1966-05-12

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House Ottawa
12th May 1966
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 12th May, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege in connection with a statement released yesterday afternoon by Mr. Robert P. McFadden, president of the Mercantile Bank of Canada, following a meeting of the directors of the bank. The statement begins as follows:
We believe it improper to engage in debate with the former finance minister over who said what at a meeting over three years ago. Suffice it to say we voluntarily made the full details of the transaction known to Mr. Gordon at the time and our understanding of what transpired at the meeting with him is not in accord with his.
The transaction raferred to was the acquisition of the shares of the Mercantile Bank of Canada by the First National City Bank of New York. The comment refers to what Mr. James Stillman Rockefeller, at the time president and now chairman of the First National City Bank, and Mr. McFadden, then an officer of that bank, told me at a meeting in my office on July 18, 1963, when I was minister of finance.
Mr. R. B. Bryce, deputy minister of finance, and Mr. Clayton Elderkin, inspector general of banks, were present with me during the meeting and Mr. Elderkin prepared a full report on what took place immediately afterward. The report was reviewed and concurred in by Mr. Bryce. This report leaves no doubt whatever as to what transpired despite Mr. McFadden's protestations to the contrary. I expect both Mr. Bryce and Mr. Elderkin will be called upon to confirm it when the Bank Act is up for revision.
While the statement that Mr. McFadden released yesterday is carefully worded and may sound plausible on a cursory reading, the fact of the matter is that he is questioning the accuracy of what I said in the house on June 14, 1965 in the course of my duties as minister of finance, which may be found at pages 2371 to 2373 of Hansard, and which I referred to on pages 94 and 95 of my recent book.
In my statement to the house, which was a long one, I referred to my conversation with Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. McFadden in some detail. It is on the record and I shall not repeat it except to say that I assumed the purpose of Mr. Rockefeller's visit was to ascertain, before any commitment was undertaken, whether the Canadian government of the day would be favourable to his bank acquiring control of the Mercantile Bank.
I informed Mr. Rockefeller that this would not be looked upon with favour by the Canadian government for the reasons which are set out in Hansard.
Mr. McFadden, the president of the Mercantile Bank, has now seen fit to question the accuracy of the statement which I made to the house on June 14, 1965. In doing so he has cast a reflection upon my integrity both as a member of this house and as a former member of the government.
I can only presume that this had been done deliberately. If it were to go unchallenged it might not only reflect on my veracity and therefore on my personal integrity, but it might mislead members of the house and members of the public at a time when decisions respecting the future position of the Mercantile Bank of Canada will be under
May 12, 1966
5030	COMMONS
Patent Licensing of Drug Manufacturers consideration. I presume they are under consideration at the present time by the Minister of Finance and members of the cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Hon. Maurice Lamontagne-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member is allowed to put his motion a decision should be taken by the Chair as to whether there is a prima facie case of privilege in the statement. If there is no objection I might take the matter under advisement. If there is a prima facie case of privilege then the hon. member might be allowed to make the motion. I might say, perhaps, that I have some serious doubts at the moment about whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question of privilege, when Your Honour is considering the matter would you consider the fact that the member for Davenport has referred to a public document prepared by the inspector general of banks. I suggest and submit that the rules of the house would require that this document should be laid on the table of the house, and I would ask Your Honour to take that matter into consideration at the same time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the house I should like to table copies, in English and in French, of the report of the special committee which was established to look into matters involved in the patent licensing of drug manufacturers. This committee, which was established on June 14, 1965, consisted of Dr. Irwin Hilliard, Dr. Charles Gowdey and Dr. Roger Gaudry.
In general the various recommendations of the committee which are not directly within existing regulations are being considered, and to the extent necessary are being implemented by appropriate arrangements with the commissioner of patents, as well as by changes in our drug regulations.
Arrangements have been discussed with the commissioner of patents to ensure close cooperation between the food and drug directorate and his office. The directorate will provide the necessary report to the commissioner relating to the competency of the applicant to manufacture a particular drug,


and while the decision with respect to the issuance of a compulsory licence is entirely within the discretion of the commissioner, I consider that the arrangements which have been discussed will effectively take into account the views of the committee.
The recommendation of the committee with respect to the furnishing of samples and informational material to the food and drug directorate and the inspection of premises, are matters which can be taken care of under the authority of our existing regulations. Hon. members can be assured that careful attention will be given to the supervision of matters which are involved in this portion of the recommendations.
We have also under consideration an amendment to the definition of a new drug, which is designed to give effect to the purpose of the fifth recommendation which is contained in the report. It is felt that the existing regulations which require suitable conditions of manufacture for a drug are sufficiently broad to cover the purposes of recommendation No. 6.
The question of adequate direction for use, including information to the professions, is a matter that has been under consideration for some time and appropriate steps are being taken to amend the regulations as would be necessary to give effect to this part of the report.
As regards notification, I expect that the necessary regulations in this regard will be in force within a very short space of time. Consideration is being given to strengthening the regulations with respect to the testing of drugs imported into Canada. The present regulations require that the container of a drug in dosage form bear a lot number. My officers are looking into the practicability of the individual capsule or tablet carrying a distinctive mark.
In concluding my remarks I would like on behalf of my colleague the Secretary of State, who established the committee, and myself, to pay particular tribute to it for its willingness to undertake this work at short notice and for the quality of the report which it provided.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-181, respecting employment in the public service of Canada.
May 12. 1966


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of National Revenue, with agreement of the house, to explain this bill. He will be piloting it through the house because I may not be here for one or two days next week.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: This is the second of three measures which are necessitated by the movement toward collective bargaining in the civil service of Canada. Under this particular measure the Civil Service Act is to be replaced by a new statute to be known as the public service employment act. This measure will not only retain the merit system of appointment and promotion and the type of job security long enjoyed by civil servants, but will extend them to thousands of additional government employees. The Civil Service Commission is to become the public service commission and, within a wider jurisdiction, it is to be concerned exclusively with the staffing functions.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The proposed public service employment act, which states that appointments to the public service are to be based on selection according to merit, would apply not only to civil servants, as currently defined, but also to some 30,000 prevailing rate employees, ships' officers and crews. The extension to these employees of the merit system of appointment and promotion, and of the type of job security now enjoyed by civil servants, will, I think, be welcomed by all those who value and respect the non-political traditions of the public service.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Will that bill also allow-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot put a question at this time.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, is Your Honour indicating that no questions may be asked at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: That is what I was suggesting to the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then may I say that before we give leave to introduce this bill there is a matter of order which should be raised.
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. gentleman raising a point of order?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point of order I raise is this. How can such matter come forward by way of the introduction of a bill rather than by way of resolution? I think we should have some explanation from the government side as to that.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the question whether this bill and the following bill required resolutions was taken up with the law officers of the crown. The government was informed that these two bills did not require resolutions.


Mr. Fulion:: Then on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is not the time to precipitate a debate, but for myself and I am sure for many of my colleagues I should like to say that we would consent to the introduction of the bill reserving, however, our rights at a later stage to raise a point of order whether in fact the bill may be proceeded with without the prior introduction of a resolution.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise on a point of order and mention that we reserve the right to question the procedure used at this time, if the purpose of the bill is to allow the Liberal organizers recently appointed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to negotiate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I might mention on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kamloops that I am informed that when the present Civil Service Act was introduced in 1960 and 1961, it was not preceded by a resolution. The same procedure is being followed in this particular instance.
Is it the pleasure of the house that the right hon. gentleman shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


James Ross Fulton: Subject to the reservation I have stated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There can be no such reservation. The hon. member may, if he wishes, make a point later on, but it is my understanding that the right hon. gentleman has leave to introduce the said bill now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

May 12, 1966
Introduction of Bills FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING FUNCTIONS OF TREASURY BOARD

Lester Bowles Pearson: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-182, to amend the Financial Administration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is the third of the bills necessarily arising out of the proposal for collective bargaining in the civil service. This particular bill proposes that Treasury Board be empowered to act for the governor in council on all matters relating to financial management, personnel management, general administrative policy, the organization of the public service and the control of establishments. In the personnel field the board would be responsible, among other things, for the determination of rates of pay, hours of work, leave and other conditions of employment; for the classification of positions and employees; for the establishment of standards of discipline; and for the promotion of safe and suitable working conditions.
The purpose of these provisions is to assign to Treasury Board the role envisaged for it by the Glassco commission and to provide it with the authority it will require to act as the principal agent of the employer in the proposed system of collective bargaining.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-183, to amend the Canada Elections Act (qualifications of voters and electors).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that only Canadian citizens shall in future be qualified as electors or as candidates at federal elections. Such privileges, enjoyed by British subjects and certain others who have not acquired Canadian citizenship, are not shared by all immigrants. The proposed amendment would end this discrimination, encourage the acquisition of citizenship, and reflect the maturity of a nation approaching its centenary.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the remarks he made in New York last night, as quoted today in the press, can the Prime Minister tell the members of the house whether it is the intention of Canada to extend official recognition to the People's Republic of China in the immediate future? Second, is it the intention of the government of Canada to support the recognition of the delegation from Peking, China, for the Chinese seat in the United Nations at the next general assembly of the United Nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what has been said previously on this matter by spokesmen for the government. It is a matter that is under consideration, of course. As to what may happen at the next assembly of the United Nations, that is a hypothetical question.
Our attitude toward the communist Chinese government, as a government, on any UN resolution dealing with this matter, would have to consider the nature of the resolution and the circumstances.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the Prime Minister's remarks, in his estimation, indicate that Canada is closer to this point than it was heretofore?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have just reaffirmed what I and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have been saying on this matter now for some time.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I commend the Prime Minister for the statement he made in New York, that the United Nations could no longer shelve the problem of membership for mainland China. I ask the Prime Minister, does he not think it would give substance to his declaration if he made a statement fairly soon to the effect that the Canadian government is prepared to recognize mainland China and to support her admission to the United Nations? Does the Prime Minister not think this would allow the government to avoid any accusations that the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday was merely empty rhetoric?
May 12, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is of course a conditional question which it is difficult for me to answer. The circumstances regarding the admission of the mainland government of China to the United Nations depend not exclusively on the attitude of other members of the United Nations but on the attitude of that government itself to conditions which it might lay down for membership in the United Nations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any obstacle in the way of extending diplomatic recognition to communist China, as has already been done by a great many countries including the United Kingdom and France, where the attitude of mainland China with respect to Formosa is not involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is argumentative, and it seems to me we are entering into a debate on the subject. I do not think this particular question should be allowed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I rephrase my question and ask the Prime Minister whether there are any obstacles standing in the way of Canadian recognition of mainland China.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is the difficulty which might occur if the government of mainland China were to insist that any diplomatic recognition of the regime should include areas such as Formosa where its writ does not now run.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the climate among Canada's friends, unlike the Ottawa climate in another sense, is so improved that recognition of the People's Republic of China may come at a date earlier than might have been expected a short while ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question again is argumentative.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs consonant with an earlier question directed to the Prime Minister. Has the hon. gentleman or the government reconsidered the extension of diplomatic recognition to the Chinese government on the island of Formosa?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the experienced whip, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, will have carefully noted that the question was adequately responded to by the Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



NATIONAL CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the future minister of manpower?
Was the minister consulted by his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), with regard to the appointment of the commissioners for the census to be held in June?


Mr. Speaker:: Since it is not urgent, this question cannot be accepted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since the question was not accepted, the hon. member may not put a supplementary question.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question was not accepted for lack of immediate urgency, but it was not ruled out of order-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, it was.


Gilles Grégoire: -and I feel that, in the circumstances, a supplementary question is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My interpretation of the standing orders is not the same as that of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, I shall direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister ask his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to table in the house a list of all those who have suggested names for the 1966 national census?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is out of order for the same reason as the one asked a minute ago by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).
If the hon. member believes this matter to be very urgent, he can discuss it at ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

May 12. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I put my question to his parliamentary secretary, the distinguished member for Quebec South?
Have the persons selected to take the 1966 census passed an examination to ascertain if they are qualified for the job, and when was this examination held?


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Having listened to questions since the beginning of the afternoon, I wonder why the question of the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) is not in order; why is it not urgent since the census will start in the near future?
In my opinion this question should be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member asked if an examination had been held. I think this question is not urgent and if the hon. member who put the question believes it is, he can ask to debate it later under the adjournment motion. As a matter of fact, he gave notice of his intention to do so.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, my notice is already before the clerk.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture?
In a questionnaire candidates for the position of national census commissioners have to fill out, there is a question that puzzles everyone, namely: how many pounds of fat are there in one hundredweight of milk?
It might be advisable for the minister to tell us so that all Canada might know.
[English1



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement by the executive of

the international longshoremens union that they have lost control of their striking members, and bearing in mind the critical national and international situation which has developed, can the minister inform us what he is doing in an effort to bring this wildcat strike in Montreal back under control?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: As far as ministerial responsibility is concerned, that would be an intrusion on my part into the functions of my colleague the Minister of Labour.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I, then, ask the Minister of Labour what action the government is taking in this critical situation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I agree that this is a very serious matter. The night before last I appointed an able and experienced jurist to be chairman of a conciliation board. The board is now in session dealing with this problem as a matter of urgency.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Is the
Minister of Transport considering offering the services of a mediator from the department in an effort to find a solution to this serious situation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I should usurp the functions so very well performed by the Minister of Labour.


Georges-J. Valade: May I address the same question to the Minister of Labour?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is not customary to have a mediator function once a board of conciliation has been established and is actually dealing with the problem. Senior officials of my department are on hand and are available to give advice if it is required.



FAILURE TO APPOINT CHAIRMAN FOR C.N.R. CONCILIATION BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the announcement by the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers yesterday that a strike vote is being taken among their members on the Canadian National Railways in protest against delays in the appointment of a chairman for a conciliation board, can the minister advise what action he has taken to deal with this dispute?
May 12, 1966


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am glad this question was put, because it gives me the opportunity to correct an erroneous statement which appeared in this morning's paper to the effect that the minister has neglected this matter for two months.
The facts are that it was on March 30 the union sent in its nomination. The company submitted its nomination on April 1. The parties were immediately advised by the minister, as required by the act, that they should get together and try to agree on a chairman. On April 19 I was advised they had not been able to agree. On the following day I announced the appointment of Mr. Justice Munroe to the chairmanship of the other two conciliation boards, and the hope was expressed that this particular union and the railways might be able to agree on his appointment in this case also. It was only, relatively, a short time ago that I was advised that this hope would not materialize.
Since then we have been actively exploring the possibilities because this is a very important matter. For the last ten days we have been trying to find another chairman, but bearing in mind the number of conciliation boards and other inquiries which are sitting at the present time hon. members will appreciate that it is not easy to get an experienced chairman to deal with a matter as complicated and as serious as this one.
We now have one experienced man in mind and I feel he could do the job well, if he will accept. He has promised to advise me tomorrow, if possible, or in any event not later than Monday, whether he will be able to take it on.



YUKON- INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the minister of northern affairs; it concerns the hon. member for the Northwest Territories as well. Can the minister inform the house what assistance is forthcoming from the government with respect to flood conditions in the Yukon?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: We have had a report on flood conditions in the city of Dawson. This is a condition which is not unusual at this time of the year, though I would think the damage is somewhat greater than the average for the last number of years. I understand some damage was done to
Inquiries of the Ministry private homes, to the water system and to the sewage system.
We have asked two men to go in and make an assessment. Commissioner Cameron has asked for some assistance. We are glad to report that the water is now receding because apparently the ice jam down river from Dawson is breaking up.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REPORTED INCREASE IN ANTICIPATED COST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Before doing so, if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I want to admit that I misled the house yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -for the first time in nearly 21 years. With reference to the office of the former prime minister being wired, the Minister of Public Works said, as reported in Hansard at page 5008:
-to check proceedings that went on here. He admitted it himself and had the wiring removed when the matter was raised in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Kootenay West.
Later on I rose and said:
I wish to explain to the house that this complaint was made by Senator Argue.
That is not correct. As is made clear in Hansard for July 19, 1958 at page 2447, I raised the point and as a result the prime minister of the day had the situation corrected. I am not at present a senator, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Behave yourself and you might be.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of press reports that there will be an overexpenditure of some $200 million on the Columbia treaty projects before they are completed, would the minister inform the house whether any reports from the federal representative on the feder-al-British Columbia liaison committee, or from the federal representative on the joint engineering board, indicate that the projects will cost considerably more than the government of British Columbia has received from the United States under the terms of the Columbia treaty?
May 12, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is of a very general nature and I think it might be placed on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Solicitor General indicated that when he was recently in the United Kingdom he had a conversation with the British Home Secretary. Did he discuss with him the plan that is reported under consideration in Britain to fingerprint all adult Britons as a method of combating crime and, if so, has he formulated any idea to discuss this matter here in Canada?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have to advise the hon. member that this was not one of the very many interesting subjects we discussed. Discussions related chiefly to the correctional system, the police college and the various duties of the Home Secretary as distinct from those of the Attorney General in this field.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The Canadian Economic Council, in a report that was published yesterday, states that the crucial point in the Canadian economy is not the balance of payments but its integration to world economy. At the same time Mr. Graham Towers says that the Canadian government "when shaping its future national policies should, in my estimation, put more emphasis than in the past on the balance of payments". Could the Minister of Finance, for the information of the House, state the position of the government between those two apparently conflicting theories?


Mr. Speaker:: The question asked by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is argumentative and therefore out of order.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General, and I apologize for doing so in view of his cold and the difficulties he has with his voice. In view of the fact that drastic reductions are reported taking place in equestrian training and the use of horses by the R.C.M.P., is there any thought in the mind of the Solicitor General to drop the word "Mounted" from the name Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall help the Solicitor General in his plight by suggesting that the question be placed on the order paper.


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I come from Macleod riding and I rise on a point of privilege. I gave the Solicitor General notice of this question, and I think he is ready to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate this, but even if the minister is prepared to answer he will still be able to do so in writing if the question is placed on the order paper.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Would it be all right to put it on the ten o'clock show, Mr. Speaker?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The musical ride.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. I have now been waiting almost a week for the minister to come back to the house, so I think I ought to address it to the Prime Minister. Has the government taken any action in connection with the grievance I raised a week ago Tuesday, concerning the pension rights of Mr. John Kroeker?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State, who has been away on centennial and other business, will be back later this afternoon and I shall take up the matter with her as soon as she returns.
May 12, 1966



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chailerlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of which I have given him notice. According to the Victoria Daily Colonist of last Tuesday three recent immigrants from the United Kingdom stated that Canadian immigration officers in the U.K. advised them against settling in British Columbia but recommended, amongst other places, Winnipeg, Calgary and Toronto. Can the minister assure the house that this is not being done?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it was done or not. I can try to check, but the hon. member can be sure that if it was indicated that British Columbia was not a good province to settle in, I can assure all immigrants that it is a very nice province and there are a lot of opportunities in it. If the hon. member wants me to check further I shall be glad to do so.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary question, can the minister assure us that his immigration officers will convey the same information to prospective immigrants?


Jean Marchand: Pardon me, I did not hear the question.


George Louis Chatterton: Will the minister assure us that the Canadian immigration officers in the U.K. and elsewhere abroad will advise prospective immigrants of the great opportunities in British Columbia?


Jean Marchand: Yes, I hope they will do so.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the future minister of manpower who has just said there are many opportunities in British Columbia. Does the minister feel it is due to the Social Credit government in that province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask is he aware that Mr. Neville, the executive assistant to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), is apparently associated with Mr. Keate in the latter's work regarding the C.B.C. dispute? If so, by whose authority is the executive assistant so acting, and what role is he supposed to play?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to look into that and I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: As a
supplementary question, will the Prime Minister request that the president of the
C.B.C. offer his apologies to Miss Beryl Fox for any affront to her professional reputation that may have been occasioned by recent investigations of the R.C.M.P., which indicated that there was no foundation for the original Telegram story which prompted the investigations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see the urgency of the matter raised by the hon. member, and cannot accept the question.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that a few days ago the Minister of Justice, acting on his behalf, told the house that on the Solicitor General's return from the United Kingdom he would answer my repeated questions relative to the transfer of women narcotic addicts from Kingston to Matsqui against their desire, can we have any information on the matter now? This transfer is to take place within a very short time unless there has been a change in a policy decision.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, a decision has been taken, regarding those inmates whose term is due to expire this year, not to return them to Matsqui. A decision regarding the other inmates has not been arrived at yet.

May 12. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and arises out of a report which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail, and out of the point of privilege raised earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Davenport. The report in the Globe and Mail referred to the fact that the Mercantile Bank of Canada hopes to be welcomed in Canada without what it calls legislative restrictions on its growth. As the hon. member for Davenport reminded us, the Bank Act revisions that were proposed included a provision which would limit the further growth of the Mercantile Bank.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Has the minister since he assumed his position, been subjected to new pressures or representations to eliminate this provision that was to be included in the new Bank Act?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from the Mercantile Bank on this subject and, as might well be expected, I have received representations on many other subjects from many people who dislike the provisions of legislation proposed by the present government and existing legislation.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of this matter, can the minister indicate how soon we may expect the Bank Act legislation, in order that we may have some clarification?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in reply to a similar question yesterday, the cabinet is just completing its consideration of this legislation and I hope it will be placed on the order paper soon.


Colin Cameron: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister yielded to the pressures he mentioned to eliminate this section from the Bank Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think I should answer this question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is an imputation in this question that I yield to pressure from anyone. I yield to pressure from no one, and neither does this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Graffley:: Does that include Jean
Lesage?


Mitchell William Sharp: It even includes you.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is the minister investigating the recently published announcement regarding the menace of certain household detergents alleged to be seriously polluting public waters of Canada?


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



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries, and I gave him notice. In view of the minister's recent meeting with provincial officials at the herring conference at Fredericton and with provincial officials at the fisheries council at Halifax, is the minister now prepared to take action on the seiner closure along the New Brunswick shore of the Bay of Fundy which is discriminatory to Nova Scotia?


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


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fisheries was asked this question on January 18, 1966. This closure was supposed to have been temporary, but it has been in effect for two and a half years. The Halifax Herald of May 10 reports that on his arrival at Halifax the minister said he thought it would be advisable to take no action until he had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the provincial ministers concerned. Has he discussed it
May 12. 1966

with the provincial ministers, and is he now prepared to take action?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the ministers of fisheries for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I informed the hon. member yesterday that a further meeting was to take place yesterday or this morning with senior officials of the federal and provincial governments concerned.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: When can we expect some announcement or, preferably, some action in this regard?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: An announcement will be made after that meeting has taken place and a report has been received.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement made two days ago by Lord Avon, formerly known as Sir Anthony Eden, that a neutral belt be established through the three countries that formerly made up French Indochina-Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos-will he inform the house whether this proposal is being considered by the Canadian government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, before replying to this question let me say that the Prime Minister has just suggested that, since it is not likely he will be asked a question to give him the opportunity to refer to the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, I should make note of the fact that that hon. gentleman has a new seat in this house, which would indicate that he apparently has been appointed by the leader of his party as deputy whip.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's political ideologies, he is such a popular member of this house that this should be noted as a matter that brings great satisfaction to all of us.
In answer to the question regarding Lord Avon's proposal, something like this was suggested by him in 1954. It is a proposal that deserves very careful attention in our
Inquiries of the Ministry efforts to bring hostilities in Viet Nam to an end.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask whether I might have the privilege of concluding the question period with a friendly question to the Prime Minister. In view of a certain answer given to me by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, does the Prime Minister not feel this indicates that possibly he has shared a seat with that hon. gentleman for too long?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Treasury Board, of which I gave him notice. In view of the fact that requests for pay increases for masters and officers employed in vessels operating on the west coast and in the Northwest Territories by various government departments have been under consideration for over a year, may I ask the minister whether the Department of Labour has conducted a survey into these requests and submitted recommendations to the Treasury Board? If so, what is the reason for the delay in taking action on these recommendations?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice. I am informed that the survey conducted by the Department of Labour as a basis for review of the rates of pay applying on the west coast to these employees has been completed, that the results have been sent to the various operating departments concerned, and that the submissions to the Treasury Board from these departments are now coming in and should all be received within the next couple of weeks.
I can assure the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam that these submissions will be dealt with expeditiously by the Treasury Board. With respect to the employees in the Northwest Territories, I am informed that the Department of Labour is now completing its survey.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that this matter has been held in abeyance for over a year, I

May 12, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry wonder whether the minister might urge the departments to make their submissions to the Treasury Board at the earliest possible date?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, these submissions are coming in now and we expect to receive them all within a very short period of time. The Treasury Board will not hold them up.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Will the minister, when he is discussing this matter of increases with his colleagues, bear in mind, please, that unless these increases are given in the near future they will involve payment of the new rates of income tax, which would be very undesirable?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS VACANCY IN SECRETARIAT OF RESOURCE MINISTERS COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the importance of informational services in planning for the forthcoming conference on pollution, could the minister inform the house whether a successor for Mr. Walter Gray has been found on the secretariat of the resource ministers council?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I do not have that information, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[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. On April 19, as reported at page 3990 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister whether he could give the house at an early date a list of the 15 items of important government legislation to which he had referred during the Easter recess. He said that the list was probably 21, but he has not yet given it to the house. I wonder whether he could do that at an early date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will try to do that at an early date. One or two of the items have now been passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether this list will include any action with respect to the Old Age Security Act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a matter of government policy, Mr. Speaker. It will certainly include some very important bills dealing with social security.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Fraser Valley with respect to the health hazard in connection with the Chinese nuclear tests. I should like to reply that radioactive fall-out from the Chinese nuclear test has not yet been detected in Canada although it is likely to be observed within a few days. It is expected, however, that the amount will be much smaller than the amounts deposited from previous testing programs.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when he may be able to satisfy the anticipation of the house by permitting us to see the white paper on immigration which has been long awaited?


Jean Marchand: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. With withdrawals from the armed services exceeding recruitments by 6,000 per year, will the
May 12, 1966
Minister of National Defence inform the house what steps he has taken to maintain our armed services at full strength?
Hon Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I would request my hon. friend's assistance in encouraging more young people to join the armed forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence in the hope of getting a somewhat less flippant answer from him. Would the minister inform us what steps he is taking to increase the number of people in the armed services and to improve the morale of the service, which is steadily deteriorating?


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman has given me this additional opportunity to reply to his question. First of all I should like to deny the allegation contained in his previous question. I would be glad to get the figures for him. The Associate Minister has just given me figures which show that for the first three months of the year-


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are on Hansard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -there were 2,398 releases and 2,546 recruits, which certainly is a much more optimistic set of figures than that used by my hon. friend.


Erik Nielsen: Then Hansard is wrong.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think my hon. friend should find some comfort in those figures. He can also be assured that we are taking every possible step to reduce the anomalies which exist as between the three services, and to improve the pay and allowances and other conditions for the men and women in the armed forces to the extent required to make sure that we will be able to retain the required numbers to perform the missions that are assigned to them in our various alliances, etc.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to take as accurate the figures given by the minister today or those which were given in a written reply to a question and tabled in the house within the last week or two?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You had better check your figures.
Inquiries of the Ministry COAL



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and refers to the Donald report on coal. May I say to him, in view of the fact that we are unable to secure information on this subject-


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


Robert Muir: Yes, I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I was enlightening the Prime Minister, who is probably not aware that we have not been able to get information from the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys or the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia, and the Minister of Finance who handles this matter will not yield to pressure. Would the right hon. gentleman devote a little time to this subject and inquire, on behalf of the 6,500 miners involved, how soon we may receive some information on the Donald report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that this matter is being very urgently and carefully considered.


Robert Muir: But it has been for a long time, sir.



MONTREAL-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Is the minister holding an inquiry concerning the fires in Montreal harbour?
If so, does the minister have any new information to give the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the hon. gentleman to say the airport or the harbour?


David Réal Caouette: The harbour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The investigation is going on very actively. So far as the first fire is concerned, the report is that there is no evidence whatever of arson. I do not think the investigation into the second fire is sufficiently complete for me to give any report at the moment.



May 12, 1966
Rural Development RURAL DEVELOPMENT



PROVISION FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL AREAS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sauve for the second reading of Bill No. C-151, to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, last night at adjournment I had been speaking on matters pertaining to Bill No. C-151, which is now before us again. I had reminded the government of their unassumed and unadmitted responsibility for the current high cost of living which is a heavy burden particularly upon the older people and the poor people of our country, both rural and urban. I had also reminded the government to stay out of the real estate business and to forget their foolish election promise to buy up farms, create economic units and then sell them back to the farmers. I trust I made my point in this regard.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I had reminded the government of the support from farm organizations and the local press throughout Ontario that my argument is earning, particularly in my own area of Prince Edward-Lennox where the people still believe in private enterprise and the integrity and efforts of the individual. I reminded the government of the meeting of the Lennox and Addington Federation of Agriculture on April 26 at Napanee when that assembly was unanimous in declaring that rural development must start with the people.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that this meeting was also concerned about the retraining of rural people. I trust that this too is part of the intent and purpose of this bill, although retraining is not mentioned in any of its clauses. But I do note the cautionary attitude in clause 8, subclause 2, where the headlong rush into rural socialism is slightly checked in lines 5, 6 and 7 in that it provides that the advisory board shall recommend that the minister not enter into certain agreements regarding any program if in the opinion of the board the program can be carried out in another way without federal assistance.
Where federal assistance is needed and where the $50 million provided by the bill could well be spent-in fact, it would cost many times $50 million-is in the development of all our watersheds for the conservation of
(Mr. Pickersgill.l
clean water and in the reforestation of adaptable forest land in a productive manner to ensure continuance of the annual production of timber and wood products. This would involve a long term growth period before the realization of any profits.
Also, attention is needed in the areas of the watersheds I have mentioned where there is soil suitable for agriculture but requiring the clearing and restoration of old fields which formerly did produce something. Grants must be available toward the use of heavy machinery for clearing the jungles of scrub brush that have sprung up since many of these places were last occupied and cultivated. There should also be provision for tile drainage of these fields where this type of water control and drainage is necessary.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but in doing so I would only be repeating my remarks of last March. I have studied the briefs of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union. Both strongly press for the stabilization of the agricultural industry through the preservation of productive family farming, but one significant qualification with regard to both briefs is that neither one of these great farm groups is pressing the government to buy farms, enlarge them into economic units at public expense and then sell these units back to the farmers. The farmers of Canada are too smart for that. The farmers of Canada will do their own developing of their own economic units and make their own real estate deals between themselves, between the farmer who is retiring and wants to get out of the business and his neighbour who wants to expand and strengthen his activities.
There is need also for thorough surveys of many areas and counties of Canada and, particularly in Ontario, surveys pertaining to the fiscal and sociological qualifications and aspects of the different regions.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is a timely resolution which I have received from Mr. G. M. Mills, agricultural representative for the county of Lennox and Addington and secretary of the ARDA committee for that county. I have sent a copy of this resolution to the minister who has very courteously acknowledged it. The resolution reads as follows:
The following motion was moved by Carl Clayton and seconded by Percy VanVlack that the Lennox and Addington ARDA committee suggests that a sociological survey of the county of Lennox and Addington, as outlined in the attached letter, be conducted and respectfully request the ARDA branch of the Ontario Department of Agriculture to engage the staff as required to conduct such a
May 12, 1966

survey in the summer of 1966 and that the survey be expanded to collect other information as may appear advisable, such as existing potential tourist development.
This motion was carried unanimously. I trust that the Lennox and Addington ARDA committee will obtain the desired services and co-operation from the provincial and federal bodies.
I have advised the minister on this matter and I thank him for the response I have received and for his written assurance that most of the objectives of the Lennox and Addington resolution will be adequately provided for by the survey under and application of the Canada land inventory program.
Many of us in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, have one thing in common. I point out that many hon. members are of rural origin and status. If it were not for the rural areas and the fact that originally a pastoral and agricultural civilization pioneered this country, our great cities and highly organized urban areas would not exist, and they could not continue to exist and grow today without the assistance of a vigorous agricultural industry.
We hear a lot about the family farm and we think a lot of the family farm. For many of us it is the dearest of our realities; for many of us it is the dearest of our memories. I am one of that number. I was born on an Algoma farm near Rydal Bank, Ontario, which is 10 miles north of Bruce Mines. My Scottish grandfather and grandmother made a fair living for a big family. My grandfather augmented that living with forest ranging in the summer. No one can make a living any more on that farm and the place is idle and deserted.
I also remember a farm in Kaladar township where my family lived. Kaladar township is only 100 miles west of Ottawa in the northern part of Lennox and Addington county. In the second decade of this century that farm, with its 250 acres of rough land, about 50 of which were tillable, produced a living for our family and no less than three hired men. Beef and dairy cattle were produced. Two large marshes that were on the property were cut each year to supplement winter feed. Lumbering and wood cutting were carried on, potatoes were a good cash crop and acres of turnips were grown each year on the sandy loam soil. However, what arable soil there was, as I said, was a sandy loam but it was kept productive by the steady annual application of large quantities of livestock manure.
Rural Development
Today that farm is deserted and unproductive. It fills me with nostalgic and wistful memories whenever I pass this place on Number 41 highway three miles north of Kaladar. True, the present owner has a tenant living in the house but the wind whistles through the rough, weathered vertical siding of the now long-empty barn that my father helped to build in the year 1911.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This barn has a stone foundation, is of ample dimensions and stabled 60 head of cattle. I would say it stored at least 60 tons of hay. I have heard hon. members say that such areas which cannot now maintain production should never have been cleared for agriculture. I grant that this is probably true. In that particular area at one time some of the finest pine timber in the country grew, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) who represents a similar area. Man's personal greed, which resulted in a lack of conservation policies in the early days, and the cross-cut saw have been the undoing of this area. I might say that in 1920 my family moved to Napanee, a more productive part of the country, and settled in Richmond township.
Some of the examples I have mentioned, for which I can personally vouch, as well as many others across the country will provide the areas in which this measure must work and work according to the principles of ARDA. As we approach Canada's second century I predict that if ARDA makes a proper start the men sitting here 100 years from now will still be using ARDA and its fundamental principles to improve and rehabilitate the forgotten and neglected corners of Canada.
Let us go back momentarily to the term "economic unit", about which we hear so much. I should like to quote the Rural CoOperator's definition of an economic farm unit. This article appeared in the Rural CoOperator for Tuesday, April 26, 1966, under the heading, "There's A Future On Such a Farm".
What is the future of the 150 to 200 acre dairy farm? From time to time some economists predict the demise of this type of operation within 10 to 20 years. They urge the creation of enormous enterprises such as the big corporation farm. Largeness is equated with efficiency.
You can put a big question mark after that statement, Mr. Speaker. There is a great deal of doubt now that largeness is equated with efficiency. I continue to quote:
However, over the past two or three years a number of intensive studies have been completed on

May 12, 19B6
Rural Development
what constitutes the efficient farming unit. Michigan research workers concluded that the ideal size of the family farming unit ranged between just below 200 acres and up to 300 acres.
Farms above this range run into problems such as under use of equipment and shortages of hired help. And with really large units, there was the very real problem of finding workers who would take a personal interest in livestock operations.
This article bears out my warning to the government as to the variation in the requirements for economic units in the various areas across the country. In addition, this statement is borne out by the fact that rural people and bona fide farmers are the best judges of the application of the term "economic unit" as it may apply to future operations.
There is another cautionary note to be injected here which I take from that very extensive preliminary report on rural poverty in four selected areas of our country. This report was prepared by the Canadian Welfare Council and I should like to congratulate its compilers and editors upon the valuable information they have provided. As a result of interviews with dozens of families living in varying degrees of economic circumstances in the four selected areas of Canada, it is to be noted that almost without exception the head of the family said that despite the existing disadvantages he did not wish to leave his farm. I again warn the government not to create a situation in which rural people are uprooted and forced into an urban environment for which they are ill-suited and unadaptable. In short, there are certain types of people who would rather live on the land than anywhere else despite their economic problems. This is their right, their liberty and, moreover, a good philosophy of life.
This statement applies especially to parents who do not want to move at middle age. Let us agree to use the $50 million to help them stay there, to help them produce something tangible where very little was produced before. Let us help them to help themselves.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say something in this debate I want to say that, unlike most of the members who have participated in the discussion, I do not represent a rural area. However, I do represent a constituency in which I have met a large number of people who have moved from rural areas in Manitoba, particularly from the Interlake area of which the minister spoke the other day. Before I became a federal member I represented a provincial constituency in

which there were a large number of Indian and Metis people who came to the city of Winnipeg from the reserves on which they had lived with their families for generations. I am in favour of improving the living conditions of people who have traditionally lived in the rural areas of this country. One could no more oppose this bill than one could get up in this house and say he was opposed to motherhood.
At the same time I am not at all convinced from what I have heard or what I have read that there is anything in this bill which will do much except move the people who now live in the rural slums of Canada into the urban slums of Canada. There is not much advantage to a person moving from one slum to another. I am not convinced they will live much better in the urban slums of Winnipeg, Toronto or Montreal than they have in the rural slums. This is a tremendous problem with which this bill proposes to deal. In introducing the measure on May 10, the minister gave some very interesting figures. He pointed out that in this country there are over 95,000 families living on farms which could be classified as low income farms. This meant that they had gross sales of less than $2,500 a year. He spoke of the Interlake area of Manitoba in which there are almost 3,500 farms and in which one-third of the farms sell annually between $1,200 and $2,500 worth of products. The remaining 40 per cent sell less than $1,200 worth of products annually, e (4:00 p.m.)
I have been in that area and I know the conditions under which the people live. I can remember canvassing in the Selkirk constituency and being in a town in which the people were living in tarpaper shacks. Indeed, the wallpaper consisted of old copies of the Winnipeg Free Press. I cannot think of a better use for copies of the Winnipeg Free Press than that very practical use but it is not very esthetic wallpaper, to put it mildly. Nobody in this house is going to object to this bill under which it is proposed to spend $50 million. However, when one looks at the rural problem, when one realizes that as careful an observer as Mr. Merrill Menzies, who worked very closely with the minister of agriculture in the former government, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), and I think is still doing some work for this government, says that in order to put in a program that will have any hope of success we will probably need to think in terms of spending not $50 million but $1,500 million, then one can
May 12, 1966

see we are really only beginning to nibble at the edges of the problem.
I am wondering what the minister proposes to do under this bill which could not have been done under earlier legislation such as P.F.R.A. I am not being critical; I think these things need to be done. But what the minister is proposing to do under this bill is to improve the physical-the minister shakes his head. If I am wrong I hope that some time he will explain why. The minister is proposing to improve the physical use of the land. He proposes to buy out farmers who are living on holdings which are too small for them, to consolidate farm holdings and help the farmers plant trees which will later be used for pulp and paper.
That is all very well, Mr. Speaker, but there is nothing in the bill, and I could find nothing in what the minister said in introducing the bill or anything he said earlier, which would indicate to me that the minister has come up with a plan to rehabilitate the human beings who are affected by rural poverty and who will be moved under the legislation now proposed. It seems obvious to me that the important thing is to do something not about the existing physical conditions but about the human beings who are involved.
We are still talking, Mr. Speaker, about test areas. This question was raised by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) when he spoke a few days ago. How long must we go on testing? How long must we go on trying before we decide that the program is workable and can be implemented to the benefit of all concerned?
I am informed that some of the surveys of projects commenced several years ago, now completed but not yet published, indicate that the people who were moved as a result of these earlier projects are no better off now than they were before. I would be interested to hear the minister tell the house, either during this debate or on discussion of his estimates, of actual cases where the program has rehabilitated groups of farmers who have been relocated. If that information is available I think it should be given to the members of the house and the public as a whole.
It seems to me that this legislation is not broad enough to provide for a comprehensive program of rehabilitation of the sort required. If I am wrong I should like to hear from the minister where such a program is spelled out in this bill or in anything which he said.
Rural Development
During the conference on poverty which was called by the government some months ago a paper was presented by the special planning secretariat entitled "Profile Of Poverty In Canada'" This paper was referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), during the Budget debate. In discussing what should be done about poverty the paper made a number of practical suggestions. It suggested that we would have to deal with the question of education, with the question of housing and with the question of health; yet none of these matters are dealt with in this bill.
It may be that the minister will answer that these questions will be dealt with in the manpower program of the government or in the proposal for a health insurance program. But I would submit that this whole program will fall apart and will be unsuccessful unless the basic factors I have just mentioned are dealt with, and they are not dealt with at the present time.
I want to summarize very briefly what the "Profile of Poverty" report to the conference on poverty suggested. With regard to education it stated:
A I960 survey showed that about half of the unemployed had not finished primary school. Over 90 per cent had not completed high school. Among people who had not completed primary school, the unemployment rate was six times greater than it was among high school graduates.
A little farther on there is this paragraph:
The child of poor parents is greatly handicapped in taking advantage of the educational system. It assumes of him values and experience that he often does not have. Poor housing (which means lack of facilities for study), ill health, poor social and home environment, distance to school, lack of proper nourishment and clothing, ignorance of opportunities, as well as psychological factors and the attractiveness of early earnings-all these are reasons why poor children tend to drop out of school earlier and therefore why a culture of poverty tends to be perpetuated.
That statement was reinforced by the minister the other day when he gave the percentage of rural population of school age or over, but not attending school, whose highest grade attended was grade 8 or less. It appears, according to the figures put on the record by the minister, that in every province in Canada more than 50 per cent of the rural population-in Quebec it was 77 per cent and in Newfoundland 72 per cent-have not attended school beyond the level of grade eight. Under these circumstances, what the minister proposes to do here is bound to fail regardless of how aggressively he proceeds with the

May 12. 1966
Rural Development
program. The "Profile of Poverty in Canada" paper, dealing with the question of health, had this to say:
Low income groups receive less health care than higher income groups, although they suffer from more illnesses in general and their illnesses tend to be more severe.
Assistance in meeting health needs has so far been of benefit more to the elderly than to other people. That is, the gap in treatment between poor children and rich children is greater than the gap between the aged poor and the aged affluent.
These people are concentrated to a large extent in the areas with which the bill proposes to deal, but they can look forward to very little as a result of the proposal of the minister.
With regard to housing the report had this to say:
In 1961 Canadian housing provided one-third more rooms than the number of people. But in 60,000 homes there were only half as many rooms as people.
Crowding as measured by persons per room is closely linked to income levels. Among families earning $6,000 and over in 1961, only 18 per cent lived in dwellings providing less than a room per person. Among families earning less than $3,000, this proportion was 35 per cent.
It is no secret that the majority of the people living in rural areas, particularly the kind of areas this bill is supposed to assist, are people who live in homes not equipped with running water or indoor plumbing, and have only the barest minimum living conditions which could be considered at all adequate. There is nothing in this bill to indicate that the government proposes to make a major drive toward improving the housing conditions of those who live in the rural and undeveloped areas of this country.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In the pamphlet entitled "Poverty In Canada" by Mr. M. W. Menzies, to which I referred earlier, mention is made of what the problem is and what needs to be done. I want to summarize this very briefly. It seems to me that Mr. Menzies has indicated both the problem and the solution. The minister seems to have paid attention to the problem. I do not think, however, from anything the minister has said that it can be shown that he has thought of the solutions pointed out by Mr. Menzies and other serious thinkers to the problem of rehabilitating the rural poor. Nothing that the minister has said would indicate that he is thinking along these lines.

I quote briefly from page 6 of the pamphlet by Mr. Menzies:
Approximately 50 per cent of the farmers in the study area, if provided with suitable alternative employment and the training required for it, could leave the agricultural industry to the benefit of themselves and to the net gain of the remaining farm community and the national economy.
I am sure the minister would agree with that, as would every other hon. member of this house. However, unless we do a great deal in the way of education not only for those who are now in schools but for those who did not attend school or who did not attain more than a grade 8 education-in the case of Indians this would apply to those who do not have more than a grade 4 education- and are moving into the cities of Canada, the proposals which the minister and the government have made will come to naught. We must inaugurate an aggressive program of adult education.
I know the difficulties. I know that education is a provincial responsibility. However, unless the federal government takes the lead in working out a co-operative program of education with the provinces, the problem which this bill seeks to solve and the problem of manpower, the solution of which required the appointment of a new minister with a galaxie of civil servants backing him up, will fail to be solved. Although the level of education has improved in my own and in other provinces it is still so low that a crash education program is required at this time. Nothing that I have heard from the Minister of Forestry or from any other minister indicates that the government is trying to solve the problems I have just outlined.
Mr. Menzies also says on page 7:
Relatively few farmers in any of the study areas who owned less than 100 improved acres had achieved an economic farm operation.
I suppose the minister will say that is precisely what this program is designed to do, to consolidate land holding so that farmers will have more than 100 acres. If that is intended I suppose that the program may be successful. However, I am very concerned about those who will be forced off the land and probably move into cities such as Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Regina or Calgary and who will, for the reasons I have already indicated, not be sufficiently equipped by way of education or experience, or because of their whole way of life previously, to make a go of it in the city. It seems to me that we must develop a program to help people who
May 12, 1966

move from the rural areas to the city, as they are doing.
Mr. Menzies points out that almost half of the cash receipts of farmers with farm incomes of less than $2,500 came from off-farm earnings and from such social payments as family allowances, old age pensions, welfare payments and the like. When it comes to the Indians, I submit that the proportion of income derived in that way would be not half but three-quarters or more. Here again, I submit that we must devise programs in order to help those people to become self-sustaining, and to help them come off the welfare rolls. In that way they would no longer be a charge on the state, a charge on the community, but instead would become selfsufficient, independent and be able to manage for themselves as do most people in Canada.
I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that I am not an expert. It is not my intention to oppose or vote against the bill. It seems to me that behind this bill, as behind the proposal for the Company of Young Canadians, we have a slogan picked up by the Prime Minister and by other ministers from President Johnson of the United States who used the famous phrase "the war on poverty." The war on poverty in this country is probably the most important war we can fight and .should be fighting.
The Prime Minister picked up this slogan about two and a half years ago. Canada was going to have its own war on poverty. I do mot want to be critical of the Company of Young Canadians. It may very well be a good program. However, one would have thought when the Prime Minister first announced the war on poverty some two and a half years ago that there would have been activity in the field within days or weeks. Yet two and a half years have gone by and still the program is in the planning stage. It is the same, I submit, with this program which is a new version of ARDA. It is the same with the other war on poverty programs so far announced by the government.
What we have had so far is a fantastic deluge of words. If every word uttered by the Prime Minister, other cabinet ministers and other members of the Liberal party who have spoken about the war on poverty in the last two and a half years were worth $1, we should have more than enough money to solve the problems of poverty in this country. I hope that we have had enough words from the government side and that we will see ;some action. I hope that as the result of the
Rural Development
wonderfully enthusiastic speeches made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Forestry and other ministers we shall begin to solve the problem of the poor in Canada instead of merely talking about it. We must admit with a good deal of shame in this year of affluence, 1966, that the poor still comprise more than a quarter of the people of Canada. That is not good enough.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches which have been made on this ARDA matter. I must say that, even though the speeches were not of equal value, I have learned something useful about the proposed legislation from all of them. This applies more specifically to the statement made by the hon. minister at the beginning of the debate.
Some of the things the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has just said are quite accurate, and I agree with him on some of them. For instance, there is a pressing need to foster education in Canada, within the limits, naturally, of the constitution. However, I did find the tone of his speech rather pessimistic, and feel that this legislation, although it is far from perfect or adequate, will still be of great use to the country.
I should like to point out, in answer to an objection raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, when he said that the government seems to have been fumbling around in the last two years or two and a half years and that it talks a lot about proposed legislation but does not accomplish very much, that as an independent I do not have a political party to protect or destroy. To my mind- and I bring up a matter I have already mentioned two or three times in the house-if we could but have a truce for a few months and postpone our petty personal and political wrangling, say till after the summer recess, in order to pass the series of bills we have been promised in the last year or two, and if there were to be less filibustering from some parties in the house, it would be possible to have a greater number of laws beneficial to the Canadian people generally. This is intended to be constructive criticism on my part.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a constructive debate up to now and it should be carried on in that spirit. The way in which the minister introduced his bill has

May 12, 1966
Rural Development
probably a great deal to do with the constructive aspect of the debate. He was not so narrow-minded as to claim all the credit for himself or his party, but gave due credit to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who introduced this legislation when he was minister of agriculture. In short, he explained his bill in a way which contributed to maintain the serenity of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to give the impression that I am just saying this to make a speech; I simply want to point out to the house that this tone should be more generally adopted when we are considering a piece of legislation.
I have been very much interested in this bill from the beginning and, even if I do not represent an essentially rural constituency, I have studied the bill because I was one of the founders of the Central Quebec Mayors Conference which is interested in the economy of the region known as the Mauricie.
I have also studied the bill because I am a former member of the executive of the Canadian Federation of Mayors which contributed to the creation of an organization known as the Canadian Council for Urban and Rural Renewal which is particularly interested in area planning.
Even if all the possibilities of the bill are not as familiar to me as they are to the experts, I would like nevertheless to submit two cases to the minister, two cases in point or pilot cases, as it were, which I think would perhaps also help other areas to better understand the possibilities of the bill.
My own constituency is semi-rural and semi-urban. In the rural part, including the municipalities of Saint-Etienne-des-Gres, Saint-Barnabe, Pointe-du-Lac, Saint-Thomas-de-Caxton, and a part of Yamachiche, there are extremely poor farms.
A century or a century and a half ago people settled there because it was a good lumber area and they prospered. However, in the past 30 or 40 years, the farms have become quite marginal, but they could easily be improved and thousands of acres could thus be redeveloped, near cities, into very profitable truck farms. This would keep on the farm thousands of farmers and sons of farmers now going to the city and taking up the jobs of city people.
After a brief study, we thought of a solution, and I wonder if ARDA could not help implement this solution in order to redevelop all those farms.

Here is the solution. The Union of Municipalities and Mayors of the province of Quebec, in co-operation with the Central Quebec Mayors Conference, thought at one point that the domestic garbage disposal system, producing compost, could be useful. The provincial government participated in this study by sending a delegation to Europe to see how this system could be used to make a sort of compost which would be very advantageously used to improve marginal farms when fertilizer is also added. In any case, that is the opinion of farm experts.
In my area, if I may be allowed to mention it, Trois-Rivieres, Trois-Rivieres-Ouest, Pointe-du-Lac, there are several small municipalities where garbage serves no useful purpose. It is sent to the incinerator for burning, whereas each day tons of domestic garbage could be treated with the bacteriological process and turned into compost which could be used as a fertilizer.
It is a project that would probably cost $750,000 to serve not only the whole territory of Trois-Rivieres itself but also a large area of the province of Quebec.
That project was studied quite a bit. I am wondering if it would not be possible to carry it out with the help of the municipalities? The government of the province of Quebec which studied the problem seems ready to do its share through its Department of Agriculture and its Department of Commerce and Industry. Moreover, I am wondering if it would not be possible to have a more detailed study made by technicians to submit that project to the province. I am telling this to the minister to find out if it might not come under the scope of the ARDA program. In my opinion, it would help solve an acute rural problem in the riding which interests me personally.
But my preoccupations go outside the riding of Trois-Rivieres, Mr. Speaker, and here is why. I am a director of what is called the tourist board of the St. Maurice region, which is made up of some 85 municipalities in central Quebec and sponsored by some 80 mayors who are themselves members of the Mayors' Conference of central Quebec which merged, a year or two ago, with the tourist organization which covers the region served by the Lake St. John-Roberval highway.
I think that from the municipality called Les Piles, a little further North of Grand'Mere, which is now part of the St. Maurice riding but which, after redistribution, will be in the riding of Champlain-and I
May 12. 1966

am grateful to my colleague for the riding of Champlain (Mr. Matte) for saying a word about it the other day in his speech-that area is now almost unproductive from an agricultural point of view. As a matter of fact, it is too hilly, too rocky. But it is wonderful country for tourists. It has a very good road which follows the St. Maurice river in a colourful setting; I would say it is even more colourful than what can be seen north of Montreal, and it reminds one of the Matapedia valley.
Some of the land there is unsuitable for farming because it is too rough and the farms are unproductive because the region is too mountainous. These people go to work in the towns or in the bush.
This territory is almost 70 miles long. Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat, with your permission, what I said earlier about the hon. member for Champlain, who was absent at the time. I would like to thank him again for his intervention the other day concerning this area which will soon be part of the riding of Champlain.
Sheep and goat breeding could be promoted, since the region is mountainous; this is also a branch of farming, but I am less familiar with it and I shall not pursue the subject.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
But there could be a further development of the tourist industry, which is already promising and for which private industry and municipalities have made great sacrifice. It could be expanded considerably, since the trans-Canada highway will go through La Tuque, Grand-Mere and Shawinigan. And, all the local people of those territories could stay on their land and would not be forced to go to cities to take up the jobs of city people, or to go to work in the bush. This would kill two birds with one stone. It would open up jobs for unemployed city people, and these country people could live in their territories. Private enterprise has been able to do something. Municipalities took an interest in it. If it were possible to get some assistance from ARDA to complete what has been done by the public bodies up to now, it would mean the development of a potentially rich economic area in central Quebec.
Studies were carried out, but they were summary studies. In 1961, the Quebec government let us have technicians on loan through the Department of Commerce and Industry. They loaned us economists. They prepared a survey of the potential of the
Rural Development
area, which was incorporated in an interesting volume which I will be pleased to forward to the minister in a couple of days and which can be used as a working basis for more extensive studies.
The time has come to give a definite stimulus to all these things for which the mayors, the members of parliament, the tourist commissioners and the Quebec department of commerce and industry paved the way.
Preliminary studies are costly. The services of experts in all kinds of disciplines are required. I think ARDA can support the cost of such preliminary studies. But you will understand that there are two objections: The time needed by the province to approve the projects and the time needed by the federal government to give confirmation will delay the projects quite a bit. Municipalities are sometimes reluctant to embark upon such a project, before knowing what it may represent.
The minister can clarify the situation concerning the problems which I raise and which are similar to those raised here during the discussions. Will ARDA participate only in cases under the jurisdiction of the municipality or under that of the farmers co-operative? Or will ARDA participate in certain cases where private interest could also be involved? Those are questions to which I have no answer, and which could help solve our problem.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this ARDA program is outstanding. We talk of fighting against poverty. There is a concrete way of doing it. Readers of Time magazine will see what tribulations are being experienced in the United States in their war against poverty. They will see that Canada is directing its efforts much more realistically and that, in so doing, it will escape the trials and bitter criticism experienced by the Americans.
I congratulate the hon. minister and his colleagues who have created this body.
Before resuming my seat, in accord with the member for Champlain, I should like to urge the minister to meet the Central Quebec Mayors' Conference and the St. Maurice Tourist Commission which deal with the problems I have just mentioned. He will be asked questions. He will find people there who are willing to co-operate in the implementation of measures intended to make poverty and misery vanish from our midst.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, the house is now studying Bill

May 12, 1966
Rural Development
C-151, an act to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas. As for special areas, I think there are several of them in Canada. There is scope for specializing a little everywhere. But I fail to understand this, Mr. Speaker, that in the 20th century, in 1966, in a world of progress and development, in which political and scientific economics has developed in every field, we should be waging a war on poverty.
We should not have to speak of poverty in 1966, in a century of progress and science: but the system or industry throws the Canadian people in such poverty and destitution as has not been known anywhere in the world.
Possibilities are numerous in Canada. The physical possibilities are tremendous, but the financial possibilities are not there. The financial possibilities do not reflect the physical realities in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, before going further, I should like to see, to get a picture of what ARDA should do. The minister has spoken about it. He has outlined ARDA. I would like to tell the house what responsibilities the ARDA program should consider.
Mr. Speaker, there was, there is still much room for improvement, especially in agriculture, since ARDA is intended to help agriculture; this does not mean that it should help only agriculture and not the other fields. Already, $125 million have been voted, and spent, I believe, without giving anything much to agriculture; indeed, without improving anything very much in other sectors of the Canadian and Quebec economy.
So, we are asked to approve another amount of $50 million. I feel that $50 million is but a drop in the bucket. What are we going to do with $50 million to restore the economy of a country with 20 million people? Mr. Speaker, it would take two billion dollars just to start on an economically feasible basis with a plan such as that one. We talk of $50 million, when there are physical possibilities for two billion dollars. But we lack the financial resources to finance the developments or improvements everyone would like to see springing up.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, here again there has been a lack of research from a technical standpoint on agricultural methods, farm land possibilities, farm management and marketing. This has been lacking and it still is. This is

where ARDA should spend its money if we really want to help agriculture to come out of its stagnation.
A bigger slice of the ARDA budget should therefore be devoted to research and experimentation and to further the knowledge of those whose task it is to improve agricultural science and techniques.
There should be a greater number of true specialists for most types of farming.
ARDA should see to it that farming techniques are rationally put into use according to rural resources available and their development, whether it is the human potential or physical resources, or any means the farmer has to produce.
A farmer may be relatively efficient on his farm and even successful to some extent without making full use of the resources available to him; either his resources are limited or they are fully used or, still, poorly used.
I understand that the objective of ARDA is, of course, to get maximum production from existing resources; this is the objective.
One look at official statistics, Mr. Speaker, will suffice to ascertain the seriousness of the stagnation in the field of agriculture at the present time.
We are told that this amount is needed to take agriculture and the Canadian economy out of their present stagnation.
The gap between the cost of services and technical equipment, on the one hand, and the prices of farm products paid to farmers, on the other hand, is increasing. Prices in general have remained unchanged since 1949 while cost of goods and services has steadily increased.
The net margin of profit, per production unit, has therefore decreased. It is not surprising, therefore, that the purchasing power of farm products as compared to the price of farm equipment has decreased by close to 28 per cent during the 1949-1963 period.
It is to be noted that the cost of living has increased considerably on the farm-by about 75 per cent-during the same period. Furthermore, the producer's share of the consumer dollar has been decreasing all the time. In 1950, the Canadian farmer was getting 50 cents out of the consumer's dollar, but in 1960 he was only getting 40 cents and in 1964, 35 cents.
The actual net farm income has decreased considerably since 1949, taking into account
May 12, 1966

the fact that the number of farms has also decreased, and this shows the tragic situation of Quebec agriculture.
There have only been a few good years for our farmers during that period. For instance, during the period 1951-1955, the national average net farm income was $237 million, but in the past few years, it has remained between $185 and $200 million. We had the opposite situation in the larger cities where, since 1949, the purchasing power of the other classes of society has increased by at least 51 to 52 per cent.
According to statistics, in 1963 the average weekly salary of industrial workers in Montreal was $82.43, while the average net income of the farmer for the same year was $2,100, that is $40 per week. This income covered his work and that of his family and paid off his debts.
This does not mean that our farming is inefficient; on the contrary, agricultural production has practically doubled over the last 15 years or so, in spite of a noticeable labour reduction of almost 50 per cent. We should therefore recognize that others have profited from the efforts of the farmers to increase their production and their efficiency; product quality standards, processing and distribution standards have been raised; only one factor has been forgotten, consumer prices. It is not abnormal that the farmer, who is first in production, should become the last one considered with regard to remuneration? When considering the farmer in an industrial context, one is constantly faced with paradoxes.
Indeed, he is ostentatiously called a contractor, when his income puts him in the same class as the most disfavoured workers.
This small income is further reduced by the property tax, which in 1963 represented about 9 per cent of the gross income. To this could be added the tax on building materials, representing an additional disbursement of at least 17 per cent: 11 per cent for the federal government and 6 per cent for the provincial government.
This is the situation in which our farmers find themselves. If we are really to help agriculture, to fight poverty, we must eliminate this precious 11 per cent tax which is ruining the farmers and destroying his spirit of enterprise.
High finance controls all our institutions, both agricultural and commercial, as well as transportation.
Rural Development
The ARDA program will socialize our countryside.
Farm credit, that is to say farmers in debt, is the very cause of the destruction of the farming community.
Grants to institutions are paralysing resistance.
Taxes are ruining us; they are one of the factors which have paralysed our farmers through spoliation and mortgages on their property.
School taxes in the country have become an intolerable burden to farmers with a small annual income of $1,500 to $2,000 for the whole family. They have to pay $400 to $500 a year in school taxes, not to mention municipal taxes and the interest on their farm loans. They have nothing left to live on for themselves and their families; that is why they abandon their farms and go to the cities.
All sorts of other ways are tried to live in the city. I will tell you frankly, Mr. Speaker, that many of the farmers are unhappy in the city because they are made to live out in the country; they would like to live on farms, but they do not have the means to go back or to make a living there.
Farmers once had large families, made a good living from their farms, and the father could even help his sons to settle on a neighbouring farm; his daughters were also helped. The opposite is true today.
With modern progress, life in the country has become impossible. It is easy to understand why.
The ministers and the economists long-windedly try to prove that farming is not, or is no longer profitable and that only the state can afford to farm.
I should like to ask these ministers and economists how it is that in some countries, carrots can be grown on rocks. Rocks are being cultivated. Such rocks are being planted and become profitable. In Canada, we have the most productive farms anywhere in the world and they are abandoned.
How is it that farms are no longer profitable or, if so, only to the few?
A farmer requesting a farm loan is told: "Your farm is not economic, give it up and go to the city." The farm is sold to the second neighbour. How is it that it is not economic for one but it is for the other?

May 12, 1966
Rural Development
This is the situation which prevails now in the province of Quebec. I do not know much about the other provinces but I imagine the situation is about the same.
Our producers are the victims of all kinds of regulations which compel them to equip themselves beyond their means, to give milk control to a group of friends in the government or to financial backers of elections.
It is true that the Farm Credit Act has temporarily alleviated the lot of the farmers, but it is or was credit to repay. If our economists and our governments had opened their eyes and their ears, they would not have prepared the way so well for socialists and communists, against whom they are trying to fight.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
What is needed is interest-free credit to finance the producers, farmers and others; it is interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada or credit offices. Interest-free loans are free money for development. It is not with interest-ridden money, borrowed money or debt money that the economy can be improved.
If only our federal and provincial governments had listened to the voice of the Credi-tistes and created credit, they would have helped the farmers more than with their miserable farm credit or the ARDA program. It is a sleeping pill and when the poor sleeper awakens, he finds out that he has been stripped for everything he had; interest on his loan and taxes have left him nothing. That is why he has to leave his farm. Taxes have increased in proportion to the improvement of the farm or industry. Your farm is valued at $6,000 and you mortgage it for $4,000, but the municipal assessors are kind enough to assess your property at $13,000 and the taxes get higher and higher. Several people know that story because it happened to them.
What drove the farmers away from the rural areas? The present system. And as a remedy, socialism is forced upon us by laws which will impoverish the community even more and will leave the citizens poorer and poorer and stripped of their heritage.
What we need is not credit with interest; mortgages in a stifling financial system or grants to the socialists of the ARDA program are not what will save us; it is the liberating social credit with interest-free loans for producers and free money for consumers.
That is what would save us, Mr. Speaker.

They are creating socialism which will take over because individuals cannot live on their own under the present system. The state is socialization, control.
Mr. Speaker, with an upside-down and unhealthy financial system such as the one we have, socialism is inevitable, people are starving.
Take the school boards for instance. They no longer can meet their obligations in the rural areas and in the cities; they are no longer able to balance their budget; therefore, they ask for grants; the grants are never unconditional and the conditions are control by inspectors, strait-jackets.
Communism sets in. Loss of freedom ensues. Public debt increases, taxes become general and, soon, citizens receive only the stubs of their cheques. That is where the present system is leading us, because our leaders refuse to assume their responsibilities to put some order in the financial system and socialize credit instead of socializing goods and individuals. Those are our responsibilities.
As the country develops, our debts progress and increase: personal debts, federal debts, provincial debts, school debts, hospital debts, university debts-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order please.


Henry P. Latulippe: Church debts-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member; I am afraid he is digressing into the economic field, most interestingly, no doubt, but his remarks should be restricted to the bill now before the house concerning agricultural problems.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I should most respectfully like to call your attention to a very significant point in the debate.
Under Bill C-151, $50 million will be earmarked for ARDA programs. Now, to imnle-ment ARDA programs, the minister knows that some parishes will have to be eliminated and others formed, that some farms will disappear to increase the number of farms-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but if he has heard the hon. member for Compton-Fron-tenac (Mr. Latulippe), he will surely admit that the latter mentioned the national debt, credit facilities for farmers or for ordinary citizens.
May 12, 1966

I simply wish to ask him to restrict his remarks to the bill under consideration.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, could you enlighten me on one point. Are the $50 million we are asked to vote not specifically earmarked to grant in certain cases, credit, to help agriculture and to re-establish people on the farms?
To my mind, the member for Compton-Frontenac is within the purpose of Bill C-151, which is an extensive bill since it involves the whole field of agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: I thank the hon. member for Villeneuve for his remarks and I ask the hon. member for Comp-ton-Frontenac to proceed with his own.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your remarks and I shall certainly follow your suggestion.
Since the bill deals with money, one must refer to money matters. In that case, the discussion turns to administration; when one speaks about administration, one must refer to taxes, debts and the present situation. That is why I mentioned the present indebtedness and imbalance in various fields. It is impossible to survive, to progress and to operate with money as is being done, while turning everything over to the administration. I know that out of the $50 million for ARDA, three quarters will go for administration costs and approximately one quarter for the development of the ARDA program. That is why I say $2 billion would be needed instead of $50 million. What can be done with $50 million? It is ridiculous to vote $50 million in order to teach how to fight poverty and to strengthen the economy of a country.
I know that progress is made according to one's resources not according to opportunities. There are many opportunities, but they refuse to issue the money possible to develop those opportunities in Canada. That is why I want to try and make some people understand that no economic progress is possible if our financial system is not adjusted to our economy.
When an area is developed, it is merely a physical and material development; if no financial development takes place, the results are not worthwhile.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Finance is needed to operate. If we can produce goods in Canada, we can also produce finance. If we do not do so, it is 23033-3201
Rural Development
because we refuse to accept our responsibilities. There, Mr. Speaker, is the crux of the problem.
Now, taxes make taxes, and taxes make more debts. What do the financiers give in sweat for the millions they lend the government and individuals? Not a single drop. They only supply drops of ink. That sums up the question of finance; it is nothing else. Finance is a matter of accounting: accounting means balancing. Accounting must be adapted to facts and reality, as well as to the physical possibilities Canada holds. That is where we stand, Mr. Speaker.
Now, before bringing my remarks to a close, I should like to refer to the answer the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) gave me yesterday in reply to my question. He said it was always the same story, a question of finance, it was this or that. If it is not a matter of finance, what is it? Why $50 million, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a question of finance? Why give out money, then levy taxes? All this concerns finance.
But I say taxes rob the people. Those who lend money and credit dominate through their power and have reduced the government or governments to mere servants of private interests. That is the point we have reached: we have become mere servants of private interests. Yet, we are able to govern. We should be at the controls; others should not come from St. James Street in Montreal, or Bay Street in Toronto. Orders should come from Parliament, from the Minister of Finance. He is in charge, he holds the controls; in short, he holds everything; he could, if he wanted to, with the approval of the Canadian people and the members of Parliament, organize, even tomorrow morning, a viable economy in Canada, an economy of prosperity in affluence.
We know how to produce. There is no difficulty in that respect. If you want production, it is yours for the asking. If you need a pig, Mr. Minister, you will have one. There is no need of a plan for this and a plan for that, or any other gimmick. The people want to know. And we are the ones who know nothing about finance. We do not know what to do with finance. When someone puts the matter before us, we find that funny. It is funny for the moment, but it will not always be funny; let us keep that in mind.

May 12. 1966
Rural Development


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, before closing the debate on second reading, let me thank the 29 members who, since Tuesday, have made very interesting comments on the bill itself, on the ARDA program or on the situation in rural areas.
As you can well understand, I followed with great attention everything that was said.
I could easily answer every question put to me but I believe it might perhaps be preferable if I confined myself to five or six basic points raised by several members.
Much was said about the fact that, in my introductory remarks, I mentioned only three special development areas.
In fact, I wanted to give only three examples of the kind of comprehensive development program we could have. There are a great many other areas in each of the provinces of Canada, and discussions are now under way with the provinces in connection with the establishment of special development areas.
I am thinking, for instance, of the census districts Nos. 14 and 15, in Alberta, northern Saskatchewan as well as Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, and New Brunswick. I did not want to talk at length of all areas in which we are now making development plans, in conjunction with the provinces, because it seemed to me it would lengthen this debate much too much.
I gave only three examples to give an indication of how we see the job.
I think it is very important, first of all, to emphasize the method used, the procedure followed. It is the provincial government which designates, with the federal government, through, the administration of ARDA, a special development area, under Part VI of the ARDA agreement.
Once an area is designated and once the method of financing preliminary studies is estabished, a comprehensive area development program is prepared.
Why do we propose to aim at certain areas of Canada, excluding others? Simply because we, in the provincial and federal governments, thought that a very special effort is needed where low-income families are concentrated in rural areas.

And the program we are proposing under Bill C-151 is meant to enable the federal government to make a special financial effort in those areas.
Remember that there is the federal-provincial agreement on the economic rehabilitation of rural areas which covers all the rural areas in Canada and does not exclude anything; that this agreement was signed by all the provinces at the beginning of 1965 and that the federal government undertook to allocate to it $125 million in the next five years; the provinces will probably allocate a similar amount to it.
But, in addition to that program, and in any case that is provided for in the agreement I have just mentioned, in Part VI, paragraph 37, there is something about the creation of a special fund and Bill C-151 which we are considering today concerns that fund.
Nothing is excluded in the sense that under the general ARDA program there can be programs for land redevelopment, rehabilitation and consolidation of farms, drainage, water conservation.
But, under Bill C-151 and Part VI of the agreement, the federal government and the provinces can agree to make a special effort in some areas.
Therefore, the procedure is practically the same as for the other parts of the ARDA agrement, except that a considerable financial effort is believed to be needed in certain areas.

Many members have mentioned that the $50 million provided by this fund will not be enough. I completely agree with them. However, it seems necessary to start with a fund and the proposal is that as soon as the sum of $50 million has been committed we will then come back to parliament to secure more funds. We could have asked for $100 million or $150 million but we felt that the initial amount of $50 million would give us an opportunity to see how the provinces would decide to co-operate with the federal government in the implementation of special rural development plans. These plans will apply particularly to human resources. Under the general ARDA agreement we cover the physical resources, but we are conscious that in some low income areas of this country there are problems of education, housing and health. The speakers this afternoon and in the last few days have insisted upon the necessity of better plans for education and housing conditions, with which we all agree.
May 12, 1966



We will soon be releasing some of the special agreements which we are now discussing with the provinces and they will show a special effort on the part of the federal government in co-operation with the provinces to get at the heart of the problems. I cannot give more details this afternoon because we have not yet finalized these programs. However, when this announcement is released to the public, members of parliament will see that we are making a special effort under this rural development program which will affect the well-being of individuals and not concentrate so much on the physical resources of the various regions.
In no case under Bill No. C-151 or the old agreements under ARDA is there any compulsory method to buy land nobody is forced to sell his land. In any event, it is always the provinces who take the initiative of proposing farm programs to the federal government for consideration. There is no threat of compulsion. Nobody is being asked to sell unless he wants to sell for one reason or another. There is no question of expropriation; there is no program for the establishment of state farms and so on.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In clause 7 of the bill there is mention of an advisory council. It is to be a council composed of high civil servants in Ottawa to review the programs which will be drafted by the ARDA administration in co-operation with the provinces. It is an administrative body only. There is already in existence under the general ARDA statute, in accordance with the provision of clause 7, a Canadian Council for Rural Development which supervises developments under ARDA agreements made in accordance with either Bill No. C-152 or Bill No. C-151. On this council there are representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Welfare Council, the Canadian Forestry Association, and the like. We have popular representation on this council which will allow the ARDA administration to have contact with people in rural areas or people who are mostly concerned with rural development.
We do not intend to increase the staff of ARDA to implement the terms of Bill No. C-151 because most of the work is done by the provinces. We have to draft special agreements to implement Bill No. C-151. The ARDA staff is very small, perhaps 25 or 30 people. We have not increased the staff for about a
Rural Development
year and a half. We are doing our work easily because most of the research that has to be done is done at the provincial level or by special groups. When the projects are submitted to us they are sent to the various departments of government who then accept them or make comments on the proposals that come from the provinces.
There are many other remarks I could make at this point, Mr. Speaker, but I think I have probably given a sufficient explanation, now and when I introduced the bill, to allow hon. members to discuss it in committee. I will be ready to answer specific questions if I can.


Eric Alfred Winkler: There is a relevant question which I feel might not arise during the course of the discussion in committee. Would the minister accept it now?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Under the terms of this bill or under the terms of any other legislation within the jurisdiction of the minister but referring specifically to this bill, is it possible for a development area, regardless of whether it be rural or a small village, to have funds allocated for the construction of a plant for small, secondary industry?


Maurice Sauvé: This is possible under part VI of the federal-provincial rural development agreement. It must be in a designated rural development area under the ARDA agreement, not under the Department of Industry's program. This is possible, and we have done this in some provinces.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, in order to clear up the question asked by my colleague, I should like to ask the minister whether a compost type industry like the one I mentioned earlier could be included in that category?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the undertaking mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres would be some kind of an experimental project. If the Quebec provincial government wishes to propose such a project, I believe we might be able to make a contribution under the ARDA agreements. But the matter would have to be fully looked into. I think we could contribute under the agreements if the Quebec government wanted to propose such an experimental project.
Rural Development

May 12, 1966


Erik Nielsen: Before the bill goes to committee, will the minister give assurance that the bill before us applies to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the same manner and to the same extent as it does to the provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: I cannot give this assurance, Mr. Speaker, because Bill No. C-152 says that the federal-provincial rural development agreement has to be an agreement between the federal government and a province. When we had our federal-provincial conference in November, 1964, the ten provinces and Canada were represented but not the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. We have not signed any agreement with either of the two administrative territories, so I do not believe it is possible to apply these agreements to either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories.


Erik Nielsen: In other words, this 40 per cent of Canada, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, is excluded from the provisions of this bill?


Maurice Sauvé: This would be my interpretation at the moment. However, I am quite ready to have the position reviewed by the officials of the Department of Justice to ascertain if we can entertain projects from the Yukon or Northwest Territories.


Erik Nielsen: Briefly, I am going to register a violent objection to this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has concluded the debate. The hon. member for Yukon had the right to ask questions but I suggest he cannot register a violent objection at the moment. He will have an opportunity to do this when we are in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I want to complete the remarks I was making before the Speaker left the chair. I suggest that the minister might consult the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to ascertain whether amendments can be included in the Yukon and Northwest Territories Acts so that the two territories would be able to participate in this legislation. These two

acts are coming up after this piece of legislation is completed. I will have more to say then on this problem.


The Chairman:: Order. Perhaps I should bring to the attention of the members of the committee Standing Order 59(2) which reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
May I proceed now to deal with Standing Order 78, one of the new Standing Orders which I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. Heretofore our procedure in committee has been to take clause 1 first, on which a general discussion of the bill was held. Under the new Standing Order 78 the procedure is as follows:
In proceedings of committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and if the first clause contains only a short title it is also postponed; then every other clause is considered by the committee in its proper order; the first clause (if it contains only a short title), the preamble and title are to be last considered.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Under this Standing Order the discussion in committee will begin with clause 2. It is my interpretation of Standing Order 59 that only comments in connection with clause 2 would be in order.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I noticed the hon. member for Yukon did not rise to develop his thoughts further, though I think he may have had the opportunity to do so because clause 2 deals with the definition of (a) advisory board or board, (b) fund and (c) minister, all of which have certain functions to perform as set out in subsequent clauses of the bill. However, that is beside the point. I merely say in passing that I think the hon. member would be quite in order in talking about the advisory board because the definition of advisory board or board is the advisory board established by subsection (1) of section 7. This cross-reference makes it possible to deal with the functions of the advisory board. So I think the hon. member could pursue the point if he desired to do so, but perhaps the opportunity will arise later.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps the hon. member for Skeena would not object if I interrupted him at this time. My purpose in reading Standing Order 78 was not to indicate that the hon. member was out of order but that I hoped that in committee stage at this time we
May 12, 1966

would be able to observe the procedure laid down in that Standing Order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how to approach what I want to say with the delicacy necessary to get the point across to the minister. I think he is to be congratulated for the motivation which may have been in his mind in developing certain phrases to be found in the bill, but I think they might be reconsidered. For example, the bill contains within it a sort of male-female sexual relationship in view of certain constructions which can be placed upon marital situations in effect meaning that the husband has the money but the wife has the control and spending of it.
I raise this point only because I know of the tendency that exists to contract names of organizations and groups to initials. This is done here. According to the interpretation clause, fund means the fund for rural economic development. If we contract that to the initials of each word it becomes "FRED". There may be nothing wrong with that but when we look at the title it is to be the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act, which can be contracted to "FREDA".
I raise this point only because we can with impunity talk about ARDA, which is an accepted phrase, but I can imagine the concern and the blushing which might occur if the minister were to talk about the activities of "FREDA" and things which were possible pursuant to or under "FREDA". There are innumerable comments which could arise from this situation, all of which might be used in a way to lampoon the act and to ridicule its purposes and objectives, purely because of the tendency to contract names into abbreviated form.


Mr. Rapp:: My wife would object to that.


Frank Howard: The hon. member says his wife would object to it. Perhaps objection might be made to such an association being compared with an inanimate statute of Canada. This is an example of what could occur. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to consider renaming the act so that we do not run into the possibility of use being made of the contracted form of Fund for Rural Economic Development Act, which might detract from the whole concept of the legislation itself.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, like the ARDA legislation we have referred to the bill as FRED, so I guess that in time everyone will call it FRED.
Rural Development


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I want to relate my brief remarks to the reference in the bill to the advisory board and how it is to be constituted. I realize that the minister could have spent a great deal more time elaborating on all the questions put to him in speeches made today and yesterday, but I have one specific question on which I should like him to comment.
In considering the question of advisory boards and so on, how much thought was given to the feasibility or desirability of including on the various boards which will function under the scope of the legislation representatives of the people who are actually living in the special or designated areas? According to the minister's explanation, I understand that the particular board referred to in this legislation is to be constituted exclusively of senior officials of the department who are civil servants. Surely at some echelon of the programming which is to be done under the legislation formal provision should be made for including representation of the people who are actually involved in the special area programs.
It is a fact that in similar programs in the United States there is a legislative requirement that the people who are directly affected shall be entitled to representation on the different planning boards. Would the minister make some comment on this specific point?


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I am wondering whether we are not getting out of order in our present discussion on the bill. Clause 2, which is now under consideration, deals simply with interpretation. The advisory board itself is open for discussion under clause 7. I am wondering whether we should wait until we reach clause 7 to discuss the advisory board rather than on clause 2, the interpretation clause. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member or to deny him the opportunity of making his remarks but I think they would be more appropriately made on clause 7.


Edward Richard Schreyer: In replying to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if in fact there is one before us, may I say I had concluded my remarks. I think the advice of the hon. member for Provencher is correct. For my part I would as soon wait until we reach clause 7 before expecting the minister to respond, but cross-reference is involved here and my remarks could be made on this clause.

May 12, 1966
Rural Development


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Perhaps there was sufficient scope under clause 2 for the hon. member for Springfield to say what he has said. However, if it is agreeable to him and to the minister perhaps the minister will reply when we reach clause 7, clause 8, or clause 9, or if he prefers he may reply now.


Maurice Sauvé: I can either reply now or wait for clause 7.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Let us wait.


Maurice Sauvé: The hon. member wants me to wait until clause 7.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[DOT] (5:38 p.m.)
On clause 3-FRED established.
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on this clause dealing with the fund for rural economic development. I submit that on the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon the minister seemed to be not too clear whether the bill could be applied to the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. I think it was mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when the bill was up for second reading, that ARDA and this legislation are subservient to the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers.
It is true that the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers is made up of members of the ten provincial governments and the federal government. However, the provincial governments are in no way subservient to the federal government in the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers but are equal partners. My understanding is that the federal government simply acts on behalf of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in matters having to do with resources. If I am incorrect in that assumption I should like to be corrected. That was my understanding. For that reason I suggest that perhaps this bill does apply to the Northwest Territories and to the Yukon. Would the minister care to comment on that point?


Maurice Sauvé: The hon. member for Yukon said he probably would raise this problem when the bills under the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources are discussed. He wished to discuss the question whether the Yukon and the Northwest Territories can be considered as provinces for the purposes of certain programs under the fund for rural economic development. Under this bill and under ARDA it is clearly mentioned that the federal

government deals with provinces. ARDA comes under this bill. Clauses 4(l)(a) and 4(l)(b) of this bill limit programs to the provinces.


Mr. Barnett:: I have to admit I was not in the house when the hon. member for Yukon raised this question. What has puzzled me about the answer just given by the minister, who has pointed out that specific reference is made to provinces, is that he omitted saying, "provinces and/or territories." Were he able to say that, it would in my submission clear the way for him to negotiate with his colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and with the territorial governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.


Maurice Sauvé: In principle we do not need legislation for two departments of the federal government in order to cope with certain problems in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories. There will of course be discussion between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Yukon and Northwest Territories which are interested in the implementation of the principles of this bill. It is not impossible under this legislation for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to provide for special programs which could apply either to the Northwest Territories or to the Yukon.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is so wildly enthusiastic about the suggestion which has been raised, I suggest that hon. members would probably give unanimous consent to the committee reverting to clause 2 so that the minister could add as paragraph (d) an amendment to the effect that "province includes the Yukon and the Northwest Territories." That would be a simple way of dealing with the problem. I am sure the committee would consent to that.


Maurice Sauvé: I am not going to do this because I think it involves an extension of the word "province" to include something far beyond what it is intended to undertake under Bill C-151. I do not think that I can accept that kind of amendment. It would raise difficult constitutional problems.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was merely trying to be helpful.


Mr. Orange:: I appreciate the comments which have come from the other side of the house. May I say that I agree with some of the points which have been raised. I should
May 12, 1966

like to remind the Minister of Forestry that there are already certain federal acts in which the territories are conceded to be provinces for the purposes of those acts. I refer to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act.
I should like to remind the minister, in speaking of the territories and their inclusion in this act, that many parts of Canada which are in need of further social and economic development are in much less need than the territories. I should also like to remind the minister that if any agreement is made it will not be made with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or with his department but with the territorial governments through their commissioners and councils. In pointing out these things to the minister I do so with the hope that he might consider extending the provisions of Bill C-151 to include both territories.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Agreements for comprehensive rural development programs authorized.
Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: May I ask the minister
if under the agreement with the province of Manitoba the Interlake area is the only area designated under this program as of now?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes. This is a special designation under part VI of the federal-provincial rural development agreement. Covered in the Interlake region are the Indians of that area, they were covered in the discussions in the establishment of the agreement.


George Robson Muir: Has the province of Manitoba indicated that there may be other areas which it wishes to bring into this program?


Maurice Sauvé: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. A province proceeds first with one rural development area. It sees how that develops and, if it is successful, other areas are proposed. Difficulties stem from problems of staff, funds and so on. To my knowledge, in the province of Manitoba only the Interlake region has been proposed to come under part VI and under the fund for rural economic redevelopment.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us whether in the case of an agreement entered into with a province to develop a certain area, according to clause 4, 23033-321
Rural Development
the said province agrees to provide an amount equal to that provided by the federal government. Is that the term of the agreement?


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Chairman, we sign a special agreement for what we call in English a special rural development area, to allow the federal government to contribute more than 50 per cent, if necessary.
According to the general agreement of ARDA, we cannot contribute more than 50 per cent. And one of the reasons why we create this fund of $50 million which, I hope is only a beginning, is that we will be able to enter into agreements with the provinces to contribute 100 per cent in some cases, and 90 per cent or 50 per cent in others.
We always sign a special agreement with the province in the case of a special rural development area. We provide for the method of financing for certain projects, the method of application by special organizations, provincial and federal departments.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Under this section the
minister, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Lisgar, stated that Manitoba would enter into an agreement with respect to the Interlake area. I wonder if I understood him correctly. When the bill was being debated on Tuesday he said, as found on page 4940 of Hansard:
Provinces in the process of developing plans for application of the fund include Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
We understand that Manitoba also is developing plans now under this legislation. [DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I would be in agreement with the idea of establishing special area projects rather than attempting to apply this legislation to all the areas which need assistance. I say this because of the unhappy experience we are having with the area development program under the Department of Industry. I do not wish to become involved in a discussion of this subject. I merely say that although beneficial to certain areas this program is working to the detriment of other areas because it has become more difficult for them to establish new industries and do the job which community development corporations would like to do. Under a program of special projects it is possible to study these projects and to make changes in them in the light of

May 12, 1966
Rural Development
experience. This seems a better way to proceed in the attempt to resolve the problem of poverty in many of our rural areas.
The Minister has indicated he will be coming back to the house for additional funds after the $50 millions has been spent. This will give us an opportunity to take a long look at the results achieved.


Maurice Sauvé: In reply to the hon. member I Aould like to point out that in my earlier remarks I mentioned three special areas, Interlake, northern New Brunswick and eastern Quebec. At the end I mentioned other provinces. Interlake and Manitoba are included.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I believe we are on clause 4. At this stage I should like to put another question to the minister on a point which I believe is causing some confusion. I take it that at the same time as the rural development program in the Interlake region, for example, is being entered into there will be other projects carried out in the province. So we shall see all these being carried out under the auspices of the special fund while others are being carried out at the same time under the auspices of the original ARDA fund.
I took the time to read through Hansard of the provincial legislature of Manitoba and I find that some confusion arises as to the eligibility of certain recreational projects carried out under ARDA. If the minister considers this to be relevant to the discussion of the present bill I would appreciate some comment on this point. Is he having any difficulties with the provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: In Manitoba, apart from Interlake, more than 50 special projects have been carried on. In fact, of the total amount devoted to ARDA by the federal and provincial governments less than 10 per cent has been devoted to Interlake so far. We have many other projects under way. Even while the Interlake rural development program is being devised, progress is being made with some special projects in the region. There has been much discussion in connection with parks but this matter is covered by another part of the agreement which renders projects possible under an alternative land use program.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the Minister a few questions particularly in respect of paragraph (b) of clause 4(1) which

says that the Minister may enter into an agreement to provide for-
-the payment to the province of contributions in respect of the cost of a comprehensive rural development program in a special rural development area undertaken by * the government of the province or any agency thereof.
My question arises out of my interest in the development program announced not long ago by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his capacity as Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. That program is to involve the expenditure of some $112 million in the next five years on what I understand to be a related kind of activity. This brings us to the question just asked by the hon. member for Springfield about co-ordination. When this act is in force, could there be the necessary degree of coordination between the projects it envisages and those to be carried out under the program announced by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs?
With regard to the phrasing of subclause 3 I would ask: Can this be a two-way street? Can the minister of northern affairs expect assistance from the Minister of Forestry should he see the possibility of stretching the $112 million a bit farther? I admit that such a sum appears to be a lot of money but, of course, it has to be spread over areas occupied by Indians across the whole of Canada, as well as over a period of five years, so it really is not as large as it sounds.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. As the business of the house includes royal assent, shall I report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
[DOT]	(5:50 p.m.)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased
May 12, 1966
[Stage Direction]
to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.
An act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
An act respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Ontario by Canadian National Railway Company from the vicinity of Amesdale on the Redditt subdivision of the Canadian National Railway in a north-northwesterly direction for a distance of approximately 68 miles to a point in the vicinity of Bruce Lake, in the district of Kenora.
An act to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
An act to implement an agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on certain classes of income and to implement a supplementary income tax agreement between Canada and Sweden.
An act to provide for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada.
An act to amend the Farm Credit Act.
An act to amend the Aeronautics Act.
An act respecting United Grain Growers Limited.
An act to provide for the establishment of a Science Council of Canada.
An act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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 Skeena (Mr. Howard), grain-Prince Rupert, B.C.-increase in elevator capacity; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), National Census-appointment of commissioners in the province of Quebec; the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt), Royal Canadian Mounted Police-possible removal of word "Mounted" from title.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions for papers, private bills and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bell (Carleton):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, briefs or other documents or communications received by the Minister of Justice,
23033-32U
Motions for Papers
the Solicitor General or the Department of Justice from the Law Society of Upper Canada relating to Mr. Justice Leo Landreville; all replies made to any such reports, briefs or other documents or communications; all letters or other communications addressed by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or any officer of the Department of Justice, since the 1st day of January 1964 to Mr. Justice Leo Landreville; all replies made by Mr. Justice Leo Landreville or by any solicitor or agent on his behalf, to any such letters or other communications.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to make any further statement?


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has a motion on the order paper that an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, briefs or other documents or communications regarding this matter. I wish to say that the matter is now before Mr. Justice Rand who is acting as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act and has this matter under consideration.
Neither the hon. member for Carleton nor anyone else speaking on behalf of this motion has shown that such a brief has any legal significance. The Law Society Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1906, sets out very clearly the powers of that society, particularly in sections 44 to 48. They are to the effect that in any hearing of this kind witnesses shall be subpoenaed and evidence shall be taken. In section 4 the members of the Law Society of Upper Canada are set out, and justices of the Supreme Court of Ontario are not included. Section 3 of the Law Society Act states that judges of the Supreme Court are visitors to the society.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, in my submission the brief made by the Law Society of Upper Canada cannot be held significant as such and can only be dealt with as a recommendation and nothing more. Such a brief could only be based on hearsay, as we understand it. There is no evidence before us that witnesses were properly called or that Mr. Justice Landreville was afforded the opportunity of giving evidence on his own behalf.
I have just been down to the library and looked up the citation of a case regarding a former member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, namely, Samuel Max Mehr. This case is reported in 1955 Supreme Court Reports, at page 344. The appellant was a member of the law society and was disbarred

May 12, 1966
Motions for Papers
by the disciplinary committee for conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor. This case was tried by Mr. Justice McRuer. It was appealed to the Supreme Court of Ontario and then to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was clearly pointed out in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada that the plaintiff must have an opportunity of calling witnesses and defending himself.
Disciplinary powers possessed and exercised by the Law Society of Upper Canada formerly belonged to the courts alone. At the present time the law society has only the powers given to it by the statute I have just mentioned, the Law Society Act. Its powers are very carefully set out in those sections to which I referred.
At the most, any such brief sent to the minister of justice is only a recommendation by the Law Society of Upper Canada. It has no legal status. Its only effect in this house would be to damage the reputation of the judge. The course of action taken in this matter by the Law Society of Upper Canada is most unfortunate. Such a report, I submit, should not have been sent to the Minister of Justice, (Mr. Cardin), and for these reasons I ask hon. members to vote against the motion.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is it the theory of the hon. gentleman that only those documents which can be found to be objectively true should be produced in this house? Is there to be some test by the executive of the validity of a document before it is subject to production in parliament?


Harold Edwin Stafford: No, I did not say that. But I do say that in this particular case there is nothing of any significance that makes this brief of such importance-


Richard Albert Bell: How does the hon. gentleman know? He has not seen it.


Harold Edwin Stafford: -or of no more importance than any other piece of correspondence sent to a minister. The brief itself has no legal status, and I would think that the hon. member for Carleton could at least wait until Mr. Justice Rand has made his decision and submitted his report.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this motion both in my capacity as a member of parliament and as a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. I would say, first,

that this is not something which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has stumbled upon by accident. He knows very well all the rights, obligations and duties of the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada because he was himself a bencher, and perhaps is even now; I do not know.


Richard Albert Bell: I am only concerned with our rights and privileges as members of parliament and the right to receive documents which are in the possession of a minister.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That may well be the case; but the hon. member knows very well the proper functions and duties of benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada.


Richard Albert Bell: That has no significance.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member says that has no significance. I would suggest that the hon. member knows very well-and this is an opinion very strongly held by members of the profession across the province-that it was most irregular for the benchers, as they did, to assume the responsibility of attacking a particular judge.
The hon. member knows very well from his experience as a bencher that the law society was itself censured by the Supreme Court of Canada approximately a dozen years ago for its conduct of discipline committee proceeding and following a course of conduct which failed to give a fair opportunity to be heard, which failed to accord the principles of natural justice, to another member of the law society. As I say, Mr. Speaker, they were censured in this respect with regard to the procedure of the discipline committee.
What has occurred here is that a group of the benchers-and it is my understanding that it was by no means a unanimous decision

decided to pass judgment upon the conduct of a particular judge and, having incorporated their conclusions upon his conduct in a report, sent that report to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), at the same time announcing publicly, without making the report public, that they had censured the judge.
I would suggest that this was most extraordinary conduct on the part of the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada. We do not know-and perhaps the hon. member can enlighten the house in his five-minute rebuttal -to what extent Mr. Justice Landreville was given notice of the intended course of action
Mar 12, 1S66

of the benchers. We do not know the extent of the evidence, so-called, which the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada received on this particular question before passing judgment. We do not know whether Mr. Justice Landreville was represented at the hearing before the benchers so that the charges against him could be fully examined and arguments could be made on his behalf to the assembled body of the benchers before they arrived at their conclusion.
I suggest that what has occurred here in regard to the conduct of a judge is something that the Supreme Court of Canada said a dozen years ago the law society could not do in respect of an ordinary member of the society. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the law society could not act prejudicially in respect of one of its own members without observing all the requirements of natural justice. The hon. member knows as well as I that statements very prejudicial to the judge are included in this report.


Richard Albert Bell: I have no idea.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am suggesting to him that the interests of justice, the interests of fairness to the judge, the interests of fairness to the bench generally, could only be prejudiced by making public allegations which at this point have not been founded upon any fair, appropriate and judicial trying of the facts before arriving at a decision.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By all means.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would he make that statement in reference to the publication of similar reports which are founded only on allegation without any proof of their authenticity?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am talking about the action of the benchers of my own law society.


Richard Albert Bell: That is not the issue.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak for five minutes in rebuttal. Perhaps he would allow me the opportunity of speaking at this time.


Michael Starr: You will not answer the question because you are putting forward a bad argument.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I cannot think of any member of the house who has less to
Motions for Papers
add to this debate than the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr).


Michael Starr: You are getting nasty now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The duties and obligations of the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada are well defined by statute, and it is quite clear that it is not within their proper purview to pass comment on the actions of a particular judge. It has also been determined that it is not proper for them to pass comment on the public or private conduct of an individual member of the society unless they have followed appropriate, quasi-judicial procedures as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada some dozen years ago.
Therefore I say it would be most prejudicial to the judge and most prejudicial to justice if a document such as this, founded upon no element of a proper, judicial trying of fact, was made public at this time. I give the hon. member credit for the fact that when he first introduced the motion no inquiry was under way. But since he introduced his motion the matter has been put before a judicial inquiry. In this way the matter can be tried with due opportunity for witnesses to be heard in the proper fashion, with the opportunity for those involved in this matter to be represented by counsel who are in a position to intervene on their behalf.
I would suggest that because Mr. Justice Rand is now considering the question and because Mr. Justice Rand is no doubt considering the document in respect of which we are now carrying on this debate, it would be appropriate for the hon. member as a former bencher, as a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and as a member of this house, to withdraw the motion and acknowledge that the initial purpose-of course, I cannot ascribe motives to the hon. member -behind his making the motion has now been met by holding an inquiry under the Inquiries Act by a distinguished former member of the Supreme Court of Canada. I hope the hon. member will withdraw the motion and that it will not be necessary for the house to divide on it.
If the hon. member will not withdraw his motion I would say to hon. members that it would be a most serious mistake if an attack of this kind on a judge were made public. This, as we know, has been a relatively novel situation, and happily so, with respect to the judiciary of Canada. I think it would be a most grievous mistake if we were to create a precedent in this house by way of a vote

May 12, 1966
Motions for Papers
requiring that documents of this kind, and other documents of this nature which may from time to time be received by the government with respect to individual judges, should be produced in the house.
We have in the house a well-defined set of rules stating that there should be no reflection in debate, question or other proceedings of the house on the conduct or character of a judge. The proper course of action, as the hon. member knows, is by way of a substantive motion, not a motion for the production of papers but a substantive motion relating to the conduct of the judge. I think this is an important and salutory rule and I hope it will be adhered to by the house. Therefore I hope that hon. members, after full consideration of this question, will decide to reject the hon. member's motion and vote against it.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no other speakers on this motion, pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 47 the minister has the right to speak for five minutes and the mover of the motion then has the right to speak for another five minutes.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything useful I can add to what I stated on February 3 last. I felt and I still feel that the proper procedure to be carried out in this respect was the setting up of a judicial inquiry and that it would not serve anybody's purpose or advantage to have the documents tabled which are requested by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). I feel that the procedure which has been taken was not only in the interests of the house but also in the interests of safeguarding the judiciary from being subject to debate in the house except on a substantive motion. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Justice Rand has not yet brought in his report and since he is seized of the problem, that the hon. member for Carleton might consider withdrawing his motion.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, tonight we have heard some of the most extraordinary expressions of opinion I have ever heard in the House of Commons. Apparently the test whether or not this house is entitled to documents is the truth or falsity of those documents. I say to you, sir, that this
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).l
house is entitled to documents which are in the possession of the ministry and the question of their truth or falsity or what value they may have is of no significance whatever.
The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) has sought to make the test whether the Law Society of Upper Canada has conducted itself properly. I care not at all. The Law Society of Upper Canada is a body which has presented a document to the Minister of Justice and it has presented that document without any privilege or confidence or secrecy attached to it. When that is done by any person or by any organization I say it is subject to production in this house, and when any hon. member argues that it is not he is doing a grave disservice to the whole cause of parliamentary government.
When debate on this motion was adjourned on February 17, I was filled with enthusiasm for its early resumption so that I might meet the sophistries and non sequiturs uttered in opposition to it. Nearly three months have elapsed since that time and the royal commission headed by Hon. Ivan C. Rand has now held its hearings and concluded them. The documents sought by this motion are public and have been argued about in public by counsel for the parties before the commission. Yet parliament is to be denied what has been argued about before a royal commission. Mr. John Robinette, counsel for Mr. Justice Landreville has argued very vehemently on the basis of these documents. The commissioner is meditating upon his report which we expect momentarily. The presentation of the evidence before the commission, including the arguments which have been expressed, makes ludicrous the suggestion that this house is to be denied that which has been produced before the public.
There are still some principles at stake in this matter. There is some importance in mentioning the timing of this motion. It was sent to the house officials for inclusion on the order paper prior to the announcement of the royal commission by the Minister of Justice. My submission is that this house cannot and must not be deprived of its right to papers, admittedly public documents, admittedly not secret or confidential, admittedly under no cloak of privilege which has ever been asserted in the history of parliament, and deprived of them solely by the executive act of the government in appointing a royal commission. I say to you that no minister of justice and no government should be permitted to wrap a cloak of secrecy around public matters just because a royal commission has been appointed.
May 12, 1966

If a precedent is set in this case we have established for all time a convenient vehicle whereby a hard-pressed government may escape its accountability to this chamber. All it needs to do is to appoint a royal commission and then hide behind the judicial cloak. This was the very argument presented by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who made the most dangerous speech in this debate. His sophistry was soon exposed when later in another matter he protested with utter inconsistency about his own right to discuss a matter before another royal commission being abridged. I mention this only to say that I want it on the record for anyone who reads this debate in the future that the hon. member for Greenwood has enunciated principles and theories which attack the very root of the sovereignty of parliament.
The principal argument, Mr. Speaker, has been that the release of these documents would prejudice a fair hearing for Mr. Justice Landreville. That hearing is now over; these documents are now public. Mr. Justice Landreville's counsel, Mr. Robinette, has dealt in detail publicly with these documents and has attacked the Law Society of Upper Canada in bitter terms, the very law society over which he formerly presided. How can there now be any prejudice to Mr. Justice Landreville or to a fair hearing for him? Mr. Justice Rand knows all about these documents. Only the House of Commons, the highest court of all, is to be deprived by the arbitrary action of the Minister of Justice of seeing these documents.


Mr. Brewin:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Richard Albert Bell: I have only five
minutes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: But you are casting aspersions.


Richard Albert Bell: All last autumn, the Minister of Justice and the law society played footsie-footsie with this issue; they adopted an "after you, my dear Alphonse" attitude. The minister invited the law society to release the documents. When he did so, did the minister worry about possible prejudice to Mr. Justice Landreville? Oh no, not at all. He saw no harm if the law society released the documents. When he publicly announced that he had asked Mr. Justice Landreville to resign, was he concerned about a fair hearing?
Motions for Papers


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. Under the terms of Standing Order 47 it is now the duty of the Chair to put the question.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, might the hon. member have unanimous consent for additional time to continue?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Carleton to continue?


Frank Howard: After ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask again if there is unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Bell Carleton) negatived.



NORRIS COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Orli-kow:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all the working papers prepared for the Norris commission by the chartered accountants hired by the commission and deposited by Mr. Justice Norris with the Department of Labour.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, over the years, and especially since the establishment of the maritime trustees which arose out of the report of Mr. Justice Norris, a number of statements have been made from within the privileged walls of parliament which have carried with them the implication that there was a great deal of wrongdoing yet to be uncovered, that there were in fact criminal actions which had taken place which Mr. Justice Norris had not uncovered, and that because of those criminal actions certain members and officers of one of the unions under trusteeship should be arraigned in court and accordingly charged with certain contraventions of the Criminal Code.
I think that approval of the motion before the house asking for the working papers prepared for the royal commission under Mr. Justice Norris by chartered accountants would help clear the air in so far as the innuendo behind the statements to which I have referred is concerned. It is very easy for a member of parliament who may have some

May 12, 1966
Motions for Papers
particular gripe about some element of society, or who may have a particular dislike for a certain group, organization or person, to take advantage of his privileged position in parliament to make untrue and slanderous statements about whatever organization, group or individual he wishes to smear.
I submit that this has been the case with respect to the Seafarers International Union. On the face of it, if it is correct that criminal activities have been engaged in by officers or members of that organization, then the responsibility falls on the law enforcement officers of the Crown to lay charges. To date, so far as I know, no charges have been laid against any of the officers of the Seafarers International Union in relation to criminal activities, with the exception of the action taken by the federal Department of Justice under a minister other than the present one relating to the march on Ottawa, and charges relating to contravention of the Canada Shipping Act, which is something unique in labour history.
However, that has nothing whatever to do with the misuse of funds, an allegation contained in one of the statements which was made. It has nothing whatever to do with the charge of theft, another allegation which has been made by certain people. It has nothing whatever to do with what we normally think of as criminal offences under the Criminal Code of Canada.
I submit that if the working papers prepared by the chartered accountants for Mr. Justice Norris and his commission were made public, we in this house would be able to see, first of all, whether there was any substance to the allegations or accusations that theft and other criminal activities have been engaged in; second, who were the people who might be responsible therefor and, third, why the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Justice have so far taken no action in regard thereto.
I submit that the reason of the government for refusing to make public the working papers, which incidentally have been publicized in the newspapers, is merely to protect the position of the government which itself knows that there has been no wrongdoing. Because it has had the R.C.M.P.-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Order.


Frank Howard: Order?


George James McIlraith: The hon. member has no right to impute motives, as he well knows.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, any imputation of motives that I have to make is addressed to the government.


George James McIlraith: That does not make it any more in order.


Frank Howard: If the minister feels that the hat fits, may I suggest that he pull it right down over his ears so that he will know exactly to whom I am directing my thoughts. The minister makes no comment in reply so I will say it again.
I suggest that the government is hiding behind the statement that these matters are confidential in order to protect its own position, knowing that there is no wrongdoing and that there has been no wrongdoing. It also knows that the R.C.M.P., which the government asked to investigate these matters, has come up with nothing. If it has, then why were charges not laid?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that he has no right to impute motives to the government relating to a course of action it has taken.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) may state that I have no right to impute motives. That is his opinion. I exercise my right to impute motives to the government and I say that there are motives for doing this. This is not transgressing the rules. If the minister feels sensitive, I suggest he look a little more carefully at what some of his colleagues in the cabinet are doing or have been doing about this matter and what they are seeking to hide. If he did that perhaps he would not be so prone to jump and exhibit that eggshell sensitivity he and others have about this matter.
Be that as it may, I think the only fair thing parliament can do, having listened to the innuendo and accusation tossed around in regard to this matter, is to make public the working papers of the firm of chartered accountants who presumably went over these books with a fine-toothed comb. Knowing the way in which Mr. Justice Norris approached his work on the commission, they obviously acted with some relish in order to see what they could discover, not only because of Mr. Justice Norris but because of the terms of reference of his royal commission.
This, Mr. Speaker, is one way to clear the air. Let us see what the chartered accountants came up with. If they uncovered wrongdoing, let us see that it is dealt with properly. If they uncovered no wrongdoing, let the fact
May 12, 1S66

Private Bills
be made public so that the smear and slander will cease.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George James McIlraith: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: All those opposed will please say nay?


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


George James McIlraith: I believe the procedure is that no vote can be taken until eight o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: All those who object to the taking of the vote at this time will please rise.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: According to standing order 6(3), the taking of this vote is postponed until eight o'clock this day.



PRIVATE BILLS


Auguste Choquette: the second reading of Bill No. S-6, respecting The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.


Frank Howard: Is this motion properly before the house? I notice that the sponsor of the bill is not in the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere has moved the motion for the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.


Frank Howard: Will the hon. member for Lotbiniere indicate whether or not he has
been expressly requested to do this by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard?


Auguste Choquette: It is the normal understanding; I think my good friend should know that.


Frank Howard: Surely the co-sponsor of the bill is going to explain what is involved in this particular bill.


Auguste Choquette: I will just wait and refute the objections you are going to raise.


Frank Howard: I did not hear the comment. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere, as a result of lack of knowledge of what is involved here, is declining to represent properly the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, that is, of course, something that is on his conscience and not on mine. The purpose of the bill, if I must substitute for the hon. member and explain what is involved here for the benefit of the house and the hon. member for Lotbiniere, is to change the name of the company to a different name, both in English and in French, and also to change the capitalization of the company and increase the capital stock from the original $1 million to $2 million or an increase of 100 per cent. The change in the capitalization of the company is something with which we should be concerned. I think the house should be thankful for the remarks made the other day by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), who outlined the concept that with the proliferation of insurance companies and the number of insurance companies who were requesting an increase in capital structure, we would find that the demands and pressures of these companies would extract from our economy moneys which we might otherwise be able to use to better advantage for the advancement of the economy of Canada. In this way these companies are really acting to the detriment of the hopes which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and ministers of finance who preceded him have expressed from time to time.
At one stage this company had a capitalization of $1 million divided into shares of $100 value each. They found that it was necessary to engage in a stock splitting process in 1920 whereby the stock was split on the basis of 20 for 1. In other words, for every share worth $100 the holder thereof came into possession of 20 shares at $5 each. This story has been repeated time and time again by companies such as this one which have come before

May 12, 1966
Private Bills
parliament asking us to do this favour and give to them a preferred position in our economy. They have asked parliament to endorse an alteration in the capital structure to permit them to engage even more directly in exploiting the people of this nation by heavy sales pressure upon the people to take out insurance policies.
I do not want to get involved in the types of insurance policies which this company may have sold up until now or that it may sell in the future. However, with respect to this company, and I am only singling it out because it happens to be the one before us, there is something with which I think parliament should concern itself more seriously than has been the case in the past. I think it is appropriate and coincidental that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, the sponsor of this bill, sponsored a public bill some weeks ago which contained a principle I believe should be incorporated in this bill.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The house will remember that when the hockey franchises were being bartered about the city of Vancouver was interested in entering a hockey club in the new international league and the franchise was given to some relatively unknown place in the United States. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, feeling as keenly as he does about conspiracies in restraint of trade, introduced a bill in the House of Commons-I do not know its number offhand-which sought to bring within the purview of the Combines Investigation Act the National Hockey League, or whatever its proper name is, so that that body would be liable for prosecution for conspiracy in restraint of so-called trade under the Combines Investigation Act, although the league is engaged in a service. The Combines Investigation Act deals only with material goods and commodities and excludes services from its sanctions and prohibitions.
I wish that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard would have been as assiduous in concerning himself with the conspiracies that probably take place between insurance companies in establishing uniform charges for the types of insurance they sell, uniform increases in rates, and in providing similar- and I use these words advisedly and loosely-levels of benefits. This is something with which parliament should be concerned. I think we must make a start in this direction by selecting Pacific Coast Fire Insurance

Company because it happens to be before us. When we get to the committee stage of the bill we must ask that there be included within the law relating to Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company a section which states that this company shall be bound by the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act just as if this company were dealing in a commodity and therefore liable to sanctions under that act.
I submit that there is no difference in the eyes of the purchaser of insurance in regard to a conspiracy between insurance companies to set a common level of rates, to establish common price increases and to establish a common level of benefits. The situation is the same as that of the E. B. Eddy Company which I understand has been convicted three times for criminal actions under the Combines Investigation Act. In one case the conviction had to do with matches, in another it had to do with pulpwood, and in the third case it had to do with a conspiracy to fix prices with respect to paper products.
It does not matter much to the individual how the conspiracy takes place. In the final analysis, companies have conspired together to milk the consumer of his hard-earned income. There has not been that theoretical element of competition which is supposed to exist in our economy.
Insurance companies, because of the type of business they carry on, are exempted from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. They are permitted to engage with impunity in conspiratorial tactics, one with another. But a seller of wire fences such as the Steel Company of Canada is not permitted to conspire with other companies to fix prices without being liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, to a fine and so on. It seems to me that is monumentally unfair, especially when we have in the development of our economy a steadily increasing part of it engaged in providing services for people. The providing of insurance falls within the providing of services.
So far the government probably has not given very much thought to this matter. My predecessor in this constituency, the late Ted Applewhaite, raised the question whether banking institutions could be prosecuted for fixing interest rates and the like. He was advised that because they provided a service they were exempted from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
I submit that here we have a similar situation. A company has come to parliament
May 12, 1966

and has asked parliament to give it a licence to conspire. It has asked parliament to give it authority to fix prices in the field of insurance. Parliament week by week blandly agrees to permit these applications.
I submit it is about time that we sat down and seriously thought about the prospects of bringing companies such as the one now before us within the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. I have wondered about the prospect of getting the answers to certain questions with which I and my colleagues are concerned, and which as yet have not been dealt with, when this bill reaches the committee stage. I hope that the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who did not take the opportunity to explain the purposes of the bill, will do so. Perhaps that could also be done by the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is not here now.
It might be better if we were to delay second reading of this bill until its sponsor is available to deal with some of the matters which I have raised and with some of the points other members may want to raise. May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: The
hour allotted to private members' business having expired, the house will return to the consideration of the business interrupted at six o'clock.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-151, to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.
Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-La-prairie):: May I ask the Minister of Forestry a question respecting clause 4?


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please.
When the house rose at six o'clock clause 4 of the said bill was being considered.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Before the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie asks his question, might I ask the minister whether he has considered the question I had raised just before we rose for a trip to the other place?


Maurice Sauvé: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised the problem of what programs could be initiated by the Department of
Rural Development
Northern Affairs and National Resources for Indians and how these could be supported by the ARDA fund, the fund for rural economic development or for other ARDA programs. May I say that in the bill now before us clause 7 mentions an advisory board. Assistant or deputy ministers may review the various projects submitted by the provincial governments after an agreement has been drafted by the ARDA administration of the Department of Forestry.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Under this special rural development program which embodies all the details of our rural development projects, if there are projects for Indians they could be financed either by the department of northern affairs from its budget or from the fund for rural economic development, or from other parts of the ARDA agreement. Co-ordination will be at the federal level. It would be done by the advisory board.
Under the new ARDA agreement, paragraph 11, the ARDA program now applies to Indians. Under the first agreement we could not apply this program to Indians, but now it is possible.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is it the minister's understanding that one of the ten senior officials referred to in clause 7 will likely be somebody in the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs?


Maurice Sauvé: That is my understanding.


Lawrence E. Watson: Can the minister tell the committee whether any understanding or accord has been reached between the province of Quebec and his department on the application of this measure to Indian reserves located in Quebec?


Maurice Sauvé: The province of Quebec has so far established an eastern Quebec development board region. The development plan is supposed to be ready at the end of June. If they are interested, they will make a proposal to us for the drafting of a special rural development agreement. In the Gaspe region, the Indians are included.
As I said in answer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, Indians are covered or may be covered under article 11 of the new ARDA agreement, if provinces so wish.


Lawrence E. Watson: Has Quebec indicated any such desire?

May 12, 1966
Rural Development


Maurice Sauvé: So far there is no proposal which could be covered under Bill C-151, but under the general ARDA agreement there has been some discussion and I think one of these proposals have been accepted for certain regions in Quebec where there are Indians.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Comprehensive rural development program and special rural development area defined.
Mr. Thomas (Middlesex East):: I should like to have it clearly stated in this legislation that Indian reserves are covered by the bill. I have noted the minister's comments to the effect that in certain ARDA agreements signed between the federal government and the provinces Indian reserves have been included. Very well, if Indian reserves can be included, no harm will be done by spelling this out in the legislation. I therefore wish to move:
That clause 5 (b) be amended by inserting the words "or Indian reserve" alter the word "area" in line 39 of page two thereof.


Maurice Sauvé: I do not think it is necessary for this amendment to be moved. I say this because in the present bill we are talking about areas, not about people. Rather, we are talking about people living in certain rural areas where there is a concentration of low income families. I do not think it is necessary to make a distinction between the Indian and the non-Indian population of such areas. I have already mentioned that in the Interlake special rural development programs the Indian population is covered.


An hon. Member:: Not everywhere.


Maurice Sauvé: No, but they are covered in the Interlake region. There are other areas where sections of the Indian population would come within the scope of this program. As I said, the ARDA agreement has been modified so that a province may apply the program to Indian lands and Indian people.
I feel that by accepting this amendment we would, in a way, be appearing to make Indians a different group of people. In fact we are trying to consider the population of a rural area without making any such distinction. I think the amendment would add nothing. The hon. member can rest assured that among the problems we have in mind in certain rural areas are precisely those of certain areas where there are many Indian reserves-Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta-


Erik Nielsen: And the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


Maurice Sauvé: I do not think this amendment is the answer. We are trying to define an area rather than a group of people.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: I thank the minister for his comments and explanation. In supporting the amendment may I point out that paragraph (b) seeks to define a rural development area and it says:
A special rural development area is a predominantly rural area-
My amendment seeks to add the words "or Indian reserve".
-that is designated in an agreement between the province and the minister-
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
And so on. I am thinking of the Indian reserve in my own constituency of Middlesex West. It is a special area within its own right and there could be no possibility of considering the area surrounding the Caradoc reserve as a depressed area because it is composed of some of the finest land in the whole of Canada. The area itself is clearly defined. It is the Indian reserve, and because it is a special area, owned by the band under the Crown, it must be dealt with in a special way. I do not see how it could be included in the larger area for the purposes of this bill.
Therefore I think there is good reason to include the words "or Indian reserve," and then if the Ontario government sees fit to do so, it can include this reserve in any over-all program it may have for the province. But it would not fit into any program for the surrounding area.
The Indian reserve needs drainage. The agriculture of that area needs organizing. The Indians themselves do not have the funds to drain the land. But if it could be brought under this bill as a special area coming under the auspices of the Ontario Department of Agriculture, then the federal and provincial governments could both contribute so that the brush and weeds might be cleared off the land, thus making it a source of pride not only to the Indians themselves but to the whole area. Including the words "or Indian reserve" would clear up any confusion or misunderstanding.


Maurice Sauvé: I think that by adding the words "or Indian reserve" you would be restricting the meaning of "a predominantly rural area." Evidently the Indian reserve is a rural area and we do not want to make any
May 12, 1966

distinction. Evidently it is within a predominantly rural area. The programs which the hon. member has just mentioned are covered by other parts of the federal-provincial rural development agreement. They come under Part II, covering land usage, Part III rehabilitation, and Part V rural development areas. I do not think the hon. member would render any service to the Indians or to the reserves by putting them in a special class. They are already covered by the general agreement, which I feel is much better than trying to be specific.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: On April 19 the minister issued a news release outlining the agreement which had been reached with the province of Ontario, stating that $1J million was to be spent in the 11 eastern counties in a five-year drainage program. Is it possible under Bill C-151 to extend this sort of help to the Caradoc reserve in Middlesex county?


Maurice Sauvé: It is possible under the general federal-provincial rural agreement, paragraph 11 of which says:
The province may apply ARDA programs to Indian lands and Indian people. In the event that Indians are involved in a program the federal government will negotiate special cost-sharing arrangements to the extent that Indians are involved.
Then there is part II covering land use and farm adjustment, Part III rehabilitation, and Part VIII soil and water conservation. All of these various programs that come under the general agreement would cover the specific case the hon. member has mentioned.


Erik Nielsen: But it does not cover all Indians.


Maurice Sauvé: Well, you have the problem of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories which I have mentioned already, but the Indians in Ontario would be covered.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, because of the amendment before us, the only way I can bring myself in order is to say I am speaking for an area where the last Indian died ten years ago. I agree with the minister. I quite understand the hon. member's good intention: He wants to make certain that the Indians in his constituency are covered. But by accepting this amendment we would actually restrict the agreement. I rather like the idea of dealing with areas, rather than people as such, under the agreement.
Rural Development
I am rising to focus attention on a particular area which has some particular problems. Clause 5 reads:
For the purposes of this act,
(a) a comprehensive rural development program is a program, consisting of several development projects, that is designed to promote the social and economic development of a special rural development area and to increase income and employment opportunities and raise living standards in the area, and that makes provision for participation by residents of the area in the carrying out of the program;
I cannot for a moment suggest that I represent a constituency which is economically depressed. I represent a very prosperous riding, which is prosperous because of the hard work, industry and intelligence of the inhabitants, but it has a certain problem.
At present the projects under the Columbia river treaty are being built under the direction of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, and many people are beginning to realize one of the major problems involved. The B.C. Hydro and Power Authority offers a property holder, be he a farmer, businessman or what have you, a set price for his property.
This set price does not include detailed items of the value of buildings, land, etc. It is a lump sum-


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall put myself in order immediately, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: I must inform
members of the committee that we have not disposed of the amendment with reference to Indian reserves. Perhaps the hon. member for Kootenay West would reserve his remarks until later on when we return to clause 5 as such.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Is the amendment pertaining to clause 5?


Maurice Rinfret: To paragraph (b) of clause 5.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member who proposed the amendment wishes to persist in it. I have the impression he has been assured by what has been said, so that the amendment is not necessary to accomplish the very good purposes he has in mind.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the work of the committee, and with the assurance of the minister-

May 12, 1966
Rural Development


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Positive and unequivocal.


J. Antonio Thomas: -positive and unequivocal, as my colleague says, which I see the minister is assenting to by the motions of his head, I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment on that understanding.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee give its unanimous consent to the hon. member for Middlesex West to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Thomas, Middlesex West) withdrawn.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all appreciate the minister's explanation which resulted in the amendment's being withdrawn, allowing the hon. member for Kootenay West to continue his remarks.
The situation I refer to is rather unusual. It has created a very difficult problem for a good number of people, to such an extent that various members of all parties from the Arrow lakes region have joined together in support of the committee which presented its views to the minister in British Columbia and the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. These members represent all the parties in this house, with the exception of the Creditistes, and that party does not exist out there.
The problem which has been created is of a general nature, and everyone who is in the know realizes that the expenditures necessary are far in excess of the money received by the government of British Columbia to build the dams I mentioned. The tendency is to be conservative in making compensation for properties involved. This compensation is far less than the replacement value of the lands lost. These people are not given enough money to clear an equivalent area because the tendency has been to restrict the amount of compensation to the actual cost of purchasing land. Consequently the amount of money spent for new works, replacement of fish and wildlife areas is limited.
At the very least there is a difficult problem in communities in the Arrow lakes region, and I refer particularly to the development of new communities. Certain individuals have accepted insufficient amounts of money, as compensation for the loss of ranches or other properties, to clear similar
[Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West) .3
acreage under present cost conditions. Evaluations have been very low as compared to this clearing cost.
The B.C. Hydro and Power Authority has put up as much as $900 per acre for clearing replacement land in the Arrow lakes, Arrow river and Duncan lake areas. In spite of that fact, the suggestion has been made that the cost of clearing agricultural land which has been taken over is in the neighbourhood of $30 per acre. This is a most unusual circumstance.


Erik Nielsen: It is a most unusual statistic.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is a most unusual statistic, but it is one quoted by the hon. member for Kootenay West, and you know his reputation.
In any event, there are certain small communities and districts which will have to face difficult problems. I bring this fact to the attention of the minister because there is a certain overlapping. Theoretically and sentimentally the people involved must look to the
B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and the government of British Columbia for a solution, but I know very well there will be many unsolved problems.
Under these circumstances I hope the minister and his officials will discuss the situation with the government of British Columbia in an attempt to see whether, under certain circumstances, new communities can be established in new areas with assistance in clearing the land for farming and ranching. I trust the minister will comment in this regard because the problem has to be faced by quite a number of people who have spent many years of their lives developing the properties they have lost or will lose.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, certainly the officials of the department will meet with the officials of the government of British Columbia to examine the situation to see whether anything can be done under this act. In view of the definitions and the aims of this measure, perhaps the province of British Columbia can arrive at some special agreement whereby assistance can be provided through the ARDA administration.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, section 5, (a), states:
For the purposes of this Act, a comprehensive rural development program is a program, consisting of several development projects-
Perhaps the minister should give some region as an example, so as to see whether, say,
May 12, 1S66

a tourist industry could be established. Is this provided for by the program, for example, in a region such as mine? If the province suggests to the minister or to the federal government an agricultural area with a considerable mineral potential where iron mines could be operated, will this law provide for help under those circumstances?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that would be quite possible if the area has been designated as the bill requires and if the concerns to be developed are to income and employment and raise the standard of living in the area.
Indeed, in some regions, such as in the Lower St. Lawrence area and in Gaspe, if the provincial government follows the recommendations of the eastern Quebec development board, a program will comprise several projects concerning the tourist trade, agriculture, small businesses, forests, fisheries and probably mines. It is a comprehensive area development program. It can also cover fields such as housing and education.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West because it indicated that the minister is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to the problems referred to by that hon. member. I should like to say a few words in support of the arguments advanced by him.
Undoubtedly the Minister of Forestry is aware, in a general way at least, that the development of the history of the Columbia river project for damming the Arrow lakes is the direct cause of the problems outlined by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I realize of course that the minister was not a member of the house during that period of history, and that the early stages of the treaty date back to the time of his predecessor.
Because of the participation of the federal authority in the agreement, and because of the international implications of the agreement, there is in my view directly or indirectly a moral if not a legal obligation on the part of the federal authority to give some consideration to the results of the implementation of this Columbia river treaty.
Coming from the province of British Columbia, and having had discussions with the hon. member for Kootenay West, I have some general knowledge of the approach adopted by the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority in this connection. In my view that attitude is a
Rural Development
rather striking contrast to the position taken by the federal authority in relation to the people who were being displaced as a result of the St. Lawrence seaway development. Compensation in that regard was considered only adequate when it provided for the cost of relocation of whole communities.
For the reasons I have advanced I think there is real justification for the federal authority's being more than willing to enter into an agreement with provincial authorities under this act. I should add that I have heard the premier of the province of British Columbia complain rather vociferously that the federal government is always trying to draw funds from the province of British Columbia. I have made no bones about my own views in this regard. Some of the complaints he has voiced are unrealistic and unreasonable and completely inconsistent with any concept of a united Canada.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
However, I think in this situation there is an opportunity under this bill for the province to look at the possibility of utilizing a proposal being developed by the government and parliament of Canada to do something which apparently through its agency, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, it has not been willing to do to the present at least.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a matter under clause 5 that I think is of importance to the whole nation. I am surprised that there is no restraining clause in the bill, or no clause governing the amount that may be spent in each province. There should be a clause governing the per capita amount that may be spent in the provinces and territories, because we have two territories as well. I ask the minister this question: Does he not wish to have any safeguards limiting the amount that any province can absorb of the $50 million we are voting under this legislation? I would warn the minister that benefits could act discriminatorily, unfairly and in a one-sided manner and we should guard against this happening.
I am thinking of last year's farm machinery syndicates bill, as a result of which the residents of one western province obtained the lion's share of the money lent. We do not want a repetition of this situation as a result of this bill. We want ARDA to go into action across the whole of Canada in a fair and equitable way. We want all the provinces and territories to benefit, and not a few or just one province. There should be control in

May 12, 1966
Rural Development
regard to the per capita expenditure in a province, and there should be control exercised with regard to money federally expended in the provinces and territories. In this way the federal expenditure would be spread as fairly as possible across the whole dominion.
As one form of control I would suggest a per capita limit on federal expenditure in each of these, shall I say depressed areas, where federal money is to be expended. This control could also take the form of gauging the amount that should be spent equitably in the provinces and territories. I should like to hear the minister's comments in this regard.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, this problem was discussed thoroughly at the federal-provincial conference held in Montreal at the end of November, 1964. The proposals now before the house were discussed with the provinces, and it was agreed by them that there should be no allotment and no per capita limitation, on the basis that the general ARDA agreement contained certain restrictions with regard to how much money we could spend in each province or on each kind of project. As this was a special, federal effort to try to improve standards of living and employment conditions in certain areas of Canada in which there was a concentration of low income families, it was felt there should be no restriction at all, inasmuch as the fund could be replenished when all the $50 million had been committed.
The provinces unanimously accepted the point of view that it was the federal government's responsibility to really make an effort where it was needed. Three provinces-or, rather, two so far-are preparing projects that will be financed under Bill No. C-151. One of those provinces is Manitoba, for the Interlake region, and the other is New Brunswick. Everybody at the conference agreed that this was a fair principle if we were trying to eradicate poverty where it seemed to be concentrating. As the provinces thought this was an acceptable arrangement, I felt it was good for the whole of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: You mentioned only two provinces.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, there is some inconsistency on the part of this government. It is not all embodied in this bill, of course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is too short a bill.


Michael Starr: I refer to the allotment of $50 million under this bill to deal with certain depressed areas. Under the bill there is no per capita allotment to the provinces. We had this arrangement under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act; yet when this government came into office they immediately changed the system and operated it on a per capita basis. If there is to be any consistency on the part of policies of the government, this measure should be put into effect in the same way as they changed the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.


Erik Nielsen: Which is the third province that has an agreement in this respect?


Maurice Sauvé: The only thing I know is that when we discussed this matter with the provinces they were agreeable to the system we have established. With regard to the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, I do not know all the details of what happened with the provinces, but I know that in this case the provinces accepted this principle. Therefore as the federal minister I was satisfied to propose the same thing to this house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned Manitoba and New Brunswick as provinces which have plans under way. He said there were three provinces. Which is the other province?


Maurice Sauvé: In my introductory remarks I mentioned three provinces which have special areas for rural development. I also said there were areas in other provinces. More than three provinces are involved in this respect. I mentioned Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and there is also Newfoundland. I mentioned three areas with regard to which there had been a request for a development program, with respect to which studies are being carried out, but we do not yet have the results. One is the interlake region of Manitoba, the second is eastern Quebec and third in northern New Brunswick.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, on the point that was just now before the committee, I think the view expressed by the minister in stating the position taken at the federal-provincial conference is, of course, the sound one in relation to this particular piece of legislation. The object of this legislation is to tackle the problems of rural people, and I hope we
May 12. 1966

will not put artificial fences around a program of this kind. However, that is not what I wanted to ask about at this time.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Earlier the hon. member for Villeneuve asked how far the minister and those working with him in connection with the expenditure of this fund could go in dealing with tourist development. The minister mentioned a moment ago that in the province of Nova Scotia a plan is being shaped up under the general ARDA agreement, and my constituency falls within the area to be covered by that plan. Under the general ARDA agreement a study is being made of the recreational and tourist possibilities of the entire county of Guysborough. What I want to know is, what is going to happen when this study is completed? I am convinced as to what the result of the study is going to be-it is going to conclude that this county has magnificent tourist potentialities. But where do we go from there? How far can the minister go in recommending programs for the development of these potentialities?
I am glad to see the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources here tonight, because it may very well be that if the Minister of Forestry cannot go all the way that the study indicates under this particular piece of legislation, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources may have to activate himself and bring before this house new legislation to supplement the National Parks Act. I am wondering how far the Minister of Forestry conceives of this particular fund as meeting the development of park areas and recreational areas, somewhere in between the great national parks, on the one hand, and the comparatively small parks which are being developed under federal provincial co-operation under the existing ARDA regulations on the other.


Maurice Sauvé: If the proposal comes under section 6 of the ARDA agreement for a special rural development area, we can entertain practically all sorts of projects as long as they create employment and economic development. If it does not come under the special rural development area, then it comes under either Part V of the rural development area or Part III, rural rehabilitation, or Part II, land use and farm adjustment, and then you have specific projects. We have approved many projects of that nature since the innovation of ARDA in 1962.
Rural Development


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, there is one point on which I believe I know the answer, but I should like to have it in the minister's own clear words. This act again and again uses the word "rural". Am I correct in saying that the word "rural" will include seacoast areas where, of course, we have people living in precisely the same conditions as we would find in depressed agricultural areas in eastern Quebec, or in the Interlake area of Manitoba?


Maurice Sauvé: The answer is yes, that this is one of the purposes of the amendment we brought into legislation under Bill C-152.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I must say that the explanation of the minister, as far as I am concerned, is very inadequate on the point I raised about the equitable spreading of this money across the country. The words of the minister were that the province had accepted this principle. What principle have they accepted? The sky-is-the-limit method of expenditure has very little principle attached to it. What I am suggesting to the minister is a per capita plan which would have some principle associated with it. I caution the minister that $50 million does not go very far. The physical geography of this country is such that this whole amount could be spent on two or three small localities. It is not good administration and it is not fair in any way; it is not fair morally or politically.


Maurice Sauvé: I will give you three examples. In the Interlake region there are 62,000 people, in northern New Brunswick there are 125,000 and in eastern Quebec there are about 325,000. We do not know yet what the program will be in the interlake area which will be submitted by the government of Manitoba. It may be a program which will involve the reorganization of certain farm land, and the relocation of a number of fishermen. There are 3,000 fishermen and there are possibilities for probably a few hundred. There will probably be road development, erection of school buildings, development of tourist areas, and so on. Then the province of Manitoba will propose to the federal ARDA administration a certain program and will probably say, "We are ready to pay so much of the cost". Then out of the $50 million, 80 per cent of the cost will be for one project, 75 per cent for another, and 50 per cent for the third. This will be the result of negotiations.
The principle which was accepted by the provinces was that, inasmuch as some of them were ready to go into the regional development concept and inasmuch as they have

May 12, 1966
Rural Development
already a great number of low income families in certain classified areas, it was justifiable for the government to place a special input on the money to help those regions improve their situation. This was not a good thing for Canada as a whole. It was expected then, as it is now confirmed, that the federal government would be able to add to the fund. We now have $50 million. When this amount is committed-it will be spent over a number of years-then we can designate an additional amount of money. This is part of the war on poverty. The provinces have accepted this principle as being equitable. There are certain areas of the country which more than others require assistance from the federal government. The provinces were satisfied with this arrangement.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Can the minister assure the house that the per capita amount, for example, expended in the Interlake region in Manitoba would be originally on a par with the per capita amount spent in those regions of Quebec or in New Brunswick?


Maurice Sauvé: It is hard for me to say yes or no because we do not know yet what will be the final proposals of the government and the province of Manitoba. When we draft this agreement for this region it may be on a per capita basis or the province may ask for a contribution of $5 million for 60,000 people. The province of Quebec may ask for five times that amount or $25 million, it all depends on what type of programs there will be. We have not yet established any principle with respect to an amount. We are not ready to accept a per capita basis because this will depend on the experience and results of the negotiations between the provinces and the federal government. We might arrive at this formula but it has not been devised and nobody has suggested that there should be such a formula.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, is it true that these moneys are not going to be spent when there is no poverty? I believe there are no poor in Manitoba, so there is no question of a program under this legislation.


Maurice Sauvé: I think the hon. member for Villeneuve is not aware of what is going on in the interlake region, where 65,000 people are suffering great hardship. Living conditions of some Indians and half-breeds there are such as would not be tolerated anywhere else in Canada.

[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: I do not like the idea of advertising the extent of the poverty in the province of Manitoba. However, for the information of the hon. member for Villeneuve, I may say that the problem exists, particularly in certain areas. According to the statistics compiled by the province, the extent of the poverty in the Interlake region is rather high. A program is therefore being carried out in that part of the province, and will be welcomed I assume by almost everyone living there.
I rise at this time, Mr. Chairman, to say to the minister that while we really do not expect him to have any specific information as to how many development projects will be entered into in the Interlake region, while we do not expect him to have detailed information, I think we have a right to expect from him some approximation of the magnitude of the spending program in the Interlake region. A comprehensive rural development program may consist of 10 or 25 special projects, and I would not expect the minister to be able to tell us what some of these projects will cost because perhaps they are not even formulated as yet. It seems to me, however, the minister must have a good idea of the total cost of the program-the total cost of each of the three comprehensive rural development programs that are being undertaken under this legislation.


Maurice Sauvé: The one we have in northern New Brunswick which covers about 125,000 people will cost in the neighbourhood of $30 million. What the share of the federal government and the provincial government will be is being discussed now. However, this gives one an example of the magnitude of the programs.


George Robson Muir: Can the minister tell us if he envisages any co-operation between ARDA under his department, and ARDA under the Department of Industry, always taking into consideration the part the province would have in the two programs?


Maurice Sauvé: This is already happening. We have an advisory board. Actually, there have been some projects carried out under ARDA but financed by ARDA.


Mr. Forbes:: I should like to direct one question to the minister. We have three designated areas in Manitoba. Would these
May 12, 1966

same areas be eligible lor assistance under the ARDA program?


Maurice Sauvé: Were they designated under the ADA program or the ARDA program? I believe there is only one designated area under the ARDA program so far, and that is the Interlake region.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Establishment of advisory board.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a brief question on clause 7 with respect to the advisory board. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle raised this point during his excellent presentation at the second reading stage. Can the minister inform the house if there is any liaison between the advisory board and the resource ministers council through its permanent secretariat? I think it is most important, if we are going to have co-ordination of any comprehensive plans for resource development, that we not only have intergovernmental co-operation, that is co-operation between governments, but also intragovernmental co-operation. There are so many various departments at the federal level in the field of resource development, and the function of the resource ministers council was to achieve some overall co-ordination. Is there consultation?


Maurice Sauvé: As the hon. member knows, the secretariat has no administrative authority. What happens is that the secretariat is informed of the projects and programs that are carried out under ARDA. The ARDA program is reviewed annually by the committee of ministers. We submit to them everything we do. They have an annual report on what we are doing, and it is always on the agenda of the resource ministers conference. In this way some co-ordination can be maintained.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I believe that under clause 7 the minister was going to make some response to my question as to whether or not it was the practice that the people actually affected in these designated areas be given representation on these boards. If I might just clarify, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that in the special rural development areas there is an area development board to be established. I understand that the area development board will be comprised primarily of individuals from the government. I ask the minister if it will be a requirement or a
Motions for Papers
practice under this legislation to have residents of the area itself as representatives on these boards?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that question I will refer to paragraph 33 of the federal-provincial rural development agreement, part VI. I quote:
A comprehensive rural development program Involves the following:
2. The involvement of local people through the establishment of rural development committees or similar bodies.
It is a condition that in the implementation of this Bill No. C-151, there should be committees at the local level.


John B. Stewart: Before the clause carries, I should like to ask the minister if the Atlantic Development Board will be represented on the advisory board?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the bill be read a third time, now?


Michael Starr: By leave, now.


Maurice Sauvé: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eight o'clock, it is my duty pursuant to section 3 of standing order 6 to suspend the proceedings now under way so that the house may revert to private members business for the taking of the vote which was postponed earlier this evening.
The question is as follows:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all the working papers prepared for the Norris commission by the chartered accountants hired by the commission and deposited by Mr. Justice Norris with the Department of Labour.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that this is the first time this rule may have been called into play. May I

May 12. 1966
Northwest Territories Act indicate that although we in this group during the supper hour asked for a recorded vote, we are willing that no such recorded vote be now taken. We should simply like to protect our position which we think obtains under the rules, that under that circumstance a vote could now be taken, if we so desired, even though five members were not here at the present moment. We do have more than five members here, but we are willing, if the house gives unanimous consent, simply to resolve this issue on a voice vote and not have the members called in by the bell.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the house give unanimous consent to have this issue resolved by a voice vote, rather than calling the members in and having a standing vote taken?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Orlikow) negatived, on division.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Arthur Laing: the second reading of Bill No. C-146, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.


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


Erik Nielsen: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the minister would like to make a statement on second reading.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will take a great deal of time in recounting again to the members of the house the very favourable economic conditions which are beginning to show themselves in the Northwest Territories, indeed in the entire north. However, I should like to put once more on record that this extremely vast area-I am now talking of the Northwest Territories alone-which comprises about 33 per cent of the land mass of Canada is beginning to demonstrate itself as an area of tremendous wealth. I am unhappy that more members of the House of Commons, indeed that all members of the House of Commons, have not had the opportunity of seeing the area, and in the year ahead I propose to endeavour to see that a representative group of members of the house do make this visit.

It is an extremely difficult, strange, challenging, yet beautiful area of Canada, particularly if you go there at the right time of the year. When I saw it first I came to the conclusion that if it had resources they lay underground, not on top. A great deal of the area has no vegetation of any kind on top of the rock or ice. However, we are now finding, probably in common with the Arctic area of the Soviet Union, that we have tremendous resources under the ground, resources of oil, gas, and minerals of various kinds. The challenge, of course, is that of distance and difficulty of communication, coupled with the fact that during seven months of the year adverse weather conditions and darkness contribute to a situation where most citizens would prefer to dwell in another part of Canada.
These are the drawbacks to this area, but we are now beginning to find that some of the deposits of metal being discovered are of such wealth that these difficulties can be overcome. This, however, inevitably leads to a spotty development. We have within the area settlements where the white man is there only because of the responsibilities he has to the indigenous people in matters of health. He is in other places only because of the responsibility we have in matters of defence with our allies. He is also to be found in the high Arctic islands, sometimes only to declare that they are part of Canada, that our sovereignty must be maintained.
The difficulty of communication between these points makes government within the territory very onerous indeed. We have substantially a western development along the Mackenzie which is growing very fast, particularly as a result of the extension of the Pine Point railway to Hay River. On the eastern side deliveries are made mostly out of Montreal by the high Arctic sea route. We are beginning to see that new methods of transport will be available in the future, largely by air. Indeed, we are finding that some of the goods taken in there now can be taken in competitively by larger aircraft, when costs are compared with river traffic and freight out of Montreal.
This places a very great burden upon the council of the Northwest Territories. So far it has resided, with a very small staff, substantially in Ottawa under a commissioner living in Ottawa. When I first went to the north I said that I would do my utmost to see that we get government in the territories as rapidly as we possibly can. At the moment we
May 12, 1966	COMMONS
have a beautiful little town called Fort Smith, which some of the people in the north now call the capital. It is about a mile and a half to two miles north of the Alberta border. Spring comes a little earlier there than in most parts of the Northwest Territories. Up until the present time there was no access at all to Fort Smith, except by air or by water down the Slave river. We are now building a highway to Pine Point, the famous mineral area, which highway incidentally will be completed this year.
The government which preceded the present one decided to build the railway on the west side of Alberta, and I am rather of the opinion that what has happened since has confirmed the wisdom of building it on that side. However, in view of the wealth of the area, particularly in tar sands, metals and that sort of thing, as well as in forest reserves, it would not surprise me if in the years immediately ahead another railway is built on the east side of Alberta going up toward Pine Point, and probably intersecting the Pine Point railway.
To return to the difficulties of the council, for a good many years pressures have been exerted by the relatively small number of people who live in the territories to improve and increase the amount of authority they need to run their own affairs. I think it is a very good sign that this demand is made, and it would be depressing if that drive were not present. That is one of the characteristics of the old Northwest Territories from which developed the provinces we have in Canada today. There is a ferment in the area at the present time, and it is a very healthy ferment. As a result of that., on May 11 last year I announced in the house that we were setting up a commission of inquiry to look into the future of government in the Northwest Territories.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
That commission was comprised of Dean A. W. R. Carrothers, professor and dean of law at the University of Western Ontario, who was the chairman of the commission, Mr. John H. Parker, Mayor of Yellowknife, and Jean Beetz, professor of constitutional law, at the University of Montreal.
We found that we had appointed a remarkably competent group of men. They have been through the territories twice-in some places three times-and they have elected to go in the dead of winter, to see what it was
DEBATES	5079
Northwest Territories Act like living in those communities in that season. They proceeded up there in February of this year.
I want to remind the house of the terms of reference we gave that commission. We asked them to pay special attention, first to the views of residents of the Northwest Territories, and to the views of other Canadians with northern experience. Second, we asked them to pay attention to the nature of the federal responsibility for the territories, and third, to look into the question of the consideration of the political development of the territories contingent on the size, nature and distribution of population, and its ability to pay a significant share of the costs involved having regard to the present and prospective level of social and economic development. Next, we asked them to study existing forms of government as defined by the Northwest Territories Act and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act, and to pay attention to previous proposals affecting constitutional structure.
I am certain, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that this commission of inquiry is going to bring in its report to us by September, and probably earlier, by August, it may surprise some hon. members that we are at this time introducing any amendments whatsoever to the Northwest Territories Act. We feel that we must, in one or two respects, move on in a manner that will not affect the full report which we expect to get. It should indicate where we can move next with respect to government, in that particular territory.
For a long time there had been repeated complaints in the house that some of those who lived in the Northwest Territories were denied the right to elect members to their territorial council. Indeed, this was so. Many of those persons had no opportunity to vote, principally because they lived in little, widely scattered settlements, and the territorial council, and indeed the government, thought it inconceivable to be able to provide them with ballots. It was that simple. I refer to areas such as the upper Arctic, the eastern Arctic and the Keewatin district which could not send representatives to the territorial council.
We think, and indeed the territorial council thinks that this should be changed. We have made a commitment that changes would be made, that there will be three additional seats. This will result in increasing the numbers of the territorial council from 9 to 12. It will also have the result of giving, for the
May 12, 1966

Northwest Territories Act first time, the elected members of the territorial council a majority, as compared with those who are appointed.
Formerly we appointed five members, and we shall continue to appoint five from outside, under the amended act-


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister permit a question?


Arthur Laing: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister explain to hon. members why the government feels it necessary to appoint any members, rather than having them all elected?


Arthur Laing: Yes, I should be very happy to explain. This is a personal opinion. The more we can attract the attention of southern Canadians to the resources and the possibilities of the Northwest Territories, the better for all of us, and indeed, the better for the territories especially. Over the years we have appointed individuals knowledgeable about the north. Some of them were old hands from the north, and some of them had been engaged in defence, as my hon. friend knows.
They were appointed to be the representatives of southern Canada and, indeed, to give their knowledge of northern Canada to southern Canadians. I think that if we continue to make appointments of commissioners or councillors from southern Canada of the calibre that we have in the past, it would be all to the good of Canadians living in southern Canada, and to the good of the residents of the territories.
We have thought that those who toil are entitled to adequate remuneration. The members of the council have been drawing $2,000 per year. We think that opportunities to serve on council should now be given to every resident in the north competent to serve. We are therefore bringing in this amendment, increasing the emolument to $5,000 per year for elected members, of which $1,000 shall not be considered for taxing purposes. In addition to that, there are a number of other amendments where greater power is given to the commission and to the council, by the setting up of a territorial fund. I think hon. members of the house will realize that the territorial fund of the Northwest Territories is part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. In the setting up of the fund, greater power is given to council to govern there.
Apart from total enfranchisement these are not greatly significant amendments, Mr. Speaker, but they are amendments which we

feel at this time, when we are so imminently to receive a report as to what should be the government of the Northwest Territories, we are forced to make. They are the minimum amendments that I would make. To go beyond what we are suggesting in these amendments, or to prejudge the report we expect in August, or to anticipate it in any way, would be very wrong indeed, and would be an affront to the commission of inquiry we set up.
I want to remind the house now, that with respect to the territories of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories-and I speak predominantly of the Northwest Territories- today the taxpayer of southern Canada is sending in about $74 million per year. We are taking out of these two territories a total of $14 million per year.
These territories are deficit areas today. We are just at the point now where we are seeing the possibilities of enormous wealth being exploited there. Mr. Speaker, when you scrape off 20 feet or 30 feet of overburden and take out ore worth $150 a ton, you have a very rich mine. There are a great number of properties that are becoming apparent, which have considerable wealth, and which are sufficiently high in value to justify the admittedly higher costs of transportation and of living in the area.
We are concerned to day with the people who live there. We are putting in a splendid educational system. Eighty five per cent of the children attend school and they attend school 80 to 85 per cent of the time, which is very good for that climate.
I want to remind the house again that the preponderant indigenous population is not generically inferior to any other people in any way. When their young children go to school and they are afforded opportunities equal to those elsewhere, they are every bit as good as anybody else. An increasing number of the indigenous peoples are working in mines, running the railways and performing a variety of tasks which need to be performed, and which were performed previously by white people. As quickly as possible we must raise the numbers of indigenous employees in the territories. That is the only way in which we can construct an economy for those people.
Anyone who says that we must not invest in these people is helping to perpetuate a condition where we should forever have to send in money to sustain the territories. This is a suggestion which is intolerable to the
May 12, 1966	COMMONS
people who live there, and intolerable to the people of southern Canada.
I think I shall say no more at this time, Mr. Speaker. If there are questions which hon. members wish to ask about the amendment, perhaps I could answer them as we proceed from section to section.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: I like the minister's words, but I do not like the methods by which this bill seeks to achieve the laudable objectives which, he has explained, are the intention of the government.
When I speak of material objectives in the north I cannot help but contrast political philosophies. And when I speak of progress in our governmental institutions in the north I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members, that I do so entirely without partisanship. I am sure the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) will join me in the sympathies I am about to express in this regard.
The government's objective of eventual self-government throughout the north is a laudable one. I will leave the Yukon apart for the moment, because we are discussing the Northwest Territories. But I suggest to the minister and to the government that the objective to which I have referred, however laudable, cannot be achieved by perpetuating a system of appointing members to a body which is supposed to be an elected body, representative of the people of the north.
This is not a continuation of the democratic evolution which has gone on in the Northwest Territories as a matter of history. It is a perpetuation of a colonial system of government. The situation which exists today and which existed under the previous government, whereby the majority of the members of the council were appointed by the governor in council that is, by the government of the federal power of the day, is an intolerable one. It is wrong.


Arthur Laing: We are correcting it.


Erik Nielsen: It is wrong, whichever government does it. The minister says he and his friends are correcting the situation. But what this house is being asked to do is to alter a situation where there are five appointed members and four elected members in order to create a new one in which there will be a council composed of seven elected members and five appointed members.
DEBATES	5081
Northwest Territories Act
As an argument for the continuance of the practice of appointing members, the minister has told us it is a good idea to expose men of commercial, industrial and academic interests to the north by having them serve on the Northwest Territories council, a body which meets half the time in Ottawa and half the time in the Northwest Territories. This is somehow supposed to be justification for appointing people from southern Canada. There is one exception-one which in itself is not consistent with the explanation the minister gave. I speak of Mr. Abraham Ogpik, an Eskimo, who is from the north.
The principle of appointing people to the council so that they may acquire some knowledge during their brief service and be in a position to disseminate it in southern Canada is, in my view, not a sound one. I say this regardless of which government may be in power, because I am dealing with the political development of the north. Then there is the argument that these people may help to provide the elected representative body of the Northwest Territories with some kind of expertise which is not otherwise available. This also is a wrong principle upon which to proceed. The minister knows as well as I do that this house, through its committees system, the provincial legislatures through their committees systems and, indeed, the Yukon legislative council through its system, can at any time call upon experts to assist them in developing thoughts, ideas and laws. There is, I submit, not one single reason or democratic excuse for perpetuating a colonialistic system of appointing members who are supposed to represent the people of the Northwest Territories when, in fact, those crown appointees, with one exception, come from everywhere else but the north.
Is that particular appointment proper? I do not know. I hope to have the pleasure of meeting the Eskimo member of the council some day and discussing the problems of the north with him. But is it right, under a democratic system such as ours, for any resident of the north to be appointed to a council rather than run for election as does every other representative of the people in any democratic institution? There is every reason to expect that should an Eskimo or an Indian run for election to the territorial council, he would have a chance of success. What is the excuse for this colonialistic idea of appointing people to be so-called representatives on what is supposed to be a democratic institution? This, sir, is simply paying lip
5082	COMMONS
Northwest Territories Act service to the idea of democracy. Either we are creating a leg.slative council composed of elected representatives of the people-and this means precisely what the phrase indicates-or we are not. There is no point in attempting to hide the fact that the institution as it now exists is unrepresentative by introducing so-called expertise when making appointments. This simply will not sit.
I do not accuse or charge any member of this house with an intentional lack of appreciation of what goes on in the north. But the north is a long way from here and its history and its people and its land are largely unknown to the members of this house, simply because they have not been there, because they have not read enough, because they do not know their geography. But one thing is sure: There is not a member in this House of Commons who believes that in any institution which is supposed to be representative and democratic there is a place for people who are appointed rather than elected. It is either an elected representative body or it is not. It boils down to that.
The people of the north want more say in their own affairs, as the minister himself agrees. They will not get it through this process of appointing members to a legislative council. They will get it only when they can express their wishes through their elected representatives in a truly democratic institution. This will not come about by continuing the colonial idea of appointing people to what is supposed to be an elected representative body. That is wrong.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The minister has said-and I speak only with respect to the principle of the bill-that a reasonable indemnity must be set for the members who are being asked to serve on this council. With this I agree. But in the same breath that he says we want to move gradually toward giving the people in the north more responsibility, more say in their own affairs, he is asking this House of Commons, which is a federal elected body, to set the indemnities of another elected body. Surely hon. members can see how wrong that is. It is like asking this house to set the indemnities for the legislature of the province of Quebec, or the legislature of Alberta, or the legislature of P.E.I.
If there are people capable of serving on the council-and the minister knows and has said that there are-then surely they are responsible enough to set their own indemnities. Or are we to treat these representatives

DEBATES	May 12, 1966
who sit on this council like babies? Are we in this house to watch over their every move and say, "You can have only so many dollars and no more?" If they are responsible enough to set their own indemnities, but they set them too high, they will have to answer to their own electors.
The minister is one of many who hold the view-and I do not hold it against them for doing so, because it is simply another point of view-that he who pays the piper must call the tune, that there can be no real autonomy, or progress toward autonomy until such time as people in the north can pay their way. That, sir, was not the case when the province of Manitoba was carved out of the Northwest Territories in 1879. There were fewer white citizens in that province in that day than there are in the Yukon and Northwest Territories today.
Per capita, there are greater subsidies being paid to some of the other provinces than there are to the north. There is no price tag on democracy. If, sir, you admit that there are responsible people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon-and the minister knows and says there are-then surely they can be entrusted with the expenditure of funds which they derive from taxing themselves and their own resources, and with the expenditure of federal grants and subsidies, in the same way as any provincial legislature.
I am not suggesting for a moment that this house or this country move in the immediate direction of autonomy, or of self-government tomorrow in the north. That would be irresponsible; but I am suggesting that there should be a planned and phased blueprint now for moving in this direction. It is a misconception of democratic progress in that direction to suggest that we must, forever and a day, watch over every action of the members of the legislative council of the Northwest Territories because they cannot be trusted to spend, not only their own moneys but those that come from and have been approved by this house. That is not the case. The best example that can be cited is the schoolboard in Yellowknife which has been functioning for many years, largely spending federal funds.
The minister has said something about the need to move in the direction of more autonomy. I am not going to discuss specific provisions of the bill, nor am I going to say to the minister that he was intentionally paying lip service to that aim, because I know he is a dedicated individual when it
May 12, 1986	COMMONS
comes to moving in the directions which he feels within himself are most beneficial to northern progress-moving in a direction which he feels will result in the north playing its full part and making the contribution that he, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), and I, know it can make to the over-all national economic fabric of the country-just as the west did when it was growing. But I say to the minister that he is moving backward when he takes away from the legislative power of the council the right to introduce money bills, and that is what he is doing under clause 19 of this bill.
Clause 19 of the existing Northwest Territories Act gives the council the right to introduce money measures, and naturally so. This should be the case and because the council itself imposes taxes on the people who live there it should have the right to pass laws disposing of the revenue derived from those taxes. I say that this should be so, notwithstanding the extend of the contribution made by the federal government. Yet this bill takes that right away. I draw this provision to the attention of hon. members and I know that the hon. member for Northwest Territories has sympathy with what I say.
That is precisely what the minister and the government are doing under clause 19 of the bill. It is transferring the right of the council itself to introduce money measures to the commissioner in council. In other words, if this bill passes, no member of the council will henceforth have the right to introduce a measure which affects in any way howsoever the consolidated revenue fund to be set up by this bill.
The only power that will be left to the legislative council will be the power to withhold passing supply. Members of the council will have every right to tax themselves but will have no right to spend any of the money. Surely, sir, this cannot be construed as moving in the direction of giving them more to say in their own affairs, or moving in the direction of autonomy, or of self-government. It is a retrograde step.
Why is this provision there? I shall suggest a reason, and would hope I am wrong. I believe it is there because the balance of power is shifting. Instead of there being five appointed members and four elected members, under this bill it becomes seven elected members and five appointed. Therefore the bill is saying that we cannot entrust to the responsibility of the majority-that is, the 23033-322
DEBATES	5083
Northwest Territories Act elected members-the power to introduce money measures. That is the result of this bill. I hope I am wrong on this motivation.


Arthur Laing: Your batting average for wrong is high.


Erik Nielsen: Does the minister suggest for a moment that what I have been saying this evening is wrong?


Arthur Laing: Of course it is wrong.


Erik Nielsen: I would like the minister to point out where I am wrong.


Arthur Laing: They have more power now.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says they have more power now. I cannot conceive that he really believes that. The power that the legislative council has now, before passage of this bill, is exactly the same with respect to the introduction of fiscal measures as that of any provincial legislature. The minister cannot gainsay me on that. What this bill will do is take that power away from the legislative council and place it in the hands of the commissioner in council.
The minister knows that the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories is appointed by the government of the day, by the governor in council. Therefore there will not be any money measure introduced into the Northwest Territories council unless it has the prior approval of the Commissioner, an appointee of the federal government. That statement is not wrong, it is precisely accurate.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If what I have suggested is wrong, Mr. Speaker, let the minister now say so. I suggest the principle is wrong in this regard, and for that reason this bill will not move the Territories progressively toward the time when they will have self-government. I suggest this is a step backwards and will take from the elected representatives of the people the rights they should enjoy. In fact, what the Commissioner and the council will be doing, and really it is the Commissioner, because a money matter cannot get to council unless it has passed him, is taxing without representation. We all know what happened in Boston many years ago as a result of the perpetuation of that idea. I am not suggesting that the same result will occur in the Northwest Territories, but the people there feel just as deeply about the situation as we do in the Yukon.
May 12. 1966

Northwest Territories Act
We are not suggesting to the government or the minister that we should be given selfgovernment; we are not suggesting that we should have autonomy; but we do say, for heavens sake, let us do away with this colonialism approach to government in the north and give us more say in our affairs-not all at once, but gradually. The principle in this bill is not a principle that should be followed in an attempt to do that.
As far as the Carrothers commission is concerned, for all the good intentions behind the establishment of it, for all the good principles and concepts involved indeed for all the good work that that commission is likely to do, is it following a reasonable principle? We are being asked to establish a committee to determine in effect whether or not democratic procedures should exist in the north. I can understand the reasoning behind economic study, but I cannot understand the reasoning behind a study to determine whether or not there should be a fully elected body of people to represent the north. Such a principle is a wrong principle. I cast no slurs on the commission in making that observation, but we are being asked to proceed on the basis of a wrong principle.
Any suggestion that we should determine whether or not there should be democratic procedure and machinery in the north, to determine whether or not it is a good or a bad idea to give the people at the local level more say in their own affairs, is a wrong principle. I sugegst it is a ruse-an unintentional ruse, perhaps, but none the less a ruse. We must either accept the principle that it is desirable to create and maintain democratic institutions, or that it is not. This bill does not do that, and does not even move in that direction.
I do not intend to introduce any amendment at the resolution stage, nor does my party. We intend to leave this duty to the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, the minister and the government which he supports. We do implore the government and that hon. member to direct their attention to the real desires and requirements of those people they are supposed to be representing.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those so-called southern Canadians who admittedly has not set foot in the Northwest Territories and consequently does not know about personal experiences and situations there from first hand knowledge. I do not know of conditions or concepts there, but as has always been the case in this

house, I am one who feels that he votes reluctantly on matters concerning the Northwest Territories.
For the most part, being an outsider and not knowing about conditions and concepts, I think it is presumptuous for us to run full tilt into legislation which affects such a large group of people who are, and in fact have been for many years, living in a communal state. These people are governed by laws made mainly without their consent and without their knowledge. It may be harsh to refer to this area as one which exists in a communal state, but that is the fact. Practically every phase of life in the Northwest Territories falls within the jurisdiction of a group here in Ottawa, many thousands of miles removed from the scene. They have an absentee type of government.
We are being asked to deal with fundamental questions of civil and property rights, freedoms and liberties and a whole range of social and educational matters. These things in any other province of Canada are matters of concern and jurisdiction of local governments. Over the years the only freedoms and rights that have been extended to the people of the Territories have been those extended by this government in Ottawa. Almost inevitably their rights and freedoms have been determined by outsiders.
I may be an outsider or a southern Canadian by the standards of the people who live in northern Canada, but I believe I understand the basic rights and freedoms of people to the point that I can appreciate what should and should not be done. From the point of view of making laws, it is wrong for a governing body to extend to certain groups of people the freedoms and rights that the governing body deems correct. That is the reverse of a true democratic process.
These people should determine their own freedoms and rights, because these things should not be given by the grace of others. That has not been the case so far as the Northwest Territories is concerned. The bill before us represents an extremely minor, timid and gentle step toward a recognition of the fundamental rights of those people who should run their own affairs. Up to now they have been the subject of extreme paternalism without progress. These people are much like the children of a parent who refuses to accept the fact that they have grown up, a parent who continues to exert parental discipline after his children have become adults.
May 12, 19G6

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Any lesson that can be learned from history in this regard should have been learned as a result of our experience with our Indian populations. Our conduct toward these people up until recent times has reflected a paternalism of the worst sort, and an attitude that the native people knew nothing while the people in Ottawa knew everything. We should, by the experiences we have had in our dealings with native Indian people, be learning that paternalism is not the answer, that paternalism only serves the ego of him who governs, and does not, except in an extremely limited way, serve the interests of the people who are governed.
The essence of our democratic structure is self-government. This is fundamental to the social, economic and political well-being and progress of any people. I do not think the expected report of Professor Carrothers will run counter to our basic concept of freedoms in this nation, and if it does it should be discarded. I know Professor Carrothers and have sat on a couple of boards with him in dealing with other matters, and as an individual I have come to appreciate and like him. I am sure that his report will underline and substantiate what we all know about the fundamental rights and freedoms of people, namely that these things are their business. Therefore I do not think that we should wait too expectantly for the report of Professor Carrothers except perhaps in so far as details are concerned.
The basics and fundamentals of our rights and freedoms are part of our development; they are part of our constitutional structure; they are part of our respect one person for another. These things cannot be pushed to one side by the report of any commission, and I do not think that in this instance they will be. Our objective must be self-government, as Lincoln put it, of, by and for the people-the people, here, being those in the Northwest Territories.
Under our constitution, almost 100 years old now, we developed the principle of different levels of government, one being federal and the other provincial; one equal with the other in so far as their exclusive right over jurisdiction was concerned. Out of this we have developed an admiration and respect for the rights of provinces to legislate in the fields exclusively set aside to them by the constitution. The provinces respect the exclusive jurisdictions carved out in the British
23033-322J
Northwest Territories Act North America Act and allocated to the federal parliament. Where there has been a desire to alter those exclusive jurisdictions or come to agreement about them, it has been done by mutual consent and an amendment to the constitution to alter the original provisions. This parliament did that not too long ago with respect to survivors' benefits. We did it some years ago with respect to unemployment insurance.
I submit that this division of jurisdiction and responsibility for political and economic rights and freedoms of people is ingrained so much as part of our constitutional and governmental structure that herein lies the answer to what should occur within the territories. A number of people in the territories who have looked at this matter seriously-I may be in error in coming to this conclusion-think that even though provincial status is their objective, perhaps to achieve it today or overnight would be premature and injurious in the long run. I understand that this view is taken because of the relatively small population, the vast distances between places and communities, the limited financial base of the area, part of which stems from the limited population and part from the heretofore failure to explore, develop and exploit the natural resources of the area.
If it is the considered opinion of all who know the situation intimately, particularly the people in the area affected, that the status of a province now would be premature and injurious, I suggest that the federal government should take the lead, without waiting for the report of Dean Carrothers, in the promotion of, let us call it a territorial-dominion constitutional conference. I believe that if representatives of the federal government and the territories were to sit down and go over the jurisdictional questions involved we might be able to delineate within our constitution an intermediate step between the situation that prevails now and the status of a province, an intermediate step which would provide self-government to the territories to the fullest possible degree and the removal or elimination of federal government involvement, at least in so far as political freedoms are concerned.
I think that such an amendment to the British North America Act could be accomplished without much difficulty. I toss these out as thoughts of my own and not as any firm proposition as to what should be the division of constitutional jurisdiction. But it
May 12, 1966

Northwest Territories Act would seem to me that one of the areas of exclusive jurisdiction in so far as the territories are concerned would be with regard to elections of council, elections of municipal governments and bodies contained therein, the determination of the right to vote and qualifications in this respect, within the bounds that there should not be any restrictions based upon race, colour or creed, which is an understood provision in the Canada Elections Act. This area of political freedom and the right of people to choose their own representatives should, I think, be one for the exclusive determination of the territories themselves, a (9:00 p.m.)
The machinery of elections and the like should be theirs, and not that of the federal government; because one of the bases of democracy is political freedom and the right of people to elect their own representatives to boards, agencies and governments which are going to legislate over them. There is another area that I think is pretty fundamental to the full development of the territories-again, this is only my own thought-and this is the basic question of the effective control of education, which is now a superimposed matter. I believe this might be a proper area for the exclusive jurisdiction of the territories to legislate curricula and the like, in so far as education is concerned, because, first, education is the basis of understanding and, second, because the jurisdictional right of education is enshrined within the purview of the provincial governments at the present time, and is likely to remain there. When the territories get to the stage of becoming a province this will be one of their prime responsibilities, in any event.
There is an interesting part here about the degree to which education should be developed, perhaps to an extent which we in Ottawa cannot comprehend or to an extent perhaps that the government cannot comprehend. One of the statements in the reference paper for the advisory commission on the development of government in the Northwest Territories states that language plays a key role in creating opportunities to realize potential. This refers to people in the territories. It also states that in the 1961 census it was revealed that out of a total Indian and Eskimo population of 13,233, only slightly more than 5,000, or a little more than one-third of the native Indian and Eskimo population of the territories, had a good


working knowledge of English. Conversely, almost two-thirds of the population did not have a good working knowledge of English. I submit that in this educational matter there must be the right of people in the Northwest Territories to determine the form which their education is going to take in order that people may be conversant one with the other. This may involve extensive courses, not exclusively of the English language or the French language, but extensive courses in the ability to understand the language the Aleutian people use, the Eskimos, and others, in order that the development of a basis for understanding and communication can come about as quickly as possible. I submit this is one of the several reasons why education might be one of the fundamental questions carved out for the exclusive jurisdiction of any territorial government.
Other matters such as health and welfare which are the basis of a full, happy and healthful life, are subjects which have for some years been neglected in the territories. For instance, the disease of tuberculosis is higher than anywhere else in Canada; infant mortality is higher; life expectancy is lower. The older people in the territories have more difficulty in finding employment and maintaining body and soul.
I believe these are matters which the government in the territories could probably administer to a far better extent than could an absentee landlord or an absentee government in Ottawa. I believe the matter of industry, employment and development of industry should rest in the hands of the territorial government, because this is the basis for social security. The statistics with respect to income in the territories, as indicated in the government document to which I referred earlier, are absolutely shocking by any standards. While we cannot feel emotionally about statistics, if we think in terms of these as related to people, we will come to some understanding of the difficulties confronting the people in the territories. The per capita personal cash income by ethnic groups in the Northwest Territories in 1963 with respect to Indians was a little more than $500 per year, in comparison to less than $500 per year for Eskimos. This document gives another designation which I do not like to an ethnic group. I will refrain from using the word because I think it should not be used in a publication of this sort. However, the document has a designation of "white".
May 12, 1966

The non-Indian and non-Eskimo population in the territories has a per capita personal cash income of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3,000, compared with approximately $500 for the people who are native to the area. This is a shocking statistical state of affairs and is brought about partly by the blind paternalism on this and former governments.
I am one of those who believe that even though Dean Carrothers will submit his report shortly, that in so far as preparing the basis of constitutional self-government in the territories is concerned, we have no right to wait except for possibly the mechanics of doing it. Let me repeat this, that I am as sure as I am standing here that Professor Carrothers is not going to bring in a report which will undermine our fundamental concept of our desire for self-government. If he does, then that report should be discarded at once because this is running completely counter to everything which is ingrained in us about political freedoms. To wait for the Carrothers report is merely an extension of the old game of delay and procrastination. We have been delaying, as I said earlier, procrastinating and engaging in paternalism with respect to our native people for more than 100 years, if we go back beyond confederation.
It is just within the last year or two that we are beginning to get a glimmer of understanding of the problems in the territories. We are beginning to understand the damage which has been done to our native Indian population and the damage which it is doing to our concept of democracy itself. We should learn by our errors of the past and discontinue the concept of paternalism with which the Indians of the territories are concerned. I believe steps should be taken immediately to arrange for a federal territorial conference to see if we cannot move quickly toward the question of self-government for the people of that area, based upon mutual desire on their part, and mutual respect and desire on our part to provide it. On this basis I would be happy to vote for an amendment to the necessary statute law in the House of Commons relating to the rights and freedoms of these people in the territories. As it is, I am reluctant to do so because I believe it is wrong for the government body persistently to make decisions about what freedom should be extended to that group which is being governed.
Northwest Territories Act
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Robert John (Bud) Orange: should like to open my remarks by complimenting the minister upon his introductory statement, particularly his reference to resource development in the Northwest Territories. I should like also to express my appreciation of the former ministers of northern affairs some of whom are still in the house and some of whom have left us. Each of these men, in his own way, has put aside political partisanship to give direction to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in order that northern Canada would grow in a way that those of us who live there would like to see it grow. I was more than happy with the remarks of the minister when he said he was hopeful that hon. members of this house might have an opportunity to visit the north. He suggested that there was a right time of the year to do this. I suggest the best time would be in the months of January and February, when one sees the north as it really is.
Many of our northern people were excited when the minister predicted that possibly there would be a further extension of the railroad into southern Mackenzie. Transportation is our key for development. I know he was making a prediction in this connection, but those of us who live there are looking forward to this day.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Regardless of our positions in the house, I think both of us, in our own way, have a deep interest in the affairs of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I have the affection for the hon. member for Yukon because in 1961, as a result of his presentation in this house, the franchise was extended to the people of the eastern and central Arctic. It was in this area that on November 8 we obtained our majority. I am confident that tonight, as the member for the Northwest Territories, I speak on behalf of the people of that area who welcome the basic principle contained in this bill, that is the extension of the territorial franchise to the people who live there. This will give persons in the central and eastern Arctic an opportunity of expressing their views on territorial matters.
This bill will give to the Eskimo people and the people whom, with deference to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), we in the north call the people from the outside, a chance to participate in the territorial gov-
5088	COMMONS
Northwest Territories Act ernment, a chance to express their views on those matters which are territorial in nature. At the present time the council of the Northwest Territories consists of nine members, together with a Commissioner. The Commissioner is appointed and sits with the council during its deliberations. We have heard during the earlier discussions that five of these members are appointed by the government of Canada. One member is the deputy commissioner who acts in every respect in the absence of the Commissioner.
It is only in recent years, Mr. Speaker, that there have been elected representatives on the Northwest Territories council. The first elected representative sat in 1952. In 1954 the number of elected representatives on the council was increased from one to four. This is how we know the council today. The proposal before us now is to add three additional elected representatives from the constituencies comprising the central Arctic, Keewatin and Franklin. It may be argued that this will give the elected representatives a majority on the council and thus greater control over their own affairs.
During the course of the evening we have heard discussion regarding the appointed members of the Northwest Territories council. Putting other considerations aside for one moment, I think I should mention the contribution which has been made to northern Canada by persons who have been appointed to the territorial council by the various governments of Canada. I could refer to our present Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), who at one time was an appointed member of council. I could refer to the publisher of the Ottawa Journal. These people have served on the council at their own expense. They were not paid an honorarium, but were paid their expenses. They have served, at times at great inconvenience to themselves, and on all occasions have exhibited a deep and abiding concern for the people and the resources of the north. I think I would be wrong if I did not mention the contribution the appointed members have made to the growth of the Northwest Territories.
The north is changing, and changing rapidly, with the increase in communications systems and the tremendous resource development which has taken place. As a result of the government's development program, the northern residents have been offered the same opportunity for education, health, welfare and economic development that their

DEBATES	May 12, 1966
cousins in southern Canada have. There is a genuine desire in the north on the part of the people to have a greater expression in the management of their own affairs. The northern people want and demand more political autonomy. They want to have greater participation in their own government, more say in the determination of local territorial policy. To this end, I believe the advisory commission on government in the north, better known as the Carrothers commission which during the past year has asked northerners their views on the type of government they believe they could have, will be presenting its report. I was a little concerned this evening when I heard some reference to the fact the Carrothers commission may not adequately represent the views of the people of the north when that report is presented to the government.
I have a great deal of faith in the ability and integrity of the people who were appointed to this commission. I believe, as a result of watching from a distance, the kind of interest and concern that they have shown in the Northwest Territories, the members of this commission will present to the government the consolidated views of the people of the Northwest Territories. It may be that as a result of their deliberations amongst themselves, they will not properly present those views. However, I have confidence in the people of the north to express themselves if and when the Carrothers Commission does not do an adequate job. It is for this reason, so far as the Northwest Territories Act is concerned, I think we must look to the amendments before us as housekeeping amendments. The only exception is the proposal to extend the territorial franchise to the eastern Arctic.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It is because this measure is intended to give the only group of people in North America who do not have the right of selfgovernment, a vote in an election, provincial, federal or state, that I would hope the members of this house would accept the bill with the greatest possible dispatch. I say this because the life of the present Northwest Territories council expires in March, 1967. Between now and that time, there will be a minimum of two council sessions. I hope that as a result of these amendments by-elections will be held at the earliest possible date, thus permitting representatives from the eastern Arctic to sit on the council for the balance of
May 12, 1966

the present sessions, and thereafter in perpetuity. As soon as assent is given to the bill the commissioner of the Northwest Territo-riel will be empowered to call by-elections in time for the newly-elected members to join their colleagues for the coming session of the council this summer.
There are two sections of the bill which cause me some concern and which I believe have been referred to previously by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). However, I should like to state my own feelings in this regard.
The first matter of concern to me relates to the principle involved in section 12 of the act, which will increase the present indemnities paid to the elected members of the Northwest Territories council from $2,000 per year to $5,000. This also includes a $1,000 tax exemption. Incidentally, this section also provides for the first time an indemnity to appointed members of the council at the rate of $3,500 per annum.
There is no doubt in my mind that it is essential that the indemnities now paid to the elected representatives be increased. This will give the elected members the opportunity to spend more time with their constituents. Those of us who know southern Canada find it hard to realize the time, distance and expense involved, even with a small constituency in the north, for an elected member from the Northwest Territories to travel to his constituency to meet the people he represents. If the Northwest Territories council is truly to express the views of the people of the north and to take over increased responsibility in the management of their own affairs, I think that in this section there is an opportunity for the government of Canada to give the council greater authority by allowing it to establish its own indemnities. As the hon. member for Yukon mentioned a moment ago, if the people of the north are not satisfied with the rates of pay which the councillors establish for themselves, they will express themselves properly at the ballot box at the next election.
A second area of even greater concern to me is the proposed amendment to section 19A of the act, which in effect states that only the Commissioner may introduce money bills in the council. As I said earlier, the Commissioner is an appointed person; he is appointed by the governor in council and, in effect, is a civil servant. The principle being proposed in this amendment is consistent with the responsibilities of the executive in both the
Northwest Territories Act federal and provincial governments throughout Canada. However, I suggest that the situation of the Northwest Territories is somewhat different.
As the executive arm of government is represented by the commissioner, it is possible that the situation might arise-though I do not anticipate it-where members of the council who are anxious to see a particular matter brought into legislation-primarily a money matter-would not be able to do so because the Commissioner took an adamant position. In theory the Commissioner can refuse to introduce the necessary measures to the council which meet with the wishes of the elected representatives.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the amendment to section 19A provides for the establishment of a Northwest Territories consolidated revenue fund. Up to the present time those revenues which are solely territorial in nature have been kept in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada and are only released to the Commissioner and the council through the written authority of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner and the council will have control over revenues which are territorial in nature.


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


Robert John (Bud) Orange: When I have concluded. On the one hand, we see what appears to be a backward step by giving the Commissioner exclusive control over the introduction of money bills in the council; on the other hand, the Commissioner and the council have more direct control over their own financial resources.
I have been told that, in the first instance, this section was not previously included in the Northwest Territories Act because of an oversight. I accept this explanation up to a point. I should like to think that the minister will look into this contentious section once again and determine, in the light of the recommendations of the Carrothers commission, what means might be developed whereby councillors will have a greater say in the introduction of money bills in the council.
The situation in the Yukon territory is somewhat different. In the Yukon territory there is a financial advisory committee who meet with the commissioner, and comes to Ottawa from time to time to meet with the minister to determine the budget of the
May 12, 1966

Northwest Territories Act Yukon territory. Possibly this is the answer, or part of the answer, to the problem which I think the territorial council in the Northwest Territories is facing.
Those of us who call northern Canada home acknowledge the contribution to the development of our area made by successive governments of Canada. We have seen the growth of our educational system which, in the space of a decade, has increased enrolment in schools from 15 to 20 per cent to 85 per cent at the present time; and within a few years this enrolment should reach the maximum of 100 per cent. We are proud of the fact that a student can enter primary grades and continue his education through lower school, high school and college at no great financial sacrifice to his parents. Through our education program it is possible for our youngsters whose parents still live in the traditional way to receive a complete education and to take their place in Canadian society.
The education program of the north is a good program, but like all good programs it has its limitations. Northerners are concerned sometimes by the direction the program may be taking. We wonder whether the program itself is training people to meet the responsibilities of a developing northern economy. I should like to think that within a very short time the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, through the officials of his department, might consider, our resources lying, as the minister himself said, not on top of the ground but beneath the ground and whether our education program should be designed to train our young people to participate in the mining and oil industries. I hope that the minister might consider the establishment of a school of mines in the north which would not only train our young people to take their place in the northern economy, but to take their place particularly within the mining industry.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments which are before the house in my opinion, and I suggest in the opinion of many people, can only be considered as housekeeping amendments. Perhaps there are one or two contentious issues here. However, in the interest of expediting the enactment of legislation which will permit the granting of the franchise to the only residents of Canada who do not have it at the present time, I hope that this bill can pass the house very quickly.

I also hope that members such as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who expressed a very great interest in the north and the desire to visit northern Canada, will have the opportunity of presenting their views to the Carrothers commission. I commend the hon. member for his interest in northern Canada, and I hope that this interest will permeate throughout the entire house so that Canadians generally will become involved and concerned with northern Canada, which in the opinion of many of us is the place where Canada will make its true mark in the world.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member permit a question, after his very excellent speech. I may have misheard him, but I do not think so. Does he not agree, under the act as it exists now, that the Commisisoner in council has the absolute authority to legislate with respect to fiscal matters, but that in the proposed change he may not so legislate except when the appointee of the government of Canada introduces a money matter to council?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: No.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member will not agree with that.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: No.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is
always refreshing, Mr. Speaker, to hear the representatives for the vast area north of the sixtieth parallel in debate in this house. As the previous speaker has just indicated, regardless of party they bring a refreshing atmosphere, a refreshing candor to the house, which is a style that is peculiar to northern representatives. I would agree with the present member for the Northwest Territories that that has been demonstrated here over the years. Mr. Hardie, when he was a member, radiated that particular essence of the northerner. He was succeeded by his wife for a short period, who carried out the work of her husband. More recently we have had that genuine northerner, Mr. Rheaume, in the house. I call him genuine, without prejudice. He grew up in northern Manitoba. Even though I myself am a Manitoban, when I say that in many respects Manitoba has pioneered northern development, I think I shall be understood by hon. members to be speaking without prejudice. Mr. Rheaume had the
May 12, 1966

advantage of an excellent preparatory background, for his service to the north. Also speaking tonight have been the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and the present hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange).
I enter this debate, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons. This happens to be an historic day in northern development. Ninety six years ago today, Mr. Speaker, the great leap forward in northern development took place when the province of Manitoba became the first province to be formed out of the huge western territory that was known generally as the Northwest Territories. Great celebrations are taking place in Manitoba today to mark that occasion. There are observances in every school. You may be sure that the young people of Manitoba will be made completely aware of the fact that development in Canada, ever since the earliest days, has been in constant progression outward into the Northwest Territories.
I speak also, Mr. Speaker, as a former minister of the crown responsible for northern development. I agree with my successor, the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, that there have been recent developments in the Northwest Territories, as well as in the Yukon territory, that are greater than could have been anticipated when the new outward thrust got under way in this country, some ten years ago.
It is a rather sad commentary on our record as a pioneering nation to recall that following the establishment of the province of Manitoba in 1870, there was no further development towards provincial status for the Northwest Territories until 1905. In that year the province of Saskatchewan and Alberta joined confederation, with complete autonomy. Looking back at the history of that period, we find that the famous debate on the autonomy bill took some four years, before finally being approved by the house in 1905. I do not think the present bill is going to be before the house for that long period of time.
Actually, as the hon. member for the Northwest Territories was intimated, this is a housekeeping bill and it does very little to advance the march toward autonomy and provincial status that has been the subject of discussion, both within the territories and outside, to an increasing extent during the past few years.
5091
Northwest Territories Act
I am afraid that the rate of political development has not kept pace with the rate of economic development that was referred to by the minister. He referred to the Pine Point railway project which, of course, is exhibit A so far as the territories are concerned. This parliament approved of that measure, not necessarily with unanimity, as I recall, only five years ago. The colleagues of the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources looked at the economic potential of the Pine Point railway development with what might be called a jaundiced eye.
That railway is the great communications link which has made possible the remarkable economic development in the lower Great Slave lake area during the past two years. Communications are basic to economic development. It is for this reason that the government to which I belonged proposed, as a major plank in its northern development program, filling in the gaps in our communications system as quickly as possible.
It is only six or seven years ago that the present Prime Minister referred to this upsurge in communications and to this enthusiasm for communications as a case of jumping from igloo to igloo. That attitude no longer prevails. The government has accepted the philosophy and the enthusiasm of the former Conservative administration for northern development.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
It is unfortunate that the political development has not kept pace with the recent economic development. A few years ago it was contemplated that by 1962, both the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories would be taking substantial and joint steps in the direction of greater autonomy. In fact it was hoped that the political evolution would bring both these areas close to provincial status by 1967.
I will not review the history. Other speakers have mentioned it tonight-the extension of the franchise, the desire to give greater autonomy in the legislative sense in these territories, the desire to remove the seat of government from Ottawa to the territories, as far as that part of the north is concerned. These were all a part of the grand strategy.
The hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) has himself referred to the vociferous demand from northerners themselves for increasing control of their own affairs, and it is unfortunate we were not able to proceed to a greater extent toward
May 12, 1966

Northwest Territories Act the realization of these objectives. Unhappily there has been hesitation during the past few years.
We had some bills before this house, in 1964 I think it was, which contemplated political progress in the territories. At that time the government hoped to proceed to a division of the territories into two separate political entities. It is significant that the government and parliament did not proceed at that time because those bills were referred to the Standing Committee on Northern Affairs and National Resources, and as a result of the discussion it was discovered that the sentiments of the government and of parliament were out of tune with the desires of the representatives of the territories. I found that our discussions in the parliamentary committee were most enlightening. We were able to meet face to face with the actual spokesmen from the north, most of them showing the same colourful characteristics as are demonstrated by northern spokesmen in this chamber. It is significant that while the Northwest Territories council itself had recommended this particular solution to the problem of political development in the north, the spokesmen from the north disputed the recommendations of the council. This of course arose from the fact that the dominating influence on the council at that time lay with the appointed representatives rather than with the elected representatives.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Does the hon. gentleman not recall the vote on the part of the elected members regarding the splitting of the territories at the council session in Cape Dorset in 1962, when a decision was made on this matter?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is exactly what I am saying. The recommendation came out of the Northwest Territories council and, as I thought I was intimating, it was only when that recommendation was brought before a parliamentary committee, and we heard from the spokesmen of the north, that we found the recommendations of the Northwest Territories council to be inconsonant with those of the spokesmen of the people of the north. I thought I was making that point.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: One question. My recollection is that spokesmen for the north, on the recommendation of the sitting member for the Northwest Territories, put forward their

views, and that if the sitting had been continued there would have been other spokesmen from the north expressing different views. I am not arguing now the merits of the case for the division of the territories.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Nor am I. I am making the point that the council at that time seemed to be not altogether representative of the genuine feelings of the north and I am suggesting that this would be because the elected representatives were not the predominant influence on the council.
It is for this reason that I heartily endorse the sentiments of my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who has suggested that the time has come to make the Northwest Territories council entirely elective. I think the time is past due. The north has moved forward much more quickly than anyone-


Robert John (Bud) Orange: You had the chance.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for the Northwest Territories says I had the chance. Well, we were moving in this direction in 1963 but for the past three years there has been no progress in this regard. I must say I have not had the chance for the past three years-almost four years.
I must observe that this non-partisan atmosphere has certainly degenerated recently. I am not defending anything here. I repeat: We have difficulty in this House of Commons in getting the pulse of the north and, in case the hon. member for the Northwest Territories still misunderstands, my point is that the progress of economic development there has been much greater than could have been anticipated and, unfortunately, it has left us behind in our political development.
I can quote the hon. member directly in this regard. He himself says that this is nothing but a housekeeping bill which does nothing to respond to the great desire of northerners for more autonomy and a greater degree of self government. A commission has been appointed to look into the question of autonomy and self-government in the north. My hon. friend from Yukon has already dealt with the subject. The commission is to report in September and nothing will happen in terms of granting greater self-government until this government takes action. It is therefore not making a direct contribution toward the solution of the problem we have all recognized here tonight.
I am making these preliminary remarks because I feel it would be in the best interests of political development in the north if
May 12, 19GS

this bill could be brought before the parliamentary committee, which is meeting at the present time. The experience which was ours in dealing with the bill on the division of the territories is a salutary one in this regard. As a result of meeting face to face with the spokesmen of the territories the government changed its mind completely on the matter.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) has indicated that it is imperative that we proceed to give the territorial vote to the people in the eastern Arctic. They were given the federal vote in 1962 when we were in power, and we intended to give them the territorial vote as quickly as possible. I agree that it is imperative that they be given the territorial vote. An anomaly has existed for the past three or four years which should have been rectified before this.
I also agree that the indemnity situation should have been resolved. If discussion in the parliamentary committee will hold up progress in this regard, then I say by all means let us proceed. However, I hope this is not going to be an excuse for not giving a better response to the obvious demand for greater autonomy. When the Carrothers commission report is presented in September, I suggest that it be immediately referred to the standing Committee on Northern Affairs and National Resources so that we may draft the legislation that is urgently required.
I hope we can still make the target date of 1967 for the great step forward in progression toward more autonomy in the northwest. Vigorous action and leadership will be required on the part of the government, but judging from this discussion tonight everyone has the same aim. Personally, however, I feel that referring this bill to the committee could provide a framework within which the matter could be handled more expeditiously, because I fear a long period of delay after the Carrothers commission report is received. My recommendation is that the committee on northern affairs be given a chance to hear from the spokesmen for the north, and I would endorse the suggestion that has come from several sources that we ourselves set foot in the north. Further, I would agree the colder the better, because that is what gives the spokesmen from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon that peculiar, refreshing flavour in this house, with more of which we could all do.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-Council.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock as there will be further discussion on this.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we propose continuing with the two bills standing in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs, the bill concerning the Northwest Territories through committee stage, and third reading if it is agreeable to the house, and the bill to amend the Yukon Act through second reading and committee stage. We shall then take the Forestry estimates, the Labour estimates, the Post Office estimates, and after that the estimates of the Department of Industry.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) or his parliamentary secretary, because demagogic and unfounded accusations-I repeal demagogic and unfounded-were made against the government by an hon. member of this house and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that tonight's rebuttal of the allegations made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) will receive the same coverage in the press a* the accusing member got.
What is the complaint about? That people of Liberal allegiance were given the respon sibility of the next national census, to begin next June 1. I do not know of any officially accepted definition of patronage but, without being a professional linguist or a lexicologist, I think, from experience of our electoral ways, that there is patronage when competence makes way to partisanship or political allegiances. If a government is lucky enough
May 12. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to get both the competence and the necessary-ability to do the work, then I think there is no patronage.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
However, I wish to make it clear that I am not as competent as the hon. member for Lapointe, whose absence I regret, to define patronage, because I think that as the close friend of Joseph D. Begin, he has more experience in that field.
However, if such an attack from the hon. member for Lapointe is valid, Mr. Speaker, it would be necessary to criticize the whole of our judicial institutions whose members often are former active members of this or that political party.
Then, each time a government appoints a judge, it would be necessary to talk of patronage because, quite by chance, the judge appointed to a superior court, even to the Supreme Court of Canada, is of such a political allegiance. It would be necessary to ask the government to explain its stand; it would even be necessary to ask the judge to resign because he seriously engaged in politics. That is stupid, illogical, to quote the very words the hon. member for Lapointe used when he deplored a situation in the house, namely that scandal mongering was always popular. He was the first to raise a scandal and he was the first a while ago to deplore that the House of Commons has reached such a point that nothing is discussed here but scandals.
Mr. Speaker, one often sees the straw in one's neighbour's eye but fails to see the beam in one's own. I say that there was no patronage in the appointment of the commissioners because all those who were appointed-the parliamentary secretary will answer me- passed examinations.
They took the required examinations. They took the tests provided for at the time. If the officials accepted them as being sufficiently competent and sufficiently qualified to fill the post of commissioner, there is no patronage.
There were even cases of people who had been recommended and who were turned down because, according to the tests, they did not have the necessary qualifications. That happened in my own riding and I would like, incidentally, to pay a special tribute to the census takers which have been appointed; they are people of extraordinary devotion and competence, of unusual ability in the riding of Lotbiniere and I am convinced, they will do a wonderful job, truly efficient and worthy of the position they hold.

Under such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, there is no patronage. Finally, I would like to make an appeal for a stop to efforts aimed at discrediting politicians needlessly. Every time a member makes a suggestion, it becomes subject to suspicion, Mr. Speaker; because a politician suggests a name, it is naturally suspect.
There is always something suspicious about it, always something crooked about it, always something dishonest about it. That is how the prestige of politicians is destroyed, how the prestige of parliament is destroyed.
Because a member of parliament makes a suggestion, it does not mean that the idea is necessarily and fundamentally wrong. In the mind of the member for Lapointe, because ministers have made suggestions for the appointment of census commissioners, we must be wary of those suggestions.
This is the best way to discredit politicians. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I must say that, at times, I feel that if we persist in this,-I hate to use the word "patronage" because in this case we are not dealing with patronage- instead of political patronage we are heading for bureaucratic patronage. Often this type of patronage, and union patronage is far more suspect than that practised by the members who, at times, are entitled to show some gratitude toward people who have fought the good fight, provided that gratitude is not at variance with the fulfilment of one's duty, provided it is not at variance with the competence required in the performance of one's duties.
I therefore ask the parliamentary secretary, although I have almost answered the question myself: have the commissioners appointed to take the census scheduled to start on June 1 next passed any tests? Are there among them people who did not get the position because they failed the test? And finally, did the minister intervene personally to secure appointments for unqualified persons, when the director of the D.B.S. had made such and such recommendation?
Yet, Mr. Speaker, under section of the act pertaining to the D.B.S., the minister has full jurisdiction to make all the appointments he wants. The minister has absolute jurisdiction, under the act, to appoint whomever he wants.
I do not see how there can be any question of patronage. I suggest once again that the false charges made by the former friend of Joseph
D.	Begin are demagogic and unfounded.
May 12, 1966


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he will permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that-


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I just want to ask the hon. member about the questions to be debated-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I must remind the hon. member that at this time an hon. member is allowed to present his question and the minister or his representative is allowed to reply; therefore no question can be put.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the ardour of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) always reminds me of a definition of General de Gaulle who said that politics is a great quarrel. I hope this quarrel will be kept on a high plane.
The appointment of the commissioners and the procedure for such appointment is laid down in section 5, subsection 1 of the Statistics Act which provides that it is the minister's duty to appoint the commissioners. This is how they are selected: suggestions are made in each district and names are submitted to officials of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The Bureau has a competent staff; there are specialists, examiners who examine every candidate and when a report is made to the minister that a candidate has successfully passed the examination, the appointment is then made by the minister.
I should like to emphasize that such appointments are made in accordance with the Act and according to the candidate's competence.
On the other hand, if the procedure provided by the Act were different, I am quite confident that all members are convinced that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) would have adhered to the procedure provided by the law, as he has done in the present circumstances.

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE___________POS-



SIBLE REMOVAL OF WORD &quot;MOUNTED&quot; FROM TITLE

Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late and I shall be very
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion brief, but I do wish to take advantage of the time of the house to establish the origin of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I want to talk especially about the word "mounted" in that name, and point out to the house that Macleod, the constituency which I represent, has the distinction of being the place in Alberta in which the Northwest Mounted Police force was established. I wish to place on the record the history and development of the force and register strong objection to any change in its name, regardless of the fact that since that time the horse is being replaced by the motorcar.
The Northwest Mounted Police force was established in 1874. Shortly after that date it was placed under the direction of Commissioner Colonel Macleod. In 1904 the word
Royal" was added by His Majesty King Edward VII and the force became known as the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. The function of the Northwest Mounted Police when they set up headquarters at Fort Macleod, Alberta, and built a fort there-this was in the early days, 1874-was to clean up the illicit whisky trade being conducted among the Indians. The Blackfoot treaty was established in 1877. In addition to cleaning up the illicit whisky trade, the force wanted to catch the horse thieves in the area. The town of Fort Macleod, the constituency I represent, was named after Colonel Macleod. John Herron was elected its first representative in 1908.
For many, many years the Royal Northwest Mounted Police wore the scarlet uniform. That uniform was respected, and is respected today, in all parts of Canada. I wish to pay tribute to this force and say it is one of the best organized police forces in the world. Its symbol of authority was the scarlet uniform.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
At Fort Macleod today they have erected a museum to which the government of Canada has contributed $25,000. I would like to see this government give consideration to having a detachment of Royal Northwest Mounted Police stationed at Fort Macleod during the tourist season to lend to the occasion a sense of colour and dignity.
I am told that at Waterton Lake it is optional with the R.C.M.P. whether they wear the scarlet uniform or not. I share the opinion with people of my constituency, and others who visit Waterton Lake, that we would like to see the scarlet uniform not optional but compulsory. The tourists who
5096	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion come there immediately want to know, "Where can I see someone in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with a scarlet uniform?" We see them dressed in this fashion in the national capital in the summertime. Why can they not do the same at Fort Macleod and at Waterton Lake? So I pass this suggestion on to the government because the people in my constituency are asking for it and it would not cost anything. This would lend dignity and prestige to the force.
In 1919 the Dominion of Canada took the name "Northwest" out of the name and substituted the word "Canadian", making it the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which is now the name of the force today. Let me say that regardless of what may happen to the use of horses, the removal of the word "mounted" would be very much opposed in the riding of Macleod. I am sure people throughout Canada would be opposed to any move on the part of the government or anyone else to remove that word "mounted" from the name Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
So I wanted to avail myself of this opportunity to speak on behalf of my people, the
DEBATES	May 12, 1966
constituents of Fort Macleod, who have a pride in that name and who in turn are, above all, anxious to see that the word "mounted" remains in the title of the name we now have for the force once known as the Royal Northwest Mounted Police.
Let me say in closing that there are plenty of ways that you can explain the word "mounted". They may be mounted on a motorcycle, they may be mounted on some other kind of vehicle. So there is no particular need for any change to be made in the name "Royal Canadian Mounted Police". I want to stress that point, simply because it was in my riding at Fort Macleod where all of this had its origin, and I wish to bring it to the attention of the Solicitor General.


Lawrence T. Pennell: hope the hon. member will allow me to congratulate him both upon the spirit and the letter of his remarks. I can assure him that no consideration is being given to changing the name of this great enforcement agency.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Friday, May 13, 1966