1961-02-14

DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that a light armoured tracked carrier, known as the Bobcat, has been under development for the Canadian army for some time.
The Bobcat vehicle is designed in three basic forms; as an armoured personnel carrier, a cargo carrier and a self-propelled mount for the 105 millimetre howitzer, all built on a common chassis. These three basic types are further adaptable to meet many needs of the army such as weapons carriers, communications vehicles, ambulances, and for other operational and supply purposes.
In the past, mobility was provided by foot, wheels and tracks. The various components of the army moved separately but fought together. Now, because of the requirement to fight in widely dispersed small battle teams, this is no longer acceptable or practical, and battle teams must move, fight and live together. Therefore the basic philosophy behind the development of a family of vehicles with similar characteristics is to provide all parts of the team with an equal capability of movement.
The main features of these vehicles permit battle groups to move cross-country at 25 miles per hour, cross water obstacles without delay, and be protected from such battle hazards as small arms fire and shell fragments. In addition, a measure of protection is provided from effects of nuclear weapons.
Development having been successfully completed, it has now been decided to go into production of this vehicle. An initial order for 20 pilot models has been given to the original development contractor, the Canadian Car Company. The cost of the pilot models, plus production tooling, is estimated to be $3J million. It is expected that the pilot models and production tooling will be completed in about two years. At that time open tenders will be called for the production of a further 480 vehicles.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Defence Production a question arising out 90205-6-127
of the statement of the Minister of National Defence with regard to the production of 20 pilot models of the Bobcat. Can the Minister of Defence Production indicate whether the development work will go to the Canadian Car Company in Fort William, inasmuch as it was indicated several years ago that this was a possibility?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: The indication that was given several years ago was as to possible production. Construction of the 20 pilot models will be confined to the Canadian Car Company in Montreal.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTERIM


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make to the house regarding the 1959-60 wheat pool. This account is in a surplus position and the government, on the recommendation of the Canadian wheat board, is authorizing an interim payment of 10 cents per bushel on all grades of wheat delivered to the pool between August 1, 1959, and July 31, 1960. I might add that producers delivered 377,438,000 bushels to the pool. The interim payment of 10 cents per bushel will therefore result in the distribution of approximately $37,744,000 to producers.
Yesterday I announced that the 1959-60 oat pool had been closed and a final payment would be made of $3,852,323. The interim wheat payment and the final oat payment will result in the distribution of approximately $41,600,000 to producers in the very near future. The oat payment is being made now, and cheques will be issued immediately for the interim wheat payment. Of the total wheat payment $23,678,000 will go to producers in Saskatchewan, $9,213,000 to Alberta and British Columbia, and $4,894,000 to Manitoba and Ontario.
The 1959-60 barley pool will be closed sooner than expected because of recent sales. Consequently the Canadian wheat board will report to the government on the conclusion of the interim wheat payment in regard to a possible closing date for the 1959-60 barley account.
I might add that I would have had copies of this announcement available for the press gallery but there has been a little smoke and confusion in the Confederation building this morning.
2012	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: As I recall similar statements made last year and the year before, the actual gross amount of the payments will be practically the same. Nevertheless they will be welcome, at this time of year, to the western Canadian economy. I believe the per bushel rate of 10 cents is identical with what is customary at this time of the year, and I think the time of the payment does not vary much from past practice.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: The announcement today will come as no surprise. In recent years it has become rather a routine thing to make an interim payment of this size at about this time of year in respect to the previous year.
It is my opinion that the new Minister of Agriculture might try to make such payments at an earlier date. It is also my opinion that the minister should make greater haste in concluding the crop year in question, and make the final payment available in the very near future.
I can only say that the size of this payment and the likely size of the final payment emphasize again that at a time when agricultural costs continue to rise, the price of wheat remains almost identical with that in previous years, and the farmers' request for deficiency payments is to that extent strengthened.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs; I am not sure who would like to deal with it. It is whether the government would reject the vicious attack made, according to reports, on the Secretary General of the United Nations by Moscow this morning, and repudiate this effort to destroy his position and give an assurance of the strong support of this parliament for the work of this dedicated international servant.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: About noon today there were disturbing press reports, attributed to the Tass agency and as yet unconfirmed officially, that the Soviet union had withdrawn its recognition of Mr. Hammarskjold as United Nations secretary general and called for his dismissal. In addition, the Soviet statement demanded an end to the United Nations operation in the Congo within a month and


the withdrawal of all foreign troops. It condemned Belgium and called for the disarming and removal of all Belgian troops stationed in the Congo and for the arrest and trial of Mr. Tshombe and Colonel Mobutu.
The measures demanded are linked to the death of Mr. Lumumba and his two companions. The secretary general has been described as "an accessory to and organizer of" that act of violence. This Soviet statement appears to be a culmination of the bitter but unfounded attack launched by the Soviet union against the secretary general late last summer and all during the autumn session of the general assembly.
Under the charter the Secretary General of the United Nations is appointed by the general assembly upon the recommendation of the security council. Mr. Hammarskjold's reappointment in 1957 for a further five-year term had the support of all five permanent members of the security council, whose recommendation was approved by the general assembly.
Any unilateral action by the Soviet government can have no legal effect on the position of Mr. Hammarskjold, but it is of course deplorable that at a time of grave crisis for the United Nations one of the permanent members of the security council should choose to withdraw its support and recognition from the chief administrative officer of the organization. This can only add greatly to the difficulties facing the United Nations in the Congo.
This is not the first time that the Soviet union has acted in this way. Mr. Hammarskj old's predecessor suffered much the same treatment, mainly because of the part which he necessarily played in relation to the United Nations action in Korea. Happily the United Nations survived that Soviet assault on its integrity, and the world's best hope lies in its survival of the present crisis.
For its part the Canadian government will continue its firm support for the United Nations effort in the Congo and for Mr. Hammarskjold, who in the face of the greatest difficulty has served the high principles and purposes of the charter with courage, determination and endless patience. His devotion to duty merits strong and full support from all member states who have the best interests of the United Nations at heart.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the minister for the statement he has just made and ask if he does not agree that a major-though not, of course, the only-difficulty facing the United Nations intervention in the Congo has been the policy of the U.S.S.R. itself?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, throughout there have been attempts made time after time to prevent the effective conduct of the United Nations operation in the Congo. The Leader of the Opposition is quite right when he draws attention to what has been done practically from the beginning of that United Nations operation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister arising out of the informative statement he has made in support of the Secretary General of the United Nations and of the United Nations organization itself. If I may be out of order for one sentence, I should like to say to the minister that I am certain that in the government's support of Dag Hammarskjold in carrying out the policy of the United Nations the government has the support of all Canadians.
As a supplementary question I should like to ask the minister if he could inform the house whether or not Canada has arrived at an opinion as to the advisability of setting up a Congo trusteeship under the United Nations in order to bring peace to this land.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there have been suggestions made that a course of that kind should be followed, but it is too soon yet to say what actual plan will be adopted. We are consulting various other governments about the situation and are also letting the Soviet government know our views concerning the action they have taken today.


Hazen Robert Argue: Canada has not an opinion formulated at this moment as to the need of strengthening the United Nations in the Congo through support of a trusteeship?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not decided as yet whether a course of that kind should be followed.



REQUEST THAT SPECIAL ALLOWANCES FOR SERVICE PERSONNEL BE RETROACTIVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence assure the house that the special allowances introduced for Canadian service personnel in the Congo will be made retroactive to the time of arrival of such personnel in that country?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the announcement was made some time ago that these allowances would be effective as from December 1 last. I think that is quite definite.
90205-6-1274
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that personnel who arrived, say in October, would not receive their supplementary allowances until December?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, practically all the force that went out to the Congo has served there for six months, or will have served there for six months or more. Therefore, except for a relatively small number of people who returned in the early stages after being there for only a short time, they will all qualify for these allowances.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether he has received a request from Colonel Smith, officer commanding the Canadian signal unit in Leopoldville, for reconsideration of the December 1 date.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any request along that line, though I did see a newspaper account to the effect that such a request would be made.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. At the present time the council of the city of Vancouver is considering the alternatives of either financing the $15 million terminal building required at the Vancouver international airport itself, or submitting another referendum to the Vancouver city voters on the question of selling the city-owned portion of the airport to the federal government so the federal government could construct the airport terminal.
Can the Minister of Transport indicate the subsidy formula of the federal government if the city undertakes to finance the construction of the terminal building itself?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, at municipally operated airports served by scheduled service, the municipality may ask for a grant to assist in the construction of a municipal terminal building. We require to be satisfied that the plan for the building is reasonable in relation to traffic requirements. Subject to this, any grant would cover the cost of providing the space in the building required for federal government staff-for example, customs, immigration and health staff-as well as working space for the Department of Transport employees who may be required to carry on
2014	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry functions in the building, primarily meteorological offices, air traffic control offices, and telecommunications offices.
This is not the policy which was in effect originally when discusions were first initiated by the city of Vancouver about sale of the airport some eight or nine years ago, but it is the policy we have now been following for several years.
In the case of Vancouver, my department already has its own building on the airport which we are in the process of extending, and which provides office space for virtually all Department of Transport personnel. The principal space for which a grant might be given under the foregoing formula, therefore, in the case of a new terminal building at Vancouver would in all probability be space required for inspection services.
(Translation):



RAILWAY SERVICE BETWEEN DORVAL AIR TERMINAL AND MONTREAL

Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
Could the minister tell the house whether he has read a report published in the week end newspaper Dimanche-Matin of February 12 that the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. might operate a passenger train on their tracks between the airport and downtown Montreal, to provide a very much faster service than by car or by bus.
If so, would the minister state his opinion to the house on that suggestion?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I might say that off-hand the hon. member's suggestion certainly seems to have much merit, and I want to tell him that I will be pleased to pass it on to the C.N.R. and C.P.R. managements.
(Text):



DORVAL-ORDER IN COUNCIL RESPECTING HANDLING OF LUGGAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Some time ago I asked him about the petition of the professional Sky-Caps at Dorval airport-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you ask it in French?


Lionel Chevrier: -and if it had received-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for


Laurier has the floor and I would hope hon. members, particularly those who are sitting behind him, will not make it impossible for him to exercise his right as a member to speak.


Lionel Chevrier: I desire to interrupt the question I was asking, to raise a question of privilege. You have interrupted the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, because this is not the first time that he has not only interrupted those of us who ask questions here but has addressed improper remarks to those who sit on the front benches.
The remark he used a moment ago was to the effect why do I do not ask the question in French? I should like to say it is my privilege to speak in either of the official languages, and I am not to be threatened or told which of the two languages I should use.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the house please give a hearing to the hon. member, who is raising a point of some consequence?


Lionel Chevrier: I use the word "threatened" knowing its full meaning, because the threats have come from the rear of us on repeated occasions. I do not intend to go into them, but I can if I am asked. I have a list of all the interruptions. Unfortunately it has not been possible for Your Honour to hear them because they are made in such a low tone that only those of us who sit here can understand them. I hope Your Honour will put an end to this foolishness.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member
proceeds, may I say that I heard an interruption but I did not identify the member who made it, nor has the hon. member for Laurier done so; but in view of what he has said I think it is proper to indicate to the house that it is entirely contrary to the rules for members to interrupt from their seats. If members have an interruption which they feel they could properly make, they should rise; and it is particularly important in view of the arrangement of the seats in the house that hon. members in the section referred to should observe the proprieties when a member is speaking from the front bench.


Mr. Ricard:: On this point, I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that time and time again the hon. member for Gloucester speaks from his seat, interjecting remarks that are sometimes very bad.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe will agree with me that such rules as there are apply equally to all hon. members. I hope it will not be necessary for me to draw attention again in the house to

what, in the view of the hon. member for Laurier and from my own observations, has caused some degree of difficulty in conducting debate in the way it should be conducted.


Lionel Chevrier: The question I desire to ask the Minister of Transport is whether he has had an opportunity to consider the petition which was placed before him by a delegation of professional Sky-Caps at Dorval airport; what the reaction to that petition has been, and whether the order in council which was drawn up by his department has been considered with a view to determining if it infringes the bill of rights as well as property and civil rights in the province of Quebec?
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have examined with great interest the brief handed to me by the people concerned, and I have submitted it to my legal department. However, we shall continue the talks with members of this association, as well as with their former employers; I hope to be in a position to report to the house on this matter in a near future.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I should like to put a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Transport send a translation of this question to the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier)?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether in addition to referring this case to his own legal officials he is referring it to the Department of Justice to see whether it is in keeping with the provisions of the bill of rights?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister consider
doing such a thing and referring it to the Department of Justice?


Léon Balcer: This is under examination. If we see the need we shall not hesitate to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps I might address a question to the Prime Minister, then. Is it not in keeping with the bill of rights that an order in council which takes legislative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia knows that an opinion, particularly a legal opinion as to the interpretation of the bill of rights, is not an appropriate subject for a question and cannot properly be sought on the orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hazen Robert Argue: I might, then, put the question in another way having to do with government practice. Is it the practice of the government at any time to refer orders in council to the Department of Justice so that it may be determined whether they are in keeping with the spirit of the bill of rights?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: It is not. The Department of Justice, through the Minister of Justice, examines all orders in council that are passed. If in the opinion of the minister or of his department they contradict or invade the terms of the bill of rights, a report is made to the house accordingly.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I should like to put a further supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. On what grounds has he referred the order in council to the legal officers of his department if it has already been approved by the Minister of Justice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to me to be undertaking to crossexamine the minister. I thought the initial question asked by the hon. member was not in order because, as I said, it involved a legal interpretation.



EUROPEAN TRADING GROUPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the meeting being held by the United Kingdom and the members of the outer Seven with the members of the common market countries to discuss closer co-operation, if not union, between these two regional blocs, what steps has Canada taken to protect its trade position with these two groups?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, our representatives in Europe have for some time been studying these matters closely and keeping us informed on developments. I can assure the hon. member that the government is watching the development very closely.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Is the minister aware that in the communique issued by the common market after its meeting the other day there appeared the following words: The six governments are desirous of seeking, in the spirit of good will and friendship, all agreements susceptible of maintaining and developing exchanges with other European countries, in particular with Great Britain, as well as with the other countries of the world.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Does the government intend to take up this offer?


George Harris Hees: We have not waited until this time to take up this offer. Our representatives in Europe, particularly at Geneva, have been making it known to the countries of the Six and the Seven all along and for many months that we are very anxious to maintain our present trading relationship, and to increase trade with the members of the Six and the Seven.



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF A NORTH AMERICAN COMMON MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Trade and Commerce any comment to make on the proposal made yesterday in Toronto by the former secretary of defence of the United States for the establishment of a North American common market?


George Harris Hees: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker. Obviously Mr. McElroy was speaking in his capacity as a private citizen. As always, the members of this government and myself are interested in speeches and statements made by distinguished gentlemen like Mr. McElroy. I do not wish to make any comment.



JAPAN-INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister inform the house whether the Japanese Canadian trade negotiations are still in progress, and could he report to the house whether any agreement or understanding has been reached?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, these negotiations come more directly under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Finance. Perhaps the hon. member for Assiniboia would direct his question to the Minister of Finance when he returns to the house. I am sure he will be back tomorrow.



RAND REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister advise the house whether the interdepartmental committee

set up to advise the government on the Rand report has completed its study? If so, if the minister in a position to report to the house on the recommendations made by the said committee?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I was advised this morning by one of the officials of my department, Dr. W. E. van Steenburgh, who is on that committee, that they are progressing with their study and he expects that the recommendations to the cabinet will be made within a few weeks.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In view of the urgency of the situation, can the minister ask this committee to rush its report? A few weeks will still delay the action of the government.


Paul Comtois: I have made this request of the committee much more often than the hon. member for Gloucester has asked the question in this house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising out of this one which I would like to direct to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent announcement made by the Prime Minister, or someone on behalf of the government, that assistance will be given to keep certain collieries open in Cape Breton until May 31, may I ask whether a decision has been reached by the government not to accept the recommendation of Mr. Justice Rand that any mine closures should be spread out over a period of five to 10 years?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a proper question on this occasion before the orders of the day. I will simply say that when we are in a position to announce a policy based on the Rand report or otherwise it will be announced.
(Translation) :



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. La Presse was the first paper to announce yesterday that the Associate Minister of National Defence is supposed to preside at a card game tonight in the Maisonneuve-Rosemont riding.
Can the minister tell us whether the government has decided to provide the voters with games for lack of bread?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, I must say that I am unable to attend the card game over which I have been asked to preside in his constituency. It would have given me great pleasure to meet many of his voters.
In reply to the second part of his question, it is a fact that the party of which I am a member seeks whenever possible to look after the welfare of the people. We also try, when the opportunity arises, to spread around us happiness, pleasure and hope.
Such a position obviously stands out against the policy of sadness and despair professed by our opponents.



DISPENSATION OF FAVOURS TO ELECTION ORGANIZERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Has he read in yesterday's La Presse the account of a meeting where the minister is reported to have said that, in order to win an election, one has to dispense favours and that he himself, in his own organization, has 32 vice prisidents.
Could he-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Fortin:: You are being utterly ridiculous. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not just sure at what stage the hon. member's comments would be relevant, but certainly not at this stage.
(Translation):



PROFICIENCY OF ORGANIZERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to raise a question of privilege. It has to do with a question asked a moment ago by my good friend, the member for St. Denis. The hon. member asked me to comment on a report which appeared, he said, in La Presse of yesterday and which dealt with a speech I delivered in Montreal Sunday afternoon.
In the first place, I was not aware that reporters from La Presse were attending. In the second place, I feel I must state that, as far as my organizers are concerned, I said I could count on at least 32 vice-presidents, members of my organization being so able.
Inquiries of the Ministry
And now, Mr. Speaker, as regards my own ability and that of my fellow organizers-
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is taking some time to arrive at a question of privilege which merits presentation in the house. If there is some reflection on his conduct which in his view amounts to a question of privilege, perhaps he will state it.
(Translation) :


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, the question of personal privilege I raised is simply this.
I wish to dispel the false impression that may have been created among the public and the members of the House of Commons by an item which was published in yesterday's issue of La Presse and which was not an accurate report of what was actually said.
My second question of personal privilege has to do with the apparent attempt by the member for St. Denis to cast doubts on my ability or that of my colleagues from an electoral point of view. I feel that he will find his answer merely by recalling what happened on March 31, 1958.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker,
I think I am entitled to explain that the statement I quoted was in quotation marks-
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will please be seated. I see no question of privilege which warrants the taking of the time of the house, and I take it the matter requires no further comment.

(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Si. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence whether he is now a member of the "Misquoted Club"?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day is not the time for questions of that kind to be introduced.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he any comment to make concerning the application of Canadian

Inquiries of the Ministry National Railways to the board of transport commissioners to discontinue commuter service in the Scarborough and Markham sections of the Toronto to Belleville train service?


Léon Balcer: I am very pleased to advise the hon. member that following his repeated representations, the management of Canadian National Railways has decided to leave undisturbed for the time being the commuter service on this section of the Toronto-Peterborough-Belleville run.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received a letter from the Vancouver board of parks and public recreation with regard to the elimination from this year's estimates of provision for the further extension of the Stanley park seawall? If so, can the minister advise whether any action in this regard is contemplated?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the question clearly and I will accept it as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. My question is based upon a news item in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that in its presentation to the MacPherson royal commission on transportation the C.N.R. has indicated that there is an urgent need to revise our labour laws in order to give better effect to the resolution of labour disputes in the railway industry. I wonder whether the minister is able to comment.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker it all depends on what way they want the labour law revised.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I allowed the hon. member to finish his question. It seems to me that he was asking on a matter of general policy a question which he could hardly expect to have answered on the orders of the day.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is he in a position to confirm or deny the news item that appeared in today's Globe and Mail to the effect that a postponement in construction of a 100-unit low rental housing project has resulted from a change in federal government policy?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have not received notice of this question but I have knowledge of the subject matter, I believe. Is this the matter in Saskatoon?


John Richard Garland: Yes.


David James Walker: Yes. There the limited dividend project was found to be larger than the needs of the community required at the present time, so it was cut down to 50 units, as a result of which the person who applied for the 100 did not wish to proceed with them. There has been no change in government policy since we made our announcement to the house on government policy with the ensuing legislation last November.
While I am on my feet may I answer a question asked by the hon. member for Nipissing last week as to why we did not go along with the United States program. In reply may I say this. We had the largest January in history in loans, whereas in the United States in the last month for which we have any figures, namely the month of December, their loans were down 50 per cent.


John Richard Garland: Now that several items have been introduced, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can deal with them. However, I should like to come back to my question, which was based on an item in today's paper to the effect that this project had been cut as a result of government policy, and it refers to an increase in the equity-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Richard Garland: -required from the contractor. I should be glad if the minister would comment on that particular item.


David James Walker: Yes. There has been no change in government policy. There was a winter work program in connection with limited dividend loans by which 10 per cent of the equity was required. This policy came to an end in January and we revert to the regular equity of 15 per cent. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


John Richard Garland: Yes. Is any consideration being given to maintaining that figure at 10 per cent?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, we consider at all times, all things and all possible matters incidental to housing, as my hon. friend must have appreciated by this time. However, we certainly have no intentions of again changing the program in connection with limited dividend projects.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Will he comment on a report in yesterday's Ottawa Journal to the effect that the money orders issued and printed by the department's electrical machines are being refused when presented to postmasters all over Canada?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the article carefully he would have noticed the final observation, which was to the effect that this was just an indication that the department is moving so quickly in its mechanization and development that in some cases, particularly in the United States, they are not aware of how fast we are going and have not caught up with us.


Azellus Denis: A trip to the moon.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gale):: I wonder whether I could ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question. Can the Postmaster General say how soon he expects to have no employees at all in the department?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the chiropractic profession will be represented on the royal commission studying health insurance, and also whether consideration is being given to the inclusion of chiropractic services in any national health program?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, in so far as the first portion of the question is concerned, may I say that a number of professions have suggested the inclusion of their members in the personnel of the commission. I refer to the medical, dental, and nursing professions, 90205-6-128
Inquiries of the Ministry chiropractors and the like. If representation were to be secured from each and every one which has a contribution to make to the commission, it would be a rather large commission. The omission of any one of the professions from the personnel of the commission will in no way constitute any suggestion that the profession in question is not making a good contribution.
As to the second portion of the question may I say this. When the commission has made its report the question of the problem of health insurance will have to be considered by the government in the light of the recommendations made.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government proposes to submit to parliament, and particularly to the committee on external affairs, for consideration during this session the Columbia river development treaty, regardless of the fact that an agreement may or may not have been reached with the British Columbia government on this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the opposition will realize that it is too early as yet to say, in view of the course of events in British Columbia, whether the agreement in question should be submitted to the committee.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of the question asked by the leader of the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister which I had intended to ask of the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice in a recent series of public orations has stated that the Columbia development will produce, not only initially but over many years to come, a greater quantity of power at lower cost than is available from any other presently known source in British Columbia; and in view of the fact that Hon. Ray Willis-ton, minister of lands and forests, recently stated in the legislature of British Columbia that cheap power will not be available from the Columbia for 20 years, would the Prime Minister inform the house which of the hon. gentlemen is telling the truth?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have followed the hon. member's argument with interest. It seems to me that he is anticipating the debate

Inquiries of the Ministry which will occur in respect to Columbia river matters in asking for an explanation at this time.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the Minister of Transport say whether the federal government has lost four icebreakers in the gulf of St. Lawrence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the Minister of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister no answer to the question?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think this is a question that is worthy of an answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement which appears in the Cape Breton Post of February 9 headed "Lost, four federal government icebreakers", according to which some responsible citizens of that community are advertising for these icebreakers? If not, I shall be glad to send it to the minister.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, now that the joke period is over I will get down to very serious business. The hon. member for Kootenay West asked yesterday whether the government is giving any consideration to the promotion of heliculture in this country.
I looked at the dictionary and found that this meant snails. I also found that the hon. member asked a question of similar import last year which can be found on page 2352 of Hansard for March 23, 1960. I would like to inform the hon. member that there has been no reason to change the answer of that date as of now.



USE OF WHEY MILK POWDER IN MAKING BREAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house whether an order in council has been passed to the effect that four pounds of dried whey milk powder can be used as a substitute for two pounds of skimmed milk powder in the bread industry?
[Mr. Speaker. 1


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I understand the
hon. member he is asking about the contents of an order in council which presumably will be proclaimed in the Canada Gazette and available to all hon. members in the same way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not an obligation on the government to publish all orders in council, but only certain orders in council as prescribed under the Regulations Act. I would not know whether the one the hon. gentleman is inquiring about would fall into that category, but it would seem to me to be a proper question.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is also asking for detailed information on a matter which does not appear to me to have the urgency which would necesitate being asked on orders of the day. However, if the minister is in a position to answer I have no objection.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will take this as notice, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Fort William asked me whether a proposal had been made to ban completely any trout fishing on lake Superior next year. The short answer is no. However, I would like to add that the great lakes fisheries commission is considering the recommendation of quotas to protect the remaining trout stock, but no firm proposals have yet been made. In any case these proposals would have to be dealt with by the province of Ontario and the individual states of the United States which border on lake Superior.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has had an opportunity of seeing the report of the special select committee of the Ontario legislature on portable pensions; and if he has, could he indicate whether their recommendations on vesting have any implications for his department in its pension study?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity of reviewing the report.
(Translation):



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Yesterday the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) referred to the alleged absence of some hon. members and, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member raising a question of privilege arising from something said yesterday in the house? In that case I must inform him that he is too late to refer to that matter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the C.N.R. Railway Company may construct a line of railway from a point at or near mile 72 of the Kiask Falls subdivision to Mat-tagami lake, in the province of Quebec, and to authorize temporary loans to the company out of the consolidated revenue fund, not exceeding $9,660,000 to enable the work of construction and completion of the railway line to proceed forthwith; and to authorize the company to issue and the governor in council to guarantee securities to finance the expenditures upon the said line up to the said figure.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, my statement will be rather brief because I think the resolution is relatively self-explanatory. I will have more details to give on the bill when we reach second reading.
This resolution is to approve the introduction of a bill to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to construct a railway line in the province of Quebec from a point located about 72 miles north of Bar-raute on the line of the Canadian National between Barraute and Chibougamau, in a northwesterly direction to a point in Galinee township, a distance of about 60 miles. The 90205-6-1281
Canadian National Railways main function of this line would be to carry base metals from properties owned by Mat-tagami Lake Mines Limited near Mattagami lake. The line would eventually also serve a townsite of 3,000 to 5,000 people and would aid in the development of a potentially large mineral and pulpwood area. Its cost of construction is estimated at $140,000 per mile, or a total of $8,400,000.
Mattagami Lake Mines Limited plans to begin its mine production at the end of 1962 and will need rail service by that time. Since the construction of the line would take about two years to complete the committee will appreciate the importance of giving consideration to the legislation as soon as possible.
The bill which will follow the resolution will empower the Canadian National Railways to spend a sum not exceeding $9,660,000 on the construction of the line. This sum represents the estimated cost of construction which I mentioned earlier, plus 15 per cent for contingencies. The bill will also contain financial provisions similar to those adopted in the past for railway branch lines, and provide for the making of temporary loans by the government to enable the work to proceed forthwith and for the government's guarantee of the railway's securities issued in respect of construction.
When, in the course of the last session, my predecessor spoke in support of a resolution for the construction of the Toronto project by the Canadian National, he indicated that the government viewed with favour and proposed to give continued encouragement to capital projects that are submitted by the railway management and that can be recognized as self liquidating. The present project is of that category. The economic appraisal that has been made demonstrates that the railway revenue to be received from traffic engendered by the line will not only meet all expenses of operation and maintenance, the cost of handling such traffic on the remainder of the system, and amortization and interest on the cost of construction of the line, but will also produce a substantial annual surplus. The proposal is therefore one which will help in developing the resources of this country, and is also a sound one from a purely economic standpoint. I trust it will commend itself to all hon. members.
Perhaps the committee will permit me to add that when the bill that will follow the resolution has been given second reading I propose to move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the resolution now under discussion divides itself into

Canadian National Railways three parts. The first concerns the construction by the Canadian National Railway Company of a line from mile 72 in the vicinity of Kiask falls to Mattagami lake. The next is the expenditure involved, namely $9,660,000. The third part of the resolution has to do with authorization to the Canadian National Railways to guarantee certain securities.
Since this is the first piece of legislation which the new Minister of Transport has brought before us I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him upon his appointment. I do so because I think the hon. gentleman is fortunate in having what in my opinion is perhaps the best portfolio in the service of the government. The hon. gentleman is also fortunate, I believe, in the quality of the officers he has in that department. All of them, from the deputy minister, Mr. Baldwin, right down to those who have less important tasks are loyal officers, and if the minister follows their advice I am sure he will not often go wrong.
I should next like to thank the hon. member for Villeneuve, who will make the main contribution from the opposition but who has allowed me to speak before him because of an engagement I have outside the committee.
This railway line is one which immediately commends itself to the opposition and for obvious reasons, such as I shall outline in a moment.
The railway is being built in one of the most promising areas of Canada. From the standpoint of mineral and other natural resources it is one of the finest areas in the province of Quebec. I refer to the Abitibi country. That region is one of the richest in natural resources in our province. Almost anything can be found in that area. There are good agricultural lands, minerals of all sorts including gold, copper, lead and zinc; there are tremendous reserves of forests, and above all there is hydroelectric energy in great potential.
It is the variety of these natural resources of all kinds which make this region interesting from the point of view of transportation and railway development. However, in order to assist in the development of the area an adequate system of transportation is necessary, because this area is not only far removed from the markets to which their products go but also because the rivers flow in a northerly direction whereas the products must move to the south. The development of this area goes back to the mid 1930's. It proceeded rapidly in the beginning, but that progress was temporarily interrupted during the war years which were responsible for a scarcity of materials.


In the post-war years private groups in the area established themselves because they were extremely interested in the development of the region. They were interested in its economic development and in the wealth that the natural resources such as minerals and forests could bring to their area.
At this point I think it would be well to pause for a moment to pay tribute to those private groups as well as their leaders for the tremendous interest they took in the economic development of their region. There is one who particularly stands out among them, Mr. Jean-Baptiste Lebel. I should like to pay tribute to him for the interest he has shown in this area and for the devotion which he and those associated with him gave to the development of this country.
The former Liberal administration had for many years foreseen the tremendous development which was about to take place in this region. Immediately following the war they began to make plans for a transportation system which have since been implemented in large part. The railway now under discussion before the committee is a branch line thereof.
The year 1946 saw the completion of the first railway line from Barraute to Kiask falls. A few years later it was clear that this line would not suffice and that additional transportation facilities would have to be constructed. Following the discovery of new mineral deposits it was necessary to extend the line, and in 1954 the government decided to add to the first line another line as far east as Cache lake and from there to Chibougamau and later to the lake St. John area at St. Felicien.
Upon construction of a railway from Chibougamau to St. Felicien, even at that time, it was quite clear that that line of railway, even though it was 300 miles long and even though it did help to develop a large portion of the natural resources, was not sufficient to give the area the railway system it required to take full advantage of its great potential assets. It was equally clear, sir, at that time that the line of railway from Senneterre to Chibougamau would sooner or later have to be extended by a branch line running in the direction of Mattagami lake.
However, at that time it would have been premature to have undertaken the construction of this branch line because the geological studies which were under way were not complete; neither were they conclusive. Furthermore-and I have no hesitation in making this statement- the former premier of the province of Quebec, the late Mr. Duplessis, was positively opposed to the establishment of a paper mill in that area which would have permitted the export of

forest products which are to be found in large quantities in the area of lake Mattagami. Under those conditions the construction of a branch line to Mattagami would not have been a profitable enterprise and, therefore, at that time would have been premature. Today, however, the situation in the province of Quebec is entirely different. It has changed materially to the point that the construction of this line is now a necessity.
We on this side of the house are happy to approve the resolution; we are happy to support it because, as I said earlier, it is a complement, it is an adjunct to the transportation system that was established during the years that we sat on the other side of the house. We are happy to support it not only because it is a good thing for the region but because it is the natural consequence of the railway line started by the former Liberal administration.
But, sir-and I say this without fear of contradiction-what we do object to, and object to strenuously, is that by the construction of this line the government is blowing its top and stating that it is inaugurating a great national policy as if nothing had been done in the way of railway development prior to the year 1957. My reason for making that statement is a speech made on television by the Prime Minister on January 18. In that speech he spoke of the great and extensive national development policy which was being inaugurated by this government to make Canada vigorous, vital and strong. When he came to the province of Quebec-he took each of the provinces in Canada one after the other to indicate what was being done by the government-here is what he had to say:
Well, there 300 miles of railway have been built by private enterprise.
That statement is inaccurate. There have not been 300 miles of railway built by private enterprise since this government has been in office. The only railway in the province of Quebec built by private enterprise on the north shore is that known as the Quebec -Labrador railway. It is 360 miles in length, and it was opened to the public on July 31, 1954, three years before this government took office.


Léon Balcer: What about the Port Cartier railway?


Lionel Chevrier: I will come to that. The question now being put to me is, what about the Quebec Cartier Railway? Well, the Quebec Cartier line linking Port Cartier to Gagnon was opened on December 30, 1960, and is 193 miles in length; it is not 300 miles, as the Prime Minister said on television to all the
Canadian National Railways people of Canada. That statement, sir, was inaccurate and should be corrected in the house.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister went on to tell us about the new Mattagami branch project which was being inaugurated by the C.N.R. as if this was something extraordinary. Well, it is a line that we will support because it is a good thing for the area, but I suggest to those who sit on the other side of the house that in the first place they should not make inaccurate statements, and in the second place they should not get so excited about those tremendous developmental projects which were inaugurated long before they came into office.
This is another example of the way in which those who sit on the other side of the house proceed. Listen to this speech made by the Minister of Agriculture on television on February 19, 1960, when he was minister of northern affairs and national resources. Here is what he said, and this coming from a minister of the crown is really fantastic:
Generally speaking, in the last 50 years, there has not been any new railroad building by government, with the exception of the railway to Churchill and the P.G.E. The provincial governments were busy building roads to meet the needs of the people who lived in their provinces. Therefore, the forward motion of our economic expansion had ceased, and the country was settling down to a consolidating in areas where people lived.
How a responsible minister of the crown could make a statement of that kind when he knew, or should have known, that the former government built at least 700 miles of railway during the few years they were in office.


Louis Fortin: Twenty two.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to put on record what they did. First there was the branch line from Barraute to Kiask falls and Beattyville, 55 miles in length, authorized by parliament in 1946.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I was
wondering whether we were not straying away from the resolution. The resolution refers to a railway from a certain point on the Kiask falls subdivision to Mattagami lake. I do not think it refers to other railways to other places.


Lionel Chevrier: I submit to you, sir, with deference that this line of railway is being built by the Canadian National Railways; and on a resolution which is being sponsored by the Minister of Transport on behalf of the Canadian National Railways I have the right to put on Hansard other railway lines which were built by the Canadian National Railways on behalf of the government, and that is what I am doing now.
2024	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
I was saying, sir, that next there was the Sherridon to Lynn Lake branch line in Manitoba, 155 miles in length, authorized by parliament in 1951. Third, there was the line between Terrace and Kitimat, British Columbia, 40 miles in length, authorized by parliament in 1952. Fourth, there were two more lines authorized by parliament in 1954, namely the line between Hillsport and Mani-touwadge lake in northern Ontario, 27 miles in length, and the line running from Beatty-ville to Chibougamau and St. Felicien, 294 miles in length. Fifth, there was the line from Bartibog to Tomogonops, New Brunswick, 22 miles in length, authorized by parliament in 1956. Then there were two other projects initiated by the Liberal government in 1957, both approved, however, in the 1957-58 session of parliament. These were, first, the line from Optic lake to Chisel lake, 52 miles in length and the line from Sipiwesk to Burntwood river, 30 miles in length. The total mileage of these several branch lines undertaken by Canadian National Railways to which I have referred amounted to exactly 681 miles, and in the case of each of the eight projects which I have mentioned the line was built in order to develop the natural resources of the country and the areas which these lines serve and tap.
How a minister of the crown can make a speech on "The Nation's Business" and say that over a period of 50 years no railway construction has been effected is more than I can understand. It is indicative of some of the statements that are made from time to time on the other side of the house.
I should like to refer to another statement made by the present Minister of Transport when he sat on this side of the house. I refer to a debate which took place on April 26, 1955 having to do with a resolution concerning Canadian National Railways sponsored by a former minister of transport. As found on page 3179 of Hansard the present minister is reported as having said:
In my opinion, a member from the province of Quebec cannot help noting the more or less favourable attitude of the Canadian National Railways toward our province. Among the Canadian provinces, Quebec is the one with the least trackage having regard to its population and, after Newfoundland, the province with the least trackage having regard to its area. In view of this treatment inflicted upon the province of Quebec, whether deliberately or not, by the management of the national railways any legislation which could remove from the control of parliament certain activities of the management of the national railways cannot but cause concern.
The question that comes to my mind is this. Has the Minister of Transport changed his opinion? Does he think that Canadian
IMr. Chevrier.]

National Railways is still unjust and unfair to the province of Quebec, as he then stated in his speech? Well, he delivered a speech on February 12, 1961 to the Chibougamau chamber of commerce, and I should like to refer to what he had to say with regard to this very matter. I have here a copy of his speech as released by his office on February 12 of this year, and in it I find the following:
One fact which deserves note in passing is that Quebec province comes before all other Canadian provinces for the number of thousands of miles of railroad constructed by Canadian National Railways since the end of the war. Is not that a proof of the confidence felt in the wealth not only of our province but also of our whole country?
Oh, how a change of office can also change the opinion of an individual.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I see that my friends are rather annoyed. They are annoyed because of the fact that there was an earlier debate in this house when they tried to divide this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: -and one of those who were responsible for that attempt was one who tried to say that the construction of the main line of this railway was such as to bring traffic from the Abitibi country into the city of Toronto rather than to a destination in the province of Quebec. I am sure the Minister of Transport does not agree with that. Certainly he did not believe it when he made this statement two days ago at Chibougamau, at which time he had changed his views considerably from those he had expressed formerly in this house.


Léon Balcer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would be good enough to say to whom he is referring when he says that members have been trying to divide the nation.


Lionel Chevrier: I will be very happy to indicate to whom I had reference, and in doing so the Minister of Transport is absolved immediately. I had reference to the debate which took place on the two lines that were to be built and which brought about interruptions from the rear by these stupid gentlemen who insist on interrupting anyone who speaks from the front benches. I refer to the member for Chicoutimi of that time and one other member whose constituency I have forgotten.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think I am entitled to speak without all these interruptions.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think it was mentioned a little earlier today that the hon. member who has the floor is entitled to speak and to be heard by all other hon. members. The Chair has recognized only one hon. member and that is the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to come back now to the measure before the house and give the house another statement made by the hon. member for Three Rivers, as he then was, during the consideration of a matter introduced by my predecessor. As found on page 3180 of Hansard for April 26, 1955 he is reported as having said:
The Canadian National now has a wonderful opportunity to contribute to the development of the province of Quebec through the construction of a railway on the north shore, whose mining and forest resources are practically limitless and where it would be possible to develop nearly seven million horsepower.
I could quote further but I do not want to embarrass the minister unduly. Now that he is responsible for the operations of Canadian National Railways I hope it will be possible for him to introduce legislation in the not too distant future respecting the construction of a railway on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. If he does, I can asure him now that he will have the wholehearted support of those who sit on this side of the house.
I should like to conclude my remarks by saying that we support the construction of the Mattagami lake branch line. We support it not only because it is necessary to the area, not only because it would seem to be a profitable venture, but also because it is a logical complement to the three lines which we as the former government constructed when we were on the other side of the house. Because of the attitude we take on this legislation I have no doubt that, should the minister feel it desirable at any future time to bring in legislation of a similar character, it will meet with sympathetic consideration from this side of the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the positive role of Canadian National Railways is very well exemplified by the resolution preceding the introduction of this legislation. We will support it, and we look forward to receiving more details from the minister at a later stage of the debate with respect to the economic information that led him and the cabinet to approve the legislation.
In the grand recital of the eight great projects which the former minister of transport gave, he mentioned one that has turned out to be not very economical, the line into Manitouwadge. A goof seems to have been
Canadian National Railways made by that magnificent Liberal administration, and we wound up having not one branch line but two branch lines into the base metal resource at Manitouwadge, neither of which is doing very well. Certainly there is not enough traffic for both of them. I raise this point simply to indicate that sometimes these grand schemes are not so good in the long run as they appear to be in the beginning.
One of the points that immediately come to mind, of course, is that this is a large base metal area into which the line is going. The minister probably knows that there are peaks and valleys in the world production of base metals. In recent years Canada has moved rapidly ahead in this field, and the long term prospects look good, but in the short run there is every indication that we may have a saturation of the markets for the very metals that are going to be coming from this particular area, something which may mean that the line will be built, the area will be opened up, yet the mines themselves will languish.
We should like to hear more about the economic projection in this particular direction. Certainly if the line is going to move pulpwood we should like to know more of what the prospects are of pulpwood delivery, to what mills the pulpwood will be going, and whether the crown lands in the Mattagami lake area are held by any particular concern; how they are being cut off, what is the cost of pulpwood that is coming out of there, and whether it can compete with the pulpwood that is much closer to the mills. One of the factors that we have discovered in our part of the country, where we have extensive pulp and paper production, as is the case in Quebec, is that the farther away you get from the mill, all the railway facilities in the world will not enable you to compete in putting your wood down at the mill. Once a wood haul gets to be over 150 miles or 175 miles in length it becomes an extremely high cost one, even with the most efficient kind of rail handling. Again perhaps the hon. member for Villeneuve can enlighten us on what the prospects are in this particular regard.
The cost of the railway line seems to be quite low per mile for the terrain that one normally encounters in the Laurentian area. We should like from the minister some assurance that this is the maximum figure of approximately $140,000 per mile.
The last point upon which I should like to comment in connection with this resolution is this. Before the royal commission on transportation the former Quebec government made a presentation-as I remember it, Hon. Daniel Johnson actually made it-and the

Canadian National Railways brief it seemed to me certainly expressed a chip on the shoulder attitude, an attitude indicating that the Canadian National Railways, the railways in general and the federal government had failed to come through for the province of Quebec in opening up its resource areas.
This matter has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Laurier in his own unique and Liberal way. I should appreciate hearing more about the position of the province of Quebec in this regard as it was expressed to the royal commission. It seems to me that we have two opposite positions, clarification of which I certainly should appreciate having. On the one hand we have a claim by the former minister that really the extension of rail lines in this country owed a tremendous amount to the great Liberal party, and in no place perhaps more than in the province of Quebec. This is his position. Now we have the brief before the royal commission, with which I am sure the minister is familiar, which indicates a completely different story.
As the hon. member for Laurier has pointed out, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture in his former role have taken a good deal of credit for a change in policy which is giving Quebec what it needs and wants. I think this would be a good time and a good occasion on which to have one of the government spokesmen from the province of Quebec set the record straight from their point of view; that is to say, set the record straight for those of us who do not wish to go down any particular party line and who would like to consider whether Quebec has been forced to languish without rail facilities in these resource areas, and if so why, and why the situation has changed at this time.
We think the resolution is a good one. We think the C.N.R. has a most positive role to play, and we only wish that this positive role could be emphasized more at a time when the road is under such severe criticism in other areas, and indeed when all railways are under such severe criticism. In northwestern Ontario the Canadian National Railways has played a marvellous part in the development of the resource industries, especially that of mining. Indeed, it seems to me that it is mining and the mining development that have made the C.N.R. through that part of the country much less of a money drain than many people feared it might be.
The Canadian National Railways has been under criticism by some of us in the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping for what we think is a retrogressive tendency in its dealings with labour and with the communities that fall within its particular orbit. There is not likely to be any question from the

communities that may be affected by this rail line about the need for it. I hope the minister is aware of the fact that disillusionment later comes to communities that get on rail lines. I refer to disillusionment as to the services they get, the number of employees that may be involved and the security of their employment. I hope the minister may be able to give us some indication later on in the debate with regard to the number of people who are going to be involved in work, the number of trains, the running crews, the maintenance crews and what this will mean in population and job terms for the area.
In summary, we should like to have more information than the minister has given us at this particular stage. If necessary we shall hope to bring this information out by questioning at a later stage when we are going through the bill section by section in committee.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, it was indeed quite gratifying a few moments ago to hear the hon. member for Laurier mention that his party, like himself, would favour this completion of a railway line leading to the Mattagami district. For a while during his speech his tone almost intimated that he would not come out with the well received statement which he made toward the end of his remarks and for a while we had the impression that the hon. member was almost willing to oppose the construction of this railway line.
This attitude would have been most surprising because this railway line, as was clearly explained by the Minister of Transport, has been essential for a good many years, and will help to develop this northern region which is so rich and promising for the future of the province of Quebec and also for all of Canada. This indeed is a worthwhile project which will be welcomed by all those interested in the national development policy of this government, which wishes actually to give as much wealth as possible to the citizens of the nation through the development of the northern regions and all the other unexplored or still virginal territories of this great land.
Actually what surprised me most of all in the comments made by the hon. member for Laurier was his reference to the fact that some hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party sitting behind him had at some point in the past possibly advocated a policy which might lead to national disunity. It was indeed rather surprising to hear him speak in that vein, and we are not yet quite clear as to what exactly he was referring to.

Canadian National Railways


Lionel Chevrier: You had better read the debates and you will find out.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am coming to that in a moment. It seems to me rather curious that he should have been speaking in such a vein, and I would indeed appreciate it if at a further sitting of this house, or whenever he feels like it, the hon. member would give us some examples of this national disunity which he claims has been spread by these two members.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the associate minister wish me to do it now?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: If the hon. member does not mind, I would prefer to continue my remarks. Perhaps after I have finished my remarks we could-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think the Chair has been quite lenient in allowing the Associate Minister of National Defence to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier. However, the resolution before us does not involve the question of what two members may have done. I think now that I have allowed the matter to be answered, the associate minister should come back to the resolution before the committee.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, you are quite right, and in fact it was my intention to come back to the resolution before the committee. That is exactly what I planned to do.
We do not deny that during its long tenure of office the former government at times did something in order to give this country certain railway lines which it needed. We actually compliment them for having done that which was essential, and which was in line with the mandate they had undertaken when they took office. We wish to commend the hon. members for indeed having at times built some railway lines which helped in the development of this nation.
However, we are at a loss to understand why hon. members opposite object to the fact that we are rather pleased at having ourselves been able to do our share in this respect, and at having been able, since we have been in office, to help in the development of the railways of our nation through the construction of a considerable length of railway line certainly surpassing 200 miles and very close, if my memory is correct, to 300 miles.
At present we are very pleased indeed to be able to announce to the people of this nation that a railway line will be built which
will link the Mattagami region with the other regions of this nation. What we cannot understand is why the hon. member for Laurier objects so much, as he does, to our statement that perhaps we are doing what should have been done earlier-


Lionel Chevrier: I am not objecting; I am for it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -and is being so vociferous in his objections.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Don't interrupt.


Lionel Chevrier: -the associate minister is misrepresenting what I have said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: He states that the hon. member for Laurier does not seem to be in favour of the legislation. He has said that now on two occasions, and it is quite clear from my remarks, as well as from the preamble to them and their conclusion, that we on this side of the house support this measure.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not think that is a point of order. It is a matter of contradiction, which could be dealt with at the end of the associate minister's speech.
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Laurier, allow me to say that he possibly misconstrued the tenor of my words. I said, at the beginning of my short remarks, that we, on this side of the house, were very happy to note that the hon. member for Laurier and his colleagues of the opposition were finally coming out in favour of the proposed construction of the Mattagami railway. What we fail to understand, however, is that he should find it so strange that certain members of the house should object to statements of his and occasionally interrupt him or decide to raise some objections to his statements. After all, the hon. member for Laurier should be inured to certain opposition practices. May I ask him to go back a few years ago when this matter of railways was being dealt with in this house, and he will perhaps recall a debate which took place on Wednesday, May 19, 1954, and whose tenor was such that the following morning, Le Devoir felt compelled-
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I have no objection to the associate

Canadian National Railways minister introducing this element. A moment ago you asked the associate minister not to do it because he was out of order, but if he wishes to do it I claim the right to reply to what he is now saying. This statement is entirely out of order.


Charles Edward Rea: The translation
from French to English was off for a few minutes, so I did not hear what the associate minister said. However, if he has again strayed away from the resolution I would ask him once more to come back to it, please. The translation system is now back in operation.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lau-rier I wish to simply tell him this. He seems to object to the fact that certain members of this house object to certain statements he has made. I am simply in the process of asking him why he objects, since he is quite familiar with the debates on this question of railways which have taken place from year to year in this house.
I was at the point of referring to one particular debate which took place in this house on May 19, 1954, when the hon. member for Laurier was a member of the government. During this debate there were a great many objections on the part of the members of the opposition to which the hon. member for Laurier objected. The nature of his objections gave rise to an article which appeared in Le Devoir the next day, May 20-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not quite understand the associate minister when he says he is speaking to a point of order. I do not understand to what point of order he is referring. He says he is speaking to a point of order and then refers to something that happened in 1954, which at the moment I cannot see has anything to do with this resolution. If the associate minister would show me how it does, I would be very happy to hear him.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty in speaking to the point of order because I do not believe there is substance in what the hon. member for Laurier has said in his point of order. I am simply, once again, saying that the present members of the house have just as much right to answer the criticisms of the hon. member for Laurier as he had at the time to answer the criticisms of those who were attacking him. If you do not consider this in line with the rules of the house I shall refrain from further remarks in this vein. I will simply confine my 

remarks to the fact that we are indeed very pleased to note the attitude of the hon. member for Laurier, who approves of the measure that is before us. We are also pleased to note that he agrees that this a progressive government that is working in the better interests of the people.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, building that railway line will facilitate the development of natural resources in the lake Mattagami area.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) had only a few remarks to make on the matter. However, I noted that he proposed to supply further information when the legislation comes up for second reading.
It would be most interesting, for instance, to know the result of operations for the Barraute-Chibougamau line, and that other line which connects Chibougamau with St. Felicien.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to tell us, on second reading, the earnings of the Canadian National Railways over those two sections, namely the line from Barraute to Chibougamau, and from that point to St. Felicien. In short, I would like to know the earnings for each of those sections.
Mr. Chairman, for the last five years there has been heavy prospecting in the Mattagami lake area. In fact, some 50 mining companies have been spending over 10 million dollars on prospecting and development work of all kinds, chiefly in the lake Mattagami district.
About a hundred mining properties have been tested. Geophysical, magnetic and electromagnetic work has been done. Geological surveys also were conducted on those sites, and diamond drilling took place on about 50 of the properties.
Therefore, for the past five years, a total of $10 million was spent in proving that some of those properties were well worth developing.
Two companies, among others, made major discoveries. The first and major one, the Mattagami Lake Mines Limited struck a deposit of about 21 million tons of metallic ore containing the following percentages: zinc: 12.76 per cent; copper: 0.68 per cent; silver, approximately 1.3 ounces per ton. While the gold content is low, it is not altogether valueless, assaying 0.018 ounces per ton.
On property bordering on that company's territory and belonging to the Orchan Mines

Limited a deposit of 6 million tons of ore has been discovered, of the following content: zinc, about 13 per cent; copper, 1.3 per cent; silver, 1.3 ounce per ton and gold 0.02 ounce per ton.
The enormous value of those two deposits is therefore readily realized.
The Mattagami Lake Mines Limited intends to build a plant with a capacity of 2,000 tons per day; the Orchan Mines Limited, on the other hand, proposes to build one with a daily capacity of 1,000 tons. Once those two plants are in production, they will put out the following quantities of metal per day: 375 tons of zinc, which means 750,000 pounds; 60,000 pounds of copper; 6,000 ounces of silver and 60 ounces of gold. Altogether, this represents a yearly production of 137,000 tons of zinc, 11,000 tons of copper, 190,000 ounces of silver and 21,900 ounces of gold.
At current prices for those metals the total yearly production is valued at about S40 million.
The zinc production of 137,000 tons represents 35 per cent of the total Canadian production at this time, which means therefore, that the Mattagami lake deposits are of outstanding significance.
I hope the house will welcome this resolution so that we way have the text of the bill as soon as possible.
Moreover, let us hope that there will be no delay in enacting the legislation, so that the contractor who has to carry out the work may start clearing operations as soon as possible.
The mining companies propose to develop the two most important deposits in the Mattagami lake area, the Mattagami Lake Mines Limited in the fall of 1962 and the Orchan Mines Limited in the latter part of 1963.
If the railroad is not completed by that date, mining development will naturally be delayed. Therefore, I hope that everything will be done so that this legislation may be passed with all possible dispatch.
Mr. Chairman, I have personally taken part in the development of that area. I am still keenly interested in this matter, even if the area involved is outside the constituency of Villeneuve. It is in fact located in the neighbouring riding, that of Chapleau (Mr. Martel), a vast territory.
We have been hearing about Mattagami for several years. It was mentioned in this house in 1954 at the time the building of the Chibougamau railway was being considered,
Canadian National Railways and the matter was raised on many other occasions when it was always pointed out that the natural resources of this area were practically unlimited. They are indeed almost unlimited because, besides the two deposits I mentioned earlier, in 1958, that is a year after the discovery of a deposit by the Mattagami Lake Mines Limited, another Canadian company, the New Hosco Mines, discovered another rather substantial copper deposit quite close to the Allard river, a few miles to the northwest of the Mattagami mines. This deposit will no doubt be also developed in the comparatively near future.
A little closer to Mattagami Lake Mines, to the northwest, another Canadian company, the Radio Uranium Mines Limited, made a fairly important discovery with diamond borings. I am convinced that at this place a workable copper and zinc deposit will also be discovered.
A bit farther to the northeast, the Con-nest company has traced another deposit which is not to be ignored since it contains a fairly high percentage of copper and zinc, even though of lower grade than others discovered so far.
As far as mining is concerned, this area has hardly been touched to this day.
And now, in addition to those mining resources, the Mattagami area has almost unlimited timber resources. As a matter of fact I read in a recent report that timber resources in the Mattagami area amounted to more than 50 million cords of wood immediately available. Hence the importance of making haste in trying to develop natural resources in this area.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) mentioned in his opening remarks one of the pioneers of northwestern Quebec who deserved all our admiration, Mr. Jean-Baptiste Lebel. In fact, Mr. Lebel, in the course of his numerous activities in northwestern Quebec, has always advocated development in the Mattagami lake area.
For years he has been dreaming of a pulp-wood industry there. Well, I believe that his dream is about to come true, since there has been talk of a very large lumber company from Quebec considering in the coming months the possibility of building a plant quite near to Mattagami lake, close to the eastern part of the area with which we are concerned. If this pulp-mill or paper plant is to built, it will probably require the construction of another branch line, from a point close to the Bell
2030	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways river, where the line I am referring to should cross the river, then northeast and probably as far as Anita bay, on lake Mattagami, the probable location of the paper mill now being advocated by Mr. Lebel.
Apart from those forest resources, there are great possibilities for farming. Land in the Mattagami area is very good, as has already been pointed out. Hundreds of farmers could easily settle there.
Naturally, today, there is no large-scale settlement in new areas, but we must think of the future. Once our mining industries are permanently established there, and if we should manage to have paper mills too, in that area, large-scale settlement will unquestionably be possible at that time.
A few years ago, it was estimated that the Mattagami lake area could absorb 15,000 farmers. I think it would sound a bit overoptimistic to say that those farmers will settle there within the next few years, but I feel that, 15 or 20 years from now, that many farmers will probably have located there.
A few years ago, that is in 1957, while the construction of the Chibougamau railway was being discussed, I said that the population in that area would rapidly increase. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, at that date, Chibougamau could boast of very few citizens; today, however, it is a flourishing city with a population of 5,000. I am sure that in a few years Mattagami will have a population that will compare with that of Chibougamau.
There is no doubt that all those mining developments will have attracted people anxious to see for themselves the developments of the north.
For my part, I have the honour of working at the planning of a mining town at Mattagami, on the shore of the Bell river, and I am anxious to stake out the first lot on which a building will be constructed to accommodate people who will be working in the mining developments.
In the last two years, the provincial government has been building an all-weather road. Around 40 miles of it were built under the Union Nationale government, and Mr. Lesage's government is now adding another 50 or 60-mile stretch.


An hon. Member:: Charging new taxes.


Louis Fortin: What a good example.


The Chairman:: Order.


Louis Fortin: On a 50 per cent basis.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, some hon. members talk about new taxes. I wonder whether there had been no taxes before in Quebec.


Louis Fortin: They were lower.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: They were lower. Taxes were being paid by people who could afford to pay them. Today, they are being paid by those who cannot afford to do so.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, that hard-surfaced road will be completed within a month. Everybody in northwestern Quebec hope that this permanent road will be extended further north so as to allow the development of huge hydraulic resources located along the Not-taway river.
As for the railway line that will be built in the next two years, there is no doubt that the C.N.R. will be asked to extend it as far as James bay, because we now feel that the Bell river, south of Mattagami and the Nottaway river north of that point-represent the nerve centre of the district. This is where we find adequate hydraulic power to ensure the prosperity of northwestern Quebec.
Furthermore, all the rivers flowing into James bay flow through vast forests that will one day be developed. Obviously the timber cut from those forests will be floated down those rivers as far as James bay, and much of it will be processed locally, where paper mills will be built. Needless to say that the manufactured product will have to be shipped either by boat for part of the year, or by rail in the winter months. Therefore, we expect the railroad to eventually reach James bay at Rupert bay.
A fact that must not be overlooked is that, in addition to the mining and large forest resources in the Mattagami area, that are found all along the major rivers flowing into James bay, there are also considerable iron ore deposits on the Great Whale river, a little farther north. Those deposits will one day be developed and the sensible procedure would be to transport the ore southward along the Nottaway river.
Thus, the construction of the Chibougamau railroad was simply the beachhead of the development of the natural resources in northwestern Quebec. By building this branch line to lake Mattagami, we are establishing a

second beachhead. That is why I repeat, as I said in my opening remarks, that I hope the house will support this resolution and that the members will assist in hastening all stages of the bill, so that construction may start as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), referred to lumber concessions in the Matta-gami lake area.
In the immediate area around Mattagami lake, there have been no forest concessions, as yet. Those which have been officially established were located along Bell river, about half way between Senneterre and Mattagami. However, there is no doubt that if some companies decided to put up pulp mills there, the government would be able to guarantee them some lumber concessions to supply the pulp or paper mills for several years to come. There is no need to worry about that angle as the forest lots in the district, starting about fifty miles south of Mattagami lake and stretching towards the great north, have not been conceded yet. There are enough lumber resources in that area, I would say, to supply three or four paper or pulp mills.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I think that hon. members who are not familiar with northwestern Quebec districts will realize the importance of building that railway line. The cost will be under $10 million, whereas the two corporations I named at the start of my remarks, i.e., the Mattagami Mines Limited and the Orchan Mines Limited propose to spend over $40 million during the next three years.
We should also remember that the two corporations are ready to develop their own deposits; they also want that part-or rather the greater part-of those underground resources to be processed locally or, at any rate, within the province of Quebec.
For that reason, the two companies intend to build a zinc refinery with a daily capacity of 400 tons. Those two firms alone will produce 375 tons a day. It is therefore quite understandable that a zinc refinery with a minimum capacity of 400 tons a day is required because, in addition to the facilities of Mattagami lake, 200 additional tons of zinc are produced daily in various mines located nearby, in northwestern Quebec. It is therefore highly important that the zinc refinery
Canadian National Railways be established as soon as possible, and we hope that it will be built in the Mattagami lake district. However, there may be certain factors which could cause the companies to decide otherwise. As far as I know, however, the firms concerned believe that, if economic conditions are favourable, the refinery will be established in that area, or rather, we have been assured that it will, at any event, be erected in the province of Quebec, which is a most important decision.
Mr. Chairman, you can see how important is the development of the Mattagami area which, as I said, is the nerve centre of northwestern Quebec. I am convinced that with the co-operation of everyone, we could develop this area, not only for the benefit of its own residents, but also for the benefit of the citizens of the province of Quebec and of Canada as a whole.


Mr. Marlineau:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permite a question?


Armand Dumas: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, my question concerns the access roads which, according to the hon. member, have been built or are planned by the government of Mr. Lesage. Could he tell the house whether those roads are built under a federal-provincial agreement or built solely by the provincial government?


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue is aware that the Union Nationale, during its administration did not deem it appropriate to co-operate with the federal government toward the construction of that road from Amos to Mattagami under the roads to resources program. But last summer, Mr. Lesage hastened to correct this situation, and he stated that his government was willing to enter into negotiations with the federal government concerning the section still to be built between Amos and Mattagami as well as the one built many years ago but which is in need of repairs on a distance of some 40 miles, from Amos and running to the north. As the parliamentary secretary knows no doubt, the two governments entered into an agreement last November. That agreement was signed in Quebec by the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) and by the minister of mines of the province of Quebec.

Canadian National Railways
That road is under construction at the present time. Under the Union Nationale government, 40 or 50 miles had been completed. The balance of the road is now being built between Amos and the Mattagami Lake Mines Limited, a distance of about 105 miles, and from that point there is about 10 miles to the Hosco mine. That road, then will cover a distance of about 115 miles. From the Mattagami Lake Mines Limited to the new Mattagami village, or to the location selected for the establishment of the new village, another streach of five or six miles will have to be built, and this will be done, I believe, under the existing agreements between the Quebec government and the federal government.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I thank the hon. member for the information he supplied. I put that question to him because in the course of his remarks he made no mention of the Conservative government's contribution to this important project.


Mr. Asselin:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry but the time allotted to the hon. member having expired, the unanimous consent of the house is required.
(Text):
Is the committee agreeable to permitting further questions?
(Translation):


Martial Asselin: Could the hon. member tell us the name of the engineering firm which makes the survey for the joint project?


Armand Dumas: This question makes me laugh, Mr. Chairman. To answer it I will tell the hon. member that the department's engineers are those who do the civil engineering work for the construction of the road. But I see what my hon. friend is aiming at, and I must say to him that, as a surveyor, the government of the province of Quebec has asked me to do the surveying for the expropriation of certain parcels of land bordering on this new road from Amos to Mattagami. So, to help ease my hon. friends concern on this matter, I will read to him-I think I might give this explanation-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I suggest that you do not need the member for St. Jean to prompt you.


Yvon Dupuis: Very well, Danny boy.


Armand Dumas: No, no, it is quite all right. I have here a copy of the agreement signed by the government of Canada and that of the province of Quebec with regard to the construction of the road between Amos and Mattagami and I find the following at clause 9 of this agreement:
The cost of these works will not include any amount paid by the province of Quebec towards the project after March 31, 1966 and in all cases will not include the payments made by the province of Quebec towards-
And I now read subclause (B):
The purchase of an interest or any land interest in connection with the execution of the project, including compensation or indemnification for the obligatory taking over of the land or for the unfavourable soil of other lands;
So, it happens that the cost of this land expropriation is entirely paid by the government of the province of Quebec; the federal government will not pay a cent in connection with land expropriation. So, because I am a surveyor, I have been asked to do this work, which is carried out by a surveyor of the province of Quebec who is now working for me.
I think the hon. member does not have to be overly concerned about that.


Martial Asselin: I just wanted to find out if there was any patronage, but since there is none-


Mr.   Marlel@: Mr. Chairman, this resolution introducing a bill to provide for the construction by the C.N.R. of a line of railway from a point near mile 72 of the Kiask falls subdivision to Mattagami lake, in my constituency, is of particular interest to me.
In my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to emphasize that it is through the action of the Conservative government that this project is made possible, whatever our opponents may think. I would even say that, in my humble opinion, this project is brought into being at least one year sooner through the policy of our government which, as early as 1957, has taken an interest in the northern regions, as was stated by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Evidently, at that time they tried to ridicule the northern vision of our government, saying that it was an igloo to igloo program, but the resolution now before us proves that the Conservative government not only spoke about it, but took action in this regard. Besides, it does so not only in the province of

Quebec, in northern Quebec, or in that area of my constituency where this railway will be constructed, but also in western Canada and in several other provinces of this country. In fact, the government considers also the construction of a new railway to the north of Alberta in the Northwest Territories, and we shall no doubt be asked to consider a bill to that effect as soon as the study is completed.
Therefore, it is with pleasure that, as representative of the constituency of Chapleau, I give my unqualified support to this resolution and I thank our government for having decided to carry out right now this important project.
I wish to congratulate most particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) who has always supported the construction of that railway line, even before he took up his present duties. In addition, he deserves hearty congratulations for having had this important item of legislation introduced in the speech from the throne at the beginning of the present session.
As I said a moment ago, that shows the interest of the Conservative government and its leader in the development of the northern country. I for one was interested in that question as soon as I was elected-or I should say even before, when I was doing some prospecting work in that area-but more particularly since I have the honour to represent this constituency in this house. Besides, I had the opportunity to mention that question here in 1958, as did my colleague from the adjoining constituency who indicated very clearly the mining potential of that large area when the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys were before the house.
Mr. Chairman, I see that it is five o'clock and I wonder if I might move the adjournment of this debate before I resume my seat.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed with the consideration of private and public bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to standing order.
Canada Elections Act CANADA ELECTIONS ACT



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE VOTING AGE

Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-15, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, while the bill in its form contains a number of technical amendments, the end it seeks is relatively simple, namely to reduce the age of qualification of electors from the present 21 years to 18 years. During the last session of parliament a complete revision of the Canada Elections Act was undertaken. The standing committee on privileges and elections made a complete perusal and review of the act and in that committee this subject matter was dealt with to a considerable extent. However, the committee was not of the opinion that it should recommend such a reduction to parliament.
As a preliminary comment I might add that in the committee itself there was some discussion about the question of legal age, as I understand it, of a person. It was to the effect that one under the age of 21 was not able to enter into a valid contract of purchase and the like, and the thought expressed was that these things should go hand in hand. It was thought that if the voting age was lowered there should also be a consequent reduction in the legal age. However, it was subsequently pointed out by members of the committee who were of the legal profession that this latter matter of the legal age, so called, is one of provincial jurisdiction rather than of federal jurisdiction, and I think perhaps we may only look at it in that light and in a general way.
A variety of reasons are put forward, to which I subscribe, as to why the age of electors should be reduced to 18. Perhaps the first one that comes to mind is that we have improved educational facilities. Over the years the average grade reached in school has been steadily increasing. I understand that the average person now reaches grade 10 or thereabouts. I understand that grade may perhaps increase further or that it may have increased since the last census. Because of improved communications more immediate contact with political events in this country and those in other parts of the world we are in effect approaching what is described as a smaller world. All in all, it means that our younger generations have increased opportunities to have firsthand knowledge almost of public affairs and of political matters

Canada Elections Act
not only in this country but in other countries of the world as well. With improved communication systems such as television, for example, the events that take place in other parts of the world are known to us almost immediately as they occur. I say that this quick means of communication gives our younger people a much better insight into political and public affairs and a more immediate knowledge and better understanding of them than was possible 20 years or 30 years ago.
I made inquiries of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who is in the teaching profession or who practised the teaching profession before he reached this place, although some people may doubt whether or not he engages in that sort of activity. Nevertheless, there is a situation that prevails in Ontario and I understand that it prevails in Manitoba, from information given to the committee last year by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mand-ziuk); and I am given to understand that it prevails in other provinces also. In Ontario, it is not uncommon to find people entering the teaching profession at the age of 17, 18 or 19 or thereabouts. These teachers in fact engage to some extent in the teaching of history and of current affairs but they themselves are not in a position to vote.
It is not uncommon to find university students of the age of 18 or 19 or thereabouts. In universities the question of political activities is gone into far more extensively. For instance, just the other day a group of political science students from Queen's University visited the parliament buildings. Many of them were under the age of 21. Mock parliaments are in existence in practically all the universities in the land and, I understand, to a slight extent even in the latter years of high school in some places. All of these things tend to put the individual who is under the age of 21- that is the legal age to vote-in closer and more immediate contact with public affairs and to give him a better understanding of those affairs than was possible a number of years ago.
We consider that a person of the age of 18 is mentally and physically capable of participating in the war effort when it has been necessary in the past to draw him into that field of activity, and we still think in those terms. Likewise, I think we should consider that he is capable of exercising the same degree or a similar degree of political judgment that a more mature person or a more elderly person might be capable of exercising.

1 realize that people who are in the armed forces can vote. However, I should perhaps emphasize that what I am getting at is this. If parliament is of the opinion that persons of the age of 18 have the abilities, mental and physical, necessary to participate in the armed forces, then we should also consider that they have the qualities and the abilities necessary to participate in electing candidates. I consider that extension of the right to vote is merely an extension of our right in a democracy by providing these persons of 18 years of age an opportunity to participate openly and fully in electing members of parliament to represent them in the House of Commons.
The speed-up in our economic activities coupled with intensified education tends to draw people into the working force at a younger age than formerly. It tends to draw them into marriage at a younger age. It tends to draw them into the taxation field at a younger age by their mere entry into the working force. I submit that it tends to draw them into political activity as well, especially in some provinces in Canada which have a lower voting age than that which is provided under our Canada Elections Act.
I might perhaps in that regard make brief reference to some information which was given to the committee on privileges and elections during the last session and which was also entered on the record in a specific debate in this house during the last session. In the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta the voting age is 19. In the province of Saskatchewan it is 18. In the province of British Columbia I participated in a provincial election as a candidate when the voting age was 19 and since that time I have participated in a provincial election in which I was not a candidate but which was held just recently, and the voting age was still 19.
We have found-and I am sure the same things have been experienced both in Alberta and in Saskatchewan-that there is a feeling of greater satisfaction on the part of the people in this age group in having the opportunity to participate in the great democratic process of electing M.L.A.s and governments in those provinces. There do not appear to be any difficulties whatsoever that have flowed from the electors in those provinces having the right- to vote at the ages I mentioned.
Perhaps I could also indicate briefly the situation in other countries and other states from the material which was placed on

Canada Elections Act
Hansard last session. I would point out that the voting age is 18 in the states of Georgia and Kentucky in the United States of America; in Bulgaria; in Venezuela; in Mexico, if married; Bolivia; in Costa Rica if one is married or a teacher; and also I understand in the Union of South Africa, although I would not use that political situation there as an argument to warrant our following suit.
In the state of Alaska it is 19; in Costa Rica, for other than married men and teachers, it is 20. There are a great many countries like Great Britain and New Zealand where the age is 21. There are some countries in which the age is higher than 21, notably Turkey, where it is 22; Denmark, where it is 23; and the Netherlands, where it is 25. This is information compiled from the Statesman's Year Book of 1959. I do not know what the current situation is, but I assume it is somewhat the same.
At the last session, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, as will other hon. members, that when we were considering third reading of the bill to amend the Canada Elections Act the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) moved a technical, procedural type of motion that the bill should not be read a third time then but should be referred back to committee for the purpose of reconsidering this question of lowering the voting age.
We had a division in the house on that amendment. The Liberals and ourselves voted together to, in effect, reduce the voting age. The Conservative members voted that it should not be reduced at that time, and there was some reasoning given as to why that course of action was followed by the Conservative members who participated in that division.
That reasoning was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and perhaps I might be allowed to quote some of his remarks from Hansard of last year in this regard. I use them to say that I accept the invitation extended by the Prime Minister last session and think it is perhaps the course that we might well follow at this stage in order to bring a full, complete discussion and consideration of this matter in accordance with the time honoured practice of dealing with amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
I will quote from the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister as reported at page 6279 of Hansard of July 14, 1960. Here the Prime Minister, referring to the amendment to which I referred earlier, said:
I think it is one of those things that might very well be studied in detail by a committee at a subsequent session of parliament,-
Then he said:
In a subsequent session I will join with hon. members in giving the membership of the house an adequate opportunity to fully explore all the considerations relative to this question;-
I think the course suggested by the right hon. gentleman on July 14, 1960 should apply to this session. This is a subsequent session and I think this would be a proper course to be followed. I have indicated on other occasions this should be the course to be followed with all public bills introduced by private members, but especially is it so in this case because we have the endorsation of that course by the right hon. Prime Minister.
While he may quibble, as perhaps he sometimes does, as to precisely what he meant -he may quibble that this is not the subsequent session to which he referred-none the less this is a subsequent session and it is the first one since 1960. Because this is such an important matter, because it relates to the right of people in the nation to participate in electing members of parliament and governments, because of the reasons I expressed earlier, because this is so much an integral part of our maintenance of democracy I think this should be classified as the subsequent session to which the Prime Minister referred. While he and I may have differences of opinion about some things sometimes, on this one we are in complete accord. I think that after the bill has been given second reading-I do not think there is any doubt about its passage-it should properly be referred to the privileges and elections committee for adequate and detailed study.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, following the line of argument the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was developing there is one matter that occurred to me following my perusal of the committee report of last year. I was a member of that committee. Unfortunately I was unable to be present the day this particular matter was discussed in the committee. However one thought occurred to me while the hon. member for Skeena was referring to the remarks of the Prime Minister. The hon. member made reference to what particular subsequent session might be the most appropriate time to examine this question. With the census being taken this year and with information which, to say the least, would be most pertinent to any examination of this question, perhaps the hon. member might restrain his enthusiasm for this inquiry until we have more comprehensive and more up-to-date information.

Canada Elections Act
I recall that earlier in his remarks, when he was attempting to evaluate one aspect of this question, he made reference to the census and the fact that the results of that census would give us more complete and comprehensive information. I was interested both in reading the committee report last year and in the hon. member's discussion on the bill today.
One thing has always puzzled me, and perhaps the answer is available from some other hon. member who may be able to be of assistance in this regard. It has always been a source of mystery to me why the age of 21 came to be the age of legal responsibility. I can appreciate the relationship of the age of voting and the age of legal responsibility, but there seems to be a certain sanctity surrounding this particular age and I would be most interested if any hon. member could give me some assistance along this line.
The hon. member for Skeena referred to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I was interested to find during a recent trip to Queen's University that a former student of the hon. member for Port Arthur was apparently unaffected by the socialistic leanings which one might expect to find in that hon. member's teachings. This student turns out to be a most active, lively, enthusiastic Conservative on the campus of Queen's. As a matter of fact, he happens to be the president or leader of the Conservative group on that campus.


Mr. Peters:: It just shows the teacher was broadminded.


Frank Charles McGee: I have had occasion recently to examine at first hand some of the political activities in the various universities of Canada. Late last fall I had the great privilege of visiting St. Francis Xavier University, Dal-housie, the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton, and Mount Allison University in Sackville. Certainly, if one can judge from the calibre, intelligence and capacity, particularly of the Progressive Conservative student groups on these campuses, there is no question or doubt in my mind whatsoever that the reduced voting age should be applied to each and every one of these students.
I can think of several good examples where from every other point of view they are qualified with room to spare, even though some of them have not yet reached their eighteenth birthday. It is interesting to consider what one might find as a result of lowering the voting age to 18 years of age and the accompanying impact on student life, particularly if an election took place during the academic year.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I had nothing whatsoever to do with this, but shortly after my visit to Mount Allison University a movement was started which resulted in banning all political activity on that campus. As I say, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it had nothing to do with my visit; the incident which precipitated this action took place before I arrived.
However, it is of more than passing interest to find that on the occasion of a new Liberal government taking office in New Brunswick one of the first things to happen is that political speech is to some extent stifled within the boundaries of that province. However, that is perhaps stretching the point a little. Getting back to the point of the university itself, it has been argued, and it was argued during my time as a student at Carle-ton College, that extracurricula affairs and in particular extracurricula political affairs had a damaging effect on academic standards. Perhaps there is some merit in that. It would be interesting to hear from some of the faculty members and university administrators concerning this aspect of the question.
In developing his argument the hon. member for Skeena also suggested that education, and the fact that we have, obviously, better informed young people in our universities today, perhaps has another side to it. The most impressive argument in this whole question has to do with the relationship of responsibility and privileges, and the age-old cry from people all over the world concerning taxation and representation. It seems to me that there is an almost unanswerable case put forward by a young man who is married and who is earning a living and raising children. It seems to me that a person in that specific situation, having those qualifications, cannot be deprived of a vote without a measure of injustice being done. This is along the same lines as the case which the hon. member mentioned where we allow a young person to join the armed services where he would theoretically be exposed to the bullets of the enemy, and yet deprive him of his vote at the same time. I myself happen to have joined the air force at the age of 17J and, frankly, some of my most vivid recollections are that on different occasions and in different situations I was deprived of certain rights and privileges which were extended to fellow citizens of 21 years of age.
Actually in practice most of the restraints of this kind were not rigidly enforced during the war years in this country to any extent, but the point is, as I say, that there is a strong case for the young man who is married and having children. But it seems to me, though perhaps the census figures might

contradict this statement, that young persons particularly embarking on a university education do not take on the accompanying responsibilities until later in life, and the more specialized the various fields of education become, particularly as far as medicine and other faculties are concerned, the older, it seems to me, are our graduates from those institutions before they begin to earn money, pay taxes, get married and have children.
However, there are countertrends, I know, and particularly in recent years in the United States there is a growing number of young people who anticipate this problem. A great many of them marry while at university and a rather impressive number in high school as well.
So much for the points raised by the hon. member for Skeena. As far as knowledge and appreciation of the political facts of life are concerned, political activity at the various universities is at an astonishingly high level. As I mentioned, I have visited a number of universities in the maritimes, Queen's University, and more recently still the University of British Columbia, the branch of the University of Alberta in Calgary, the university itself in Edmonton, and the University of Saskatchewan at Saskatoon where a large number of young students turned out to hear a speech which I happened to be making.
I suspect, and said so at the time, that seeing a real live Tory from Toronto way out in Saskatchewan many were perhaps interested to see if I had any horns growing out of my head. I reassured them on that point, but the point I am making is that at the university there, and later on in Winnipeg, I found a very high level of knowledge, background and interest, and in any of the discussions which took place, either in political science classrooms or in meetings over the traditional cup of coffee, I found that the calibre and the degree of information would stand up against many hon. members in this house. As a matter of fact on a couple of occasions I was chased up a tree, so to speak, and I have had to do a little homework since returning to the house to provide the answers to the questions that were raised.
It is interesting, too, how this political interest can develop. In connection with Queen's University I had been looking forward for some time to the opportunity to visit the Joyceville institution and also the women's prison in that city. I mentioned those institutions to this young group of Conservative students and found that a substantial number both among the young men and the young women present in the group was most interested, concerned and stimulated by the activity in this field in recent years, and as a result of our visits to those institutions many
Canada Elections Act
of these young people have indicated a desire to follow this subject up further with discussion groups and guest speakers. The most encouraging thing of all, it seems to me, was the interest expressed in the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society.
On balance, as I say, I would certainly support this measure as it applies to the university students I have encountered in my own days at college and in more recent times. I notice that the hon. member who introduced the bill, the hon. member for Skeena, mentioned in the committee last year that he was not wedded to the idea of 18, that perhaps 19 would be an appropriate age. This is perhaps a matter purely of choice.
I examined this question and prepared a series of qualifications which perhaps it would be more desirable to follow if the voting age were to be lowered to 18; qualifications along the lines I have mentioned, such as being married or a breadwinner in a larger family or, at any rate, paying taxes in some form or other, but upon discussing this with several members and persons who have considerable experience in administrative aspects of government I find this would create more problems than it would solve.
Certain groups in our society which did not happen to be included would feel as some people felt concerning the advance poll before the committee on privileges and elections recommended amendments to the act concerning the question of voting at the advance poll. Hon. members will recall that this privilege was confined to fishermen, railway workers, and a few other select categories. When you make exceptions and establish certain categories you immediately create a situation wherein other groups feel they have an equal right and entitlement to this privilege and are being discriminated against if it is not granted to them. I think that trying to couple a reduction in the voting age with restrictions in qualifications would be, on balance, a fruitless pursuit.
Although I am in favour of the principle involved in this bill I feel it would be more prudent to follow the suggestion made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) during the last session and delay consideration of this question until we have the comprehensive, complete and up to date information which will be available when the census reports are published.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I fully support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

Canada Elections Act
The reasons which urged him to introduce this bill are substantially the same as those which urged me, last year, to introduce a similar bill. Besides, I have again entered the same bill on the order paper this year.
The previous speaker said it would perhaps be a good thing to wait until after the national census in order to have more information. I think this national census will indeed give us more information: it will tell us among other things, that there are so many thousand young men of age 18; it will tell us that there are so many thousand young men of age 19. But I doubt very much it will tell us whether those who are 18 or 19 years old are qualified to vote.
Obviously, that would have no effect whatever on this bill. I recall that last year, a few days after I introduced this bill, La Presse of Montreal, made a sort of survey entitled:
What do you think oi it?
The survey covered those who were directly concerned in having the right to vote at 18 years of age, that is to say students 18 years old, and I should like to mention briefly some of the impressions of those young people.
Among others, a young student said:
I would consider the right to vote at 18 as an absolutely sound move. A young man of that age has enough maturity of judgment to make up his mind on important issues of public interest... Sources of information are more numerous than formerly, easier of access and more efficient. The young man of today wants to affirm himself earlier than his forebears of a couple of generations ago.
And that same student added:
I think he should vote as soon as he reaches 18.
I shall now give you the impressions of another student:
For my part. I should like very much to be able to vote at 18. The young men of my age are able to take a useful interest in the social and economic policies of their country or province- Furthermore, in granting young people the right to vote at 18 years of age. they will be given an opportunity to feel they are of some concern to the government. When you trust someone, you automatically increase his self-confidence and his will to assert himself.
And the other two students who expressed their views in that same article of La Presse, said approximately the same thing as the other two I have just quoted.
I was reading in the newspaper Le Devoir for February 9, 1960:
Any group which does not have a solid core of youth is doomed.
I say that if you try to keep young people out of politics, you run the risk of having them sooner or later stay away from politics for good.

The previous speaker has spoken at length about over 18 year old citizens and dealt mostly with university students. He probably forgot to mention that we have in this country an important group of 18 year old citizens who are on their own, who earn their living and pay taxes.
I am in agreement with the member for Skeena when he says that television, radio and other media for the dissemination of ideas have made such progress in the last 25 years that it can be said that our young people are generally more advanced today than before.
Thus, we have reason to believe that the citizen who for all practical purposes has left his home, is emancipated, legally speaking. If he goes to university, he is then attending an institution of higher learning and does not live at home any more. If, on the other hand, as I was saying, he has begun earning his living from this very moment and in a certain way he is considered as being of full age before the law and certainly in the eyes of his parents. Indeed, should a person marry before reaching 21, the mere fact of his marriage makes him fully entitled to emancipation, according to section 314 of the civil code, that is to say that the law considers him to be of full age. Moreover, section 314 of the civil code grants minors who are working the right to institute proceedings on their own behalf for recovering damages. In addition, a minor who is in business is considered to be of age in respect of any business deeds.
It is apparent that there is a tendency to emancipate those under age because it has been found by the legislator that today a youth of 18, unless he be a student, is already looking after himself. Therefore, if by what he is earning, he is having his share of the country's gross national revenue, he then becomes a buyer of goods and consequently a taxpayer. From the very fact that he is paying taxes directly or indirectly it may be argued that the minor is actually interested in public administration.
As the previous speaker said, there is a common saying, often quoted by the English and which moreover was one of the arguments for the great charter of the 13th century: No taxation without representation.
Let us not forget too that a minor who owns a car or holds a driving licence is liable to get entangled in legal situations no less seriously than those who have the right to vote.
I think it might be fitting also to add an argument that may sound rather sympathetic but is true nevertheless. Whenever the country is attacked, youths of 18 are the first called to defend it.

However, if the age of voters were brought down from 21 to 18, it would be necessary for the provincial government, at least for the government of Quebec, to amend section 324 of the civil code and set the majority age at 18 instead of 21.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I support wholeheartedly the bill introduced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and I hope that in the not too distant future our 18 year old citizens will have the opportunity to take a greater interest in politics than they do at present and that they will be in a position, not only to serve political parties in their electoral campaigns but also to make their contribution to the administration of our country.
(Text):


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
1 suppose when this question is put to each one of us we already have an opinion and then must search around in our hearts and minds to determine what basis there is for the attitude we have. This is essentially a basic question.
As I listened to the contributions made by the previous speakers this afternoon I found my mind wavering back and forth. I first took the position that there should not be a lowering of the age limit from 21 to 18 but after listening to some of the arguments advanced I changed my mind slightly but again reverted to my original position. As I talk, perhaps I will change my mind again.
Based on the earnest remarks of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) it seems to me that one could make out an equally good case for the fact that the intellectual types he mentioned should not be accorded this specific privilege. I think there are two factors which must help us to determine voting ages or voting limits. One of these is the intellectual factor, the ability to study and comprehend public issues, and the other is the levelling of experience which puts some practicality in young men or young women. I do not think that factor should be taken lightly, Mr. Speaker.
There are gifted souls, very young ones and very old ones, who are able to grope intellectually and master problems, and yet there are also a large number of people-I wish I could phrase this much better than I am doing because I am doing it rather bluntly-who decide public issues from the rather practical standpoint, namely can the country afford to take this step, or would this be too costly to the taxpayers? Somewhere in between one reconciles these two points of view and, of course, that happens all the time.
We sit here in parliament. We have the eager visionary ready to dash in and cure any
Canada Elections Act
ill in the world with legislation and the massive spending of public money. Then, we have those who say, whoa, the remedy is not good enough. You will kill the taxpayer while you are doing it. I would think that this school of thought must have been in the minds of the legislators of Costa Rica and of Mexico when they reduced the voting age in their countries to 18 but applied certain strictures. For example, the people of Mexico who vote at the age of 18 must be married, and those from Costa Rica who vote at the age of 18 must be married men or teachers.
Without having the benefit of reading the debates of Mexico or of Costa Rica it seems to me that the legislators there had some serious thoughts on whether a person who had reached 18 was a fit and proper person to entrust with the most sacred privilege in a democracy, namely the right to vote. I think they came to the conclusion that somebody who had to go out and work for a living, scrape together the wherewithal to support a family was such a fit and proper person because he did have a certain amount of practical experience, knew something about handling budgets and all that sort of thing. I think that is an important thought to keep in mind and that is why I said, perhaps too bluntly, and perhaps I will get myself in trouble in the next university I go to and get run up a tree, as did the hon. member for York-Scarborough, that such a person who had intellectual gifts at 18 to weigh public issues may not have the practical experience to go along with them to justify the granting of the right to vote to him.
In the May 19 proceedings of the committee on privileges and elections, at page 323, is set forth the nine countries, states or provinces where they have the right to vote at the age of 18. I quote briefly from the record. The list includes two United States states, namely Georgia and Kentucky, one Canadian province, Saskatchewan; behind the iron curtain there is Bulgaria, although they might as well give them the vote from the cradle to the grave because it does not seem to make any difference in the turnout or the ratio at the polls. It is always 99 24/100 per cent for one party. I do not know how the other votes go. Most of the other countries are in North or South America, Venezuela, Mexico, Bolivia, Costa Rica and then the Union of South Africa. Therefore, by not adopting the measure this afternoon we will not exactly be turning our backs on a large and progressive step taken in a large number of countries. As I have indicated, only nine states have

Canada Elections Act
taken this step and two of them have applied certain strictures to the voting age of 18, namely Mexico and Costa Rica.
The hon. member who sponsored the bill also mentioned the matter of minority and majority, passing from the state of infancy to manhood or womanhood and said that it was purely a provincial matter. He fortified this view by some remarks made, I understand, by legal members of the committee on privileges and elections. I suppose this is a somewhat valid point except that it could cause confusion to split a person in two and say that legally he becomes of age when he is 21 but democratically he will become of age when he is 18. On balance I think it would be better to have either one or the other, that is, 18 for the legal and voting age or 21, but not both, because there is some pride in reaching manhood or womanhood and having a great measure of individual freedom. One of the great rights of freedom that we possess is that right to vote.
Then there is the question of the development of the human personality and the human body, the physical development and the physiological development. I suspect that 18 is too young an age to say that one has developed fully emotionally, mentally, physically or physiologically; perhaps 21 is too old, but I think 18 is too young.
If these thoughts still leave me in a quandary, Mr. Speaker, I would think that great care should be given to this measure. Whether we adopt it in principle or not, I still believe that the school of experience is an important one to evaluate and to take into account when we are considering the voting age of Canadians.


Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this resolution I would like to say that the country I come from is vastly different from this country. Out there you can pass a farm and see a young man on a tractor. Quite often he is 15 or probably 16 years old; he might be 14. He can run a combine. He can do things that a young fellow 40 years ago, or even 30 years ago would never dream of doing.
When I was a youngster I lived in Arthur Meighen's constituency. I can remember going to political meetings throughout the country. I used to be cheer leader. They did not think we were smart enough in those days to have anything to do with politics, but we could line up at the front. They were all joint meetings in those days. Mr. Meighen was one of the most powerful speakers a man ever listened to and when it came time for him to speak we would sing: "What's the matter with father? He's

all right. I used to be a Liberal strong but now I see I'm in the wrong. What's the matter with Meighen? He's all right."
That was the extent of our political persuasions in those days and naturally we took a great interest in politics. But now we have the Indians voting and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says that the young people should be able to vote. I come from the same kind of constituency that he does and I honestly believe that the young men and women should have the right to vote because a woman 18 years old is old enough to have a family and that is what counts. If the census had been made we could have learned a lot of things from it. I think that 18 is young but nevertheless I am in favour of the boy and girl of 18 having the right to vote. Perhaps we could reach a happy medium by setting the age at 19 or 19J.
Hon. members know what young people are like. Their ideas are vastly different from those of their elders and they are faster on the trigger. They want to get things done more quickly. About all I can say is that they should have the vote because the world is moving fast. Everything is on the go, on the jump. I hope the Conservatives will give the vote to the younger people because I am in favour of it and I am sure everybody else is.
(Translation):


Mr, Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to those who spoke either in favour or against extending voting rights to young people of 18. In my opinion, the right to vote is a sacred privilege that is used in this country after all due consideration by those who are periodically asked to elect new representatives every three, four or five years. Therefore, in the light of information they have obtained by listening to speakers at political rallies, after analysing the platforms of the parties, and often after discussing in private circles the platform of this or that party, they cast their votes according to the dictates of their conscience.
The mover of this bill showed a great interest in young people of 18 and asked us to grant them the right to vote.
I do not know whether a young person of 18 has enough maturity to use his vote in a way that is consistent with the general opinion. A party is often returned to power after a thorough analysis of the conduct of its leaders or because it has carried out its platform. The young people of today have to live in a modem era that, as was so rightly pointed out by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson), induces them to quicken the

pace of life. Therefore, I am wondering if we should not first of all give the young people in our high schools more schooling on the importance of the right to vote and its implications, particularly in view of the fact that a people always has the leaders it deserves. Before choosing those who will be responsible for running a country or a province, we must keep in mind that there are some responsibilities on the part of the voter, but think how much greater are the responsibilities of the politician who seeks a mandate from the people. In fact, during his term of office, he must quite often show endless devotion and courage. Well, today's youth do not show enough interest, unfortunately, in politics, because there may be a lack of information or education that prevents them from fully understanding the politician's role and duty.
Earlier, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) referred to the effects such a franchise could have on the civil code of the province of Quebec. Majority, which is reached at 21 years of age, gives to the individual, at that time only, the legal personality which entitles him to do something of legal value. Well, when the hon. member for Beauce referred to section 314 of the civil code of the province of Quebec, which deals with the enfranchisement of under-age people, I believe that he made his point too rapidly, because an enfrachised minor is still under the guardianship of his tutor. And enfranchisement by marriage does not involve the right of absolute majority in the province of Quebec. The right of majority, as recognized and enacted by the civil code of the province of Quebec, can only be obtained at the age of 21.
Why is it that our legislators considered that the right of majority can be obtained only at the age of 21? We may wonder whether experience has not justified such a policy on the part of our legislators who considered that before that age, normally, the individual has not reached full intellectual maturity.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is six o'clock.
(Text):
The hour for the consideration of private and public bills having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Balcer

Mr. Rea in the chair:
Canadian National Railways
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the C.N.R. Railway Company may construct a line of railway from a point at or near mile 72 of the Kiask falls subdivision to Mattagami lake, in the province of Quebec, and to authorize temporary loans to the company out of the consolidated revenue fund, not exceeding $9,660,000, to enable the work of construction and completion of the railway line to proceed forthwith; and to authorize the company to issue and the governor in council to guarantee securities to finance the expenditures upon the said line up to the said figure.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Mr. Martel:: Mr. Chairman, before the debate on the resolution dealing with the construction of a railroad to Mattagami lake was adjourned, I had pointed out my previous mention of that district, when the estimates of the department of mines were discussed at the session of 1958.
If I may be allowed a brief digression,
I	emphasized, in my first speech the existence of the Mattagami lake district, stating that it would become as important as the Pine Point area in the Northwest Territories.
Later on, I met some people of my constituency who pointed out that I was wrong in saying that the district would become as important as the Pine Point one. According to them, I should have said that the new sector would be more important than Pine Point.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution before us proves that they were right in being so optimistic, for its object is to authorize the building of the railroad thus giving a final character to the establishment of the district.
I might also stress the fact that on March
II	last, I called the attention of the minister of transport of the day to a statement which can be found on page 2063 of the French edition of Hansard for 1960.
I believe that this resolution, when it is enacted, will help remedy the present unemployment situation to a considerable degree because of the proposed railway construction work, and the fact that it will facilitate the setting up of numerous industries in that area.
Employment in Canada, Mr. Chairman, and more particularly in the northern district, is subject to seasonal ups and downs.
It is therefore normal that the number of unemployed should increase during the winter months.

Canadian National Railways
Consequently it would be essential to approve projects like this one which help open up new territories for our Canadian economy as well as prospects of a brighter future for Canada, especially for our young people.
The federal government, as everyone knows, enacted numerous pieces of legislation to curb unemployment and set the Canadian economy on the road to improvement. With the help of provincial and municipal authorities it will therefore be comparatively easy to create various temporary jobs, after those opened up by the winter works program. We expect business to pick up gradually. But this project will certainly contribute to increased employment. Because of its numerous possibilities, the proposal now before us will further help open up a good many territories, set up new industries and consequently increase employment.
In a general way, at various periods of our history, the mining industry has been subject to some fluctuations. It has had its good share of trouble. Yet, it has always managed to get out of trouble and take on new impetus. There are very extensive mineral deposits in the lake Mattagami area. As my colleague from the neighbouring riding pointed out in detail this afternoon, rather large deposits are to be found especially on the properties of the Mattagami Lake Mines, of the New Hoscoe Mines and the Orchan Mines. Up to now those three companies are the ones which have discovered the main deposits in the area.
Other companies too have made exploratory work and spent huge amounts of money for that purpose.
Other companies still might yet be successful, such as the Garon Lake Mines, east of Bell river.
All those companies, including the first three I mentioned and the Garon Lake Mines, have already found about one billion dollars worth of minerals in the area.
There are still other possibilities because many other mining companies have undertaken exploration work. I might even say that last fall a company made a new discovery some 30 miles west, according to the map I have here, southeast of lake Watson. This discovery which was mentioned during the debate this afternoon is likely to become rather important.
I think that the branch line that is being built right to the centre of this new mining district could be extended as far as Harri-canaw river, up to the Joutel township where this other discovery was made.
There are also other great possibilities of forest development in this vast area where large forests are still untouched.


There are also opportunities in the basin of the Allard river where new parishes may be established in a few years. In this territory, the land is highly suitable to agriculture and the climate is unusual, even a little better, I have been told, than in the southern part of Abitibi.
No doubt, because of the elevation in the neighbourhood of the Allard river in relation to sea level, the altitude is not as high as in the vicinity of La Sarre, Macamic, Amos or Senneterre.
Mention has been made also of the possibility of building a zinc refinery there, if possible, which would bring about an increase in population and the establishment of other secondary industries. Some neswpapers recently referred to the possible addition of a zinc refining unit at the Noranda mine, right in Noranda which is located in our area.
This would be better than nothing, of course, but the ideal solution for the future of the north and of this region especially would be the building of a local zinc refinery.
If a refinery were built, a city as large as Rouyn-Noranda could spring up in this vast territory of Abitibi.
There are still great possibilities to the north, as was pointed out this afternoon, and more especially along the Bell river and other rivers farther north, namely Bell river which becomes Nottaway river north of lake Mattagami, and also the East Main, Rupert and Broad Back rivers. In fact, they all have a vast potential for power production.
I am sure that this railway will be a first step toward the building of a line into James bay which should also be opened on the Quebec side. And that is the wish of the great majority, indeed of the entire population of northwestern Quebec.
I might also mention at this stage another kind of project which made headlines last year and this fall, and particularly since the opening of the new session, and I mean the Harricanaw waterway project. This project is still under study so to speak, but I think that before too long, it will command the special attention of the proper authorities, let alone the fact that it could easily be linked to the development of this vast territory, the success of which could be facilitated by the new railway, particularly if it were extended to James bay.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to deal briefly with a particular point which was raised in the house a while ago. I raise this question because this afternoon, I listened to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who rather seemed to favour this project. This is a change in relation to what another member of his group,

the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said in the house on May 23, 1958 as can be seen in Hansard for May 23, 1958.
The member for Timiskaming was then referring to the transfer of the Canadian National shops from Cochrane to Senneterre, due to the construction of the new branch line into Chibougamau. As a matter of fact, the new line to lake Mattagami would come under the new division in Senneterre. That is why I consider it advisable to mention the matter here, because there are in that text assertions which are altogether inaccurate and which must be corrected, in fairness, not only to the courageous population of Senneterre, but also to the entire population of Abitibi and to the proposed construction of the railway to Chibougamau.
Here is, in part, what he said on May 23, 1958, page 417 of Hansard:
For five years, the shop has serviced all the diesels and equipment operating in that division and the division in Quebec. It is now servicing 20 units a month and, with very little additional expenditure, those facilities could service 40 engines, more than are required in that area. To complete the modernization of the round-house would cost very little, but it is estimated it would cost about $1 million to build a new shop in Senneterre. This would represent $1 million more to be added to the loss which Canadian National is now incurring, in addition to these people being asked to move into a town which has no housing, nc suitable schools and no facilities in general for their reception. They are being asked to leave a place in which they have lived for many years, the reason given being that a new line has been built north into Chibougamau. I think anyone who has studied the financial papers during the last year will appreciate that if there is no change in the basic price for copper, that line will not be of much value to anybody. If copper prices fall much further, the tracks will be rusting before very long.
Mr. Chairman, I was anxious to challenge the unkind statement made about the town of Senneterre in my riding. Senneterre is directly connected to the new railway branch line toward lake Chibougamau and it will profit by it. This is a city which has prospered a great deal over the last years, and particularly since the war. A radar station was built there by the R.C.A.F. It is therefore untrue that the town lacks any of the required facilities, such as schools, streets, or sidewalks. Nothing is further from the truth, and I had to challenge such an incorrect statement.
I now wish to say a few words about another point, which in this case was raised this afternoon. I refer to the construction of a paper mill at Mattagami lake.
90205-6-129
Canadian National Railways
It has been stated in this house that the building of such a mill had been prevented by Mr. Duplessis. I have here the 1959 report of the committee on mines, forests and waters and I can show that such was not the case.
During a sitting of the committee, on May 19, 1959, while evidence was being given by Mr. M. Ambridge, president of the Abitibi Power and Paper Company, I asked Mr. Ambridge a question pertaining directly to the building of that mill. Mr. Ambridge, having said that he had been contacted about it, added the following which I quote from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on mines, forests and waters, No. 23 dated May 19, 1959:
I would say yes, in certain cases. I have in mind one in particular, in the province of Quebec. I cannot recall the name of the lake.
I thereupon suggested the name Mattagami and he said: Exactly, that is the area because the site proposed for the mill was too far away from transportation and no means of communication were then available. However, this problem will no longer exist after the construction of this branch line.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to straighten that out and if hon. members are interested in the report, I gave the date and they can easily refer to it. They will find that the directors of those companies could see no advantages then in building a mill at that place, not because there were no forest resources available-the contrary has been very well shown this afternoon-but because the place was too far away from transportation and because the climate precluded any quick growth of the forest. That was, in fact, Mr. Ambridge's statement before the committee.
Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat, I want to pay tribute to the gigantic work performed by the pioneers in these vast territories. As a matter of fact, this area is more or less making its first appearance on the map and is just beginning to be spoken of. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that such a result is not the work of one man or of one government only. It is rather the work of a group of bold and clever men who settled in Abitibi, prospectors, engineers, mining promoters, professionals, forest workers, businessmen, farmers, and workers in all trades who made the development of our region possible.
It is to these pioneers that credit should be given for developing and expanding this

Canadian National Railways part of the Abitibi. Not only should they be congratulated for it, but tribute should be paid to them, because there is still so much land yet to be developed, from the inhabited portion of Abitibi up to the James bay area. The possibilities of the area are outstanding and we are just beginning to be aware of them.
Thanks to the new railway, the first step will have been taken and the development of these lands will be continued up to James bay. Our region will then experience a great revival that will profit not only the region itself but also the daring youth of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, it must be recognized that our young men and women have shown that they are capable of initiative.
I am just back from a visit to the mining cities of Chibougamau and Chapais in the northern part of my riding. Ten years ago these towns were non-existent. I am sure that following the construction of this branch line, numerous mining cities will be established, where our youth will turn to account their skills and contribute to the development not only of this region but of the province of Quebec and of the whole of Canada.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, like every other member, I rise tonight to commend this government for the excellent plan provided by the resolution under discussion.
I think it is an eloquent refutation of the claims made by the opposition that the Conservative government is doing nothing.
This government realizes the importance of the northern development and is proving it by undertaking the construction of a railway as important as the one provided for in this resolution, that is from a point close to mile 72 to lake Mattagami.
Even if the Liberal party, through the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) still wants to suggest to the people that this project is a result of the Liberal administration, the fact remains that the project is being carried out under a Conservative government and I predict right now that it will also be operated under a Conservative administration.
Whenever he refers to some achievement of the present government, the hon. member always attempts-and this is possibly a peculiar quirk on the part of members of


the opposition-to belittle accomplishments by saying-


Mr. Bourgei:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have no objection to letting the hon. member for Charlevoix carry on in that vein, but if he is allowed to play politics or to raise political matters or to digress from the subject matter, I should hope that we will be granted the same privilege.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I would like to point out to the house that this afternoon, the former member for Stormont, that is the present member for Laurier, was granted all the latitude required to deal with the subject matter of the resolution introduced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer). He then had the opportunity of examining various aspects of the whole railway policy and I would like to see the hon. member for Charlevoix get the same opportunity.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, again
on this point of order, I cannot permit the hon. member who has just taken his seat to give his own peculiar version of what took place this afternoon.
This afternoon's debate was confined to the resolution under discussion and to nothing else.
If I dealt with other matters, it was only in reply to interruptions by the hon. member for Roberval and other Conservative back benchers.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to make a few remarks on that point of order.
I want to point out to the hon. member for Laurier that he read verbatim from a speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and from speeches by some other ministers, and what he tried to establish in this house was that the Prime Minister's statements on the government's railway policy were not accurate, and that the figures quoted were likewise inaccurate.
I believe that he wandered away from the subject far more than the hon. member for Charlevoix is doing at this moment, because the latter is precisely talking about railways, and he has only started his remarks.
I would think that the hon. member for Charlevoix is not the least bit out of order when he points out to the house the fact that this government is doing its share in the development of railways in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I did
not object to what the hon. member for Charlevoix has said, at least up to this moment, and I have no intention of doing so. However, I wanted to make this point, so that the hon. member who has just taken his seat could not later on claim that I did not stick to the matter at hand. If I did not, it was because of the interruptions of Conservative back benchers.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: You lost your temper.


Jacques Flynn: Order. 1 was not in the
chair when the hon. member for Laurier spoke this afternoon. However, from what I have heard of the discussion, it seems to me that hon. members covered quite a lot of ground and the hon. member for Levis will admit that it is difficult, without considerably restraining freedom of speech, to keep hon. members from talking politics or raising political matters in this house.
I must say that up to now at least it seemed that the hon. member for Charlevoix was attempting to refute the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Laurier. So far, I cannot see that he has gone beyond the scope of the measure.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I made that remark only to have an opportunity to reply to the hon. member for Charlevoix. I have no objection, if the hon. member wishes to get into that, I will be pleased to hear him.


Jacques Flynn: In any case, I would suggest that we settle problems as they arise.


Martial Asselin: I wish to thank the member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) for allowing me to continue my remarks with the consent of the house. I really believe that we on this side of the house, will give members of the opposition every opportunity to reply to our remarks. But when the members of the opposition indulge in petty politics, we should also be given an opportunity to reply.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I was saying that when the member for Laurier discusses an achievement of this government, he always tries to belittle the work of the government by saying that consideration of the proposal was started under the former administration. In my opinion, if there was a member of the opposition who at the time reminded the Liberal administration of its responsibilities in relation to the construction of a railway line, that member was the then member for 90205-6-129J
Canadian National Railways Three Rivers who is now Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer). He never passed up an opportunity to demand that the Liberal government of the day build a branch line that would in due course bring about the development of northern Quebec. If the Liberal government had then met its responsibilities in the field of railway construction, the mining companies might have undertaken the development of that area 20 years earlier.
The hon. member for Laurier's assertion that the Mattagami branch line was not planned by the former government because geological surveys had not been completed makes no sense. The government should not wait until mining development has reached the half-way mark before taking action and contributing to its expansion. That is why the present administration, and I would also add, the member for Chapleau (Mr. Martel), deserve the highest praise for bringing about the construction of the Mattagami branch line.
While we are discussing railroad building, I would like to tell the Minister of Transport that I think urgent consideration should be given to building, in the near future, a railway linking the north shore and La Mal-baie. I think there is not one hon. member of this house who is unaware of the huge development of our natural resources in northern Quebec.
The 1957 mining production reached $120 million, or 23.5 per cent of the total production of the province of Quebec, which amounted to $465 million.
By 1970, it is foreseen that 53 million tons of ore will be shipped from the north shore. Since 1952, the tonnage shipped has increased sixteenfold, topping 14 million tons in 1956.
Turning to hydraulic resources, they now represent 110 million horsepower, but this total could be increased by more than 4 million horsepower if the potential power of the Hamilton falls, Labrador, were put to use on the north shore. It is also believed that by 1970, more than 5 million horsepowers will be available following the development of the Bersimis and Manicouagan rivers.
I mentioned in 1958 that the industrial mining value amounted to $225,000,000 for the year 1957, and indications are that it will reach the $500,000,000 mark in 1970. All those developments on the north shore have induced industrialists to invest capital which will be

Canadian National Railways of the order of hundreds of millions additional dollars in 1970.
However, transportation facilities for this iron ore from the Quebec northlands is completely inadequate. We have had evidence, this winter, that water-borne shipping was difficult and in several instances almost impossible.
Mr. Chairman, the north shore population was 62,000 in 1957, and is expected to be over
100,000	by 1970.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: May I ask the hon. member for Charlevoix to address himself more closely to the business at hand.


Martial Asselin: I am coming back to it, but
first, may I express the hope that the wishes of the Minister of Transport will come true and that he will do likewise for the northern districts and the Charlevoix area. I would ask him to set up a committee of consulting engineers who would consider the possibility of building such a railroad.
I hope the construction of the Mattagami railroad is the first step in a broad program of railroad development. While the member for Laurier states that the former Liberal government made a contribution in this field, the fact remains that the Liberal government left various economic areas in Quebec undeveloped. In my view, Liberal policy in this respect was lackadaisical and shortsighted, in relation to what was done in other provinces.
The hon. member for Laurier, in summing up the record of the former Liberal government this afternoon, made a great show of the fact that his government built 700 miles of railroad in the province of Quebec. What a record, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I did not say that. I stated that when we were in office we built 685 miles of railroad throughout Canada.


Martial Asselin: That is even worse, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Laurier has corrected me and said that his government built 695 miles of railroad throughout Canada. If you divide it by 22 years, it is only 31.6 miles of railroad per year, whereas the Conservative government built 60 miles in a single year.
rMr. Asselin.]


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. What I said just now was in reply to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), who stated that for 50 years no railway lines had been built in Canada. It was to prove the minister's ignorance.


Martial Asselin: Following the correction made by the hon. member for Laurier, I just want to establish that the Liberal government did not do much when it was in power.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, the Mattagami railway is, I hope, only a start in a vast railway program, which will promote the expansion and development of those Canadian districts which are far from the large business centres.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier today, with this bad cold I did not intend to take part in this discussion. However, having heard the hon. member for Charlevoix accuse the Liberal party of doing nothing, I just remembered that during-*


Martial Asselin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I never said that the Liberal party had done nothing, I said it had not done enough, which is different.


Maurice Bourget: That is more or less the same thing, Mr. Chairman. I am no lawyer, just a plain engineer, and I thought the kind of argument the hon. member brought up a few moments ago was rather strange when he stated that the Liberal administration had only built 685 miles of railroad in 22 years. I do not know whether such arguments are used in the law courts, but I think no sensible man should resort to them because the minister now suggests for the first time-


Martial Asselin: I never said that.


Maurice Bourget: I did not interrupt you a moment ago-


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Maurice Bourget: I did not interrupt the hon. member just now. I think that sort of argument is not valid, because it is the first time that the minister and the Conservative party have suggested the construction of a branch line.
Moreover, if that line can be built today, it is because the Liberal party thought of building a railway from Barraute to St. Felicien, in Roberval county. And if the Liberal party had not thought of building

that railway, it would today be impossible for the Minister of Transport to suggest constructing a branch line from Kiask falls to Mattagami.
The hon. member for Charlevoix blamed us a few moments ago for not having done anything. Well, our hon. friends have now been three and a half years in office and I have here, Mr. Chairman, a statement made in Matane by the predecessor of the Minister of Transport, during the 1958 electoral campaign, as reported in Le Soleil for March 18, 1958. Here is what the former minister of transport, who is now Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) stated when addressing constituents of Matane:
Today, it is your responsibility to vote for yourself by voting Conservative, because you know that the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, has pledged to spend $1,185,000,000 in 1958 to develop our natural resources throughout Canada. Now, projects connected with the port of Matane and your railway are part of the program-
And the federal minister added: I know right now that you will vote to obtain those projects just as we, on our part, will be happy to award them to you as soon as we are returned to power on March 31 next.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. In my opinion, despite the phonetic similarity between the word Mattagami and the word Matane, there is no similarity whatsoever between what the hon. member discusses now and the subject matter now before the house.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, it is for a specific reason that I am making these observations. The reason I rose was because the hon. member for Charlevoix spoke, because I did not intend to participate in this debate since the situation had been intelligently explained by the members of our party. The hon. member for Charlevoix had the right to speak just as I have the same right. The same measure of justice must be applied to the hon. members of the opposition and to the government members.


Mr. Pigeon:: You have a wrong concept of justice.


Maurice Bourget: You are not the one to teach me what justice is.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Nor shall we learn it from you or the hon. member for Laurier.


Jacques Flynn: I think it is normal that hon. members be allowed to answer arguments put forward by members from either
Canadian National Railways side provided it is not overdone. I am sure that the hon. member for Levis will not overdo it and that he will not go any further than necessary to support his arguments.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, you know as I do that I did not overdo it. If there was any exaggeration, it was on the part of the previous minister of transport (Mr. Hees) when he made that promise to the voters of Matane before the last elections. And I quote further:
And the federal minister added: X know right now that you will vote to obtain those projects just as we on our part will be happy to award them to you as soon as we are returned to power March 31 next.
That is to be noted, because it is of particular interest for the new Minister of Transport. Therefore I would urge him when he gives his instructions concerning those works in the harbour and the railway-
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English) is now at his place and every session-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Bourget: If you would only listen to me for a little while-I kept quiet when you spoke-listen to me because I do not make a habit of interrupting you.
I was saying, Mr. Chairman, after realizing that the hon. member for Gaspe is now at his place, that I remember hearing him on several occasions urge his government and his party to build that railway which had been promised. In fact, that promise was made during the electoral campaign and God knows with what eloquence. I was not there when the Minister of Transport spoke-


Mr. English:: Is is not true that the railway between Matane and St. Anne des Monts was promised for twenty-two years by the Liberal party which never built it? The Conservative party will certainly be the one to build that railway.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, it is always easy, as you know, to say that the Liberal party made promises. But I challenge the hon. member for Gaspe-he is now in his seat -to quote a newspaper article in which the former member for Gaspe, the Liberal party, the former minister of transport or his successor are said to have promised to build the railway between Matane and St. Anne des Monts. I challenge him to do so.


Roland Léo English: You were not in Gaspe at the time of the election.

Canadian National Railways


Maurice Bourget: No, I was not there at the time.


Jacques Flynn: I think the hon. member for Levis will admit that it is about time we should get back to lake Mattagami.


Maurice Bourget: Lake Mattagami is a bit far from Ottawa but I have no objection to coming back to it. However, the hon. member for Gaspe asked me a question, and I challenge him to quote a word to the effect that the former member for Gaspe, or the government, or the former minister of transport have promised to build that railway there, as the present Minister of Transport promised in 1958.


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, it is so true that this railway was promised for 22 years and the voters in the Gaspe constituency got so sick and tired of it they ousted the government in 1957.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, after 22 years it is perhaps reasonable that people should consider a change of government; but I can tell the hon. member for Gaspe that the people of his constituency will also change their member at the next election.
Those are the remarks which I wanted to make. Perhaps the minister could give us some explanation on that matter.
I put the question to him the other day concerning the purchase of the Canada Gulf and Terminal Railway. I put the question to him on February 2, but as yet I have received no answer. Perhaps he could take this opportunity to answer my question.
In fact, I believe he has to go to Matane. I do not know whether he will make the same promise as did the former minister of transport. He would be well advised to elaborate on that rather than make all kinds of statements, as his colleagues have been doing for the last few weeks. He should tell us exactly what he intends to do and stop blaming the former government for having done nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I know I am against the rules, but no more so than the previous speakers. In fact, we all strayed a little from the matter under study.
Those are the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman. I apologize if I have been against the rules. And I hope the min-


ister will tell us, before going to Matane, what he intends to do to develop that area and particularly if he intends to build the railway between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I just
heard the hon. member for Levis apologizing for being out of order. I do not think he should make any excuses. In fact, since he is usually rather dull, the irrelevant remarks which he just made formed the best part of his speech. There was a certain liveliness on his part, which is to his credit. I wish he would show the same vitality in his future speeches.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief contribution to this debate since my constituency is directly linked with this region which will benefit by the measure introduced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer).
I should like to tell the minister that the introductory speech he made this afternoon will certainly not deserve to be described as an anti-Quebec speech like the one made by the previous hon. member for Stormont on May 19, 1954, when he dealt with the question of the St. Felicien-Chibou-gamau railway.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Transport, on behalf of the voters of my constituency, who, I am sure, will benefit by the construction of a railway which will supplement the one that already exists and will benefit the whole Chicoutimi and Lake St. John region.
Mr. Chairman, the bill introduced by the Minister of Transport is progressive. As a matter of fact, it is a progressive measure because it comes in due time and because the Conservative government did not wait to the very end to give an industrial region the facilities it needs for its development. We, of the Chicoutimi, Lake St. John and Chi-bougamau region, know from experience what administrative delays, and I dare say, the former government's lack of interest did cost us not so long ago.
Our region is particularly rich in mining resources. During the last 15 years, the government of the province of Quebec has made superhuman efforts to enable this region to develop its mining resources.
To that end, we needed communication facilities, especially railroad lines, because

the region, being distant from the great centres, had to be connected with them by communication facilities, by adequate transportation facilities. We had to wait-and I refer more particularly here to the mining region of Chibougamau-for years before the Liberal government decided to build the railway we needed to carry the Chibougamau mining wealth to the Chicoutimi and Lake St. John region, as well as to the province of Ontario.
After having decided to give us that railway, the Liberal government haggled for months and wanted to deprive us of the benefits that would have meant for us the speedy construction of a railway, by deciding to build first the section that was to connect Chibougamau to Beattyville, and therefore, to the province of Ontario.
It had been decided to build the Chibou-gamau-St. Felicien line after the other one, and it is only after public organizations and various representative associations of our area and economic groups had brought pressure to bear that the government decided to change its way and agreed to build, or at least said it was to build both lines simultaneously from Chibougamau to Beattyville and from Chibougamau to St. Felicien.
In spite of the assurance that was given to us, we, of the Chibougamau and Lake St. John region, had to wait for more than three years for the completion of the Chibouga-mau-St. Felicien line.
That is why I was surprised this afternoon to hear the hon. former member for Stormont criticize the Conservative government-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think, that you should once and for all-


Mr. Valade:: Are you rising on a point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I rise on a point of order.
I say that we must not designate a member or the representative of a constituency by his former constituency. In fact, according to the rules of this house, the hon. member must refer to the member for Laurier and not to the former member for Stormont.
So I would ask you, Mr. Chairman to enforce the rules in this matter.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is exactly what you are saying.
Canadian National Railways


Jacques Flynn: Order. I believe the rules of this house state that a member has to be designated by the name of his present constituency, and not by that of his former constituency.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I am quite willing to designate the hon. member for Laurier by his adopted constituency, but I was simply trying to use this expression to awaken in the always warm heart of the hon. member for Laurier that fondness that no doubt he still has-at least, I hope so-for his former electors of Stormont.
But, Mr. Chairman, that is not the subject matter of my speech. I was saying that our region, because of the delay caused by the then Liberal government in the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway, has been deprived of economic advantages, of which all public organizations have noticed the unfortunate effects.
This is the reason why the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier, as we say, did not make much of an impression on me this afternoon.
I found, Mr. Chairman, that his indignation at the Conservative party's attitude was certainly not inspired by a true knowledge of the actual facts and, in particular, by a precise knowledge of past events; he used a quite valid argument in favour of the Matta-gami railway, that is, the Mattagami region is a marvellous industrial region and one of the most promising of our province.
I quite agree with that, Mr. Chairman. But if this argument is valid in 1961, I wonder why it was not so in 1954 and 1955, when we discussed the very great mining potential and the tremendous resources of Chibougamau.
The argument he put forward this afternoon was precisely the one used in this house in 1954 by the former member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), when he called for the immediate construction of the railway between Chibougamau and St. Felicien.
We are then led to believe that the phrase "promising area" has changed its meaning since the hon. member for Laurier has changed his place in this house.
In the debate during which the speech of the hon. member for Laurier was described as anti-Quebec, reference was made-


An hon. Member:: Mr. Chairman-

Canadian National Railways


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Reference was made, with supporting figures, to the mining potential of the Chibougamau area. To that, the hon. member for Laurier replied, in order to justify his government's intention to build first of all the Chibougamau-Beattyville line, that the other link was not then considered a paying proposition. It was a case of determining an industrial potential which later proved very important.
Today, the hon. member for Laurier is using the same argument to tell us that the Conservative government is doing the proper thing in providing the Mattagami area with all possible advantages, in building a railway.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish he had been as generous to the electors of our area when he decided that the Chibougamau railway should be built.
That is why I feel that the Liberals are ill-advised today to reproach anything to the Conservative party in the field of railways, precisely because the Conservative party is now proposing a measure all the more efficient because it is timely and that the operators of the Mattagami area will not have to wait as long as we did, at their own expense. Besides, economists are of the opinion that the recession which has affected the operations of the Chibougamau area was partly due to the delay in the construction of that railway.
In 1958, during the election campaign, I heard people detached from all political parties discuss the matter and use the arguments I have just put forward.
We, from the lake St. John and Chicoutimi area, are perfectly aware of the result of the Liberal government's carelessness.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) referred to the promises made by the Conservative party, and quoted the speech made by an hon. minister in this house.
How many times shall we have to repeat to the Liberal party that it has deluded the people. I come from an area where Liberal promises were made. We were promised, year after year, that the Chicoutimi-Quebec railway would be rebuilt.


Maurice Bourget: What are you doing now?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: We were promised, year after year, that this railway line would be rebuilt. We made that request at a time when, the project was considered self-sustaining, that is to say during the best years of that artificial prosperity of which the Liberals

benefited, that is during the war and immediately after the war. We then asked the Liberal party to rebuild the Chibougamau-Quebec railway, at a time when the project was self-sustaining.


Maurice Bourget: Would the hon. member permit a question? You have been in office three and a half years-


Some hon. Members:: That same tune again.


Maurice Bourget: As far as you are concerned, you always have to retract, and you know it. Then, please shut up. You know that the Hon. Gerald Martineau has already told you to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a question to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay): You have now been in office three and a half years; have you made any changes in the Quebec-Chicoutimi line? Have you changed anything at all?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is not after a few years in office that we can repair 22 years of inactivity.


Maurice Bourget: Naturally, you cannot even correct the mistakes you have made since you are in office.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that the hon. member for Levis put that question to me. It will allow me to say that, since we took over, through pressures from our colleagues and the co-operation of the members of the Conservative government, we have obtained a marked improvement of the railway service on the Quebec-Chicoutimi route.
Ask the experts, look at the timetables, look into the freight problems on the Chicoutimi-Quebec line and you will realize the marked improvements the Conservative government has carried out in that field. However, it is right to say, as did one of my colleagues, that we cannot repair in three and a half years 20 years of neglect and maladministration.


Maurice Bourget: Is that what you undertook to accomplish?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, let me tell the hon. member for Levis that no member of the Conservative government came over into my riding, in 1957 or in 1958, to make promises. We promised the people that we would improve the condition of the Chicoutimi-Quebec railway, and that is what we have done. You could not find a single regular passenger, or any commercial traveller using that railway, who would not admit there has been improvement.

I am sure that in the future, the Minister of Transport, who looked into our problems, -the problems referred to him by my constituents in Chicoutimi and Lake St. John -will carry on the work undertaken by this government so that, as I said, we in the Chicoutimi and Lake St. John area will enjoy the share that was denied us by the Liberal party.
I am not afraid to say so in this house, because all the economic groups in our area, and all the organizations too, have for years deplored the Liberal government's lack of action in the matter of our railways.
That is why the sentimental rantings of the hon. member for Laurier leave me cold. He used the same stlye in 1954 when turning down our requests. I have here a statement which proves his knowledge of constitutional problems. Here is what he said, and I quote page 4890 of Hansard for May 19, 1954:
My hon. friend is very much interested in the development of his own district; may I tell him this: it will cost $17 million to build the eastern section, that is the section from St. Felicien to Chibougamau.
Now, if the government of the province of Quebec wants to pay half the cost of that project, that is to say $81 million, I pledge to ask the Canadian National to spend the other half, which is $8,500,000. We shall see now who is sincere.
A haggling policy, Mr. Chairman, on an absolutely vital matter, on a question which is quite essential for our area. The hon. member for Laurier was haggling when he said to the government of the province of Quebec: "Co-operate with us, give us $8 million and we shall supply the rest to build that railway", which you need.
Yet, at that time, the government of Quebec had done its share, because it had built the highway and approaches to St. Felicien at Chibougamau to facilitate the development of our natural resources. We needed a railway. It was the federal government's responsibility. But all the federal government did was to suggest a petty bargain.
The present government's attitude is quite different. There is no haggling in that.
And what does the Minister of Transport do today? He suggests a positive legislation which will have the best effect for our area and which, as I say, is only efficient because it comes at the right time, and I am well placed to know what untimely legislation costs.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks I would like to deal, I would not say with a point, but with an angle- 90205-6-130
Canadian National Railways
An hon. Mmeber: A comma.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: -an emotional angle in the speech of the hon. member for Laurier-


An hon. Member:: Do swallow that angle.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: -of the hon. member for Laurier, who made a great fuss in this house when speaking of the achievements of the pioneers in the Mattagami area, for which I would, indeed, commend him. He very briefly mentioned the problem of building a railway at Port Cartier, at Gagnon, but he was very careful not to mention the name of, nor describe the man who did not try to hand over his responsibilities to others when it was a question of developing new Quebec. I am thinking of a great Canadian, of the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, who turned his province into one of our most important industrial areas.


Mr. Meunier:: He is dead now, leave it at that.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: The hon. Mr. Duplessis made up for years of previous neglect; he wanted his province to take its rightful place in the industrial field.


An hon. Member:: With "Jerry" Martineau.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, allow me to express my scorn at the untimely, cheap and narrow-minded remarks made by the primates on this side of the house; and if they do not like that term, I could use the word prognathous, which has about the same meaning.
Those gentlemen are concerned with commas and semicolons. They should look more often at the dictionary; they would find words and adjectives that need no period, comma or semicolon.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to scorn those cheap remarks that are just an expression of spite, such as I heard in certain speeches this afternoon. Some hon. members feel spiteful because the Conservative government is taking, for an area in the province of Quebec, action that had not been taken for our particular region of Chicoutimi and Lake St. John, or that was unfortunately taken too late to be as effective as we would have hoped.
I am sure that the people of my constituency, as well as those of the neighbouring constituencies of Chicoutimi, Lake St. John and Lapointe, will benefit to the same extent as the people of Chapleau from the railway the Conservative government has just decided to build.

Canadian National Railways


An hon. Member:: It is not decided yet.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I am sure of one thing, though; this government's bill will not deserve, I repeat, to be called an anti-Quebec measure, as did the speech made by the former hon. member for Stormont on May 19, 1954.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I had not the least intention of taking part in this debate, but I rise for a minute or two just to show to the house that the member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), just as a young dandy, has just taken a few minutes of the house to deal in his sanctimonious voice not with the Mat-tagami railway, but with the hon. member for Laurier.
Well, Mr. Chairman, as he usually does, our learned Geronte's abomasum has ruminated over silly allopathic arguments.
Mr. Chairman, if our learned colleague from Roberval does not fear to get the boot somewhere some day-


An hon. Member:: Please, talk French.


Yvon Dupuis: -he is quite unrealistic.
Of course, in order to be understood by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), I would have to talk slang, but I intend to talk good French.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier spoke objectively this afternoon on the resolution now before us. He supports the motion on which we are asked to vote.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) made a very serious speech. So did the hon. member for Chapleau, and I commend them.
But we have just heard the hon. member for Roberval, who has again tried to startle the House of Commons with expressions borrowed from some retired professor.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at length-


Louis Fortin: You have already spoken too long.


Yvon Dupuis: -but I wish to tell this house that when he was minister of transport, the hon. member for Laurier was the most diligent, active and competent minister ever known in this House of Commons.
Mr. Chairman, it might be appropriate to ask the hon. member for Roberval to stop playing-


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I feel that you allowed enough leeway to the hon. member for Laurier and myself to deal with the resolution. However, so far the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville-


An hon. Member:: He is off the track.


Martial Asselin: -did not address himself at all to the subject matter. He is out of order and I feel that he should immediately revert to the question of the Mattagami lake railway.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, if there is an hon. member who should never raise a point of order, it is the hon. member for Charlevoix, who was completely beside the subject matter of the debate a little while ago. Anyway, I only have a few seconds to go.
I know that it hurts them-


Louis Fortin: We are not hurt, we are ashamed of you.


Yvon Dupuis: -but I simply wish to remind this house that the hon. member for Laurier did so much work in that field that now the Conservative party can only carry on the work undertaken by the Liberal party, which we will resume in any event when we come back to power again in a year or two.
If the hon. member for Roberval has seen fit to remind us that the great Mr. Duplessis developed the mines, I feel that it was a little inaccurate and out of order. In answer, I shall tell him that if one ever prevented the Quebec people from taking advantage of the development of those natural resources, Mr. Maurice Duplessis was the very one to do it. And if I had been an ordinary supporter of a party which allowed our natural resources to be handed out to the Americans in exchange for a mess of pottage for a period of 50 years, I would not come back here tonight and make such statements in this House of Commons.
It would be a good thing to ask-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I wonder whether it would not be possible to come back to Abitibi, and talk a little about the construction of that railway and of the Mattagami mine. The debate would perhaps be more interesting.


Jacques Flynn: It is my clear impression that all railways brought us back to Mattagami lake, and I imagine that the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville will also manage to find his way.


Louis Fortin: 
Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Roberval had kindly abandoned his amphigoric role, I would have been delighted to stick to the discussion. But I simply wanted to point out that, once again, he was beside the point. We want to support the project, and we are delighted to do so, but we fail to see how the hon. member for Roberval could take the floor, not to talk about the Mattagami lake railway but, to attack the hon. member for Laurier, whom he and his colleagues constantly attack, because he overshadows them, not only in Quebec, but in the whole of Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Chairman, it is unusual for a member from the Atlantic provinces to attempt to participate in such a debate. However, having a great interest in railway problems and particularly problems concerning the C.N.R., I feel it is proper for me to add a few words at this time.
In opening my remarks I wish to first of all congratulate the hon. member for Chapleau for his wonderful contribution to this debate. The hon. member in question is a resident of this area under discussion and has done much for the development of this part of the province of Quebec.
We have had many outstanding speeches on this resolution, particularly the speech of the hon. member for Roberval, which covered very well the background of the railway problem in this area.
Earlier today the hon. member for Laurier emphasized that the previous Liberal government authorized the C.N.R. to construct a total of 681 miles of railway lines during its term of office. The railway lines in question, together with their mileages, were itemized by the hon. member. I think it is appropriate for me at this time, as a member representing a railway riding, a riding dependent on the economy of the C.N.R., to state that in my opinion it is unfortunate that the list was so short not only in names but in miles. Mathematically it adds up to about 30 miles per year during their 22 years of office.
This short mileage is all that was constructed, notwithstanding the fact that the former government was in power during a period of war for five years, a period of depression of an equal length of time, and lastly during a period of prosperity unequalled in Canadian history, a period of boom when the government witnessed huge surpluses year after year.
90205-6-130J
Canadian National Railways
The hon. member for Laurier emphasized that at times development in connection with railway construction in Quebec might not have kept pace with the development in the rest of Canada. He inferred that perhaps development in the area under discussion under the terms of this resolution was held back because of the wishes of the then premier of the province, the late Mr. Duples-sis. 1 do not know whether that is a fact or not, but as a former minister of the crown the hon. member for Laurier is perhaps more qualified than I am to make statements of that type. But I suggest that no government Liberal or Conservative should ever admit that a provincial premier since confederation, had enough influence on the federal government, because of fear or out of respect for a provincial premier, to fail to do anything which might have the adverse effect of holding up the development of any region of this country.
During a period of 22 years, as stated already today, the C.N.R. built a series of extensions or new mileage totalling 680 miles. A short line was built in New Brunswick known as the Bartibog extension. Whether that was a wise move economically remains to be seen, but that railway line was built under the regime of the former Liberal government at a time when we had a government in New Brunswick of a different political belief. It was fully supported by the federal government and the provincial government. Time will tell whether or not it was a good investment for the C.N.R.
I urge that the management of the C.N.R. should co-operate to the fullest extent with the provincial governments of this country and with the suggestions of business. I am confident that both provincial governments and business will now receive the kind of co-operation from the federal government to which they are entitled. The board of directors and the management of the railway should in connection with this particular project use their own forces where possible during construction. I realize that tenders must be called, but where possible C.N.R. employees should be employed. I also suggest that the management should instruct contractors to give priority to the employment of laid-off and former C.N.R. workers. I hope the Minister of Transport will be able to introduce this bill at the first opportunity and that it will receive a speedy passage through the committee stage.
In my opinion new railway lines must be developed in this country with speed. I suggest that a minimum of 100 miles a year would be a very conservative target for the C.N.R. and for the present government. This would make it possible to make up for the

Canadian National Railways lack of development which we have witnessed since the middle thirties. Apparently it was government policy when times were good, and during the war and post-war years, for the former government to do all it could by an unwritten policy to retard and hold up railway development in this country.
It appears from the debate that a smelter may be constructed somewhere in the St. Lawrence area. I believe that is the reason why the companies which have guaranteed a return to the railway have requested the extension of this line. This extension is justified. From what I understand, it is fully guaranteed from an economic point of view by the mining companies concerned. Perhaps the development of the Canadian north and the undeveloped areas of Canada will proceed with much more haste if it were possible for the government in its own right to cooperate with development companies by joining in the guaranteeing of returns when new lines are promoted. It is my belief that this country cannot again afford to be caught with poor planning such as we have witnessed during the past 20 years or so.
I suggest that the St. Lawrence seaway, a project which has done much for central Canada, is the reason for the resolution now before the committee. Possibly the subject under discussion could be compared to the problem of the development of the Chignecto canal in the maritime provinces. I believe it is related, because if the St. Lawrence seaway had any effect on the resolution it must be assumed that a canal in the Atlantic provinces would likewise justify more trade and promote prosperity, new smelters and perhaps secondary industry.
In conclusion I wish to congratulate the management of the C.N.R. on the foresight and co-operation it has shown. I also want to congratulate the company on its program in recent years for building the first hump yard in its system in the Atlantic provinces and for its new plans for the redevelopment of the Moncton area. I should also like to congratulate this government on its new policy of co-operation. Available transportation is the most elementary requirement for the economic development of any undeveloped region. It developed the east; it was a term of confederation, and this area of Canada affected by the resolution is now about to witness its goal-a horizon with an economic future.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, after all the remarks we have heard this afternoon and this evening in the house, there is not much left to be said about this resolution, except to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) for having taken an
[Mr. Creaghan.)
initiative which will also be useful to the province of Quebec and to the development of our northern natural resources.
The only point 1 should like to recall, Mr. Chairman, is that the present Minister of Transport did not wait for hundreds of delegations to see him before introducing this resolution in the house, which is strangely contrasting with what went on in 1954 when the matter of building the Chibougamau-Beattyville railway was under consideration. At that time, as everyone recalls, many steps had been taken to urge the government to action, and yet the same natural resources as today were involved.
Therefore, I am delighted to congratulate most particularly the Minister of Transport for having taken the initiative of introducing the resolution which foreshadows the construction of a railway that will contribute to the development of the northern natural resources of the province of Quebec.
I am particularly delighted to point out that those natural resources, if they have to be exported, will have as their export harbour, the harbour of my city, Chicoutimi.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would be tempted to ask-even if many improvements have been made since the Conservative party came into power as my colleague from Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) pointed out-for an improvement to the Chicoutimi-Montreal railway, because there are indeed many improvements that could be made to that railway. Therefore, I would ask the Minister of Transport to draw the attention of the Canadian National Railway authorities to the matter, because I believe there is yet much to be done in that connection.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, if I take the floor at this time, obviously it is not to intone the old refrain of the man about town from St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), nor even to elaborate on the rather incongruous outline given by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) of the Liberal glories in the field of railways, glories which have vanished in any case. It is rather to congratulate, as a representative of northwestern Quebec, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) who introduced this legislation, following many representations made particularly by my excellent friend the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Martel) who, I believe, deserves on more than one count much of the merit of this legislation.
The hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Martel) has made a truly eloquent account of the economic benefits that may derive from that measure. All of us who represent northwestern Quebec are pleased with the progress this

measure means for that region. In fact, I believe it is an important first step towards a rational development of the tremendous resources that abound in northwestern Quebec and to which referred the hon. member for Chapleau, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas), as well as others who talked earlier on this bill.
When dealing today with a railway, I think that we must consider this project in the wider field of a rational development of all the means of communication in our country and especially in northwestern Quebec, because we are making important arrangements today for the development of the railway.
Our government has also entered into agreements with the provinces on the construction of access roads to natural resources. We must carry on in this way and take vigorous steps to develop this Laurentian Shield, with its many mineral, forestry, agricultural and water resources. We must also consider within the scope of these water developments the building of waterways and seaways.
The Abitibi region is situated at the water divide and, past lake Mattagami, the rivers flow toward Hudson bay and James bay. There is to be found a whole network of rivers. These could be banked and I think we could, with a master plan, draw full profit from these waterways. In so doing we would contribute a lot to the economic development of a region long unknown but now proving itself one of the most promising, thanks to the recent discoveries at Mattagami lake.
I am therefore happy to publicly congratulate once more in this house the hon. member for Chapleau whose devotion to this project has never ceased and who, I am sure, is now happy to see in this house his dearest dreams come true.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I rise now after this very interesting trip through the province of Quebec. The regions visited were numerous. Several times we found ourselves quite far from the point that concerned us more particularly. It is nevertheless heartening to see the unanimity resulting from the different speeches. Naturally there were differences as to the details, but it is good to think that such a project met with very little opposition.
Canadian National Railways
This afternoon the hon. member for Chapleau spoke very objectively of the project. He spoke with full knowledge of the facts. In fact, the line will be built in his riding. He quoted figures. He told the history of the Mattagami mines. I had the privilege of spending the week end with him in the cities of Chibougamau and Chapleau, a very interesting part of his riding. I was able to realize his interest in the Quebec mining industry and to see that he takes good care of his own people. I also noticed how highly he is regarded in that part of his riding.
This railway project meets his views and the views of the population living in the Abitibi region, in the northern part of Quebec and elsewhere in the province.
Mr. Chairman, this afternoon, the hon. member for Laurier had some very kind words for me, and I wish to thank him. He commended me for this first introduction of a resolution, and I appreciated his words. He gave us the history of the railways over the last 25 years, but I think I cannot endorse his interpretation of it.
For instance, he raised the matter of the Chibougamau railway. Several of my colleagues from the province of Quebec thought it proper to reply to his allegations, so I do not think I can add very much to that. I remember having taken the floor several times during the various debates which followed the introduction of the bill on the Chibougamau-Beattyville railway, as I remember that, at the time, the province of Quebec was the one with the smallest railway mileage having regard to its population. Besides, I did not invent that, because it seems to me I have read a most interesting article to that effect in L'Action Catholique of Quebec. In fact, Mr. Lorenzo Pare, parliamentary correspondent of that newspaper, described very clearly in that article the meanness of the former government towards the province of Quebec in the matter of railways.
As far as the Chibougamau-St. Felicien line is concerned, I do not want to throw any exaggerated blame on the former administration, but I am unable to see how the Liberal party can try today to win the gratitude of the lake St. John district when, it took all that time to carry out the project..


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister allow a question? It is connected with what he said

Canadian National Railways about the Canadian National Railways and the building of railways in the province of Quebec. This is my question: The other night, the minister stated that the province of Quebec came first in the railway field. Does the minister still think that?


Léon Balcer: To prove that the province of Quebec was backward during the first ten years of the former administration, I shall say that absolutely nothing was done at that time to answer the people's needs.


Lionel Chevrier: I am still asking the minister that question. Has the minister made the statement I just quoted?


Léon Balcer: I did, and I say if there has been some effort made in this field since the war, it is because it was long overdue. In fact, the former government had not done a thing in ten years in the field of railway construction in the province of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question of the minister? During a discussion of the Chi-bougamau-Beattyville project, he said that the province of Quebec had not received its share in the railway field. This statement has been made since the war. How can he reconcile that statement that the C.N.R. had done nothing for the province of Quebec with this other statement he made last night, when he said he was quite satisfied with what the government had done for the province of Quebec?


Léon Balcer: The Chibougamau railway did not exist at that time. The representations from the province of Quebec finally persuaded the government to build it. Now they are blowing their horn about it. The truth of the matter is that they were obliged and forced by the representations to carry out the project.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister
allow me this last question?
The minister's statement was made in 1955, whereas the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway dates back to 1954, a year prior to the minister's statement.


Léon Balcer: There may be a difference of a year-
(Text):
The hon. member for Port Arthur asked some very practical and precise questions on the cost of transporting the various goods that this railroad would be called upon to carry. As I said this afternoon when I introduced the resolution, the bill will go before


the committee and a lot of details will be available there. The experts will be there and a lot of statistics will be given. In the meantime I should like to say that it is estimated that the volume of goods to be carried on this line will amount to 165,000 tons of zinc concentrates and 25,000 tons of copper concentrates a year. The zinc concentrates will be moved by rail to the company's refinery, which will be built somewhere in the Montreal area. The 25,000 tons of copper concentrates a year will be moved by rail to the smelter of Noranda Mines Limited at Nor-anda, Quebec. It is estimated that the traffic arising from mining projects will total about $2 million a year, and that traffic consisting of general supplies will total about $225,000 a year.
The hon. member for Port Arthur also raised quite a good argument when he said that we must have some solid guarantees before approving such legislation. He meant by this that it was no use building a railway if the railway was not to get the business or the business was to go down very rapidly, and all this expense would prove to be wasted money and wasted time. The agreement that has been reached between the C.N.R. and the Mattagami Lake Mines Limited contains a guarantee from the mining company of the movement of 1,400,000 short tons of zinc during the first 10 years, with the stipulation that the railway will be paid a certain penalty per ton for any shortage below 140,000 tons in any one year. Therefore, for the first 10-year period this guarantee is there, and I think it is one of the reasons why this project is so sound and why I am so pleased to recommend it to the house.
I was also asked what amount of employment would be provided by the building of this railroad. I have not got those figures at the present time but I will endeavour to bring them before the house on second reading of the bill, and if they are not available at that time they will certainly be brought before the committee. As far as the mining company is concerned, the provision is for the employment of about 400 men at the mine property and 475 to 500 people at the zinc refinery which will be built in the province of Quebec. Therefore, as you can see, Mr. Chairman, this is a sound project; it is a good, economical project and I recommend the resolution to the committee.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Balcer thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-69, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Quebec by Canadian National Railway

Indian Act
Company from a point at or near mile 72 of the Kiask Falls subdivision in a northwesterly direction to a point in the vicinity of Mattagami lake.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SHIPPING


Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. S-3, to repeal certain laws relating to the signal station at Halifax.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the minister a statement to make?


Léon Balcer: Yes, I have a short statement. This bill is for the purpose of removing from the statute books an act which has long outlived its usefulness. Its title is an act relating to the signal station at Halifax. It was enacted in 1859, under chapter 64 of the statutes of Nova Scotia, and assessed the sum of 5 shillings, and later $1 upon all steamers and other vessels which entered into the port of Halifax from ports outside of the province of Nova Scotia. Vessels owned in the province of Nova Scotia, except those registered and owned in the port of Halifax, were exempt from payment. In chapter 42 of the same statute of 1861 was an amendment exempting some of the vessels registered and owned in the port of Halifax. Chapter 66 of the statutes of Canada, 1908, was a further amendment exempting vessels under 115 net tons from the payment of signal dues.
The idea behind the bill, Mr. Speaker, is that at the time the statute was enacted a signal station was maintained on Citadel hill in Halifax where people kept watch over the sea by means of a telescope so as to be in a position to report as soon as a ship was in sight of the port of Halifax. Time was of the essence then because it was very important for the owners and operators of ships to learn as soon as possible when one of their ships was coming into port.
With the advent of radio this service was no longer required but the tax was still levied on all ships entering the port of Halifax. The tax amounted in total to $1,510 in the fiscal year 1959-60. It is felt that the collection of the tax is a nuisance and, in addition, the tax is not levied at any other port in Canada. At present the requirement to levy the tax is mandatory and the bill is required to eliminate it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes in the bill are so clear in indicating what the purport of the bill is that I do not think there is any
purpose in our taking part in the discussion. We see no objection to the bill whatsoever and we are willing to let it go through
at once.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I too shall be very brief. However, lest hon. members may think that the port of Halifax was old fashioned in keeping this tax in effect for so long after modern methods had replaced the telescope, I think in fairness to my riding it should be emphasized that the mistake was no fault of ours. There is one other point I should like to make. Hon. members will notice that the bill involves the repeal of a provincial statute which may raise some question in our minds. Actually this was a provincial statute passed before confederation and under the relevant section of the British North America Act the parliament of Canada may legislate in respect of such preconfederation statutes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Repeal.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, as the only admitted shipowner in the house, though I have lost my ship since I declared that as my occupation, I should like to ask the minister how much the treasury will lose as the result of the repeal of this tax.


Léon Balcer: As I said, the amount collected last year was approximately $1,500.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is it not a fact that the costs of collecting the tax would have to be offset against that mammoth revenue?


Léon Balcer: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: By leave, shall the said bill be read the third time now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léon Balcer: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-61, an act to amend the Indian Act.-The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
[Stage Direction]
Indian Act
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the house leader will move this bill I think we can perhaps dispose of it before ten o'clock.


Mr. Churchill:: I would be pleased to move it, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: the
second reading of Bill No. C-61, to amend the Indian Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that at the last session of parliament I did my best and so did the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to get an amendment to the Indian Act to do what the bill accomplishes, and for my part I am very glad to see that the government is belatedly doing what we wanted them to do.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will commence with item No. 11 on today's order paper, the motion to refer the report of the Canada Council to the standing committee on public accounts. The second item is No. 12 on today's order paper, to refer the public accounts and other matters to the standing committee on public accounts. The third item will be the continuation of the debate on the budget resolutions. If that debate is not concluded, we will carry on with it on Thursday. If it should be concluded on Thursday, I should like to bring forward an item which we did not reach today, the appointment of a select committee to consider the national research council and other matters. If these items are finished on Thursday we will then continue with the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and carry forward on Friday with estimates dealing with that department, if necessary, and the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 15, 1961