister of Labour, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, to forgive the repayment of a loan or any part thereof made to a worker under this authority; and to authorize payments out of the fund to cover transportation costs incurred for the movement of workers on behalf of employers, subject to the fund being reimbursed by the employers in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, $5,000,000.
L28d. To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, loans to provide financial assistance to workers who move from one place in Canada to another place in Canada where employment is available, to authorize advances to cover transportation costs incurred for the movement of workers on behalf of employers subject to reimbursement by employers, to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, to forgive the re-payment of a loan or any part thereof made to a worker under this authority and to authorize a special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be known as the assisted movement account,
(a)	to which all loans to workers and advances made on behalf of employers will be charged; and
(b)	to which shall be credited
(i)	all repayments of principal amounts of loans
(ii)	all amounts reimbursed by employers, and
(iii) all amounts the payment of which is forgiven by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration under this authority;
the total amount that may be charged to the account at any time not to exceed $5,000,000; and to repeal Labour Vote L28b as set out in supplementary estimates (B) 1965-66 and to apply to this vote the moneys appropriated for the purposes of Labour Vote L28b by Appropriation Act No. 6. 1965 and Appropriation Act No. 1, 1966, $5,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
1. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, $32,689,400.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 4, 1966