1961-02-13

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make to the house in regard to the 1959-60 oat pool.
The Canadian wheat board has completed an accounting in respect of this pool as at December 31, 1960. The 1959-60 oat pool has now been closed, and the government has authorized the distribution of the final surplus. Producers delivered 23,660,976 bushels of oats to the 1959-60 pool. The final surplus is $3,852,323.70 after deducting the prairie farm assistance levy and final payment costs and after adding estimated additional interest earnings. The average final payment on the 1959-60 oat account will be 16.281 cents per bushel. This is double the average final payment of 8.138 cents per bushel in the case of the 1958-59 pool.
The final oat payments for the principal grades delivered to the 1959-60 pool are as follows:
No. 2 Canada western ___ 17.146	cents	per	bushelExtra No. 3 Canada western 17.110	"	"	"No. 3 Canada western ... 15.916	"	"	"Extra No. 1 feed	
15.285	"	"	"No. 1 feed	
16.045	No. 2 feed	
19.451	
The final oat payment will commence today and cheques will be in the mail shortly.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Regier:
For a copy of all correspondence and instructions issued by the Department of Labour to the regional offices of the unemployment insurance commission having to do with displaced persons since January 1, 1957.
Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have made inquiries from the Department of Labour as to whether any correspondence and instructions have been issued by them to the regional offices of the unemployment insurance commission having to do with displaced persons since January 1, 1957.
I have been advised that no correspondence or instructions have been issued by the Department of Labour respecting this matter.
In view of that fact I would ask whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member signifies his willingness to withdraw the motion. Has the hon. member leave to do so?


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Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



LIVESTOCK PEDIGREE ACT-HOLSTEIN CATTLE REGISTRATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Pelers:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government, or any agency or department thereof, with any other government, organization, or person since January 1, 1952, dealing with the administration, violations or alleged violations of the Livestock Pedigree Act with respect to the registration of Holstein cattle.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: With the usual reservations, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he could inform the house whether any reply has been made to the request of the metropolitan area of Toronto for financial assistance in connection with the subway; and if so, could he tell us the nature of that reply?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the reply is being drafted at the present time, and as soon as it is ready to be forwarded and has been forwarded, the house will be made aware of the answer.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of his recent

Inquiries of the Ministry statement to the C.L.C. that employment depends to a large extent on management and labour. Would the minister care to say whether the government would be prepared to call a conference of management and labour to discuss this question, as has been requested by Mr. Douglas Hamilton, the secretary of the Ontario federation of labour.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the hon. member for Assiniboia is incorrect. What I did say was that the government had put forward certain measures to stimulate that aspect of the economy in order to provide jobs in the manufacturing and secondary industries, and that the government is prepared to accept any other reasonable suggestions and implement them; that the government will bring about further measures, but this also necessitates the cooperation of industry and labour to bring about productivity and bring the cost of that productivity down to the level where our goods can compete not only in the foreign market but in the domestic market.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister would say whether he is prepared to call a conference of industry and labour so that he may put his views before the conference in order that they might consider appropriate action?


Michael Starr: This government does not wish to interfere with the affairs of management and labour in their respective spheres. We feel the initiative should lie with them alone, because they too have a responsibility with respect to the affairs of this country.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My attention has been drawn to a question asked by the hon. member for Skeena on Friday last pertaining to so-called weight reducing preparations such as Metrecal and Quota. Some analyses of the constituents of these and similar products have been carried out in our food and drug laboratories, following the normal procedure when new products of this kind come on the market.
I am advised that after careful examination the conclusion has been reached that claims made in advertising appear to be reasonable in so far as the normal individual is concerned.
[Mr. Argue.)



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether the lamprey control program on lake Superior has been successful, and if it is true that a proposal has been made to ban completely any trout fishing on lake Superior next year?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I do not wish to be dogmatic with regard to the success of our lamprey control measures on the great lakes, but I can say that considerable success has been achieved by the use of specific poisons known as lampreycides which destroy the larvae of the lamprey in the streams without endangering other forms of life. There has been a fairly extensive program in the course of which lamprey producing streams in this country have been treated with this selective poison.
I do not want to comment on the second part of the question before seeing it in Hansard, but I will take it as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that Major General G. R. Pearkes, the former member for Esquimalt-Saanich, while a member of the opposition insisted that those responsible for dealing with the public at United States army posts in Canada should be Canadian citizens, can the minister assure the house that General Pearkes' recommendations have been carried into effect.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: There are no United States army bases in Canada. There are two United States army detachments at Fort Churchill but the base, and everything connected with it, is under Canadian over-all command and Canadian control.



RUSSIA-STATEMENT ON REPORTED ABILITY TO UNDERCUT CANADIAN MINERAL EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: On Thursday last the hon. member for Laurier asked the following question:

Has the minister seen the statement by the president of the Asbestos corporation before the Senate manpower committee that Russia is in a position to undercut Canadian exports of minerals to western Europe with low price offerings from communist sources? If so, has he any comment to make thereon?
I have seen the Canadian Press report on statements made to the Senate manpower committee by the president of Asbestos Corporation Limited to the effect that competition from the Soviet union is threatening Canada's export position in Europe, especially with offerings of asbestos.
We have been aware for some time that Canada's position in world markets for asbestos has been challenged due to competition from other sources, but this competition has not come only from the U.S.S.R.
Marketing conditions for Canadian asbestos in western Europe have improved since 1958 and 1959, when competition was most intense. In 1960, for example, exports of Canadian asbestos reached an all time high, and included shipments to Soviet bloc countries.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES   PRAIRIE PROVINCES-INQUIRY AS TO INTERCITY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On January 30 last in reply to a question directed to him by the hon. member for Medicine Hat dealing with the intercity traffic between various western Canadian cities, the minister made reference to the fact that if it appeared necessary and desirable in dealing with this problem, public hearings might be decided upon. I wonder if I might ask the minister, in view of the interest of a number of western cities, whether a decision has yet been reached to hold these public hearings.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minisier of Transpori):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to correct the previous answer I gave. I can state definitely today that prior to the transfer of the licence to operate this milk run, as it is known, there will certainly be public hearings.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hal):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will those public hearings be held in western Canada or in Ottawa? Can the minister give any indication when they will be held?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to state definitely the location of the public hearings. As far as the time is concerned, as I said they will be held prior to the changeover.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



CONGO-REPORTED DEATH OF MR. LUMUMBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I apologize for not sending him notice, but this news came to our attention only a short time ago.
Has the minister any information to give the house with respect to the reported death of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo? Has the government given consideration to what contribution we will make to meet the situation that will flow from this unfortunate incident?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the radio report that Mr. Patrice Lumumba and two companions have been killed in circumstances which still remain to be clarified. If this report is accurate we deplore very much this act of violence. While Mr. Lumumba has been a controversial figure, the fact remains that he was a duly elected member of parliament and formed the first government of the newly independent republic of the Congo. His death, if it has taken place, is unlikely to settle anything. Indeed, it is more likely to complicate the already difficult task of the United Nations in the Congo and the process of conciliation and pacification which it is seeking to foster. For this reason and of course also, as I have mentioned, on humanitarian grounds the government is very much upset about this reported act of violence.
It is our hope that all parties will exercise restraint in this dangerous situation. As the hon. member knows, Canada is a member of the Congo committee at the United Nations, and throughout has tried to pour oil on troubled waters. We will continue to follow that course if this death has actually taken place.
I believe that the Secretary General of the United Nations asked today for instructions to make an investigation. That request was supported, for example, by the representative of the United States, and an investigation is now under way. The security council will be meeting on the question, I think, on Wednesday.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the appropriate minister I wonder if I may ask the Prime Minister whether consultations were held between the government and the Bank

Inquiries of the Ministry of Canada concerning the recent sale by the bank of unusually large amounts of bonds and securities, thereby reducing the available money supply in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that cannot be dealt with on the orders of the day. I will give consideration to the question and an answer will be forthcoming at the earliest possible time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to table the correspondence with the provincial premiers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I said I would table it as soon as I heard from all of the premiers. I think that one or two have not yet replied. If I do not have any replies from them I take it that it will be in order to table the others.



INQUIRY AS TO INTERIM PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
on 1959-60 crop
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house when he will be able to make an announcement as to the size of the interim payment on the 1959-60 wheat crop?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have more good news for the farmers tomorrow or Wednesday.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr,
Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue; I am sorry, but I was not able to send the minister notice. Are reports true that there have been serious advertising rate slashes on the part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: 

AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Again I apologize for failing to send notice, but some information have just come to hand in a letter from the United States. In view of the government's interest in the development of the family farm and in view of the increased importations into Canada of snails for culinary purposes, is the government giving any consideration to the promotion of heliculture in this country?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I will get a dictionary and take this question as notice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And answer it at a snail's
pace.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chown (for Mr. Woolliams) for the second reading of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Peters.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to inform the house that the members of our group will oppose the bill now under discussion. We think a mistake has been made in asking the house to give second reading to the Aurora pipe line bill.
It has been said that what the house is being asked to do today is to give routine approval to a bill that will subsequently go before a committee of this house, and that after the company is incorporated it will then have to get approval from the national energy board before it can in fact export gas, oil or condensates to the United States. While this statement is true, Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of this house to deal with this question cannot be handed over quite so easily to a committee of the house or to a board.
It has been already pointed out on a number of occasions in this debate that a bill passed by this house established a Canadian company which has power to provide a pipe line for the exportation to the United States of products which are covered by the bill under discussion.
Our main objection to the bill now before the house, Mr. Speaker, is based on the very ground that the Conservative party and the C.C.F. took in this house in 1956 during the

pipe line debate, in opposition to the trans-Canada pipe line bill. The bill before us provides for the incorporation of another company that will be under United States control. About two thirds of the shares of the company will be controlled by a United States company, the Continental Oil Company. This is another instance of a great natural resource being controlled in its transportation by a United States company.
We think there are on record, on previous occasions, adequate reasons why this bill should be opposed. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and other members of the house on a former occasion objected to the Texas buccaneers having a large part of the control of the trans-Canada pipe line company. The Texas buccaneers are involved in this measure. There has been in my judgment, a complete reversal of the stand that was taken by the Conservative party in 1956. By supporting this bill hon. members will turn the ownership, and control of this pipe line over to a United States company. Back in 1956, on June 4, the leader of the opposition at that time, Hon. George Drew, put forward a very important proposition by way of an amendment to the trans-Canada pipe line bill then before the house. I should like to read, if I may, the provisions of that amendment, because I think they might be made applicable at this time to this bill. The amendment is found on page 4673 of Hansard for that date, and reads as follows:
That the bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have the power to amend sections 5, 6 and 7 thereof to include the agreements made with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited as schedules to the bill and add other sections necessary to ensure that the bill shall give effect to one of the following principles.
First, the immediate agreement of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to reorganize as a company under effective Canadian ownership and control and to undertake construction without a grant of public money, in accordance with the assurances upon which its charter was granted by parliament;
The proposition was that the trans-Canada pipe line company should be reorganized under Canadian control.
Second, failing such agreement, the immediate consideration of other proposals submitted by any other persons or companies for the immediate financing and construction of the pipe line under effective Canadian ownership and control and without a grant of public money;
There is a company already in existence that can do this work and I suggest that this United States proposal to which we are being asked to agree at this time should be opposed by the members of the house, and this bill should be defeated.
Third, enlarge the powers of the crown corporation so that the entire pipe line may be constructed immediately under public ownership.
Private Bills
The Conservatives of that day, Mr. Speaker, went so far as to say that if the government refused to accept the first two propositions then, as a third alternative, the pipe line should be publicly owned. The bill we are being asked to pass today repudiates the whole policy and position taken by the Conservative party in those days. It makes a mockery-


Mr. Nugent:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the present speaker is not confining himself to the principle involved in this bill, according to the ruling you made as recorded on page 1818 of Hansard. You said:
As I see it, the principle of the bill is whether this group of individuals petitioning parliament shall be given corporate capacity. I see no principle other than this involved in this bill, whether this particular group of individuals shall be given corporate capacity.
I would ask you, sir, to enforce that ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The remarks, as I followed them, did not seem to me to call for intervention. The hon. member was discussing the desirability of giving corporate powers to this particular group, having regard to the fact that control would be in the United States, as possibly was indicated earlier in the debate. I would not think it proper to interfere.


Hazen Robert Argue: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling.


Mr. Chown:: Would the hon. member permit a question before he continues? He said earlier in the debate, with some authority, that the shares would be two thirds United States owned. I was going to ask him how he could make that suggestion to the house in the light of the fact that section 3, (a) and (b), simply provides for share capital. No one in this chamber can presume what the apportionment of ownership will be as between the United States and Canada, or as between any particular groups of individuals no matter where they reside.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is a very interesting observation from the hon. member. I think it can only mean one thing, that he is challenging what I have said as not being a statement of fact. It will be very interesting to see, if this motion should pass and the bill come out of the committee, that we have been wrong and this is a Canadian company. I hope I am in error, but I am afraid I am not.
One of my reasons for thinking I am not in error is that the gentleman who introduced this bill in the other place, when explaining it said that the company was

Private Bills
owned one third by the Hudson's Bay Company and two thirds by the Continental Oil Company, the latter being one of the large integrated oil companies in the United States. I am prepared to accept the word of the hon. senator. I hope he is in error. I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg South, who has just asked the question, is right. However, I believe the evidence is that this company is in fact controlled by a United States company.


Mr. Lambert:: May I raise a point of order? I think those words used by the hon. member for Assiniboia run counter to citations 482 and 483 of Beauchesne, to the effect that the facts cannot be questioned in the house during the debate on a private bill. These are matters for the committee. There is no question that the facts cannot be discussed during the discussion on second reading.


Mr. Woolliams:: I should like to speak to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may. In support of the argument, and even going beyond the authority cited by my colleague, I would say that at the time the earlier debate on the pipe line took place the National Energy Act, which is chapter 46 of the statutes of 1959, had not been enacted. If you refer to section 44 of that act, Mr. Speaker, you will find that when a company makes an application to export gas, even if they are incorporated by a bill they have to be certified by the national energy board. This is the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is coming to the point of order I would be glad to have his assistance. It seems to me he is answering the argument of the hon. member who had the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am coming to the point of order. I think the hon. member is confined more than he would have been in the previous debate because one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration by the energy board is the very fact to which the hon. member has referred. We have this legislation on the books, and that goes beyond the principle of the bill. All we are asking here is the incorporation of a legal entity, not for permission to construct a pipe line or export anything through the pipe line; merely the right to be incorporated. The other right is a right for a court of record, namely the national energy board, to decide when circumstances are set out by evidence, and they make that decision. That is my point.


Hazen Robert Argue: You just want to sell the country to the Americans.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I might be allowed to say a word on the point of order that has been raised. Do I understand hon. gentlemen opposite to be seeking to restrict debate in this chamber on a pipe line?


Hazen Robert Argue: A point of order has been raised as to whether hon. members may discuss the ownership of the proposed pipe line on second reading, since the national energy board has power, according to section 44 of the act, to take into account the extent to which the Canadians will have the opportunity to participate in the financing. I would point out that in the National Energy Board Act there is no provision which requires Canadian ownership of a pipe line of this description. It is obvious that this pipe line is not to be Canadian owned. For that reason I am expressing opposition to the passage of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary has raised a point of order which draws a distinction between the scope of debate on a public bill and that on a private bill. I think I might read citation 482 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, to which I am referred:
A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the house will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee. This is the first occasion on which the bill is before the house otherwise than pro forma or in connection with the standing orders; and if the bill be opposed, upon its principle, it is the proper time for attempting its defeat.
Citation 483 is to somewhat the same effect. Undoubtedly there is a narrower margin for debate on a private bill than on a public bill. This is a private bill. At an earlier stage in this debate I endeavoured to prevent the house from embarking upon a general debate on the economics of the oil industry. However, it seems to me that it is relevant for an hon. member to express some views on the question of whether another pipe line company should be formed on such material as is before the house. It is true that the future and the intentions of this company are not relevant so much as the powers which it seeks to acquire. The powers are relevant because that is the principle of the bill; this particular group of petitioners have come before parliament asking to be given as a corporation the power to operate a pipe line company.

Private Bills
As certain tacts have been discussed in debate in this house and the hon. member has quoted from what has been said in debate-it is true in the other place-if he does not attempt to extend his allegation of facts to too great a degree, I think I should allow him to proceed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The house is being asked to give second reading to this bill, which is approval in principle. It is perfectly true that it is a conditional type of approval, in that the bill will be placed before a committee of this house for detailed examination. The bill might be killed in the committee; it might be referred back to the house in a different form.
Mr. Speaker, what we are objecting to is any kind of approval of this bill, whether conditional or unconditional. We think it is a thoroughly bad bill. We think the people of Canada in the past, when they have had a chance to make a judgment, have shown that they favour Canadian development of gas pipe lines in this country. The Conservative government is in power today in this country to a substantial degree because of the public support that was given to the opposition parties of the day in opposing pipe lines in this country being owned and controlled by outside capital. Today I am opposing this bill, as is the C.C.F.-New party, because we think it is a thoroughly bad bill, an un-Canadian bill, and one that goes counter to the public statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance made on many occasions. We think the passage of this bill to set up another United States company is not in the interests of Canadians at this time. For the life of me I cannot understand why there appears to be-and only a vote on this matter will show whether or not I am correct-such general and widespread approval of United States buccaneers owning this pipe line in opposition to the stand taken by Conservative members of parliament in this House of Commons on so many occasions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the hon. member permit a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member say that the Hudson's Bay Company of Canada is a United States buccaneer company.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes; not the Hudson's Bay Company but the Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited. I am saying that the Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited is a company that is controlled by United States interests.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit another question.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Bow River can make his own speech. He will have an opportunity to show how much he loves the Texas buccaneers. The Tories did not formerly love them, as you know, Mr. Speaker, but they have changed. Since the Tories got into office the Texas buccaneers became fine fellows. The Tories are for them now. Even though a Canadian company could do the job, they are rising in their places in a unified chorus today giving their "Amen" to a bill which will turn a pipe line over to United States control.
I commend to the consideration of hon. members opposite the words of Senator Brunt when this bill was discussed at the second reading stage. It is true that he did not come out in full opposition to the bill, but he set forth some grave doubts and the reasons for his doubts as to the effect of this kind of procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is going beyond our practice in quoting opinions expressed in the other place. After all, we are supposed to make up our own minds. It is permissible to read from the records of the other place, but not to quote opinions expressed in debate in the other place.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, until this moment we seem to have had one consistent rule in this debate, namely to keep on doing in the future what had already been done in this debate. Reference has been made to the hon. senator, and quotations have been made. That is the reason why I referred to him at this time. You are perfectly, correct, Mr. Speaker, in saying that it is not the custom of the house to quote statements made in the other place, nor do I think it is in order to do so. The records can be quoted, but Hansard is not the official record of the other place. Since these statements by this hon. gentleman have already been placed on the record I felt that at least in this debate this kind of thing was proper and was being accepted.
The motion before the house is to give this bill the six months' hoist. This is the normal practice to show strong opposition to such a measure. We will vote for the six months' hoist; we will vote to kill this bill, because we think gas pipe lines in this country should be Canadian owned. We would go further. We would say that in the building of pipe lines in this country there is a place for public ownership, for public investment. We prefer, as a first choice, a publicly owned utility. If that is not possible, if it does not seem practical, we suggest there should be a measure of public investment in all these pipe
197G

Division
lines; but the very minimum we insist upon is Canadian ownership and Canadian control. We object to this government's about face from the commendable stand it took in this house on a former occasion.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, we are asked by means of a private bill to endorse in principle the organization of another pipe line. As we understand it, this pipe line is going to be largely owned outside of Canada, and if permitted to be built the operation of this pipe line will injure the interests of an existing pipe line that has already been authorized to do this work by a previous parliament.
I find it difficult to understand why hon. members would endorse the principle of inviting a foreign owned pipe line into Canada in order to ruin a bona fide Canadian company. I also have difficulty understanding why a private bill should become a matter of party politics. I do not see that the life of the government is involved in this bill. There is a growing tendency in Canada to make even private legislation a matter of party politics. I regret that development. The government's life is not involved here. This is not a government sponsored bill. I cannot understand why political parties have to take party line positions with respect to private bills, and I deplore this development.
Legislation offered to us by the government, if it is not of major significance, ought not to be subject to the whips of the parties. This is not a new tendency but it is a growing one. Party lines are the determining factor with respect to legislation even including private bills. I conclude my remarks with this observation. I believe that political parties ought to be cut down to size and members of parliament restored to their proper status so they can make up their own minds whether this bill and others of a similar nature are in the interests of the nation rather than of the political parties.


Mr. John Pallett (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, just so there will be no misunderstanding, let me say that the hon. member who has just spoken and who has had some experience in this house should know better than to make the suggestion he just made. The party whip is in no way involved in the decisions that are taken by hon. members in the private members' hour.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chief whip of the Conservative party for making abundantly clear the position of hon. members opposite, namely that members have complete freedom to vote any way they see fit on a bill like this without pressure being exerted in any way. That makes the position of hon. members opposite all the more amazing to me. It is a matter of amazement to me that in a case where the whip has no opinion and says "Vote as you like", all but one hon. gentleman of the government party have voted in favour of turning over this utility to United States interests. This is a black day for Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is miscontruing the scope of the debate. To discuss what is the undoubted privilege of hon. members to vote as they see fit is quite outside the scope of this debate. Perhaps I should have intervened when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam began in that line. It is not relevant to this bill, and it contravenes our practice to have the course of action of hon. members in voting, and their decision when it has been taken, challenged in that way.


Hazen Robert Argue: By their vote hon. members opposite have shown that they are in support of this bill. This is amazing to me. I cannot understand it. It is a dark day for Canada when hon. members vote for a bill which if given the approval of this house in all its stages will turn over to foreign interests a Canadian utility. This is a depicable decision-


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My understanding was that we were voting on giving this bill a six months' hoist, not on the principle of the bill. We were voting on the C.C.F. amendment. That is certainly the basis on which I voted. I do not like the imputation the hon. member for Assiniboia is making. I do not like the inference he draws as to why I voted in a given way, and I ask him to withdraw his imputation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have nothing to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I attempted to follow what the hon. member said. What was the imputation the hon. gentleman felt should be withdrawn?


David Vaughan Pugh: The hon. member for Assiniboia stated that all hon. members of this house who did not vote his way were in favour of turning over this resource or utility to United States or Texas buccaneers-whatever he chose to call them-and the fact is that the vote took place only on the C.C.F. amendment.
Private Bills


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you in favour of the bill or against it?


David Vaughan Pugh: I am in favour of having a decision reached and nothing else.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is stretching the rule in asking for that interpretation. The point he made in correcting the hon. member was appropriate enough, but to draw conclusions from the fact that hon. members vote a certain way is the privilege of every hon. member of the house, provided it does not reflect on the personal conduct of the individual, and I see nothing of that kind.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I think the word employed by the hon. member in describing the conduct of hon. members was "despicable". That is strong language to use with respect to a vote on an amendment to give the six months' hoist to this bill. I take exception to the hon. member's remarks. My stand with respect to Canadian control of industry is well known in this house, and I have objected to the loss of Canadian control more strongly than hon. members of the opposition have done.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are getting too thin skinned around here. It is not my practice in this house to jump up every time forceful language is used. On one occasion I used the word "baloney" and I had to withdraw it because it was said to be unparliamentary and undignified.
I was challenged earlier on my statement that this company was United States controlled. I used as evidence-and Your Honour pointed out that I could not quote someone in the other place-a statement that had been made on the introduction of this bill there. However, I think I am in order in referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, whose statement has been unchallenged. I am quoting from page 1130 of Hansard of January 17, where the hon. member is reported as having said:
I sent for the last report of Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, on page 14 of which I find that the Continental Oil Company of Houston is said to own 67.8 per cent of the common stock of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited. The remainder is owned 22.6 per cent by Hudson's Bay Company of England and 9.6 per cent by the United States and Canadian public.
Could anything be clearer than that to demonstrate that this company is controlled by United States interests? I have another authority that I should like to quote whom hon. members opposite might find even more interesting than the quotation from the hon. member for Vancouver East, who read the annual report of the company. I refer to the

Private Bills
statement made in this house in 1956 by Hon. George Drew, as recorded at page 2177 of Hansard, as follows:
The present distribution of the ownership of this enterprise shows also that the control is in the hands of financial interests in the United States; that it is definitely under the control of these immensely powerful financial interests: Canadian Gulf, Hudson Bay Oil and Gas and Tennessee Gas Transmission.
Therefore if hon. members opposite did not know that Americans own this company, the former leader of their party in 1956 knew the composition of the ownership of it and objected in a strenuous way to the company having greater and greater control over pipe lines in Canada. I have a further quotation that I should like to use, and it is Hon. George Drew once again in the pipe line debate, as recorded at page 2181 of Hansard of 1956, as follows:
Contrary to what the minister of trade and commerce has said, this is the occasion to focus attention on our resources. This is the only place to do so, and this is an opportunity to declare our economic independence of the United States.
This is what the leader of the Conservative party said at that time:
This is the only place to do so, and this is an opportunity to declare our economic independence of the United States. This is the time to plan to make full use of the resources that God has given us.
Instead of following their former leader, hon. members opposite are fighting for a principle which, when carried out, will increase the extent to which the Canadian economy is shackled to the United States giant. What a reversal of policy. The leader of the opposition of that day went on to state, and I quote from the same page of Hansard:
No matter how friendly any other nation may be, X submit that it is our duty as the representatives of the people of Canada to follow a course that will assure Canada's economic, as well as political, independence. That cause is not served by the resolution now presented to us.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the cause of Canadian economic and political independence is not served by the bill now before us, and that it should be rejected by this house. I have other quotations from other members of the Conservative party of that day which show that the Conservative party when in opposition was very much in favour of a Canada that was economically independent and free of economic control by United States interests in utilities so important as a gas line.
The hon. member for Rosthern has shown by his vote today that he too is concerned over the growing United States control of this industry. I commend him on having voted that way on the motion calling for a six months' hoist. I express the confident hope that he will be consistent and oppose the

second reading of this measure. I am sure that if Hon. George Drew were in the house today he would not lend his support to the passage of this iniquitous bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for Bow River speaks now he will close the debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support my own bill I would first like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) for his assistance during the time I was unavoidably absent from the house.
I should like to deal first with the references to the principle of the bill which we are debating. The petitioners, the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, are simply asking for the incorporation of a federal company. They are not asking for the right to build a pipe line; they are not asking for the right to export any commodity through a pipe line; they are merely asking this House of Commons for a certificate of incorporation to incorporate a company. I think that is the first principle we should consider in reference to this bill.
It may be of some interest to look at the record for a few moments in reference to the bill itself. I am going to review this matter very briefly. The petitioners are the two vice presidents, and council as 1 just said, of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company. Approximately 10 per cent of the shares of the company is held by 12,000 public shareholders; 22 per cent is held by the Hudson's Bay company; and 68 per cent is held by the Continental Oil Company.
Let us take a look first of all at the 10 per cent that is held by the public shareholders. I am not sure who those shareholders are, or will be, but there are some Canadian investors. Twenty two per cent is owned by the Hudson's Bay Company which, of course, as everyone knows, received a charter to operate its business in Canada by royal declaration. I would say it is wholly a Canadian company. The Continental Oil Company have 68 per cent of the stock. This is how the shares are distributed.
The company is interested in this project and it is designed to assist in the solution of a problem which has arisen in that part of Alberta which is the Pincher Creek area, the southern part. In the process of making natural gas there are different by-products and condensates produced. Let us put it in ordinary layman's language. Condensate is similar to crude oil, the only difference being that you can make one and one half times more gasoline from condensates.

In answer to some of the arguments in the debate, there have been discussions with reference to the obtaining of a market for petroleum in the province of Alberta. Since I come from the province of Alberta I should like to see an enlarged market. I am one who wants to see condensate exported, and the cheapest and the only way in which it can be exported from the fields in Alberta is of course, by pipe line.
Therefore when we start talking about byproducts we are talking about something the average man uses. It is gasoline for his automobile; that is the by-products. It is interesting to note also that if this company is able to sell, transport and export those by-products from the province of Alberta, then the consumer of natural gas would get a reduction in rates and would thereby make a saving.
I should like now to refer to this red herring, as I call it, which relates to our position in so far as United States capital and United States companies operating in Canada are concerned. My answer to that is briefly this. I have never considered any words used by any members of the cabinet or any members of the government as being against capital coming from anywhere, whether it was from the United States or any country in Europe. The only thing for which this government has stood, and I am proud to be a Conservative in that regard, is that Canadians can compete on equal terms with capital coming into this country from other sources. There have been times in the history of this country, such as 1915 and the boom in the 1920's and the 1950's, during which United States capital and capital from other countries was needed in order to develop the resources of this country. I say that is a red herring when they talk about turning our industry over to the buccaneers.
The truth is that the buccaneers of the province of Saskatchewan, the socialist government, chased capital out of that province so that now they have not industry comparable to that of the province of Alberta. The truth is that the budget of the province of Alberta is three or four times greater than that of the province of Saskatchewan because we have encouraged capital, not only Canadian but other capital, to pour into that province and develop our resources so that Canadians in that province will have employment. Those people over in that corner are always talking about unemployment. I am one of those who believe that if we can develop our industry, then one of the first things to do is incorporate a company for a purpose. Once that company is incorporated for a purpose it gets into business and, with the proper flow of capital, provides jobs for 90205-6-125
Private Bills
Canadians. These C.C.F. people talk about unemployment, but they merely give lip service to the problem of unemployment for the purpose of buying votes and not for the purpose of getting industry going to develop the resources of this country.
I should like to answer two or three remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. As I said the other day, there is one thing that differentiates the hon. member from the other seven in that group. Even though I disagree with him, he always has something to say. He did say this, as recorded on page 1129 of Hansard for January 17, 1961:
-I simply cannot understand how a Tory could sponsor this bill when one calls to mind the principles expounded with such verbosity by the Minister ol Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his baby budget relating to Canadian control and Canadian development of Canadian companies.
First of all, I have answered part of that statement. I should like to make my own position clear. I am a backbencher, but as a backbencher I am not a seal. I am not one who always goes along with everything that someone else may suggest, whether it comes from the front benches or some of the back benches. I say that any political party will be healthy, Mr. Speaker, if it has men such as we have in our party who are independent thinkers. They can consider a problem and arrive at a compromise. I moved this bill as a private member, and it has nothing to do with the government. I moved it as a private member because I believe in the economic welfare of my province.
If we have this company incorporated, then it will have the right to go to the energy board. Let us look at that argument for a few minutes. If I followed the argument of hon. gentlemen correctly, and it is sometimes difficult to follow them, they were opposed to this bill because 68 per cent of the stock of the petitioner is owned by a company in which the majority shareholders are from the United States. These gentlemen believe, therefore, that these petitioners should not be granted the right to incorporate a company because there might be United States capital used.
Let me put this to you. If the Foothills Pipe Line Company is incorporated, they can go before the Alberta conservation board. Then they may go before the national energy board. There may be other pipe line companies in Alberta that have the same interests as this company seeking incorporation through this bill. Other companies, already incorporated, can go before the national energy board. If this house does

Private Bills
not approve this bill, then are we not discriminating against these petitioners? I believe that kind of discrimination will kill industry and, of course, cause unemployment.
Let us look at the national energy board. If this company is incorporated, the terms of incorporation do not give it the right to build a pipe line or to export condensate through a pipe line to Montana or somewhere elee. This will merely create a legal entity, and that legal entity will then be able to go before the national energy board. If my memory serves me right, those men in the corner who spoke this afternoon supported the establishment of the national energy board. Why was it set up? What was its purpose? If I may take a few minutes, I should like to review that because it does somewhat answer the arguments put forward by the opposition to this particular petition.
If you refer to section 10 of the National Energy Board Act-I am not going to read it-it describes the board as a court of record. What is a court of record? Let us get our facts straight.


Mr. Peters:: Tell us; do not beat around the bush.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will not beat around the bush as you have been doing for years. If you listen you will learn something. A court of record weighs the evidence, pro and con, with relation to an application. Let us look at section 27 of the National Energy Board Act.


William Arnold Peters: Tell us the first one; do not go on to something else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming is not called upon to comment upon everything that is said. He will have his opportunity to speak.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before a pipe line can be built in this country, approval of the national energy board must be obtained under section 27 of the said act. The applicant must receive the right to export a commodity through a pipe line. This company or the Foothills Pipe Line Company or any other company that is incorporated which desires to export condensates or any other by-product must get a certificate from the board.
Let us analyse section 44. When the government introduced the bill to establish the national energy board, all these points that have been raised by my good friends in the corner must be considered by the board. This is now a question of law. Let us look at some of these things this court of record will consider. They will consider, first, the availability of oil or gas to the pipe line or power to the international power line; second, the

existence of markets, actual or potential; third, the economic feasibility of the pipe line or international power line; fourth, the financial responsibility and the financial structure of the applicant, the method of financing the line and the extent to which Canadians will have an opportunity to participate in the financing, engineering and construction of the line.
When these people in the corner refer to this party as supporting United States buccaneers, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what they mean by that statement. This is one of the things spelled out in the National Energy Board Act by this government and by this party in order to protect Canadian interests, to ensure that Canadian interests have a fair shake with any other financial interests in this land of ours in the development of our resources, whether it be petroleum, natural gas or any other resource.
This board is made up of reliable personnel. Before they would consider an application by this company in question they would take into consideration all the factors set out in section 44 of the said act.
I therefore, say, Mr. Speaker, that all this talk by the C.C.F. in this debate about handing over our resources to the Americans or to anyone else is plain hogwash. The fact is that the national energy board was set up by this party and by this government for the sole purpose of protecting Canadians in Canada operating in competition with United States capital or with capital coming in from anywhere else. Surely that is fair and square treatment. That is why many hon. members in this house rose on points of order in order to state that all we are asking for is merely the right to incorporate a company which will go before a board governed by certain principles of law and brought into being by this party for the protection of Canadians, in order to obtain that certificate. The function of the energy board is to determine who shall build pipe lines and who shall export products.
We might go back for a moment to the question of the debate on the national energy board. I should like to read from my own remarks in that regard as follows, as reported at page 3980 of Hansard of May 25, 1959:
In brief, I commend this legislation to hon. members because the authority to permit the building of a pipe line and the obtaining of an export licence are under the jurisdiction of one body, the energy board.
As found at page 3981 of Hansard of 1959 I pointed out that was the very reason the board was set up, and provision was made for flexibility. The right to build a pipe line and the right to export whatever it is you are going to export through the pipe line can be determined by the board expeditiously by using the same evidence and the same records,

something which makes this board, as I have said before, a court of record. Therefore to these people who have been critical in reference to this matter I say that this is no move on my part personally or on the part of anyone who may have supported me in this regard. We are merely asking-and I am going to repeat the request-for the right to incorporate a company.
I often wonder what might happen in this country in the future if men like those seven or eight in the corner had an opportunity to form a government and keep out capital that developed the resources of this country in order to give Canadians jobs. Those people merely give lip service to principles. They live in the hope that there might be a recession or depression in this country so they can say, "Here we have unemployment; you people are to blame".


Mr. Howard:: That is not so.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a despicable statement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say to those hon. gentlemen that history will bear me out in that regard. As they said in their Regina manifesto, their job was to go out and eradicate capitalism in any form they might find it. The fact is that Canadians have eradicated the C.C.F. To the men in the corner who have been so critical and who have tried to blackmail this party through presenting this bill to create a company, as a matter of fact all they have done is to drag a red herring through the whole debate in order to get a little bit of publicity, which they love on this occasion as on other occasions, and in the hope of being able to increase their little flock, like a mother hen, when the next vote is called in this country.
I have said all I wish to say on this bill, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: You laid an egg this afternoon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I may lay eggs and I may say that I have seen the hon. member for Assiniboia lay a great many eggs, but many times they are bad eggs as far as our economy is concerned.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Chown, for Mr. Woolliams) which was agreed to on the following division.
Division
Brunsden	McFarlane
Cadieu	McGee
Campbell	McGrath
(Lambton-Kent)	Mcllraith
Cardiff	McIntosh
Cardin	McLennan
Caron	McMillan
Carter	McPhillips
Casselman, Mrs.	McQuillan
Charlton	Mandziuk
Chevrier	Martel
Chown	Martini
Churchill	Matthews
Clancy	Meunier
Clermont	Michaud
Coates	Milligan
Comtois	Mitchell
Creaghan	Monteith (Perth)
Crestohl	Montgomery
Crouse	More
Danforth	Morissette
Denis	Morris
Deschatelets	Muir (Cape Breton
Dinsdale	North and Victoria)
Doucett	Muir (Lisgar)
Dubois	Nesbitt
Dumas	Nielsen
Dupuis	Nowlan
English	Nugent
Fairfield	O'Hurley
Fane	O'Leary
Flemming (Royal)	Pallett
Forbes	Parizeau
Frechette	Pascoe
Gundlock	Phillips
Habel	Pickersgil!
Hales	Pigeon
Halpenny	Racine
Hamilton (Notre Dame	Rapp
de Grace)	Ratelle
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)	Regnier
Harkness	Robichaud
Henderson	Rogers
Hicks	Rompre
Hodgson	Skoreyko
Horner (Acadia)	Smallwood
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Smith (Calgary South)
Horner (The Battlefords)	Smith (Simcoe North)
Howe	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Jones	Southam
Jorgenson	Starr
Jung	Tardif
Kindt	Taylor
Korchinski	Thomas
Kucherepa	Thrasher
Lambert	Tucker
Leduc	Valade
Legere	Villeneuve
MacLean (Queens)	Vivian
MacLean (Winnipeg	Webb
North Centre)	Weichel
MacRae	Woolliams
McBain	Wratten-140.
McCleave
Aitken, Miss
Anderson
Asselin
Badanai
Balcer
Baldwin
Baskin
Batten
Beech
90205-6-1251
++YEAS
++NAYS
Messrs:
Messrs:
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Benidickson
Boulanger
Bourbonnais
Broome
Browne (St. John's West) Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
Argue	Pitman
Herridge	Regier
Howard	Winch-7.
Peters
Bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Private Bills INCOME TAX ACT



PROPOSED EXEMPTION FOR COSTS OF TUITION, BOOKS, ETC.

Mr. L. D. Creslohl (Cartier) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so as to provide for the exemption from income taxes of tuition fees paid to universities, vocational training schools, military colleges, academies and other institutions of higher learning, as well as the costs of all textbooks and scientific equipment necessary to the courses followed in these institutions of learning.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member begins, I wonder whether he would agree with me that to some extent his motion is anticipated by the budget resolution which now stands before the committee of ways and means and which covers tuition fees. That, of course, does not apply to the remainder of the hon. member's motion, but to that extent the debate would be somewhat curtailed.


Leon David Crestohl: If I may I should like to point out at the outset that in my humble opinion they are altogether different motions. It is true that in the course of the discussion the question of university fees or higher education may come up, but the objectives these motions seek are as far apart as could be imagined.
I respectfully point out at once in what way I think they are so vastly different, and I should like to do this at the outset in order to emphasize that we are not covering the same ground. I find, for example, that the resolution which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has on the order paper refers to an exemption for students only; exclusively those students who are attending a university, and those students who are making income tax returns. My resolution suggests income tax relief for anyone who pays income tax; it might be, for instance, a father, or it might be an uncle who wishes to educate a nephew, or a niece.
There is a second difference which is basic. The minister's resolution exempts the fees only. My resolution seeks an exemption in respect of the cost of textbooks and scientific instruments and equipment used in scientific institutions. Take, for example, students of medicine who must use microscopes. These instruments can be very costly indeed. I am asking for exemption in this sphere, too.
There is a third difference which is also very important. The minister's resolution refers to full time students only, meaning students who are attending universities all day and taking a full course. My resolution goes beyond that. It calls for an exemption in respect of fees paid by everyone including students who are following courses in the
[Mr. Woolliams.i
evening, those who have to work during the day and who are attempting to improve their education. These are the people who really need such assistance as I am proposing. My resolution also refers to part-time students, not necessarily to students who are taking the full course.
Then again, the minister's resolution refers to exemptions only in respect of courses leading to a degree. Now there are schools of higher education whose courses do not always lead to a degree. For example, a student might be taking a post-graduate course in languages, without aspiring to a degree; or he might be taking a partial course in one branch of higher education or another which would not lead to a degree. Again, he might be attending a conservatory of music, which does not confer degrees.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. Is the hon. gentleman not aware of the second phrase in the resolution referring to a student in fulltime attendance at a college or other educational institution in Canada in a course at a post-secondary school level? The hon. member is referring only to the first phrase in the resolution.


Leon David Crestohl: That clause reads very peculiarly. If it is intended to allow courses to be taken at universities which courses do not necessarily lead to a degree, then why not include it in the first part of the resolution? You therefore create a conflict. How will it be interpreted when the time arrives for interpretation? I see a serious doubt arising from the wording in the minister's resolution. I hoped that my resolution would make the situation abundantly clear.
While the resolution of the minister goes some distance toward meeting the problem of higher education I should like to see specified, for example, vocational training schools which do not give a degree as well as seminaries that lead to advances in religious training. Schools and seminaries are contributing in an important way in the field of education and should be assisted.
I hope I have made abundantly clear that there is some merit in discussing my resolution to a point without treading on the ground covered by the other resolution existing on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has drawn a good many distinctions between the income tax resolution on a similar subject and his own motion. There is some area which is coincidental and it may not be necessary to debate the issue of the deduction of the fees of full-time students in courses leading to degrees. I raised the question so that we would not have to interrupt the

debate after it got started in applying any rule against anticipation. It would be better practice, of course, not to advocate in this motion or debate the precise matters which are already on the order paper and before the house in another capacity but I think that will be found to be not too restrictive.


Leon David Crestohl: I shall certainly be circumspect about that, Mr. Speaker. It was not my intention to do that.
Interestingly enough, my resolution has been on the order paper for a number of years. Had the minister's resolution appeared on the order paper before mine I might have considered the matter in a different light. It is quite possible, too, that the existence of my resolution on the order paper for a number of years served to nudge the minister into the direction of thinking there might be some merit in the proposal. The hon. gentleman did incorporate only a small part of my resolution. I wish the minister had gone further. I should have been glad to withdraw my resolution. However since he has not gone further, perhaps we are entitled to conclude that we have nudged him a little way and at the conclusion of this debate we might succeed in nudging him a little further.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not think the hon. member can take that responsibility.


Leon David Crestohl: I must also point out that I have no other way of proceeding in this matter. There is no other way open to me to induce the minister to accept the additional features contained in my resolution. I cannot move an amendment to a money measure. If the house should favourably consider my resolution perhaps the minister could be persuaded to be more consistent and to cover the whole ground at a later time.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. How long has he had his resolution on the order paper? Starting in what year?


Leon David Crestohl: If I could hazard a guess, at least five years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. member for Halifax was here.


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. gentleman who raised this question is familiar with the fact that there is some difficulty connected with private members' resolutions finding their way and being reached on the order paper. Rarely are they reached on the order paper in the same session in which they are submitted. When the time comes close for them to be discussed they are chosen by some form of rotation or lot. Consequently there is no opportunity for an hon. member to
Private Bills
have his resolution proceeded with until a lapse of some time has transpired even though he conceived the proposal as many as five years before.
I do not propose to review the importance of higher education. It is important to the future of a progressive country. If I remember correctly, there was a private hon. member's bill debated in the last session which gave an opportunity for a full dress debate on the subject. At this point I should like to read into the record my resolution which is in the following words:
That, In the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so as to provide for the exemption from income taxes of tuition fees paid to universities, vocational training schools, military colleges, academies and other institutions of higher learning, as well as the costs of all textbooks and scientific equipment necessary to the courses followed in these institutions of learning.
Under our constitution the field of education comes under the jurisdiction of provincial government. There has been a progressive and growing tendency in the last few years for the federal government to concern itself with the importance of higher education and an effort has been made to make higher education available to as many students as possible. Not long ago this house passed a measure providing assistance to universities. We as hon. members of this house should do what we can to make higher education available to as many as possible. One direct way of doing it would be to amend the Income Tax Act in the way envisaged in my resolution.
There are some countries-and one notable one-where students pay no fees for university education. That is an ideal situation in a country that is concerned with making education as widespread and readily available as possible. In other countries students fees are nominal. The fees students in Canada are called upon to pay are higher than those paid in most countries including the United States.
We are approaching a period-if it has not already arrived-where higher education is vital and where scientific training and training in various skills assume increasing importance. If we make prohibitive the cost of obtaining education in any of these fields we are not going as far as legislators should go in this area. We have the obligation as public men to make available to students increased opportunity of acquiring education. The steps represented by the resolution will be of some assistance in achieving this desirable end.
University education will certainly be available to many more young men and

Private Bills
women. As I said a moment ago, an education is no longer a luxury. It is a necessity. First of all, all parents are anxious to give their children an education, but a great many of them find it a struggle. We constantly hear stories, and facts have been presented to us, that children must be taken out of school. Promising and successful students must be taken out of college because their parents cannot afford to keep them there.
The adoption of this resolution would make it possible for relatives to assist in the education of children. An uncle or an aunt who may not be blessed with children of their own, may be in the position where they have a nephew or a niece whom they might wish to educate, and I am sure they would be prompted to do this if they could get exemption from income tax on the amount spent to educate students. Then, too, large corporations or employers of labour would arrange to see that promising children would be able to go to university. Certainly, those organizations will help to pay school fees if they know that they will be exempt from income tax on the amount spent in that way.
I do not wish to belabour this point very much. I know that people all across the country are concerned with the possibility of getting relief by way of income tax on the amounts paid in school fees, and so forth. It might be of interest to refer to some correspondence which I have received. I will read a letter from the students administrative council of the University of Toronto:
Dear Mr. Crestohl:
I am directed by the students' administrative council to advise you that the council, representing the undergraduates of the University of Toronto, supports wholeheartedly the private bill which they understand you intend to introduce in the House of Commons. We understand this bill suggests the government consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to provide exemption from income taxes of tuition fees paid to universities as well as the cost to students of all textbooks and scientific equipment necessary to the courses followed in these institutions of learning.


Thomas Miller Bell: May we have the date of that letter?


Leon David Crestohl: The date of the letter is February 10, 1954, just about the time that my resolution appeared for the first time. I have another letter from a civil servant in the city of Verdun, which reads as follows:
(Translation):
Dear Mr. Crestohl: I read with much interest the motion which is to be presented to the Ottawa legislature with regard to the exemption from

income taxes of tuition fees, etc. for young people who are studying at a university, technical school or the like.
The gesture will be much appreciated by salaried heads of families, like myself. I have three sons pursuing their higher education, which costs me something like $3,000 a year.
You can see what sacrifices we have to make.
It is a case of social justice, because I know of heads of families in my constituency who had to take their sons away from their studies for that reason.
(Text):
I have another letter from Mitchell, Ontario, which reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Crestohl:
You have my sincere thanks for taking up the matter of tax exemption in connection with university education costs.
I can give you a lead to some excellent material on the subject, a source which you may not know about. Less than a year ago the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in a T.V. address made the following statement. (My figures are approximately right) "In Britain the percentage of university students aided by bursaries is 70 per cent; in the United States the figure stands at 50 per cent; in Canada it stands at 14 per cent."
I am aware that you are not asking for more bursaries, but for some tax relief for people who are trying to finance students at university. May you keep up the fight. Thousands of parents will thank you or anybody who can achieve something. They will appreciate that your attitude is not the smug attitude of your opponent the finance minister.
He was not referring to the present Minister of Finance; he was referring to the minister of finance at the time, and I assume he could easily be referring to any finance minister who does not allow sufficient exemption from income tax. The next letter I have is from Lumsden, Saskatchewan, which reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Crestohl:
An item in the December 9th issue of the Leader-Post interested me. This item mentioned a resolution to be proposed by you calling for the exemption from income tax of tuition fees and expenses.
On behalf of my daughter and the many other young people, who first must earn the money to pay for further education of any kind, I hope this resolution will be favourably received and acted upon.
I have next a telegram from Toronto, which reads:
Strongly support your proposed motion to provide exemption from income taxes of university fees. Would be real help to many paying own way.
My next quotation is from Lestock, Saskatchewan. Although it is on a telegram form, I think it came through the mail. It reads:
Dear Mr. Crestohl:
Note by Canadian Press dispatch in the Winnipeg Tribune of the 9th December issue that you intend to bring into parliament resolution asking for exemption of certain higher education costs. I certainly hope that you are able to get this passed.

Certainly in Canada a higher education can be absolutely nothing but an asset to the country. I have a boy going through for a doctor, now in fourth year at university, and it is costing me roughly $1,600 a year to keep him there, which is a lot of money to take out of one's salary every year, plus income tax and 10 per cent pension fund for old age, which also helps keep one off the country's unemployment rolls. A child under the present system is unable to attend university or other school of higher learning and there must be a lot of children across Canada who are unable to go higher for financial reasons. I wish you Bvery success,
And so on. These letters and telegrams are an indication that the people across the country are seeking this relief. Those of us who have had children or have children at universities know how difficult it is to keep them there, and this is especially true of a man on a yearly salary. The parents have to work hard and make sacrifices; they have to forgo a great many things themselves in the hope of being able to educate their children. I think this gesture by the House of Commons of exempting the tuition fees paid by fathers and mothers would be most welcome, and I also think it is one that we should not hesitate to make.
I am concerned with the fact that while I believe every member of the House of Commons would support the principle of a resolution of this kind, yet the Minister of Finance -who refers to it in his budget and says that in principle it is the type of tax exemption that should be given-does not go far enough.
I believe the members of this house, if they had their choice, would support this resolution, not only with their speeches but with their vote. However, I am a little concerned that hon. members might be so enthusiastic about this thing that they will, to use an expression, kill it with kindness. I am afraid members will get up one after the other and support the motion, saying what a good thing it is but they will kill it with kindness by talking it out.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a few very brief quotations from pedagogues. One says:
Education is a debt due from the present to future generations.
Let us as legislators, acknowledge that. The next one says:
Education is the cheapest defence of nations.
The third is:
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army. If we retrench the wages of the schoolmaster, we must raise those of the recruiting sergeant.
These are very forceful statements, and I commend their meaning to all the members of the house and ask that they be guided by them.
Private Bills


Robert Jardine McCleave: First of all, may I congratulate the hon. member upon his sincerity and determination over a long period of time in bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I am sure he will not mind if I poke a little fun at his theory, and the way in which it works. It seems to be that you do not get anywhere with the minister of finance in the House of Commons until you sit in opposition. If this theory were to be expanded to full flower it would mean there should be one minister of finance in the house and 264 people sitting in opposition giving him suggestions from one end of the day to the other about good measures for the well-being of the country. The fact is, as the hon. member has pointed out, he brought this matter before the house in 1954, perhaps in the same form, but the idea fell upon deaf ears.
Subsequently, as the result of the benevolent changes that were wrought in 1957, at least a part of his objective is being met. I think myself some of the credit for this should go to the people who came here in 1957 and 1958 with fresh ideas, some of which undoubtedly happened to coincide with those of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. There are good parts to this resolution, and also some poor parts, parts which contain dangers. I should like to mention those without, however, attempting to throw cold water on the idea the hon. member has put forward but rather with a view to pointing out the things which would have to be considered if the second part of his resolution were to be implemented.
First, I should like to say a word about the good things in the resolution. I think the idea of extending income tax exemptions to those who are not students, as we accept that term, is a good one. I presume the hon. member has in mind covering students who go to summer schools or night schools. I certainly commend this idea and I would wholeheartedly endorse it.
Then he put forward the idea that this type of income tax relief would provide an incentive to the people to sponsor students. This, again, is a good idea. This would expand our present notion of the parent being responsible for the education of his child and would include the family circle or even, as I understood the hon. member's remarks, people outside the family. I know there are many people who do make a point of assisting worthy young students at universities. This would be some recognition of what has been, up to now, a rather selfless attitude on their part.
No one would quarrel with that idea that we must get along with education as quickly as possible. The dramatic events over the

Private Bills
week end have shown the great lag in scientific achievement in our country as compared with another unfriendly economy. This would make anyone seize upon any possible alternative to meet such a challenge. These are the good points that I would wholeheartedly support.
It is the second half of the hon. member's resolution which gives the difficulty. Perhaps I could read it this way:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so as to provide for the exemption from income taxes... of the costs of all text books and scientific equipment necessary to the courses followed in these institutions of learning.
This is the part that causes me to pause and consider. I believe this would give a wide open field for abuse unless the regulations were carefully drafted. In the first place, institutions of higher learning would be difficult to define. Then, too, the phrase "costs of all textbooks and scientific equipment necessary to the courses followed" is used. I do not know the hon. member's alma mater in law, although I realize he is one of the distinguished members of the Montreal bar. I pose this problem to the hon. member. As he knows, there are two main theories for the teaching of law. One is what we at Dalhousie University law school, the best one in Canada, call the case method. This method is used also by Harvard University. There is another approach to legal training which is known as the textbook method, which is more in line with the tradition of a liberal arts education.
I think that one could argue, under this resolution, that a law student who followed the case method would be entitled to deduct the expenses of buying the books in which these cases are to be found. As the hon. member realizes, there are thousands of such books, the Canadian reports, the British reports and the reports of the Canadian provinces. These are all the sources of material for the study of law by the case method. I use this merely as an illustration, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to pursue it ad nauseam. It would appear to me that one could use the spirit of this resolution, if one were a gifted law student with a rather sharp eye for a technicality, to march forth from law school with one's law library completely assembled.
An engineering student, with a legal bent, could go forth from the engineering school with the equipment he needs for a professional practice already purchased, using the plea that this was scientific equipment necessary to his course. One could even go a step farther and imagine some graduate of the

Ontario agricultural college marching forth from that institution with harrows, plowshares, and harvesting machinery, again using the excuse that this was a part of the equipment necessary to study his course.
I realize that is stretching the point too far and that one could fairly well draw a line perhaps with regard to the agriculture graduate. But how do you draw the line in the first case I mentioned, namely that of the lawyer? After all, he is expected to read through thousands of cases in the three years of study and these thousands of cases are contained in thousands of law books. Or again, students of the liberal arts at the undergraduate level in the university may wish to buy one thousand great books or one hundred great books or ten thousand great books, to all of which he may refer during his education, on the plea that these books are necessary.
Admittedly the argument is disproportionate and one realizes that there is an absurdity somewhere. The difficulty is in ascertaining where common sense stops and absurdity begins. I say that in no niggling spirit against the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). I think this particular point I have raised could be cured by some rather careful draftsmanship of the regulations involved. At least I have pointed out that there are problems in the carrying out of such a resolution. I think the Minister of Finance is to be commended for his budget approach and for solving the problem in a fairly workable manner. I hope the hon. member for Cartier will present his resolution again and again until most, if not all, of its spirit is met. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to his contribution to the debate as I am sure I shall enjoy the ones that will follow.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part for a few minutes in this debate on this resolution this afternoon. I am particularly interested in the field of education as it affects those people who can least afford an education for their families. For this reason I should like to make one or two points this afternoon. First of all, I want to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for the steps he has taken with respect to the income tax laws as they affected university students prior to this year. I am sure the people of Canada generally have accepted the principle introduced in the budget for the solution of some of these problems.
I want to bring before the house a few specific cases I have in mind. One is that of an older couple who may have three or four growing children. There comes a time when these children have finished their public

schooling and have reached the age in life when they wish to attend university. Not too many years ago I was one of those who, after serving some time in the armed forces, was able to come out and take advantage of the veterans legislation with regard to education. This advantage, of course, is not available to our younger people. I am just wondering whether we could not have gone a little further with regard to the amount deductible from a student's earnings.
I have a letter from a young married man in the city of Edmonton. He tells me that while he was working at what he referred to as an ordinary job, although he was not able to get along too well on this basis, he decided that he would like to make an attempt at some other field of endeavour. He chose the field of accountancy. The necessity of his going back to school made it obligatory for his wife to go to work. She now has a job by means of which she is able to supplement the earnings sufficiently so that they are able to get along. Their baby sitter fees are something in the neighbourhood of $60 a month. I am wondering whether we could not have gone a little further and have included provision for deduction of these fees in our amendments to the Income Tax Act.
I am not too sure whether this resolution, as it reads, would be of a great deal of benefit, particularly to the students in the province of Alberta. I am aware of the fact that in some provinces a great deal of the cost of text books must be looked after by the students. In Alberta this is not entirely the situation. A great number of books are provided by the school boards. The important thing, therefore, is the amount of the tuition fees, a matter which is at present looked after in the amendments to the Income Tax Act.
In his remarks the minister stated that some students, in pursuing their university courses, earned sufficient money to incur income tax liability. He is proposing that a student in full-time attendance at a university, if he is proceeding toward a degree, be allowed to deduct the tuition fees he pays to the university when computing his taxable income. I am wondering whether we could not be a little more kind and make the total amount of the tuition fees and the total cost of the books involved in sending a student to school deductible in gross from the earnings of the married man in question. I only pass this thought on as a suggestion. This matter has been brought to my attention and I thought this was a good time to raise it.
I hope that the hon. member for Cartier will bring this bill before the house at another time so as to afford us the opportunity 90205-6-126
Private Bills
to refer it to a committee for further study. As I say, I am greatly interested in this problem. I wonder whether this bill is sufficiently clear to look after the problem in its entirety. I am not too sure about that matter but I should like to have the opportunity to look into it in a committee where we could study it further to the end that we might find a proper solution to the question of assistance to higher education.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make a few comments on this resolution put forward by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). In these days of keen competition in trade, in armaments and in ideologies we must not lose sight of the advantages of higher education extended to every individual in this country of ours.
This is a very interesting resolution. It proposes to encourage education by increasing the exemptions from income tax. I notice a tendency on the part of many people-not only the hon. member for Cartier-and many organizations to suggest adjustments in income tax every time they wish to encourage some socially desirable objective.
I would submit that a graduated income tax is the fairest of all methods of financing our government and furthermore of sharing some portion of our national income with those people who receive the least benefit from our national income. That being the case, I would suggest that all alternatives to reductions in income tax should be thoroughly scrutinized, examined and considered with a view to determining whether or not income tax should be reduced.
The present government have indicated great sympathy with the furtherance of higher learning in Canada. Since this government came into power in 1957 and accepted the responsibility of government they have encouraged higher learning in several important ways. First, may I say that they have increased the grants to universities from a basis of $1 per capita in the provinces to a basis of $1.50. That is an increase of 50 per cent and a very substantial increase in federal assistance to higher learning.
By legislation this year, through the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, very substantial grants are being made to the provinces to assist higher education of all kinds. Also corporations have been encouraged to increase their contributions to universities through actions by this government.
In his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) indicated his support of federal assistance to higher learning with these words which are to be found at page

Private Bills
1012 of Hansard for December 20, 1960. The Minister of Finance used these words when introducing the last budget:
Many deserving students require financial aid in order to attend university. Some provinces have inaugurated systems of loans to worthy students in need of direct financial assistance. These commendable plans are producing very beneficial results. The government is giving continuing study to this important aspect of the problem.
The other aspect concerns the Income tax position of students and those on whom they are dependent. I propose a measure of tax relief for university students and their parents.
Some students, while pursuing their university courses, earn sufficient money to incur an income tax liability. I am proposing that a student in full time attendance at a university, if he is proceeding toward a degree, be allowed to deduct the tuition fees he pays to the university when computing his taxable income.
The income tax law already provides special assistance to parents who are supporting children at university by allowing them to claim a deduction in respect of such children even after they have attained the age of twenty one years. However, if the student of any age has income in excess of $950 he ceases to qualify as a dependent, and his parent then forfeits the $500 exemption otherwise accorded to him by the law, even though he may be giving financial support to the student. I propose that the student's tuition fees be allowed as a deduction from his earnings in determining whether he qualifies as a dependent. If his income after deduction of his fees falls below $950 the parent will recover the $500 exemption.
These changes will become effective on January 1, 1961.
I have indicated that all alternatives should be examined before deciding to reduce income tax. I would like to refer to a suggestion brought forward by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) who in her very fine speech in connection with the last budget debate made this suggestion, as reported at page 1355 of Hansard of January 24, 1961:
I should like to see federal loan banks for education available to all, young and old Canadians, not particularly based on need or the highest excellence in scholastic achievement, but on the prime requirement of a desire to learn. A revolving fund should be kept replenished by those who benefit most in this generation for those of the next generation, and we should be the first to recognize the enormous cost of university buildings, laboratories and libraries, and the competition for the best brains in the world, teachers and professors. It seems to me that if we have industrial loans, farm loans and loans for small business we should certainly have loans for the development of the brains-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I am sure the house is very much interested by the quotation the hon. member is giving, but I draw to his attention the fact that the motion before us speaks only of an amendment to the Income Tax Act to provide for the exemption from income tax of tuition fees, and so on. No alternative method is mentioned. Therefore, although I think references can be made to

other methods of helping students, it would be irrelevant in my opinion to discuss any such methods in detail.


Mr. Benidickson:: I did not particularly want to raise a point of order, because the subject we are discussing has general acceptance, I think, in all sections of the house, but it did occur to me that in addition to the point Your Honour raised the hon. member was referring to a previous debate in the current session.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I shall observe your ruling, but I was trying to make the point that before deciding on such a method of assisting students as a reduction of income tax other alternatives should be reviewed. If that is out of order, I shall go on with one or two other observations.
The cost of education is ever on the increase. With our accumulation of knowledge increasing from generation to generation it becomes more difficult for each succeeding generation to master it, or at least it requires more time to impart that knowledge. Not only does it require more time on the part of the teachers, but it requires more time on the part of the students who are the recipients of that knowledge. Because more time is required the whole process of handing on this accumulated knowledge of the ages becomes more expensive. In making our national financial plan we should keep this fact in mind, and no doubt the hon. member for Cartier had that in mind when he made this proposal to encourage higher education by making certain reductions in income tax. However, since we cannot pursue the question of alternatives, I will close with just the statement that reduction in income tax is not the only way of achieving the objectives which the hon. member has in mind. Because we must have revenue in order to operate our system of government and carry on the services of the country I would suggest that alternatives be explored including the suggestion of loans to university students.


Mr. J. C. MacRae (York-Sunbury):: I should like to speak briefly on this resolution this afternoon. First, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) on having brought this resolution forward. I believe he is very sincere in what he is proposing. I believe it is not being done for publicity, but that the hon. member is sincere in his intentions with respect to the proposal before us.
I am deeply interested in this question, because I believe that all Canadians in this day and age should be interested in education. The education of our young men and women

today presents a special problem. I am interested because I am a member of the teaching profession-I have been all my life-and because I have seen a great deal of some of the things the hon. member is advocating.
Third, I am interested because in the constituency which I represent is one of Canada's finest universities-a university which is rapidly expanding. I should like to speak briefly about the growth of our university. I can remember 25 years ago attending school at Fredericton at a time when the University of New Brunswick had only 400 students or less. Today that university is filled beyond capacity with over 1,800. That is a situation which exists in practically every school and university across this country.
Even so there are many hundreds and perhaps many thousands of young people who cannot get a university education such as they and this country so vitally need, because of financial circumstances. Every one of us could give from personal experience examples of students who were able to obtain an education because they received just that little bit of extra help. I can well remember a young lad who was in my class at school, a boy who was orphaned at 12. His father was killed in a tragic accident. He was the only boy in the family and when he graduated from high school, having matriculated with high marks, he was able to obtain a Beaverbrook scholarship. At that time the sum of money which this scholarship represented was not very great, but the boy was nevertheless able to go to university and get a degree in electrical engineering. Today he is one of eastern Canada's ablest engineers. It would have been impossible for this boy to have gone on to a university if he had not received this little bit of extra help.
At the present time there is a most important committee sitting in the other place, and the activities of this committee are perhaps the most important of those going on in this parliament at the present time. I refer to the committee on manpower and employment. A short time ago a report was made before that committee by Dr. James, discussing the question of education today. He pointed out plainly that the great bulk of those people who have an employment problem today are those who have received little or no education. The figures put forward are probably accurate,-Dr. James said about 2 per cent of those seeking employment had received university educations. I think perhaps that figure of 2 per cent is a bit high.
The measures brought down by this government to date in the field of education, including assistance to the technical schools and in the building of technical schools
90205-6-126i
Private Bills
will, I am sure, have a most beneficial effect. Indeed, that effect is being felt already in this country.
I am sorry the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) was not able to pursue his discussion of alternatives to the suggestions made in this particular resolution. I had wished to discuss very fully the question of loans to students, a subject which was covered in an exceptionally fine speech by the hon. lady for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman). Possibly we shall have some other opportunity in the future to deal with this particular point and put forward the view that the making of loans to students would be an effective way of helping young men and women through university and, of course, other schools.
This government-as I am sure all governments have been in past years-is always under pressure for exemptions under the Income Tax Act, many of which are undoubtedly worthwhile. I am sure the government will give the import of this resolution every consideration. It seems to me the important thing about the discussion of this resolution is that it draws out the views of the representatives of the people of this country and for this reason there is a great value in having such resolutions debated.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise at this time to say a few words with respect to the resolution now before the house. As I listened to the introductory remarks of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) I could not help but feel that the legislation already in existence meets the objectives he advances in this resolution. As the hon. member read letters and telegrams, most of which I believe were dated back in 1954, it occurred to me that the hon. gentleman should have taken them to the then minister of finance of the Liberal government and read them to him. If that course was followed then the hon. member's representations must have fallen on deaf ears because very little was done by the former administration in this field compared with the record of this Conservative government since it came into power in 1957.
To appreciate the record of achievement of the present government one has only to briefly review some of the measures it has introduced. The hon, member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) made mention of the increase in per capita grants for universities from $1 to $1.50. Another significant step taken by the present government is represented by the recent legislation providing for grants to universities for the construction of student residences. The government has now come along with legislation to exempt

Private Bills
tuition fees for income tax purposes. One also recalls the grants that have been given by this government in the training and vocational field. One also thinks of the assistance that has been given for the provision of vocational training for the unemployed in conjunction with the provinces. In the light of this brief review I am very happy to be a member of a government that has seen fit to make such significant contributions to the furtherance of education.
I am pleased to speak in support of the legislation already passed in this field. In my riding we have two important colleges, the only two of their kind in the British commonwealth and second to none in the world, the Ontario agricultural college and the Ontario veterinary college. In my riding we also have MacDonald institute where we train some of the finest wives to be found any place in Canada. The exemption from income tax of tuition fees will be of great assistance to students attending these universities. In brief, I think the aims of the hon. member's resolution have already been met by legislation introduced by this government.
The hon. member's resolution also calls for the exemption from income tax of the cost of textbooks and scientific equipment. I should be happy to see these items included as I am sure the students would who are attending the colleges I have mentioned, but I am afraid a great administrative problem would arise from the implementation of such a provision. The following questions immediately come to my mind. How would you arrive at a means of establishing the deductions? Many textbooks are used over and over again and students often purchase secondhand books. How would you designate what was necessary equipment and what was unnecessary? The equipment used by a student engineer is very different from that used by a medical student. The implementation of such a provision would mean that the department would be confronted with a complex administrative problem.
In conclusion let me say that I am proud of the legislation in this field introduced by this government and I am happy to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on doing what has been done thus far.


Mr.  H. M. Bafien@Humber-Sl. George's: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution supported by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). I believe that all people in this country today recognize not only the advantage to the individual of higher education but also this country's great need for it.
Not long ago in reading a report from the Canadian medical association I noticed that there was a great need for doctors all across this country. For the last four or five years we have heard much about the great need for engineers. Some of the reports we have read have imbued us with the fear that other countries are exceeding us in the training of technical and professional men.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat praised the work done by his government in increasing university grants. I agree with him in part but in doing so I must also remind the hon. gentleman that it was in 1955 under the former administration that these grants to universities were initiated, then at the rate of 50 cents per capita. A year or two later they were increased to $1 per capita. While the present administration has done a good deal for higher education I think hon. members opposite must not lay claim to the credit for all the interest that has been shown in higher education in Canada over the last few years.
I am interested in the number of times the hon. member for Cartier has placed this resolution on the order paper and in the number of times he has mentioned this subject in the house. Last year in the budget debate he made reference to his contention that there should be some income tax deduction for the expenses of a higher education. After concluding a speech similar to the one the hon. member made today, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), as reported at page 5169 of Hansard of June 20, 1960, said:
As to the matter raised by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), may I say that this matter was discussed fully last year. He is aware of the additional burden we are carrying in the federal treasury now by reason of our increase from $1 to $1.50 in the per capita federal grants to the universities; that is per capita of population in each province. These are substantial additions that we have undertaken. I think there is little to be gained now in reviewing this question again. It could have been raised in the budget discussion but I do not believe it was raised there. It was discussed fully a year ago and I think the situation has not changed since that time.
That was only approximately a year ago. We now have amendments to the Income Tax Act which I am sure every hon. member will welcome and recognize as desirable.
I do not wish to labour the point but there is one thought I should like to leave with hon. members. I have had some experience in the field of education. It has always been and still is my opinion that in any country that pays attention to its educational system there will always be sufficient care given to the average student.
There are two types of students for whom special care should be undertaken. First, there are those who have the ability to attend

university, and then there are those who have ability far below the average. With respect to those who have ability far below the average the state might just as well train them to do some job because it is going to have to look after them anyway, whether they are children or adults. With respect to those who are above the average in ability, the state should look after them, particularly a democracy which needs that type of leadership in the different professions that these young men are able to fill.
Let us suppose, for example, that a father sends his son to university. Unless he is a very wealthy man he will have to make some sacrifice in order to do that. When the young lad is through university and he goes out to take up a job in whatever field of training he happens to choose he may be a source of great pride to his father, he may be a source of great pride to his own home town; he may have equipped himself to make a good living, but there is one fact that remains. The people who get the greatest advantage out of the training that that young man has acquired is the state itself. If the state is going to get the advantage of that young man's training, then it should be responsible for paying a part of the cost. Whether the method suggested by the hon. member for Cartier is the best method for assisting university students is another matter. It is certainly one way. I myself have some leaning toward a student loan plan, and I believe that a student loan plan would be welcomed in this country provided, of course, that there were no strings attached and those who are actually in need of loans to get themselves through university are able to get them.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do recognize the worth of the resolution which we now have before us. I support the hon. member for Cartier in his bringing it forth and I commend him for being so persistent in his idea of trying to provide help for university students in this country.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that the Income Tax Act would be amended with a view to assisting university students was received with applause. Besides, authorities of our Canadian universities have commended the minister for such a decision.
Nevertheless, the resolution of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) is a worthy one and goes to prove, I believe, that it is possible to provide assistance to education without infringing upon provincial rights in the field of education.
I was very much surprised during the recent Liberal rally at the stand taken by the
Richelieu Waterway
opposition which tends increasingly to infringe upon the rights of the provinces in the matter of education.
This resolution introduced by the hon. member for Cartier provides a means of assisting universities, of assisting education in general, without violating the legitimate rights of the provinces in the field of education.
(Text):


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the house has had the opportunity for a good general discussion of this resolution. A number of hon. members have made thoughtful and useful contributions. As the house knows, the budget resolutions will be called for discussion on Wednesday. Included among them is a proposal in resolution No. 12 which will enact a substantial part of this resolution. Recognizing the general undesirability of duplicating debates, particularly in the same week, and since there are many other resolutions on the order paper which merit discussion, and for which no other opportunity will be provided for, as in this resolution, I am proposing to move the adjournment of the debate. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne):
That this debate be now adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):

Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the advisability of the appointment of a board of engineers for the purpose of studying and reporting upon the linking of the St. Lawrence seaway (river) with the port of New York via the Richelieu river, lake Champlain and the Hudson river.
(Text):
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution that is now before the house is not a new one. It has been on the order paper now for three sessions and it has been in the minds of many Canadians as well as many people of the United States for a considerably longer period. However, I am happy to be able to move this resolution this evening in order, not only to be able to describe more fully than I have been able to do up until now

Richelieu Waterway
the Richelieu-Champlain waterway but also to give the house reasons that I feel make the Champlain waterway economically advantageous to Canada.
The Richelieu-Champlain waterway would provide a practicable water route some 400 miles long from the St. Lawrence river in Quebec up the Richelieu river to the international boundary, then across lake Champlain and down the Hudson river to Albany and New York. Hon. members may be interested to know that the Richelieu river, in spite of the many natural obstacles to be found in it, has served Canadians and Canadian-United States commercial traffic ever since 1609. It was only in 1843 that the locks, situated now at St. Ours and the locks in the Chambly canal, were first built. At that time a six-foot barge canal was built and played an important part in the economic development of that area.
The Chambly canal, which marks the southern end of the Canadian section of the waterway, is 11.8 miles long and it has nine consecutive and very antiquated locks with a controlling length of 118 feet and a controlling depth over the sills of 6.5 feet. No major changes have been made to the canal since it was first built, and I think the canal is understandably outmoded and although completely inadequate for modern transportation it is still being used.
One of the pioneers, whom I should like to mention tonight, is Guy Tombs Limited. They have been using this waterway, in spite of the difficulties, for many years and, in order to use it, have had to build special barges. In 1937 the first step toward construction of a practicable water route from the St. Lawrence to New York was the construction of a lock at St. Ours at the northern end of the waterway. It is some 339 feet long, 45 feet wide, with a depth of 12.5 feet over the sills.
At the same time a dam across the Richelieu river at Fryers island was built in order to control the flow of the river and to maintain the level of the waterway in lake Champlain. This dam has not been utilized because the project did not go ahead, but it is a necessary step that has already been taken in order to achieve a practicable water route through the Richelieu river. Except for the dredging of the Richelieu river from six feet to 12 feet which was done in 1946 from Sorel to St. Ours, no major changes were made in the Canadian section of the waterway.
The United States section of this route starts, of course, at the international boundary and goes through lake Champlain to Whitehall, a distance of 112 miles with a controlling depth of 12 feet. From Whitehall to Troy, a

distance of some 63 miles, the depth is 12 feet and from Troy to Albany, a distance of 8.5 miles, the depth is 13-J feet. From Albany to New York, a distance of 143.5 miles, it has a depth of 27 feet. Over the years prior to 1937 a considerable amount of interest had been shown in the Richelieu-Champlain waterway. In 1936 the government of Canada and the government of the United States concurred in referring the project to the international joint commission for study. The commission made its report in 1938, and I should like to place on Hansard the recommendations of the international joint commission, found in the report of that commission on the Champlain waterway, page 17. The recommendations are, and I quote:
-the commission recommends that the present report be considered an interim report, and that it be authorized to retain jurisdiction over the matter until the St. Lawrence waterway has become an accomplished tact and the commission has had an opportunity of studying the effect of its operation upon the proposed Champlain waterway.
There are, of course, two points that must be noted in this recommendation. First of all, it is an interim report of the international joint commission, and not a final report.
Second, the commission recommend that it be authorized to retain jurisdiction over the matter until the St. Lawrence seaway had been completed. Hon. members will agree that in 1938 the St. Lawrence seaway was far from being an accomplished fact. The economic picture of the area involved in the project was very far from being what it is today. For the past 25 years, in spite of the difficulties caused by nine antiquated locks, a canal with a controlling depth of only six feet in the Canadian section and the necessity of specially built barges, an average of 50,000 tons of freight per year has been carried over this route. Over half of that tonnage was newsprint going to New York. The total Richelieu river tonnage including bulk shipments to points in the Richelieu valley delivered by local barges has been as high as 135,000 tons under conditions which can only be described as terrible.
There is no limit to the southbound Quebec newsprint tonnage available. Competent engineers and economists have estimated that there would be 10 to 20 times the present through tonnage to New York if the waterway were enlarged and modernized to permit the passage of modern and practicable canallers. Moreover, with improved transportation facilities, a very considerable amount of ore from the lower St. Lawrence in Quebec and in Labrador would also move along the Richelieu-Champlain waterway to its destination in the United States.
The undertaking and the eventual completion of the St. Lawrence seaway accompanied

by a rapid industrial development on the south shore of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Sorel accentuated the economic potential of the Richelieu project. It is because of the economic potential and the necessity for Canada to maintain an ever-expanding economy that Canadians, whether as individuals or whether organized in groups such as municipalities, chambers of commerce, boards of trade in Canada or the New York-Vermont interstate commission, have taken an extremely active part in preparing and sending to the government well documented briefs on the economic justifiability of the Richelieu-Champlain waterway. These briefs were the result of studies made first of all of the interim report of the international joint commission of 1937 and subsequent studies made by engineers and economists both in this country and in the United States.
Organizations such as those I mentioned a moment ago have spent considerable time and money from their own resources in a most commendable effort to obtain the economic and technical information necessary with regard to the Canadian as well as the United States section of this waterway. Many of the international meetings were held both in Canada and in the United States on an unofficial but extremely useful basis so as to coordinate the studies of both countries toward this project which can only be realized on an international basis. All of the studies that have been made pointed distinctly and emphatically, if not to an immediate start on the project for which there is as yet no definite plans at least to the advisability of both Canada and the United States undertaking a joint study of the project on a governmental level as they did in 1937 through the international joint commission.
In April of 1957, the United States congress voted an amount of money to begin a study of the project and Canada was invited to take part in that joint study. As a result of a motion I had placed on the order paper, I asked the government to table all the correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the authorities of the state of New York and Washington concerning the Richelieu river waterway which would link the St. Lawrence with the Hudson river. As a result, I was handed sessional paper No. 250, dated Tuesday, April 26, 1960, and I should like to place this on Hansard. On April 30, 1957, the United States embassy in Ottawa sent a letter to the Department of External Affairs which reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Cleveland:
Reference is made to the Department of External Affairs' note No. X-215 of August 15, 1952 and the embassy's note No. 297 of June 3, 1952, concerning the Richelieu river-lake Champlain waterway.
Richelieu Waterway
It will be recalled that in this exchange of notes the Canadian government was asked whether it would join the United States in a request to the international joint commission to re-study this subject with a view to determining the possibilities of deepening the waterway to accommodate 12-foot navigation. In its response, the Department of External Affairs took note of a comment made in a January 4, 1938 report of the international joint commission to the effect that a recommendation concerning the development of the proposed waterway could only be determined after the St. Lawrence waterway had been constructed and put into operation. The Department of External Affairs' note concluded that it would not be appropriate to refer this matter to the international joint commission for further study.
In this connection, the attention of the United States government has recently been invited to resolutions adopted by the general assembly of Vermont and by the city council of Burlington expressing the view that, as a result of the progress that has been made in the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, it is desirable to have both the United States and Canadian governments ask the international joint commission to renew its investigation and study of the construction of the Richelieu river-lake Champlain waterway.
While the United States government does not wish at this time to propose to the Canadian government that it join with the United States in a renewed reference to the international joint commission, the United States would appreciate ascertaining whether or not the Canadian government's views on this question have changed in any respect since they were last made known in the Department of External Affairs' note No. X-215 of August 15, 1952.
Sincerely yours,
Milton C. Rewinkel, Counselor of Embassy.
There was no answer to this letter that was tabled but on October 30, 1958 the governor of New York namely Averill Harriman sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) which reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
The congress of the United States has allocated $15,000 to the United States army corps of engineers for the current fiscal year to begin a study of a possible Richelieu-Champlain waterway. As you know, the 1937 study of the international joint commission determined that such a waterway was engineeringly feasible. The questions of depth (12'-14'-27') and economic benefits now need re-examination.
Because of the recent economic changes in Canada, it is my feeling that a similar study should be made on the Canadian side. If your engineers could initiate a similar undertaking, the two studies could be consolidated into a single substantial report which would certainly point the way for an inland waterway of great economic benefit to both the Dominion of Canada and the state of New York.
Sincerely,
Averill Harriman.
To this letter the Canadian government replied on November 13, 1958, as follows:
My dear Governor:
In the absence of the Prime Minister, I wish to thank you cordially for your letter of October 30, in which you inform the Prime Minister of the action which the U.S. congress has taken

Richelieu Waterway
recently in allocating monies to the U.S. army corps of engineers for the current fiscal year to begin a study of a possible Richelieu-Champlain waterway. May I say that this matter has already been informally drawn to the attention of our department by the department of state.
Yours sincerely,
N. A. Robertson.
On December 22, 1958 the foreign service of the United States sent a letter to the Department of External Affairs of Canada. It is addressed to Mr. Cleveland and it reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Cleveland:
The department of state has requested the embassy to ascertain the present views of the Canadian government concerning possible joint studies of the Richelieu canal-lake Champlain waterway.
In this connection it may be of interest to Canadian authorities that under section 112 of the United States public law 85-500, the secretary of the army was authorized and directed to study a "water route from Albany, New York, into lake Champlain, New York and Vermont, including the advisability of modifying existing federal and state improvements, with due consideration of ultimate connection with the Saint Lawrence River in Canada". The chief of the United States army corps of engineers has initiated the activities in the United States necessary for submission of a report to congress as directed. Consideration of an ultimate connection with the St. Lawrence river would require, of course, the co-operation of appropriate agencies of the Canadian government.
If the Canadian government should find it agreeable to engage in a co-operative or joint study, an established procedure for arrangements, as you know, is available under article IX of the boundary waters treaty of 1909. In such an event the international joint commission could be requested to resume consideration of the reference of January 2, 1936, in which the two governments asked the commission to investigate the advisability of the improvement of a waterway from Montreal through lake Champlain to connect with the Hudson river. Under the reference the commission submitted an interim report to the two governments in 1937. As you will recall, that report recommended, in effect, that no further consideration be given to development of such a waterway until the possibilities could be analysed in relation to an improved channel in the St. Lawrence river.
Alternately, of course, a new reference to the international joint commission could be formulated defining the nature and scope of any study desired at this time. The department of state understands that the department of the army is prepared to move forward with studies of the Champlain waterway in the United States, as well as with joint studies of a possible connection with the St. Lawrence if the Canadian government should deem joint studies desirable. The department of state further understands that the department of the army can adjust within reasonable limits the time and rate of studies in the United States to conform with reviews of the Canadian government regarding any joint studies. It is for this reason, as well as the other considerations cited above, that the embassy would be most appreciative of the general views of the Canadian government.
Sincerely, yours,
Milton C. Rewinkel, Counselor of Embassy.
Almost one year later the Department of External Affairs answered the letter on November 17, 1959:
Dear Mr. Smith:
Since receipt of Mr. Rewinkel's letter of December 22, 1958, concerning studies of the Champlain-Richelieu waterway, this matter has been under further examination.
As you will recall, the Minister of Transport on June 11, 1959, read in the House of Commons an extract from an interim report which had been made to him on this subject. This extract read as follows:
"The previous cost estimates are now being revised in the light of recent alternative plans and present day costs by the Department of Public Works, and when these are completed, some estimate can be made of the volume of traffic required to justify improvements to the present canals and studies will be made to determine probable traffic available".
The cost revisions are proceeding but it is not possible to say, at this moment, when the results will be ready.
Yours sincerely,
J. H. Cleveland,
American Division.
Several things become clear as a result of the correspondence I have just read. First of all, that very little interest has been shown by the government in the project. Second, the government had no intention of undertaking a joint study with the United States of the project which could have meant a possible government expenditure for Canada of some $15,000. I strongly suspect that the private organizations in Canada to which I referred a while ago have spent two or three times that amount in the preparation of the economic and engineering studies that they had made at their own expense.
But the government did not even include one cent in the estimates for the study of the project over the past three years, as is evidenced by the remarks by the then minister of transport which are to be found in Hansard of June 11, 1959, on page 4565. In speaking to the hon. member for Laurier the then minister of transport had this to say:
The hon. member spoke about the Richelieu canal, and I should like to read him a short report made to me by the members of our economics division and the public works engineers who are working on this project at the present time. It reads as follows:
From there it goes on to the part that was included in the correspondence I have just read. Then the hon. member for Laurier said:
May I ask who are the members of the committee dealing with this matter?


George Harris Hees: There are no specific members. It is our regular economics staff and the engineering staff of the Department of Public Works. Between the two of them they are handling it. If the hon. member wishes I can find out later who they are.


Mr. Chevrier:: I do not want to insist, but were they given terms of reference to deal with the report of the board of engineers of 1937?


George Harris Hees: These are the terms of reference under which they are working. First of all, we are trying to find out what the economic justification might be for proceeding with work of this kind, and the probable engineering costs.
From all appearances the government has chosen to utilize the engineers and the economists that are already in the departments, without having a special study made of this project. I have certainly the greatest respect for the engineers and economists in the departments, but I respectfully submit that with the amount of work that they have in the Department of Transport and in the Department of Public Works it would be almost impossible for them to make the thorough study that such a huge project would require.
All through the discussion of the Champlain waterway in the reports and studies a most confusing and exasperating veil of secrecy was drawn over the whole subject and it became absolutely impossible for members of the opposition to obtain any information as to what type of study was being carried out and who had the responsibility of carrying out these particular studies.
If you refer to Hansard of February 4, 1960, you will have an idea of what I mean when I say it was impossible to obtain any information as to the work or study that was being carried out. At page 717 of Hansard I am reported as having asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) this question:
Now that the Prime Minister has had an opportunity of travelling along, if not on, the Richelieu river from Sorel to the United States border, can he say whether a study of the economic and technical feasibility of the Richelieu waterway is under way or is being contemplated by the government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been a continuing study, apparently for quite a number of years, of this question. Indeed, an examination of the records would indicate that when the last government was in power there was an investigation, and that is still continuing.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Can the Prime Minister say whether or not he has received any invitation or representation from the state of New York or from Washington concerning a combined study of this project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to answer that question with complete certainty. However, speaking subject to the usual uncertainties of memory, I may say I have no recollection of such a representation from the state of New York.
Then at page 866 of Hansard for February 9, 1960 I am reported as having asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Thursday last I asked him whether the government was making a study of the economic and technical feasibility of the Richelieu waterway, and the Prime Minister answered that when the last government was in
Richelieu Waterway
power there was an investigation which was still under way. Did the Prime Minister mean that the government has asked the international joint commission to resume the investigation the commission was carrying out and which was interrupted until the St. Lawrence seaway had been completely finished?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Can the Prime Minister tell the house what department of government is making such a study of the Richelieu waterway?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as in the past, several departments are engaged in this work.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: May I direct another question to the Prime Minister. I did not get the chance to put this as a supplementary to the questions asked a while ago. Would the Prime Minister inform the house to what department questions on the Richelieu waterway could be addressed, and which department has responsibility for the study mentioned in the Prime Minister's statement?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if questions are directed to me I will see that they are redirected to the proper department.
In the light of this exchange I think the Prime Minister will forgive me if I entertain certain suspicions that no serious consideration has been given to the project of the Richelieu waterway.
Yet on December 7 the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) announced the results of the studies the government claims had been continuing in several departments. The minister did not of course make the announcement in the House of Commons, where the subject had been brought up on innumerable occasions. The minister chose to make the announcement at a banquet given by the Montreal board of trade and la cham-bre de commerce at the close of a day's conference on the Richelieu-Champlain waterway. By an extraordinary coincidence the study of the project, which according to the Prime Minister had been going on for some years, just happened to finish in time for the banquet, because otherwise the Prime Minister would surely have seen to it that the rights and prerogative of parliament were preserved and the decision made known to the House of Commons first.
During the whole day of the conference on December 7 the members of the conference-and that included members of the United States congress-had listened to well prepared and well documented briefs read by competent people who had been interested in the project for several years. There had been a great deal of enthusiasm, hope and interest shown, and it was unanimously agreed that the very least that could be done would be for the Canadian government and the United States government to engage in a joint study on a program.
One of the speakers at the conference was Mr. Holubowicz from the port of New York authority. His statement can in no way be

Richelieu Waterway
considered as an exaggerated, or ill-thought out one. I think it is a very moderate and useful statement and 1 should like to put it on record in Hansard at this time. It is taken from a copy of a speech he made on December 7 at a meeting in Montreal of the Quebec chamber of commerce and it reads as follows:
At this point, perhaps it will be helpful for me to recapitulate for you the attitude of the principal United States proponents of the Champlain waterway study.
It should be understood clearly that the efforts being carried out in the United States are limited for the present to the carrying out of a comprehensive study of the project, and not at obtaining authorization on or funds for any actual improvement as yet. At present, no one has sufficient information or technical data on which to base a judgment as to the economic feasibility or justification of any improvement. There has been talk of a 12 ft., 14 ft., 16 ft., 27 ft., and even a 35 ft. waterway. Obviously, no judgment can be made as to which of these depths should be provided, or for that matter whether any improvement at all can be justified, until a full study is completed, which will, among other things, relate economic benefit to the cost of construction.
Therefore, our point of view is that a comprehensive study is needed, similar in scope to the study conducted by the international joint commission in 1937. In our opinion, this is a rational and sound approach to the problem of development.
He concludes by saying:
Many interests in the United States are hopeful that the Canadian government will decide to join in studying this project which holds out such a great promise for the economic future of both our countries. We earnestly believe that if competent studies indicate the need for improvement of this transportation artery it would form yet another link between our two countries and do much to enhance the friendship and spirit of cooperation that now exists between us.
That was one of the points of view put forward at the conference. There was, also, another viewpoint which was put forward by Lieutenant Colonel Dansereau, a member of the international joint commission. He had this to say as reported in La Presse of December 7, 1960.
(Translation):
It is certainly possible to come to an agreement with the United States in the near future concerning 12 feet navigation on the Richelieu river.
(Text):
I have every reason to believe Lieutenant Colonel Dansereau because last summer I attended a meeting of the New York interstate commission which was discussing the project, and at a dinner which was given the governor of Vermont, Governor Stafford, stated toward the end of his speech that Vermont was ready to go ahead with the project but was waiting to see what steps the Canadian government proposed to take. On December 7, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) answered the governor of Vermont in no uncertain terms. The hon. gentleman answered the interstate commission, the

board of trade and all those who were interested when he said at that banquet, and I quote from page 3 of:
(Translation):
Excerpts from a speech delivered by the Hon. Leon Balcer, Minister of Transport, before the chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec, in Montreal, on December 7, 1960.
I quote from page 3:
In my capacity as Minister of Transport, I should have liked to be able to inform you tonight that the federal government is willing to carry out such a project without delay, or still that we have decided to have the matter carefully looked into by the boundary waters commission. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to make such a statement, but this does not mean however that the government and my department in particular are not following with great interest the work accomplished by you people and that they are not impressed by the enthusiasm and interest shown in this project by such responsible people as you.
(Text):
The kindest thing I can say about the minister's statement that night is that it is the bluntest brush-off I have ever heard a minister of the crown address to any group. On page 7 of that same extract, the Minister of Transport had this to say, and I quote: (Translation):
The problem that the government, and more particularly the Department of Transport, have to face is to make the most of the taxpayers' money, with only one purpose in mind, to give public interest precedence over all other interests. (Text):
That is a very profound and acceptable statement, but it is extremely difficult to see the application of that principle by a government which is willing to spend, for instance, $5,500,000 on military bands in this country but which refuses to pay some $15,000 for a joint study of the economic advantages to be derived from one of the country's economic assets at a time when our standard of living and prosperity depends so essentially upon our capacity for keeping our economy continually expanding. The government's attitude reminds me of a modern version of fiddling while Rome burns.
After the announcement in Montreal by the Minister of Transport of the government's policy with regard to Richelieu-Champlain waterway it was only natural that members of the opposition should try to obtain some pertinent information with respect to the study which was supposed to have been made by the government. Together with the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) and others, I wanted to know, for instance, who had made the reports; what alternative routes had been studied; at what different depths had the project been considered; what consultations had taken place with the United States in connection

with a project which is international in scope; on what basis was the potential volume of traffic on the waterway estimated; and, lastly, what was the estimated cost of the alternative routes and the depths of those waterways.
In order to get some information which I felt was of public interest a motion was made for the tabling of the report, but here again a cloak of secrecy fell once more over the report, this time not by means of doubletalk but in the form of a procedural technicality-it was argued that interdepartmental reports are considered confidential and cannot be tabled. The result was that the house was given no information whatever on the type of study which had been made and was asked to accept that the project is not economically feasible in spite of several available reports to the contrary.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. gentleman mind telling the house what steps were taken in connection with this project at the time the hon. member for Laurier was minister of transport?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is a simple question to answer, and if the parliamentary secretary had listened carefully he would have heard that in 1937 the international joint commission had stated they were going to discontinue the study which was being made until the St. Lawrence seaway had been completed. The difference which exists between now and then is that the St. Lawrence seaway is now completed.
It is a somewhat ridiculous situation that the government should be reluctant to make public the result of an economic and engineering study or survey of a public project on which a start was made in 1937, on the grounds that it is confidential in nature while at the same time the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) without batting an eyelid will announce to the world that half of our CF-100's will be phased out and that he is not yet sure whether or not the phased-out planes will be replaced. There seems to me to be an inconsistency in the two points of view. On the one hand the government declines to divulge to the house the results of a study of a public project but, on the other hand it can inform the world that we intend to cut by half our force of CF-lOO's.
Perhaps more than ever before in our economic history will it be necessary to study very seriously and to implement-


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. Was this matter brought up at the recent Liberal convention? If so, what was the reaction to it?
Richelieu Waterway


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I believe it was. It was not dealt with in my committee but I believe it was brought up.


Grant Campbell: What was the official reaction to it?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The official reaction was very good. I only hoped it would be as good here in the house.


Grant Campbell: May I take it that this is the official policy from now on?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think the hon. member will have an opportunity of presenting his views and of discussing these matters on a later occasion. It seems to me our present and future economic difficulties and our unemployment problem will not be solved by one over-all solution. It will be necessary to study general economic and unemployment problems in terms of specific solutions for specific problems in specific areas. Although it is certainly commendable it is not sufficient to determine and to define distressed areas in our economy which must be given special help. This, of course, is good and needed but can only be considered an emergency measure to prevent the possible economic collapse of these areas. If we are to really ensure continued over-all prosperity by means of a continuing expanding economy we must pinpoint and utilize to the fullest possible extent all the natural assets with which our country has been so readily endowed.
I submit that the Richelieu river being connected with lake Champlain and the Hudson river is one of Canada's natural assets which could definitely bolster our economy and help to keep our economy growing. Although the government may be reluctant to give the basis on which it claims the Richelieu-Champlain waterway is not economically feasible, I have no hesitation in putting forth the arguments which I feel make the waterway not only feasible but a necessity if we are to exploit our natural assets intelligently and strengthen our overall economy.
I mentioned earlier the rapid industrial expansion that is taking place between Montreal and Sorel. Apart from Marine Industries, a shipyard on the Richelieu at Sorel, and Sorel Industries which date back some 25 years, a number of heavy industries have been established in the area within the past 10 years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.

Richelieu Waterway (Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 31 says:
When Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, no member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of no confidence in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I submit that the exceptions to this standing order do not apply in the circumstances; but I gather that the consensus of the house is to allow the hon. member to continue his speech.
(Text):
Is it agreeable that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: By unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, not on the interpretation of the rule.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I thank hon. members for giving me extra time. I will try to conclude as quickly as I can.
As I was saying, in the past 10 years on the south shore between Montreal and Sorel a considerable number of heavy industries have flourished. There is, for instance, Quebec Iron and Titanium which started to roll in 1950. The Steel Company of Canada is now established there. Others include Quebec Titanium Pigment, St. Maurice Chemicals, the ore reduction plant at Contrecoeur and Crucible Steel of Canada. British Titanium Pigments are now constructing a huge plant and plans for a rolling mill are being prepared. The result of all this is that the mouth of the Richelieu river falls within a highly industrialized area. Furthermore, there is east of Montreal and Sorel the paper mills and the ore mines on the north shore of Quebec and Labrador.
The present water transportation systems between this highly industrialized section of western Quebec and the industrialized section of the United States immediately to the south are (a) a very long, circuitous water route by the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic ocean, some 1,800 miles in length, or (b) the present six-foot waterway by way of the Richelieu river, a distance of some 650 miles.
A practicable waterway on the Richelieu would reduce the distance between the industrialized sections of Quebec and the United States by well over 1,000 miles. Adequate and modern canals and lakes on the Richelieu would mean a substantial reduction in transportation cost and would greatly increase the quantity and variety of the tonnage now moving on the Richelieu.

If the Richelieu were properly canalized it may be expected that there would be a large tonnage of concentrates to New Jersey, a greatly increased tonnage of newsprint, a substantial quantity of pig iron from the ore reduction plants and quantities of lumber, and wood pulp. There would also be quantities of semi-finished steels moving on the Richelieu. It may be expected that the northbound traffic would comprise raw cotton, clay products, raw sugar, molding sand, phosphate rock and structural steel.
It was estimated in 1949 that with a 12-foot waterway the total tonnage on the Richelieu waterway would aggregate two million tons. With the unexpected industrial development of the past 10 years in that area I am convinced that the aggregate tonnage would be far greater than that. I cannot help but think that the government judged the project as economically unfeasible on the basis of the present tonnage moving on the six-foot waterway and on the basis of the incalculable obstacles to transportation. Surely the government could not have taken into account the industrial expansion that has taken place in the area since the international joint commission made its report in 1937. I submit that the whole south shore from Montreal to Sorel within 10 to 15 years will become the Pittsburgh of Canada in the heavy iron and steel industries.
I hope the government does not believe that additional tonnage on the waterway can be achieved under the present impossible conditions that obtain there. Even the government, I think, must agree that increased traffic on the waterway and industrial expansion will follow the development of the waterway but cannot and will not precede it. I feel that an appropriate and adequate waterway would not only increase the tonnage of traffic on the Richelieu but would encourage the building of secondary industries along the seaway and give rise to a great increase in the number of tourists by yachts. This in itself is also becoming an important industry. In turn this would promote innumerable service trades on the shores of the Richelieu. Canada cannot and should not ignore any of these potential developments at this time.
Having stated some of the reasons why I feel that the Richelieu waterway is not only economically justifiable but even advisable at this time-an opinion which is shared by economists and engineers both in Canada and the United States-I should like to say a few words concerning the possible routes of the waterway.
To my mind, of all the routes that have been considered over the years and recently, the natural route, that of following the Richelieu river to meet the St. Lawrence

river at Sorel offers the greatest advantage both from an economic and an engineering point of view. I believe that the work that was started in 1937 to build a 12-foot waterway to Sorel should be completed as a first step. Then, if outbound and inbound traffic directed to Montreal from the United States would not foul up shipping on the St. Lawrence river, a cut-off from St. Jean to Laprairie might be constructed as a second step. The reasons I have to support my suggestions are to be found in the international joint commission interim report on the Champlain waterway at page 15, where the commission's conclusions are set out, as follows:
That there are five possible routes for a waterway from Montreal to the Hudson river by way of lake Champlain, the last mentioned being an all-water route and the remainder overland routes, as follows:
(a)	From lake St. Francis on the St. Lawrence river to lake Champlain via the Chazy river.
(b)	From lake St. Francis to the Richelieu river three miles south of the city of St. Johns.
(c)	From Caughnawaga, on the St. Lawrence river, to Fryer's island on the Richelieu river.
(d)	From the St. Lawrence at Longueuil to Fryer's island on the Richelieu river.
(e)	From the St. Lawrence river at Sorel up the Richelieu river to lake Champlain.
In the case of all five routes the existing waterway would be followed through lake Champlain and by way of the Champlain canal to the Hudson river at Albany.
That of these five routes, the last mentioned (e) is the most practicable from an engineering standpoint and the least impracticable from an economic point of view.
As a second reason for supporting my suggestion I would say that this particular route is the only all water route of all those that I have mentioned. Recently there has also been talk of a canal between St. Jean and Laprairie, but that also would be an overland route and I shall have something more to say about that particular suggestion in a minute.
One of the strongest reasons for the suggestion I have made is that the greatest volume of traffic now contemplated would come from points below Montreal and the access to the Richelieu river at Sorel is not only unencumbered, but it also offers the shortest route to in-shipping coming from points east of Montreal and destined for New York.
The fourth reason is that when the St. Lawrence seaway was first planned the canal was to pass on the Montreal side of the St. Lawrence. However, subsequently the plans were changed and the canal now passes on the south shore. A canal from St. Jean to Laprairie would necessarily fall in the St. Lawrence seaway traffic and as there are enough tie-ups in the St. Lawrence seaway, any cross traffic on the seaway should be considered very seriously.
Richelieu Waterway
My fifth reason is, as I said earlier, that Lieutenant Colonel Dansereau, who is a member of the international joint commission, stated that the United States was ready to go ahead with a 12-foot waterway and, from what I have heard on the subject from United States spokesmen I have every reason to believe that the United States would be ready to proceed with a 12-foot canal, but they do not at this time consider a 27-foot waterway.
If a canal is to be dug from St. Jean to Laprairie to my mind, it should be a 27-foot canal if it is going to have any economic value at all. However, a 12-foot waterway with adequate locking facilities could and would at this time immeasurably increase tonnage of traffic on the Richelieu and help the industrial expansion in the Richelieu valley, which in turn would contribute to Canada's over-all economic expansion until a 27-foot waterway is considered by both the United States and Canada and a 27-foot canal can be dug from St. Jean to Lapraire.
The Richelieu waterway is not the only national asset Canada possesses, and since we have to find a way to further expand our economy, then the Richelieu seaway and other such projects should be proceeded with without delay.
In solving the unemployment problem, short term measures must necessarily have to be taken into account, but the real solution of the unemployment problem is to plan for and create an atmosphere and conditions which will facilitate our industrial expansion, create more jobs and expand our economy.
Up until the announcement was made by the Minister of Transport on December 7, I, and many Canadians, had entertained very high hopes that the Richelieu-Champlain waterway would start almost immediately. I recall the summer of 1959, I think it was, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was making his political tour of the province of Quebec. He stopped off at Sorel for the purpose of examining the waterway and from all appearances he seemed to be very much impressed by it. In the report that appeared in the Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering News of January, 1960. Mr. Plummer had this to say, and I quote:
At the conclusion of his inspection trip, the Prime Minister confided to the federated chamber of commerce heads and delegates accompanying him and to Dr. L. G. Tombs (vice president of Guy Tombs Limited, Montreal), chairman of the navigable waterways committee of la chambre de commerce de la province de Quebec:
"You may rest assured that if this project is capable of realizing a spur to the prosperity of the nation, it shall be studied with all the attention it merits."
In the light of what the Minister of Transport said on December 7 we are faced once

Richelieu Waterway
again with the difference that exists between the Prime Minister's words and the government's action. It was very disappointing to those who were at the conference to hear that the government not only did not intend to start work on the project but was not even willing to go ahead with a joint study of the project through the international joint commission.
In this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I am asking not for a start immediately on construction of the seaway but for a serious study to be made by appointing a board of engineers to study, in connection with a United States board of engineers, the project so as to determine whether it is economically feasible. I am convinced that any study of that kind would show that the Richelieu waterway would be economically advantageous to Canada. If the government does not reconsider its decision of not having a full scale study made of the project, not only will it be brushing off countless citizens who have been interested in this project for many years but it will also be brushing off an opportunity to facilitate our industrial expansion, create employment and contribute to Canada's economic growth.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, for many years, there has been some talk about the Richelieu waterway. I was most surprised indeed that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) did not mention his uncle, the late Hon. P. J. A. Cardin who, when he was Minister of Public Works, had a survey made in connection with the Richelieu waterway. Indeed, the international commission which was appointed at that time stated as follows:
It is relevant to note that the Canadian government might decide to dredge the Richelieu river to a depth of 12 feet all along, from the international frontier to the St. Lawrence. In that case, the United States would only have to carry out minor dredging operations near Rouses Point to ensure a 12-foot deep navigation channel from the St. Lawrence to the Hudson.
At the time the uncle of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres did not think it appropriate, following certain recommendations by the international commission, that the Canadian government should proceed with the Richelieu waterway.
Moreover, was there under the former administration, under the minister of transport of the day, any study made of the Richelieu waterway scheme? The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) should know something about it, as he was responsible for the
[Mr. Cardin.l
St. Lawrence seaway authority as its president, apart from having been minister of transport.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been easy at the time to examine a possible deepening of the Richelieu river when the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was minister of transport and studied the St. Lawrence waterway project. It would certainly have been less costly for the Canadian government, because, when the St. Lawrence waterway was being built, there was a team of engineers at work who could have studied the project and drawn up the required plans.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Laurier was not living in the province of Quebec and probably was not interested in considering the problem. But now that the hon. gentlemen are sitting in the opposition, they have an entirely different outlook and are trying to hurry up the project and exert pressure on the government. Yet, the hon. member for Laurier failed in his duty in refusing at the time to have this project seriously studied by the same team of engineers who had worked out plans for the St. Lawrence seaway.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) visited the area, thus showing his strong interest in the matter, because never in the past had a Prime Minister of Canada gone to Sorel to study the issue. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was very happy about it, because he himself went to greet him.
Mr. Speaker, I am most surprised, as I said a moment ago, to see that while there is so much talk about it today nothing was said four, five or six years ago, and that in fact, the hon. member for Laurier did not deem it advisable to study the problem at the time.
Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to say a few words on this project and to state that the Canadian government always gives serious consideration to the problems which are submitted to it. There is certainly a hope that in the near future, more positive work will be done with regard to the Richelieu waterway.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in all the time I have been a member of this house, I have noticed one thing in particular, and that is the fact that members who know practically nothing about some matter or other are the first ones to talk about it. I have also noticed that on many occasions those who dealt with a project such as this one were not conversant with the subject. This has been made evident in the remarks of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.

He talked without any knowledge of what has gone on before, and especially, without have listened closely to what has been said by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. Speaker, he sought to give the house the impression that the man who bore the name Cardin, that is the late Pierre-Joseph -Arthur Cardin, had not seen fit, at the time he was minister of marine, and later minister of public works, to consider developing the Richelieu river waterway.
As for me, I say with full knowledge of the facts that few members and ministers in this house have taken more interest in this matter of the Richelieu waterway, and have considered it with greater enthusiasm than did the former member for Richelieu-Vercheres, the late Mr. Cardin.
Due to his efforts, the Richelieu has been deepened to a depth not of 12 feet but of 25 feet, over a distance of a mile and a half above Sorel. Thanks to his perseverance, the St. Ours canal has been deepened by several feet, and during all the years that this hon. member was a minister of the crown in this house, he proved clearly that not only he understood the situation, but that he could take action. He did a lot more than many members and ministers opposite. He was not satisfied with just discussing the project; he backed his word with actions. He achieved something-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question to the hon. member for Laurier?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member tell me why, when the international commission was created for this purpose and made recommendations to the government at the time, the Hon. P. J. A. Cardin did not follow them and deepen Richelieu canal to a depth of 12 feet?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is that his question is as stupid as was the speech he just made. And I will tell you why-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I ask the hon. member for Laurier to withdraw this unparliamentary remark.


Mr. Robichaud:: Oh, no. It is too evident.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the question is so stupid-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm rising on a question of privilege?
Richelieu Waterway


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. member for Laurier knew the French meaning of the word he used, he certainly would not have used it, and I beg you to request the hon. member for Laurier to withdraw this word.
My question is based on information I have read in the paper he Marin Canadien, where it is clearly stated-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said earlier, that not only is the question stupid, but so is the member who just made a speech, and I will tell you why-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Fulton:: Abuse will get you nowhere.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Laurier has just established the difference between a parliamentary word and an unparliamentary one. The hon. member for Laurier first said that the question was as stupid as the hon. member's speech, but just now he said that the hon. member is stupid-


Mr. Habel:: Absolutely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That, in my opinion, is an unparliamentary statement, and I ask the hon. member for Laurier to withdraw the remark.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would ask you to show me under what section of the standing orders of the house a member is debarred from saying that another member is stupid, and I will remind you exactly of what happened at the time the budget was brought down. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), referring to the budget, described as stupid an interruption by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming); yet the chairman did not consider it appropriate at the time to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Speaker, to supplement the statement just made by hon. member for Laurier, I recall that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Laurier tell me what page of Hansard reports the incident to which he is referring-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
at this moment give you the page number- I would have to look for it, but it was during the debate on the budget.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go on with my remarks, and if the hon. member-

Richelieu Waterway


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Hold on.
Mr. Speaker, I am still on the question of privilege. If you feel that the word "stupid", which I used with reference to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, is unparliamentary, I have no hesitation in withdrawing it; however, I repeat that his question was stupid, just as was his speech, in any case, and I shall tell you why. It is because the hon. member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres indicated that in the report of the international joint commission, it was clearly established that the commission was not to deal with the matter of the Richelieu seaway until the St. Lawrence seaway had been completed.
Now, the member who has just interrupted me should have known that; and if he did not know, he should not have made the statement he made a moment ago.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. In order to correct what the hon. member for Laurier has just said-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would point out to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that if he merely wishes tc correct the interpretation which the hon. member for Laurier has put on his remarks, he may do so when the hon. member for Laurier has finished; there is no actual question of privilege involved.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He does not know the standing orders.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, when reference is made to the Richelieu seaway, one should at least take time to study the matter and learn what it is all about, because according to what the previous speaker said, it is obvious that he did not know what he was talking about.
(Text):
I should now like to come back to the subject under consideration by the house, if I may be allowed to do so. The first thing I should like to do is to congratulate the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) who made an excellent presentation of this resolution this evening. During the course of at least 60 minutes he indicated to the house not only that he understood the purport of the resolution but also that he knew whereof he spoke.
It seems to me that this is a simple resolution. All it does is to ask the government to set up a board of engineers to consider the feasibility of the route from the St. Lawrence to New York via the Richelieu river and lake

Champlain. That is not asking such a terrible thing. The government from time to time, sets up commissions of this kind.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres during the course of his remarks has indicated that this is a matter which would cost perhaps something in the neighbourhood of $15,-
000.	When one realizes that not only the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Com-tois) went down to the area and when they were there certainly led the people to believe that something would be done about this waterway. A year or two or more has gone by, and absolutely nothing is being done about the matter.
What is the position? Why should this resolution not be agreed to? Why should not the government give immediate consideration to this resolution and implement it? The international joint commission in a report referred to by the hon. member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres which was brought down in 1937 made it quite clear, and that is an answer to the question put by the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Bell), that until the St. Lawrence seaway had been completed the commission asked for permission to suspend the whole matter and when the St. Lawrence seaway was completed then consideration should be given to the project. That is all that is being asked by those of us who sit on this side of the house. There is nothing contradictory in what the hon. member has said to what was done by those who were in office prior to the present administration.
The St. Lawrence seaway has now had two complete years of operation and in my opinion they have been two successful years of operation. Why then has not the time arrived-to use the language of the international joint commission-to give consideration to this matter? It is an international project. It is one which requires the concurrence of both the government of the United States and the government of Canada. It is a matter in which several states south of the border are interested. It is a matter in which, north of the border, the province of Quebec has a particular interest.
As the situation stands now I am informed on good authority-and I believe this to be the case-that a large sum of money has been set aside by the United States government authorizing the United States corps of engineers to make borings and studies of the whole project. In fact the United States corps of engineers since this government has been in office have obtained information in connection with this project in relation to the territory of Canada. If that is the case and if the information which I have is correct, then

there is no reason why those who sit on the other side of the house should not co-operate with the United States corps of engineers in setting up a board which would study the economics of this route.
The government is giving consideration to and is studying the Ottawa river waterway. That is a subject which several of us who sit on this side of the house have approved. We think that a study of the Ottawa river or of the canalization of the Ottawa river is one which should be undertaken and I believe that the government has given consideration to it.


An hon. Member:: It is doing it.


Lionel Chevrier: If it is doing it in so far as the Ottawa river is concerned, why not do it equally in so far as the Richelieu river is concerned down to the United States boundary? It would cost much less to study the economics of the Richelieu than it would to study those of the other routes, although that consideration should not make any difference. Both of them will be linked to the St. Lawrence in this way: one will be moving its traffic down to the St. Lawrence and the other will derive a great deal of its traffic from the St. Lawrence. If the one is a matter which should be studied by this house, it strikes me that the other is also a matter which should be studied.
Another question which comes to my mind is this. What should the board study? The board should study the various routes. It should study the cost and it should study the economics of this waterway. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres referred to five routes that were considered by the report of the international joint commission. Because they are now known to the house I shall not go into those routes except to say this. Since the report of 1937 was made the economy of the province of Quebec in that area has changed completely. It has changed in so far as the St. Lawrence seaway is concerned. It has changed in so far as the development of the north shore as well as the south shore of the St. Lawrence is concerned. With the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and the building of the two turning basins in the Laprairie basin, it is now only a short distance from either of those two turning basins to the city of St. Johns. It may be some nine miles, 10 miles or 11 miles.
The experience we gathered from the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway was that excavation costs in the dry were, of course, much less than dredging costs. That is a reason why this study should be undertaken, namely to ascertain which of these five routes,
Richelieu Waterway
six routes or more is the most economical one having regard to circumstances as we find them today.
Then the potential is entirely different. It is the discovery of iron ore in the mines of Labrador and of northern Quebec that tilted the balance in favour of the St. Lawrence seaway. Since iron ore has been discovered, two railways have been constructed on the north shore, one from Schefferville to Seven Islands and another from Gagnon to Port Cartier. Several developments of not only iron ore but by-products coming from the manufacture of ore have resulted in industry being established in the triangle of Montreal-Sorel-Beauharnois. Because of that the potential of the Richelieu cut-off is far greater in 1961 than it ever was in 1937, when this report was made.
I need not tell this house that water transportation is perhaps the cheapest form of transportation in the world. That was one of the main reasons why the great lakes system was developed, in order to bring the inland carriers down to the ports of Montreal and the St. Lawrence river.
Here we have inland ships carrying large cargoes that used to come down to Port Colborne and Prescott for transshipment who because of the construction of a 27-foot channel through the international section of the St. Lawrence river are able to come right down with their huge cargoes, thereby reducing the cost of transportation tremendously.
Such will be the case also if there is development of the Richelieu-Champlain cut-off. Whether it be 14 feet or whether it be more there can be no doubt that the cost of transportation by water of the iron ore, if such be the case, or the products derived from iron ore, or titanium, or such other industries as have been established at Contrecoeur, Va-rennes and Sorel, from the St. Lawrence either by way of Montreal or Sorel will be much lower than the cost of transporting them by rail or even by sea, since the difference is 1,000 miles greater along the coast of the Atlantic ocean.
Therefore it seems to me that this project is one that should commend itself to the house. It should commend itself to the house for another reason, because I believe that if a board of engineers were to find in favour of the economics of this project they would recommend it on a self-liquidating basis. They would of necessity have to treat it in the same way as the St. Lawrence seaway was treated, namely that the cost of construction, whether it be $50 million or more, should be repaid by the imposition of tolls. It would of course be illogical, in my opinion-and I may

Richelieu Waterway
be mistaken-to have tolls on the St. Lawrence river and not the Richelieu, which because of the amount of the expenditure involved would of course be much less than now obtaining on the St. Lawrence canals.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres has indicated the attitude of the government. I hold in my hand a memorandum which was presented to the Prime Minister by a delegation which waited upon him in June of 1958, which sets out the reasons why this project should be completed. I know that this submission was well received at the time. Not only was it well received by the Prime Minister, but it was also well received by those of his ministers who are from the province of Quebec. I am somewhat surprised that the Minister of Transport is not in his seat this evening. I presume he has other business of importance to attend to, otherwise he would be here. But I am glad to see that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is here, because this is his district and he has already declared himself in the matter.
I hold in my hand a clipping which appeared in La Presse of October 28, 1957, entitled:
(Translation):
The digging of the Richelieu channel to a depth of 12 feet.
(Text):
And, in quotes:
(Translation):
"Absolutely necessary", states the Hon. Paul Comtois.
(Text):
And, a little further down in the report, this is what follows:
(Translation):
The Hon. Paul Comtois, minister of mines in the Diefenbaker government, stated that this "project is absolutely necessary for the economic life of the Richelieu area".
"If I am given the opportunity of contributing to the success of that undertaking", went on the representative of Nicolet-Yamaska in the commons, I shall consider it my duty to associate myself to all those who are promoting it."
And a little later on, in quotation marks, always quoting the minister:
"It is certain that we need that seaway", added Mr. Comtois, who referred to it as a "magnificent project", which is of great interest to us.
(Text):
I congratulate the minister and commend him for the statement which he made. It is an excellent statement and one that I am sure would receive favourable comment from not only his own constituents but all those who reside in the area. However I must tell the minister that he could not have had a great deal of influence with his colleague the Minister of Transport, because the Minister of Transport made it quite clear when he spoke at this banquet in Montreal that no
[Mr. Chevrier.l
action was to be taken by the government. Not only did he say that no action was to be taken by the government, but he found that the study indicated that the economics were against the project. Having said that the least that could be done by the Minister of Transport would be to produce in the House of Commons the study which indicates this so we would know why the government came to that conclusion.
But when the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres moved to have produced the papers there was complete secrecy; the government fell back on the question of interdepartmental papers which are not producible. If that is the case the minister should not be making the statements that he does make. After all, if it is a fact that the economics are against the project let us see what the economics say. Surely the house has a right to know on what basis and on what foundation the minister places himself when he makes statements of that character.
It is quite clear to those of us who sit on this side of the house that the government has no intention of implementing this project either by way of construction or by way of the establishment of a board of engineers. The least that the government could and should do is to set up a board of engineers to study the question so that we would know which of the five routes is feasible, the cost of the route, the savings in transportation costs and whether or not the project is justified economically.
But they will not set up a board. They tell us the economics are against the project, and they will not produce the documents to substantiate this. But they go down to the area and get the people all excited, as they did in the 1957 and 1958 campaign. They went across this country from region to region, from province to province, and indicated to many people in Canada that they were going to carry out a number of great projects. However, when they got into the house many of those projects fell flat, just as this one is now falling flat. I can tell the members of the government that the people who reside in this area are not going to forget all the fuss and thunder made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and those associated with him when they went down to the area and certainly led the public to believe that something was going to be done.
At least, if a board of engineers had been established surely there could have been no criticism in the house; surely there could have been no objection to a measure which would have cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15,000. That is why I say the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was

well advised in moving the resolution which he did, and if the government is ready to vote on this, then let us have the vote because then we shall let parliament decide whether hon. members opposite were justified in acting as they did, and whether the motion of my hon. friend the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was well founded.
Again I commend him for having given the time and study which he has to this subject, along with the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Both these hon. members have spent a great deal of time in studying not only the economics but the historical aspects of this project.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to rule 37 of the standing orders of the house. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said something about being stupid in his speech-


Mr. Dupuis:: He withdrew the expression.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Rule 37 authorizes me to tell the hon. member for Laurier that my information was reliable and correct, because it was taken from the publication Le Marin Canadien of April 16, 1960, and what I said was printed there in quotation marks.
The hon. member insulted me and also insulted all the seamen of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Nevertheless, you are stupid.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member is a nitwit. He had to change ridings.
(Text):


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: The hon. member who sponsored the resolution, and the former minister of transport are very anxious for a vote on this resolution and I just thought that speaking for our party we would support the resolution, not with any particular enthusiasm for what might come beyond it because we cannot really say, but the resolution does seem to ask for something fairly moderate and within range-it is only a question of a board of engineers.
In so far as the actual project is concerned, it seems to me some part of Canada is always being captivated by some great public works project which is going to make that region bloom like a rose. I know we had a great dream at Port Arthur of what the seaway was going to do for us. I understand there are people around Saint John who have a great dream of what the Chig-necto canal is going to do for them and the K. C. Irving interests. I know that my colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and his friends have great hopes for Moosonee
Richelieu Waterway
as an industrial port once $50 million or $100 million have been devoted to it. I know the hon. member for Carleton looks forward to the day when he can look out on to the new driveway along the Ottawa river and see heavy tankers and ore barges transporting material here and everywhere. These are all dreams which members of parliament, particularly in their own regions, never go against, but I should just like to suggest we might be realistic enough to allow one grandiose project every five years.
I will give this government credit for initiating a grandiose project in the South Saskatchewan dam. John R. MacNicol, a Toronto man, was a great enthusiast and supporter of this project. He used to come into a library where I worked and look up files and records referring to it. He said: They will not listen in Ottawa but some day they will and we shall have that dam. He said: It will change the whole face of the prairies; it will make Saskatchewan the garden of the west. And on he went.
This is grand stuff, part of the Canadian tradition, but we come down to the fact that so many of these grandiose dreams when they become reality are not quite as fine as we expect. I see the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell) in the house and, of course, the former minister of transport came from Stormont, and we know that Cornwall, the city of Stormont, was affected very much by the St. Lawrence seaway. We know that Cornwall is not as prosperous as it was a few years ago because of the St. Lawrence seaway.


Lionel Chevrier: No. May I interrupt the hon. member to tell him that if Cornwall is not as prosperous today it is not because of the St. Lawrence seaway but because of other and very different reasons.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My point is that we get these grand dreams. To read Creighton's book "The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence", Montreal has been dreaming of shipping to both the American and the western market ever since the 1780's and 1790's. The whole of the canal building along the St. Lawrence, the Welland canal, the railway to the west, all these things were designed to make Montreal the centrepiece of the Canadian economy and I should like to suggest that while it has made a great contribution, today the shift in transport is towards other means rather than water. I would like to suggest that those people who see canals as being a great solution to any area's economy perhaps are probably 50 or 60 years behind the times. It seems to me we should be looking more to airports and facilities in that line or smoothing out of railway problems, or

Richelieu Waterway
better highways for our trucks because I cannot believe that water shipping and the difference today in the return you get from it is really that vital. I know that if you get grain shipped to the west by water and rail, or by all rail there is very little advantage in it. It has been one of the great complaints of the prairie provinces that despite the fact you have the St. Lawrence seaway and shipping right to the heart of the country you cannot get freight moved from east to west with the savings you might expect.
All I am saying really is that it seems to me we as Canadians have tended to overexaggerate the importance to our economy of these advances in the building of canals and waterways just as we have tended to do the same thing to some extent in the case of railways. I think it is about time we looked more toward highways and airports which seem to me to fit into a more rounded picture of transportation at this time.
But this leads me away from the resolution, and to return to it we would support the resolution although not with any tremendous enthusiasm for the project as it seems to stand here, but in the hope that a good report would indicate to us more solidly the economic and other advantages of the scheme.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I intended to make a rather elaborate speech, but I see that time flies and that the people from the west are taking over the Richelieu. I shall therefore be brief.
I would be angry with myself if I went right to the point without referring to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who for us has become the inevitable member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, the petulant and childish member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. I know he will not ask me to retract my words, because he is not aware of their meaning.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are following in the footsteps of the hon. member for Laurier.


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm made a speech in which he strayed away-I would not say from the track-but from the river.
The hon. member told us how proud he was that his chief, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker), visited the Richelieu river in September 1959, to see what was going on there.
Once again, we realize that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should have been better informed before speaking.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I was on the spot.


Yvon Dupuis: Yes, the hon. member was there and I shall tell him what he saw.
When the Prime Minister left Ottawa he told the newspaper correspondents that he was going to sail down the Richelieu to see the possibilities of digging a channel in that beautiful waterway.
He was due to arrive at Sorel. Everybody was waiting. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was waiting too.
At a given time, about 3 p.m., according to a report published in La Presse of September 22, 1959, the crowd massed on the banks saw the ferry arriving. "There he is", the people said. The member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm comes first and shouts: "Hail! Here comes the great man." Well, instead of the Prime Minister there came two big Percherons, again according to the report of La Presse.
Do you know what happened afterwards Mr. Speaker, while the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and his friends were waiting for their leader? It happened that the Prime Minister came two hours late. He was them put aboard a small craft which took him on a small 20-minute tour and left him on the other shore. He then got into a blue convertible and was driven to the Quebec region where he made political speeches all the way. He completely forgot the Richelieu river.
That is what happened in September 1959 and I thank the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for having given me this opportunity to recall such an occasion.
Mr. Speaker, now I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) who made tonight in this House of Commons a truly serious speech including complete statistics and a careful documentation.
The proposed Richelieu waterway is a project worth doing. The hon. member's speech stands out against the remarks made on the other side of the house.
It is in fact a serious matter. Mr. Speaker, the member for Richelieu-Vercheres knows what he is talking about. He lives in a constituency bordering the Richelieu river. He does not live on the shore of the small Assomption river. He knows the Richelieu and, besides, he represents here the constituency so named.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is an insult to the people of the Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm constituency.


Yvon Dupuis: The fact that you are here.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am not changing ridings, and do not worry, I will not move.


Yvon Dupuis: Anyway, if you stay there you will die there.
So, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the member for Richelieu-Vercheres, who lives m a bordering constituency, takes an interest in the waterway. Tonight, you have heard in this house the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres and the former minister of transport, the member for Laurier, who set forth to the house the serious reasons in support of the waterway.
What did the government members offer us? I say it is an insult to the province of Quebec that from the Conservative side, we hear nothing but a Pigeon.
Some members opposite have responsibilities. While the matter of the deepening of the Richelieu river, which concerns his department, is being discussed, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) is not even in his seat. The member for the neighbouring constituency of Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) whose riding borders on the Richelieu river, is not even in his seat tonight. The member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Comtois), the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who makes high-sounding electoral statements throughout the province, suggesting that the Richelieu waterway is an important matter, is in his seat tonight, but he is almost asleep while the matter is being discussed in this house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are very polite.


Yvon Dupuis: And just where is the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), whose constituency borders on the Richelieu river? He is nowhere to be found, he is elsewhere.
While we, on behalf of our area, call for the deepening of the Richelieu river, something which would attract industries and provide jobs for Canadians in that area, as the member for Richelieu-Vercheres has made abundantly clear earlier, while we argue in this house for this waterway, while we call for action and deeds, we note that the Associate Minister of National Defence who is directly concerned in this waterway, because his constituency is next to the Richelieu river and he is a resident of the province of Quebec, made the following statement as reported in this evening's issue of La Presse:
In my riding, I organize dances, fashion shows, etc.; under the Roman empire, you know how the Caesars ruled over their subjects: "with bread and games". When no bread was available, then games were organized. You know that the federal government is unable to grant all kinds of favours. If there is no bread, then there will be games.
I believe it is time the province of Quebec realized that the ministers in the present gov-
Richelieu Waterway
ernment do not represent the aspirations of our province.
In fact, when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) came to the Queen Elizabeth hotel last December to address the members of the chambers of commerce gathered for a day's study of the deepening of the Richelieu river, he threw cold water on the enthusiasm of those who have worked for years towards the implementation of this great project. The Minister of Transport came before the members of the chambers of commerce saying: "I have an interesting statement to make." Here is the statement: "You may be hoping that the government is going to ask the international joint commission to consider the deepening of the river, but unfortunately, I cannot tell you that it will."
Well, Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal party, and I am happy to recall it tonight to the house, we have members who look after the interests of their area. They look after the interests of their province, while the member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) never said a word in favour of the waterway. He is not even here tonight, when we are discussing that matter, one which affects each and every elector in Chambly-Rouville.
When the Minister of Transport is absent, when the Associate Minister of National Defence is absent, we, Liberals, rise in this house to say that we have been active.
The member for Richelieu-Vercheres and I went to the United States to attend the interstate conference in the state of New York. In 1959, we went to the interstate conference in Vermont, and to the 1960 conference, again in Vermont-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Neither of you did much.


Yvon Dupuis: -where we have met engineers, American experts and the governor of Vermont who told us why they were for the immediate deepening of the Richelieu river and lake Champlain. Not so long ago, we went to a town in our ridings and called a meeting of six members from ridings bordering on the river.
We explained to them the reasons in favour of the Richelieu waterway. We asked the Quebec provincial government that the committee or the Quebec board of economic planning look into the economic advantages of that waterway for our area and our province, and forward their report to the federal Minister of Transport. We formed a responsible committee of six riparian members and called a conference at Beloeil, in early December, when we invited an internationally known planner to address the conference on the advisability of the Richelieu waterway.

Richelieu Waterway
What happened? Our friends opposite sent us delegates to tell us: "Do not organize that conference with this great planner, you invited. Postpone it, because next December the federal Minister of Transport will address the chambers of commerce of Montreal and make an important statement about the Richelieu". Therefore, at their request, we cancelled our meeting, even though it was important, and waited for December. Then on December 7, 1960 we heard the Minister of Transport woefully confess that he had no intention of considering a problem that everybody wished would be looked into immediately.
Now, as we are discussing tonight a problem as important as the waterway, I say that we are tired to see that no minister nor Conservative member of parliament from Quebec is prepared to accept his responsibilities. We have had enough of ministers gadding about making political statements. We have had enough of seeing, as we do tonight, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, a nice chap, a wonderful chap, an extremely charming and courteous fellow, sitting here in silence and making his statements only outside the house.
When the time comes to speak in the house he stands there, candidly grinning at us and then he merely deputizes the inevitable member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who dips both his feet into the river.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Twenty two years of silence, only to talk nonsense in the opposition.


Azellus Denis: It did not take you that long.


Yvon Dupuis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat this: the Minister of Transport told us that the Richelieu waterway would not be economically feasible. I asked him here a few days ago what he based his statement on. He replied that it was based on reports from his department's economists and engineers. I put on the order paper a motion for return, asking him to table the reports on which he based his statement that the waterway would not be economically feasible. The Minister of Transport replied that he would like me to withdraw the motion as he could not give an answer, because, as he said, the matter came under several departments.
Well, I would say tonight that it is time that the minister take his responsibilities and say here or elsewhere why he does not wish to encourage the study of the Richelieu waterway.
Many distinguished engineers, commissions of enquiry, renowned persons in the United
[Mr. Dupuis .1
States, all have admitted that the project was sound. They based their-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Don't kill the motion.
(Text):
If hon. members did not take our places when we are talking about Quebec matters, and if they did not waste our time I would have sufficient time to conclude my remarks in order to take a vote.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the American engineers and the governor of Vermont are in favour of the Richelieu waterway.
The United States government is voting important sums of money to have army engineers undertake studies in that connection and, meanwhile, on this side of the border, our government is doing absolutely nothing in this field.
Following the statements made by my friends from Richelieu-Vercheres and Laurier, I repeat that the Richelieu waterway would shorten the distance between Montreal and New York from 1,800 miles to 400 miles.
The Richelieu waterway would also attract all transport vessels of low tonnage, and thus would clear the St. Lawrence seaway.
Manufacturers and industrialists would find it less costly to transport their merchandises through the Richelieu waterway, precisely on account of the greatly reduced distance.
Mr. Speaker, in our area of St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville, of Brome-Missisquoi-and I am wondering where is the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi-possibly the Richelieu waterway project is not a matter of interest to him-in our area of Chambly-Rouville, Ri-chelieu-Vercheres, Longueuil, Chateauguay-Laprairie, all people have their eyes set on this House of Commons. Tomorrow, they will read the papers and say: What did Mr. Balcer have to say? Nothing. What did the member for Chambly-Rouville say? Nothing. What did the member for Longueuil say? Nothing. What did the member for Brome-Missisquoi say? Nothing. What did the member for Chateau-guay-Huntingdon-Laprairie say? Nothing. Who represented Conservative aspirations in the House of Commons? The inevitable member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon).
Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of the province of Quebec will be in a position to see the difference between a Liberal team and a Conservative one.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What did the hon. member for Laurier do when he was minister of transport?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, would you
please call the member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm to order?
And now, Mr. Speaker, here is what Mr. Bennett said, on June 24, 1930, as recorded in the London Free Press of the same date:
If we come to power, we will undertake and complete the St. Lawrence seaway.
He came to power and he did nothing. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) came into our area. He told us: I came here to admire the fine scenery of the Richelieu. He went into lower Quebec and did nothing
Mr. Speaker, there are three minutes left before the house adjourns. If our friends are sincere, I shall resume my seat and ask them to vote in favour of the Richelieu waterway project.


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) state that government members should stir up the people of the Richelieu area about the opportunity of developing a waterway. It seems to me, in view of his behaviour, that we have succeeded in stirring up the hon. member for Laurier.
If I had any advice to give to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), I would tell him that it is not by indulging in buffoonery or talking as he did tonight that we will bring the government to consider the opportunity of constructing the Richelieu cut-off.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) gave a rather complete account of the situation. However I believe that he is putting the cart before the horse when he suggests the establishment of a board of engineers to study the matter. I believe it would be more realistic to establish a commission made up of representatives of manufacturing organizations, labour unions, shipping interests, railways, as well as of industrialists and economists, to study the opportunity of developing such a project.
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I know much more about existing unused canals than about future ones. When it is a matter of coming to a decision on the construction of such an important waterway, requiring a very large investment, it should not be taken without due consideration. A study made on the spot by engineers would not show whether the project is economically feasible not only for the Quebec region but for the country as a whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Yvon Dupuis: Another bill talked out by a Conservative member from Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business will be for the rest of the week, if it is possible to give it?


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, the business for the week that I outlined last Thursday still holds, but I will recapitulate. For Tuesday, the first item will be item No. 9 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport referring to the proposed railway line to Mattagami lake in the province of Quebec. The second item will be item No. 3 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill No. S-3, to repeal certain laws relating to the signal station at Halifax. The third item will be item No. 5 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-61, to amend the Indian Act. If time permits we would take as the fourth item the setting up of the select committee on research and other related matters.
For Wednesday, I see no change in the program as announced.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Are indentured apprentices included in schedule M of the federal Vocational Training Act?
2.	If not, has the government taken any steps to make indentured apprentices eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits during their necessary training period in technical institutes?
3.	Have representations been received from any group requesting that indentured apprentices be permitted to draw unemployment insurance benefits during their training period in technical institutes?
4.	If so, from whom have such representations been received, and what reply was made?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of
Labour):
1.	No. The training for indentured apprentices is provided under a special federal-provincial apprenticeship training agreement.
2.	Yes. If an apprentice is unemployed and eligible for U.I.C. benefits before entering
his regular training period in a training centre he may continue to draw these benefits.
3.	Yes.
4.	The minister of labour for Saskatchewan, Hon. C. C. Williams. In reply he was informed that this matter was under consideration, and as soon as a final decision was reached by the unemployment insurance commission, he would be advised.



GAETAN LALUMIERE

Mr. Denis: 1.	Is one Gaetan Lalumiere employed by the government at Laprairie, county of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie, province of Quebec, in the unemployment insurance commission local office?
2.	If so, what is his salary?
3.	Are premises placed at Mr. Lalumiere's disposal by the government for the discharge of his duties?
4.	If so:	(a) what is the rental cost of such
premises? (b) what is the name of the owner?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
1.	Mr. Gaetan Lalumiere is not an employee of our local office but an agent of the commission at Laprairie.
2.	$1 per application of benefit claimants.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.

Tuesday, February 14, 1961