1959-02-24

WATER RESOURCES


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have told the house that the government was giving careful consideration to the implications of Bill H.R.l and other draft legislation being considered at the present time by the United States congress for the purpose of diverting 1,000 cubic feet of water per second from lake Michigan into the Illinois river at Chicago.
As I informed the hoiise on February 17, in answer to a question, the government had decided to express to the government of the United States a protest against such proposals for additional diversion of water, which would have a serious effect on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river. Last Friday afternoon I handed to the minister of the United States embassy an aide memoire containing the objection of the Canadian government to those legislative proposals.
By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the text of the Canadian aide memoire and the text of the United States aide memoire referred to therein be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons debates of today.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister consent that these two documents be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of documents referred to above see appendix to today's proceedings].



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of fhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the recent and very welcome agreement that has been reached in London concerning Cyprus, there have been any discussions between the United Kingdom and the Canadian governments with respect to
the possible association of the new republic of Cyprus with the commonwealth of nations?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Leader of the Opposition in his words of approbation of the successful conclusion of the discussions with regard to Cyprus. He has raised the matter as to whether or not Cyprus might become a member of the commonwealth. Hon. members will have noticed that this matter was referred to in the United Kingdom House of Commons, and that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom stated that the matter of Cyprus remaining in some form of association with the commonwealth had been raised. He said that if in due course Cyprus declares that it desires to remain associated with the commonwealth, it will be for the existing members of the commonwealth to consult together as to how that desire might be most appropriately satisfied.
Until more is known about the wishes of the people of Cyprus, other than the expression of appreciation at the conclusion of the talks and the settlement of the difficulties that have torn that tormented area for the last couple of years, any further comment at this time would be speculative and therefore might be unhelpful. No consultation has occurred as yet.



A. V. ROE COMPANY INQUIRY AS TO MEETING BETWEEN CABINET AND COMPANY OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his statement last night, can the Prime Minister say whether the proposed meeting between himself and two of the members of his cabinet with officials of A. V. Roe has now been held or will be held later this day? Can the Prime Minister say whether the company has brought forward an alternative proposal to provide work for the employees to whom the Prime Minister referred?


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members know, of course, that this morning representatives of Avro, the president, Mr. Crawford Gordon, and one of the vice-presidents, Mr. Fred Smye, met with various ministers and myself. The

Inquiries of the Ministry ministers who met together with those representatives of the company were the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). A general outline of the question of any alternatives the company representatives might be able to place before the cabinet for consideration was as far as we went at the time. The two representatives of the company left my office in order to go into fuller details with the other ministers already alluded to.
I think I can go no further than to say that the discussions have been exploratory. The company has been asked to submit its alternatives. Discussions will continue later today. Further than that I cannot go at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I have a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give the house any information whether the employees involved are being brought back for any temporary cleaning up work, or any other kind of employment that is of a short term nature, in addition to the discussion of employment on a longer basis?


John George Diefenbaker: I understand that there are 2,000 so engaged at the present time. I might add to what I have already said that representatives of the international union of machinists will meet with me tomorrow morning-I am not sure what other ministers will be present-with a view to bringing their representations to the attention of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not feel that it would have been better if these discussions with the officers of the company had taken place before the statement of last Friday?


Mr. Benidickson:: A month ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought we covered that situation last evening.



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION TO RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexander Best (Halton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister tell this house what steps are being taken by his department to study and aid in the solution of the unemployment situation caused by the dismissal of the staffs of A. V. Roe at Malton?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, and because of the requests made by the hon. members for Peel, York West and York Humber who are also interested in this matter, I want to say that every possibility is being canvassed to place as many as possible of those laid off at A. V. Roe as quickly as possible. There are indications already that a substantial number will find alternative employment almost immediately. There are openings being advertised today in the Toronto area for clerical and technical help. My officials have been in touch with the officials of the unions involved, who are doing everything possible to place their people.
In so far as the highly trained and skilled engineering personnel are concerned, it is not anticipated that there will be any serious difficulty. I can assure the house that the unemployment insurance commission is doing everything possible. Yesterday 50 officers of the commission were ordered to proceed to A. V. Roe and Orenda. By this morning approximately 2,000 claims had been taken. Our officers will remain on the spot today and tomorrow. At the same time, regional headquarters of the commission in Toronto is contacting employers across Canada. We are listing all these employees, with their qualifications and experience, and we are making these listings available to employers.
In one word, Mr. Speaker, the full resources of my department and of the unemployment insurance commission are being made available to meet this particular problem.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a
supplementary question. I wonder if the minister can inform the house how he is able to hold out such good hope for the early employment of these people at a time when he has been unsuccessful in providing employment for half a million people?


Michael Starr: By emphasizing the placement service in the unemployment insurance commission we have, in the month of December, placed the largest number of people since 1952, and in the month of January our record is the highest since 1954. We are attempting to bring about a greater effort on behalf of those who are unemployed, and the result is that our figures are much less now than they would have been if that effort had not been made.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the statement by the minister, can he say why his department has failed so miserably to find employment-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -for the half million Canadians who are now unemployed?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows a statement of that kind is not admissible in the question period.



INQUIRY AS TO CONFERENCE WITH ONTARIO GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether in view of the statement of Premier Frost of Friday last and of yesterday in the Ontario legislature, he can tell the house whether or not the government of Canada intends, as Premier Frost suggested, to hold a conference with the province of Ontario in order to find effective means of providing the maximum amount of work for those who have been unemployed as a result of the decision taken by the government last Friday?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this government is prepared at any time to meet with any government or agency whereby there would be the opportunity of discussing the possibilities of providing employment. I am sure that the effort Mr. Frost is putting forth now will bear fruit and is in the best interests of all the people involved.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister, who perhaps did not fully comprehend the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -whether the government intends to confer with Premier Frost on this matter?


Michael Starr: I think I made my statement clear, Mr. Speaker, in what I said, namely that this government is prepared to meet at any time with any government.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works with respect to the situation at Avro. Has the government given consideration to the attitude to be taken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with regard to employees who, because of the government's decision to cancel the Arrow contract, are unable to maintain payments on houses mortgaged to the corporation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the practice of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been to deal with each individual case on its merits. That course will be followed in this present instance. I think the hon. member will agree with me that the attitude of the corporation throughout has been extremely fair.
(Translation):



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). Will the question pertaining to the racial origin of Canadians be included in the census forms for the 1961 decennial census?
(Text):


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question respecting ethnic origin of Canadians for the census of 1961. There will be a question asked in that census return, just as in 1951, expressed in the words, "what is your origin", which means what is your ethnic descent? To that question people may reply, and these replies will be acceptable, Canadian, English, French, etc. There will also be another question asked as to country of citizenship, to which for over 90 per cent of those queried the reply will likely be "Canada".


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I did not give him notice, so he can take this as notice if he wishes. Will the government give consideration to a discussion of seaway tolls in the house before they are imposed?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and all hon. members are quite at liberty to express their opinions in the house on seaway tolls at any time during the appropriate debates. The hon. member could have expressed his opinion in any way he wished during the debate on the speech from the throne. If he also wishes to express his opinion and that of those whom he represents in parliament to me, as he has done on numerous occasions

Inquiries of the Ministry when he has accompanied various delegations to Ottawa which I have met, I will be very glad to listen to those representations.


William Hector McMillan: May I ask a supplementary question. If the Welland canal were made toll free, has the minister any reason to think the United States would object?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the condition precedent makes this a hypothetical question.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will the minister advise if his department contemplates the early establishment of a national historic park in Prince Edward Island at the site of Fort Amherst, in the area of the ancient island capital, Port La Joie?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The establishment of a national historic park on the site of Fort Amherst in Prince Edward Island has been considered by the historic sites and monuments board of Canada, which advises me on matters of this nature.
It is the policy of the government with respect to the establishment of a national historic park to require that lands comprising the proposed historic park be made available by the province for transfer to the federal government free of charge and without condition or encumbrance. There have been informal consultations between the province and the federal government, but as yet no official offer has been made to the federal government by the province of Prince Edward Island with regard to the lands at Fort Amherst. Consequently I am not able to give any further word at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the Canadian government taken over operation of the D.E.W. line?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it has been explained a good many times in this house that R.C.A.F.

officers are replacing the officers of the United States air force at the control stations on the D.E.W. line. That process started on February 1, and senior officers on all the control stations are now R.C.A.F. personnel. The officers junior to them who will be replacing the junior officers of the United States air force will have completed the changeover by June 1.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question which I will direct perhaps to the Prime Minister, because the Minister of National Defence did not deal with the question. Is the Canadian government now operating the D.E.W. line?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this question has been dealt with over and over again, and the previous answers were sufficient to answer any questions asked today.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence concerning the D.E.W. line. Can the minister tell the house whether or not all United States personnel, technical and otherwise, on the D.E.W. line will be replaced by Canadians by April 1?


George Randolph Pearkes: The answer to that question is no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, arising out of my question to the Prime Minister regarding the operation of the D.E.W. line, to which he said an answer had been given previously in this house, may I ask the Prime Minister which answer to this question is correct; that given by the Minister of National Defence on February 18 to the effect that the line is being operated by a United States corporation controlled by the United States government, or the answer given last night in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister when he said it was being operated by the Canadian government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, even an examination of those two questions and the statement I made last night would indicate that sometimes administration and operation are regarded as synonymous. The answer given by the Minister of National Defence was entirely correct, and the expression I used last evening was a loose use of the words, synonymously speaking.



BOMAEC MISSILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of

the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister care to comment on the report in today's Montreal Gazette which states that a version of the Bomarc missile, which the R.C.A.F. hopes to procure, at its recent test firing in Florida took six and one-half hours to launch instead of the recommended two minutes? In view of this serious failure, does the minister still feel that the Bomarc is an effective defence weapon?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the minister dealt as fully as one could deal yesterday with that precise matter. I doubt that the hon. member expects that there would be a change overnight.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister received a copy of a resolution from l'association federee des fac-teurs and l'association des employes des pos-tes du Canada following a meeting held in Montreal on February 8 of this year? If the reply is in the affirmative, what was the nature of his reply?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say specifically whether I have received a resolution from the organization to which the hon. member has referred, since a number of these meetings by post office employees have taken place across Canada. However, a number of resolutions in the same tenor, primarily regarding their wages, with some reference to other conditions, have been referred to me by the associations. As the hon. member probably very well knows, I have acknowledged each of those, pointing out to them that these are matters which come, in the first instance, under the responsibility of the civil service commission. It is not possible for an individual minister to establish wages for his employees or to deal with the other factors which have been discussed at these meetings. Therefore, it is no responsibility of mine whatsoever in the first instance.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government given consideration to the abolition of the parliamentary device known as closure this session?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the government has given that matter consideration which merits it receiving the attention of parliament, it will be brought to the attention of the house.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister received a telegram from Mr. Harold Brooks, president of the St. Thomas and district labour council, complaining that the Allis Chalmers company has used United States citizens as strike breakers, and that these United States citizens have no visas issued for their employment in Canada and that no work permits have been issued to them by the local national employment office? Can the minister say what reply is being made to Mr. Brooks, who asks that the persons referred to be prosecuted and immediately deported?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a telegram this morning from Mr. Brooks, and I have replied to him to the effect that I have asked for a complete investigation of the matter by our local office in London.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister would make a report to the house of her findings at a later date?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, I will be very glad to as soon as I find out what the circumstances are.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of recent developments in the general area, and the well-known attitude of the government of Ontario because of the importance of the Moosonee harbour project to the future development of Canada and to northern Ontario in particular, can the minister now say if an agreement respecting this development has been reached with the government of Ontario? If not, would he comment on the progress of these negotiations?
1318	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I would think this is hardly a question for orders of the day. It is one for discussion on the estimates. The Department of Public Works is very much interested in essential harbour development, and that is the case at Moosonee. Our officials have made investigations there, but at the moment there is no agreement between the two governments concerning the development of this harbour.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice, notice was given to him a few days ago. Can the Minister of Justice indicate when we might expect the report of the restrictive trade practices commission into the production, purchase and sale of fish in the province of British Columbia?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. As I indicated to the hon. member when he made a similar inquiry last session, I am not able to say and will not be able to say until I receive a report, when it will be made public. I can say, however, that the director informs me that he expects to be in a position to transmit a statement of evidence to the restrictive trade practices commission within the next two months. The matter will then have to be argued before the commission before they make their report to me.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if the minister could tell us when his statement on civil defence will be given to the house.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I believe I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that I would make the statement as soon as it was prepared and available, and I still stand by that statement.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare when we may expect the Clark report, promised to the house about a year ago, again promised to us for delivery on February 9 and then, five days later, promised for delivery a few days subsequent to that period? Can the minister tell us whether this report is ready and when we may expect it?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the hon. member would like to know when the report will be tabled. I can assure him it will be tabled within a very few days. It has been completed and is being processed for distribution in my department.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works if it is true, as the press reports, that his department is proceeding with the demolition of the Hospice Saint Charles in Quebec city without having obtained a permit from the city authorities?


Howard Charles Green: I doubt that very much, Mr. Speaker, but I shall make inquiries. I believe the city of Quebec is very anxious to have the new building which is to go up on this property.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken by the national employment service to deal with the mass lay-offs of iron miners at Bell island?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a recent report on the situation, though I received one a few weeks ago. I am aware that all the facilities of my department through the unemployment insurance commission are being placed at the disposal of the employees who have been laid off.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has a branch of the St. John's office been opened on Bell island?


Michael Starr: I am not sure about that, Mr. Speaker, but I shall inquire and give the information to the hon. member.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES TO THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 20, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Green-Mr. Rea in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of all expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.
Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, at the adjournment of the debate on the trans-Canada highway resolution last Friday, I had spoken for only a few moments concerning how much a good trans-Canada highway would mean to the lakehead. I endeavoured to show that this question is of vital importance to the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur. With the development of a new harbour it will be necessary to have a four-lane highway from the lakehead to Winnipeg if we are going to obtain the full benefit of the expenditure of $5,500,000 on harbour installations recently announced by the Minister of Public Works.
We anticipate strong competition from the city of Duluth, Minnesota, where a reported one hundred million dollar harbour development is taking place to meet the demands of expected traffic because of the seaway. In addition to this development a four-lane highway from Duluth to Winnipeg is now being planned.
The present highway between the lakehead and Fort William is in such poor condition that it could never sustain the estimated volume of traffic ranging between 50 and 100 motor transports daily. The only solution is a four-lane highway between the lakehead and Winnipeg. At a recent meeting held in the city of Winnipeg and attended by cabinet ministers of the Manitoba and Ontario governments and the mayors and other officials of the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur, the Canadian lakehead port association was formed. At this meeting the necessity for the development of a four-lane trans-Canada highway between the lakehead and Winnipeg was discussed at great length, and I am informed that it was the unanimous opinion of the meeting that this is a must if we are to benefit from the proposed harbour terminal at the lakehead.
66968-9-84J
Trans-Canada Highway Act


The Chairman:: Order. I wonder if we might have a little more quiet in the committee. It is difficult to hear the hon. member for Fort William.


Hubert Badanai: I urge the government to give this highway priority over any other section of the trans-Canada highway. Because of the deplorable road conditions, many of our citizens are compelled to travel to Winnipeg via Duluth. A four-lane highway linking northwestern Ontario with Manitoba could not be anything but beneficial.
Northwestern Ontario should have been a part of Manitoba. It is a section of the province long neglected by the governments of Ontario. Indeed, our economic and industrial development would have been far more rapid had our part of the province been a part of Manitoba. The hopes and dreams of northwestern Ontario have been frustrated so often and for so long by remote governments, resulting in a neglect which has often sparked talk of secession from Ontario and the formation of a new province.
Perhaps a movement could very well be channelled toward a form of economic union, if not outright political union, with Manitoba, for the interests of northwestern Ontario are more closely related to those of the prairie provinces. The lakehead is the location of the storage and transshipping of most grains from western Canada.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is all very interesting but really the economic union of northwestern Ontario with Manitoba is not before the committee today.


Hubert Badanai: I am trying to show that
the lakehead is the location of the storage and transshipping of most grains from western Canada. The prairie provinces share more common interests with us than we do with our provincial government. They also recognize that the lakehead is the key to their communication system. That is the point. With this communication system is wrapped up the movement and import of goods from eastern Canada, and after the completion of the seaway goods will flow into the lakehead from all parts of the world. A goodly portion of these goods will be carried by motor transport to the western provinces.
In this connection, if I am permitted, I wish to quote a few paragraphs from an address recently delivered to the Fort William Rotary club by a former alderman of our city, Mr. Hubert Limbrick, which illustrates what I mean. This has to do with the trans-Canada highway, Mr. Chairman. I assure you I do not wish to read anything that has not to do with the communication

Trans-Canada Highway Act system of the lakehead with the province of Manitoba. Mr. Limbrick had this to say:
He recalled beginning of the movement in 1948 and said: "Our bargaining position has changed with the advent of the seaway. By taking advantage of the fact we would be better advised to join with Manitoba rather than create a new province as was originally planned."
Mr. Limbrick noted the prairie provinces had established with less known assets and less population than northwestern Ontario has now. In 1875 there were fewer people in Winnipeg than in Fort William.
Mr. Chairman, these are compelling reasons for advocating a four-lane highway from the lakehead to Winnipeg. In 1956 the original act was amended by the previous administration, increasing the extent of the federal government's contribution to the cost of the highway by providing for an additional 40 per cent contribution to the cost of construction, which meant an additional $100 million. Now in the light of present conditions we are following the same pattern, which I think is a good one. No doubt additional amendments providing for increased federal contributions will again become necessary in the future. During that debate the present Minister of Justice made the following observation, as recorded in Hansard for 1956, at page 2977:
At the present time we are not getting any action. We are not going to have a trans-Canada highway by 1960 as this resolution calls for because this government does not have a sensible, progressive, far-reaching trans-Canada highway policy.
We all realize that to construct a total of 4,600 miles, which is the estimated length of the highway, is no mean task especially along the rugged shores of lake Superior and through the Rockies of the west. It is a project of a magnitude which compares with the building of the pipe line. Credit is due to the former government for initiating the project, and credit is due now to the present government for assuming that responsibility, which is theirs, to proceed with not only the completion but the necessary improvements occasioned by changed conditions.
From a tourist point of view the importance of completing the highway along the north shore of lake Superior from the lakehead to the Sault cannot be ignored. I was pleased to hear the minister say that the gap between Marathon and the Sault is now under contract, and also to hear him describe the spectacular scenic beauty which tourists will enjoy when this portion of the highway is completed. Nothing would please the people of Thunder bay more, Mr. Chairman, than to have the Minister of Public Works officiate at a ribbon-cutting ceremony upon the completion of this lakeshore gap in the trans-Canada highway. He could then enjoy a drive around lake Superior, and I will be
[Mr. Badanai.l
pleased to furnish him with a car for the purpose. This stretch of the lakeshore highway will unfold a unique scenic splendour that will easily capture the imagination of thousands. It will bring tourist dollars to Canada that we would never see otherwise.
I submit that from a national point of view, Mr. Chairman, a first class trans-Canada highway is in the national interest today and is comparable to the building of our transcontinental railways in the last century.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I rise for a few minutes to support the purpose of this resolution, which is to make more funds available for the earlier completion of the trans-Canada highway. I appreciate the view the minister gave the committee on developments to date in the construction of the highway and the hopes he expressed for a completion of the same. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that no doubt the minister's mountainside activity, like my mountainside residence for many years, has given him a very keen appreciation of the value of highways and roads.
I notice he has been interested in this question for a good number of years. Even when he was in the opposition he used to make reference to the matter.
This resolution, Mr. Chairman, demonstrates the great changes which have occurred in our country in the last 50 or 60 years. As one thinks of changes on occasions like this one is inclined to think of years gone by and relate them to what is happening today, because many of our younger people fail to realize the rapid tempo of advance at the present time and the improvements we enjoy in many respects that were not enjoyed by the people who built this country in the early days.
I well remember, Mr. Chairman, that the first grant toward the road built in our district in the Arrow lakes, which the minister knows quite well, came from the McBride government and totalled $500 for the construction of six miles of highway, which was completed at that price. The road was 20 feet wide; stumps were chopped off close to the ground. The people were so grateful that they organized a special dinner for the cabinet minister responsible for public works at that time, the late Tom Taylor, if I remember correctly.
I also remember that years ago my father was a very vocal person so far as roads in my part of the country were concerned. The minister's father was extremely vocal in his part of the country. His chief hobby was the advocating of a road from Kaslo to Balfour. My father advocated a road from Nakusp to Nelson. In those days road construction was a very important part of our economy, for many people lived on occasional road work

or on bequests from the old country as a result of someone dying, and so on. But we made some progress, because all we had to do to make progress in respect of the building of roads was to join the Conservative association at a cost of $1, and then you got a job. The situation has entirely changed now both in respect of the holding of positions and of obtaining employment, and in the development of the road.


Hazen Robert Argue: Today, it's join the Conservative party and lose your job.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, it is quite correct to say that it is the opinion of the majority of the members of the house that the first objective is the completion of the present trans-Canada highway, and in any remarks I make I do not want to detract from that being my opinion as well. That is the first thing to do. I am a great believer in doing things one at a time and getting the job done. But I do think, with other members of this group, that the time has come, even before we complete the first trans-Canada highway, to consider a long range policy for the development of highways in Canada, including additional trans-Canada highways and north and south connecting links.
In this country we have very similar geographical and physical conditions to those existing in the United States, and our development is following very closely the pattern of the United States although it is some 50 or 60 years behind that country. Therefore I think we can refer appropriately to developments in the United States and learn from their experience. It is obvious that the experience of those persons in the United States, whether in the federal or state governments, who were interested in the development of the economy of that country indicated that a national highway system would not be built unless there was considerable financial assistance from the general government for east and west and north and south highways and other connecting links. I suggest again that our development is very similar, though some years later, and that the time is appropriate now for the government to consider the foundations for a national highway policy in Canada that springs from and is made possible by financial assistance from the federal government.
In that connection and in support of my argument I want to quote briefly what has been said in the past by two or three members of the present cabinet who were very keen about this question in those years. The first cabinet minister I wish to quote is the present Minister of Transport. I take great delight in reading what he said in the
Trans-Canada Highway Act past and relating it to his present policy. As found at page 2531 of Hansard for March 22, 1956, the minister had this to say in part during a similar debate on a resolution concerning an increase in the appropriation under the Trans-Canada Highway Act:
The program of this government falls short of what is necessary, and it is interesting to compare the situation in Canada with that in the United States where they have had a federal highway system and a federal highway program in being for some 50 years. That federal highway system and federal highway program have resulted in the development and construction, if my information is correct-this subject was sprung on us without notice, and it has not been possible to gather together all the information one might have available in his files-of at least ten main east and west roads and some 30 or 40 main north and south roads, a total of some 40 federal highways in the United States of America.
I find that I made a mistake; I was actually quoting the Minister of Justice. I want to correct the record.


Hazen Robert Argue: They did not know the difference.


George Harris Hees: It sounded good.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I come now to the Minister of Transport, who says the same thing in rather more concrete and fulsome terms, as found at page 2956 of Hansard for April 16, 1956:
The responsibility in this regard is undoubtedly a federal one.
He is referring to trans-Canada highways and also to a national system of highways.
So the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, must embark on a national highways program-
"Must", mind you.
-to ensure the construction of highways that are needed for the development of our natural resources and our tourist industry, and to make available defence installations in the localities we may have to defend in case of attack. A program of building north and south highways in conjunction with the provinces must be proceeded with immediately.
I want to support the Minister of Transport's remarks in that respect. I believe this highway system should be undertaken and proceeded with. I think that policy should be adopted and proceeded with at the first opportunity.


Howard Charles Green: Have you not any better authorities than those?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes; I have the Minister of Public Works. I searched the records very thoroughly hoping to get something even more emphatic than what the Minister of Transport had to say on that occasion. The minister comes from a rather cautious breed, I find, and he never sticks out his neck quite as far as some of the others.

Trans-Canada Highway Act Mr. Pickersgill: He was busy on the merchant marine.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Minister of Public Works had this to say in the same debate, as found at page 3095 of Hansard for April 19, 1956: I should like the minister to explain also-
Mind you, he does not object to the preceding remarks of his colleagues, and therefore silence means assent.
-why, once the road has been finished, the dominion should not assume some share of the cost of maintenance, why it should not see that the highway is kept up. Otherwise I am convinced that the minute we reach the point where we have a national highway it will start to go downhill and none of us will be very proud if that situation should develop. I hope when he closes the debate the minister will see fit to deal with these two questions.
I hope when the minister closes the debate he will see fit to deal with these two questions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, having dealt with the resolution and supported it in principle, and having supported wholeheartedly the remarks of members of the cabinet on previous occasions, I want to make a sort of local application of the situation and say a few words with respect to the feeling of members of organizations in the southeastern part of British Columbia that, when the trans-Canada highway is completed, there should be federal assistance for the provision of an alternative southern route in case Rogers pass is blocked and accidents of that sort. In fact, we will be very interested in listening to the technical details of how snow slides will be brought down prior to their normal time as the result of cannon fire.
I should like to quote from a copy of a letter addressed to the hon. member for Kootenay East by Mr. Harry D. Harrison, president to the trans-Canada highway association, southern route. Mr. Harrison writes from Nelson, and indicates that he has sent a copy to the minister. I want to deal with this matter briefly because it is of serious concern to a good many of our people. I now quote from the letter to indicate the point of view of people who are interested in highway development in our area. The letter reads in part as follows:
May I also point out that we are strongly of the opinion that the populated and industrialized portions of our province should certainly get federal assistance consideration in a far greater proportion than the northern route of the Yellowhead pass. To illustrate my point 1 am enclosing a map showing the various routes and comment as follows:
No. 3 highway is by far the most heavily populated route and is heavily industrialized, including C.M. and S. operations at Trail, Salmo, Riondel, Kimberley. Logging and lumbering operations are heavy along its entire length. I have circled the number of important centres which would directly benefit by the completion of highway No. 3.

No. 1 highway from Golden to Revelstoke is already receiving about 90 per cent federal assistance to complete the trans-Canada highway No. 1 route. The hazardous conditions through Rogers pass would indicate that it would be smart business to assure a satisfactory alternate route to Rogers pass in case of avalanche condition.
I think that is a very sound contention.
This could be accomplished very easily by completing only a short connection from Arrowhead to Trout lake and improving the route from Trout lake to Kaslo and Balfour, thus assuring constant highway service to join up with No. 3.
I expect that the minister fully appreciates that residents of his own home town of Kaslo are very interested in this road and this question.
The unfinished sections of No. 3 trans-provincial highway between Grand Forks and Creston could be completed very quickly with federal assistance.
We have no quarrel with several different routes, including the Yellowhead route. However, if you study the enclosed map, you will note that 283 miles of this route are very sparsely settled, not many people live between Kamloops and Jasper. You will also note that this route completely bypasses about one-third of the province of B.C., by travelling this 283 mile section.
Another important link which should get some attention is the Monashee highway between the Arrow lakes and Vernon, a natural connection from the Kootenay to the central Okanagan. I have marked both the Monashee and the Balfour-Revelstoke sections in with a dotted line.
Your promptness in picking this item up and bringing it to our attention is certainly appreciated, Murray, and we will look forward to you keeping an eagle eye on this item with a view to getting ample consideration for the southern route. I am sure that Bert Herridge will be only too pleased to do everything possible to assist, and I am sending a copy of this letter to him and also to Hon. Howard Green, who is very familiar with the areas I have discussed.
Please keep us posted on developments.
Kindest regards from all of us in the Kootenays.
Yours truly,
Harry D. Harrison, President, trans-Canada highway assn, southern route.
I know I do not have to go into details on that. I was asked by several members of chambers of commerce and other organizations to bring this matter to the attention of the minister and the house when this resolution was under discussion. I do urge that consideration be given to the development of a national highway policy to be given effect when we have completed our first trans-Canada highway, and that particularly in the case of British Columbia, consideration to an alternative southern route to the present Rogers pass route in case winter conditions should make it impossible to travel that route on occasion.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to support this motion to amend the

Trans-Canada Highway Act, an act which was passed in 1949 and amended in 1956. Now the house is being asked to approve a motion in the following terms:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of all expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.
When, early in this session, we read the speech from the throne and found it contained a paragraph indicating that the house would be called upon to consider a bill to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act, we wondered whether the government would not introduce drastic amendments to the act.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to repeat all the statements made in the house in 1956, when the proposed amendments were being considered. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) referred to them. In any case we could presume that the present government possibly intended to introduce more extensive amendments than those contained in this resolution. As a matter of fact, in 1956 as member for Vancouver Quadra, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) said that for his part, he believed that the federal government should also assume responsibility for part of the maintenance costs of the highway. The hon. member was then very well disposed for he added that he had been a consistent supporter of that policy since 1949, when the act had been adopted.
As for the hon. member for Victoria (Ontario) (Mr. Hodgson), he said, that in his opinion the federal government should be paying 90 per cent of the total construction costs of the trans-Canada highway.
The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) seemed to favour a national highway system with the federal government footing the bill.
Therefore, as I said, we had good reasons to expect more drastic amendments. However, such is not the case, for the Minister of Public Works stated in the house last Friday that the cost of the agreed works, as at February 14, 1959, had reached $462.3 million, and that the federal government share would amount to $277.5 million, i.e. $27.5 million more than the amounts already approved under the act and its 1956 amendments. In other words, this additional $100 million will serve only to pay the contribution of the federal government toward the completion of the trans-Canada highway.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much time in dealing with this matter; however I should like to take this opportunity to direct a few questions to the Minister of Public Works before going into other aspects of this resolution.
I would therefore ask the hon. minister that when he closes the debate he kindly tell us what amounts have been spent to date in the national parks, and what is the estimated cost of the work which remains to be done in the parks. I was glad to hear that the work has been completed in Banff and Yoho parks, and that most of it is also completed in Terra Nova park in Newfoundland. There remains, however, quite a good deal of work to do in Glacier and Revelstoke parks. Consequently, I should be grateful to the minister if he would tell us what amounts have been spent so far on work already done in all the national parks along the trans-Canada highway, and to give us, as well, an estimate of how much it will cost to finish the job.
The Minister of Public Works' report on the trans-Canada highway for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 gives the number of miles of graded roads. According to table no. 1, which I find on page 4 of that report, I note that the approximate number of miles of graded roads on the trans-Canada highway is 4,238 miles. The same table also gives the number of miles of paved roads as at March 30, 1958, i.e. 2,983 miles.
However, according to table 3, which the Minister of Public Works recorded in Hansard last Friday, it appears that the number of completed paved roads amounts to 2,101 miles, to which must be added 950 miles paved prior to December 1949.
Table 3 also shows that reconstruction of those 950 miles of highway will depend on provincial plans and available funds, which means that altogether 3,051 miles of highway have been completed.
If you take this total of 950 miles that will probably have to be repaired or rebuilt, you find that the difference between 2,983 miles, as of March 31, 1958, and 3,051 miles, as of January 31, 1959, is very small. That is why I am wondering whether the number of miles completed on February 14, 1959 was not higher than the figures indicate. Otherwise, it would mean that very little paving was done in the summer of 1958. I may be wrong and perhaps the tables are not too clear in that respect.
1324	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
Mr. Chairman, there is another aspect of the matter which is of particular interest to people in the province of Quebec. It will be recalled that in 1949, when the Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed, many Quebec people showed great interest in the scheme; I, for one, was anxious to see how the provincial government would react. Unfortunately, the government of the province of Quebec has been unwilling to take advantage of this act, so that today it is receiving no money under this federal government offer which is designed to encourage the provinces to share in the construction of a trans-Canada highway.
As I understand it, the shortest distance across the province of Quebec and Edmund-ston, N.B. to a point close to the Ontario-Quebec border, is about 450 to 500 miles. However, the province could have chosen another route. In fact the people living in the northwestern area of Quebec were hoping, if the province decided to take advantage of this act, to be favoured with a road extending from Three Rivers or Quebec city, through the La Tuque area towards Senneterre, Amos and La Sarre, and going into Ontario as far as Cochrane, and then connecting with the northern Ontario highway. This would have meant a much shorter distance for people travelling to western Canada, and Quebec people would have had a second east-west highway available to them.
It may seem rather odd to discuss a second trans-Canada highway when the province did not even take advantage of the plan to build a highway that might be called the first connecting highway between Montreal and Ottawa, and which is certainly the most important and most travelled highway. There is no doubt, however, that the province, with the money it could have received under this act, could have built a highly attractive highway for tourists, which would have enabled people living in the northwestern area of Quebec to reach the capital city of their province much more easily.
I think this would certainly have benefited the people of Quebec. It may be useless to say more about that matter but, just the same, I think that, if even today the government of the province of Quebec wanted to take advantage of this legislation, the federal government would not object and the people of the province would be quite happy.
I will probably have the opportunity to say more about this bill on second reading. Until then, may I repeat that I am in favour


of the amendment, since it will allow the nine provinces that signed the agreement to complete the trans-Canada highway. The minister said he hoped that the provinces will do all they can for a maximum effort between now and the end of 1960. I believe the minister is anxious to have the trans-Canada highway completed by December 31, 1960 at the latest. Besides, that is what the-
(Text):


Howard Charles Green: 1960.


Armand Dumas: 1960; 1960, that's what I said. (Translation):
The minister is quite anxious to have the highway completed by the fall of 1960. Besides it was the goal of the former government and yet, when in 1956 we mentioned that the highway could be completed by the end of 1960, our hon. friends opposite, who, at the time, were sitting on this side of the house, said that it was impossible to complete the highway before 1965. Well, we can now see that, with a little effort on the part of the provinces, the highway will be entirely completed on December 31, 1960.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: I should like to make a few comments on one aspect of the trans-Canada highway. We appreciate the assistance the minister is now giving. As we know, the area-and I can speak only for the one I personally know-in northern Ontario from Agawa to Nipigon is very picturesque, but is a difficult area for highway construction. We hope this area has a highway in the near future, and that the Canadian people will be able to travel to western Canada by that route.
However, we have in Canada now a highway link that creates a trans-Canada highway for people travelling across Canada by the use of Ontario's No. 11 highway from North Bay to Nipigon. I think some consideration should be given to assistance to the province of Ontario for maintaining this as a part of the trans-Canada highway. This highway has been open for a number of years. It has also been in places a difficult highway to build, not necessarily for the same reasons as will be found through the Nipigon area. But this highway, because of United States taxation on highway transports, is now bearing a larger brunt of traffic than that for which it was constructed. In that area there are now between 150 and 200 heavy transports

every day travelling on a highway that was constructed in 1936 for light transports and passenger cars.
Some of the points that I am sure could be argued would be in connection with what we consider to be a trans-Canada highway. This highway at present is the only link that Canadians can use if they travel from east to west. I think there is some justification for asking that this highway be maintained, if not as a trans-Canada highway then as a secondary part of the trans-Canada highway in Ontario, particularly northern Ontario, where the distances are great.
The traffic is not going through a similar area when it goes over the present No. 11 highway route, to that through which it would go if it went over No. 17 highway through the Agawa area. While we appreciate the amount of money that will be advanced, and certainly agree that the advancing of this money to complete the particular link from Agawa to Nipigon is absolutely necessary, I believe some money should be given in addition to help create and maintain a second highway with specifications similar to those demanded by the trans-Canada highway through that part of the country.
This road is also receiving a great deal of winter traffic which imposes additional burdens on the province by the fact that the snow has to be removed. Heavy frosts go down into that highway. As long as the trans-Canada highway is going to be carrying heavy transports on an interprovincial basis, I think this is a justification for consideration being given to maintaining this as at least a temporary link on the trans-Canada highway, and financial assistance should be given according to that consideration.


Mr. Batten:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the resolution we are now discussing. I should first like to commend the minister for the very comprehensive statement he gave on Friday, and also for the recent figures he gave, which were later than those contained in the report for the year ending March 31, 1958.
As everyone knows, the original Trans-Canada Highway Act became effective on December 10, 1949, and that act provided for contributions under three headings. First, there was a contribution on a 50-50 basis provided for new construction. The total under this heading, not counting the additional 40 per cent, up to March 31, 1958 was $135 million. In my own province of Newfoundland the amount spent under this heading was $9.5 million. This act also provided for a sharing on a 50-50 basis of the cost of prior road construction between April 1, 1928 and December 9, 1949. Under this 66968-9-85
Trans-Canada Highway Act heading, up to March 31, 1958 the federal government had spent approximately $9 million. Under this heading the province of Newfoundland received no contribution, for the simple reason that in that province there was no prior construction which could be included in the trans-Canada highway.
Under these two headings there was no provision made for construction in any province between December 9, 1949 and the date on which a province might sign the agreement. Therefore it was agreed by special vote to make contributions for interim construction. Up to March 31, 1958 this total had been approximately $1.5 million. In my own province the contribution was $156,000. This agreement, incidentally, was signed by Newfoundland on June 23, 1950. However, by the end of the 1955 construction season it became very evident that this trans-Canada highway would not be finished by the expiry date of the act, which was in December, 1956. For the nine provinces participating in the program only about 1,525 miles had been completed, or 35 pei cent of the total. Up to that time the province of Newfoundland had graded 215 miles, but no paving had been done along almost the whole of the 600 mile route.
On November 14 and 15, 1955 a federal-provincial highway conference was held. It was pointed out at that conference that there was no province where there was no highway of any kind over more than 10 per cent of the route. This conference led to the Trans-Canada Highway Act amendment of 1956, under which the federal government was to pay to each province 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the total provincial mileage. On account of this 40 per cent additional contribution, the federal government had paid out up to March 1, 1958 about $10.5 million. Up to January 24, 1959, according to the figures given by the minister last Friday, the total amounted to some $17 million, of which Newfoundland had received about $1,156,000. Under the 1956 amendment the total limit of expenditure was increased from $150 million to $250 million. The present resolution is to increase this amount from $250 million to $350 million; but the expiry date of this act still remains 1960.
In my own province the total mileage to be covered is approximately 568 miles. Included in this is 25 miles in the Terra Nova national park. Of the remaining 542 miles there are 35 miles paved, 221 miles built and ready for paving, and 286 miles to be built to trans-Canada highway standards.

Trans-Canada Highway Act The total cost of completion is $58 million. Newfoundland's share of this amount will be approximately $28 million. This is obviously a lot of money for a province such as Newfoundland, when one takes into account the ability to pay.
Consideration of the difficulty in building roads, as well as to the supply of building materials, must be taken into account. These are greater problems in Newfoundland than in any other province of Canada, with perhaps the exception of British Columbia. In proportion Newfoundland has to build more mileage of trans-Canada highway than any of the other eight provinces under the agreement. The total mileage in Newfoundland is about three-quarters of the total mileage for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island combined.
I have here a table showing the percentage which the population in each province is of the total population, and the percentage which the mileage in each province is of the total mileage of the nine provinces under the present agreement. I have also another table showing the number of miles of trans-Canadp highway to be completed in each province p r 10,000 of population. The population figures have been taken from the estimates issued by the dominion bureau of statistics on February 17, 1959, and the mileage figures have been taken from the report of the trans-Canada highway for 1958. Mr. Chairman, may I have the permission of the committee to have these two tables included in Hansard?


The Deputy Chairman:: Has the hon. member permission to include these tables in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The tables are as follows:
Comparing the percentage which the population ot each province is of the total population with the percentage which the trans-Canada highway mileage in each province is of the total mileage.
	Per cent of	Per cent of
	total pop.	total mileage
British Columbia 	... 12.72	13.13Alberta 	... 9.99	6.52Saskatchewan 	... 7.29	9.38Manitoba 	... 7.14	7.14Ontario 	... 47.88	33.19New Brunswick 	... 4.75	9.01Nova Scotia 	,.. 5.81	7.19Prince Edward Island	.. 0.82	1.64Newfoundland 	.. 3.60	12.80Total 	... 100.00	100.00Excluding: Quebec,	Yukon, N.W.T.	
Excluding: Mileage in national parks. 
Showing miles of trans-Canada highway per 10,000 of population in each province.
Miles/10,000
of
Population Mileage Population
British Columbia ..	1,563	568	3.6Alberta 	1,228	282	2.3Saskatchewan 	896	406	4.5Manitoba 	878	309	3.5Ontario 	5,887	1,436	2.4New Brunswick ..	584	390	6.7Nova Scotia 	715	311	4.4Prince Edward Island 	101	71	7.0Newfoundland ..	443	554	12.5Total 	12,295	4,327	3.5Excluding: Quebec,	Yukon, N.W.T.	Excluding: Mileage	in national	parks.	
These tables show, Mr. Chairman, that Newfoundland, in proportion to population, is to build five times as many miles of trans-Canada highway as the province of Ontario or Alberta. When one considers the need for road construction in Newfoundland and the ability of our people to pay, at a time when large provincial grants are being made for local road construction, the discrepancy becomes much greater. Indeed, it appears that Newfoundland will be unable to meet the expiry date of 1960. A more realistic approach needs to be taken of this problem when we take into account the difficulties confronting the building of over 500 miles of road across the island of Newfoundland. The building of this road from the standpoint of economics has been long delayed, and if the island of Newfoundland is to be developed to the standard to which we think it can be, and which we hope it will be, the trans-Canada highway will play a very important part in that development.
Let me give you one illustration. We have here in Canada a tourist industry which is now Canada's third greatest industry. It is important not only from a national standpoint but also from the standpoint of income to provinces and to communities. It is big business, and in 1959 will approach nearly $400 million. I believe this industry can be developed in Newfoundland and will, indeed, be a very important one to my province.
I believe we have those things which would attract tourists but any tourist industry must be predicated on some convenient and comfortable method of transportation. The motor vessel William Carson which operates between Sydney and Port Aux Basques offers a quick and convenient method of transportation to the island. This, together with the trans-Canada highway across the province and also with the local facilities provided by

the development of local roads, will do much to develop this industry in Newfoundland. It has a great potential in our province and I believe that with a more realistic approach to the building of the trans-Canada highway we can build up this industry in Newfoundland so that it will not only become important to Newfoundland as a province but also an important part of the whole industry nationally.
Of course, to build up a tourist industry we must have a means of transportation that will be satisfactory to the people who come to Newfoundland from other parts of Canada and from the United States. The trans-Canada highway will also be important to business and commercial concerns. With the highway we will have, for example, a means of having tourists in Newfoundland travel from one side of the island to the other which they are presently unable to do. We will be able to receive tourists from the mainland of Canada and from the United States and of equal importance Newfoundland people will be able to leave their island province and go to other parts of Canada and the United States.
Over the last few years motor traffic has become big business in Canada. In 1915 there were 60,000 cars and 533 trucks in Canada. By 1933 this had increased by one million. By 1948 a second million had been added and by 1952 a third million and it was estimated in 1952 that by 1960 the number of vehicles in Canada would approach a total of 4,500,000. I would think that even now this figure has been well exceeded. In 1959 Canadians in cars and trucks will travel almost 15 billion miles. The tonnage of freight by motor transport will exceed the combined tonnage carried by rail, air and water. There are over 10,000 communities in Canada that depend upon highway transportation for their existence.
Over the last three decades great advances have been made in improving motor vehicles. I believe it is not to our credit when we are able to say-and I feel we can say it with truth-that the research and development which has gone into improving motor vehicles has not gone into improving and developing the roads upon which they are to be used. It is for this reason and others that when I sat on the government side of the house I contended that the trans-Canada highway should be completely built and financed by the federal government. I still hold that view. However, I support the resolution that is before us today because it does make available to the provinces more money to carry out the work that they are to do.
In closing I should like to address my remarks to the Minister of Public Works. I think no one will deny that in his capacity 66968-9-85i
Trans-Canada Highway Act as minister of this department he has done a fine job with respect to national housing. I feel that has been done because of the energy and drive which the minister has personally put into the tackling of this problem. A good job has been done in that direction because the minister has taken national housing under his wing. I should like to suggest to him now that he attack some of the very serious problems concerning the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland with the same degree of energy and drive and take this project under his wing.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if when the minister makes his remarks he could give me the estimated cost of the Winnipeg by-pass and the date on which it is hoped that this by-pass will be completed?
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I think that the only purpose of this resolution is to increase by $100 million the amount that the federal government may give the provinces towards construction of the trans-Canada highway.
As mentioned, that legislation was introduced in 1949 by the previous government Had it not been for the last war, that construction would certainly have started before 1949, because long before then everybody agreed that that highway was most necessary not only to provide employment, but more especially for other reasons that are important in the life of a nation. Indeed the trans-Canada highway-and this is perhaps better realized now, will bring the provinces closer, promote the tourist industry, step up interprovincial trade, help develop Canadian business, industries and natural resources and, finally, in wartime, could be used by our forces and for the evacuation of our cities if need be.
According to estimates made in 1949, the highway should have been completed by 1956. However, because of the Korean war, shortage of equipment at different times, and topographical difficulties, especially on the stretches crossing British Columbia and Northern Ontario, and also because of bad weather and perhaps because the provinces had more important projects in hand, it has been impossible to complete that highway at the set date, that is at the end of 1956. That is why, in 1956, the government introduced certain amendments into the act adopted in 1949. Those amendments were as follows: the original amount which, at first, had been set at $150 million, was increased by $100 million.

Trans-Canada Highway Act
This brought the federal government share to $250 million. Then the dateline for completion was set for the end of December 1960. Finally, under the third amendment, the federal government provided the provinces with additional help, agreeing to pay 90 per cent of construction costs on 10 per cent of the total highway mileage in each of the provinces.
Results proved that that offer, particularly under the third amendment I just mentioned, that is the 90 per cent formula, was welcomed by all provinces. And that is why the federal government expenditure increased considerably during the last two fiscal years.
Besides, on the minister's own admission and according to figures he gave us on introducing this resolution, construction work on the highway was stepped up from 1956 on. In fact, he said that from March 31, 1956 to this day, that is, in the last three years, $236.5 million worth of works were approved, compared to $225.8 million during the six-year period from 1950 to 1956.
I think it is only fair to say that the progress which has been achieved to date is largely due to the former Liberal administration, which had devised this new formula to help the provinces complete this highway as fast as possible.
When those amendments were introduced in March 1956-I remember it quite well for it was in a way, my maiden effort, having been entrusted by the minister on that occasion to introduce the resolution to the house-we ran into bitter criticism and blame by many members who are now on the government side. I do not intend, Mr. Chairman, to quote all the remarks made at the time, nor refer to the nice promises of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and of the member who might become the parliamentary assistant to the present Minister of Public Works. However, on that occasion, they made no bones about charging the government of the day with doing too little and too late. They criticized us for not paying 90 per cent of the highway cost; some of them possibly went too far, even suggesting that the government should pay the whole cost.
We were accused of leaving the whole responsibility to the provinces, of refusing to take charge of the maintenance of the highway after its completion, and many other things that would be too long to mention at


this time. In short, they claimed that the federal government contribution at the time was practically non-existent.
Even the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), though a cautious man, felt obliged to join in the discussion and to berate the former government rather sternly. He might go over, with much interest indeed, the recommendations or proposals he made to the house on April 16, 1956. He might reread his own remarks to great advantage, not only to himself, but to the whole population of Canada if he decided, now that the matter is under his responsibility, to translate into fact the suggestions he made at that time.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is why I was so disappointed, in reading this resolution, to find that the hon. minister and his government have so soon forgotten the great things they promised when they sat in the opposition. However, this comes as no surprise, because this is not the first time this government has forgotten its promises. There have been several cases since the government took office.
The act passed by the former government was not so bad, because not a single comma of the old act has been changed, and you have followed exactly the same procedure as we followed when we were sitting on that side of the house.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the members of the committee expected that when the minister would introduce this resolution, he would tell us what action the government has in mind in the way of assistance to the provinces for the improvement and modernization of our national highway system. Indeed, according to forecasts, the present trans-Canada highway will probably be completed by the end of next year. It seems to me then that we should know a year in advance what the government is planning for the future. I hope that the minister also will tell us if he intends to call a conference this year and bring together the provincial ministers of highways to discuss that matter with them-as was done in 1955 under the previous administration-so that they know of government plans for the future.
As the committee knows, one province only, the province of Quebec, did not join that program. It is certainly not because there is no need for it in our province as well as in the others, but because of the stubborn

refusal of the leader of the Union Nationale, the premier of our province. And yet in our province there are miles and miles of roads which not only need improvement, but should be rebuilt altogether. I and several hon. colleagues saw samples of those during the last by-election in the Montmagny-L'Islet constituency. Furthermore, during the weekend, I read in a Quebec newspaper that when the highway budget was being considered in the legislative assembly, the provincial member for St. Hyacinthe asked the government to finish highway No. 9, i.e. Sir Wilfrid Laurier Boulevard, by adding a double lane to it. That request was quite reasonable in view of the heavy traffic on that highway. Well, what was the answer of the provincial minister of highways? He said that the addition of a second two lane span would cost about $30 million. Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if the government of our province had agreed to take advantage of the federal legislation, it could have carried out that Sir Wilfrid Laurier road project without cost to the people of Quebec, because, according to the calculations I was able to make, those $30 million represent approximately the amount which the province could have received from the federal government, under the present legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I hope-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are not talking about the printing bureau here!


Azellus Denis: Ottawa requires tenders; that is why he won't come in.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Stick to federal politics instead of referring to provincial politics.


Azellus Denis: Go write a leftist speech.


Maurice Bourget: Again, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to be disturbed by these kind of interruptions-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It is regrettable that the province of Quebec is not in this highway system. We are referring to the trans-Canada highway and not to provincial roads. I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to what is before the committee.


Maurice Bourget: The name of the province of Quebec has been mentioned. It was mentioned even by the minister when he introduced the resolution. After all, we do realize that we are losing $30 million in
Trans-Canada Highway Act our province and I think it is quite fitting that members from that province should raise the question and try to convince our friends from the province of Quebec that they should try to get in touch with their premier, their friend, so that we could share in this amount.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to dwell on the matter any longer, but as we still have 22 months to go before the agreement lapses, I hope the minister will be able, with the help of some of his cabinet colleagues, to convince the Quebec premier so that we might recoup at least part of what we have given up since 1949.
Mr. Chairman, it would be hard for me to close my remarks without referring to the outline given to us by the minister last Friday, when he introduced this resolution, and most particularly to that part of his remarks where he pointed out that a few months after he came to the cabinet, an official was sent to Banff to study the progress of the work being done on the trans-Canada highway. The minister then told us that the personnel of the department had advised that official to travel to Banff via the United States, although the trans-Canada highway was completed-and I quote his very words, or approximately so-in the three western provinces, with the exception of some sections. In his outline, the minister stressed the fact that the trans-Canada highway was as good as that of the United States, but he also pointed out that the public works department was so far out of date that it advised its officials to drive through the United States.
I hope I am wrong, or that I misunderstood the minister's words, or misread his remarks. However, if he did make them, I feel they hardly fit in with what he had previously said about the ability of his departmental officials. His remarks are unfair besides being illogical.
In fact, if the officials of his department are so far out of date, why does he still follow their advice or suggestions, more particularly in this case, when the completion of the trans-Canada highway is concerned, and while the present government is merely applying in all respects the legislation adopted by the previous administration?
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister did not mean exactly what I have

Trans-Canada Highway Act read in Hansard, and if, by any chance, he meant it, I am sure he regrets it.
These are, Mr. Chairman, the remarks I wanted to make about this resolution, and I hope that I will have the opportunity, on second reading, to refer again to this very interesting matter of the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Meunier:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks on this resolution, because of the statement made last Friday by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. [DOT]Green). Here is what I find at page 1244 of Hansard:
Subsequent to this enactment nine of the 10 provinces entered into agreements for participating In this project. Quebec has not signed an agreement to participate under this particular statute. That famous old province did not make any agreement under the original act and it has not participated either under the amendments of 1956.
Mr. Chairman, I realize the minister's amazement when he describes that province as being old and famous, but may I say to him that if, in his opinion, the province of Quebec is backward, such is not the case with all those who live there.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is out of order.
(Text):


Howard Charles Green: I said nothing about the province of Quebec being backward. In fact, I think it is very progressive.


Adrien Meunier: That is what I said. (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, Quebec is the province where the unemployment situation is most serious at the present time. If the provincial authorities had joined the trans-Canada highway construction program, not only would they have benefited by it in many ways but they would have relieved unemployment.
The province of Quebec is admittedly losing about $28 million by refusing to join the trans-Canada highway construction program, and its refusal is based mostly on a false concept of autonomy.
Mr. Chairman, to back my statement, let me give an example of the contradictions involved in that false double way autonomy.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is out of order.


Adrien Meunier: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm does not understand anything about this matter.
IMr. Bourget.l

(Text):
I am dealing with the statement made by the minister in explaining the resolution. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm understands nothing because he is always in a narrow strait jacket and cannot understand anything.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, we are here to discuss national problems and not provincial matters.
(Text):


Adrien Meunier: That is a national problem. (Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Is the province of Quebec not part of Canada?


Mr. Boulanger:: Tell us about the provincial farm credit.


Adrien Meunier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give an example of the contradictions found in that false double way autonomy, to back up what I say.
On February 20, last Friday, the provincial minister of highways obtained from the Quebec legislative assembly an $800,000 vote for the elimination of level crossings-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Order.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I will have to ask the hon. member to come back to the trans-Canada highway and not deal with provincial matters, especially with a province that apparently has not signed an agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by Your Honour, surely the minister will be the first to agree that this legislation applies equally to all the provinces of Canada and the fact that the government of Quebec has not seen fit to take advantage of the legislation surely should not preclude a member representing a constituency in the province of Quebec from pointing out the advantages to his constituents of the government of that province taking advantage of the legislation. That, I apprehend, is what the hon. member is doing.


Charles Edward Rea: That, of course, is strictly a provincial matter and he cannot discuss proceedings that take place in a provincial legislature. The Chair is being quite lenient in allowing members to make these references in order to try to make their point, but I hope that they will not labour this matter.


Adrien Meunier: This is a national problem. This is a national highway.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Papineau has the floor.
(Translation):


Adrien Meunier: Mr. Chairman, those people cannot see the difference between true autonomy and phony autonomy.


Mr. Tremblay:: Order.


Adrien Meunier: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that for the general good of the people of Quebec province, the provincial authorities accept federal subsidies for railway crossings; however, when it comes to the trans-Canada highway, they turn down the subsidies.
Those are the points I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman. In accepting those subsidies from the federal government as regards railway crossings, the province of Quebec is yielding nothing of its autonomy, but in accepting subsidies for the trans-Canada highway, it considers that its rights would be infringed upon.
It may be, Mr. Chairman, that the matter of calling for tenders and the matter of asphalt thickness would make things difficult for the provincial authorities in their dealings with the federal government, but for the general good of the people of Quebec, the provincial government might perhaps unbend a little. I know the Minister of Public Works to be a persuasive and convincing man. 1 therefore hope he will succeed in urging upon the ministers and members of the Quebec provincial government that it would be to the advantage of the province to use that money for building the trans-Canada highway, and that no encroachment upon the province's autonomy would be involved.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes a good case is lost through the stubbornness of the other party, because sound reason and logic do not always prevail. Therefore, if the Minister of Public Works should fail in his efforts to have the Quebec government join in the trans-Canada highway construction scheme, I would ask him to extend the life of the act Deyond December 31, 1960, because during the year 1960 a government that really understands the interests of the people of Quebec might well be elected.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before the house is one that commends itself to members of all parties. I want to associate myself with others who have asked that the program be extended to a national highways system. I think the arguments in favour of that being done are cogent. I believe that the Minister of Public Works is aware of the great advantages that would
Trans-Canada Highway Act accrue to the Canadian economy from an expanded highway program. The statements made by various cabinet ministers when in opposition as to the great need for action at this time have already been placed on the record many times.
I have notice that members of the Liberal party have been quoting resolutions passed at their annual conventions, Liberal policy on transportation drafted in the 1958 annual convention-


An hon. Member:: You were there.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was there for a few minutes and I enjoyed myself. I had my picture taken under a sign reading, "Pearson for Progress".


Maurice Bourget: The best convention ever held.


Hazen Robert Argue: It may have been the best convention you ever held but the net results were very poor, judging by the election.
The policy statement found on page 39 of the report reads:
Assistance to the provinces and territories for developing roads to the north and consideration of a policy of a federal-provincial-municipal highway program aimed at providing a modern network of trunk highways.
We now have the programs of the two old parties. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they were in favour of a national highway system. They wanted an expanded program. When they become the government they continue the Liberal policy that was in effect. Members of the Liberal party, once they became the opposition, see the error of their ways in 22 years of government, and they have broadened their policy. They have had a national convention, and now they have a Liberal vision of an expanded highway program. The trouble with the two old parties is that they always have a visionary program when they are in opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was not true in 1949 when this program was started.


Hazen Robert Argue: This was a good start, and for 22 years this is what has been done. The Conservatives are continuing it. The point I am making is that this was all that was done. Once the members who were in the cabinet of the previous Liberal administration got to the opposition side of the house they took an entirely new attitude. It is surprising the amount of knowledge they have gained merely by taking a few steps from one side of this house to the other. I think that talk in opposition and inaction in government is scarcely the thing the Canadian people desire.
I am most proud that the province of Saskatchewan, where we have a C.C.F. government, has the distinction of being the first province in Canada to complete its section of

Trans-Canada Highway Act the trans-Canada highway. As the Minister of Public Works has pointed out, and I do not want to be unfair to other provinces, there are a number of provinces that are close behind. Given some time, and perhaps a different look so far as financial policy is concerned from the Minister of Finance, they will be able to obtain the provincial funds necessary to complete the building of their sections of the trans-Canada highway under this partnership arrangement.
There are a number of things that should be done, and I suggest there are a number of reasons why there should be an expanded program. There is a need, I would suggest, for an expanded highway program to meet increased automobile traffic in the years ahead. The whole question of traffic on the provincial highway systems and the question of traffic through cities, is one which causes a measure of concern to every provincial government and to most municipal governments. Canadians are asking this government to play a more substantial role in the provision of highway services in this country. We are probably 40 years behind the United States in our federal highway program. I believe that is too great a distance to be behind the United States in the development of such a highway program. Admittedly, for a country with as small a population as ours, and our vast distances, it poses a very difficult problem.
However, even though it is a difficult problem, our need for this kind of federal transportation policy is probably even greater than that of a country like the United States which is more densely populated. There is another great advantage to Canada in the development of a trans-Canada highway system, the development at any rate of a system of interprovincial and intraprovincial highways as well as interurban highways, and that is the great attraction that these facilities provide to tourists coming into Canada. The greater the number of tourists who come to our country to use our roads, the greater the revenues to all levels of government in this country. Certainly the provision of an adequate system of highways is most important in attracting tourists.
There is another urgent reason at this time why there should be an expansion of the federal government's role in the building of highways. We have a very substantial number of unemployed and the extension of the highway system would assist in putting people to work and in dealing with the whole question of unemployment. We have the resources available for the building of further trans-Canada highways, north and south roads and a more adequate highway system in this


country. When the former administration undertook this program back in 1949 it was at a time when there was still some argument that equipment was scarce. We had something approaching full employment, and the federal government at that time could say that in embarking upon an expanded highway program they were merely competing for the resources that were being already fully utilized.
This can no longer be said because resources for building highways are at hand and, in certain instances, are idle. They should be put to work. I would ask the minister at this time to give consideration to the building of the second trans-Canada highway, as it has been named, as well as provision for a program for building north-south roads, a program providing federal money for other main roads and providing federal money for roads going through urban centres. I have also brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the fact that Senator Neuberger of Oregon has a bill before the United States congress asking congress to provide money for paving, on a joint basis with Canada, the Alaska highway. I think that is a suggestion that should not be turned down, as the Prime Minister has already done, but is something that the Canadian government itself should support and promote, both because it would be providing an excellent highway for the people whom it serves and would be providing services that would undoubtedly increase the tourist traffic within our country.
I want to ask the minister whether any consideration has been given to the calling of a highway conference to discuss an expanded highway program in this country. I would ask the minister what study, if any, has been made within his department of the road needs of this country and the method, if possible, of the federal government's participation in a second trans-Canada highway, shall we say, or in main north-south highways? I would ask the minister whether his department, in the light of severe unemployment in this country, has made any study of the labour content of highway construction? To what extent can a program of expanded highway construction in this country provide employment for people who are now out of work? This might not be the kind of work that lends itself to winter employment, but it is certainly the kind of work that lends itself to summer employment, and from all indications it would seem Canadians will need expanded programs of many kinds if we are to reduce, during the summer, to a very low figure the very high levels of unemployment that now exist.

I would ask the minister also how many provinces have shown an interest in an expanded highway program in Canada. I am wondering whether the four western provinces, for example, have had any communication with the minister as to the desirability of proceeding with a second trans-Canada highway in that area. I know that the Saskatchewan government on previous occasions has asked the federal government to embark on a second trans-Canada highway and in particular to provide on a co-operative basis for a joint program of highway construction within that province. I think the minister is well aware of the position that has been taken by the Saskatchewan government. I think it is a fair position. The Saskatchewan government points out the great advantages that have accrued to that province from the trans-Canada highway.
I have in my hand a file of correspondence between provincial governments and the federal government dealing with this subject. In it there is a letter addressed to Hon. Howard Green, Minister of Public Works, Ottawa, Ontario; dated Regina, May 27, 1958; and signed by J. T. Douglas, Saskatchewan minister of highways. In that letter on page two, Mr. Douglas has this to say:
The trans-Canada highway is an outstanding example of the effect of high class highway construction as a stimulant to the economy. The 406 miles of this road in Saskatchewan carry an annual total of approximately 200 million vehicle miles, or nearly nine per cent of total travel in Saskatchewan. Maximum average traffic reaches volumes of approximately 5,000 vehicles per day, and the average annual daily traffic is approximately 1,340 vehicles. These figures are rather surprising when the sparse settlement of certain sections of the route is considered, and this high degree of use can be contributed chiefly to the existence of a consistently high standard road.
That emphasizes the fact that the building of such highways attracts a high level of automobile use which means, of course, increased use by Canadians and by tourists. Mr. Douglas goes on to state as follows:
We have noted a steady and high rate of increase in total travel in Saskatchewan in recent years. This improves the revenues of both provincial and federal governments but carries with it a responsibility to provide adequate facilities for this increasing volume of traffic. According to the Gordon commission report direct costs associated with the motor vehicle accounted for nearly 22 per cent of the gross national product in 1953. It has been estimated that one person in seven makes his living directly as a result of the motor vehicle.
Main highway construction is a leading type of public work with respect to the alleviation of unemployment problems.
I point out that this letter was addressed to the minister on May 27, 1958. Mr. Douglas continues:
It has been estimated that the labour content of road construction is in the order of 27 per cent of
Trans-Canada Highway Act
total expenditure. This is on site labour and the indirect effects are, of course, substantially greater.
The Saskatchewan government has also played a co-operative role in building the trans-Canada highway section within that province. The government of Saskatchewan is anxious to co-operate with the federal government now in the provision of additional highway facilities within that province. The Saskatchewan government, in the light of the unemployment situation in Canada, is most anxious that the federal government adopt a program of expanded highway construction in order to deal with the unemployment crisis in this country.
I therefore make a plea to the minister that he use his influence in the cabinet to have this present program greatly expanded to include a second trans-Canada highway, north and south roads and the main roads now being used by the people of this country. I believe that is the kind of program for which the federal government, in the interests of Canada, might well consider borrowing in order to defray the cost. This is not an investment that is lost or an expenditure that does not result in long term good. As Mr. Douglas has so well pointed out, investment in highways in this country not only provides additional services for Canada but in fact increases the revenues accruing to governments at all levels. These highways will be used by Canadians in the main but they will be used by tourists and the increased revenues developed from the use of those highways, I submit, for the life of the highways will make this investment self-liquidating for the Canadian nation. I ask the minister what consideration has been given to adopting the suggestion made by the Saskatchewan government and others that the present trans-Canada highway program be greatly expanded at this time.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take but a few minutes of the committee's time to say that I endorse this resolution because it will not only contribute to the progress of Canada, but also to the solution of unemployment.
At the present time, nine out of ten provinces have agreed to take advantage of this legislation. The province of Quebec alone has refused. I was figuring a moment ago what would have been the individual share if the province of Quebec had accepted the $35 million that the federal government was putting at its disposal and which would have benefited the whole population. My figures show $7 per capita, or $35 per family of five persons. You might say that such an amount

Trans-Canada Highway Act is not important, but if we multiply it by the number of Quebec citizens it runs up to $35 million.
We, of the province of Quebec, are wondering why the premier of that province did not agree to come under the act. There are many Conservative members from that province here, but not one of them has risen in his place to express an opinion on the matter. We know that these hon. members would jeopardize their position if they did express an opinion. I am urging them in any case to endeavour to find a compromise, so that the Quebec premier might accept that agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to direct but a few questions to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and offer him a few suggestions. I should like, first of all, to ask him to put aside the sums of money which it would cost to build the 413 miles of highway in the province of Quebec; I would ask him to do so in accordance with the procedure used in regard to assistance to the universities and, when we have a government which is favourable to the development of a highway system in the province, we shall then be in a position to accept them.
I would also ask the minister to get in touch with the Quebec premier in order to inform him of that proposal designed to improve the terms of that legislation, and to ask him whether he is prepared to agree to it. If the minister cannot get in touch with him in writing he could at least send him a telegram in order that we may obtain a reply as soon as possible.
Those are the few remarks I had to make about this resolution. I would have liked the Conservative members of the province of Quebec to tell us what they think of it, and to explain to us why the province of Quebec is turning its back on that assistance. Back home, we say it is because of autonomy-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: It is up to you to ask the question.


Samuel Boulanger: -we would be happy to know. That is why I am asking the Conservative members from the province of Quebec to express their opinion on the matter. We would be curious to know what arguments they would use in explaining to their fellow citizens that the federal government is impinging on a field reserved to the province. It is up to you Conservative members from the province of Quebec to give an opinion.


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to stretch this debate. We have already had some good explanations from the minister, and other members have taken part


in the discussion. They were mostly members from the opposition, because like the hon. member who spoke before me, I noted that Conservative members from my native province have kept quite silent. However, I trust that none of them will have to call me to order, because I have no intention of discussing the trans-Canada highway of the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: There is none.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I shall be satisfied with reaching to the border. In the constituency that I have the honour to represent, we have the only trans-Canada highway in existence since 1946. It has been improved in the last few years. I think the Department of Public Works, the federal government and those same hon. gentlemen who, when they were in the opposition, kept telling the former government that it should be more generous in its contributions for the construction of the trans-Canada highway should now seriously consider helping in the construction and completion of the second trans-Canada highway in the province of Ontario.
I was saying that we have the only trans-Canada highway now existing. In fact, up to 1949, the only trans-Canada highway in existence was highway 17, between Ottawa and North Bay, highway 11 between North Bay and Cochrane, and highway 11 between Cochrane and Nipigon, Port Arthur and Fort William. Today, in addition to being the only highway, it is the only highway that can be used in Canada by transport trucks. In
1949,	as I recall it, the provinces were allowed to choose the location of the highway. In
1950,	the premier of Ontario was seen to change the location of the trans-Canada highway to make it go through every constituency represented by a minister of his cabinet, which substantially shifted its course from the already existing highway.
I would ask the minister to review the situation and to see whether a contribution might not be made to the completion of a second section which, I would say, is already 75 per cent completed. As was stated by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), heavy motor transports are using this highway on a year-round basis at the present time. In fact, it can be said that 75, and even up to 250 transport trucks use it daily. Maintenance of this highway is costing the province a lot of money.
I think the province of Ontario may have previously filed a request with the Department of Public Works, for a contribution for the completion of that highway.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that on three different occasions, the Conservative candidates in my constituency had promised to obtain that the trans-Canada highway would go through our area. Naturally, since it now crosses our area, I would wish the Minister of Public Works, who habitually has a straightforward approach to everything, to consider the possibility not only of contributing to the completion of the present highway but also of building the 52-mile section between Norembega and La Reine, which would then connect Montreal with Cochrane. I stop there, because I have now come to the boundary of the province of Quebec. Not only would such a highway be used by transport trucks, but it would be vitally important from a national defence standpoint. In fact, in 1941 and 1942, the 153-mile section between Hearst and Geraldton was built by the provincial government especially for defence purposes.
Therefore I think the advisability of building that section between La Reine and Cochrane, might be considered jointly with the Department of National Defence. This would provide a direct highway between Quebec and the western provinces without going through Ottawa and North Bay.
I leave the matter with the minister. I hope he will be able to announce, when his department's estimates come up for approval, that a way has been found to contribute to the construction of that highway.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is now five o'clock.
(Text):
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: the second reading of Bill No. S-8, respecting the Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company [DOT]of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the prime purpose of this bill is to extend the powers of the company. But when extending these powers it was thought advisable when before the parliament of Canada to include amendments for other purposes.
The first purpose is to extend the power of the company to transact all usual classes of insurance except that of life insurance.
The second is to increase the authorized capital of the company from $500,000, with
Private Bills
power to increase up to $1 million; to $1 million, with power to increase such capital up to $2 million.
The third is to reduce the par value of the shares from $100 to $10.
The fourth is to change the requirement whereby the notice of the annual meeting must appear continuously for 15 days in a daily newspaper to provide that the 15 days' notice be inserted only once in at least two newspapers within the district in keeping with the provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
The fifth is to remove the limitations of dividends presently limited to 20 per cent of the capital in any one year.
I understand that this company is one of the oldest companies in Canada that specializes in boiler insurance. The company was incorporated in 1875 under the name Canadian Steam Users Insurance Association. Its powers were amended and extended in 1889 and in 1892. It is now considered desirable to further extend the powers to cover, as I said, all classes of insurance except life insurance.
The paid up capital of the company amounts to $300,000. The company now seeks to increase the capital because of anticipated future requirements. This is also necessary because subsections (2) and (3) of section 1 of the act require that the company have additional paid up capital in order to qualify for these additional powers. The present authorized capital of the company is $500,000 and the company at present has power to increase its capital up to $1 million. It now seeks to have its authorized paid up capital increased to $1 million with power to increase up to $2 million.
The book value of the existing shares of the capital stock of the company with a par value of $100 is in excess of $800 for each share. With the continued growth of the company and the resulting increase in the book value of the shares it is considered necessary to change the par value of the shares of the company by reducing it from $100 to $10. It has been suggested that this is to make the stock more marketable but I feel it is only fair to say that at the present time the company has no intention of putting the stock on the market. The company would not request this power were it not for the fact that it is here seeking the other primary amendments increasing its powers.
The request for authority to change the form of notice will represent a saving to the company and will serve to bring the practice in line with that followed under the provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance

Private Bills
Companies Act. The remaining provision is to increase the payments of dividends. As I said before the paid up capital is $300,000. There is a surplus of approximately $2,250,000 which the company cannot pay out because of the limitation of the dividends.
The company has authorized me to state that if this bill is referred to the standing committee it will send officials to attend the meetings to answer any questions that hon. members may raise in respect of the bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would be prepared to give his undertaking that the company will give consideration to ensuring that only those boilers will be insured that are operated by properly certified engineers in keeping with the capacity and rating of each boiler?


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman to explain the purpose of the provision in the bill which seeks to increase the dividend rate from 2-J per cent to 18 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have an opportunity when the house is in committee of the whole to ask questions about the details of the bill.
May I inform the house that if the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have no authority to give an undertaking of the kind asked for by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and I suggest to the hon. gentleman that this matter be taken up in committee. In respect of the question asked by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden), I would prefer that it be answered in the committee by the officials of the company thereby assuring that the hon. gentleman would receive the correct answer.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-10, respecting Baloise Fire Insurance Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to change the name of the company to Elite Insurance Company, and in French, La Compagnie d'Assurance Elite.
All the shares in the capital stock of Baloise Fire Insurance Company of Canada, except directors' qualifying shares, have been purchased from Baloise Fire Insurance Com-

pany Limited of Switzerland. One of the terms of the sale and purchase agreement is that the purchaser shall cause the company to change its name.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this bill but I wonder why such a beautiful name as Baloise should be changed to Elite?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-13, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third occasion on which I have had the opportunity to introduce this particular bill. I would suggest that it is probably more appropriate at this particular session than it was in the other two sessions when I introduced the subject matter. Incidentally, I might say that this bill should be taken and considered in conjunction with another bill, namely Bill C-15, standing in my name, which seeks to amend another act. Both of them deal with the same subject matter, namely that Indians in Canada, as defined in the Indian Act, be given the right to vote in our federal elections without any interference with or detraction from their treaty, aboriginal or hereditary rights. It is necessary to have the two bills because reference is made to Indians and the right of these people to vote in both the Canada Elections Act and the Indian Act.
I said earlier that it was probably most fortunate that we can deal with it at this session because, as has been indicated, the standing committee on privileges and elections will consider, review and study the Canada Elections Act, which this bill seeks to amend.
There is also on the order paper a notice to establish a joint committee of this house and of the other place to study and review the Indian Act, which is coupled with this question. I would hope that it would be the desire of this house to pass this bill and immediately refer the subject matter of it to the standing committee on privileges and elections, which will be dealing with the Canada Elections Act. If it is desired, it will be perfectly all right with me if later on some one should move a motion that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections, in which committee an opportunity

will be afforded thoroughly to discuss and study this particular question.
The right to vote of our native Indian population, as I have said on other occasions, is to me one of the most important steps that we can take to afford the Indian people the opportunity of playing the fullest possible role that they can in Canadian affairs and in our society. There are a number of provinces in Canada which give the native Indian people the right to vote in provincial elections. The province from which I come, namely British Columbia, has had such a provision since 1949. There are other provinces, namely Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick, which also give their native Indian people the right to vote in provincial elections.
I know that there is some fear-completely unfounded, I may say-in the minds of native Indian people that by voting in elections they will lose some of their treaty rights, some of their hereditary rights or aboriginal rights. In its amendment this bill seeks to protect those rights and not to interfere with them if the native Indian person either registers to vote or in fact votes at a dominion election. I may say that the experience we had in British Columbia prior to 1949 indicated that these same fears and these same misunderstandings existed in the minds of the native Indian people in British Columbia. In the provincial election of 1949, which was the first year they were given the right to vote there, they were very reluctant to participate in voting for what they classified as the white man's government. I would say that the past experience they have had with the activities of those of us in years past who are not Indians indicated that there was some basis for the fears that they had. They felt that by voting or participating in elections they would lose some of the things, small as they are, that are in their favour.
But, following the election of 1949, they discovered that this was not so; that they lost none of the rights that they had, few as they might be. One of the major contributing factors to overcoming this misunderstanding and this fear which existed in their minds was the fact that in the 1949 provincial election one of their people, namely Mr. Frank Calder, was elected under the C.C.F. banner in Atlin, a constituency in northern British Columbia. That, coupled with the fact that those who did vote did not lose anything led the Indian people to believe that they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by participating in voting.
Following that we found in British Columbia that because these people, our first
Canada Elections Act
citizens in the country, were voters, candidates and political parties paid more attention to the problems, to the needs, to the desires and the rights of the native Indian people for no other reason than the political one, namely that here was a group of voters and therefore we should pay attention; we should understand their problems and try to deal with them. Accordingly, since 1949 there has been by political parties, by the governments of British Columbia, by individual candidates and by the population as a whole more and more an understanding of the problems of our native Indian people and more opportunity to deal effectively with them. I submit that the same thing is true in Ontario where, following the report of a legislative committee in that province, native Indian people were given the right to vote. The same needs existed, but there is now more desire on the part of the government, on the part of political parties, on the part of candidates, to deal with the problems of Indians and to deal with them at least effectively and systematically.
The same thing will be true throughout the dominion if we will only undertake to give them what is justly theirs, the opportunity to vote in dominion elections. I do not wish to reflect on any member of the house but I am sure that once that takes place every member of the house, if he has not already done so, will undertake to pay more attention to and study the problems of the native Indian people and we will then be able to legislate effectively on their behalf for the betterment of conditions under which they live and for their advancement so that they will have the opportunity to play the fullest possible role they can in our society.
I should like to refer for a moment to the objections we hear as to why it is not possible to give these people the right that is justly theirs of voting in dominion elections. I believe these objections have relation to three categories of Indians. First, there is a group of Indians who say that they want nothing to do with the white man's government, that they have their own government and recognize no other and that they do not want the opportunity to vote or even to be placed on the voters' list. They want to have absolutely nothing to do with the House of Commons or with participation in electing governments or members of parliament.
There is a second group who say they would like to be able to vote but do not want to lose what few treaty rights they have at the moment. This group has been

Canada Elections Act
increasing because over the years provincial governments have been moving slowly toward giving these people the right to vote.
There is a third group, formerly the largest of the three but now diminishing, who say that they are not interested one way or the other in whether or not they get the right to vote. They are not too interested in voting. I submit that every member of the house will agree that a great number of non-Indian people in Canada fall into that same category. They are not the least bit concerned about participating in public affairs or voting and are not too interested in what the government is doing.
I submit that the proposed legislation will deal with each one of these groups. With respect to those Indians who do not want to participate in voting the bill deals with them because they will be in the same position as anyone else eligible to vote in Canada today. If the person does not want to vote that is entirely up to him. He does not have to vote. The bill does not force the native Indians to cast a ballot. It does not even force them to be registered or anything of that kind. Therefore I submit that the objections of that group are met.
As to the second increasing group, which various provincial governments have recognized and more will in the future, the group of Indians who want the right to vote and have their say in our parliamentary affairs, the provisions of the bill will meet the wishes of these Indians also. It will give them the right to vote without detracting from what few hereditary or treaty rights they have at the moment.
With respect to the third group, those who are not concerned one way or the other, I submit that the bill meets their wishes too because they do not have to vote if they do not want to. They will be in the same position as other citizens of Canada who are not Indians.
I would urge strongly that the house consider the bill in a favourable light. I am not suggesting that the debate be curtailed. I realize that there are only 30 or 35 minutes left, but in view of the fact that we have a standing committee on privileges and elections and there is every possibility that the elections act will be referred to that committee for study, I suggest to hon. members that the bill should be given speedy second reading and immediately thereafter be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections so that the subject matter may be dealt with and considered by that committee. Failing that, if the house is not desirous of expressing an opinion one way or another on this matter, I would be more than pleased if

any hon. member would like to move that the bill be not read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
Apart from the hope that the bill will receive second reading and become part of the statutes of Canada, my sole desire is that the matter be studied carefully in the standing committee on privileges and elections where representatives of the native Indian people, provincial governments and any other interested individuals or groups can present their ideas with respect to this matter.
A great many other things could probably be said but I should like to leave the matter with that brief outline of my thoughts on it and my reference to the three groups into which these native Indians fall from the point of view of giving them the right to vote under the bill. I would urge that the debate not be continued until six o'clock but that the bill itself or the subject matter be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that Indians, as defined in the Indian Act, shall be entitled to vote at federal elections without loss of any of their hereditary, treaty, aboriginal or other similar rights.
This bill would help Canadianize the Indians.
The Conservative government's policy is to grant Indians the full status of Canadian citizens, and by way of example, I need hardly refer to the appointment to the Senate by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) of the Hon. James Gladstone, the first Canadian Indian to sit in the parliament of Canada. Mr. Speaker, this action on the part of the Prime Minister proves his sympathy for the Indians, the first citizens of our country.
Legally, and sociologically also, our compatriots of Indian origin fall into two separate groups: the Indians recognized as such by the federal administration, and those who would be called elsewhere "detribalized" Indians.
The difference between the two groups does not lie primarily on how much pure Indian blood flows in their veins or in cultural tradition but depends on whether or not they have been registered on the federal record of Indians. That record was established a few years ago only, under the new Indian Act of 1951. It would be too long, Mr. Speaker, to refer or explain the provisions of the act. It must be taken for granted that only the

170,000 individuals of Indian origin whose names appear on the record are recognized as Indians by the federal government. Others, legally speaking, are not Indians or have ceased to be Indians: they are just Canadian citizens.
If it were agreed across Canada to apply the word "Indian" exclusively to people recognized as such by the federal government, to define its meaning in purely judicial and sociological terms, and to cease using it to designate native people of the past or any of their present descendants, in general, there would be much less confusion, and our social native problem would become much clearer. I do not claim to be a sociologist or a jurist, but I will try to describe what an Indian really is in this particular meaning of the word.
Legal status of the Indian.
Basically, the legal status of Indian means the privilege, for the native Canadian so qualified, to live in a specific territory, vested in Her Majesty but for the exclusive use of the human community to which his father belongs. The territory is called a "reserve" and the body is called an "Indian band." As long as he does not voluntarily surrender that title or, as in the case of a woman, through marriage with a non-Indian, that citizen is entitled to his share of the collective receipts from the sale, rental or mining rights of that territory, in whole or in part. Mr. Speaker, as long as he enjoys this privilege, that is as long as he lives on a reserve, he is exempt from land taxation and tax on all income gained locally. Along with his children if he has any, he is entitled to free education and free medical care, if he is unable to pay for such medical services when required. If in need, he can qualify for assistance from the federal government or from the trust fund of the band. Again, if he wants to set up or improve a farming organization or other in the reserve, he may borrow the required money from the government or from the band. He may inherit any house or rent one already built, either through the band revenues or through the government, or he may build one on his own. Again if he lives on the reserve, he may, if he is of age, participate in the elections or become a member of the council of his band, which has powers more or less identical to those of a municipal council, but under the supervision of the government superintendent, whose presence is required for the validity of any decision. Mr. Speaker, many of those decisions, when of major importance, must also be ratified by the government in Ottawa.
Canada Elections Act
This governmental control on the band activities in the reserve-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I am not sure that I follow the relevance of what the hon. member is saying. The bill before us concerns an amendment to the election act, not the Indian Act, and while it is relevant to say who is considered to be an Indian, it seems to me the hon. member is going far beyond that.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on with the definition of the term "Indian-Canadian", but since I must confine myself to the content of that bill, I must say that the explanations I was giving about the Indians apply indirectly to that bill.
Anyway, the Conservative government has already taken steps in favour of the Indians and I think that the appointment of an Indian Senator helps to place in the public eye the first citizens of our country. I am sure that the Conservative government will continue to study the problem of the Indians in order to facilitate their integration in Canadian life.
And referring to Bill C-13:
An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of section 14 of the Canada Elections Act is repealed.
2.	Subsection (4) of section 14 of the said Act is repealed.
3.	Section 14 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(8) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or the Indian Act, an Indian, as defined in the Indian Act, shall not have any of his hereditary, treaty, aboriginal, or other similar rights detracted from by reason of having his name included in the list of electors for the polling division in which he was ordinarily resident on the date of the issue of the write ordering an election in the electoral district, or by reason of having voted at an election."
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is more anxious than ever to take into consideration the problem of the Indians of Canada.
I feel sure that the ministers of the crown will continue their efforts to this end and, in closing, may I point out that the adoption of this bill would contribute to give more predominance to the first occupants of this country and to make true Canadians out of them.
(Text):


Mr. Jack Wratten (Brantford):: In rising to take part in this debate, I must congratulate

Canada Elections Act
the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for introducing this bill to the house. Since I have been a member of this house I have noted that he has taken a great interest in Indian affairs. While I do not subscribe to some of the thoughts that he expresses, certainly he is to be commended for his interest in Indians and their problems in this country. I quite agree with the principle of this bill because I believe the large number of Indians spread across this vast country of ours should have the opportunity of going to the polls and voting for the candidate of their choice.
I believe these people should have this right because certainly they are the first citizens of this land and the oldest allies of Great Britain here in Canada. When we think of the cold, hunger, persecution and dangers that these people endured in years gone by as our allies, it seems the least we could do for the present generation is to give them the right to vote freely, without fear of losing their rights, in federal elections. Some years have elapsed since some of the provinces gave the Indians the right to vote. I believe it was in 1949 British Columbia gave them the right; 1953 in Ontario and 1954 in Manitoba, to mention two or three of the provinces.
I can speak only for the reserve situated in my home county of Brant. The Hon. Harry Nixon, provincial member for that constituency, has taken a great interest in the affairs of the Six Nations reserve by trying to get the Indians to exercise their franchise. In the federal field, the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton) represents these Indians here, and the members of the reserve honoured him a short time ago for the interest he has taken in them by making him an honorary chief. I have hoped for some time that a member of the Six Nations would be elected, either to the Ontario house or the federal house, because then he could more readily explain the thoughts and ambitions of his people to the other elected representatives.
The Six Nations reserve, partly in our county, is the largest reserve population-wise in Ontario. While it is not all confined to the township of Tuscarora, the biggest part of it is. On this reserve we have the problem of the elected council who do the business of the reserve and the hereditary council of chiefs of the long house who do not recognize the elected council as being the governing body. This is where the problem of federal voting would come in. The people who follow the elected council would probably give it serious consideration while those who follow the hereditary chiefs

council would not accept it and would view the whole proceedings with some alarm.
Some of these people believe that they should not enter into any voting proceedings as they feel that they are a separate league of nations living in Canada, allies of the crown, governing themselves as far as possible and should not be called upon to vote in federal electiohs. Indeed, some time ago, when the national council of women held their convention they passed a resolution. We all know that the local council of women are a good group of people in the various communities in which they have these councils and the resolutions which they bring forward are worthy of consideration by the members of this house and of other houses. They brought forward a resolution urging that the Indians be granted the vote. I have here a statement sent in by one of the hereditary chiefs of the Six Nations reserve. He is very blunt in this statement. Right at the start of it he tells the national council of women to mind their own business. If I may, I should like to read just a short statement that the gentleman made. This is Mr. Arthur Anderson, senior. He is secretary of the hereditary chiefs council. This press report states:
A spokesman for the Six Nations hereditary council said today that the national council of women should mind its own business on the question of a vote for Indians.
Arthur Anderson. Sr., secretary of the fiercely proud "old guard" of the Six Nations, said women's organizations have no right to interfere.
The national council of women passed a resolution at its convention, urging the federal government to give Canada's Indians a vote in federal elections.
"We don't want a vote," Mr. Anderson said. "Of what benefit would it be to us?
"We were here long before the white men were. We were instrumental in the very existence of this country.
"As far as the federal government is concerned let them leave us alone, and we'll leave them alone."
The statement follows the hereditary council's policy of opposing government efforts to integrate the Indians with the rest of Canada.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the view of one of the hereditary chiefs of the Six Nations reserve and it represents the thinking of some of the people on the reserve with regard to the federal vote and what they think is interference in their own affairs. I know that the national council of women passed this resolution in good faith, thinking they were doing the Indians a good turn, if I may say so, just as we do when we bring in this bill to try to grant them the right to vote in federal elections.
A large number of other people on the reserve could not care less about the vote. As the Indian people have the right to cross the United States-Canadian border at will,

those on the Six Nations reserve spend considerable time in New York state; and I could foresee considerable difficulty in ever enumerating these people for the voters' list. I might go on further and say that they come and go across the border at will. They work a short time in New York state and a short time in Canada and it has been extremely difficult ever to get a correct enumeration or a correct count of the population of Indians on the Six Nations reserve for that reason.
I am just giving my own ideas, Mr. Speaker, as I have read about and observed the actions of the Indians near and in the city of Brantford. I believe they are more interested in some amendments to other parts of the Indian Act for their own benefit before they think about the vote. I should like to read you another letter which was written by another Indian hereditary chief and which was printed in our local paper, namely the Brantford Expositor, not so long ago. This same gentleman is concerned about the vote for Indians. He feels that before dealing with the vote for Indians we should have some different legislation with regard to the Indian Act. I do not know whether or not I am in order in reading this letter, but it points out the views held by this one hereditary chief with regard to some of the changes that should be made in the Indian Act before we stress the vote for Indians. This letter is written by Norman S. Powless. He is one of the hereditary chiefs about whom I just spoke. The letter appears under the heading "Readers' Views on the Indian Act, Speed Traps and People on Buses" and it reads as follows:
Sir: Having abstained from writing to you for six years, may I prove once again the unfair practices of the peace officer in our midst?
How is it that when any peace officer arrests a paleface violator of the law on Six Nations territory reference is immediately made concerning what I have called before and find necessary to repeat this alien legislation, the Indian Act.
May I also repeat that we are not Indians, nor are we connected with India or its people in any manner, shape or form. Yet the authorities stubbornly impose this vicious piece of legislation on us, an innocent race.
The Indian Act considers this race to be a race of minors, but let a native of the Six Nations territory make an infraction of the law, whether the offence be minor or serious, and the offender is no longer considered a minor but is given the maximum penalty the paleface law provides.
This is a further proof that this alien legislation, the Indian Act, is not fit to be imposed on any human race, nor by police or police officers.
Why is it permitted to sell liquor to natives of the Six Nations territory and allow them to bring it out? They are no further ahead, as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police await them as soon as they leave for home. Arrest is then made whether they are violent or minding their own business, as long as their breath smells of liquor.
Canada Elections Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been listening to what the hon. member has been reading and I must say that it does not seem to bear directly on the principle of the bill.


Jack Wratten: Mr. Speaker, I was really reading this letter because it contains some points that this gentleman, Mr. Powless, is trying to make with regard to what should be done about the Indian Act before we go ahead with giving the Indians the vote. He believes that we should first clean up some of what in his opinion are indiscretions in the Indian Act. However, if you feel that is not relevant to the subject of votes for Indians, Mr. Speaker, I will let it go and will abide by your rules.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say again that I congratulate the hon. member for Skeena on bringing in this bill. I support most heartily any legislation that would be of benefit to my neighbours in Brant county. The only question in my mind is whether this bill is not a little bit premature inasmuch as there is on the order paper a government resolution providing for the appointment of a committee to go over the Indian Act completely. I hope this resolution will go through, that the committee will be set up and that the federal vote for the Indians will be given careful consideration. I would also recommend that responsible Indian leaders from all the bands and reserves be called in and that their views be heard and received by the committee, not the superintendent appointed by the government but the people themselves. Then I am sure we will get their views not only on this bill with regard to the right to vote, but on many other problems they have as well.
In closing, I would like to mention the good co-operation that I and the council of the township of Brantford always received from the Six Nations when I was reeve and warden of the county, and I am sure a solution to their problem of voting, and other problems also, can be worked out with consultation and patience with the leaders of the different bands all across Canada.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the act proposes to enfranchise all Indians. There may be a question whether or not this can legally be done as far as Indians are concerned. No doubt we can pass a law in this house which will enfranchise all Indians. But what does it do in fact? It may be only a pious wish, because the Indians, at least the Indians under treaties, are sovereign nations. I speak principally for the western Indians, because I have lived with them, I have dealt with them as a law enforcement officer and as a neighbour, and I know something of the way

Canada Elections Act
these Indians feel about the whole question. For us to pass this act would be a one-sided affair. I do not think we should enlarge their rights without consulting them, because although we may feel that to give them the franchise, or even to offer them the franchise, is a great compliment to them, there are some Indians who do not think it is a great compliment.
They look back over the last 100 years. They look back to the time when they were the local race of people, when they were numerous, when they were independent, when they were free. They outnumbered the white man. At one time there was no doubt at all but that they wished to rise and exert their rights as free human beings. They could have swept the white man from the plains. But they did not choose to do so, and the reason was because they expected honour. They have kept their treaties and they expect us to keep ours.
What faces the Indian today? His treaty is really gone; it has been destroyed by time and by circumstance. If we asked him to keep his treaty his position is still one-sided, because the nomadic way of life which we offered him in that great western land is gone forever. The game on which he lived has gone. The rivers and lakes which were full of fish are dried up or polluted. They can no longer throw a line in and live their nomadic way of life. We now ask this Indian to give up his nomadic way of life in order to vote. This may seem to us eminently fair and just, but in order to have the vote and to use it properly he must understand our ways. He is in no position to understand our ways because he has never had equality. He has never had equality of opportunity in any way, shape or form. When we took away his land

and we did take it away-we gave him reserves on which to live.
Many white people have thought that we stole the western land from the Indian when we gave him these reserves, but he chose the land on which he wanted to live. He chose sand hills because they are rich with game birds, and he chose the streams and edges of lakes because they were rich with fish. And he chose the few places where the buffalo were still left, but today they are gone. Now we offer him a free vote as a recompense for his giving up that great western land. He gave it up voluntarily, and I claim that when he gave it up he was our superior. He was our superior in his living in that country. He was our superior in numbers, superior in war, and in many respects he is superior in honour, because with very, very few exceptions the Indian has not broken his treaty.
He is still trying to adjust himself. It is true that he would, if you asked him, still

prefer the nomadic way of life. But, Mr. Speaker, in order to absorb him into our modern civilization, we have to offer him equality, and this will take time. If we ask him to vote he must abandon his rights. I do not think he must wait to abandon his rights. I think that we must get together with him and see whether he wants the vote, and then if he does, to offer him the vote but on his terms. We have had our way for 100 years, and it has not worked out for the Indian. Let us try it his way. I know that the Indian wants to become a good Canadian citizen, because whenever he sees the need to give what he can to Canada, he is willing to do so. We have recognized this, and when we are in a spot we allow him to vote.
It may be of interest to members of this house to know that, for their numbers, the North American Indian has produced more soldiers than any other race of people fighting under our flag. He has not only fought, but fought well. Many of them were decorated. True, few of them reached officer rank, but that of course was due to their lack of education and was certainly not because of the lack of any fighting quality. The Indian needs the right to vote in order to have full equality with us; but he must have it, as I say, on his own terms.
What do we mean when we say that we must wait for him to become as well educated as we are? What is education? The only education we are worried about is the education necessary to become a good citizen. The Indian has many of the qualities required for that purpose. He is industrious in his own way. Many men think the Indian is incapable of hard, concentrated work. These people have never worked with the Indian. The Indian is the equal physically of any man in Canada. He is able to endure long hours on the trail, and in the north country today even the mounted police, the finest of Canada's young white men, rely on the natives whenever they are out in weather that the white man cannot stand. Whenever they are in woods where there are no roads and no maps they rely on our red brethren.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES TO THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Green -Mr. Sevigny in the chair:

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to .amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of all expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks I wish to reassure you that during the course of what I have to say I do not intend to use that naughty word *"Duplessis" which seems to depress some of the hon. gentlemen over there to such a degree. I had hoped and, in fact, I mentioned to him at six o'clock that the hon. member for Assiniboia would be here when I spoke this evening because I wanted to take the opportunity of debunking the ridiculous statement he made this afternoon to the effect that there was any difference between the fundamental position we took when we were in office and the position we take now with respect to the trans-Canada highway.
It was the St. Laurent government that started the trans-Canada highway in 1949, and practically all of the work that was done on the highway until about a year ago was authorized by the St. Laurent government and I congratulate the present Minister of Public Works for having kept up the good work that we started. While his estimates are showing the inflation that is customary in the estimates of hon. gentlemen opposite over anything that we ever undertook to expend and while it is interesting to see that the minister is not much better at estimating than some of his colleagues are, we believe the money is being spent in a very good cause. I certainly would be the last one to complain about it because I imagine there could be very few ridings in this country that are deriving more direct and immediate benefit from the work on the trans-Canada highway that is proceeding at the present time-not so much this winter as last because of climatic conditions-than the riding I have the honour to represent and there is certainly no part of Canada where it is more needed.
There is one observation of a general character I shall make about this resolution and it applies equally to all forms of sharing between federal and provincial authorities except one. The hospitalization legislation does have a different and more equitable provision. This 50-50 sharing formula in programs of this kind works a hardship on those
Trans-Canada Highway Act provinces with lower taxable capacity. It is very easy for a rich province like Ontario or like the minister's province to match dollar for dollar. It is much more difficult for the four Atlantic provinces. I am not suggesting that what I am about to say is anything more than my own view on the subject which I commend as much to my hon. friends on this side as to hon. gentlemen opposite but I believe all of us should see if it would not be possible to devise a formula, if these cost-sharing arrangements are to go on, that would have a more equitable result as between the provinces; a formula based to some degree on the same kind of principle as the tax equalization plan.
While of course we are pleased that the government of Saskatchewan had been able to build the trans-Canada highway across that province and while we are equally pleased that Manitoba has completed all of its share except, I understand, the by-pass around Winnipeg-


Howard Charles Green: Brandon is not quite finished either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand it is practically finished. While we are pleased about Saskatchewan and Manitoba and pleased that Alberta is practically finished, too, it will be apparent to almost anyone that there are two reasons why that is so. One is that the cost of road building on the average is so much lower in those provinces than in some others and the other reason is that, relatively speaking, over most of the past few years, as the statistics show, those provinces have had a pretty good taxable capacity, and there has not been the same difficulty that has been experienced in the Atlantic provinces in getting on with this work and in meeting the kind of program that the minister, like his predecessor, would desire to see.
I do not intend to repeat what was said by my friends, the hon. members for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and Humber-St. George's about the special difficulties encountered in Newfoundland. I shall only comment that this experience has not been confined to Newfoundland. About a year ago I happened to be in the gallery of the Nova Scotia legislature when the road estimates were being discussed. I heard the provincial minister of that department who belongs to the same party as the Minister of Public Works say that they simply could not afford to do what they would like to do on the trans-Canada highway because they could make the same amount of money go much further

Trans-Canada Highway Act in more local roads. That is precisely the problem that exists in an acute form in Newfoundland.
I said last year, and I think it should be repeated, that I assume that the federal government, particularly with the Minister of Finance in his present embarrassment, is prepared to spend only so much money each year on highway co-operation with the provinces. I do not want anyone to suggest that I am opposing the construction of highways anywhere else in Canada when I say that I believe-and I am sure the minister agrees with this-that first priority should be given to completing the original trans-Canada highway and that the duplication of highways, which undoubtedly will be a highly desirable development in the future, should be a second priority.
Members of the government have complained over and over again since the beginning of this session that we on this side of the chamber have not told them how to run the country. Apparently they have no ideas of their own and they want us to tell them how to govern the nation. There is one thing I will do right away. I intend to make a most constructive suggestion to the minister about getting the trans-Canada highway completed in the four Atlantic provinces at about the same time it could be completed in the six provinces west of Quebec. If the minister would adopt the Liberal policy enunciated by our leader a year ago of paying 90 per cent of the cost of building the trans-Canada highway in the four Atlantic provinces I am sure there would be no further obstacle in the way of having the road completed by December 31, 1960. Having had this constructive suggestion I hope the minister will rise in his place as soon as I sit down and tell us ihat he accepts it at once.
I may say that if the minister does accept that suggestion of mine it would bring much closer the day when the minister could do what I know he is extremely eager to do and that is to carry out the policy enunciated by the present Minister of Transport and the present Minister of Justice when they sat on this side of the chamber, the policy of having the federal government take over the whole cost of the trans-Canada highway and adopting a much wider highways policy. I hope the minister will apply himself with even more vigour than he has in the past and with even more money, and a larger share for the Atlantic provinces, to the completion of this road.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, all hon. members of the committee who have spoken to this resolution have spoken in favour of it.
[Mr. Fickersgill.l

Some have endorsed it at greater length than others. However, I am grateful for this unanimous support.
In considering the trans-Canada highway at this time it should be borne in mind that all of the nine provinces which have entered into the partnership arrangement with the federal government started out on an even basis. They were all having difficulty getting the work completed by the earlier deadline of 1956. Therefore, a new deal was made. All nine provinces were in a similar position. That was not the situation when we took over in 1957. Within a few months of the change in government the one province of Saskatchewan finished the job. They complied with the terms of the agreement and finished the job more than three years ahead of the deadline. In the intervening period since the fall of 1957, three more provinces have practically completed, namely Alberta, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island.
I suggest to hon. members that had any one of them been in my position he would have hesitated to recommend to the government that a change be made under those conditions in the terms of the agreement. It was only fair to those four provinces that the agreement stand in so far as the other five provinces are concerned. Those other five provinces have more difficulties, I agree, than the four who are either finished or practically finished. Those five provinces are doing their best to comply with the terms of the agreement. I am hoping that they will all be able to do so. Certainly, there is good faith on their part. Therefore, to suggest now that we should vary the agreement is not a sound suggestion.
Then, another fact which must be remembered is that the fundamental plan is that the provinces will select the route and will actually do the work. We inspect it and we pay 50 per cent of the cost, except on 10 per cent of the mileage we pay 90 per cent of the cost, but we are very much in the hands of the provinces. They have actually selected the route, although perhaps some of them have not selected the route that the federal government would have selected, and they are actually doing the work. They are letting the contracts; we are checking to see that the work is properly carried out and that the payments are all in order.
In so far as one province is concerned, namely Quebec, the government of that province has not seen fit to enter into an agreement at all. There was some criticism of that fact the other day and this afternoon

but the agreements are made with the people who happen to be forming the government at the time the agreement is signed. In the province of Quebec there is very little to suggest that that government does not have the support of the people of that province.


Maurice Bourget: Oh, no!


Howard Charles Green: I do not want to get into any argument.


Maurice Bourget: You had better not.


Lionel Chevrier: You could get into one very easily.


Howard Charles Green: I suspect there has been a lot of wishful thinking going on here this afternoon. However, the fact is that the government of the province of Quebec did not see fit to make an agreement and any federal government, no matter what party formed it, would be asking for trouble if it started telling any province in Canada that it ought to be doing this or that.


Maurice Bourget: That is all right.


Howard Charles Green: We say that the route through the province of Quebec, which would probably be the trans-Canada highway, is a mighty good road and it is paved and I believe throughout most of its length it is certainly up to the standard of the trans-Canada highway in any other province.


Maurice Bourget: And the people of Quebec are helping to pay for 50 per cent of it.


Howard Charles Green: In so far as having a first-class paved highway through the province of Quebec is concerned joining up with the trans-Canada in the other provinces, the federal government can have very little cause for complaint.
Mention has been made of the fact that we are merely continuing the policy of the former government. To a degree that is true, although I do point out that ever since 1936-certainly, it was 1930-something-I have been shouting my head off in the house here for a trans-Canada highway. I was just afraid that some hon. members might have some of those old speeches going back that far. The prodding, the urging and the trouble raising were not necessary in 1956; that had all been done years before. I suppose, if one is to be absolutely fair he should say that that government moved at about the time that it had the support of the people of the country behind it for a trans-Canada highway policy.
I know the hon. member for Assiniboia has a very low opinion of the present government and of the last government but I think usually they have to move when the people are ready
Trans-Canada Highway Act to move on a policy, and perhaps we shall not do quite as badly as the hon. member suggested this afternoon.
In fairness to the present government, I should point out that in addition to hurrying along the trans-Canada highway program

[DOT] and more was spent last year than in any other year, and there will be quite a few million dollars more spent during 1959 and 1960 than were spent in the last fiscal year- we have undertaken a roads to resources program which could involve a total of $150 million, divided into $15 million for each of the provinces.
I think it would be unwise for me at this session to attempt to deal with a highway policy which would be undertaken once the trans-Canada highway is completed. You know, human nature is the same no matter where we sit in the house.


Maurice Bourget: I am not too sure about that now.


Howard Charles Green: The minute we start talking about what is going to happen after the trans-Canada highway is completed there will be great danger, I think, of delay in the completion of the trans-Canada highway itself. The actual problem dealt with by the legislation, amendment of which is sought, is the completion of a trans-Canada highway to join the ten provinces of this nation by a first-class road. That is our main objective. That is the objective we aim to reach by the end of 1960.
The suggestions which have been made in the course of the debate will be extremely helpful in working out the details of a policy to follow the completion of the trans-Canada highway. I think the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate spoke with considerable common sense. Perhaps I should not say "for a change".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just trying to protect the treasury.


Howard Charles Green: He spoke with considerable common sense when he said that perhaps the time has come to look at the problem in each province and that it may not be possible to devise an over-all policy under which exactly the same things will be done in each one of the ten provinces. I am not making any commitments or getting out on any limbs but that just struck me as having considerable merit. I can assure hon. members that we shall try to follow the trans-Canada highway program with a highway policy based on the national interest. Mind you, it is very easy to be convinced that the highway policy that should be adopted by the nation is the one which best suits one's own province. I could make a wonderful
1346	HOUSE OF
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act speech for a new highway policy based on what should be done in British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have no debt out there. Surely you do not need any help.


Howard Charles Green: But for the policy to be sound and gain real support from all members of the house it will have to be a national policy. 1 can assure hon. members that we will have that very much in mind as we work out the details of such new policy. There will be an opportunity for members to ask questions when the bill is in committee and I shall be very glad at that time to endeavour at least to answer all questions that are asked.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Green thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill C-29, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to extend the application of the act from the 12th day of December, 1958 to the 30th day of June, 1962.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Mr. Robichaud:: Is the minister going to explain?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the resolution is simple and brief. The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, when it was enacted by parliament in the 1955 session, was given a three-year life from the date of proclamation. It was proclaimed on December 12, 1955 and accordingly expired on December 11, 1958. The purpose of the present resolution is to permit the introduction of a bill to extend the life of the act for a period slightly in excess of an additional three years and to make it retroactive to December 12 last.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Finance has explained very briefly, the purpose of the resolution is simple. It is to introduce a measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to extend the application of the act from December 12, 1958 to June 30, 1962. I hope that before discussion of the resolution is over the minister will explain to the house what has happened between December 12, 1958 and
LMr. Green.]

today, February 24, 1959. Were fishermen allowed to apply for loans and were the banks and the credit unions allowed to make loans during that period?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can answer that at once. We arranged with the banks and credit unions to carry on lending operations during the interval on our undertaking to introduce the present measure at this session. Operations have continued and the various fishermen's credit unions were so notified.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I thank the minister for this explanation. At the outset I want to make it clear that we on this side of the house will support the resolution but at this time I should like to say a few brief words with relation to the application of the act. As we know, the act was introduced in 1955 following careful study undertaken by the previous government to make loans available to fishermen under a plan similar to that under which loans are made available to farmers. The purpose of the act was to provide fishermen with the same credit facilities as are provided to farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It had to be preceded by the establishment of the fishermen's indemnity fund which provided a form of insurance to commercial fishermen on payment of a premium of one per cent. Up to the time when the fishermen's indemnity fund came into force it was rather difficult for fishermen to obtain insurance on their fishing boats or gear. In those days and even today regular rates of insurance varied from four per cent to seven per cent which was more than the fishermen could afford to pay.
As the minister has said, the purpose of the resolution which is now before us is to give the fishermen an opportunity of obtaining credit on favourable terms to meet their capital needs, and on a similar basis to that provided to farmers. I well recall when this act was first introduced that the members from all parties in this house joined in asking that credit unions be allowed to become lending agencies under this legislation. The prime minister of the day, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, accepted the suggestion without hesitation. The bill was referred to the banking and commerce committee where representatives of the credit unions were given an opportunity to present their case.
Following consideration in the committee an amendment was introduced upon the third reading of the bill to provide $10 million guaranteed total loans to the banks and $10 million to the credit unions. I have here a report of the operations under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act for the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1958, as tabled in this

house on July 23 last and known as Sessional Paper No. 51. In looking over this report, I find that from December 12, 1955 to the end of the fiscal year in March, 1956, 102 loans were granted for a total of $99,009.36; for the fiscal year ended March, 1957, 203 loans were granted for a total of $236,186.43; for the fiscal year which ended March, 1958, 136 loans were made for a total of $149,960.43.
The total number of loans made since the inception of this act is 441 for a total of $484,703.22. The report also mentions that out of the total number of loans made, 80 of those have been repaid for a total of $182,639.74. Further on in the report I also noticed that since its inception in 1955, out of a total of 441 loans, 273 were in the Atlantic provinces for a total sum of $224,262.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize the contribution of the credit unions in providing for the short term credit needs of fishermen, mainly in the province of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The fishermen's indemnity fund, as I have stated earlier, provided the insurance coverage required to secure or protect these loans. I am rather surprised to find that so little advantage of this act has been taken by the credit unions or even by the chartered banks in the Atlantic provinces. I am wondering if the provisions of this act have been made sufficiently known to the fishing communities and to the credit union groups. I know that pamphlets have been published explaining the regulations under this act, but I have yet to see copies of such pamphlets or publications in the offices of the banks or credit unions in my constituency. Could this not explain why so few fishermen have, in the first two and a half years of the operation of this act, taken advantage of this legislation?
I have in my hand a copy of one of these pamphlets which is being published by the department. It is clear and does explain the purpose and the conditions under which the loans are made. I should like the minister to advise this house how many of these pamphlets have been distributed and also if any of the publications are issued in the French language. We must recognize that in the province of New Brunswick, and to an even greater extent in the province of Quebec, the large proportion of our fishermen are French speaking. It would be quite difficult for them to find out about the application of this act unless they were provided with the details in their own language.
I should like the minister also, if possible, to tell us how many loans under this act have been made since the inception of the act through credit unions out of the total of 441. I have good reason for believing that very few, if any, have been made by credit
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act unions. It is true that the guaranteed loans are confined to bona fide fishermen, and I feel that is the way it should be. The security requirements as laid down under the regulations under this act are well explained in this pamphlet, are rather flexible and are in conformity with the conditions and practices obtaining in the different fisheries and also are in line with the circumstances of the borrowers which, as I have said, are bona fide fishermen. Anyone familiar with the fishing industry in the maritimes and in the Atlantic area would admit that the lack of capitalization in this particular industry has been largely responsible for the slow development of our fisheries. Our primary producers have, for generations, been dependent on the fish dealers and exporters for their credit needs. As a result, the fishermen of the maritimes have been for generations so closely tied up to the local dealers and merchants that the fishing industry as a whole was retarded and unable to move forward in line with other industries.
The credit unions and co-operative groups have played a major role in removing obstacles which were nothing else but a result of this feudal system which existed in the fishing industry. It is for this reason I should like to see the credit unions today play a major role in the practical application of this act. If we take into consideration the fact that a large number of the fishermen have no contact whatever with the chartered banks, as many live in communities where banks are not established, we can see the need for credit unions to expand in this particular field. It is hoped, however, that in the future fishermen will be able to take better advantage of this particular act. We realize that in its first year of operation, even in the first two and one half years, this act may not have shown the results which we expected. However, we must also take into consideration the fact that during the first year of operation the Farm Improvement Loans Act was responsible for loans amounting to only $3 million, while it is now responsible for loans of close to $100 million a year.
I am doubtful, however, about the attitude of the chartered banks and the credit unions in dealing with applications under this Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. There appears to be a certain reluctance or a lack of interest in granting loans under this act. We know how much these loans are needed by the fishermen. I would suggest that these pamphlets or circulars outlining the details of the regulations be made available to all banks and credit unions in the fishing communities, similar to the procedure ibeing followed under the Farm Improvement Loans

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act Act. Again I want to mention to the minister how important it is that these pamphlets be published in the French language. If our fishermen want to operate successfully, they must be provided with credit facilities which will enable them to improve or modernize their equipment and thus increase their catching efficiency.
On a recent visit to my constituency I discussed with officials of credit unions or caisses populaires the application of this particular act in our fishing communities. I was rather surprised to learn that there was little interest on their part in participating in this loan scheme. I was told that there was attached to these loans so much red tape that many credit unions preferred to keep away from participating under this act. Such a situation should not exist. If there is misunderstanding in the application of the act, steps should be taken at once to rectify the situation.
I would suggest to the minister that the supervisor of the fisheries improvement loans division be instructed to make a survey of the situation without delay. He could meet with leaders of credit union groups in fishing communities in the Atlantic provinces or with leaders of caisses populaires and could find out what are the clauses or conditions of the act which are not meeting with their approval. It may be that the 15-10 per cent government guarantee is not sufficient and that serious consideration should be given to increasing the percentage to a 20-15 basis.
I would ask the minister to give this suggestion serious consideration.
As I have said, I am supporting this resolution. There is much more that I should like to say with regard to the provision of loans to fishermen but I realize that we have in the Atlantic provinces provincial fishermen's loan boards where larger loans are being taken care of. I also know that under this act loans are limited to $4,000. However, I wanted to make sure that I would limit myself to this resolution. I hope the minister will give consideration to my request to take the necessary steps to make this act better known to fishermen and to contact the credit unions in order to find out whether there are in the present act any clauses or conditions which make it rather difficult for them to participate.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this resolution I wish to make only a few brief comments with regard to those men engaged in this primary fishing industry who will benefit from the extension of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Gloucester who has just taken his seat.
[Mr. Robichaud.l

He raised some questions relating to the coverage of this act. Possibly we may find the key to the reasons behind the lack of interest in this act displayed by the fishermen by referring to the act itself as it is listed in the statutes of 1955, chapter 46, at page 271. In his remarks the hon. member dealt thoroughly with the banking end of the act. In reading the interpretation section we find the following:
(a) "application" means an application for a guaranteed loan;-
(c) "borrower" means a fisherman to whom a guaranteed loan has been made;-
(f) "fisherman" means a person who has a prescribed interest in,
(i)	a fishing vessel,
(ii)	a weir, or similar fish catching or trapping device, that is affixed to the ground, or
(iii)	a proprietary share in a fishing vessel or in a weir or fish catching or trapping device described in subparagraph (ii),-
In my opinion the act, as it is at present worded, does not adequately cover many of those rugged individualists who today class themselves as fishermen. At the present time, for example, there are many men engaged in a full time fishing operation on deep sea trawlers who do not own a share in the trawler or a share in a part of the trawler's equipment. These men are actively engaged in the fishing industry. They are operating on the banks for approximately ten months of the year. But there comes a time when, as they grow older, the hardships which they are enduring and which are associated with this type of fishing-the constant struggle with the elements, the hard work, the long hours, the weeks of loneliness away from home and loved ones-cause them to stop and reflect upon their present way of life.
To most of them there is no alternative. They must continue on in what has become the only true free enterprise industry left in Canada; I refer to the fishing industry. However, some may decide to continue prosecuting the fisheries in a more modified way; and so they decide to stay ashore, purchase a small boat and some lobster traps or possibly a mackerel trap. From their meagre savings they are unable to finance the boat and the equipment needed and so they make application for a loan under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Here we have men who have spent the greater part of their lives in the fishing industry. However, under the present interpretation of the act these fishermen cannot qualify for a loan as they do not own a share in a fishing vessel or in any fishing equipment. This same argument could apply to a shore fisherman who owned a boat and equipment and sold these to a friend or relative with the intention of procuring a larger boat and new fishing equipment. Under the

present act his application would be rejected. This may be the answer to the question posed by the hon. member for Gloucester when he referred to the small number of applications made for assistance under this act.
Another example could be the fisherman having an interest in a herring net, a mackerel trap or a pollock trap. It is true that these types of fishing equipment are anchored to the ocean floor but they are not affixed to the ground as is a fishing weir which is a contraption of poles and brush placed in the ground near the shore in order to trap fish. Without an interest in this equipment these men are unable to qualify. In view of the improper wording of this act and the indefinite description of a Canadian fisherman, I would suggest that the government amend the present act and give consideration to a loan to anyone at present engaged in the fishing industry who is desirous of acquiring an interest in a fishing craft or fishing equipment so that he may participate in this primary industry.


Mr. McWilliam:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance reads as follows:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to extend the application of the act from the 12th day of December, 1958 to the 30th day of June, 1962.
This measure was first introduced in the house in the 1955 session and it was given unanimous approval. I am sure this amendment will receive that same approval from this present chamber. I do not know why the legislation was allowed to expire. However, earlier this evening the hon. minister stated that arrangements had been made with lending institutions to grant loans in the interim. He did not actually use those exact words, but I think that is what he meant. Therefore as far as the lending powers were concerned, an arrangement had been made and the fishermen did not suffer from this lapse. In any event, I do not judge that the demand for loans during this period was very heavy.
Sessional Paper No. 51 of July 23, 1958, showed total loans up to March 31, 1958 were 441 in the amount of $484,736.22, and 80 loans were repaid in that period for a total of $182,639.74. Loans to New Brunswick fishermen totalled 105 and were in the amount of $63,045, making an average loan of $600. It would appear from the information contained in the sessional paper that from 1955 up until the end of the fiscal year of March, 1958 fishermen did not take very much advantage of this legislation, or they were unable to secure loans from local banks or credit unions. Perhaps the hon. minister can ascertain how many applications for loans 66968-9-86
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act have been refused, toward ascertaining if the legislation is providing the service for which it was intended. As only 441 loans were granted it appears that this number is small for all Canada. Perhaps the lending institutions do not look with too much favour on the kind of loans authorized under this act, or it may be that fishermen generally are not aware of the credit facilities available. I would suggest to the hon. minister, and to the Minister of Fisheries also, that all media should be used to advertise to the fishermen that these credit facilities are available. It may well be that a great number of fishermen are not familiar with the credit facilities available under this act.
Under the act loans can be secured up to $4,000 at 5 per cent simple interest, for a repayment period of up to eight years. The loans are guaranteed by the government of Canada to designated lending institutions up to 15 per cent of the first $500,000, plus 10 per cent of the amount of additional loans, and this guarantee is available up to $15 million within a three-year period. The purpose of this bill, as the hon. minister stated in his opening remarks, is to increase the availability of intermediate term credit to fishermen. It was designed to assist the average fisherman to make use of the credit facilities offered to meet his needs in the fishing industry.
The regulations to the act, I think, in some cases are too restrictive on the time limit for repayment of loans, particularly in two cases. Those cases are where major repairs to boats, superstructure and engines are required. These loans are subject to a three year period of repayment. Section 12 of the regulations provides suggested maximum terms of repayment of loans, depending, of course, upon the amount borrowed and the probability of the borrower paying off the loan within the required time period. These suggested terms are: On a $400 loan, 18 months; on a $750 loan, two years, six months; on a $1,500 loan, four years. Then, of course, it varies up to $4,000, which sets a term of eight years.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to outline briefly the case of two fishermen, residents of Northum-berland-Miramichi, who made application for a loan of $3,500 for a period of six or seven years. The loan was requested for the installation of a clam and quahog mechanical digger on their boat. The plans for the clam and quahog digger were approved by officials of the Department of Fisheries, who actually provided the blueprints for the mechanical digger. Their boat, jointly owned, a 40-foot craft with a 12-foot beam, newly constructed, fully equipped, free of all debt,

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was offered as security. The resale value of this boat and equipment, at a moderate estimate, would be $5,000. Approaches were made by these two fishermen to two or three local banks in the constituency in which they lived, and in only one case was the bank manager interested. This particular bank manager made every effort to assist the fishermen and to provide the loan as required for $3,500, for a term of six or seven years. When the bank manager passed the application along to head office the loan was turned down and, of course, when one reads the act one can understand why it was turned down-because it came under a three year time repayment period. Of course, at that time the fishermen were told that the loan could be made for a three year term. While the fishermen felt that the loan might be repaid in three years from the revenue derived from clam and quahog fishing, they did not wish to gamble on a three-year term in case adverse conditions might arise in this short period, and as good businessmen they desired a longer term of credit which would ensure their being able to live up to their financial commitments.
This type of loan for financing fishing equipment as such comes under a three year repayment regulation, and I desire to make a request to the minister that the time limit for the two types of loan that are restricted by the three year term which I have mentioned be extended to at least five or six years. An extension of the time limit for repayment of the two types of loans would provide a better service for those energetic fishermen who wish to secure credit under conditions which they feel they can meet, and who are prepared to stake their holdings, their boat and their equipment in the building up of the fishing industry.
It will be noted from the list of suggested maximum terms of repayment that certain loans in the amount of $4,000 are repayable over an eight year period. Why is this same eight year period not extended to these two types which I mentioned are under the three year term? In closing, Mr. Chairman, I again request the minister to take this matter under consideration, and I trust that loans for superstructures, purchase of new engines or major repairs to engines, and loans to purchase equipment such as I have mentioned- a mechanical clam and quahog digger-will be extended to a period of five or six years.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to extend the application of the act from December 12, 1958 to June 30, 1962, as explained by the Minister of Finance. Any worthwhile effort to give assistance to our fishermen and our fisheries

should receive the wholehearted support of all hon. members of the house. We have in our fishing industry a potential Klondike, a source of wealth for the national economy equivalent to any gold claim filed in northern Canada, Alaska, California or elsewhere.
In view of the general failure of the cod fishery in Newfoundland last year which has caused many fishermen to seek government relief because they did not have sufficient stamps to qualify for unemployment assistance, these men find it difficult to obtain the necessary funds to buy lines and twines to repair their nets and trawls and make essential repairs to their fishing boats. I strongly recommend, therefore, that officials of the Department of Fisheries be instructed to explain to those with whom they come in contact the provisions and application of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I refer especially to the fish inspectors who move freely from settlement to settlement and who mix with the fishermen.
I am convinced that Newfoundlanders generally and the fishermen of that province in particular know too little about the act. I doubt, for instance, that many are aware that they may borrow up to 70 per cent of the purchase price or estimated cost of a project or equipment. Where the fisherman himself does any portion of the work involved in the project the amount of the loan must not exceed an amount equal to his cash outlay in respect thereof. I doubt if many fishermen are aware of this fact or of the fact that loans of this type must be repaid within a period of eight years.
In order for the act to fulfil the purpose for which it was instituted fishermen must know how to take proper advantage of it. I feel that in keeping with the spirit of the act some educational work among the fishermen should be done with a view to acquainting them with the advantages that could accrue to them under the provisions of this legislation.
I would also suggest that bank officials should familiarize themselves with the act. By so doing they would be in a position to be of great assistance to fishermen who are eligible for a loan and who might consult them in this regard. I would ask hon. members of this committee to give this amendment their wholehearted support.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to support this resolution I should like to commend to the minister the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. I believe the weakness of this legislation is evident because of the fact that the distribution of funds under the act down through the years has been far from equitable. For

example, the province of Prince Edward Island which constitutes less than 5 per cent of the commercial fishery of Canada, if I am not mistaken, leads the list of provinces in the number of loans and the total amount of money borrowed under this act to date. The figures I have indicate that fishermen of that province have availed themselves of a total of 174 loans to a value of $141,166. On the other hand the province of Newfoundland which according to my recollection constitutes 30 per cent of the commercial fishery of Canada is away down on the list. Only three loans representing a total value of $1,240 have been applied for in Newfoundland since the inception of the act several years ago. I could confine my argument to this point alone to bring home to the minister the fact that the act as it now stands is most unsatisfactory in that it excludes a large group of fishermen in the Atlantic provinces and in Newfoundland in particular who prosecute what is known as the shore fishery but who are not eligible for loans under this act because they do not own equipment, boats or nets.
I would suggest to the minister that he give very serious consideration to this matter bearing in mind the statistics I have cited. I commend to his consideration the suggestion of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg that perhaps an amendment should be made to the present act which would make it more inclusive and thus embrace those sectors of the Canadian fishing industry that are in the greatest need of such legislation. I am speaking specifically now of the shore fishery of Newfoundland.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act by extending the period of its application to June 30, 1962. As one whose constituents are nearly all fishermen it is natural that I should support this resolution and since this resolution proposes to amend this act in one particular way this would appear an appropriate time to point out to the minister where other changes are required so that consideration may be given to further amendments which aim at improving the effectiveness of this legislation.
The minister has heard a number of suggestions proposed by previous speakers the effect of which would tend to broaden the application of the legislation and increase the number of projects for which loans may be secured. I wish to support wholeheartedly the suggestion made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg that there should be a greater variety of equipment included 66968-9-86J
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act under this legislation. Many fishermen are at a disadvantage because their particular type of equipment is not insurable. The lobster fisherman can insure his lobster traps but the salmon fisherman cannot insure his salmon net and the herring fisherman cannot insure his herring seine or his herring net. It very often happens that long liners have their gear destroyed through various causes. The only way the loss can be compensated is through securing a loan. This is the kind of need this legislation was intended to meet.
I also wish to support the suggestions made by the hon. member for Northumber-land-Miramichi with respect to increasing the period of repayment and making the payments easier for the fishermen. As the minister pointed out this legislation was introduced by the Liberal government some three years ago. During that three year trial period we have learned many things from firsthand experience.
As the hon. member for St. John's East has just pointed out, our experience in Newfoundland has been that this legislation is not effective at all. In fact, its effect is so small as to be insignificant. There have been three loans for the whole province of Newfoundland during the past 3} years. I put a question on the order paper last year soliciting that information. I am reading now from page 2080 of Hansard of July 9, 1958, question No. 142, which reads as follows:
t. How many loans have been granted to fishermen in Newfoundland from the fishermen's small loans fund for each year up to the present date?
2. What is the amount of each loan?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
It is assumed that the hon. member is referring to loans made under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
1.	Three.
2.	It is not in the public interest to disclose this information which is a matter of customer and bank relationship.
I would like to suggest to the minister that he need not have been quite so niggardly in his supplying of information as he appeared to be when he answered my question, because the hon. member for St. John's East has just put on the record the fact that the total of those loans amounted to $1,240 and that was the amount for the three loans. Surely, this could have been disclosed without in any way injuring the customer and bank relationship.
The figures put on the record by the hon. member for St. John's East disclosed also, if his information is up to date, that there have been no further loans made since the date in question, namely July 9, 1958. There must be a reason why so few fishermen are taking advantage of this legislation. It is well

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act known that in Newfoundland we have very few credit unions and very few communities have the services of a chartered bank. In my own riding, where there are perhaps 10,000 fishermen scattered over 200 settlements, there are four banks but even there a large number of fishermen can have access to a chartered bank without any great difficulty. Therefore, we must look for some reason other than the ready accessibility of banks and the number of credit unions available. These reasons in themselves are not sufficient because in my own riding at least 50 per cent of the fishermen would be able to get to some bank to negotiate a loan without any great difficulty.
I suggest to the minister that one of the reasons for the small use of this legislation in Newfoundland is the lack of publicity. This has already been referred to by the hon. member for Gloucester. These little pamphlets to which he referred are not very well distributed. I have never seen any of them in my riding; I have never heard any fishermen mention them and I think it would be wise for either the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Finance to see to it that the secretary of the Newfoundland fishermen's federation at St. John's was given a supply of these so that he could distribute them at least to the various locals around the coast of Newfoundland.
Another reason for the lack of use of this legislation is confusion with similar provincial legislation. In Newfoundland we have a fisheries loan board and very many fishermen-I think perhaps the majority of them- confuse the fisheries loan board with federal legislation. Some way should be found to distinguish between the two separate pieces of legislation. Perhaps a new title is required.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I ask
the hon. member a question? Does he not think that the chairman of the fisheries loan board, if he is unable to grant a loan to a fisherman, would refer him to the federal loan board?


Chesley William Carter: I am not here to criticize the chairman of the fisheries loan board or anybody else. That is not my purpose here. If I am going to criticize anything it is this legislation and that is my job.


William Joseph Browne: It is not
criticizing.


Chesley William Carter: I will say this to my hon. friend. I have never known a single case yet where the fault was always on one side. Always in my experience there has been a little fault on both sides and if there is fault

on the federal side it is my responsibility to criticize. Let somebody else take care of whatever fault there might be on the provincial side.
There could be better liaison between the federal departments and provincial authorities in this matter. I do not know why there is not. Perhaps this is one matter that the Minister without Portfolio might make it his business to look into and see what could be done to remedy it. There certainly is need for some device to differentiate in the minds of fishermen between this particular act which is federal and the various pieces of provincial legislation which provide loans from provincial governments.
But the most important reason of all why so few fishermen in Newfoundland have taken advantage of the legislation is the reluctance of the banks to make these loans. I have had some experience with this because on two or three ocsasions I have had to back notes myself personally before the bank would grant a loan to a fisherman although that fisherman was well known in the community as an honest man and a reliable person. They were very small loans, too, in some cases as small as $200. I can think of one person who had his dory smashed up in a storm. He was able to repair it himself. He provided the labour but he needed the cash to get the materials; I took him personally to the bank and he could not get the loan unless I backed the note for him. When the banks take that attitude toward fishermen they are not living up to the spirit of this legislation. The way in which this legislation is administered by the banks at the present time makes it impossible for the person who needs the loan to get it and the amount of security required is such that loans are available only to those fishermen who can manage to get along without them. Certainly this was never intended by this act.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I point out to the minister that as far as Newfoundland is concerned this need still exists. In fact, it is even greater than ever. But we may ask ourselves, what use is there in extending the period for the application of a loan if nobody can make any use of it? I appeal to the minister to consider further amendments along the lines which I have suggested with a view to making this legislation more effective.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. members who have spoken both for their support of the measure and for the

suggestions which they have made. I can assure them that all of those suggestions will be carefully considered.
Observations have been made to you tonight, Mr. Chairman, as to the reason why the act has not been more widely used. If the committee will give its consent, Mr. Chairman, I might put on the record now a table
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act indicating the extent of the lending operations under the act up to October 31 last.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Has the minister the consent of the committee to put the table on record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The table follows:



[Stage Direction]
(loans made-classified by province)
	Fiscal Year		Fiscal Year					
ended March	ended March	April 1/58 to	Since31/57	31/58	Oct. 31/58	Inception	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	AmountBritish Columbia 	$107,791.00	19	$ 50,235.00	13	$30,243.00	110	$233,579.00Alberta 	Saskatchewan 	Manitoba 	1,785.00	1	1,785.00Ontario 	3,000.00	5	11,218.00	13	22,022.00Quebec 	16,572.00	10	10,734.00	2	1,560.00	39	35,314.50New Brunswick 	28,558.00	43	27,332.00	15	12,082.50	120	75,127.50Nova Scotia 	27,056.00	17	16,995.47	9	10,622.50	66	68,782.54Prince Edward Island 	52,424.43	42	33,445.96	38	33,383.51	166	135,197.19Newfoundland 	1,000.00	3	1,240.00Total 	$236,186.43	136	$149,960.43	77	$87,891.51	518	$573,047.73
The table indicates that up to October 31 last, after about 34 months of operation, the total number of loans guaranteed under the act was 518. The aggregate amount of loans involved at that date was $573,047.73. This may not be a very impressive total, and attention has been drawn by some hon. members to the fact that remarkably little use has been made of the provisions of the act in some provinces. Perhaps the most conspicuous example, having regard to the extent of the fishing industry within it, is Newfoundland. The number of loans made in Newfoundland to date is only three.
Hon. members may speculate as to the reasons why greater use has not been made of the facilities offered by the act. Opinions will vary. Perhaps the correct explanation will vary according to the locality or according to the province. The fact is that the act provides for a system of lending for certain designated purposes by the chartered banks, credit unions and caisses populaires. This is not a case of government lending. This is a case of government guarantee of loans made by such lending institutions within the limits prescribed by the act and for the purposes prescribed by the act.
While the volume of lending has not been large it appears, in the experience of those charged with its administration, that in large degree contractors for the prime product have been financing the fishermen's operations. However, the current trend appears to be for
fishermen to become more independent of the buyer and the opinion of those who are charged with the administration of the act is that greater use is likely to be made of the provisions of the act.
Reference was made to the pamphlet. I think hon. members who have seen the pamphlet in connection with the act will regard it as an excellent pamphlet. It was issued in 1956 by the queen's printer and is available. I shall, of course, be very glad to make inquiries such as some hon. members have suggested tonight as to ways in which wider distribution of this useful pamphlet may be achieved.
I was asked certain questions with regard to classifications of lending operations. The annual report which has been tabled from year to year in the house has followed certain standard classifications in giving a breakdown of the loans to the house. The lending operations have been broken down by numbers of loans, aggregate amount of loans, provinces and purposes, whether for fishing equipment, whether for the purchase and repair of vessels and boats or building and construction. There are no figures available as to other forms of classifications. The hon. member for Gloucester asked for classification by lending institutions, that is to say, a breakdown as between chartered banks, credit unions and caisses populaires. That is not available but I shall be glad to make inquiries to see if
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act such information can be had before the bill reaches the house for second reading.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: It would be helpful if it were only between banks and credit unions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been lending done by the credit unions. When I made arrangements with the chartered banks to continue their lending operations under the act during the period between December 11, 1958 and the date the present proposed measure comes into effect a similar arrangement was made with the credit unions. However, I shall endeavour to obtain the information sought by the hon. member and give it to the house when the bill comes before the house on the motion for second reading.
I was also asked as to the number of applications rejected. I doubt whether that information is available because these are applications made to banks, credit unions or caisses populaires, not applications made to the department.
Various suggestions have been made as to ways in which the scope of the act might be extended. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg put forward a concrete proposal which was supported by the hon. member for St. John's East and also by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I may say that the first two named members spoke to me about this matter also after the resolution appeared on the order paper. I may also say that I have been very much impressed by the suggestion and I tell the committee now, as I told my hon. friends, that I shall certainly be prepared to give very sympathetic consideration to the suggestion. I think there is merit in the proposal that has been made. It is a fact that the act, which has not been amended since it first came into effect in 1955, does not permit a guaranteed loan to be made to a person who at one time had an interest in a fishing vessel but no longer has such interest or to a person who desires to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time. As I have told my hon. friends, I shall certainly be glad to give very sympathetic consideration to the suggestion which has been made.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have one more question before the resolution is carried. Would the minister also give consideration to the request I made that the directors of the credit unions be contacted to find out why they are not taking more advantage of the legislation? It may be that the guarantee on the 15-10 per cent basis may not be altogether satisfactory. It may be that it could not be done this year but the minister might consider an amendment for next year to provide a 20-15 per cent guarantee or even 20-10 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to give consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion with respect to contacting the directors of the credit unions. As to his second point, my impression is that the limit now set by the statute on the extent of the government's guarantee has not been a stumbling block in the way of wider use of the provisions of the act. It may be, as is indicated in the province of Newfoundland, that the availability of this type of loan under the statute is not as widely known as one would wish. I can certainly say, however, and give full assurance to the committee that it is the government's wish that the fullest use be made of the provisions of the act by those for whose benefit the legislation was enacted by parliament.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Are these pamphlets being circulated in the French language?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the second reading of Bill No. C-26, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the many years that have elapsed since the Northwest Territories Act was first enacted the house has been ready to keep pace with the development of the territories by approving the necessary amendments from time to time. I am sure all hon. members will agree that the amendments I have the honour to present at this time represent forward steps in providing the territories with orderly and effective administration.
At the present time the act provides that elected members of the council hold office for a term of three years from the date of the return of their individual writs of election. Because of the time it takes for the returns to come in from the outlying polls the effect of this provision is that each member's term of office starts on a different date. It is desirable to have all elected for the same term and it is proposed, by this amendment, to establish a definite term of office for the council itself, the term being three years from the date of the return of the writs for the

Northwest Territories Act
general election. This date is fixed in the order that the commissioner issues to the chief electoral officer prior to each general election. The life of the council will begin on that date, following the practice which the Canada Elections Act provides with respect to the House of Commons.
The present act also provides that the governor in council may, at any time after the expiration of two years from the date of the return of the writs of election of the elected members of the council, dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed. It is now proposed, by the new amendment, to bring the principles relating to dissolution in the territories in accord with the principles followed in the provinces and in this house. A similar change was made several years ago in the Yukon Act, and its provision in this act is another step in the evolution of the Northwest Territories toward responsible government.
Hon. members will have noted that some sections are to be repealed and not replaced. These subsections provided that when an elected member dies, resigns or is otherwise incapable of holding office, the vacancy thus created in the council should be filled by appointment by the governor in council. With the repeal of this subsection, the provisions of the Canada Elections Act for by-elections when an elected member dies, resigns or is otherwise incapable, become effective. They will be effective by virtue of section 114 of the Canada Elections Act. Thus, although there will be no specific provision for byelections in the Northwest Territories Act itself, by-elections will be held as provided in the Canada Elections Act. It is considered that the time has come to provide for byelections, thereby making fully effective the right of the people of the territories to elect their own representatives. The Yukon Territory has had provision for this type of by-election for some time.
Another amendment to the bill will authorize the commissioner, on the recommendation of the Northwest Territories council, to designate the place in the territories where, under the act, one session of the council will be held each year. Under the present wording the right to designate the place rests with the governor in council and it is a forward step to give to the commissioner the right to do so on the recommendation of the council itself.
The purpose of the third amendment is to clarify the present section 37. It is desired to appoint presiding officers for the small debt tribunals established under the judicature ordinance, and it is not clear whether the present section 37 of the Northwest
Territories Act is broad enough to authorize their appointment. A similar amendment was passed at the last session of parliament in connection with the Yukon Act.
The fourth amendment in the bill concerns the importation of liquor into the territories. At the present time subsection (1) of section 42 of the Northwest Territories Act prohibits the importation of liquor into the territories unless the permission of the commissioner has been obtained. The commissioner may be unavailable, and it is therefore proposed by this amendment that he be authorized to designate a person to act for him under this section when required. Once again, a similar amendment was made to the Yukon Act at the last session of parliament.
Although section 42 of the Northwest Territories Act adequately controls the importation of liquor into the territories, at the present time another federal statute also applies. The Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act prohibits the shipment of intoxicating liquors into a province except to the provincial government or provincial liquor board or commission. The application of this statute to the Northwest Territories is unnecessary duplication, and this amendment will exclude the territories from its application. A similar amendment was made to the Yukon Act at the last session of parliament.
The purpose of this last amendment is simply to authorize the governor in council to make regulations respecting the protection of sites, specimens and documents of archaeological, ethnological and historical importance. This is considered by the legal officers of the crown to be properly the subject of federal legislation. The proposed amendment is similar to section 51 of the Yukon Act and it will bring the Northwest Territories Act into accord with the Yukon Act in this respect.
With this statement of general principles on these amendments, Mr. Speaker, I think I will content myself. I should like to emphasize the point I made at the resolution stage of this bill that we are moving step by step toward assuring that the administrative and judicial aspects of these expanding territories will grow as the economics of these territories change. In some cases, the changes will be faster possibly than the people in the territories may request them, but in most cases the changes will be with the advice of the councils in each of the two territories. I think this indicates the attitude of the government. I trust that in the debate that will occur on these amendments the various points that can be taken
1356	HOUSE OF
Northwest Territories Act in regard to the concept of movement forward will be raised by hon. members because, on many of these points, I do not want to take the position that the final word has yet been spoken. Many of us feel that we are breaking into new fields and we are somewhat reluctant to take the position that what we are doing is absolutely right. I think if the debate proceeds in that spirit it will add something to the progress we are making and will give me some ideas, I hope, for future amendments to these acts concerning the two territories so that we can keep pace with the progress in those areas.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I said a few words concerning the judicial aspect of the amendments at the resolution stage of this bill, but I should like now to consider for a moment a part of what the minister has said concerning these amendments. He indicated that, by these amendments, he was proposing to give the Northwest Territories council greater autonomy. With regard to the first clause, he said that a definite term of office for council members would be fixed. But in the particular clause dealing with the matter we find the following:
Every council shall continue for three years from the date of the return of the writs for the general election of the elected members thereof and no longer, but the governor in council may at any time dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed.
I direct attention to the second part of clause 1, which provides:
-but the governor in council may at any time dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed.
In my opinion, this provision does not do what the minister said would be done, namely give a definite term of office to the elected members of council. What this clause will do is to make it possible for the governor in council or the cabinet here in this federal House of Commons, if they so desire, to dissolve the council. If they do not like the colour of the eyes of the members who are elected to council they could the following day or at any time thereafter dissolve the council and cause a new election. I do not think this clause is in keeping with the second amendment with which I wholly agree and which the minister said was a step towards more autonomy.
In the second clause which deals with the convening of the sessions of the council, a change is made from the provision found in the old act which says that the governor in council shall determine the place and time of meetings. Under this new amendment it is the commissioner on the recommendation of the council who does this. In the first


clause, in order to give greater autonomy and to bring it more in line with the amendment that is proposed in clause 2, instead of reading "governor in council" I think it should be "the commissioner in council" who dissolves the council.
As for the sections that have been changed to make it possible for by-elections to be held, I wholly agree. I thank the minister for listening to the representations that have come from my riding and from myself in this regard. As to all the other amendments that are proposed, I entirely agree with what the minister has said.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, coming from and practising law in a riding which is contiguous to the area of the Northwest Territories I have had frequent occasion to consider the question of the administration of justice and the constitution of the courts and I am going to take advantage of the suggestion of the minister to put forward two or three brief suggestions derived from practical experience.
With regard to the question of the amendment dealing with the appointment of judicial officers, may I say this. I read what the minister said the other day and what the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) said with regard to the question of concurrent jurisdiction. Apart from the question of autonomy there is a question of mechanics there which may well be considered. Here we have a situation where there is in effect a superior court in the Northwest Territories and there is access to the courts of certain provinces. You might easily find the situation-and I think it has developed-where interim and interlocutory applications might be made to a court outside the Northwest Territories and filed in the court house of record there; you there have a case probably commencing in the territories and then interlocutory applications are made in another place. I think that in due course, from what my experience has been, it would be well to consider the repeal of that particular section.
But even more anomalous than that situation, I think is the one where a superior court has jurisdiction in probate matters and where equally concurrent jurisdiction is given in probate matters to the county courts in some of the provinces. The situation might develop that an order made by a superior court judge in the Northwest Territories could be repealed or revoked or set aside by a county court judge presiding in a probate court in one of the provinces. I think that is not a desirable situation at all.
Finally, I would call the attention of the minister to a situation which has come to my

attention on several occasions. This particular section deals with the appointment of sheriffs. In my provincial jurisdiction the right to levy distress under conditional sale agreements is placed in the hands of a sheriff as an officer of the court. That particular situation does not exist in the territories. I understand that, under the terms of most of these conditional sale agreements which are drawn-by the finance companies-and naturally are slanted in the favour of the finance companies who draw them-it is possible for the personal agent or representative of the finance company to levy distress on his own without intervention of the sheriff. I would suggest to the minister that one way in which to remedy this situation would be to invest the sheriff with the complete and sole jurisdiction and discretion in connection with these distress warrants.
The only other suggestion 1 have to advance is in line with what the minister has said about the gradual granting of a more autonomous form of government to the territories. The time may well come before too long when the appointment of an attorney general may be desirable to advise the council and to act as does the attorney general in the provincial jurisdictions in connection with the administration of justice. I think that the time may well come before too long when this is a consummation to be desired. I put these suggestions before the minister as a result of my own practical experience in dealing with the courts and the system of judicature in the territories.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words. I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments made by the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie). I always pay attention to what he has to say. We all know that he has a keen mind, a warm heart, a fund of experience and a great reservoir of native wisdom. I thought that his criticisms of clause 1 had some validity. I should like the minister to deal with that matter at greater length and to reply to the criticisms of the hon. member. This clause seems to me to be somewhat contradictory having regard to regular democratic procedures in the territories. It reads as follows:
Every council shall continue for three years from the date of the return of the writs for the general election of the elected members thereof and no longer, but the governor in council may at any time dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed.
As I understand that clause, if there were elected a council of a stripe of which it was not fond or whose personnel were unpopular with the government or the senior members of the administration, it would be possible 66968-9-87
Northwest Territories Act for the governor in council to get rid of the lot of them by just dissolving the council and having a new council elected. I may not understand the situation fully but I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Mackenzie River said. As I said before, throughout his years here he has come up with some practical suggestions. He has a great deal of knowledge with respect to the territories. I should like the minister to reply in committee to the criticisms made by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house now that if the hon. minister speaks he will close the debate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there were two points made tonight that I think deserve an answer. The first one dealt with the suggestions made by the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) on the resolution stage, and by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) tonight concerning the judicial arrangements and procedures in the Northwest Territories. I mentioned casually on resolution stage that representations had been made to us over the past year with regard to reform in the administration of justice in the territories, and that as a result of those representations the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and one other would be going up there this summer. I looked into that recently and I found out I am slightly in error. The Minister of Justice is going up a little sooner than that, and I have an advance copy of a press release which is due out tomorrow, and I trust that when this is announced hon. members will see the extent to which the hon. minister is planning to cover the north in looking into this matter. I think I should say that the minister is being accompanied by the deputy minister and by the commissioner of the mounted police and is covering 14 places in the Northwest Territories.
The second point is the key one, I believe, and this was the reason why there was added in the first section these words:
-but the governor in council may at any time dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed.
The first change was in the use of dissolution to make it similar to the provinces. Now you can dissolve at any time like the provinces and this house. It is the next stage which causes concern. If you can visualize this council made up of five appointed members, appointed by the minister under the governor in council, with a commissioner who happens to be my deputy minister, and then four elected members you see the picture a little
1358	HOUSE OF
Northwest Territories Act more clearly. Supposing we had put in "dissolve on the advice of the commissioner, on the recommendation of the council", what would that mean? It would mean the five appointees of the federal government and the commissioner would be given the power to recommend dissolution. Supposing that there were a quarrel, which has never happened to date, between the elected members and the appointed members appointed by the federal government for the period of the duration of the office. How could we best, first of all, move toward the provincial pattern, and secondly, set the stage so that eventually when we have a resident commissioner and a majority of elected members, and finally all elected members, they could move smoothly into the new democratic position?
On the surface it would look more democratic to say, as was suggested, the commissioner on the recommendation of council; but in actual practice if we wanted to protect the elected members we would not give this power to the majority of council. Therefore, what we have done is to keep that power in the hands of the governor in council at this stage, so that if there is a difference between the elected members and the appointed members-and remember that the appointed members in the commission are in the majority-knowing our feelings on this thing we could move in and protect their wishes. If they wanted dissolution and they expressed it in a divided council, then we have the power to give them that dissolution. If they opposed dissolution, even though the appointed members wanted it, we can look at their advice.
Now, quite frankly, this is not a subject on which to be dogmatic, but it looked to me, after I listened to all the discussions and the points raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie River and again by the hon. member for Kootenay West, that considering all those things this seemed to be closer to what we wanted to do, and that is to make sure that the interests of the elected members would be paramount. I quite candidly confess we wondered if we could not move the elected members up to five and give them a majority, and cut down the appointed members, but at the present time the feeling of the members of the council is that they are not in favour of extending the number of elected members to this degree. So that with the situation as it is, and with their answers expressed to us as they are, this is the solution which we reached.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a complete answer to that point. It sounds a little irrational but that is the explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Duration of council; elections
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I thank the hon. minister for his explanation, but he still has not sold me on this proposition that the present wording of this bill is a step toward more democratic operation of the council. I still feel, as the hon. minister said, that if we were to change the words "governor in council" to '"commissioner in council" in clause 1, it would do exactly what the minister said it would do a moment ago. It would at least give the elected members of that council the opportunity to discuss dissolution, but under this amendment the question would not be considered by the council at all. The cabinet could decide, as I said, that because they did not like the colour of somebody's eyes who had been elected they would dissolve the council without considering the council or placing this proposition before the council. For that reason I would like to move an amendment to clause 1 of the bill as follows:
That clause 1 of the bill be amended by deleting the words "governor in council" in the eleventh line thereof and by substituting therefor the words "commissioner in council".


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry but I will have to oppose this amendment. I grant that it looks more democratic, but in practice it is the opposite, because it gives the power to the appointed members and the commissioner, without reference to the cabinet, to dissolve, and I think we should keep the power of dissolution in the hands of the democratic elected representatives of the people.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 51.


Charles Edward Rea: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 1 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with this debate on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act; we will then take item No. 4 on today's order paper, an act to amend the National Defence Act; item No. 2, an act to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act; item No. 5, an act to amend the National Housing Act; item No. 9, the resolution concerning the appointment of parliamentary secretaries; item No. 7,

the resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act; and then the bills with respect to the Trans-Canada Highway Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business will be for Thursday and Friday? I understand there is an agreement for Thursday but perhaps he could tell us what the business on Friday will be.


Howard Charles Green: It has been agreed that there will be a one day debate on external affairs on
Business of the House
Thursday. I am not sure about Friday. We may have to go on with some of this business, except the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act. We may take the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. gentleman indicate what we will do on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Monday and Tuesday will be devoted to a supply motion, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
66968-9-87£
[Stage Direction]
Questions