1962-02-13

[Stage Direction]
Hen. Paul Martin (Essex East: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the alarming increase in unemployment and the decrease in total employment that occurred in Canada between December and January, as reported in today's release issued by the dominion bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex East has asked leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the alarming increase in unemployment and the decrease in total employment that occurred in Canada between December and January, as reported in today's release issued by the dominion bureau of statistics.
The question that has to be decided by the Chair-the only question the Chair has to decide-is the question of the urgency of debate. The importance of this matter to the country or to parliament is not what I have to consider, but rather the opportunities there are to discuss the subject matter and whether this is the type of suddenly arising urgent matter which would warrant an interruption of the ordinary routine of business so that it might be discussed.
If I had serious doubts about the question of urgency I would be glad to hear the hon. member for Essex East and other hon. members, but it seems to me that in line with decisions I have made previously on this general question, particularly at a time when the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne had not been concluded, it would be very difficult to make out a case of urgency for any matter of this kind.
I recall that during the last session while the throne speech debate was in progress, reference was made to the question of unemployment. In fact it was the subject of continuous discussion in parliament throughout
the whole session. I think as long as unemployment exists in substantial proportions it will be a subject of discussion in this parliament.
In support of what I have said I offer the following citations. The first is from Beau-chesne's fourth edition, at page 90, citation 100, paragraph 3:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
On page 91 there is reference to the type of discussion for which the rule might be invoked which I think is worth repeating to the house. I begin on page 91 about half way down the page. The quotation refers to a motion to discuss the neglect of the government to take measures for the relief of agricultural depression. This is what is said by the learned author:
What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs. But I do not think it was contemplated-if the house will allow me to state my views-that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the house, because, if that was so, we might have repeated motions made by the opposition of the day, not so much in the direction of censuring the government for action which had been taken or not taken, for bringing to notice some grievance demanding instant remedy, as in the direction of wishing to introduce legislation on some particular subject. That is not the purpose of the standing order of 1882, and would, I think, cut at the root of the order."
The only factor which I can see in the hon. member's request which denotes a change of state is that the latest figures of total employment and unemployment are different from those of the preceding period. They suggest a change in trend or proportions the details of which have not been mentioned by the hon. member. But accepting that there is a substantial change as indicated by the figures, then it seems to me the whole subject is one which has already been discussed this session in part in some of the debates, and for which there will be opportunity for discussion as soon as the throne speech debate is resumed.
Therefore my disposition is to rule out this motion as not being within the rule, basically on the ground that the test of urgency of debate has not been satisfied but aso on the

Labour Conditions
ground which I stated previously, that relating to the breadth and character of the problem.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will give the hon. member an opportunity to indicate, but not at length, whether there is any evident error or citation which I have overlooked, but as the hon. member knows I have indicated fairly strongly the opinion that this is not the type of motion that could succeed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to Your Honour for the care with which you have approached the motion which I have brought to the attention of the house through Your Honour. The urgency of this matter arises out of the opportunity this house now has or will or will not have to discuss the deterioration, as Your Honour has mentioned, in the unemployment situation. This morning we received a Canadian public release-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the protests I hear in the house are well taken. The point that is under consideration is urgency. If the hon. member has any citations which may lead me to change my view, I shall be glad to have them. However, I think the subject matter should not be discussed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am about to do that, Your Honour. I was stating that I rose because of the release made this morning showing an increase in unemployment-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -and I am asking Your Honour to grant me leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss this matter. In reply Your Honour has pointed out that, according to Beauchesne, for a motion of this kind there must be an application which in Your Honour's apparent judgment does not attend the present situation. Your Honour referred to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms fourth edition, at page 90 where it is stated as follows:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate"-
I address myself to that very point. It is because of the urgency of debate that I have now made the motion which is before Your Honour. While I am on that subject I would

also call Your Honour's attention to Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 91, where that learned author points out as follows:
In doubtful cases, the question of urgency and of importance are left for the house to decide, by giving or withholding its support.
My argument for urgency of debate is briefly this. The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne was adjourned on January 25. In spite of all our efforts we have not had from the government any indication when that debate will be resumed. Indeed, every indication points to the suggestion that it will not be resumed at this session of parliament.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In this case the opportunity is therefore not open to us to debate the disturbing unemployment situation revealed in today's press release. There is on the order paper no item that could come before the house before we conclude the debate on the address which would give us the opportunity to raise the present alarming situation. Have we not had from the government an assurance that we would not deal with the estimates until the debate on the address had been disposed of? That is something that cannot be denied.
The urgency of debate is this, Mr. Speaker. If this request is denied, we shall be denied the opportunity of discussing this new serious factor in the unemployment situation in Canada. The atmosphere is charged with all kinds of suggestions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I followed the hon. member's point and I am prepared to deal with it. If he has any further point to make on urgency, I shall be glad to hear him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Your Honour; I am about to make the second point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen do not like this, but it is an extremely important matter. This may be the last opportunity during this parliament to debate this matter in this house. The Prime Minister is the only one who can answer this question. He is the only one who can say whether or not this motion is in accordance with the rules. If he says that we shall be given an opportunity to discuss the matter after the debate on the address, then the situation is otherwise. However, until this situation is clarified, until we know definitely whether or not we are going to have dissolution, we have the right to discuss this new unemployment situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated that there is no certainty that there will be an opportunity to debate the issue he raises. He also rather indicates that there seems to be some onus on the government to verify that there will be an opportunity to debate the subject. It seems to me that the presumption is that business will proceed in the ordinary course and that, in due course, the throne speech debate will be resumed. This debate will offer an opportunity which the hon. member wishes if no other opportunity arises.
There is the further factor, in addition to the normal presumption that proceedings will take the ordinary course, that there has been an assertion by the government that the committee of ways and means and the committee of supply will not be called again -I am not sure of the extent of the undertaking-for certain necessary purposes until the throne speech debate has been completed. If this matter were one of sudden occurrence which, if it were not debated today or tomorrow, would have material significance, then other considerations would apply. I am satisfied that my first view of this matter was the right view; therefore I cannot put the hon. member's request before the house.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Leader of the Opposition should perhaps accept the ruling of the Chair as I have given it. I had very little doubt about the position at the beginning but I gave the hon. member for Essex East the opportunity to test my view. I have confirmed my original attitude, and I see no point in allowing the matter to be debated further. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, therefore, to leave it at that.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on a news report that at the urging of the Australian government the British government had made a formal request to the European economic community that the Australian representatives take part in common market negotiations which affect Australian trade interests. My question is, has the Canadian government made any request that Canadian representatives take the same part in these negotiations which relate to Canadian trade interests?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, sir.



PAYMENT FOR EXPORTS TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-Si. Jean):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Yesterday, in reply to a question placed on the order paper by my colleague from Leeds (Mr. Matheson), the parliamentary secretary reported that total exports from Canada to communist China from January 1 to October 31, 1961, were $114,916,725 as compared to 1960, when they were $8,737,363. Is this correct?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I see no reason for believing it is not correct, Mr. Speaker.


Romuald Bourque: I have a supplementary question. Have we been paid for this material?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member had been in the house and followed the debate dealing with this matter he would know the answer to the question.


Mr. Chevrier:: Better tell us what the debate was.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



URANIUM-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is in a position to make a progress report to the house about the uranium discussions with the United Kingdom.


George Harris Hees: No further report than I have already made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister anticipate that the contract will be signed in the near future?


George Harris Hees: I hope so.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of newspaper reports that more than 70 slaughter and meat processing plants have asked for inspection, could the minister indicate what steps his department plans in order to accommodate their demand? As he must know, this is of concern to many people.
804	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare): This is a matter for the Department of Agriculture, which provides for the inspection services.


Walter George Pitman: In view of the answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to a previous question of mine, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture could indicate what steps have been taken to accommodate slaughter and meat processing plants desiring inspection services.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I think the hon. member will find the answer to his question if he refers to a government bulletin released yesterday dealing with this subject.
(Translation):



FLAGS OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Has he received the two flag designs that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wants to force upon the Canadian people? If so, what are those designs?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I have received nothing of the sort yet.
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the requirement under the international monetary fund agreement, to which Canada is a signatory, that member countries pledge themselves to maintain their currencies at a fixed exchange rate, and in view of the meeting of the fund Friday next at which it is reported the Canadian member will be required to explain our contravention of the agreement, will the minister inform the house what the Canadian position is and what action he is proposing to take to meet the terms of the agreement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: First I should like to observe that there has been no more loyal member of the international monetary fund than Canada. This country has been a member of the fund


since it was established, and has strongly supported the activities of the fund in promoting freedom of payments in support of world trade. We supported the increase several years ago in the resources of the fund, and indeed took down a very substantial subscription in that respect. We have also taken part in the recent movement to enlarge the reserves available to the fund, and certain members of it, on a stand-by basis.
The relationship of the Canadian dollar to the United States dollar is not a new matter by any means. There was an attempt made a decade ago, indeed two separate attempts, to maintain the Canadian dollar at a fixed relationship to the United States dollar, at one time on a 90 cents basis and another time on a 100 cents basis, but these attempts had to be abandoned. There has been no fixed and firm relationship maintained between these two currencies over the past decade, so that the position which has obtained since June 20 last is not a new one in kind at all. It is simply a movement of the Canadian dollar to a discount position in terms of the United States dollar, whereas previously it had been in a premium position in relation to the United States dollar. Under the articles of the fund there has been no change in that respect.
I have already stated in this house that I said at the annual meeting of the governors of the fund at Vienna in September that the policy of the government is taken in the light of the circumstances affecting Canada's balance of payments position, so that it is quite clearly understandable. It is understood, I think, by all members of the fund, that it is not undertaken with a view to doing hurt or harm to the interests of any country in the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what
the president of the bank said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Has the minister any comment to make on the criticism of the president of the Royal Bank of Canada of what he calls a manipulation by the Canadian government of the exchange rate?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is evident that the Leader of the Opposition has not read the full statement to which he refers. He has taken a phrase out of it that appears to suit his political purposes. I did not find in the speech of the president of the Royal bank to the shareholders of that institution, at the annual meeting a month ago, criticism of the policy of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read the speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What he was proposing was in effect that the dollar should be allowed to operate freely. Now, this is an

interesting allusion on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in the light of the question that was asked. The question that was asked assumes, I take it, that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is suggesting there should be some fixed relationship established between the two currencies. Now the Leader of the Opposition is quoting someone who says in effect that the dollar should be allowed to operate completely free.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister will forgive me if I interrupt him to say that the supplementary question and the answer to it are assuming the proportions of a debate, and that they might well be taken up at a time when debate is permitted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, would you permit me to make just one observation. It is about the expression used by the Leader of the Opposition, "a manipulated rate". I had an opportunity of speaking about that one day recently. It is quite misleading to talk about the Canadian rate as a manipulated rate. It is not a manipulated rate, and I refer to the statement I made here last Friday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Seeing the Minister of Finance has made a long statement in reply to a simple question, may I ask does he deny that the president of the Royal bank used the word "manipulation" in regard to the policy of the present government in this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the statement of the president he used the words "manipulated rate" in referring to the present arrangement. I take issue with the use of that term, and I take issue with the Leader of the Opposition stating the president of the Royal bank was critical of the government's policy.


Lionel Chevrier: He certainly was.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the house leader and ask him, in view of the reference made by His Honour the Speaker to the practice and procedure in this house, whether he will interrupt the proceedings soon so that we may resume the discussion on the speech from the throne in order to debate the question of unemployment.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The business of the house is announced each evening.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON FUR SEAL COMMISSION MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Could the minister present a brief report to the house indicating the main conclusions and decisions reached by the north Pacific fur seal commission at its annual meeting held in Ottawa last week?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: The commission held its annual meeting and reviewed the results of the scientific work done in 1961, and also established its resources program for the coming year. The conclusion was that the herds of fur seals in the Pacific are in good condition and are showing an increase in population. The commission decided to hold its next meeting in Washington in November, 1962. I might add that Mr. Ralph C. Baker, United States commissioner, was elected president for the coming year, and Mr. George R. Clark, deputy minister of fisheries and commissioner for Canada, as vice-chairman.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Davenport would await his supplementary question.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Could the minister tell the house what were the official languages spoken on that occasion?


John Angus MacLean: The official languages to be used by the international North Pacific fur seal commission are laid down by the interim convention on this matter signed at Washington on February 9, 1957. The official languages used by the commission are to be Russian, Japanese and English.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenpori: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister give the comparative figures of the number of employed and unemployed persons during the period of January, 1961, and January, 1962?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for information readily available to all hon. members who can read.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Labour whether in view of the release this morning, showing an increase

Inquiries of the Ministry in unemployment in Canada to an alarming extent, he will give the house the assurance that before dissolution of parliament there will be an opportunity of debating this situation under the labour estimates dealing with winter works, in the supplementary estimates tabled by the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Walker:: On a question of order, there was less unemployment in January of this year than in January of last year; 141,000 less.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the point of order?


Mr. Cresiohl:: Are you running interference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David James Walker: One hundred and forty-one thousand.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that after seven long months the hon. member for Essex East is now showing an interest in the release of the dominion bureau of statistics unemployment figures. In answering-


George Harris Hees: He is only interested in unemployment.


Michael Starr: In answering his question, the dominion bureau of statistics release shows-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the hon. member for Essex East on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rose on a question of privilege Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the hon. member for Essex East was only interested in unemployment.


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear; that is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to ask the hysterical Minister of Trade and Commerce to withdraw that statement but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is contrary to our practices and contrary to the privileges of this house for a minister of the crown, in particular, to make an accusation of this kind.


An hon. Member:: Plead guilty.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister and his colleagues can show their sincerity by giving us a chance to debate this subject now.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I was only stating what has been obvious in this house for the past four and a half years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: That is the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who complained is quite justified in complaining if what was said indicated that he desired unemployment. That would be an accusation that should not be made in this house against any hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The exact words may not have been that, and the hon. member for Essex East has not asked for a retraction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I apologize to the Minister of Labour.


George Harris Hees: I accept your apology.


Mr. Speaker:: I give the floor to the Minister of Labour to deal with the question that was originally asked.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What was the question?


Michael Starr: I should like to answer the hon. member's question in this way, that between December and January unemployment increased-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order. That was not the question. My question was a simple one. Is the minister going to give us a chance to debate, or not?


George Harris Hees: You are just proving what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I recall the question it related to the opportunity of debating the matter and did not call for a statement as to the figures of unemployment. If the minister wishes to revert to motions to make a statement, and the house will give him leave, well and good; otherwise the point of order is well taken and the minister should limit himself to what was asked.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Michael Starr: If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Essex East said that because of the alarming increase in unemployment-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was not the
question.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think the facts should be set straight so that all hon. members should not be misled by the statements made by the hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister follows that course he will be achieving in effect what I have refused to the hon. member for Essex

East, that is a debate on the question of what these figures mean and what unemployment there is. I may have overlooked that there was an assertion tied up with the question, and if there was I think it is proper that the assertion should be met in the answer. Would the hon. member for Essex East ask his question again?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, sitting here I heard the hon. member for Essex East preface his question by saying-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Who is this Speaker?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -"in view of the alarming increase in unemployment".


John Whitney Pickersgill: A new Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If he had chosen to ask a question without that elaboration of misstatement I should have thought the point of order was well taken, but when he has chosen to make that kind of statement as a preface to his question, I think, with great respect, the minister is entitled to deal with the statement as well as the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance. I submit, in reply to his point of order, that the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: How many flags?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -should be content with dominating the cabinet and should not try to dominate the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Two flags.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before disposing of the point of order perhaps I may ask the hon. member for Essex East whether or not his question was prefaced by the assertion that has been alleged.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with your-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen do not want to assist Your Honour, and of course we do. I simply want to say this. I have no objection to the minister making a statement, but let it be understood that if he does, I of course will not be denied the opportunity of replying.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have already made a statement, and a misstatement too.
26207-1-52J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to prevent the minister making a statement, because it is an alarming situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Having got that far- I am not sure how far we have got-perhaps the Minister of Labour would now do his best to answer the question in the terms in which it was asked.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I assure the house that I shall be very brief indeed. The dominion bureau of statistics release shows in part that the rise in unemployment was smaller than in comparable periods in recent years. Between December and January unemployment increased by-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister has now said as much as was asked in the question. If he wishes to answer the other part about debate on this subject, perhaps we could then pass to some other business.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the other part can more properly be addressed to the house leader.


Mr. Hellyer:: He would not know the answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader if, before dissolution of this parliament in the year of our Lord 1962, an opportunity will be given on the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour or the winter works program item to debate the alarming unemployment situation revealed by the government this morning?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there is no alarming situation with regard to the question of unemployment.


Mr. Benidickson:: Oh, complacency yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The January employment level was 161,000 or 2.8 per cent higher than a year earlier, and 3 per cent higher than in January, 1960.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And 200,000 less than a month ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should really answer the hon. member's question with regard to the dissolution of parliament, since he is showing such excessive nervousness. I am alarmed-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Excessive zeal.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the hon. member wants dissolution.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: I certainly do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Careful, Paul.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister does not seem disposed to answer the question, and I shall call the orders of the day unless there is some more serious question to answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of Mr. Iain Macleod's statement that "the 'expulsion' of South Africa from the commonwealth was a mistake", as reported in the Times of London of February 10, 1962, is this government prepared to reexamine its attitude to South Africa and give leadership to her return to the commonwealth family?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member's question is dealt with, I wonder how he would support it as being a matter of recent and urgent importance. He is asking for an opinion on a matter of policy, and a session has intervened since the events upon which the question is founded.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. I am told that a convention of the universal postal union will take place this year. If it is held during the term of office of this government, in view of the fact that Canada, the United States and other countries retain the entire postage rate on second class mail crossing their borders, will the Postmaster General consider the advisability of adopting at that convention a system whereby co-operating postal departments would be compensated for the weight handled and the mileage traversed in connection with such second class mail?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: That is one of the subjects which will be discussed at this meeting and we shall, at that time, express our views on it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I have a question to ask about the Department of National Defence. Perhaps it would be uniquely appropriate if the associate minister were to answer. Can the minister inform the house what is the stand of the Department of National Defence about views publicly expressed by senior officers which are critical of other departments and agencies of government? My question is occasioned specifically by the widely publicized remarks made on Sunday last by a senior naval chaplain with regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I have not been made aware of the matter to which the hon. member refers. I shall take the question as notice, make inquiries, and report on the same.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: May I take this opportunity to answer a question which was addressed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier. The question referred to a contract for engineering work at Farnham, Quebec, which had been awarded to a firm outside the province.
As a result of inquiries it is presumed that the hon. member was referring to work in relation to a drill hall at Camp Farnham which was damaged by fire on November 20, 1961.
A contract was awarded by the Department of Defence Production to the firm of Morrison Hershfield Millman and Huggins of Toronto for the preparation of a report on the repairs that would be required to the fire-damaged building. The Toronto firm was engaged since that firm was the original designer of a special wire reinforcing technique for the strengthening of wooden trusses. This technique was developed following the second world war and had been employed to strengthen the trusses in the drill hall at Farnham in 1948. The contract was for an amount of $1,500.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask if

he is now in a position to make an announcement concerning an appointment to fill the position of under secretary of state, which has been vacant for more than six months.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: When I am in a position to do that, the house will be advised.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he or any of his officials have received any representations on behalf of Reinol Gonzales, president of the young Christian workers of Cuba and prominent trade union leader, and other trade union leaders who are said to be under sentence of execution in Cuba this week?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: We have received representations concerning Mr. Gonzales and we are doing what we can to help in the situation. Unfortunately we are handicapped by the fact that this man is not a Canadian citizen.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his department or any department of the government is, to his knowledge, giving any consideration to a new site for the town of Churchill, Manitoba.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I know that the matter has been under consideration. I will give an answer to the hon. member later on.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO NICOLET-YAMASKA BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is it the minister's intention to announce a by-election shortly in the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska?
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) asked when would be tabled certain documents following the adoption of Motion No. 159 of September 13, 1961. I wish to table this reply today.
(Text):
Following the inquiry of the hon. member for Gloucester, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate asked me to check up at the same time on all the outstanding returns from the previous session, and in particular the one which was passed on November 30, 1960, asking for the travel expenses of ministers.
Mr. Speaker, the words "all the outstanding returns from the previous session" might be said to imply that there is quite a volume of them. There are, in fact, less than half a dozen, and the one about which the hon. member inquired is not among them. There were two returns, not one, passed on November 30, 1960, relating to travel expenses of cabinet ministers. If the hon. member will consult the appropriate Votes and Proceedings, in which my action is properly recorded, he will see that the information pertaining to one of them, arising out of a question put by the hon. member for Skeena, was presented in May, 1961, and that pertaining to the other, arising out of a question put by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, in September, 1961.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether it would be possible to expedite the return asking for the communications between the Dominion Steel and Coal Company and the government with respect to the closing of certain coal mines in Nova Scotia?


Noël Dorion: Surely, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.):: have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary. What I should like to know is, what is the status of the lobbying which has been going on with regard to the admission of the Netherlands-built tug Ocean Master to Canada without payment of the proper customs duty?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: I shall take the question as notice.

Inquiries of the Ministry WAR SERVICE GRANTS ACT



AMENDMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR RE-ESTABLISHMENT CREDIT

Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of Bill No. C-36, to amend the War Service Grants Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of Bill No. C-37, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-63, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from Whitecourt, Alberta, in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 23.2 miles to the property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the title of the bill indicates, authority is being sought to enable Canadian National Railway Company to build a 23 mile branch line from Whitecourt, Alberta, as an extension of the railway's Sangudo subdivision, which now terminates at that point.
This new branch line would cross the McLeod river at Whitecourt and proceed in a westerly direction, generally following the grade of the Peace river branch, originally proposed to be constructed in 1924 but never finally completed, to the property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation in the Windfall gas field area, where a plant to produce sulphur from natural gas is now being constructed. The cost to construct the railway line is estimated at $2,300,000 or $99,138 per mile.
An agreement has been concluded between the railway company and Texas Gulf Sulphur Company, wherein a guarantee is given that the industry will ship a minimum tonnage of sulphur over the branch line for 25 years, and that appropriate penalties will be paid if at any period during that term shipments fall below the minimum volume agreed to. In addition, the industry has agreed to make a substantial cash contribution toward the cost of construction of the
line which, of course, reduces the amount which will need to be provided under the terms of the bill.
The production of sulphur from natural gas in Canada is a relatively new development, and interest in it arises from the fact that the reserves of large producers of elemental sulphur in the southern United States are now showing signs of exhaustion. The present proposal is the result of negotiations between Texas Gulf Sulphur Company and Canadian National Railways respecting transportation service to a sulphur recovery plant in the Windfall gas field area, where the natural gas contains substantial amounts of sulphur. The initial output from this plant is estimated at 237,000 long tons annually. Production is expected to increase to 614,000 long tons per year by 1972, and to continue at about that rate until the gas reserves are exhausted. The life of the field is estimated at around 25 years.
The prospective traffic on the proposed line would consist mainly of sulphur, estimated to amount to a total of 500,000 long tons in the first five years, increasing to an indicated maximum rate of around
400,000	long tons per year. It is expected that the sulphur will move mainly to Vancouver for export. Other traffic would consist of chemicals and other supplies for operation of the sulphur recovery plant, pipe and other materials involved in any new developments in the field, and possibly pulpwood.
As I said when I spoke on the resolution preceding the bill, this project deserves encouragement as one which should improve the net position of the Canadian National and at the same time contribute to the development of the area concerned. I mentioned also the urgency associated with the passage of this legislation, arising out of the fact that the industry has requested rail service not later than March 1, 1963, and that in order to meet this date the railway must construct the piers and abutments of the bridge over the McLeod river near White-court at low water, during the present winter season. Therefore a start must be made on these piers and abutments as soon as possible.
The proposal commends itself as one which will assist in developing markets for these resources Of the country, and is sound from an economic standpoint.
In view of the urgency of this project, and because there is every reason to avoid delay which might jeopardize the whole project, I intend to request that this bill be considered by the committee of the whole instead of referring it to the standing committee on
IMr. Lambert.]
81X

railways, canals and telegraph lines. In view of the fact that Canadian National Railways have made representations to me and several officials of my department concerning the extreme urgency of this project I trust we can proceed with alacrity, but at the same time accord this measure complete study.
Hon. members will have an opportunity to scrutinize the bill in committee of the whole. I feel the passage of this measure will provide a number of jobs for Canadians. I trust the project will not be jeopardized because of delay. The passage of this measure will make a significant contribution to the development of that region of the province of Alberta which has such a promising future.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in our position so far as approval of this bill is concerned. I believe the position of the official opposition was made quite clear in the remarks I made yesterday. There are, however, some questions that remain unanswered from yesterday as well as others that arise from the statement the minister has just made.
One of the questions I put to the minister yesterday concerned a comparison of the cost per mile of this railway with that of other railways in the immediate or adjacent area. Apparently the minister overlooked answering that.
The minister has stated that an agreement has been entered into between the Texas Gulf Sulphur Company and Canadian National Railways for a period of 25 years for the movement of a certain amount of sulphur over the line. I do not think the minister has given the house sufficient information to warrant approval in connection with that matter. I asked yesterday for the production of the agreement, and the minister said that could not be done. I then asked for a summary of the terms of the agreement, because I did not think we had received sufficient detail, and today the minister engaged in what was almost a repetition of what was said yesterday. I think the house should know who the Texas Gulf Sulphur Company is. Is it a subsidiary of the Pan American Petroleum Corporation to whose property this railway is being built? I believe the house would be interested in knowing something of the background of this corporation.
Then the minister referred to the prospective traffic for the first five years of 500,000 long tons. Can the minister give some indication of the freight rate at which the movement will take place? Then again it was indicated that most of this sulphur, if not all of it, would be sent to Vancouver for export. Is any of it going to be used for
Canadian National Railways domestic purposes in Canada? Is there a demand for this product for industrial purposes in our own country? Can the minister give some idea of what the other traffic is likely to amount to? He referred to chemicals, pulpwood and other commodities of that kind. What is the percentage of that traffic over the line as compared with the sulphur, which unquestionably is the most important traffic?
Then as to the urgency may I say this. I believe the minister put his case yesterday, as we did also. However, there is one thing I must bring to the attention of the minister, namely the fact that he intends to move that this legislation be referred to the committee of the whole. I must bring to his attention the fact that this may be the only occasion on which a precedent such as this has been followed. I may be mistaken. It is possible that when I occupied the position he now holds there may have been cases in which this was done, but I doubt it very much. In any event, in answer to a question of mine yesterday the minister made it quite clear, that this matter would be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. As reported at page 772 of Hansard of February 12, 1962 the minister had this to say in answer to a question I put to him earlier:
The hon. member for Laurier has pointed out that in my remarks on the resolution I did not state I intended to ask that the Whitecourt bill_
That is the one now under consideration.
-be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I intended to do that on second reading. I can assure the hon. member now that we definitely intend to refer this bill to the committee.
I think the minister owes the house an explanation as to why, overnight, he has changed his mind and now asks that this matter be referred to the committee of the whole. I must tell the minister that we are going to oppose this suggestion with all our might. Whether or not there is urgency, it has been the practice of this house to refer matters of this kind to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines so that we can have the officers before us and can inquire from them as to the details of the agreement.
The minister says he cannot give the agreement. We have not a summary of the agreement, but only some of the details. Now the matter is to be referred to the committee of the whole, where we certainly will not be in a position to examine the officers. That procedure is contrary to the whole tradition of parliament, and I from this side of the house must object to it and protest as strongly as possible.

Canadian National Railways
I hope the minister will come back to his original idea of referring the matter to the standing committee. We on this side of the house will co-operate with the minister in establishing the standing committee so the officers can come forward. I think it would be a derogation from the rights of parliament to ask the committee of the whole to deal with a matter of this importance. Even though there is urgency for the construction of the piers, as I am prepared to admit, the urgency certainly is not such that we cannot have before the railway committee a discussion of the merits of the agreement.
I repeat what I said yesterday, namely that on the principle of the bill or on the merits of the legislation we are prepared to support it, as it is a project which will assist in the development of the resources of one province and incidentally in the development of our country as a whole. However, we cannot consent or agree to the suggestion made by the minister that the matter be referred to the committee of the whole for discussion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier has stated quite strongly his party's objections to putting this legislation through the committee of the whole rather than through the regular channel, namely the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I feel just as strongly about the matter, though perhaps for somewhat different reasons. In order to make my point I turn to two practical examples rather than to the infringement of parliamentary rights, although I agree with him on that matter.
In our own region we have two situations which were caused by extensions in C.N.R. facilities in the last decade or so and which are very much up in the air now. One of the reasons for the situations happens to be that not enough information was garnered at the launching of the enterprise. At the present time we have a very bitter debate going on between the iron mines in Steep Rock which are shipping out of Atikokan to Port Arthur on the C.N.R., over the freight rates that are being charged. The argument being made by the C.N.R. is that in terms of volume the mines have not lived up to the agreement that was entered into some years ago, and that therefore it has been necessary to raise the rates. On the other hand the mines are arguing that this is a punitive measure which is going to cause them a great deal of trouble.
Without taking sides on the merits of the matter-though I must admit that my sympathies are with the local agency rather than with the national one-I may say it is quite
[Mr. Chevrler.)

apparent that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the original agreement. Here in the house the minister says he cannot give the details because to do so would be tough on the competitive position of the C.N.R. I might point out that the Atikokan situation is very much like this one. At Atikokan there was no real alternative means of transportation other than the Canadian National Railways, and I understand the same situation exists in this case. I fail to see that the excuse or the reason given by the minister stands up.
The other example I should like to bring to the minister's attention with regard to the need to examine branch lines closely is one I will take from my own area, where we had a line built in to Manitouwadge a number of years ago. The discovery really got under way in 1953. "What happened there was that both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway built lines into the mine, and at the present time neither railway has enough traffic really to be remunerative. We have the spectacle of an additional branch line in the area.
Here again it seems to me in retrospect that parliament bore a responsibility for failing to go into the nature of the agreement existing between the Canadian National Railways and the mining corporation. These are two examples from my own area that lead me to believe we need the opportunity to examine and cross-examine the officials concerned. We cannot do that in the committee of the whole.
The third argument that I would bring to the minister in this regard relates to something which is becoming the theme in transportation today in Canada and which has been echoed by the royal commission on transportation. I refer to the theme that the railways must get out of the branch line business. In any case in which a branch line is being abandoned I understand that all kinds of opportunities are given to the public in the areas concerned to come forward and express their views or their arguments pro and con. I may say that most of them will be con.
In a situation like this, which underlines the uneconomic nature of so many of the branch lines the railways built, it seems to me we need to be almost unnaturally vigilant in any case in which the Canadian National Railway in particular is getting into further branch lines. I can assure the minister that I am not exaggerating my doubts when I say that with regard to this particular enterprise, which on the face of the minister's

explanation is a good one, I will feel much happier if we have the opportunity to deal with the matter in a committee.
Now the minister suggested that the urgency is so great that we cannot take time to refer the bill to a standing committee. Surely this committee could meet on Thursday morning and study this particular bill, or early next week at the latest. I cannot see that a delay of from three to five days could possibly be crucial in the building of only some 20-odd miles of track. For these reasons we will object to and if necessary vote against second reading of this bill, if we are not going to have an opportunity of examining it in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I appreciate the fact that I did not hear the explanation of the regional aspects of this rail project given by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. I should like to congratulate him and the other members from Alberta upon having, in connection with their oil industry, so many wonderful opportunities for expansion. The views I have expressed about the desirability of sending this measure to a standing committee are not to be regarded as an attempt to block the advantages of this enterprise to the area in Alberta which the hon. member represents.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: I should like to add a few words to what I said yesterday on this measure at the resolution stage. I think I could echo the minister's request for speed, because there is real urgency in getting the piers built across the McLeod river. The McLeod river is a relatively short, swift, mountain river which flows into the Athabasca at the town of Whitecourt. In order to get the heavy equipment into the area it will be necessary to have the bridge built first. This is the important consideration. The bridge will have to be built before the equipment to build the line can be taken farther into the country.
It is particularly important that these abutments and piers be put in place this winter. We have approximately only a month left in which to complete this work. I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur, but five days may make quite a bit of difference in getting the concrete poured. Each day is going to become extremely important in building these piers.
There is another factor that is of importance. As I said, the town of Whitecourt is a boom area and there has been a large influx of workers awaiting the start of construction on the newsprint plant, awaiting the start of
Canadian National Railways construction on the railway and looking for jobs in connection with gas extraction. There is a surplus of manpower there at the moment, so if we could get this bill passed we could get these men started to work on the bridge and then clearing the line. These two factors are of importance when we consider the urgency for getting started on the bridge.
There is one other matter I should like to refer to, and that is the sulphur which was mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier. We will be using some of this sulphur locally in the pulp mill, and we expect there will be a local demand for sulphur as well. There is a market for Alberta sulphur in British Columbia, but a large volume of the sulphur will either have to be exported or moved to Ontario. As I said yesterday, the total usage of sulphur in Canada is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600,000 tons a year. Within about five years this one plant will be producing that much. We also hope, particularly in the farm areas I represent, that some of this sulphur will be more easily available for use as fertilizer, because it has been shown that elemental sulphur is very beneficial on the grey wood soils of Alberta. We are hopeful that this sulphur will be used in the chemical complex which is now being established around Edmonton. Perhaps a further chemical industry will be established, and we would hope it might be decentralized out of Edmonton as a result of the development at White-court.
It is for these reasons, and the fact that this development is at the moment marking time, that I sincerely ask the house to consider giving quick passage to this bill. There is one other point I should like to make with regard to divulging the details of the agreement. I believe I recall that last year a private bill was introduced to grant the Canadian Pacific Railway permission to build eight miles of track into a similar plant at Rimbey, Alberta. The Canadian National is concerned because there are more than 14 of these plants in Alberta. They are not all owned by the same people, and it is becoming a very competitive business. While it is true that the Canadian National is the only railway in the immediate area, I think it becomes apparent that the sulphur company will be concerned if the complete arrangements are divulged, because this will weaken their competitive position in the sulphur industry of Alberta.
I just bring to the attention of the house the fact that last year the Canadian Pacific requested permission to build an identical extension to a plant at Rimbey, Alberta. I am
814	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways sure they were not required to reveal all the details of the agreement with British American Oil at that time, so it would be putting Canadian National in an unfair position, as well as the Texas Gulf Sulphur Company, to ask them to reveal the details of the agreement now.
In conclusion I would say that while I appreciate the fact that some of our branch line building in Canada has not been well directed, I am sure that the tonnage and the contributions made by the company will mean that at the end of 25 years railway construction costs will have been paid off and the line will be showing a reasonable profit. It seems to me that this is a reasonable bill. Again I ask the house to consider the urgency for constructing the bridge across the McLeod river. This has to be done within the next month, and the days do count in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure all of us are influenced strongly by the very sensible considerations that have been advanced by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, who is properly concerned that this project should get under way just as quickly as possible. If there were any risk of any real delay, any likelihood of any real delay in the procedure we suggest, I think we would have to give some consideration to the feelings which the hon. member has expressed. However, I think the house should bear this fact in mind, that the debate on the address was adjourned on January 25 and that it has not been resumed on February 13. If we had proceeded in the normal way this session and had gone right on, the debate on the address would have been finished by February 1, two weeks ago. This bill could then have been given priority over every other piece of legislation. It could have been disposed of very quickly and could have been on the statute books before this. So, if there has been any delay, the delay cannot be blamed on the opposition. It is the customary bad management of the sessional affairs by the government.
Apparently the government had some frantic reasons for departing from the normal procedure in parliament, some frantic reasons for interrupting the business of the house which the Prime Minister told us was going to be interrupted for only two measures but, as has occurred, it has been interrupted since for over a week. The business of the house could have proceeded until the four days of debate on the address had been completed, without injury to anyone and this bill could then have been given priority.


Even now, as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) pointed out very cogently, there is no reason why the committee should not be set up.
I am speaking without having consulted my hon. friend from Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) but I am sure we on our part would be prepared to have a motion made and disposed of at once to set up the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, so that it could meet on Thursday morning and dispose of this matter then. It seems to me that would not be diffcult but it also seems to me, in view of what the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Port Arthur have said, we have a duty in this house, on both sides of the house but particularly on the opposition side, to scrutinize all these railway bills at a time when the royal commission appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite is suggesting that hundreds of miles of railways be torn up all over the country.
When we are being asked to build new branch lines it is our duty to see that these lines are warranted, and not take them on faith from the government. I am not questioning the good faith of the government when I say this. I am just saying that is the proper way to do it, and the Minister of Transport evidently thought so last night because his language was quite categorical, as reported at page 772 of Hansard. It would not seem to me that any new consideration has developed overnight, unless some of the suspicions of my hon. friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin) are correct.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is a very suspicious man.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that is not the case then there is no reason on the face of the earth why this matter should not go to the committee; there is no reason why the officials should not be there to give us all the information we need on Thursday, and then the matter could be brought back and be disposed of, obviously, very quickly indeed. We have had far too many departures from the normal procedure in this session of parliament. If it is the government's intention, as I believe it is, for this to be a normal session of parliament I do not see why they do not try to behave normally and not in the frantic, feverish way they are behaving at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One must be normal to do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend says one must be normal to do that. I do not wish

to cast any more reflections on the government collectively, or on any of its members individually, beyond those I have cast already.


Michael Starr: Don't you consider yourself normal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be happy to leave that judgment to my constituents, and I shall perhaps do it with an easier mind than the minister who interrupted me.


Michael Starr: You could run in my riding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I reciprocate the hon. gentleman's invitation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Talk about railways.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Veterans Affairs suggests 1 talk about railways. As a matter of fact it was not I who got off the subject of railways. It was the Minister of Labour who is obviously exceedingly perturbed today, and with very good reason.


Michael Starr: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was he who got off on that branch line of his own.


An hon. Member:: You started it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor, and I do not think it is going to advance the debate to have half a dozen members shouting across the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I was saying in this intervention, which would have been much briefer but for the hon. gentlemen opposite who were interrupting me, our view is that this railway bill should be treated in the normal parliamentary fashion. Within those limits, as the hon. member for Laurier has pointed out, we think the government has made a good prima facie case for the bill and if the prima facie case is justified by the facts brought out in committee, there will be no need for any delay which would concern the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) who spoke so moderately about this matter.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to make reference to some of the matters which came up this afternoon. May I deal first, but not at any length, with the accusation of bad management offered us by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I should point out that the committees
Canadian National Railways of the house would have been set up long ago had the Liberal party provided the names of its members for the various standing committees.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That cannot normally be done until the address is disposed of. On a point of order, the minister has made a statement which is not only an unwarranted reflection on hon. gentlemen on this side of the house but one which is not in accord with the rules of the house, because it is not usual to bring them up until the address is disposed of.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Habel:: I merely rise to say that the names of members from this side of the house to be appointed to committees have been in the whip's office since one o'clock this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the whip?


Lionel Chevrier: Better move on to another argument.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was going to refrain from drawing attention to this lack of competence on the part of the Liberal party but, in view of what has been said, perhaps we should revert to motions at six o'clock tonight, or first thing tomorrow, so that the committees could be set up. That being done it would then be reasonable to refer this bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. But in view of the great urgency of this matter, and in view of the fact the committee had not been set up we thought the house would consider using the other method proposed.
However, under the circumstances and seeing we are co-operating together so effectively, if the committee is set up very promptly and meets, if the bill can be considered by that committee on Thursday of this week then I think we can make progress, all of us recognizing the need for some haste in this matter because of the bridge that has to be built. I would at this stage suggest that, all these things being done, I would then ask for the co-operation of the house on Friday, if the committee has finished its work, to interrupt if necessary the speech from the throne, if that is what we are considering on Friday, in order that the bill might be passed through this house and referred to the Senate because the other place would have to consider it by Tuesday in order to complete the procedure, followed then by royal assent. In order to get this railway in motion and get the bridge built during the winter season we would have to do this within the next seven days.
816	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways I put this forward expecting that it will meet with a ready response from hon. gentlemen opposite.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurierl:	Mr. Speaker, while I have already spoken on this matter and perhaps I am out of order, it may be considered that I am speaking to a point of order in reply to what has been suggested by the house leader. I think the suggestion he has made goes much further toward meeting the wishes, certainly of those on this side of the house and, I feel sure, all others, than the suggestion the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) made earlier this day.
We on this side of the house think there should be a reference of this matter to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. We will, to the extent that we can, expedite the meeting of the committee. Since the names of those composing the committee are now in the hands of those responsible for setting it up, that could perhaps be done and the committee could meet at a later date, when the matter could be discussed with the various officials. If, as the house leader now indicates, we might be on the speech from the throne on Friday-in fact, as he rather positively indicates-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I put an "if" in there.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I have taken the "if" out.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Are you the house leader?


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as we are concerned there would be no objection to interrupting the speech from the throne in order to return to this matter so that we could consider it in committee of the whole house after study in the railway committee. Therefore those who sit on the other side of the house surely cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, suggest that we are not co-operating in the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) wish to concur in the proposed arrangement?


Douglas Mason Fisher: It sounds fine to me, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do you speak for your party?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the appropriate order, as I have listened to the discussion, would be that the house now agrees that when this bill returns from the committee, if the throne speech stands in the way of its progress in committee of the whole house and third


reading, then the throne speech may be interrupted to consider this bill in committee and third reading. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, all I wish to say is that I am very grateful to hon. members for realizing the urgency of this bill. When I suggested that we might study the bill before a committee of the whole house I was not informed of the tabling of the list of opposition members who are on the committee, so I was rather nervous as far as the completion date of our proceedings was concerned.
However, I am very grateful to the house. Everything seems in order and, as the minister concerned, I think it is a better procedure to send these branch line bills before the standing committee because it gives an opportunity to all hon. members of the house to ask pertinent questions of the officers of the company.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has asked a few questions. I do not intend to answer them all today because some of them will be answered by the experts of the company, who have all these figures. If we had been in committee of the whole I had intended to secure this information, but I am quite sure it will be agreeable to hon. members to hold these questions for the experts in the standing committee.
I just want to answer one question. Yesterday the hon. member asked me to give a brief summary of the cost per mile of this branch line compared with the cost per mile of other branch lines built recently in Canada. The average cost per mile of this one is $99,138. I have here a list of nine branch lines and, starting with the branch line from Sherridon to Lynn lake, the average cost per mile was $117,000; Terrace to Kitimat was $232,000; Beattyville to Chibougamau, $113,000; Bartibog to Heath steel mines, $103,000; Sipiwesk to Thompson, Manitoba, $143,000; Optic lake to Chisel lake, $124,000; Hillsport to Manitouwadge, $109,000; St. Felicien to Cache lake, $124,000, and Mat-tagami to Mattagami lake, the estimated cost per mile is $140,000. Therefore the average cost per mile of this particular branch line is about the lowest we have had in Canada in quite a number of years.
The hon. member for Laurier again raised the issue of the agreement and said that he intended to ask questions on the agreement if we had been in committee of the whole. The officers of the company will be very pleased to answer any questions the hon.

Canadian National Railways
member wishes to ask in the standing committee. However, I again repeat that he should not be too hopeful because I do not think it would be proper to produce the agreement itself, for the various reasons I gave yesterday and to which the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) just referred. Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat I move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Speaker:: I must put the question on second reading before accepting the minister's motion to refer the bill to the committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Léon Balcer: that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and to provide for the construction and operation on behalf of Her Majesty of a line of railway in the province of Quebec, between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts, a distance of approximately 57 miles; to provide also that the governor in council shall pay to the Canadian National Railway Company an amount equal to the cost to the said company of constructing the railway line (including the cost of survey of location and the cost of acquisition of the land required for the railway line) not exceeding in any case the sum of $16,100,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, it is undoubtedly an honour for me to sponsor today a bill the purpose of which is to promote the industrial and commercial development of one of the most picturesque areas of the province of Quebec, the Gaspe peninsula. Most members of the house are familiar with that region and all will agree with me that it is a most interesting part of our country, not only as a tourist attraction but also because of its population whose distinctive features have always appealed to other Canadians.
Indeed, Gaspe, that rugged part of our country, was settled by pioneers several hundred years ago. The people of the Gaspe peninsula have lived through rather difficult
times, quite often without other means of survival than fishing and a little wood-cutting, and their activities have always been hampered by the lack of transportation facilities. Yet, both the federal and provincial governments were often urged to find means of ensuring the economic survival of that part of our country so that its people would enjoy the same standard of living as the rest of Canada.
The problem of transportation in general was brought to the public's attention in the lower St. Lawrence district and the Gaspe peninsula many years ago. More recently, in the past ten years, the chambers of commerce, the municipal councils, the economic planning councils, all kinds of associations and all those who are concerned with the particular problems of that area, have given thorough consideration to the problems of transportation within the peninsula and between Gaspe and the other Canadian centres.
Renowned experts like Mr. Pierre Camu and Dr. Huet Massue have prepared extensive reports on that problem in eastern Quebec. Those documents have shown among other things that the lack of railway facilities in the Gaspe peninsula, is an obstacle to the development of an area which has always suffered from the fact that it is traditionally far from markets.
The economic future of the lower St. Lawrence district and of the Gaspe peninsula is directly related to the means of transportation available. The present government appreciates the magnitude of the problem and that is why it has taken bold and courageous action in that field. It did not merely make promises, it took initiatives: harbour improvements, new "roll on roll off" ferry services, year-round navigation between both shores of the St. Lawrence. In the same spirit, it now seeks the house's approval of a bill which would earmark $14 million for the construction of a new railway between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts.
A moment ago, I spoke of the ferry service we provided in that part of the lower St. Lawrence district.
The geographical location of the Gaspe peninsula has tragical effects. In fact, Gaspe is right in front of one of the richest districts in Canada, perhaps in the whole world; several billions of dollars are being spent on development in that area which is but some ten miles from Gaspe. That was the situation in the Gaspe peninsula; with the years it became a depressed area and, as usual, the people started moving out.
818	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
Our government is convinced that if transportation facilities are multiplied between Gaspe and the rest of Canada, and especially through a ferry service between the peninsula and the north shore, the people will start moving back to Gaspe which was settled over 300 years ago whereas the north shore was opened up on a large scale only in the past fifteen years.
The government hopes that this will bring about an exchange of population between the two shores of the St. Lawrence, which should further the development of the Gaspe peninsula.
As I pointed out earlier, the big problem in the Gaspe peninsula is one of transportation, and I am convinced that this measure which I have the privilege of introducing in this house today will be another factor in allowing the people of this area to attain the same economic level as the rest of the country.
There already is a line of some 40 miles in length between Mont Joli and Matane and, with the addition of the projected line, this will mean that the area extending from Mont Joli to Ste. Anne des Monts will be served by a railway on a distance of some 100 miles. Moreover, the population to be served by this railway, or directly concerned with this bill, exceeds 100,000.
Already, some mining companies have indicated that the extension of the line to Ste. Anne des Monts will enable them to carry out their development projects. One such case is that of a subsidiary of the East Sullivan Mines Ltd. I have seen correspondence in which officials of this well known company have indicated that, if the area in which they own properties could be joined to Ste. Anne des Monts, they would be in a position to develop them economically.
It may also be inferred that several other mining companies were only waiting for adequate means of transportation before increasing their mining operations.
Ever since the development of the Murdoch-ville mine started, the people of the Gaspe peninsula have been hopeful because that very rugged country contains huge mineral deposits.
That is why the government submits today to the consideration of this house a bill which will provide for the development, on a sound basis, of all those mineral deposits and of the other natural resources of Gaspe such as wood and wood products. I have no doubt that the construction of this railway line will be conducive to the solution of the economic problems of that region.


I also know that one of the most important pulp and paper companies in the province of Quebec has always wanted the extension of that railway line to Ste. Anne des Monts because in the forests of the Gaspe peninsula lie almost unlimited resources. Yet, in recent years, we have witnessed the tragedy of a people living on a quite scant income only a few miles in the interior of a peninsula which has boundless forests that could not be developed on a sound basis because of the lack of transportation.
The bill under discussion provides for the construction and the operation of a railway line, from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts, in the constituencies of Matane and Gaspe. That region of the Gaspe peninsula has been for some time the proposed site for a railway; but the project was never carried out. This construction will therefore be an effort or rather a development project to improve the economy of that region, to give the lumber industry easier access to the markets and to promote the development of mines and other resources in that part of the Gaspe peninsula by providing direct transportation by rail. The possible traffic, without taking into account future mining developments, would be made up of pulpwood, shavings, lumber, gasoline, oil and building materials and goods in general.
In view of the fact that this is a development project, the procedure adopted will be as follows: the Canadian National Railways will build the line on behalf of the government; the company will operate and maintain that line on the same basis. The surplus in revenue from this line will be given over to the government; on the other hand, any deficit suffered by the Canadian National Railways will be made good. This line will be linked to the main line of the Canadian National Railways through the Canada Gulf Terminal line. The line will cover a distance of approximately 57 miles and cost approximately $14 millions.
Mr. Chairman, as the house can see, this is a development railway, a railway for the development of natural resources which, at the present time, are untapped.
We are convinced that the future will prove right those who have advocated that project, the people of the Gaspe peninsula who have been asking for that railway for years, and the government which puts its faith in the people of the Gaspe peninsula, while promoting the economic development of Canada and, in particular, of the province of Quebec and that region of the province.

Some hon. members may express doubts as to the advisability of constructing that line now instead of next year but I think that we must have vision and construct right now this development railway which will not only provide for the development of natural resources in the Gaspe peninsula but will also offer to its people who have always lacked adequate transportation an opportunity to ship their products without paying prohibitive transport rates. This railway will also enable them to compete in the domestic market.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a moment ago, this is a development railway. It is a railway which is to be built and operated by the C.N.R. That is why I intend during the debate on second reading, to table the draft contract between the government and the Canadian National Railways.
Therefore, it gives me pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to commend this resolution to the approval of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I followed closely the statement of the minister on the construction of a railway line between Ma-tane and Ste. Anne des Monts.
During the course of his remarks he told us that the object of this line is to develop the Gaspe area which has suffered for many long years from a lack of transportation. He told us the construction of this line was intended to promote industrial, and commercial development in that area of the Gaspe peninsula.
We, who are sitting on this side of the house, are in agreement with what the minister said, and consequently we intend to support the measure he introduced today.
It is not the first time that reference is being made to the construction of a railroad in the Gaspe peninsula. Indeed, the minister said himself that many are those who have promoted such a project.
It is obvious that the means of transportation in that area are of concern to all those who have at heart the development of the Gaspe area. I do not refer exclusively to individuals and business firms, to corporations and associations, but to several others who, for many years, have made representations in favour of such a project.
The minister referred in particular to the study of the matter made by Messrs. Pierre Camu and Huet Massue. So, I should like to read into the record some of the recommendations made by Mr. Pierre Camu in his report entitled "Transportation Problems in
Canadian National Railways the Lower St. Lawrence Area", which was submitted by the lower St. Lawrence council on economic planning in 1960.
The minister, I am sure, will have no objection to my reading into the record some recommendations concerning not only the railroad, but all the subjects to which he referred, including the ferries and other means of transportation between both shores of the St. Lawrence.
I do not propose to read into the record all of what Mr. Camu recommends. But it seems to me that some of his recommendations should be brought to the attention of the house.
In the conclusion of that report, which may be found on page 91, we read the following: Recommendations and suggestions
1.	About the port area Riviere du Loup-Gros Cacouna, we believe that this area could attract a potential traffic of more than 1,227,000 tons from an hinterland including the counties of Riviere du Loup, Temiscouata and Kamouraska, the northeastern part of New Brunswick and the northeastern part of the state of Maine. To handle such a traffic, adequate port facilities are required to accommodate at the same time at least two sea-going vessels of three thousand gross tons; a shed 300 feet long by 50 feet wide must also be provided, as well as a railroad and necessary wharves for a ferry. Consideration should perhaps be given to choosing another site for the present wharf at Riviere du Loup. The Gros Cacouna site would seem to be the most appropriate.
2.	In order to improve the port of Matane, the possibility of changing the course of the mouth of the river could be considered; it would then be easier to drag the basin and maintain water at an adequate level. Another solution would consist in extending the pier or to construct a submerged pier to hold back alluvial deposits at the port entrance.
I shall skip the third recommendation, which deals with a purely provincial matter.
4.	To maintain and develop marketing and trade with the north shore, we suggest the establishment of three ferry services: between Riviere du Loup or Gros Cacouna and Tadoussac; between Rimouski and Pointe au Pere and Baie Comeau; and between Matane and Godbout. We recommend the use of ferry boats which can navigate through ice floes and carry, each trip, a few trailer trucks and one or two buses.
5.	We contemplate the possibility of grain elevators, of the type built at Baie Comeau and designed for the same purpose, being erected in the harbours of the area.
Another possibility would be, especially in winter, to accentuate the national character of the lower St. Lawrence ports, to make them gateways of Canadian trade.
6.	The matter of grants to shipping companies should be re-examined by both governments, the Quebec government and the federal government.
A total of $241,000 is paid annually to the shipping companies servicing the lower St. Lawrence. That is not much compared to what is paid elsewhere for so-called "essential" services. We believe that the economic planning council for the lower St. Lawrence is entitled to know whether the services

Canadian National Railways
offered by the companies are consistent with the intent and the letter of the acts governing the conditions of payment of the grants.
I skip recommendation 7 and pass on to 8 which reads as follows:
8.	We believe that the introduction of the piggyback service would be beneficial to the economy of the lower St. Lawrence region and that it should be given a try, providing that the truckers can drive overnight the full distance between Mont Joli and Montreal, either way, all year round.
9.	The Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway should be taken over by the Canadian National Railways as soon as possible.
Finally:
12. The trucking companies are up against a competition they call unfair from the railways. As a matter of fact, in that part of Quebec, the trucking companies that operate between various cities charge rates lower than those of the other companies in the province, in order to compete with the rates set by the railways whose operating deficits are made up through grants at the end of the year. And yet, the trucking companies in the area pay the same taxes, buy the same permits, etc., as similar companies elsewhere in the province.
The provincial government should increase the maximum permissible load from 50,000 to 60,000 pounds, and the provincial transport commission should allow direct transportation, by the same carrier, of goods shipped from one city to another in the area.
15.	The establishment of railcar services between Riviere du Loup and Matane, Riviere du Loup and Edmunston and Mont Joli and Campbellton-Dal-housie should be requested.
16.	The Mont Joli airport should become the regional airport of the lower St. Lawrence.
17.	As for passenger traffic, the aims of the economic council of the lower St. Lawrence should be: (1) to see to it that the highway system is improved; (2) to make suggestions to the department of roads as to what is felt desirable for the years to come; (3) to study and analyse the timetables of the railway, bus and air line companies, with a view to improving and facilitating movements within the area, and between that area and surrounding areas.
I wanted to bring to the attention of this house the careful study carried out by Dr. Camu, at the time director of research in the department of commerce of Laval university, who is now, as it is generally known, vice president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. When he prepared this brief and made those recommendations, he had studied the whole question of transportation in the lower St. Lawrence district.
Thus, as far as the railway legislation mentioned by the minister, and which is now before the house is concerned, we should seriously consider all suggestions made by an expert in this matter, some of which can be approved by the federal government and the Department of Transport, while others are under provincial jurisdiction.
The minister told us that the railway will go from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts. He also stated that a crown corporation-I assume he meant the C.N.R.-would be responsible for building and operating the

railway and that, if there were any deficits, they would also be covered by that crown company, while, in the case of a surplus, the company would benefit.
I think it is also important to know what will become of the gap between Matane and Mont Joli, where the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway operates, which is owned neither by the federal government nor by an agent of the crown, but by some other entity. As the government did not expropriate that railway, it is neither the owner nor, if I am not mistaken, does it have a right of way on that line. Would the minister tell us what arrangements will be made with the owners of the Canada and Gulf Terminal to enable the C.N.R. to extend its track to Ste. Anne des Monts?
Nor did the minister tell us whether that 57 mile railway line will be extended by 44 miles, and by a further 46 miles to the site of the Gaspe Copper Mine, or whether it will be extended by 44 miles plus 14 miles to the Federal Metal Corporation, those companies being copper mining developments.
The minister said that there would be transportation facilities for the ore from those mines. Will those facilities follow the recommendations made by Mr. Camu? For instance, will there be any day-lines or piggy-back service from those mines to Ste. Anne des Monts?
I think the house wants to have some idea of the government's intention in this respect.
Now, the minister talked about the great benefits to our industry and our trade which will result from the construction of this railway. There is no doubt about that. But I also ask the minister the following question: could he not have done the same thing he did in the case of this railway for an air line operating in the lower St. Lawrence, the Quebecair company. The minister is surely aware of the fact that this company has faced rather serious difficulties for some time, and the government had a good opportunity to offer such help. I do not intend for one moment to throw any blame on the minister himself because, from the reply he gave to a question I put in this house, it appears that it is the government which has not deemed proper, either through the air transport board or through a submission to the treasury board, to allow a grant or a payment to this air line for its winter operations.
Perhaps the minister, when replying to our remarks, could tell us how it is that, with regard to this transportation system, it has not been possible to provide assistance. Could he tell us more specifically whether or not that railway, which is intended of

course for the development of the area, is not granted more or less as a compensation for having refused to assist the air line?
Mr. Chairman, I have said enough for the time being. We shall wholeheartedly support the proposed construction of that railroad which will extend 57 miles. We shall support it because we believe it is for the industrial and commercial development of the lower St. Lawrence area, which is now developing not only on account of the mines, referred to by the minister, but also on account of the iron ore deposits of the north shore, the development of which has been rendered possible, to a great extent, by the St. Lawrence seaway.
It is not impossible that with the years that line which will soon be constructed may serve to supplement other means of transportation which have been established in that area by previous governments.
For all those reasons, the opposition will not only be pleased, but will consider it a duty, to support the resolution.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have been particularly interested in this measure because I noted, in reviewing the hearings of the royal commission on transportation, there was a certain sense of loss, or perhaps it would be better described as a feeling on the part of the Quebec government at the time the hearings were held that Quebec had not had its fair share of railway development in the twentieth century. The Quebec provincial brief was presented by Daniel Johnson, who I understand is now the leader of the opposition but at that time was the minister in charge of the department of the Quebec government that had the responsibility for making the presentation to the royal commission.
In a number of places he argues that from 1920 to 1958 in particular, while development lines were being pursued in other parts of the country, Quebec was going short, and that this particularly applied to lines of the Canadian National Railways. His actual words appear at page 7692 of the transcript of the hearing, where he said:
It should be pointed out that Quebec got the least increase of all the provinces of Canada during these many years. It may be pointed out to us that we must take into consideration the location of the network with regard to the geographic location of the population, that we have less miles of railway than the other provinces of Canada with regard to their population, but that the network is better situated, performs better, carries more. In brief, that it is efficient. The problem, as we see it, must be related to the role that the railway has played and will play in the development of a territory or region and we think that the regions which are not now served or served poorly in Quebec, would have benefited considerably and would have gained
Canadian National Railways more by a more concentrated network, especially when the railway favours the development of the natural resources of the region.
Then, Mr. Johnson goes on to indicate the areas in Quebec which he feels, and the Quebec government at the time felt, should have railway extensions. The first one was from Mont Laurier to Maniwaki; the second, from Mont Laurier to Senneterre; the third, was Dolbeau and Baie Comeau, Port Cartier and Seven Islands; the fourth, Chicoutimi and Tadoussac-Baie Comeau-Port Cartier and Seven Islands; the fifth, Gaspe and Matane, along the St. Lawrence; sixth, La Malbaie and Tadoussac, and around the Saguenay towards Seven Islands; seventh, Angliers and Rouyn-Noranda.
Now, the government apparently has decided that this particular line has priority over the others that were indicated as meriting development on the part of the Canadian National Railways. I would hope that in committee we could expect to get an explanation as to why this particular line has been given priority. I am not being critical, but since suggestions have been made that there are eight possible lines that should be pursued and one has been chosen, we will want to know the reason this particular line has priority, especially in view of the fact there is not the usual economic activity directly associated with this line such as existed in connection with the extensions that were put into Chibougamau or the one we are planning into Alberta in connection with the sulphur development.
I would hope, for that reason, when the minister is giving his explanation or perhaps when the bill is before the committee, we could be told why this particular line was chosen. We must honestly admit that we know very little about the potentialities of that particular region of the country. I again point out that the chamber of commerce representing Gaspe appeared before the royal commission on transportation. I have gone through their brief and their cross-examination, but I cannot find any indication of a particularly enthusiastic investigation of this particular line, in the sense that other regional groups who came to the hearings in Quebec made strong pleas. For example, the delegation from Lake St. John region and the other group from Abitibi made very strong representations about branch line development. Since the chamber of commerce from Gaspe did not do more than raise the question, then the question arises in my mind, why was this particular line given priority over the other requests?


The Chairman:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the

Criminal Code
house may give consideration to private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: the second reading of Bill No. C-13, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code, is identical in every way with a bill introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was a distinguished member of the opposition. I introduce this bill for the very same reasons that he introduced his, and with the same objectives.
The purpose of this bill is to make it a criminal offence for every owner, lessee or person operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, saw mill or other plant or works, or any other person to discharge or throw or allow to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product, raw sewage, oil, sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river, stream or other water any part of which is interprovincial or which flows into any interprovincial water, which has the effect of endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public.
Anyone committing an offence under this amendment would be liable to a fine of $25,000 for a first offence and $50,000 for a second offence, or would be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. I realize the scope of this bill is somewhat limited in extent, but I do think it is one step we can take to deal with the growing problem of pollution. It would indicate that this house is willing to amend federal legislation to exercise the authority of the federal parliament in doing what can be done to prevent this growing and increasingly dangerous nuisance.
I might say that I have always taken an interest in the question of conservation of natural resources, particularly with respect to the maintenance of the pure state of our rivers, lakes, streams and other waters. Personally I am in the happy position of living a great number of miles from my nearest neighbour and my domestic and irrigation water comes from a snow capped mountain. So far as I can anticipate, I shall not suffer from any menace of pollution from the action of any other human being. On that account I am particularly concerned with the problem as it faces Canadians in more densely populated portions of Canada and possibly am
[The Chairman.]
more horrified than some who live under these conditions, particularly in Ontario, when I see beautiful rivers polluted by sewage and industrial waste, with little being done to correct the situation throughout the years.
This problem is of growing concern to an increasing number of Canadians. I recognize that from the interest taken in it by municipal authorities, provincial authorities, and other local groups, organizations and agencies. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that more people are becoming increasingly interested in the problem.
In my constituency the people are fortunate in so far as most of them live on the great Columbia river and the great Kootenay river or some of its tributaries. Up to recent days they have been free from the menace of pollution; but with industrial expansion they are becoming aware of the possibility of pollution in future, and are very anxious to do all they can to maintain the purity of the water they have enjoyed throughout the years. They are anxious to mantain its purity for domestic purposes and also for the continued propagation of the large fish population which is to be found in the lakes there. They are very anxious that action be taken before it is too late, before we begin to experience some of the pollution that is experienced by other parts of Canada where settlement is more dense and where there has been settlement over a longer period of time.
Interest in this question and the importance of the problem itself is indicated by the growing concern of various groups, in the first instance of the provincial governments and then of various agencies within the provinces. It is a matter which was discussed at the annual resources conference in British Columbia, where pollution is a serious problem in coastal areas at the present time.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


William Joseph Browne: I wonder whether he could indicate what rivers are interprovincial into which other waters go? I can understand the Ottawa being one of them but there are not many like it in Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When the Prime Minister on a former occasion introduced a bill similar to this he had the Saskatchewan river in mind at that time. The problem arose of pollution in Alberta affecting the people in Saskatchewan; and naturally the Prime Minister, coming from an area which suffered in that way, brought it to the attention of the house by the introduction of a bill similar

to this one. I realize the rivers I have mentioned are not interprovincial. They are international rivers, but I am dealing with the problem in a very broad way.
Before I come to my concluding remarks, which I trust in view of my following the footsteps of the Prime Minister, will receive a favourable response from hon. members on the government side of the house, I should like to refer to the resources conference I already mentioned. It is held annually in British Columbia and has paid considerable attention to the increasing menace and danger to the purity of our waters. It was also a subject of considerable discussion at the "Resources for Tomorrow" conference held in Montreal from October 23 to October 28 last year. Anyone who has perused its most interesting and valuable reports will see the importance that was attached to the problem.
In that connection I wish to quote briefly from its reports. I should say it is not my intention to speak at great length because I want to give hon. members an opportunity to express themselves on this subject. This is a paper which was prepared by Mr. J. R. Menzies, chief, public health engineering division, Department of [National Health and Welfare, Ottawa. It was headed "Water Pollution in Canada by Drainage Basins" and in it he mentions:
A publication of the World Health Organization contains the following statement:
"When the forces of sanitary deterioration are considered, such as those that accompany increasing population density and industrialization, it becomes evident that the sanitary control of the environment is slipping backward. In spite of all of a positive nature that WHO and similar agencies have attempted to do, the world is probably in worse sanitary condition now than it was 10 years ago. The forces of deterioration have outstripped the forces of betterment."
It would be unfair to regard this as an accurate statement for all parts of Canada but it accurately portrays conditions in fairly extensive areas where pollution abatement and control are not receiving sufficient support from regulatory authorities and the general public.
He goes on to say, under a paragraph headed "Water use, and effects of pollution":
Water use may be thought of in several broad categories such as domestic, industrial, agricultural, power, navigation, wild life and recreational. The effects of pollution within these classifications vary widely.
Then he goes on finally to say:
Broadly speaking, the effects of pollution become a matter of general interest only when they are notoriously bad.
That is the unfortunate position, Mr. Speaker. People only become interested when the effects are notoriously bad. He went on to say something about conditions in the waters that are not affected to any great extent today:
Criminal Code
The situation arouses public attention when a body of water becomes septic or when fish and wild fowl are destroyed in quantity. Because of modern water treatment methods, water-borne epidemics are infrequent although it is quite possible, even probable, that epidemics of non-fatal character go unrecognized as being water-borne. When tastes or odours develop in a municipal water supply due to pollution, they are usually of local interest.
That situation has been brought to my attention by one or two smaller municipalities in my constituency. This article continues:
Two conditions of increasing significance are related to the rapidly expanding use of synthetic detergents. Even with modern sewage treatment methods these detergents are not neutralized or destroyed to the degree that their effects are not recognizable. Because they contain elements such as phosphorus in the form of polyphosphate additives, it is suspected that they may be, in part, responsible for luxuriant growths of algae in the receiving waters.
That is a complaint I have had brought to my attention:
Complaints concerning algae are becoming more frequent. Tastes and odours may result from their decomposition and the cost of water treatment is increased.
Mr. Speaker, I mention this because not only have we been affected by the traditional pollution caused by municipal sewage, industrial waste and so on, but now we have this added problem of detergents. I think a good many housewives would be much wiser to return to the good old soap and water. However, in the past there has been some good work done in Canada in connection with this problem. At this time I wish to pay tribute to the work that has been done by the international joint commission as the result of co-operative effort between the Canadian and United States sections of the commission, co-operation between provinces and states which has been extended to the commission, in some cases municipalities and in other cases the industries that are causing the pollution complained of.
I think the first reference to the international joint commission on this question was made in 1913, but I think it was 1946 before any concrete references were made to the commission and their attention was directed to particular problems and particular studies.
I suggest that anyone who is interested in this subject should obtain a copy of this latest booklet issued by the Canadian section of the international joint commission entitled "Safeguarding boundary water quality. A co-operative effort between United States and Canada under international treaty", referring to the boundary waters treaty of 1909.
I mention this because it does offer a guide, as a result of experience, regarding the direction in which federal and provincial governments should go if this problem is

Criminal Code
to be met. Some excellent work has been done by provincial governments, agencies of provincial governments, in some instances by local conservation organizations and groups, and in a few cases by the industries particularly concerned with the problem. I think it is safe to say that experience proves the necessity for federal-provincial government co-operation and action if the problem is to be met properly in the near future.
That is the experience of Great Britain. In recent years they have had to revise their legislation with respect to water pollution and obtain the co-operation of the counties, the municipal authorities, and so on, and they are now-just think, at this late date-beginning to attack this problem in a manner that is producing some desirable results.
That has been the experience in the United States. The problem was left to the local authorities, and over the years the states made some piecemeal approaches to it. Now they have found from experience, however, that the problem can only be met as a result of co-operation between the federal government, the states and the local authorities.
In connection with this matter I wish to mention some recommendations that were made at the resources for tomorrow conference with respect to the problem of water pollution. I suggest that these recommendations should be considered by us all. The conference recommended the creation of a water pollution control division within the framework of the proposed national resources council composed of representatives of the 10 provinces. There was the further recommendation that there should be extensive research into the whole problem as it affects the rivers, lakes and streams of this country, and that there should be a national development fund set up to be used in this field as a result of co-operation between federal, provincial and municipal authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I have touched on the question in a rather broad manner. I dealt with this matter rather broadly to indicate the importance of even this first step. I do urge hon. members to indicate their interest in this problem and their determination to do something about it, even in this limited way, by supporting this very simple amendment to the Criminal Code.
In conclusion, I once again urge hon. members to support this legislation as one more small step toward the elimination of the evil of water pollution, a problem which has been discussed in this house and in the legislatures of this country since 1867. I think it is time now that we ended the talking and took action.


Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to participate in this debate on Bill No. C-13 to amend the Criminal Code sponsored by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). He indicated that he sponsored a similar bill at the last session of parliament, and mentioned that it was identical to the bill sponsored by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) back in 1956, I think.
I had the privilege of moving the following resolution on June 9, 1958:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing a measure to provide by amendment to the Criminal Code appropriate punishment for the offence of water pollution.
The bill before us today is similar to that resolution. On that occasion I believe 20 hon. members from all sides of the house took part in the debate, and I think all of those who spoke supported the resolution. The hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken), in supporting the resolution expressed regret that it did not also include appropriate punishment for the offence of air pollution. I do not think air pollution is as widely scattered as water pollution, but it is prevalent in large industrial centres and is a real problem.
The matter of water pollution is of concern to all Canadians. I recall hearing a statement that, at the rate of pollution that was taking place, by 1980 there would not be a clean stream or river left in Canada. This situation is alarming. It has often been said that water is our most important natural resource, that it is more important than our minerals, oil, agricultural products, and the like.
Representing a Manitoba riding which includes all of lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba, and having my home at Gimli, a town on the shores of lake Winnipeg, I am very conscious of water pollution. Interprovincial rivers empty into lake Winnipeg. These include the North and South Saskatchewan rivers. Both these rivers originate in the Rocky mountains. We also have the Assiniboine river, which originates in western Canada. Then we have an international river, the Red river, which originates in the United States. These rivers are polluted along their way by raw sewage. Various towns and cities dump their raw sewage into these rivers, and they are also polluted by industrial wastes. This eventually entered lake Winnipeg, resulting in the pollution of part of that lake. In addition to having an adverse effect upon fish and wild life, this has also created problems for some of our summer resorts situated on both the east and west sides of the southern part of lake Winnipeg.

Water pollution is not a new problem. It has been discussed in this house on a number of occasions. As the hon. member who introduced this bill mentioned, a similar measure was introduced in this chamber in February of 1956. The hon. member for Prince Albert, now Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) speaking on the resolution he introduced in that year had this to say as will be found at page 1631 of Hansard:
In other words, the amendment which I am suggesting is to cover the general situation arising out of the pollution of interprovincial streams in Canada. In the case of navigable streams offences are created in so far as the Fisheries Act is concerned when anything in the nature of an effluent and the like is dumped into a stream and causes harm to fish; but in so far as interprovincial rivers are concerned, as the law stands today there is practical immunity for those who dump effluents into the river because of the wording of the section in question which permits wanton and wilful pollution of streams when there is no effect upon the health and comfort of the individual.
There are many examples of this, one outstanding example being the majestic Ottawa river which adjoins these parliament buildings.
I am sure all hon. members are familiar with the pollution problem caused by the discharge of sewage into the Ottawa river. The hon. member for Prince Albert also had this to say:
I believe that in the realm of God's richest bounty clean river water should have a high place and ought not to be allowed to be sacrificed to private greed or to wanton and wilful pollution. There is nothing today in the law to protect the public against wanton and wilful pollution by a small minority who for their own purposes contemptuously disregard the public interest in so far as interprovincial rivers are concerned.
This matter is of great importance for all Canada, because I think every province has some interprovincial river running through it. I recognize the urgency of the subject under discussion. I am also concerned about the heavy expenditure which will certainly be involved in solving this problem. The cooperation of individuals at all levels of government will be necessary if pollution is to be eliminated. The bill under discussion makes it an offence for the owners of industrial plants and oil refineries, or other persons, to discharge noxious matter into an interprovincial water thus endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public. This is a preventive measure. However, in order to correct existing conditions the installation of many filtration plants will be required. I believe financial arrangements will have to be worked out between all levels of government to this end, since the problem is one which is of enormous size.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Mc-Cleave) speaking on the resolution I introduced on June 9, 1958, had this to say as reported in Hansard at page 975:
Criminal Code
I think it should also be pointed out to the house that one of the problems we are going to face in setting up this safeguard, and I hope we do, is a municipal one.
Many of the municipalities will find it extremely difficult to finance sewerage and other large undertakings. They have found these projects difficult in the past with the result that many of the growing communities-and I have in mind particularly those in Halifax and in the Montreal area-have tackled the problem in a piecemeal fashion. There is a widespread use of cesspools, which sometimes stay within limits but sometimes, unfortunately, do not, thus causing great difficulties to those downhill.
I think in proceeding on a resolution of this kind we must be very careful that we do not initially throw too great a burden upon the municipal authorities who are finding it difficult enough at the present time to raise the wherewithal to provide for their necessary services.
I agree with the hon. member for Halifax that many municipalities will find it difficult to finance these sewage treatment projects. The government recognized this at the last session of parliament when amendments to the National Housing Act were passed. Part VI B of the act deals with loans in respect of municipal sewage treatment projects and I should like to refer to that act for a few moments. Section 36F states:
In order to assist in the elimination or prevention of water and soil pollution in any municipality the corporation may, with the approval of the governor in council, make a loan to a municipality or a municipal sewerage corporation for the purpose of assisting in the construction or expansion of a sewage treatment project.
Then the clause goes on to outline the various conditions upon which such loans may be made. The act also provides some incentive. The following clause, clause 36G states:
Where the construction of a sewage treatment project in respect of which a loan is made under the authority of this part is completed to the satisfaction of the corporation on or before the 31st day of March, 1963, the corporation may forgive payment by the municipality or municipal sewerage corporation of
(a)	25 per cent of the principal amount of the loan; and
(b)	25 per cent of the interest that has accrued in respect of the loan as of the date of the completion of the project.
In addition, subsection (2) of that section states:
Where the construction of a sewage treatment project in respect of which a loan is made under the authority of this part is not completed on or before the 31st day of March, 1963, the corporation may forgive payment by the municipality or municipal sewerage corporation of
(a)	25 per cent of that portion of the principal amount of the loan that has been advanced to the municipality or municipal sewerage corporation as of the 31st day of March, 1963; and
(b)	25 per cent of the interest that has accrued as of the 31st day of March, 1963, on the portion of the loan referred to in paragraph (a).
Thus, hon. members will readily appreciate that the government has recognized the financial difficulties which municipalities will face

Criminal Code
in tackling this water pollution problem by installing filtration and sewage treatment plant.
The act from which I have quoted has already been of considerable assistance. I have some figures here which represent the situation up to December 31, 1961. To that date, the following projects had been approved in Manitoba:
Crystal City	$ 30,000
Gretna	 33,000
Hartney	 15,000
Morden	 39,000
Portage la Prairie	 107,000
Shoal Lake	 32,000
Somerset	 18,000
Total	$274,000
In addition, 18 preliminary applications or inquiries had been received and if these are approved they can result in loans totalling $1,200,000. The over-all picture for Canada to the end of December, 1961, is as follows: 144 projects were approved to a total of $39,936,000. From this hon. members can see that the cost of the projects already approved adds up to a substantial amount and certainly represents a very good start toward tackling this problem of water pollution.
It is extremely gratifying to be a supporter of this government headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the first government to take action with respect to water pollution.
At the resources for tomorrow conference which was referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) extensive discussion on the subject of water pollution resulted in several recommendations being made.
I wish to close by repeating what I said earlier. Water is our most important natural resource. It is important to keep the water in our lakes and rivers clean and free of pollution. I take great pleasure in supporting the bill before the house.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to accept the invitation extended by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) of indicating the interest and support of the Liberal party with respect to the objectives sought to be achieved by this bill.
In his bleak expose of the problem the hon. member cited examples of water pollution, particularly in British Columbia. The examples he gave I feel could also apply to all parts of Canada. I believe that all hon. members on all sides of the house and from all parts of the country will accept and support the principles and objectives of this bill. It seems to me we should be careful to ensure
that our affection for and interest in the subject matter of this measure is not so excessive as to lead to our smothering the bill by talking it out. For that reason I propose to be extremely brief in my remarks.
On the order paper Bill No. C-13 is referred to as an act to amend the Criminal Code, and in parenthesis there appears the word "nuisance." That, to me, is a masterpiece of understatement. In my opinion the reference should be not to nuisance but to the sabotage of our natural resources.
I am sure hon. members in all parts of the house who live anywhere near water have been astonished and alarmed by the rate at which the water of our rivers is being polluted. I live in an area where water is extremely important. My home town of Sorel is situated at the junction of the St. Lawrence and Richelieu rivers. I have had ample opportunity to be alarmed by the increasing amount of pollution that is being experienced in both these rivers. I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that the federal government has certain responsibilities in this respect and can take certain steps to eliminate pollution. But if we wish to take effective measures to put an end to this sabotage there will necessarily have to be cooperation and understanding between federal, provincial and municipal governments. It is in the interests of each of the three levels of government to take immediate action in this regard.
Mention was made of the ways by which the water of our rivers is being polluted. Industrial waste and municipal sewage were referred to. However, there is another form of pollution which I feel comes directly under the responsibility of the federal government. I refer to pollution caused by ships emptying their bunkers before approaching large cities. This form of pollution is deadly. In the summer you can go along the St. Lawrence river and find all along the shore a film of oil about one quarter inch thick. Not only are our beaches contaminated by this deposit but the fish are affected and in our area the ducks are also gradually being killed off.
Another serious form of pollution is municipal sewage. The government introduced legislation to assist municipalities in constructing sewage disposal units but the cost is prohibitive and many municipalities are unable to purchase equipment. If we are to meet effectively the problem of pollution further assistance must be given the municipalities to help them assume their share of the work involved in preventing water pollution. As the hon. member for Kootenay-West said, the effective solution of this

problem will require co-operation among individuals, shipping companies, all levels of government and others.
I am not sure this bill will cover all aspects of the problem but I feel the house at this time should take an active interest in this matter. This is not the first time the subject of water pollution has occupied the attention of this house. As has already been mentioned the Prime Minister when sitting as a private member placed on the order paper similar motions. At that time he was keenly interested in having the federal government take the lead in putting an end to water pollution. Later, during the election campaign of 1957, the hon. gentleman had definite plans to bring pollution to an end. Speaking in Prince Albert as reported in the Prince Albert Herald of May 28, 1957, the Prime Minister said:
Speaking about water pollution, Mr. Diefenbaker said: "We will never build great cities in this country unless there is legislation to prevent pollution of water".
And later:
He told of the time he introduced a bill in the House of Commons which would provide for legal punishment of persons found contributing to water pollution. He promised that such legislation would be a major matter for consideration when "we form the government".
The party which is led by the hon. gentleman now forms the government but he has not as yet introduced legislation that would have the effect of putting an end to water pollution. The Prime Minister made a definite promise in Prince Albert. He cannot claim to have fulfilled that promise. I am not sure whether it is one of the 12 that have not been fulfilled, or whether it is one of the 70 general promises made in that period.
If water pollution was an important problem in 1957 is it not equally important in 1962 when the hon. gentleman is in a position to bring into effect legislation of the type about which he bragged in the election campaign? Water pollution is an even more serious problem now than in 1957. Every year there appears to be an increasing amount of pollution in the St. Lawrence and Richelieu rivers and I have no doubt this is true of rivers throughout Canada.
If the government is sincere and if the Prime Minister when he makes a promise intends keeping it, I can see no better way for the government and the Prime Minister to demonstrate sincerity and good faith than by taking action with respect to this bill or by introducing an even more comprehensive measure. I do not believe there is one opposing voice with respect to the objectives that are set out in this bill. I do not believe there is one person in the house who does not realize that our rivers are being rapidly
Criminal Code
contaminated and that our game and our fish are being rapidly destroyed. If everyone feels that this is so I cannot understand why action is not taken on legislation such as this.
In order not to talk this bill out, Mr. Speaker, I will now resume my seat.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I had originally intended to start off by congratulating the hon. member for Kootenay West on his extremely well developed sense of humour which I think led him into a bit of a trap. Before I come to that point however, I think I should refer to some of the things said by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) who does not seem to be cognizant of the measures which have been passed in this house or, in fact, of what this bill means. He talks about the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and about nothing having been done. I listened to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) list what has been done, including the action taken last year under the National Housing Act, the money provided for sewage and pollution control measures. Not only was money provided but provision was made for a rebate of 25 per cent of capital and 25 per cent of interest on all the money expended up to March 31, 1963. Yet the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres says that nothing has been done.
I should like to refer him to the debate that took place on June 2 1961, in which, as reported at page 5800 of Hansard of that day, the hon. member for Saskatoon was speaking. He quoted an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of that date, as follows:
Twenty five million gallons of raw sewage a day pour into the Ottawa river from Ottawa, its suburbs and federal government properties. This is soon to be remedied. The city hopes to have its $20,000,000 sewage treatment and disposal system in operation by April 1, 1963. The project, which had been talked about since 1944-
I would ask you to note the year, Mr. Speaker, namely 1944. What government was in power here from 1944 to 1957? Maybe the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres would like to look up some of the things that were said in those days. Maybe he would like to look up what his own minister said when the Prime Minister brought in this bill. Before he starts throwing any stones, I think he had better make sure what type of house he lives in.
What happened when that bill was passed? There was $7.4 million for a sewage project in Vancouver, $10.2 million for Ottawa; $1.9 million for Toronto, and so on. The hon. member for Selkirk said that up to date 144 projects worth $40 million had been approved, and that in his own province of Manitoba seven projects had been approved

Criminal Code
and 18 projects were being given attention. Yet the hon. member tor Richelieu-Vercheres says nothing has been done.
Then he talks about the emptying of bunker oil, debris jettisoning, the jettisoning of garbage off ships in the St. Lawrence. I have spoken about this sort of thing in the harbour of Vancouver where windrows of it can be seen. He does not seem to realize that the Fisheries Act which applies to navigable waters or a portion of these waters, and to a portion of the seashores, has been amended by this government in order to put teeth into it. I suggest that the hon. member had better start taking a look at things and finding out what the thing is all about.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker-


Ernest James Broome: Just a minute. The hon. member spoke about not wanting to talk the bill out. We have other members who wish to speak on it. I wish to deal with the bill itself right now.
The bill itself talks about interprovincial waters and that is all this bill deals with. It makes provision for dealing with a definite situation in interprovincial waters. Interprovincial waters are the rule on the prairies. I would ask the hon. member for Kootenay West what interprovincial waters there are in British Columbia? I am not going to talk about the Peace river. We have political pollution there. I am talking about the majority of the waters in British Columbia. What about Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick? This bill does not even give a time when it is supposed to come into effect. As I said, I think the hon. member for Kootenay West has been led down the garden path by his own well developed sense of humour. Although the Prime Minister put this in, it is not the solution to the problem. The problem is a real, vital and important one for the people of this country. I refer to water pollution.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We did not say it was the solution. We said it was one thing we could do.


Ernest James Broome: All right. I am glad that the hon. member for Kootenay West has come to the point where, no matter how far in the past the Prime Minister has made a suggestion, he automatically accepts the entire validity of whatever has been said and will follow John. I know he is coming very close to this party, just as his leader may be coming closer to the official opposition. We will welcome the hon. member for Kootenay West whenever he wants to come over to this side of the house. However, if he had read the speeches of the Prime Minister, he would know what he was aiming at at this point.
I say that the government has been taking action to correct water pollution and that

it has been doing so in a way which has been effective. I say that the government will continue to take action to correct it. However I do not see that this bill will do it. For instance let us consider a river such as the Saskatchewan and the hundreds of small communities which lie along that river. Immediately this bill comes into effect every one of those communities is under a fantastic penalty. The record is clear. The hon. member for Selkirk made it clear that these communities, one after the other, are within the limits of their financial resources moving in a way in which they have never moved before in order to take care of this problem of water pollution. This is the way in which it will be done. This is the way in which that particular problem will be cleaned up. However, there are many others in existence. There is the problem of disposal of industrial waste. This material can be even more of a peril than sewage, particularly to fish life.
I wanted to answer the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, Mr. Speaker. I also wish to say that the members who speak on this bill are not trying to talk it out. We are trying to bring intelligent criticism to bear on the bill. We recognize the problem. We also recognize and give credit for what the government has done. I suggest to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres that his speeches would be far more effective if they were a little bit more reasonable and if they recognized a few of the things that have been done. Having done that, let him then make his constructive criticism, if he has any.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question, Mr. Speaker.


Ernest James Broome: I am sorry, but the answer is no. All right, go ahead. What is the question?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: My question is this. Since there is an increasing amount of pollution in the waters of Canada, does the hon. member not agree that government action in this respect is insufficient and incomplete?


Ernest James Broome: No matter what action is taken by any government it would not completely cure the malady. There are financial limitations. However, what I have said is that the government is moving effectively and quickly. The condition is not worsening. Perhaps it is not as good as it should be but at least I believe an improvement is taking place.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Pollution is increasing.


Mr. J. C. MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to enter this debate briefly. Os do all hon. members in this house I am sure most thinking Canadians realize that pure water, our greatest natural resource,

will in a few years be in a position of critical shortage. I should like to compliment the hon. member who brought this bill before the house, because I think it is a most timely one. I commend his common sense in bringing in one that was originally sponsored by the right hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) that if, as he says, the Prime Minister has suggested that his government would be dealing with the problem, it will be dealt with. I say to him that after all we have anywhere from another eight years to 16 years in which this present government can still deal with it. Hence it should be well taken care of in good time.
I should like to put on the record this fact. It seems to me that under the British North America Act rivers-and of course, that is where our pollution is-are the responsibility of the provinces. In 1960 the committee on mines, forests and waters took a very careful look at this question. The Hon. Alvin Hamilton, speaking on Tuesday, March 22, 1960 had this to say:
South of the 60th parallel, the responsibility to develop streams and waters is primarily that of the provinces. They must plan to develop domestic and industrial supplies of water. Irrigation, power, flood control, abatement of pollution.-
This is what this bill covers.
-recreational uses of water are the provinces' prime responsibility. The federal government, in turn, has a responsibility to protect and develop inland fisheries, to protect the navigability of streams and, by virtue of its jurisdiction in agriculture, a responsibility to ensure an adequate supply of water for agricultural purposes. In the international field, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that boundary waters are not polluted to the detriment of health.
I became interested in this particular subject many years ago when living on the banks of a beautiful river in northern New Brunswick, the Restigouche. I saw how that river, famous for its Restigouche Atlantic salmon, was being polluted by industrial waste and by the raw sewage of the towns on its banks. Then, a few years later when I went to live on the St. John river, the Rhine of America, again I saw the same situation. This river, one of the most beautiful in our whole country, has now reached a point where youngsters can no longer swim in it. It is now, completely impossible to drink water from the St. John river unless it is chlorinated. Pollution has reached the point where even the fish population seems to be dying off.
What is happening? First of all, pollution from a number of pulp mills and other plants, 26207-1-53
Criminal Code
raw sewage from cities such as Fredericton and Edmundston. About a year ago provision was made by this government to aid municipalities in the construction of sewage treatment plants. Unfortunately, no city in New Brunswick took advantage of that legislation. However, when the camp Gagetown project was built-it now has 11,000 people-provision was made for a sewage treatment plant, the only one of its kind in the whole province. As I have said, the river is being slowly but surely killed by industrial wastes, by bark from pulp and from raw sewage.
I was most interested a few nights ago in watching a television program in which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle (Mr. Pratt) participated. He pointed out how that portion of the St. Lawrence river and the beautiful Ottawa river were being destroyed. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Campbell) was telling me a few minutes ago that the river beside which he lives in Ontario, the Sydenham, has been almost completely polluted.
Where does the solution to this problem lie? It seems to me that legislation will have to be passed that will force industrial plants to purify their waste material. In the committee that I mentioned earlier, there was a representative of the Cities Service Oil Company who told us his company had established its own filtration plant. After their wastes had been treated, the water was almost pure enough to drink. I felt at that time it was a much better idea for a company to spend part of its profits in this way than in most of the ways in which companies do spend money on advertising. What about our own beautiful St. John river? For many years it has been urged by capable and thinking men in my part of Canada, especially Mr. R. A. Tweeddale, general manager of the New Brunswick electric power commission, that there should be a St. John river authority to deal with all problems such as this. This particular idea has been strongly supported by our local newspaper, the daily Gleaner. I think it is most commendable. I think that is the point that will rapidly have to be reached if we are to save the fish that are in our rivers and if we are to prevent our rivers becoming open sewers. I commend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) upon his introduction of this measure before the house.


Mr. John Pratt (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this subject before and I imagine that my views are well known to the house. I agree completely with

Canadian National Railways the hon. gentleman who has sponsored this bill and I am convinced that his objectives are of the highest. I agree in principle that the bill is serving a good purpose. There is, however, one section of the bill to which I would take exception. I refer to the section which speaks of a person who discharges any noxious waste product into a river, stream or other water any part of which is interprovincial which has the effect of endangering lives or safety, rendering himself guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of $25,000. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this might lead to more trouble than the bill is intended to prevent. As I have said in a previous speech on this subject, the making of such an offence a criminal offence would, in effect, make a poor soul who flushed a toilet responsible for a $25,000 fine.
Speaking on behalf of my own city of Dorval which has been making provisions steadily, I might say that my municipality is very well advanced with plans. We have chosen a site for the construction of a sewage disposal plant. Certainly many municipalities have expressed great appreciation of the legislation introduced by this government in 1960 which provided for loans, as hon. members know, covering two thirds of the cost of those plants at a very low rate of interest over periods as high as 50 years. Provision is made also for an outright grant of 25 per cent of the cost of any work which is done before the end of March 1963. I understand that the city of Vancouver has already submitted plans for a scheme covering something like $7.5 million. I understand the city of Ottawa also is taking advantage of these grants.
Nevertheless, I think basically the responsibility for ensuring that we do not suffer from the pollution of our waters is a provincial responsibility. I think the federal government has done what it could, that it is now up to the provinces to see that sewage disposal plants are built and that advantage is taken of legislation which is already on the statute books.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private members' business having concluded the house will revert to 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. Martineau in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and to provide for the construction and

operation on behalf of Her Majesty of a line of railway in the province of Quebec, between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts, a distance of approximately 57 miles; to provide also that the governor in council shall pay to the Canadian National Railway Company an amount equal to the cost to the said company of constructing the railway line (including the cost of survey of location and the cost of acquisition of the land required for the railway line) not exceeding in any case the sum of $16,100,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, this house has before it not only one of the most important measures, but one that is vital for the survival of the Gaspe peninsula. I am quite moved as I rise to take part in the debate on this resolution and to act as the voice of a population which has always fought loyally and sincerely, not asking for handouts, but for a project which is essential to the development of an area which has for so long been ignored and neglected.
Mr. Chairman, Jacques Cartier landed at Gaspe in 1534. Some 400 years later, in 1952, Gaspe Copper Mines Limited, a subsidiary of Noranda Mines Limited, founded the first mining town on the north shore of the Gaspe peninsula. The town was called Murdoch-ville for the president of the Noranda Mines Company, Mr. J. William Murdoch. Over 1,200 people find work there and we are at one in acknowledging this attractive little town as the queen of the Gaspe peninsula.
Mr. Chairman, do you not find it amazing that it took more than 400 years for a mining corporation to settle in the Gaspe peninsula and make the people benefit from the immense resources placed there by Divine Providence? Around Murdochville, corporations own lands just as rich, if not richer, than those owned by the Gaspe Copper Mines. And just to prove my point, let me mention some of them: the Federal Metal Corporation, owned by East Sullivan and Consolidated Mines Limited, Miller Copper, Dubuis-son Mines Limited, Lake Opawica Mines Limited, Macdonald Mines Limited, Thompson Mines Ltd., Copra Mines Limited, Christie Base Metal Limited, etc.
All those companies were waiting for the construction of the railway to start operating their mines.
The known mineral resources on the north shore of the Gaspe peninsula are as follows:

90 million tons of yellow copper; 40 million tons of red copper; 20 million tons of zinc; 6,400,000 tons of chrome; 4,500,000 tons of aluminum oxide; 23,125,000 tons of manganese, asbestos, nickel, gold and silver.
The contents of the samples extracted so far from the mineral resources on the north shore of the Gaspe peninsula is as follows:
Yellow copper	
9.71	per	centRed copper	
22.32	per	centZinc	
21.10	per	centLead	
19.90	per	centChrome	
18.21	per	centNickel	
6.71	per	cent
Aluminum oxide-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, I note that my list makes one of the hon. members opposite laugh; I think he should rather listen carefully, because when it is a question of development in the province of Quebec, I wonder why he is against it. I understand that he is not from Quebec but, just the same, he should show Quebec members the same courtesy we show members from the other provinces.
And to continue with the table:
Canadian National Railways wood finishing mills; 49 sash and door mills; 87 general repair and machine shops; 11 cold storage plants with a total capacity of 300 tons; 32 ice-houses for the storage of fish; 5 fish treatment plants.
Annual production of sawn timber and lumber: 161,417,111 board feet; annual production of shingles: 13,119,113 feet; annual production of pulpwood: 412,145 cords; annual production of cedar posts: 7,110 units; annual production of lathing: 31,609,224 feet; annual production of lengths of wood: 2,856,117 feet; annual production of Christmas trees: 21,331 units; annual production of wood by-products 2,408 tons.
Number of garages where automobiles and trucks are repaired and sold: 209; number of merchants on the north shore of the Gaspe peninsula: 613.
Let us take now the general goods received in the northern part of Gaspe peninsula:
Lumber: 16,208,457 feet; bricks and cement bags, farm equipment, building materials, flour, grain, gasoline, oils, sugar, dry goods, meat and livestock, automobile parts, etc. amount to about 481,590 tons.
The shipping of these goods alone would justify the building of the railway.
Aluminum oxide	 21.58 per cent
Limestone	
84.31	per centMolybdenite	
11.43	per centSilver	
9.11	per centGold	
7.9	per cent
Mr. Chairman, after hearing about the mineral wealth of the Gaspe peninsula, can there be anyone in this house-including even that hon. member who does not seem to take any interest in the problems of Quebec-can there be anyone in this house who cannot say down in his heart that it is unbelievable that such a rich area of our country should have been deprived so long of appropriate means of transportation and that such a hard working population should have suffered so long from that situation?
Hardships are not unknown to the people of the Gaspe peninsula, and if it is true that one is all the nobler for his hardships, the people of the Gaspe peninsula are surely the noblest people one can find.
The Gaspe peninsula is also quite rich in forest resources. Following a survey conducted by Mr. L. P. Peloquin, who was chairman of the industrial committee of the Matane chamber of commerce, we find in his report the following information. In the area to be served by the Matane-Ste. Anne des Monts line there are: 129 saw mills in operation; 41 26207-1-53i
Ungava transport operates a daily ferry service for passengers and freight between Ste. Anne des Monts and Seven Islands. After a few years of operation this service has developed to such an extent that the first ferry had to be replaced by a larger one.
It is interesting to note that in 1958, over
8,000	people used that fast, regular service from Ste. Anne des Monts to travel between the Ungava district and the industrial centres of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. Since 1956 this figure has gone up considerably, and once the railway is built this service will expand and promote great economic development between the north shore and the Gaspe peninsula.
Speaking of the first ship which provided a regular service between Ste. Anne des Monts and Seven Islands, I must say that this ship which gave excellent service is operated by Ungava transport whose president is Mr. Jourdain, a Gaspe businessman.
The first ship which undertook that service in 1958 could carry 50 passengers, three automobiles and 100 tons of cargo. In 1960, it was replaced by a new ship with a total capacity of 100 passengers, 35 automobiles and 800 tons of cargo. That year it transported 14,000 passengers, 3,000 automobiles and 7,000 tons
832	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways of cargo including 6 million feet of lumber from the Gaspe peninsula. If it was able to transport that much lumber, a railway will carry an even greater volume once the railway is built.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to illustrate the development possibilities of the Gaspe district.
I have already mentioned the numerous mines which are to be found in that part of my riding. In that connection, I should like to read to the house a letter which was sent to Mr. Roland Gagnon, a young industrialist of the Gaspe peninsula who is largely responsible for the construction of the railway between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts. Mr. Chairman, I would ask those who are not convinced that a railway is necessary in the Gaspe area to listen carefully to this letter which should certainly make them change their minds:
September 9, 1960
Mr. Roland Gagnon,
Cap Chat, Que.
Dear sir:
Further to our telephone conversation, I am pleased to confirm the following information.
Solbec Copper Mines Limited is a new subsidiary which is developing copper and zinc deposits in the Black Lake district, in the eastern townships. It is expected that the annual production will amount to nearly 20,000 tons of copper concentrate.
We do not fail to realize that the Gaspe copper refinery might be the proper place for treating our ore, if that plant were not completely isolated by a lack of communications. We believe that it is unfortunate for the district of Gaspe and also for eastern Quebec, that such a lack of communications more or less occasions treatment of our concentrates outside this country, that is in the United States or in Europe. We shall welcome the building of a railroad across the peninsula for many reasons such as have been mentioned earlier today: the eventual development of some zinc and lead deposits of the Federal Metal Corporation; mining possibilities in the Gaspe area and in eastern Quebec, which are still practically unexplored.
We remain at your disposal for further information if required.
Sincerely yours,
East Sullivan Mines Limited,
Andre Beauchemin, Secretary Treasurer.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out the splendid part played by Mr. Pierre Beauchemin in the development of mining in the province of Quebec.
As far as the forest industry is concerned, I also would like to read a letter addressed to the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North, at Ste. Anne des Monts, attention of Mr. Fernand Leblanc, secretary. Incidentally, I


would like especially to commend this chamber of commerce for their outstanding work and the magnificent support given to the project. I quote the letter:
To the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North, Inc. Ste. Anne des Monts, P.Q.
Dear Sirs-
Attention): Mr. Fernand Leblanc, secretary.
It has been brought to my attention that you were making representations in order to have extended the railway line which ends at Matane along the north shore of Gaspe, and our company supports your efforts for the following reasons, which I shall explain briefly.
For the past three or four years, the use of wood waste as raw material for pulp and paper has developed to such a degree that it is now in our mutual interest that our industry and the saw mills get together-we being buyers of such waste and the saw mill operators being suppliers of wood fibre which it is becoming more and more difficult to obtain.
In your area there are several saw mills which would be interested in transforming their waste into fibre for our mill here in Three Rivers. There are, among others, the following companies: Jas. Richardson Company, Tourelle Lumber Co., and A. Couturier et Fils with whom we have negotiated. However, we always had to face the transportation problem. These three mills would have about 35,000 tons of waste to sell immediately and, once this market is established, this quantity could easily be doubled in your area.
The construction of a railway from Matane, with reasonable freight rates, would solve the transportation problem and would create in that area a market which would be beneficial both to the buyer and the seller.
We hope that your efforts to obtain this railway will be successful and we are anxious to know what comes out of your negotiations.
Yours very truly,
St. Lawrence Corporation Limited,
L. L. Wetmore,
Manager.
According to economists, the railway between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts must accompany and precede progress. If it comes after, it is late, and the consequences are felt by the economy and the industry, and unemployment runs high among our good Gaspe families.
On March 17, 1949, Mr. S. M. Fairweather, vice president of the Canadian National, made the following statement in a speech delivered in Toronto:
A railway must he considered in relation to the economy of the country, for it is essential to the prosperity of the state and it gives birth to wealth. Those of us who live in the big cities might not see it, but the miner, the lumberman, the fisherman and the farmer are fully aware of the usefulness of a railway. We discover every day new resources and new fields of activities where development is made possible by the railway which is as important to the state as arteries to the human body.

Mr. Gordon, president of the Canadian National, voiced the following opinion:
In a country like ours where distance is a main factor in the cost of products, one cannot consider the development of our natural resources without thinking of a railway.
The Canadian National Bank, in its monthly report for February, 1959, had this to say:
Why defer the construction of the Matane-Gaspe
sector, which would serve such an interesting area-
On page 12 of Commerce et Communication of November 28, 1961, we read the following:
Will Gaspe North have its railway at last? The transactions relating to the sale of the railway between Mont Joli and Matane are nearing completion, and it seems that the project of extending this line up to Ste. Anne des Monts is being seriously considered in government circles in Ottawa. It is easy to understand the importance of that railway improvement in the Gaspe peninsula since Ste. Anne is the ferry terminal to Seven Islands. For the past fifty years, everyone has been beating around the bush, always shelving that project, and this piece of news is greeted with great enthusiasm by present and future industrialists and businessmen of the area and also by the population.
The Gaspe peninsula is one of the least developed areas of the province. Yet its industrial potential does not. warrant such a situation. The main weakness in the regional organization seems to be the lack of main lines of communication, such as railways. However, it appears that the federal government, at long last, has concerned itself with the famous Gaspe railway project which is to be announced shortly.
Everyone knows that the extension of the railway from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts has been, for the last 20 years at least, the subject of numerous representations on the part of members of parliament and people of that part of the province.
I also wish to refer to a letter, which is not recent, addressed to Mr. Gagnon, promoter of the project, on March 30, 1959 by Canon J. A. Saint-Laurent, chaplain, and I quote:
Dear Sir:
I see in L'Action Catholique of March 28, 1959, that you are actively interested in the extension of the railway from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts.
Why not as far as Gaspe?... While I was in charge at Cap Chat, from November 18, 1911...
Note the date.
...to October, 1912, temporarily replacing the good father Dufour, who had died suddenly, the question of this extension had been mentioned for a long time, but... as far as Gaspe.
The question was basically about the possibility of getting there through Ste. Anne from the north. A survey had been made and it could be easily done.
There was a persistent rumour to the effect that the railway from Matane would rather be extended along the river, running across the good lands given by Quebec as a grant to the company. There was thus a question of private interests involved.
I was aware of that rumor and able to meet with both the engineers from Ottawa and Quebec, at an
Canadian National Railways appointed date, in the Cap Chat rectory. The discussion was soon on the extension of the railway from Matane to Gaspe, through Ste. Anne.
By the end of the evening, the federal engineer stated:
"I had not yet completed my survey when I was summoned to Ottawa. All I had then was an approximate layout and reported it was impossible to reach Gaspe through Ste. Anne." The first report was therefore cancelled.
I arranged with the parish priest of Ste. Anne to have the leading parishioners of both political parties meet at the rectory and this was done. We also had with us four of the most interested members of parliament.
All agreed to have a third survey made, complete, this time-in order to clear up the matter. But what about the costs? All county councils will be called upon to pay for those costs on the basis of their population. The devoted Mr. Emile Cote, a merchant of Cap Chat, agreed to pay for those who would not keep their pledge. All county councils readily signed the ready-made form.
The survey was made. The report showed a complete possibility. The costs would amount to $15,000; which were paid by Ottawa.
Now that we have Murdochville do you not think, sir, that you stand a better chance? You have the ready co-operation of Baie des Chaleurs, on account of the numerous industries which would be established in the Gaspe peninsula.
Good luck in your fine work for the development of our Gaspe peninsula.
Devotedly yours in Our Lord Canon J. A. Saint Laurent, priest, Chaplain.
Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Charles Marcil indeed referred to the Gaspe railways, at the time. He is a former member for Bonaven-ture. The Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux took the floor in the house and asked for the construction of railways in the Gaspe peninsula. My predecessor also talked about that here in this house, and demanded a railway. And I shall always remember what he said in closing his speech: "My dear colleagues, the fate of the Gaspe peninsula is now in your hands."
And I can well remember the words of the bishop of Gaspe, Mgr. Ross, asking for a railway. I recall also the words of Mr. Taschereau who was then premier of Quebec. He used to say and repeat exactly the same words: "It is up to you, gentlemen of the Canadian National Railways, to think of the Gaspe peninsula."
Mr. Chairman, I have put forward the needs of my area, in this house, and I think it was my duty to do so as member for that district, but I have always done so, regardless of petty politics, because the interest of a province and of a constituency must be placed above political meanness.
Mr. Chairman, I also remember very well that here in this house the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has

Canadian National Railways very often blamed the Prime Minister for his trips across the country. I should like to remind him that in 1960 the Gaspe peninsula had the great honour of welcoming for the first time in its history the leader of the federal government. The Prime Minister wanted to see for himself what were the needs of that area and get acquainted with the people who have suffered for so many years and who are only asking to be treated fairly. He met those people, he offered his help and I am proud to say that two years after this historic trip to the Gaspe peninsula, we are getting what we have been asking for for 300 years, that is, a railway in the Gaspe area.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time is up.


Some hon. Members:: Let him go on.


Paul Raymond Martineau: With the consent of the house, the hon. member may continue his speech.


Roland Léo English: I wish to thank the house. I should not want to abuse the time at our disposal, but it seems to me that there is no abuse in devoting a few minutes to an area which well deserves it and for which I have always done and will always do the best I can.
Mr. Chairman, before closing, I should like to express my thanks, first to the most humble people, the workers, the fishermen of my province, those who, in 1957, sent me here to this house to plead a worthy cause, not only that of the railways, because a railway in itself is of little meaning, but that of the general development of a region recognized as one of the richest and most promising.
I wish to thank most sincerely the chambers of commerce of my constituency. I need not refer to the numerous resolutions sent to me by chambers of commerce, municipalities and economic organizations requesting this railway or asking me to work on their behalf. There are many such resolutions, as you can see. I should like to show you here requests sent to me by the people of Gaspe to ask me to plead for them.
I thank the chambers of commerce for their help. Without them, I could not have worked so efficiently. The chambers of commerce of my constituency are free from all political ties. I feel sure that all hon. members agree with me that we get much encouragement in our work from these organizations, in the way of information and advice, which is something I appreciate.


I also thank the clergy of Gaspe for the constant support it has given me. I thank all our industrial leaders. My thanks also to all the municipalities, to all public bodies.
I should also express my very special thanks to the Minister of Transport, the sponsor of the bill, who will always be remembered in Gaspe.
I should not want to overlook his predecessor, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), who was also interested in this improvement when he was minister of transport.
I should also like to thank my colleagues, the members for Matapedia-Matane, Rimou-ski, Bonaventure and Magdalen Islands (Messrs. Belzile, Morissette, Grenier and Keays) who have seconded my efforts.
Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I should also like to thank the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who stated this afternoon that his party would support this project. Indeed, I am sure all hon. members will vote in favour of this resolution.
I do not intend to linger on this subject but I should like to refer to certain statements made by the hon. member for Port Arthur this afternoon. While he stated that this project was not within provincial but rather federal jurisdiction, the hon. member wondered why a construction project concerning the Gaspe peninsula had been chosen. Well, if the hon. member had better knowledge of history, he would be aware of the fact that the Gaspe peninsula is the oldest part of this country and that this construction project of a railway line was contemplated long before the other projects he mentioned. Gaspe is one of the richest regions with an outstanding mining and lumbering potential.
The hon. member should also know-and that is not my fault-that the Gaspe people never quit and will never rest till the projects they have suggested are carried out.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a word of thanks to the press, because since the question of building a railway in the Gaspe peninsula has come up, the Quebec papers have given it an excellent coverage which I am sure has largely contributed to the realization of this project.
Finally, I should like to thank everyone.


Mr. Belzile:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong unduly the debate on this resolution. The bill which is to be submitted to the house

concerns my own riding particularly, since 30 of the 57 miles of railway to be constructed will run within the limits of my riding, I feel that I should say a few words on that subject.
This resolution and the bill which will follow are of great interest to me. On the other hand, the answer given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) to the question I asked last Friday was not irrelevant, since he said:
I know that my hon. friend has always been interested in that project-
In fact, Mr. Chairman, this project of constructing a railway from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts, in order to extend the one that already exists between Mont Joli and Matane, a project which is about to be carried out, goes back many years. It is one of those about which a lot has been written and said.
As for myself, during the 1958 electoral campaign, I often had the occasion to talk about that project, not to promise the railway, but rather to state that I was committing myself to work for its realization.
That is why, as soon as I came to the House of Commons, in 1958, on May 23, to be precise, when taking part in the debate on the speech from the throne, to prove my firm intention to work on that project, I made the following remark, which can be found at page 411 of the official report for May 23, 1958:
Before concluding these remarks, may I be allowed to point out to hon. members that the area commonly called the Matapedia and Gaspe valley is part of Canada, that the people of this vast and recent section of the country pay taxes to the federal government and contribute to the building up of our homeland, and therefore are entitled to consideration on the part of the federal government.
It was an area that was very much neglected by the former administration which, fortunately, now is sitting on the other side of the house.
In the field of public works, I strongly support the project of my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English), providing for the extension of the Mont Joli-Matane railroad to Ste. Anne des Monts.
This being said, Mr. Chairman, I would now like to suggest to the house that the question of the construction of a railroad in the Gaspe peninsula has been discussed for a long time. The project has been a topic of current interest for 75 years. The figure may seem enormous, but let me quote an editorial of La Minerve for Monday, September 12, 1881. That article is doubly interesting for it deals not only with railway lines, but it would be a timely topic in the Gaspe peninsula
Canadian National Railways even today though it could be called an historic document. May I quote the editorial:
The Gaspe peninsula is a special part of French Canada the same as Magdalen islands or the former Acadia (which is part of Canada since 1867). It is hardly known in the province of of Quebec proper. Formerly it was a special governorship which had very few contacts with the governorships of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal which constitute a compact homogeneous group. In our times, contacts have become more frequent but have never reached the degree of intimity and perfect uniformity which marks the contacts between the other districts of the St. Lawrence.
The Gaspe peninsula and its people are still in our opinion a sort of far away colony of separate brethren, quite like the Acadians.
That is due first of all to the distance-the Gaspe region is a hundred leagues away from Quebec city_and to the lack of communication through part of those one hundred leagues.
The Gulf and Intercolonial Steamers line brought the Gaspe peninsula closer to Canada and the rest of the continent. But a seaway is not too important and the railway is still far away from the real Gaspe region. Men who came from central regions to settle in those far away places and to dedicate themselves to the development of the region-like Dr. Fortin and Dr. Robitaille-have done more than all that to make us known to the Gaspe people and to acquaint us with them.
Besides, as long as railway communications are not further extended, that is as long as one cannot travel by train right to Perce, the head of the Gaspe peninsula, we cannot expect that those relations will improve substantially.
It would be beneficial, however, to the people of the Gaspe peninsula if its isolation should come to an end. They would have everything to gain especially if they were to develop a liking for agriculture in addition to engaging in fishing, an inexhaustible industry, but which today makes only employers wealthy and keeps workers in a state of serfdom and poverty.
And now, Mr. Chairman, coming back to a more recent period and especially to the project now under discussion, I should like to tell the house that two former Liberal members for the Gaspe peninsula, that is the member for Gaspe, Mr. Langlois, and the member for Matapedia-Matane, the late Philias Cote, were interested in the same project. Incidentally, reading Hansard I came to the conclusion that it was a pity that the government of that time did not find it appropriate to consider their request and accede to the wishes so aptly brought forward by these two government members.
By doing so, the Liberal government not only deprived those two members of the credit they would have gained through their joint efforts, but also, by neglecting to face the problems, it deprived the Gaspe peninsula of the means of transportation it was entitled to, contributed largely to delaying its economic development and caused considerable harm to the population of the Gaspe peninsula as a whole.
836	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
In fact, on April 19, 1950, Mr. Leopold Langlois, member for Gaspe, submitted to the house the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this house, early consideration should be given by the proper authorities as to the advisability of extending railway communications from Mont Joli, county of Rimouski, to the Gaspe peninsula via Matane, county of Matapedia-Matane, and Ste. Anne des Monts, county of Gaspe.
I also wish to quote the late Mr. Philias Cote, member for Matapedia-Matane, as found on page 1697 of Hansard of April 19, 1950:
I do not want to emphasize any of the angles that have been so brilliantly expounded by my colleague. I believe it is not necessary to say much more to establish that the development of this region is of national importance, that the development of a railroad there is of national importance, and the same thing should be done for Gaspe, with its more brilliant prospects, as was done for Churchill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is impossible.


Mr. Cote:: This will not wait that long.
Poor Mr. Cote, how wrong he was; unfortunately for him, his government waited so long that he died in the meantime and never had a chance to see Mr. Graydon's prediction come true, namely that it was necessary that the Conservative party take office in order that the demands of those two members be satisfied.
Unfortunately, too, for the Liberal party, which always had counted on Gaspe as a vested riding, because its red army was seen to collapse and lose all the seats they retained on the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe.
Yet, Mr. Chairman, the two events I just mentioned, that is, the premature death of Mr. Cote, and the defeat-or should I say say the downfall-of the Liberal party are of secondary importance compared to the considerable damage to the whole population and, more particularly, to the people of Gaspe, through the carelessness and neglect of the former government.
In order to give a brief history of the project, may I point out that the fathers of confederation were so keen on obtaining the assent of the maritimes to their confederation project that they had to promise them a railway which would link them to the great central provinces of the country.
It was in fulfilment of those promises that the Inter-Colonial was built, and that is why the railway, instead of following a straight line, turns off at Mont Joli toward the maritimes, and the north shore of the Gaspe peninsula is isolated.


It is therefore patent that private initiative alone made the Gaspe peninsula what it is today.
Industrialists, businessmen, farmers and fishermen, who are handicapped by inadequate means of transportation, nevertheless made some progress.
Mr. Chairman, this is a long peninsula which extends for 150 miles between the St. Lawrence river, to the north, and the Baie des Chaleurs to the south. It is covered with mountains and forests and has a central plateau.
On the south side of the peninsula, a C.N.R. branch line runs along the Baie des Chaleurs shore from Matapedia to Gaspe. Therefore, the north shore of the peninsula is deprived of railways, to the exception of the section from Mont Joli to Matane, which is served by the Canada Gulf Terminal Railway.
The main industries of the peninsula are lumber, fishing and mining.
Needless to add, Mr. Chairman, that the announcement of the railway from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts in the speech from the throne was enthusiastically welcomed by the great majority of voters in my riding. However, some of our political opponents, in order to minimize this government's action, are trying to impute some utterly unfounded intentions to us which in no way formed the basis for this bill.
In order to prove to the house that this project was in keeping with the wishes of the population, may I mention various public bodies, as well as some personalities, who unequivocally expressed their desire to see a railroad built from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts.
I shall now quote a few public organizations and name some individuals in this respect:
Resolution of the municipality of Capucins, Matane county.
Resolution of the corporation of the county of
Matane.
Resolution of the municipal corporation of the village of Mont St. Pierre.
Resolution of the city council of Rimouski.
Resolution of the St. Norbert de Cap Chat parish.
Resolution of the municipal corporation of Baie des Sables.
Resolution of the municipal council of Les Mechins.
Resolution of the municipal council of the village of Ste. Felicite.
Resolution of the municipal corporation of the town of Mont-Joli.
Resolution of the municipal corporation of Sainte-Marie-Madeleine, of Riviere-Madoleine.

Resolution of the municipal corporation of the village of Cap Chat.
Resolution of the town council of Matane.
Resolution	of	the	municipal corporation		of
Grand Metis.					
Resolution	of	the	municipal	council of	theparish of St.	Octave	de Metis.	Resolution <	of the municipal council of Ste. Anne	des Monts.	Resolution	of	the	chamber	of commerce	ofGaspe North	Incorporated.	Resolution	of	the	chamber	of commerce	ofMatane.	Resolution	of	the	chamber	of commerce	of
Amqui.
And I should like to quote here the names of some members of a delegation which came to Ottawa to support the project. This is the list of their names:
Rev. A. Bourdages, canon, and parish priest of Ste. Anne des Monts.
Fernando Chateauneuf, chairman of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Dr. J. Matte, representing the chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec.
Henri Labrie, director of the chambers of commerce of the lower St. Lawrence.
Benoit Gaboury, mayor of Mont Joli, chairman of the economic planning council of the lower St. Lawrence.
Alphonse Couturier, member for Gaspe North at the legislative assembly.
Clement Cote, chairman of the chamber of commerce of Matane.
Col. Jos. Pineault, chairman of the chamber of commerce of Mont Joli.
J. Lafond, chairman of the North Gaspe Mines, Marsoui.
Dr. J. Emile Rioux, physician-surgeon, chairman and founder of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Romuald Rioux, mayor of Ste. Anne des Monts, director of the economic planning council of the lower St. Lawrence.
Louis Landry, ex-chairman of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
M. Gabriel Bernard, N.P., representative of the chamber of commerce of Murdochville.
L. P. Peloquin, chairman of the industrial committee of Matane.
L. O. Roy, merchant, Ste. Anne des Monts.
Lucien Belanger, vice-chairman of the chamber of commerce of Matane.
Dr. Gaetan Lemire, fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, at the Ste. Anne des Monts hospital.
Henri Beaulieu, alderman of Mont Joli.
Etienne Levesque, alderman of Mont Joli.
F. A. Gauthier, tradesman, alderman of Matane.
Benoit McMullen, industrialist, alderman of Matane.
Jos. Dumont, foreman, alderman of Matane.
Paul E. Bouffard, tradesman.
Oscar Couturier, industrialist, director of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Maurice Gasseau, insurance agent, director of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Maurice Gasse, industrialist, director of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Lucien Couturier, industrialist, director of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Bertrand Tremblay, legal adviser to the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Canadian National Railways
Omer St. Pierre, industrialist, representative of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Gerard St. Laurent, industrialist, director of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Jean Yves Berube, representative of the Ungava Transport Company and director of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Dr. Maurice Baillargeon, dentist at Ste. Anne des Monts.
Claude Jourdain, Gaspe Construction, Cap Chat.
Paul E. Levesque, chairman of the school board of Ste. Anne des Monts.
Maurice Lefrancois, merchant, Ste. Anne des Monts.
Dr. Ovide Bernatchez, optometrist, Ste. Anne des Monts.
Zephirin Laflamme, hotelkeeper of Mont Louis.
Bernard Miville, law student, Cap Chat.
Fernand Leblanc, secretary-treasurer of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North.
Mr. Roch Lalande, lawyer, Ottawa.
Mr. Chairman, at this stage of my speech, I should like to refer to certain parts of a speech made in this house by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) on June 13, 1960, as can be seen on page 4862 of Hansard for that day:
Mr. Speaker, if I do so tonight, it is because the subject has been discussed for several years, and because I should like to remind the house of the eight proposed routes that were considered by the government of the time, and therefore by the Department of Transport. We considered that project, and most particularly the possibility of buying the Canada Gulf and Terminal, in 1927, 1930, 1943, 1946 and 1949. Of course, the government of the time did seriously consider the matter, and I should like here to put on the record the eight proposed routes that were considered at the time.
As you see, Mr. Chairman, according to the hon. member for Laurier and ex-minister of transport, the government has made a long study in 1927, 1930, 1943, 1946 and 1949. Should I infer that the government who was in power before us was a student government, that 1957 was a year of careful study, and that the people then decided to throw out the student government to replace it by a mature administration.
And in the same speech, the hon. member for Laurier goes on to say at page 4863 of Hansard:
I do not know what Mr. Gordon's attitude is today, because I left the department several years ago.
I do not know whether he has reconsidered the various locations, the least costly of which was $27 million at the time. But representations should be directed not so much to Mr. Gordon as to the government, and that is exactly what the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English) seems to overlook entirely.
It seems evident that this figure of $27 million is the estimation of the less expensive route at that time and I imagine that would be 12 or 13 years ago.
I wonder how we can reconcile this $27 million figure with the $16,100,000 figure

Canadian National Railways given in this bill. Because if we compare the cost of materials and labour at that time with that of today, the opposite should normally occur.
I should like now to mention certain words of appreciation which were said publicly concerning the realization of this project. Mr. Clement Brown, in the Montreal Le Devoir of January 19, 1962 had this to say:
This will result in an upsurge of the economic life of the Gaspe peninsula.
In the newspaper La Presse of January 22, 1962 we read this:
Industrial revival promised to the Gaspe peninsula through the construction of a railway.
La Voix Gaspesienne of Thursday, January 25, 1962, wrote:
At last the railway.
Incidentally, this newspaper is published at Matane and is normally reported as being sympathetic to the Liberal party.
For his part, the mayor of Matane, Mr. F. A. Gauthier, said he was very glad of the project, in the sense that it will represent an improvement on the transportation system in the Gaspe peninsula.
In the same issue of that newspaper, in an editorial signed G.G., we read the following:
The project could not he more serious, since it is part of the federal government's program for this session. It is the fulfilment of a promise which Mr. Diefenbaker made personally during the 1957-58 campaigns.
At last, this is the fulfilment of a promise which has been recognized and repeated by a newspaper sympathetic to the opposition. It is one promise less to be held against us as not having been fulfilled. If, during the next federal election, we are blamed about promises, the blame will not be very efficient.
Mr. Chairman, I have also received several letters of appreciation from my electors, and I only want to mention it on the record. A great number of citizens of the constituency of Ma-tapedia-Matane have shown their satisfaction about the measures announced in the speech from the throne.
Considering the excellence of such a measure, which has been put forward by the Conservatives for a long time and always refused by the various Liberal administrations, I feel it is my duty to express to those who are responsible for that magnificent and essential achievement, my most sincere gratitude.
My most sincere thanks are extended, first of all, to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for the great understanding he has shown several times with regard to the
fair claims of the citizens of the Gaspe peninsula, who, under Liberal regimes, had acquired the rather unenviable title of the eternally forgotten people.
Thanks to the right hon. Prime Minister, the Gaspe peninsula will now develop and enjoy, like the other areas of Quebec and Canada, this economic growth of which we are now so glad. Undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman, the electors of the constituency of Matane-Mata-pedia and all those of the neighbouring constituencies will be unanimous in congratulating and thanking the head of the government for his generous action.
In addition to the Prime Minister, I should also mention the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Transport who have both supported sincerely and strongly the project under study which will give the Gaspe peninsula the prosperity it so rightly deserves.
Briefly, I must say that in less than five years of Conservative government, the salvation of that area is forthcoming. During the 30 years they were in power, the Liberals could do nothing better than consider the project, but the Conservatives, on the other hand, have fully implemented it. The Canadian people will decide in due time which of the two parties is the most efficient.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I believe hon. members are usually allowed to make corrections if necessary.
I hope that the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Belzile) will excuse me if I make two corrections following his remarks. If I am not mistaken, he stated that we have considered building this railroad in 1927, 1930, 1943, 1945 and 1949. Now, I must inform the house that what we had in mind in the years mentioned was the purchase of the Canada Gulf Terminal Railway and not the construction of a railroad in the Gaspe peninsula.
Second, the hon. member stated that the construction of that railroad would have cost $25.5 million at the time, after having examined eight routes, whereas now it will only cost $16 million.
The figure of $25.5 million was for the construction of a 147 mile long railroad from Matane to Ste Anne des Monts and from this community to the Gaspe Copper Mine site, not for the construction of a 57 mile long railroad as is the case here. Those are the figures I read into Hansard and which were given to me by our experts in the field, namely the C.N.R. officials.

833.

The hon. member will undoubtedly agree that there can be no comparison between a railroad 57 miles long and one which is 147 miles long.


Mr. Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, I heartily support the resolution under consideration and I promise to be very brief.
The Gaspe peninsula undoubtedly deserves full consideration from the federal government. It is common knowledge that for years now there has been an exodus of the people from Gaspe precisely because natural resources are not sufficiently developed in that area. Therefore, the resolution introduced today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) is most timely.
I trust that the hopes raised by the construction of this new railroad in the Gaspe area will come true and that we will finally see the establishment of new industries in that peninsula. Let us hope that thanks to the present government, the Gaspe peninsula will no longer be looked upon with contempt and considered as an underdeveloped area of the province of Quebec as it was in the past. That has never been my attitude since I feel that the people from Gaspe form the very root of the population of the province of Quebec. I would even say that Gaspe is somewhat the birthplace of many a Montreal resident because a great number of people from Gaspe settled in the metropolis.
Following the example set this afternoon by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), who has many years of experience in this house, I will allow myself to digress ever so slightly in order to ask the Minister of Transport to consider also other railway extensions which are very highly needed for the development of the province of Quebec. Here, it gives me pleasure to thank especially my good friend the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who gave such wonderful publicity to Quebec when, for example, he spoke of the railway facilities required in the Saguenay region.
I do hope that, after the decision taken by the Minister of Transport concerning Gaspe, the Saguenay region, which has a population of over 250,000 and is served by an obsolete railroad, dating back to 1838, will finally have a railway service adapted to our times and worthy of its people and of its mining and other industries.
It should not be forgotten that, for some years, the Lake St. John railway has been serving the railroad line to Chibougamau. It is therefore becoming more and more urgent that this line be improved and modernized in every way.
26207-1-54J
Canadian National Railways
It goes without saying, Mr. Chairman, that I do not wish to force you to call me to order. I then congratulate once again the Minister of Transport for having introduced this resolution in this house, a resolution to which I give my wholehearted support on behalf of the people of the Saguenay region, please believe me, Mr. Chairman.
I want to remind everyone that we, of the Saguenay region, are also hopeful, as the hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out this afternoon and as the government of the province of Quebec emphasized before the royal commission on transportation, that our region will not be neglected and that we can count on some projects from legislation to be introduced in the near future.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry? (Text):


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall I report the resolution?
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to answer the questions I asked him previously?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) indeed asked me two or three questions this afternoon.
The first was about the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway. The hon. member wanted to know if the government intended to buy or expropriate this railroad or to come to some agreement regarding a right of way.. Well, I am glad to remind the house that during the years 1900 to 1910-I can't say exactly what year, because I do not have the necessary document here, but I think it was in 1903 or 1904-the railroad in question obtained a federal grant. At that time, and as a condition of that grant, the government had required the railroad to guarantee a right of way to any other railroad which would claim one in the future.
This means that all the Canadian National Railways has to do to obtain a right of way on the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway is to make an application to the board of transport commissioners to obtain it and have the terms thereof set.
The hon. member has also asked me if the government had studied the possibility that the local mining companies might use the piggy-back system to allow faster transportation of the various ores extracted in the hinterland of the Gaspe peninsula.
Those are technical problems that will be. solved by the authorities of the Canadian

Canadian National Railways National Railways. I admit that his suggestion has much value but, all the same, I cannot tell him if the Canadian National Railways will adopt that system or not.
Mines in operation and those which may become active in the future will undoubtedly have to ship their ore by the C.N.R. and it would be to their advantage to use piggyback facilities. However, since that railroad will be operated by the C.N.R. for the federal government, it will be up to the officials of the company to take a decision in that respect.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier asked a purely irrelevant question. In fact, he asked why the federal government does not help Quebecair which serves that area. As the hon. member knows, the government has considered recently various means of helping Quebecair and certain proposals have been submitted both to the federal government and to the air transport board but they have been turned down. However, I want to state here tonight that there is no doubt that this company will receive the same treatment as the other air lines. If some circumstances should arise and if the government should consider that it is its duty to assist that company, there will be no hesitation. In short, that company will always be treated on an equal footing with similar companies.
Before I close my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank all those who took part in this debate and particularly the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English) who spoke with deep feeling. It is no wonder he was moved since this project has been his life-work, as he said so eloquently. In fact, he succeeded in voicing his own feelings and he really moved us by his warm observations about his region, his county and all the speakers who took part in the debate.
I also thank the member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Belzile) for his most thoughtful contribution, and I am very obliged to him particularly for having mentioned the names of several people in his constituency and the surrounding areas who have lent assistance, exerted pressure on the government and supplied all the necessary information to implement that project which I am sure will have most beneficial effects for that part of the province of Quebec and Canada.
As a matter of fact, the Gaspe area is extremely interesting; it is one of the most colourful parts of the country. It is unfortunate that all its great natural resources remained undeveloped, and that the population of that area was condemned to eke out a living by fishing.
IMr. Balcer.]
Due to the efforts of the member for Gaspe and his colleagues from that region, the Gaspe peninsula will obtain a railroad, which,
I am sure, will contribute to the economic growth of that part of the province which has been neglected up to now.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry? (Text):
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Balcer thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-67 to authorize the construction and operation on behalf of Her Majesty of a line of railway in the province of Quebec between Matane and St. Anne des Monts.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE AUTHORITY TO BORROW

Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-66 to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I am able to inform the house that copies of this bill in English and in French are available, notwithstanding the order paper does not show this to be the case.


Léon Balcer: I should like to add a few remarks to the short speech I made last night. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to amend section 13 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, chapter 242, R.S.C., 1952 to increase the limit of the borrowing power of the authority to $345 million from $335 million.
Section 13 of the act was amended by 7-8 Elizabeth II, chapter 9 (1959), to increase the power to borrow money from $300 million to $335 million. This provision states as follows:
13. The authority, with the approval of the governor in council, may, from time to time, borrow money from Her Majesty or otherwise for the purposes for which it is incorporated, but the aggregate of the amounts borrowed under this act and outstanding shall not at any time exceed three hundred and thirty five million dollars.
Section 25 of the act provides that the Minister of Finance with the approval of the governor in council, may, from time to time, make loans to the authority to the extent only that parliament has authorized such loans to be made in a fiscal year.
When, in 1959, an amendment to section 13 of the act was proposed to the house on

January 16, it was intended to cover certain estimates which were in excess of the amount of $300 million which had been set in previous measures. This time the amount being asked for is needed to meet some current commitments for outstanding work and contractors' claims which will exhaust the authority's present borrowing power. The additional $10 million will be needed for the remaining contractors' claims, land settlements, construction works including the completion of the Cornwall north channel bridge, a floating crane and certain remedial works, landscaping and wharf improvements.
On the last occasion when my predecessor brought in a similar amendment, an additional amount of money was asked for. This time there is simply a change in the general amount required. The only reason we are bringing this amendment forward is because these claims have been settled and the present borrowing power of the authority has been exhausted. We feel that this additional amount requested would be enough to cover the commitments and pay these claims.


Lionel Chevrier: There will, of course, be no objection from this side of the house so far as this additional expenditure is concerned, but I should like to take this opportunity to do three things. First, I should like to say a word in commendation of the St. Lawrence seaway administration in so far as traffic on the seaway is concerned. I have not before me the latest figures and I doubt even if they are public, but 1 have those for November 1961 and they indicate that 23 million tons passed through the St. Lawrence canals. For the Welland canal, the figure was 30 million tons. In the first case, that is almost two and a half times as much traffic as there was before the opening of the seaway, which certainly represents a tremendous increase. In the second case, traffic on the Welland canal is 10 million tons more than that which existed before.
It is true the Welland canal has not reached the 40 million tons anticipated by the tolls committee, neither has the 30 million tons anticipated for the St. Lawrence canal been reached. However, I will say that in the three years during which the canal has been in operation the volume of traffic has been extremely encouraging. What is even more encouraging is the fact that the smaller vessels, the 14-foot vessels, are fast disappearing from the seaway in favour of larger carriers such as 20,000 and 25,000 ton carriers, many of which are being built. This means that in the long run the smaller vessels will disappear in favour of the larger ones. It may
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act well be that when the tolls advisory committees of the seaway meet again to establish what the amount of the tolls should be the estimate of traffic will then have been reached because of the increased carrying capacity of the larger vessels. I am not at all dismayed by the fact that the tonnage has not reached the anticipated maximum. I am rather pleased by the fact that the tonnage has increased tremendously from what it was prior to the seaway.
At this point the house will probably permit me to place on the record what was said by Mr. R. J. Rankin, president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority in a speech delivered at Dearborn, Michigan, on January 15, 1962 in dealing with this and similar matters. He said:
Within the authority, we do not share the opinions of those who have sought-through relating the actual revenues of the past three years to the estimates of the tolls advisory committees- to demonstrate that the seaway has made a poor showing and that there are serious doubts it will meet the objectives that have been set for it. As we see it, there is no sound basis for such thinking, nor, as of now. for any proposals which relate to the need of relief through lower interest rates, extensions of time or increased tolls.
These are matters which relate directly to 1964 when the seaway entities are required to present to their respective governments an appraisal of their financial position.
Another significant paragraph from the speech reads as follows:
In the three year period of its operation, the authority believes the seaway has given a good account of itself. It is quite true, as has been emphasized by outside analysts from time to time, that tonnages and revenues have not reached the levels originally estimated by the tolls advisory committees. However, to use this as an argument to condemn the work of the committees is, we believe, both unrealistic and premature. It may well be that the upward curve of tonnages and revenues is not as sharp as was forecast but this may or may not be significant in the long range view. Who is to say, for instance, that in the next, say five or six years, the tonnage volume and revenues will not reach and even exceed the levelling off point set by the committees. And it is the degree to which it exceeds this levelling off point which will determine whether or not the seaway pays off as planned.
As it has been agreed by both the United States development corporation and our own Canadian seaway authority I think we must await the time when there will again be an analysis of the whole position.
The minister made reference to the additional amount that was required and the purposes for which it was required. When one looks at the list of expenditures he can immediately come to the conclusion that these are natural expenditures. For instance, I remember that the predecessor of the minister rose in the House of Commons because of demands that were made from the

St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act shipping fraternity that access wharves to the Welland canal should be built. These were built by the seaway authority at a cost of $4.5 million. It is only natural that authority should be sought to include that sum. The minister, of course, said at that time in answer to a question I put to him, that those would be paid for by an item in the estimates of the Department of Transport. That decision was altered and the St. Lawrence seaway authority is charged with that responsibility.
Then there is the north channel bridge at Cornwall which costs a substantial sum of money. There is also the landscaping that was done in the St. Lambert area. There are settlements for the expropriation of land, expropriations which had been made a long time ago but which had not yet been determined either through negotiations between the parties or by the courts. In addition, of course, there are claims that had been made by contractors.
The claims are nothing out of the ordinary. Claims were made against the power authority in substantial amounts. Claims were also made against the Ontario Hydro and against the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation, the United States entity, in substantial amounts; and so it is not out of the way that claims should be made against the Canadian entity. I see that according to the list the sum of $1,800,000 is required for that amount.
There is also a crane that is being purchased at a cost of $1,200,000. All of these expenditures total approximately $10 million. Having regard to the long term period over which the St. Lawrence seaway will operate I do not think this is extraordinary, particularly having regard to the interest during construction which on a project such as this represents a tremendous amount.
By an arrangement made between the seaway authority and the Department of Finance the interest during construction does not begin until 1963. I may be mistaken as to ,the years but I believe it was in 1959 and 1960 that the St. Lawrence seaway authority had to borrow funds to pay substantial amounts for interest during construction. In one case the total was $19 million. They took $3 million of that from their own revenues and borrowed the remaining $16 million.
May I conclude by expressing this thought. I observed in the press mention of the fact that Mr. Gordon Murphy, chief engineer of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, is to retire on March 1 next. I should like to pay a

tribute to Mr. Murphy. He was responsible in no small measure, together with many others, of course, not only for the preparation of the plans and specifications of the seaway but also for the engineering work during the first years of the operation of the seaway.
Mr. Murphy is a man of vast experience. He was port manager in Montreal and served with the national harbours board in Ottawa for many years. He was selected because of his qualities as an engineer and his qualities as a man of tremendous integrity. Everyone who has come in contact with him will agree that Gordon Murphy was a dedicated worker. He took no holidays during the time I served with the seaway and I am informed he took very few holidays since I left. His industry, his humanity and his qualifications as an engineer lead me to believe that the success of the seaway was due in no small measure to his efforts. I should not wish to allow this measure to pass without expressing a word of commendation concerning not only an outstanding public servant but an engineer of tremendous capacity.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have little to say for or against the principle of the bill. As hon. members may be aware, various members of this party including the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) over the past two or three years have placed on the order paper a number of questions relating to the St. Lawrence seaway, the contracts and various expenditures that have taken place. Many of these questions were prompted by a certain scepticism about the nature of the contracts and the efficiency with which they were carried out.
The hon. member for Assiniboia is not present this evening, but I trust that when the bill is before the committee hon. members who have expressed an interest in this matter will have an opportunity of examining in some detail the purposes for which this extra money is required in the light of the replies that have been received from the Department of Transport in response to questions about the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
The only point I wish to make about the seaway is this, and perhaps it is in some conflict with what was said by the previous speaker. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) spoke about the success of the seaway. I wonder whether it has really been a success so far? At the western end of the seaway-great lakes waterway we have seen that the growth predicted has thus far not fully materialized. I wonder, therefore, whether the

seaway is not another example of our having oversold ourselves on a grandiose scheme? I wonder whether the St. Lawrence seaway is not another example of the kind of grandiose scheme where we oversell ourselves. On the one hand we build ourselves up on the St. Lawrence seaway and the tremendous impact it was going to have on the growth of our inland seaway in relationship to the west. In fact, the progress in terms of the increased shipments has not really been that much, at least as reflected in the upper lakes.
The other point about the seaway that comes to mind is this. In the area in which it has been more properly advantageous- and I am thinking there of the situation in the lower lakes and the passing of the iron ore traffic from Quebec into the steel making heart of the country-there is the fact that we have this immensely strong pressure group that is ranging the country from one end to the other led by a man of considerable ability-I refer to Admiral Mainguy-campaigning for the abolition of tolls and, at a minimum, campaigning for an approach to the St. Lawrence seaway that will see that no additional burden is put upon the shipper.
My point here is that, as a result of the arrangements made with the United States, the cost of the seaway remains a considerable charge upon the shipper, particularly with respect to the Welland canal. From the fact that we have ranged on one side or the other, the people who are charged with the provision of the service, and the carrier, who are going to be unhappy about the tolls, and the people in the west who are somewhat disappointed at the growth consequences of the seaway, I wonder why we have to be so enthusiastic as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) still seems to be about the so-called wonderful success of the St. Lawrence seaway system.
The question that can undoubtedly be put is this: Do you consider the St. Lawrence seaway to be a failure? May I say that it is a gigantic engineering success but that it has been a very costly undertaking on the part of this nation, although perhaps one that was fitting at its time. We will welcome the opportunity of supporting the measure that will go towards clearing up any indebtedness that remains. However, I think it is over-optimistic to conclude that this has been the great cure-all for many of the economic problems of the St. Lawrence seaway-great lakes basin.
It is also apparent that a residue of harsh and contradictory feelings still exists within our neighbour to the south among various
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act regional groups with regard to the development of the seaway. We have some groups contending that the United States government should build its own canal past the Niagara escarpment because of the dissatisfaction with the present arrangements. Perhaps one cause of the present feeling is that this would put more properly within United States hands where it belongs control of the traffic going through there. On the other hand, on the eastern seaboard and in the south, there are vigorous groups related to different shipping lines and different shipping ways who are very much against what they consider to be the subsidization that is still going on with regard to the seaway. Given this complicated pattern in the United States and the general situation in Canada with regard to the same contention that still exists about the potential, we shall look forward to hearing in greater detail in the committee the reason for this extension in the expenditures.
The point that might be made more efficiently by the hon. member for Laurier would perhaps be that one of the reasons for disappointment in the growth factor that we have noticed with regard to the western end lies in the coincidence that as the St. Lawrence seaway began to operate, it also went along with the change in government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know this is a familiar argument that comes from the Liberal benches. I am unable to see the matter in these terms, Mr. Speaker. I should be obliged to express the opinion that whether or not the Liberals were in power, the St. Lawrence seaway would be in the position in which it is today of not meeting its projected income and of falling a good deal short of what was projected for it in terms of effects, both direct and peripheral, on the economy of the country.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should just like to add a word of comment on the last two speeches. I listened to what the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said. I noticed that he spoke about making up our minds whether this is a success or a failure. May I say that the time to make up our minds in deciding whether it was to be a success or a failure was before it was built. We have it now.
I was interested in what the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said. After all, he has had a special opportunity to know its operations. I find it reassuring to hear his words of confidence. They were not words of exaggeration but nevertheless were words

Civilian War Pensions
of solid confidence. While we have this bill before us it seems to me that it would be wise for us to get to know the project better than we know it now. As for myself, I must confess that I have had a feeling that the project is falling somewhat below the expectations which had arisen in the decades we talked about the undertaking. It was natural that expectations should rise very high. It seems to me we should know how matters are working out. I have no doubt the minister can show this while the bill is before the house, and let us have the real picture as to what is happening and what the chances are of its paying its way in any reasonable time. That is what interests me and I believe it is what interests the people of Canada generally.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, now.


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



CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. C-64, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the bill now for second reading I have nothing to add to the detailed explanation that I gave at the resolution stage. I covered in that statement, point by point, the various categories that are dealt with under this bill, and as there is no special principle involved other than the bringing of these categories within the ambit of war veterans allowances, there is nothing particular that I might usefully add at this stage.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate my support and the support of this party for the second reading of this bill. We are now discussing the principle of the bill. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to make a clarification of a statement which I made on Friday when we were discussing this measure at the resolution stage. At that time I said, as reported on page 741 of Hansard for February 9, 1962:
We now have in Newfoundland two classes of foresters, those who served in world war I and are veterans and entitled to benefits under the veterans charter and those who served in world war II who are not veterans-
When the minister was speaking yesterday, as reported on page 773 of Hansard, he took exception to these remarks and, in particular, he took exception to my use of the word "now". I should like to make it clear to the minister and to the house that I in no way intended to blame the government for anything that happened prior to 1957. Certainly, all down through the years since 1949 when Newfoundland became a part of Canada, we have had the situation in which the foresters who served in the Canadian army or Canadian units, were regarded as veterans; the foresters who served in the Newfoundland forestry units in world war I were regarded as veterans. The status of those Newfoundlanders who served overseas in the forestry emits during world war II has been in doubt. Their services have not been recognized for the purposes of pension or for any other reason. By implication, we have refused to accord them the status of veterans. When I used the word "now", what I was pointing out was that we are doing something in this act which had not been done previously. So long as we withheld a decision, then those Newfoundlanders who served in the forestry units in world war II could not say that we had decided about their status one way or another. We had not made any pronouncement or we had not pronounced any verdict as to what we considered their status to be. We have done so now, and we have this written into a bill which is going to go on our statute books.
I refer particularly to clause 75 of the bill which says that, for the purposes of this part, "civilian" means certain things, and then it goes into a whole list of categories as to what constitutes a civilian for the purposes of this act. Under paragraph (a) it says that a person who served at sea in a ship of Canadian or Newfoundland registry during world war I or world war II for a period of at least six months shall be a civilian under this act.

Then, we go further and under paragraph (g) we say that a person who served with the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit in the United Kingdom during world war II for a period of at least six months and who contracted to serve with that unit for the duration of the said war, shall be classed as a civilian. We have classified them. Then, to make sure that there is no doubt about it, we have written into another part of the act, clause 70, subclause 2, which states that in applying the act to the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, schedule A, established for the purpose of this part, the word "veteran"-I ask hon. members to note this-the word "veteran" where it appears therein shall be read therein as "civilian". This is the point to which I intended to refer the minister. This is what is happening if this legislation is passed. I used the word "now" and perhaps I was a little premature in anticipating the passage of this bill, although we know that with the government's majority it will go through. I hope we can still appeal to the minister to reconsider this decision.
May I call it ten o'clock?


William McLean Hamilton: Are
you against this?


Chesley William Carter: I am against the drafting and the civilian status.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Could the house leader inform us what the business will be for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the first item will be this Bill, No. C-64; second,
Business of the House Bill No. C-65, Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act; third will be the resolution dealing with amendments to the Export Credits Insurance Act. Then, the next item would be Bill No. C-49, an act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, followed by a resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance with regard to the Farm Improvement Loans Act; the resolution in the name of the same minister with regard to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; the resolution in the name of the same minister with regard to the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations; followed by a resolution in the name of the same minister dealing with the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.
If these are completed, and some of them are very short, we would then take the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State dealing with the universal copyright convention, and although Wednesday is a rather short day, the final item would be second reading of Bill No. C-38, an act to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it the intention to go on with this legislation on Thursday in case it is not finished on Wednesday, and what is the prospect for return to the speech from the throne?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Essex East made such an impassioned plea for immediate dissolution that these matters have to be considered before a further announcement could be made.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, February 14, 1962