1956-03-19

[Stage Direction]
"montreal-matin"
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday the 16th the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) read into the record an editorial appearing in a Montreal newspaper. As will be seen from the quotation on page 2247 of Hansard of that date a part of the editorial stated, "Gaelic is a foreign language in Canada".
As a Scotsman whose mother tongue is Gaelic I resent any newspaper in this country making that kind of statement. The history of this country will show, from Cape Breton island on the east coast to the far-flung coast line of British Columbia, that Scotsmen pioneered in the settlement of this country. In western Canada, for example, had it not been for the Selkirk settlers with such names as Sutherland, Matheson, Gunn and McLeod, the development of western Canada would have been greatly hampered in the progress that was made in that part of this great country. I trust that no newspaper in the future will be so ill advised as to make the kind of statement that compels me to get on my feet today and protest.



THE BUDGET


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the budget papers in connection with the budget to be presented tomorrow night and move that they be published in today's Votes and Proceedings and tomorrow's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, is this motion agreed to?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to make a brief statement regarding immigration. With a view to contributing to the maintenance of the level of
immigration and in furtherance of the policy of keeping families united, the government decided, several months ago, to make assisted passage loans available for the wives and children of immigrants. With the same end in view, the government has now decided to recommend to parliament in the supplementary estimates for 1956-57 that, from April 1, 1956, assistance in family settlement be paid to each immigrant or settler at the rate of $60 a year for each child under 16 years of age residing in Canada and supported by him during the first year while family allowance is not paid in respect of such child.
This assistance will be available only to immigrants landed for permanent residence in Canada and to Canadian citizens returning to settle permanently in Canada.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. J. W. Noseworlhy (York South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 205, to amend the Canada Elections Act (hours of polling).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. gentleman explain?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The purpose of this bill is to extend from six p.m. to seven p.m. the hours of polling at by-elections held during the months when standard time is in general operation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all Invoices or other records revealing prices paid for each and every painting or picture purchased for $500 or more for the national art gallery, since January 1, 1950.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the hon. gentleman has decided to proceed with this motion, notwithstanding the point I raised the other day. If that is the case, I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: There is supposed to be no debate at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Johnston (Bow River):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged, during the past two years, between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and Banff parks superintendent and/or other citizens, relating to the erection of gondola chair lift to the 'summit of Sulphur mountain in the Banff national park.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the minister has asked me to allow this motion to stand. If it is agreeable to you, I will do so.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



WESTERN PIPE LINES, LTD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Coldwell:
For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and Western Pipe Lines Limited, since January 1, 1949 to date.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Coldwell:
For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada, or any department thereof, and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, since January 1, 1951 to date.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Coldwell:
For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and Tennessee Gas Transmission Company Limited, and, or, Midwest Transmission Company Limited, since January 1, 1951 to date.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Coldwell:
For a copy of contract or contracts, in the possession of the government, regarding the sale of natural gas between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and Tennessee Gas Transmission Company Limited.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Coldwell:
For a copy of contract or contracts, in the possession of the government, regarding the sale of natural gas, between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, and Northern Natural Gas Company, (Omaha, Nebraska).

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):
For a copy of all agreements and leases, from 1947 to date, between any department of the federal government and all lessees of Indian lands or other lands and waters in the county of Kent, particularly concerning fishing and hunting privileges and rights, and for a map or maps showing such leased areas.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether this motion could be allowed to stand until the hon. member who is moving it is here.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
FLOOD DAMAGE, SASKATCHEWAN 1 On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: rise on a question of privilege. On February 6 I had a return for all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda or documents exchanged between the federal government or any department thereof and the premier of Saskatchewan or any department of the Saskatchewan government from June 1, 1955, to date in respect of flood damage in Saskatchewan during 1955. My information, sir, is that there is other correspondence between the department of agriculture in Saskatchewan and this government. I wonder whether I might have a more complete return.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the question of privilege which I raised earlier. Would the minister be prepared to table a wire from the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan to him dated September 21 and his reply of September 29; also a letter from the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan dated October 6 and the minister's reply of October 11?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when the question of privilege was raised I did! not consider that it had to do with me or my department. The order that was issued, I think, was provided for through the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) and I am sure that everything that is on our file will be referred there to be reported when the order is brought down.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, this correspondence has to do with flood damage. I wonder whether the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would take notice of the situation and provide a complete answer to my question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough), who knows what correspondence he has in mind, could put on the order paper another notice of motion asking precisely for those documents.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have any

complaints been received about pollution caused by the waste material at the refinery of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited at Port Hope? If so, could the minister give the house a statement?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know the government has received no complaints. However, complaints were filed with Eldorado Mining and Refining. Some ten days ago the Toronto Telegram published a statement about the situation and in the light of that article I asked Eldorado for a statement which I will now read.
The radioactive hazard in the residues of the Port Hope refinery is quite negligible. If the residues were ingested, the result would undoubtedly be harmful. However, it has always been the practice to dump the residues in a fenced area, which prevents access by the public. There is, however, an arsenic content in the residues which has given some trouble. Up until about a year ago the refinery residues were dumped in an area a few miles north of Port Hope. The effects of weathering have caused a leaching of some part of the arsenic content of the residues and this has found its way into an adjacent stream.
Late last summer protests were received from farmers whose farms bordered on this stream. It was claimed that the waters of the stream had an adverse effect on livestock. While it was the opinion of the management of the Port Hope refinery that the drought which prevailed in the district last summer was mainly responsible for the poor condition of livestock, the possibility of harmful effects from arsenic was also recognized. Accordingly, a settlement was made with the several farmers who made claims against the company. These settlements were arranged through the company's legal adviser in Port Hope.
The residue area referred to in the previous paragraph has not been used for the past twelve months. A new dumping area is now in use which is located on the shore of lake Ontario. I understand that the permanent and summer residents in the vicinity of the new area were proposing to hold an indignation meeting because of alleged hazards. As noted above, there is no radioactive hazard in the residues. Moreover, since the new refining process went into operation last June the arsenic hazard has been eliminated since the arsenic residue is now in an insoluble form; that is to say, it cannot be leached by weathering.
Inquiries of the Ministry FLOODS



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on February 28 the hon. member for Yorkton directed a question to me as to what action has been taken to prevent a recurrence of the floods on the Assiniboine river in the Kamsack area in Saskatchewan. In reply I may say that no action has been taken by the Department of Agriculture to prevent the recurrence of floods along the Assiniboine river at Kamsack in Saskatchewan as this is considered to be the responsibility of the provincial government and so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned no application for assistance in this regard has been made by the provincial authorities.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to questions by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings regarding the Blue-nose, I said I would keep the house informed as to resumption of service. I am glad to be able to say that the Bluenose resumed service from Yarmouth today.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton). On Friday he asked whether I could inform the house "whether jet aircraft on speed runs have been banned from the air space used by regular traffic, as reported in the press yesterday". The reply is that the Department of Transport has taken no such action.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked a question with reference to elections under section 36 (1) of the Income

Inquiries of the Ministry Tax Act. It is the opinion that a special form to be provided by the tax division would not be warranted. We do feel that some reference to the alternative methods for the taxation of these lump sum payments should be indicated on the T.4 summary and supplementary, to advise employers and employees of the provisions of this section. This matter will be attended to in drafting the forms for the coming year.
The 1955 edition of the employee's income tax guide contains a paragraph wherein it is stated that:
If you received a lump sum payment out of a pension fund during the year, the amounts must be included in your income for the year but may be subjected to a reduced rate of tax. For further information on this point, inquire at your district taxation office.
In addition to this note, assessors are directed to assess the taxpayer at the rates most beneficial to him when such a lump sum payment is included in income. This is done whether or not the taxpayer has elected to be taxed under the provisions of section 36 (1). That means that it may be spread over a period of three years at the effective rates.



GAINS ARISING FROM PURCHASE OF SHARES AT LESS THAN MARKET PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Are the gains taxable that arise when a company gives a shareholder the right to purchase additional shares at less than the market price? If not, is the government considering taxing such gains?


Walter Edward Harris: This is the type of question that I shall be glad to discuss on my estimates or in the budget debate.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Can he say what caused the fire in the Royal Canadian Air Force hangar at Dorval this morning and what the total loss is estimated to be?


Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, preliminary reports indicate that the fire started in a section of the building where stores were kept. It will undoubtedly require a full investigation. The R.C.A.F. fire 
marshal and the one from the Department of Transport are already there looking into the matter.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the fire out?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I have not been able to give him notice of it. Perhaps he can take this as notice. Has his attention been called to the news item in today's Globe and Mail with regard to the transfer of William Semenick from the British Columbia penitentiary? It is alleged here he is being transferred in fear of his life. Can the minister give us some information on that situation?


Mr. Speaker:: This is precisely the sort of question that should be discouraged.


Colin Cameron: Perhaps I did not put my question clearly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member put his question so clearly that he gave us a great deal of information, and I am sure we will all look at the newspaper to which he has referred to find out what is in it.


Colin Cameron: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The first question has not been asked.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let us not generate more heat than one can control.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS AGRICULTURE    REPRESENTATION AT FORTHCOMING MARKETING CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Has the
Minister of Agriculture invited to the forthcoming agricultural marketing conference representatives from the main farm organizations in this country?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated to the house the other day, the conference which is being called is being called as a result of discussions which took place at the December conference. It was decided there that the kind of gathering they desired for the purpose in hand was a meeting of the

ministers of agriculture from the different provinces, together with any officials the ministers decided to bring to meet with the department here.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 151, to incorporate Hydrocarbons Pipeline Limited -Mr. Weaver-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Stanley Howard Knowles: There are a few words I wish to say on clause 1, but if the sponsor wishes to speak I would be glad to yield to him. If not, I may say that when the hon. member for Churchill spoke to this bill on second reading, he had occasion to refer to a relationship that might exist between this company and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. I began to wonder whether there might be any more connection than the one the member indicated when he spoke on March 2 of this year. Accordingly, I did what is often done around here and went to such well known documents as Moody's Industrials, the Directory of Directors, the Financial Post Survey of Industrials, Who's Who in America, and Moody's Public Utilities.
I went to these documents for the purpose of trying to find out just who were the individuals who were tied in to this company. As the member for Churchill stated, the company which is sponsoring Hydrocarbons Pipeline Limited is Canadian Hydrocarbons Limited. I found in one of the documents to which I have referred a list of the directors of Canadian Hydrocarbons Limited. It is true that four or five of them are residents of Canada, but at least two of them are residents of the United States. One of them is Mr. J. R. Dempsey, of Libertyville, Illinois. I have not as yet run down his pedigree. Another is Mr. C. S. Strike, who lives at West Hartford, Connecticut. I find that this Mr. C. S. Strike is also president of F. H. McGraw and Company of Hartford, as well as being president or chairman of the board of a number of other companies. F. H. McGraw and Company is associated with the Power Corporation of Canada in ownership of the F. H. McGraw Company of Canada. The president of the Power Corporation of Canada is Mr. P. A. Thomson, a member of Nesbitt, Thomson and Company of Winnipeg, which is now known as N. T. Investments Limited. That firm, N. T. Investments Limited, I understand, holds something of the order of 70,000 shares in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
Private Bills
I find also, Mr. Chairman, that the same Power Corporation of Canada has a substantial interest in the Anglo-Canadian Oil Company, which also has an interest in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. I find also that the chairman and treasurer of Anglo-Canadian is Mr. H. R. Milner, who is also on the board of directors of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
It so happens that I have on my desk quite a number of sheets of paper, and I have one of these interesting charts showing all of the involvements of these people. I do not intend to go into the full details, but I think I have given enough to indicate that there seems to be building up once again in this whole pipe-line business-both gas and oil-another of those interlocking directorates where a few people get a stranglehold on something that is pretty important to the people of Canada as a whole.
The other day the Minister of Agriculture expressed some misplaced anxiety lest we in this party were not still concerned about the 50 big shots of whom we used to speak some years ago. We are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that in this field some super big shots are being built up by these various companies that parliament is incorporating, through these charters that are being granted. I suspect the day will come when we shall find that parliament has facilitated by a number of these simple little bills the building up of an octopus in the oil and gas and fuel and power industry in this country. We feel that this house does not know enough about all this business to be called upon to deal with bills of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Pipe lines legislation to apply.
Mr. Harkness:: On this clause I am
interested in finding out whether this proposed pipe line will be a common carrier or not. I am not a member of the committee; I was not in on the committee sessions, but I understand from those who were there that this question did not come up. This clause reads:
The company shall have all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred by, and be subject to all the limitations, liabilities and provisions of the Pipe Lines Act, and any other general legislation relating to pipe lines enacted by parliament with respect to the transportation of crude oil and other liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons.
I think section 38 of the Pipe Lines Act provides that the board of transport commissioners may declare any oil or gas pipe line as a common carrier. I presume that would be done on the initiative either of

Private Bills
sortie person interested or of the government. As far as oil pipe lines for which charters have been granted so far are concerned, I think it is provided, not in the act itself but by the government indicating to the board of transport commissioners that they should declare that the pipe line should be a common carrier. I should like to know what the situation will be in connection with this particular pipe line.


Mr. Weaver:: With regard to the question which the hon. member for Calgary North has just asked, this company would be subject to the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act, and this pipe line would be in the same position as other pipe lines which have been approved here. I am sure, from the discussions I have had with the sponsors, that within the limits for which it is designed they will be only too happy that this should be considered a common carrier.
It should be remembered that this pipe line will carry only that narrow range of products between what is ordinarily considered as petroleum and natural gas on the petroleum scale. Roughly, that would include naphtha, propane and butane, and it would include also refined gasoline. It will be realized that these products could not be carried in a petroleum gas line or a natural gas line.
This pipe line is to be from six to eight inches in size and the quantity of these particular products would not be as great as petroleum and natural gas. It will require a good deal of gasoline to be transported to make this a paying proposition and enable it to operate in this important field which is so beneficial to the whole gas and oil industry.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I accept what the hon. member for Churchill has said, that this pipe line will require some gasoline to be carried through it in addition to butane and propane. It is suggested that that will have to be done in order to make it a profitable operation. However, I do not think that that answers my question as to whether it is going to be a common carrier.
If it is not to be a common carrier it would place the company operating this pipe line and the gas and other companies with which it happens to be associated in a very preferred position as compared with other companies producing propane or butane. It might mean that those other companies could sell their propane and butane only to the operators of this pipe line or to the oil companies associated with the pipe line. That
[Mr. Harkness.1
is the point I wanted to get clear and I should like to have the sponsor answer that question.


George Dyer Weaver: At this moment I cannot speak definitely. If the hon. member desires a definite answer perhaps the committee could rise and report progress and I would be glad to get definite information in the meantime. There is no doubt in my own mind on that point.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would appreciate it very much if that action could be taken because I think this is an important point which should be cleared up before the charter is finally granted.
Clause stands.
Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to.


The Chairman:: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day?
Progress reported.



MONA MARGARET MCCASTLIN ADAMS

Mr. H. P. Cavers (for Mr. Henderson) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 161, for the relief of Mona Margaret McCastlin Adams.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this case originates in Hull, just across the river. Some critical remarks have been made with regard to the evidence given by certain investigators in other cases and I should like to pay a tribute to the investigators who appeared before the Senate committee in connection with this particular case. One investigator was asked the following question and gave the following answer:
Q. Would you describe to the members of the committee the condition of the house-what you saw at that time?
A. It was a very small dirty shack, wooden shack, with, only one room, square shack, no separate rooms, just one main room, and it was simply a house of poverty, a shack you might find some old hermit living in-filthy and poor, no furnishings at all; an old stove, and decrepit old bed, and an old couch behind a curtain, and the couch was filled up with junk and all sorts of articles.
A little later on he was asked about his investigations and he replied as follows:
At the beginning I asked this young girl her age and she said, "I think I am near 18," and I said, "Aren't you closer to 16?" and she said, "Yes, maybe, but I do not know my age, and nobody knows my age," and then I asked her if she was living there-if Mr. Bill Adams was keeping her there against her will, and I explained very carefully what I meant by that. I said, "Does he make you live here or would you rather live some place else?" and she seemed like a very bright child and told me she was living there because she wanted to and, furthermore, because

she had no other place to live, and I asked her where her mother was, and she said, "I have no mother, I have an adopted mother."
I think we all feel that it is a tragedy when a 14-year old girl is forced by economic circumstances to live in an environment like that. I am sure that the honourable senators who reviewed the case were deeply moved by the evidence, but it is obvious that the parliament of Canada cannot do anything about the housing conditions or social problems which are presented by this particular case. I am not opposing the passing of this particular bill, but I submit it is a reflection upon this country when almost within sight of the parliament buildings there should exist conditions such as those described in the evidence in this particular bill. We have no authority to do anything about the girl, who apparently is a bright girl and is about 16 years of age.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Mr. Speaker:: Can all the other divorce bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers) for the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Hunter) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), that these divorce bills Nos. 162 to 164 inclusive and 169 to 188 inclusive be read the second time. Is it agreed?


Mr. Regier:: I thought that we were referring only to Nos. 162 to 164. I did wish to say something on order No. 10 and order No. 28.


Mr. Speaker:: Would it be agreeable to pass the others with the exclusion of those two?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Regis Edouard Gosselin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of William Boychuck.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Edna Betty Berendt Payment.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Leona- Jennie Impey Mella.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Florence Mintz Etinson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Jeanne Yvonne Gaouyat Leroy.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Adrienne Rozenbaum Melzak.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Joan Louise Squires Connolly.-Mr. Henderson.
Private Bills
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Carol May Burch Squires.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Irene Raab Agoston.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Joan Marshall Bougie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Heather Thornton Williamson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Helen Louise Hancox Fray.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of John Wallace Herbert.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Angeline Sperdakos Trakas.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Sheelagh Duffin Bennett.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Ruth Alister Creighton Jones.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Doris Lillian Doughty Dick.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Joan Etta Young Campbell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Doris Evelyn Hirsch Stephen.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Luvina Mallet Lambert.-Mr. Henderson.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer
to bill No. 170 and later to Bill No. 188, order No. 10 and order No. 28.



JOSEPH ELIE FELIX LEDUC

Harry Peter Cavers: the second reading of Bill No. 170, for the relief of Joseph Elie Felix Leduc.


Erhart Regier: I shall not delay the house
any more than a minute.


Mr. Fleming:: I rise on a point of order.
How does it happen that this bill, which is a substantial way down on the order paper, is now being called ahead of Bills 166 and 168, which are No. 7 and No. 8 respectively on the list of private bills?


Mr. Speaker:: It has often been our practice to take divorce cases in this way. I do not suppose that the debate with respect to those two would be long, and we can revert to No. 7 and No. 8 and perhaps reach more quickly the other private bills, No. 29 and No. 30 on the order paper, which perhaps could not be reached today; and the same applies with respect to Nos. 31 and 32. Perhaps the objection at the moment is taken a little late, because, when I asked if it was the pleasure of the house to take all the divorce bills in one motion, it was agreed to. I presume that in his scroll the Clerk has already gone ahead and inscribed

Private Bills
our agreement to that effect. Does the hon. member still insist on his point?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know whether we
have an assurance that the discussion will be brief on these two divorce bills. The hon. member nods, and so I will withdraw my objection.


Erhart Regier: In this case I believe that I should place on record the fact that the respondent had notified the chief clerk of committees that she intended to contest the case. However, when the case was heard, there was read out by the chief clerk of committees to the committee a letter stating as follows:
These presents are to state that I have interviewed my client, the respondent, once more, in connection with this case and that after due deliberation, she has decided not to contest these proceedings.
I beg to remain,
Yours very truly,
M. Gaboury.
The writer of the letter, I take it, is the legal adviser for the respondent. The reason I should like to put this on the record is that I know it is very difficult for a respondent, if a woman, to have her side of the story heard. Here is a lady who had given notice of her intention to contest the case and, for reasons that we do not know, she has changed her mind. I mention this at this time because, when we meet this case again in committee, I think our committee should look into the reasons why this lady has changed her mind, whether it was economic necessity or whether it was another case of undue pressure being exerted upon her by the petitioner in order to avoid having her put forth her defence.
Another reason why I raise the point is that, upon reading the case, I find that the husband claims that he came home from work one day and not only had his wife left the home but his four almost grown up members of the family had left with her. He was at a loss to imagine why his wife, two children who are working, and two who are still in school, should all have left the home and left him at the same time. I know that our committee of this house is going to give this case the same further attention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Speaker:: May I revert to No. 7 on the order paper? We shall take up No. 28 after we have disposed of No. 7 and No. 8.

In the absence of the sponsor, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Richardson), this bill will be allowed to stand.



CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. 168, to incorporate the Canadian Council of Churches.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This bill provides for the incorporation of the Canadian Council of Churches. The Canadian Council of Churches has been in existence since 1944 as an unincorporated body. The composition of the Canadian Council of Churches is clearly set forth in the explanatory notes to the bill.
The religious bodies and other organizations named in the preamble have for 11 years been supporting, as members thereof, an unincorporated association known as the Canadian Council of Churches. In recent years the Greek Orthodox archdiocese of North and South America and the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America have become affiliated members of the organization and, in addition, the United Lutheran Church in America is in friendly association therewith. The churches that are members of the council are set forth in the preamble:
The Anglican Church of Canada, The Baptist Federation of Canada, The Churches of Christ (Disciples), The Evangelical United Brethern Church, The Presbyterian Church in Canada, The United Church of Canada, The Reformed Episcopal Church, The Salvation Army, The Society of Friends, The National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations of Canada, The Young Women's Christian Association of Canada, and The Student Christian Movement of Canada.
The objects of the incorporation are clearly set forth in the bill. The bill has been passed by the Senate and, if given second reading now, will go to the committee for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Harry Peter Cavers: the second reading of Bill No. 188, for the relief of Lois Margaret Clouston Willar.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I shall be equally brief on this case. However, I do feel that the attention of the house should be called to the fact that here is a case where the dissolution of the marriage is recommended and neither the petitioner nor the respondent has appeared. The only evidence whatsoever that

is presented is the evidence of a witness, a garage mechanic aged 33. There is no substantiating witness. I am very pleased to notice that in the other place we have a most aggressive member in the person of Senator Hodges from British Columbia. On page 16 of the evidence in the case she has this to say:
Personally I do not think any of that testimony contributes anything to the evidence we are looking for.
I should like to ask the house this question. What state of affairs are we coming to in the passage of these divorce cases? Have we now arrived at the stage where anyone in Canada wishing a divorce merely has to send a penny postcard to the parliament of Canada and say: "I hereby send notice that from this day forward I wish to be regarded as being divorced, and I wish to claim my rights as a citizen." I think it is going much too far when neither the petitioner nor the respondent has to appear and only one witness, a 33 year old person, who may or may not be the most reliable man on earth, is able to be responsible for the dissolution of a marriage. I wish to register my strong objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



WESTERN GOSPEL MISSION

Mr. Rene N. Julras (Provencher) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 190, to incorporate the Western Gospel Mission.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


René Jutras: Mr. Speaker, this organization is made up of representatives of a number of affiliated churches. They support clergy who conduct religious services in areas where no church exists or where the churches there do not cover the area adequately. When the local congregation has been fully established, that is, after they have repaid their financial obligation to the organization, the organization withdraws, leaving the new congregation to determine its own affairs and other affiliation, if any.
As you can see from the bill, Mr. Speaker, the head office of the organization is in Stein-bach. Manitoba, which is one of the most progressive towns in my province. These people are well known throughout Canada for their love of peace and order. They hold very strong religious convictions and support their churches generously. This incorporation
19. 1956	2257
Private Bills
is primarily for administrative purposes with respect to the temporal affairs of the organization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 191, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This bill does not seem to be on our files.


Howard Charles Green: This bill has not yet been distributed. At least, I do not have a copy and none of my colleagues has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Neither have we.


Howard Charles Green: Therefore we are not prepared to go on with the debate today.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall it stand?


George James McIlraith: I know nothing about the distribution of the copies of the bill, but in view of the point that has been raised I suppose there is nothing to do but to let the bill stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stands.



QUEBEC NORTH SHORE AND LABRADOR RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 148, respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company-Mr. Brisson-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, is the mover here to answer any questions?


An hon. Member:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I think we should rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. There seem to be a lot of the movers away this afternoon on bills we were prepared to go ahead with.


Mr. Boisvert:: I think the hon. member for Saguenay has good reason to be absent from the house today.
Progress reported.



HYDROCARBONS PIPELINE LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 151, to incorporate Hydrocarbons Pipeline Limited- Mr. Weaver-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 5-Pipe lines legislation to apply.
William Alfred Robinson: When tfie house resolved itself into committee of the whole earlier this

Private Bills
day it was unanimously agreed that the committee should let clause 5 stand and that it should meet again this day on the bill.


George Dyer Weaver: Mr. Chairman, a short while ago when we were dealing with this bill the hon. member for Calgary North asked a question with respect to the company being a common carrier. In asking the question he stated that he had gone over the evidence and had seen no reference to the matter. Not having a copy of the evidence handy, I asked that the clause be allowed to stand for the time being. I now have a copy of the evidence in my hand. At page 41 the hon. member for New Westminster questioned Mr. Deacon about this very matter, and I find there the following:
Q. How many individual distributing firms are in competition in each of the provinces?
This is just to give the background.
A. There is a tremendous number, but there are probably only three or four substantial ones. However, there is a great number of independent ones, and our fear about the industry in the past has been that because of the great number of independents there were no standards of safety, no standards of service provided, and that the public did not have confidence in this form of fuel. What we want to do is to create a uniform operation across the provinces that people will feel is a substantial one and can look upon it for their supplies. You may have noticed last fall when a shortage of propane existed in western Canada, that in Alberta there were two companies which still had supplies, and ours was one of them.
Q. Is it your intention to bring these other companies in, or permit them to become shareholders within your firm?
A. Anybody can buy stock in our company.
Q. I realize that. You can do that through a brokerage firm of course; but is it your intention to take in some of these companies which have quite an investment? If you start to come in with a guaranteed supply, they will automatically find that it assists their business and that it will provide investors?
A. We have been supplying them in Alberta when they ran out of supplies. They could come to us and take our supplies, and we helped them so that they could fill their orders.
Q. You will still let them keep their charters?
A. Naturally.
Q. Or become your distributors, in other words?
A. They will be able to buy from the general pipe line at the same price as we could, as a common carrier, make the product available to anyone.
Q. That is my point. It is a common carrier and they can become companies if they so desire for the distribution of that product in any municipal district if they have a charter?
A. Yes.
I think that should cover the point the hon. member raised about the pipe line being a common carrier. I was sure in my own mind that was so but I wished to check on it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From what the sponsor of the bill has said, t take it that the company is prepared to apply to the board of transport
[The Chairman.]
commissioners to have this pipe line, if and when built, declared to be a common carrier. As to the answer given us to the effect that it is a common carrier, perhaps I should point out at this stage that such is not the case until either the company itself, the government or some other interested party has applied to the board of transport commissioners and they have declared this pipe line to be a common carrier. In other words, the position with regard to pipe lines being common carriers is not what I had personally understood it to be. I understood that it was laid down in the act of incorporation that they were to be a common carrier or that the matter was covered under the general pipe lines bill whereby they would automatically become a common carrier. On looking up the law on the matter I find that apparently they do not become a common carrier unless this application is made to the board of transport commissioners. From what the sponsor has said I would take it that the company had either already done that or were prepared to do it when the charter was granted so that it would be ensured that this pipe line would be a common carrier. Is that correct?


George Dyer Weaver: Mr. Chairman, if it will meet with the wishes of the hon. member, I can say that the company will be prepared to apply to the board of transport commissioners to have it declared to be a common carrier.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of providing for the economic rehabilitation of people living in communities and areas in Canada where extreme hardships are resulting from the closing down of the principal industries, such rehabilitation to be achieved through direct government assistance for the establishment of additional or alternative industries in the areas concerned or, if such measures do not fully meet the problem in a given community, to assist people in the area concerned to resettle in other communities where alternative employment can be provided.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time that a resolution of this kind has appeared on the order paper. It is rather broad and all-inclusive. I might say that it presupposes that the government take a square look at that subject matter in all areas in Canada where industry is developed on wasting resources which can be built up to a certain peak but which later recede, thus leaving great communities as ghost towns. It is a timely subject, in my opinion, because the Gordon commission is now making an economic survey of Canada and no doubt will be studying this subject and making recommendations on it.
This resolution covers many sections of Canada and there is a principle involved. For example, with regard to gold mines in northern Ontario, companies will be formed and they develop communities. The investor who puts a certain amount of money into the exploitation of a natural resource like gold, coal, nickel or any other mineral in the ground, over a period of years can get his money back and maybe a great deal more by way of profit. When the resource runs out, we find ourselves in the position of having built towns like Kirkland Lake in Ontario or Glace Bay in Nova Scotia with a population of 28,000 or 30,000. Examples can be given from British Columbia right down to Cape Breton island. The greatest investment in the community is made by the people themselves, the 28,000 or 30,000 of population who have assembled in that area, based on the particular resource. People build homes and put a lifetime of savings into them. Churches and schools are built, railroads are developed and there is a huge investment there on the part of the Canadian people themselves. The investor, who may live in another part of the country or in another part of the world can perhaps make himself a million dollars out of that resource; he can take that money, go down to the Bahamas and live there for the rest of his natural life where he is not even obliged to pay taxes.


Major James William Coldwell: Income tax.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, income tax. But the people are left there with their investment on their hands. It is not a liquid investment. In a community like that real estate is valueless once the community peters out. That is the kind of thing this resolution is aimed at this afternoon. It is moved merely to provoke discussion and to cause the members of the house to think about the .problem, more particularly the members of the cabinet. Its purpose is also, of course, to get something in the press to awaken our people to the necessity of action by government with respect to this particular problem. It is not one that
Economic Rehabilitation develops over night. I know we have gone through this experience and have been going through it in Nova Scotia in the mining community for the past 25 years. It has been a severe problem. Many communities have gone out of existence, with the people's investment lying there valueless.
I listened here a couple of weeks ago to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) and on a television program I saw her doing an excellent job on this very subject. I thought, "That is another part of the country that is far removed from the part in which I live but this lady, a member of the government party, on that television program is saying exactly the things that I would say if I were there in her place". I merely mention that matter to indicate the fact that this is not a parochial matter as far as a discussion in his house is concerned. I am more particularly interested in my own end of the country. That is natural. In this house we have members from every section of Canada. If during the course of this discussion they can call to mind circumstances similar to those that I am going to describe in my own province, I hope each and every one of them will get to his feet and make a contribution to this debate. I think it is a subject at which we must take a square look. I think we must avoid repeating the mistakes of the past in allowing communities to fall into decay, with the consequent waste of millions and millions of dollars of investment and hard work on the part of Canadian citizens.
Of course, I might stand up and make a speech. Everybody would listen and after I was finished the only reaction would be that it was a good speech or a bad speech; it was a provocative speech or it was not. I do not believe any speech is worth while unless it is provocative. If the only reaction to what a speech contains is that it was good or bad, the speaker wasted his time and the time of the house. I am not, therefore, going to make a speech. Being a member of this group and tagged with wanting the government to do everything, I am going to call a few impartial witnesses to support the idea that the government should take a square look at this question of rehabilitating communities that are based on resources that are wasting resources, where huge investments are made and then the resources allowed to peter out.
During the last 25 years in my own part of the country I have seen many mining communities fall by the wayside. Nothing was done to compensate the people who lived in those areas. Many of these people had to sacrifice their properties, which represented a lifetime of saving and leave for other parts of the country or go to the United States. I think it is time we stopped that kind of thing.

Economic Rehabilitation I often think when we are talking about increasing our contribution to the Colombo plan and making more funds available for technical assistance in other parts of the world-I am in favour of that-that it is difficult to sell that idea to a person living in a town like Kirkland Lake or Glace Bay where you have 800 or 900 miners suddenly uprooted. There is no fund to do anything for them except the little that has been done by the Department of Labour in retraining them for other occupations.
It is rather difficult to go back to these people, whose unemployment insurance benefits are running out, and tell them that what a wonderful thing it is for us to increase our contributions to the Colombo plan. The reaction you get from a person under those circumstances is, "Why don't you get a Colombo plan in Canada for us? We would appreciate some technical assistance in the establishment of subsidiary industries. We have the resources and there are markets available if you want to tap them." Some financial assistance would be very welcome in such a community as I am describing.
I am suggesting that this government should implement the white paper tabled in this house in 1945. In tabling the paper the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated, and the statement was contained in the body of the document, that it is the policy of this government in the development of the resources of this country that where risk capital cannot be found to develop the resources or where private industry falls down the government will immediately step in with a public investment program for the development of such resources. Now, that is a good policy. We were all for it and we are still for it. It is still the policy of the government because they have never rescinded it, although they have never implemented it to the extent we would have liked to see them implement it.
I am thinking now particularly of the coal industry of Nova Scotia. As I have said a good many times in this house, it is facing a very uncertain future. We hear people advocating this natural gas pipe line from Alberta to Quebec. Our stand is that it should be a public carrier and it should be controlled by the government. If this line is built to Quebec city, it is going to pose a problem for the maritime provinces. It is going to knock the props from under one of the main industries supporting the economy of Nova Scotia. We are sure, of course, that if the government is going to subsidize a pipe line with the taxpayers' money and that pipe line is going to eliminate coal that has already been subsidized by the government in that market, then a body of men as intelligent as the government will have a plan or


program to take up the slack in an industry they are helping to subsidize out of the picture. I am reasonably sure they will do that.
I should like to call a very good friend of mine as a witness on this subject of the fear of the future for the coal industry. I call Mr. Lionel Forsyth, president of Dominion Steel and Coal Company, an organization that operates coal mines in Nova Scotia as well as many other things. According to a press dispatch, Mr. Forsyth had this to say to the Gordon commission on the economic problems of Canada:
Fears that the St. Lawrence seaway may bring new hardships to maritime industries were expressed to the Gordon royal commission Friday as it wound up its Halifax sittings.
Lionel A. Forsyth, president of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, said completion of the seaway will likely result in cheaper importation of American coal and perhaps attract foreign steel. These transportation problems were described during the three-day commission hearings as the biggest deterrents to new industry in the mari-times. Mr. Forsyth said he was "firmly convinced" that with the high cost of transportation no manufacturer would come to the maritimes to produce a finished product.
He said, however, that pessimism should not be associated with Dosco's Sydney steel plant,-
Now, I believe he is quite clear and precise. You cannot expect risk capital to go into the maritimes because of the long haul back to main markets and high transportation costs. It is not a question of power. Many people have been playing up to the question of power, but we have power in Nova Scotia. The problem in that province has always been markets, not only for coal but for any other commodity. As Mr. Forsyth has rightly said, there is the threat that within the foreseeable future natural gas will, to a large extent, wipe out the basic industry of my province. Then, with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway there will be a cheap water route into Quebec which is our main market for practically everything we produce in the maritimes, including our coal. These threats are very apparent to any businessman who may have capital to invest and will keep him from going into an area where the future is so uncertain.
Now, I want to call another witness, a very good friend of mine, Mr. Harold Gordon, general manager of the coal industry in Nova Scotia. He has another angle. He makes this statement to the Gordon commission:
"If you burn gasoline you don't help the Nova Scotia coal industry."
That's the report of Dosco coal chief H. C. M. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon says increased use of gasoline- and provincial government records show it is on the march-has an important bearing on the fuel situation in the maritimes and Quebec, where most of Dosco coal is marketed.

His complaint is that in the province of Nova Scotia there are huge shipments of crude oil from Venezuela. According to his statement that oil is coming in. He said this oil was offered in Nova Scotia for 6 cents a gallon and that coal could not meet this kind of competition unless the federal government imposed an import tax on residue oil. Mr. Gordon said that residue oil from Venezuela was sold in New England for $1.85 a barrel, and that $1.65 of this was cost of transportation. Well, that crude oil that is refined in Dartmouth comes in duty free. It is distress oil from countries that pay very low wages.
The president of the Dosco organization and the chief of the coal industry both make it very clear that the cost of transportation to markets is the main disability of the maritime provinces. It is the responsibility of the federal government to bring some kind of organization into being-and I hope it will come out of the Gordon commission- that will try to alleviate the problem in the best way they know how.
The next point is the matter of cheap crude oil from Venezuela that is dumped into this country duty-free. The federal government and the provincial government-because I think it comes more properly in the field of the provincial government-should get together and come to some kind of an arrangement under which that oil at least will be compelled to meet the competition of other fuels in this country. I think that is a reasonable proposition.


Mr. Nickle:: May I ask the hon. member a question? In connection with Venezuela the hon. member mentioned that the transportation costs of crude oil were $1.65 a barrel and the oil was worth only 20 cents in Venezuela?


Clarence Gillis: I said that was the statement of Mr. Harold Gordon, the general manager of Dominion Steel and Coal. I quoted him. I am not prepared to argue-


Carl Olof Nickle: I think the figures might be reversed in so far as wellhead prices and transportation costs are concerned.


Clarence Gillis: I hope Mr. Gordon will read Hansard and give us the answer. I am not prepared to vouch for the validity of the statement. But knowing Mr. Gordon as I do, I can say he is a pretty careful Scotsman and he does not make very many statements that he can be caught off base on.


Mr. Weir:: Does he speak Gaelic?


Clarence Gillis: I happened to pick up another very good witness, namely, the last issue of The Ensign, the issue for March. They took
Economic Rehabilitation the presentations of the four maritime provinces to the Gordon commission and summarized them; they shortened them up considerably. I am not going to read them. The Nova Scotia picture shows that in wages, in production and in everything relating to the development of Canada, Nova Scotia as a province is away below the average of the rest of Canada, with the exception of the other maritime provinces. I am going to put this bit on the record. The summary states: The biggest single problem in the province is what will happen to the coal industry, accounting for 77 per cent of the $68 million mining economy. And the biggest single obstacle to industrial development is the high cost of transportation.
The market for Nova Scotia coal has drastically declined with the dieselization of the transport systems, the inroads of oil and natural gas in the fuel market.
Hopes for the coal industry are pinned on the possibility that future energy requirements in central Canada will outstrip the growth of hydro power development: and on research now being carried on at McGill university on the possibility of a coal-fired gas turbine locomotive.
These people, who are impartial witnesses, have shown clearly that the argument that has been used in the past that power in Nova Scotia particularly has been the deterrent to the development of subsidiary industry is not true. In my opinion it never was true. It is transportation, the long haul back to markets and the impossibility of competing in the central markets with anything that might be manufactured or fabricated in that part of the country. When the Gordon commission reports to the government I hope it will have something very definite to say. You know, Mr. Speaker, over the years we have had so many commissions. In spite of all the recommendations that were made, in that part of the country things have continued to decline and to deteriorate. Nothing very much was done with the recommendations. As I have said before, the Rowell-Sirois commission, in its analysis of this country, did one of the best jobs that could be done. Their recommendations were very clear with respect to taxation agreements, re-allocation and redistribution of wealth, the development of the country and a more balanced economy. They did an excellent job. I hope the Gordon commission will do just as good a job; but I hope that when the government makes its economy plans for the future it will remember that there are four provinces east of the province of Quebec.
It pains me to sit in a committee, and particularly when the natural gas pipe line from Alberta is under discussion. At that time I asked whether any surveys were made east of Quebec city to determine what the effect may be on the economy of the provinces east of Quebec, or whether some benefits
2262	HOUSE OF
Economic Rehabilitation might be derived from carrying the line further on into New Brunswick and down through Nova Scotia. They said that no surveys had been made; they did not know anything about it, and no representation was made to them for a survey. That is true of all of those national projects that are undertaken. They start in British Columbia and they get down as far as Montreal, and that is the end of them. The rest of that part of the world seems to be completely out of the picture.
What I am suggesting on a national scale, Mr. Speaker, has already been attempted or been done by the province of Alberta on a provincial scale. When the mining industry in Alberta went down, when there were at least two towns whose citizens were completely unemployed, when there was nothing for them to do, the government set up a committee. They made an appropriation of money; they set up a fund for the purpose of moving those people into areas where there was employment. They closed out two towns. I have a clipping which gives a summary of the committee's report. I do not want to read it. I am just summarizing it as I read it. They successfully moved the total population of those two fairly large towns and found employment for them elsewhere. But the bad feature of that move was that men who had invested in homes, in church property and had built the communities up had to pull out and leave the property standing there. As I said before, a lifetime of investment was lost.
I believe that what the federal government should do is to set up a public investment fund which could be used to implement the terms of the white paper of 1945.
If arising out of the Gordon commission report we find that the piping of natural gas into the province of Quebec is going to kill the mining industry of Nova Scotia, then I believe it will be the responsibility of the federal government, along with the provincial government, to take a look at the areas affected and determine whether it is possible to have risk capital go into those areas and replace that industry with an industry based on the resources of the areas themselves. There are plenty of resources in Nova Scotia. There would be no trouble to set up a good cement industry in that province, and it is badly needed. It would not take very much money out of the public treasury to establish there an industry that would be self-liquidating. All the ingredients necessary for a cement industry are to be found right now in that province. No one has ever come down there with the necessary capital to develop that industry for the simple reason that 

Canada Cement is a monopoly. Every time there is a building boom, particularly such as we had after the war, we find cement being bootlegged from the United States at a cost of $1.25 per bag more than Canadian cement would cost if it could be got.
If the federal and provincial governments had a public investment fund these resources about which I am talking could be developed. There are plenty of resources in the maritime provinces and there should be no difficulty in obtaining markets for the materials that are available for production. If these things cannot be developed publicly or privately, then the next step will be to do what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is doing, train the people who are young enough in new skills or move them to some other part of the country where employment is available. That is the next step.
If we can bring in people from Europe and provide jobs for them, I submit the first responsibility of the government should be to see that people who should be working are working before someone else is brought in. I am not objecting to immigration because I do not think we will ever use the resources of this country until we have many more people. We have our two national railway systems and our air lines; we have developed our transportation sufficiently to take care of 50 or 60 million people; but our first responsibility should be to see that our own people are taken care of.
Only two years ago many men left Canada to go to New Zealand because there was no place else in Canada where they could get work. The national employment service put out attractive circulars stating that jobs were available in New Zealand, with homes and everything provided. Of course they have a coalition government in that country today which is trying to hang on to the mechanics of free enterprise. When these men got to New Zealand they found that the contract was not being fulfilled by a long shot. They are stuck there now and they are talking about suing the people who brought them in on the charge that they were brought in under false pretences. This is something I intend to discuss with the Minister of Labour and perhaps the minister of immigration when their estimates are before us. Those men were virile enough to be ready to leave this part of the world and travel to New Zealand in order to find work when employment should have been available in their own country.
I think the answer to a problem such as this is simple: set up a public investment fund. Personnel is available in every department of government who could deal with

this problem from the economic, social and business standpoints. The machinery is there to be used for that purpose. You always know that a problem is going to develop five or six years ahead and the machinery could be developed to deal with the problem before people are thrown out on the streets and chaos exists. The purpose of my resolution is to remind the government that this is not a developing problem, as indicated by that white paper. We have the machinery to deal with any industry which may be depending on wasting resources, such as gold mining, coal mining, metal mining and so on. We find ghost towns all over Canada, mining communities which were once prosperous. There has been lost investment and disillusionment on the part of people who have put their lifetime savings into these communities.
This would not mean any change in the mechanics of our society; it merely means the carrying out of government policy. As far as the members of this group are concerned, we are prepared to assist in that. Many people think that the C.C.F. want to take over every farm and little store, but the C.C.F. program and policy ever since I have been in it is to support private industry when it can do the job in the interests of the community. That is the way it should be done. But anything that dominates the life of the community in the way that our natural resources do should be handled in a way that would give the community a say in the management. We believe in cooperative development. We do not want to take over everything. That is the point I want to make. If private industry will do the job in the interests of the community, that is the way it should be done. But they are not doing the job in the maritimes. Considering the resources we have from coast to coast, the maritime provinces stand as an example of the failure to develop our resources on a national scale on the basis of service to our people and providing a balanced economy and equality across Canada.
If this resolution does nothing else but provoke discussion, I think it will have been worth while. I trust that hon. members from other parts of Canada who have some knowledge of this subject will say a few words. We talk about British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario, but what the people residing ^n those provinces fail to remember is that while they still have frontiers to push back, while they still have hinterlands, while they still have new wealth to develop, the maritime provinces are fenced around by oceans. We have no hinterland, we have no frontiers to push back, we have
Economic Rehabilitation to make the best use that we can of the resources that we have in that restricted area.
I trust that when hon. members from Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia are speaking on this resolution they will remember that we live in a restricted area far from the main markets and our problem is mainly a transportation problem. I hope that they will be considerate and generous in their discussion of the resolution.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that after the broad picture my hon. friend has painted this afternoon the activities for which the Minister of Labour is responsible do not fill the needs that the hon. member has indicated exist. However, I do want to say something on this resolution. I am always interested in what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) says, because he says it so forcefully.
The hon. member has always shown a keen interest in this matter in a general way, and in his conversations with me as minister. I appreciate the way in which he has brought this resolution before the house. He has stated that he has done this to provoke discussion of what is now a serious problem, but which was in the not so distant past a more serious problem. Of course, in the future it may be as serious as it was two years ago.
The hon. member has said that today there are across Canada a great many of what might be classified as depressed areas or depressed industries. I cannot agree with him entirely there. I think I would have agreed with him one and a half years ago that there were a few places that could be put in that category. However, we shall not argue about that for the moment.
I think his resolution divides itself into three parts. The first part is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of providing for the economic rehabilitation of people living in communities and areas in Canada where extreme hardships are resulting from the closing down of the principal industries,
I am going to call that the first part, which is the foundation upon which he has made his remarks. In regard to the closing down of the principal industries, he has not put in his resolution, although he mentioned it in his speech, the great importance of co-operation among the municipality, the province and the federal government. In matters coming within the scope of this resolution, we always have to realize that that co-operation must be forthcoming at all times. I know my hon. friend sometimes takes as his motto direct federal action. He has mentioned it on a number of occasions, and it has been very clear that he would like

Economic Rehabilitation the federal government to take quite direct action in this field. As a matter of fact, that is about the only serious objection I take to his whole resolution and to his remarks. But there are the responsibilities of the province, of the municipality and of the industries that benefit from the building up of that activity in the community, which he explained so well in the early part of his remarks. There is also, of course, the responsibility on the part of the unions and the working people. We have been concerned there.
The second part of his resolution is as follows:
*-such rehabilitation to be achieved through direct government assistance-
I presume he means federal government assistance.
-lor the establishment of additional or alternative industries in the areas concerned-
I will admit at once that this is almost completely outside the scope of the Minister of Labour.


Clarence Gillis: I did say "the federal government in co-operation with the provinces."


Milton Fowler Gregg: I agree with that. In his remarks the hon. member made reference to that, but I am referring now to the setting up of alternative industries by the federal government. He did say in his speech, "in co-operation with the provinces and others." I also noted, in that part of his speech where he was referring to an investment fund, and he suggested a public investment fund for that purpose, he was looking squarely across the chamber at the Minister of Finance. I presume that if the Minister of Trade and Commerce had been in his seat he would have also looked in that direction.


Clarence Gillis: That is right.


Milton Fowler Gregg: However, I think, on behalf of everyone, one must bear in mind that in the free peacetime economies, or fairly peaceful economies, such as we find ourselves in at the present time, at least devoid of controls or compulsion, my hon. friend from Cape Breton South will agree it is not quite as easy as it might appear to be. I think he will agree that the federal government cannot say to industries, "You will go to Glace Bay," or "You will go to Fredericton," or "You will go to Edson, Alberta, and set up an industry there." He did not suggest that in his speech. He did suggest public ownership sponsored by a combination of federal and provincial funds by way of public investment.
However, with regard to that second part of his resolution, there are a few indirect,
fMr. Gregg.]
if not direct, things that the federal government is doing in his own countryside of Cape Breton. For instance, my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, in co-operation with the province, is carrying out a very intensive search for base metals on Cape Breton Island. I also point out that the Minister of Public Works, in co-operation with the province of Nova Scotia, has built a causeway which I am sure will mean for the tourist industry of Cape Breton Island a great deal in the years to come, including the oncoming tourist season. Perhaps the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would not agree with this as a motive for confederation of Newfoundland with Canada, but nevertheless the fact of that confederation is making it possible for more employment in Cape Breton, and particularly in Sydney, than they would ever have had if confederation had not been carried into effect.
I turn now to the third part, which is the one that affects me most directly. His resolution states:
-if such measures do not fully meet the problem in a given community, to assist people in the area concerned to resettle in other communities where alternative employment can be provided.
For the purposes of my discussion, if my hon. friend will permit me, I should like to insert the words "therein or", so that it would read:
-to resettle therein or in other communities where alternative employment can be provided.
We have had some experience with that latter part of the hon. member's resolution. I am not attempting to say it has been a vast experience. I would rather say it has been to some extent experimental because a great need existed in several areas of Canada during the past few years, and we have tried to see how far the co-operation amongst the two agencies for which I am responsible, namely, the unemployment insurance commission and the Department of Labour, which has vocational training, and the province and the municipality, could work.
I am going to take first what my hon. friend referred to in his opening remarks as ghost towns. My department has taken action in three ways, and in all of them it has been co-operative. One has been when an industry closes up in an isolated community and there is nothing else at all, in other words, when the community becomes a ghost town. We had two or three examples of that in the province of Alberta. The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to them in his address. I should like to refer to them also because, while I shall admit that the lead in the rehabilitation of people and

the movement of people was elsewhere, nevertheless I should like to put on the record that both in vocational training and in the national employment service the federal department co-operated very fully as well.
In Alberta in 1934 authority was provided, through action of the legislature, for the expenditure of an amount not to exceed a total of $100,000 for any purpose whatsoever to assist in the rehabilitation of coal miners who had become unemployed in areas designated by the lieutenant governor in council. A miners' rehabilitation committee was set up and it was decided by that committee that all the people would have to be moved out. The committee made arrangements for a complete on-the-spot investigation of the situation and it found that in all there were over 800 workers, most of them heads of families, who were affected. It was decided that placements would be made under the rehabilitation program with the co-operation of the national employment service, and that is where our federal activities in that field came into the picture. It was decided that the possibilities of retraining under Canadian vocational training and apprenticeship legislation should be investigated and that travel warrants chargeable to the provincial appropriation should be issued, where necessary, to transport workers and their families to areas where other work could be provided.
I will agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South that that set-up, in a time of very great need for the communities concerned, worked very well indeed. Through the efforts of the joint committee, the unemployment service and others a very high percentage of the coal miners who were unemployed in those towns were relocated in other mining areas where they could be employed or were placed in other suitable forms of employment or were given training for other activities. There were some remaining problems, particularly amongst the older workers, and that will always arise in any such attempt to move people or to retrain them for other activities. It is found very difficult to move and place people in the age category from 45 up. However, by and large the effort was successful and the satisfactory result obtained in Alberta is, I think, a very good example of what can be done by close co-operation. It was an ad hoc effort and required a special act of the provincial legislature to put it into effect.
I turn now from the question of moving a whole community from one area to another to the question of another type of community, one with increasing opportunities for work in the same general area, a community where an industry closes down for good but where in the general area other things are coming
Economic Rehabilitation into operation. That of course, is what the hon. member who sponsored the resolution hoped might be done either by chance or by government intervention wherever people are thrown out of work.
I am going to take an example of this category in my own province of New Brunswick. In the town of Marysville there had been a large cotton mill there for 80 years, and two years ago last February it closed down for good. At the time of closing about 400 persons were employed in the mill. There had been more than that but that was the approximate number at the time of closing. It was a great tragedy for the town of Marysville which depended almost entirely upon the cotton mill. There were some people who were retired and some who lived in Marysville but worked in the city of Fredericton. Nevertheless the closing of the mill meant that the situation was going to be very difficult for those who had worked there and for the town itself.
The two ministers of labour, the minister of labour for the province and the federal Minister of Labour, met, discussed the matter and agreed to co-operate to the fullest extent. That co-operation was carried out and under the vocational training agreement with the province of New Brunswick a committee was set up. That committee interviewed 250 persons and recommended 118 out of that number for training in 17 different occupations. While that was taking place the national employment office in Fredericton was carrying on a special drive for the placement of those who did not want or did not need to take training. Included in the latter were some who had worked in the offices, some who had worked in the factory itself, some who had worked on maintenance, some who had semi-skills, and it was reasonably easy to find placement for them, although I will admit that the problem arose at a time when employment there was not nearly as buoyant as it is in central New Brunswick or in Canada as a whole at the present time.
I should like to acknowledge the way in which a good many other employers took a keen interest in those who were unemployed in the town of Marysville and found work for them. I should like to mention those who were given special training. Temporary training facilities were established by the provincial government with the assistance of the federal government for the purpose of assisting those who wished to take training. Training was carried out

Economic Rehabilitation in carpentry, electricity, plumbing, automobile mechanics, commercial work, hairdressing, barbering, practical nursing, metal work, meat cutting, welding, dry cleaning and radio servicing.
The training was carried on by the province with the federal government assisting in the cost on an equal basis, and it was a very successful experiment. The last report indicated that over 95 per cent of those who received training were employed in the field for which they were trained.
With due respect to the remarks of my hon. friend, I will admit at once that it would not have been possible to find employment for these people in the work for which they were trained and in the way that it was possible to do it if it had not been for the fact that an increasing number of openings came about through the establishment of Camp Gagetown in the south and the commencement of work on the Beech-wood project up the Saint John river. This was a case of attempting to overcome a very difficult situation in an area in which, speaking generally, job opportunities were on the increase.
I am going to go back to the great province of Nova Scotia which I visited over the last week end and where I found 15 feet of snow banked in some places. We will take a community where industry is at a low ebb, not completely out of operation but in such a state that the immediate community cannot absorb those who are becoming unemployed without some special action. In other words, I refer to a community where employment is not on the way up but rather is stationary or slightly on the way down. I am going to take the town of Westville, Nova Scotia, because the experiment there took place about the same time as those to which I have referred.
I refer now to the closing of the Drummond mine in 1954. There again was a closing in the midst of an industrial area in which there were few opportunities for further employment at the time. A good many workers in that mine were thrown out of employment. Classes were established by the provincial government of Nova Scotia, in co-operation with the federal government, to train unemployed miners in four trades. They were welding, plastering, barbering and auto body repair. There at Westville 71 persons were enrolled in the first six months' course and all of them have been employed in the fields in which they were trained.
The reason for that was that the number, as is indicated, was not large, but they were trained in activities, for which those who arranged it were quite sure they would be

able to find openings. Two of the classes have been continued at Westville. Special classes for unemployed more recently have been established in Sydney, North Sydney and Glace Bay in sheet metal working, diesel engineering and auto body repairing. My friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South can tell us about that matter more clearly than I; but that training has been going on for a short time and I believe that within the very small limits in which it is operating, it is having useful results.


Clarence Gillis: It is doing a very good job.


Milton Fowler Gregg: So much for training or experimenting in the task of training unemployed workers for work within their immediate vicinity. But in his resolution my hon. friend has these words "to resettle in other communities where alternative employment can be provided". I am sure that, from the introductory remarks in the moving of the resolution, we all gathered that this kind of activity was not one about which the hon. member for Cape Breton South was very enthusiastic. I can agree with him in that regard. I do not approach with any enthusiasm the necessity of uprooting established families in one part of Canada and moving them to another part of Canada, particularly families that have been in a given community for a good many years.
Within our country I think we must always have young workers who are free of responsi* bility, energetic and willing to engage in adventure and go off and work in those things that are happening on the frontiers of Canada. If we do not have them or if we do not have people coming in who are prepared to do that, those activities will not be successfully carried forward. But in the kind of communities I have mentioned, in Westville, Marysville, Glace Bay, Sydney or Sydney Mines, it is not at all a cheerful prospect to move families out unless it is absolutely essential.
We have, however, in this field felt that it was justified in some instances. For this fiscal year 1955-56, which has been a fairly busy year for everybody, we have assisted in the movement of 253 unemployed workers. They have all been from Nova Scotia during this fiscal year. The movement was carried out under the plan of our national employment service. Of those 253, 213 were former coal miners, 174 going to the province of Quebec and 39 to the province of Ontario. Some 34 of the others were placed in jobs as labourers at Camp Gagetown while the remaining 6 included 4 diesel mechanics, 1 recreational manager and 1 physical instructor, all of whom were transferred to jobs which were known to exist in Quebec and Ontario.

The Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission are continuing to work closely with the provincial department and others concerned in this matter, and studies are also being made of the local areas that fall or might fall within one or other of the three categories of communities I have mentioned. Fortunately as far as we can see ahead in this year of 1956, I do not think there will be the necessity for the assisted movement of many unemployed persons from the maritime provinces to the other parts of Canada.
Many things related to this resolution have been touched upon in the debate in this house since January 10 last. I hope this resolution itself will receive discussion, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton South when he introduced it. Even though the work going on under the sponsorship of the Minister of Labour does not in any sense carry out that great picture that he presented a little while ago, nevertheless it is something-even if it is only a thumb in the hole of the dike-to keep the hole from becoming too great. When the discussion is completed I would hope that the hon. member for Cape Breton South might feel that his purpose has been accomplished and be disposed to let the resolution be withdrawn.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for just a few minutes on this resolution. It is so nearly similar to a resolution which was discussed in this house two weeks ago that I fear one could find himself repeating many of the things which were said at that time if he did not watch himself carefully.
The hon. member who introduced the resolution spoke about ghost towns, or the possibility of ghost towns, in his own province and in other parts of Canada. I am happy to say that in New Brunswick we have no ghost towns. Mining, of course, is something in connection with which I suppose you can expect ghost towns. One of the finest examples in Canada is that of Dawson city up in the Yukon, which I believe at one time had a population of 15,000 to 25,000 but which now has a population of 200 or 300 owing to the fact that the industry upon which it was built has petered out.
I believe there are also ghost towns in northern Ontario. But we do not need to worry so much about cities like Dawson city up in the north. That is a thing of the past. As far as ghost towns in Ontario are concerned, as the minister mentioned a moment ago, the fact that we pay to move people from the maritime provinces to Ontario to get work would indicate that there must be 67509-144
Economic Rehabilitation plenty of work in the province of Ontario for the people who would come from mining or other areas. I do not think it is as much a problem there as it is in the maritime provinces.
The solutions suggested in the hon. member's resolution I would say are merely of a temporary nature. The motion suggests the movement of men from one province to another, and recommends the giving of instruction to those people who have lost their employment so they can take other employment. In my opinion this is only a palliative, and so far as we are concerned in the maritime provinces we hope there will be some more permanent solution of our problem than is suggested in the resolution, though I am very much in favour of the suggestions as temporary measures.
The minister has spoken about the town of Marysville in New Brunswick. We all remember the great problem these people had a few years ago when they lost their industry which, as he said, had been there for 80 years. Many people were thrown out of employment. The minister gave the history of the situation, but I just want to say that we cannot help but feel great admiration for the people of that town who rehabilitated themselves more by their own efforts than by the efforts of the province or the dominion.
There was another town in New Brunswick that, in a way, suffered as much as Marysville, and that was Milltown. I have mentioned this before, but the employees of the factory in Milltown would not accept defeat. When the head of the textile industry in Canada said they would have to close their mill the workers said no, it would not be closed. They said they would put up the money themselves to carry on, with assistance from the town. I think everyone is very happy to know that today this factory is carrying on much as it did before, and the people have almost completely rehabilitated themselves. I mention these two instances to show how much can be done by the determination of people when they wish to overcome their difficulties.
My main argument today, Mr. Speaker, would be the same as it was two weeks ago when another resolution concerning decentralization of industry was before us. I say these temporary measures are not enough. Something of a more permanent nature is needed. The maritime provinces are losing their people and losing their industries. This is the result of policies not of this government particularly but of governments since the days of confederation. It is the result of our rail rates and defence production, as I mentioned here the other day. If carefully reviewed, and I think they will be carefully

Economic Rehabilitation reviewed when the Gordon report is studied, these are things that will be of help and I do not believe the situation the hon. member mentioned today will again arise in any section of this country.
He spoke about the coal industry in Nova Scotia. I know very little about that. I know that industry has received about $10 million to $12 million a year in subventions. The coal industry in New Brunswick does not ship much coal outside of the province, and received only some $11,000 or $12,000. There is no comparison, of course but our coal industry has been getting along fairly well in the last few years as a result of the use of coal in the production of electric power. Then, too, the pulp mills in New Brunswick have been using coal from our coal fields. I understand that Gagetown camp, as a result of the efforts of many of us including the minister and myself, is going to use coal from Minto for heating.
The chief industries, of course, in our province have been the primary industries. If we want a balanced economy we have to establish more secondary industries, more manufacturing industries. If the maritime provinces and other parts of Canada, which may be more or less depressed, had a balanced economy they would be all right. I feel that is more a problem for this federal government than it is for the provincial governments. They should see to it that there is a balanced economy in all parts of Canada. If that were done we would not have resolutions such as this coming before the house.
As I have mentioned before, there was a time when the southern states of the United States were a depressed area. They produced their cotton and shipped it to other parts of the country as well as to other countries. They were just pickers of cotton and did all the manual work. Some years ago the Tennessee valley authority was established and power was given to the southern states. Industries were established, and today you have a balanced economy in that part of the country. You do not hear of the depressed conditions there as you did some years ago. From about 1926 to 1939 industries in the New England states failed in great numbers. About 40 per cent of their factories closed and 25 per cent of their workers were unemployed. Efforts were made by the federal government, by the states and by the municipalities to improve that situation, and today conditions have entirely changed.
There are many ways we might suggest for solving this problem. As I said a minute ago, when this Gordon report is brought before the house and the people of Canada have a thorough understanding of it, there will have to be very careful consideration


given to it. We want a united country. I was reading the article to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred in The Ensign. It mentions that the maritime provinces are looking 25 years into the future and points out how these provinces have been neglected over the years. There is the suggestion that there is no excuse for it, and that it is a matter for study by governments and people in the country.
I do not think there is anything more I wish to say this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. If I did I would be simply repeating what I said two or three weeks ago. I am in favour of the suggestions in this resolution, but I cannot help pointing out again that they are of a temporary nature and should not have to be made at all. I mean there should be some permanent policy in this country that would do away with the need for palliatives of this kind. We should have a balanced economy from one end of Canada to the other which would give to the maritime provinces and other depressed areas of this country the same opportunities for their young people and for their old people that exist in the central provinces.


Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a good deal of attention to the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who stated his problem with his usual conviction and clarity and one would wish one could emulate him. As I said, he stated his problem, and his speech had the added virtue of suggesting remedies. Of course he speaks from experience in a part of the country, his own constituency, which over many years has suffered dislocations and distress through the decline of the coal industry.
Of course this problem of ghost towns, or the shift of emphasis in manufacturing, is not a new one. We experience it all over Canada. In fact we have had it all over the world since the days of the industrial revolution. One can recall in the early days areas of the old land that were devoted entirely to one particular industry where new inventions, the advance of science, and the change in methods deprived large numbers of workers of their employment, although in the long run those inventions and advances created other jobs, perhaps more jobs, but certainly not the same kind of jobs. These changes did result in a greater mobility of the labour force.
In my own province where most of our industry until quite recently was in what might be called extraction industries, and in all places where we deal with wasting assets, the movement of population is inevitable. In my own province where lumbering

is one of the chief industries, as the trees are cut the workers must move forward. In the mining industry we have also suffered from the depletion of resources and the resultant evident ghost-town situations. Throughout British Columbia in the mining industry there are at least half a dozen small towns that those of us who come from that province still remember. They simply do not exist today, either because the mines were worked out or because production costs did not warrant the continuance of work in that area.
It seems to me that the solutions that have been suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton South have some merit. He speaks of direct government assistance for the establishment of additional or alternative industries. The question is, how can government influence the establishment of new industries in such areas? It seems to me that is a matter for local and private interests. I recall a town in British Columbia, the town of Nanaimo, which 20 years ago was a mining town. It was common to see miners walking around that town with pit lamps on. Now the mines are closed. I do not know whether there are any mines at all that operate in that area at the present time. Nevertheless it is one of the fastest growing towns in British Columbia because of the establishment of distributive industries or occupations, and because of the nearby establishment of new industries connected with lumbering. Nanaimo today is a distributing centre and not a mining town. Unfortunately there are others which suffered the fate of their industries closing down which have not been able to recover to the same degree.
Who is going to establish those secondary industries? Industries are usually established close to the necessary raw materials, and where there is a sufficient working force. It was my intention this afternoon to speak more of the provision of an adequate working force, properly trained, than to deal with the economic factor which is the establishment of the industry itself. That phase of my proposed talk has been so adequately covered by the Minister of Labour that I am afraid I shall have to repeat some of it.
It was my privilege at one time to be in charge of one of the projects he mentioned, namely the training program under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act. I note with pleasure that the estimates which have been tabled show that $417,000 is provided for this particular branch of training, the training of unemployed workers. Perhaps that is not an adequate sum, but I do notice that it is an increase over last year, when the sum allocated was $360,000. I did note, too, that 67509-144J
Economic Rehabilitation not nearly all the amount appropriated had been spent, and that may be due to the general prosperity of the country.
In dealing with a particular area such as the one described by the hon. member who is responsible for this resolution, I think one must say that it is a mistake nowadays to train persons, or to have persons devote themselves to, a particular trade or occupation. The tendency in training now is away from specialization as mechanics in a particular field to training in an area of occupation, so that one is not condemned, I was going to say, or circumscribed by the necessity of working in the particular occupation for which he was trained. His skills are such as to enable him to transfer his talents to an allied industry where, because of his general training, he can find employment, activity and satisfaction in some occupation which is allied to the one in which he formerly showed interest.
I mean by that, it is not necessary nowadays in industry to have a vast number of skilled artisans to the same extent that was necessary before the machine age, or before the machine age was as highly developed as it is now. Machinists in some degree, of course, are necessary, highly skilled machinists. The house may recall that on another occasion I emphasized the importance of providing this country with a large number of properly skilled tradesmen who would be in a supervisory field; but the great bulk of our trained workers now are trained in a wide variety of skills.
The main job is servicing and operation of machines. The mechanics who build and set up the machines are not required in the numbers they used to be. Therefore training should be on a broader base, so that a person who trains as a machinist could easily transfer into the automobile field or the diesel engine field or any field where similar skills are required. I think the tendency in technical schools and other institutions in this country is in that direction.
I think one of the remedies for the ills which have been described here is to train more people more widely than they have been in the past so their skills can be used and they themselves will not be compelled to work in other than the places where they were born and brought up. I agree with the minister when he says that in a country such as Canada we need people who have energy and the spirit of adventure and are willing to move. This is still a country of frontiers. It is a young country crying for development, and it requires the type of person who is willing to move from place to place where his skills and knowledge are required and can be put to use.
2270	HOUSE OF
Economic Rehabilitation I know this is pretty small comfort for people in the older parts of Canada who have occupied themselves for many years in industries such as coal mining. They have made investments in their homes, in their schools and churches and there is a natural reluctance to move. But if they have been working in an industry which is dying or which is dead, then they should be ready to move. That is all there is to it. It seems to me ridiculous to try to persuade people to live in a place where there is no work. Therefore the remedy, as I suggest, is a greatly expanded training program, perhaps for the younger people, so that when employment ceases in a dominant industry they will be prepared to move to where jobs do exist.
There are two remedies. One is the establishment of secondary or other industries if conditions permit, and the other is an expanded training program together with a proper survey of the situation so we do not embark upon a training program for jobs which do not exist. I know that the Department of Labour does make these surveys and does know where there are jobs waiting for skilled workers. I do think that as part of the program to train people and move them as individuals, something further might be done to help them and their families locate where employment is possible.
I was a little surprised to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South say that the problem in his own constituency or province was one of transportation and lack of markets. It seems to me that if it were possible to establish secondary industries manufacturing a variety of articles in that province, the fact that they would be close to the Atlantic seaboard should be to their advantage. I am a little at a loss to understand how the products of such industries would have any difficulty in reaching suitable markets. If they would have difficulty in that regard I wonder what we have in British Columbia, which is nearly an additional three thousand miles away from the European markets.
I do not think I have very much more to say. This is a distressing problem. I think the thing to do is to establish an expanded training program for the younger people. I have had experience with older people who were in the early fifties trying to get them to move from their homes, but they resisted. Many people in the late forties or early fifties have the idea that they are not suitable material for training, but that is not so. However, it is most difficult to persuade them that they are.
IMr. Falrey.]

I commend the hon. member for bringing this resolution before the house at this time. He said he did so simply to provoke discussion and concentrate the attention of hon. members of the house on a problem which cries for solution.
I notice that there are two parts to the resolution and I note also that the hon. member has been wise enough to suggest solutions to the problem which he enunciated. One was direct government assistance for the establishment of additional alternative industries in the areas concerned. I suggest that would be something beyond the responsibility of the federal government except in so far as it could and should undertake to make surveys of the possibility of establishing such industries in these areas. They should give wide publicity to this in order to acquaint those who are engaged in similar activities in other parts of the country with the advantages of locating in one of these distressed areas. Certainly anything they could do in that regard, particularly in concert with the municipal and provincial authorities, would be a step in the right direction.
The second remedy the hon. member proposed was assistance to people living in these areas to resettle in other communities where alternative employment could be provided. If he means that the government should undertake the wholesale removal of complete communities I think he would run into great difficulty for the reason I have stated, that is the reluctance of people to leave the communities to which they are attached. However, I agree wholeheartedly with him if he means that by training and other inducements the younger people should be shown that it is to their advantage to move to where better employment is obtainable.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South said when he moved the resolution, it is all-embracing, taking in a wide field which I think probably encompasses municipal, provincial and federal governments. He has said that he has moved this resolution for the purpose of creating discussion, and in that way it is all to the good. While I might not be in entire agreement with some of the matters to which he referred, substantially I support the resolution and the viewpoint which he advanced.
I participated in a debate a few days ago on the decentralization of industry which I think to a large extent focused attention on the same problem dealt with by this resolution. This afternoon I intend to speak briefly, primarily because of my feeling for a fellow member from Nova Scotia but also because

the problems he raises are those which are of particular importance to the maritime provinces of Canada.
As the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Fairey) said a few moments ago, and as the Minister of Labour said, there are three facets to this proposition which the hon. member for Cape Breton South has suggested. In so far as moving people from their homes is concerned, no one minimizes the difficulties in such a proposal. After all, I suppose there are as many people settled on poor farms, who have had to vacate those farms because the soil was poor, as have settled in industrial communities. That is essentially, perhaps, a municipal problem. I know that in my own province there are thousands of homes which have been established and which, owing to the force of circumstances, have had to be vacated. That is, of course, in agricultural areas.
The hon. member mentions specifically the problem in his own home town of Glace Bay. I realize there is a problem there, but the problem of timing is also important. I can remember when I was in the legislature, more years ago than I should like to recall, that I was chairman of a committee having to do with private bills. The town of Glace Bay used to send down borrowing bills which came before that committee in the legislature, and the committee could not pass the bills because at that time the securities or bonds of the town of Glace Bay were supposedly so risky that the legislature would not authorize the borrowing program unless some other guarantees could be obtained.
Later on, owing to efforts by this parliament and by the Conservative government at Ottawa, that is the Bennett government, a system of subsidies was introduced. As a result the situation changed for the better, and Glace Bay became a thriving and prosperous community again. Today there are differences inherent in the coal mining industry there. There is a problem of timing. In the case of some industries it should be easy to say, "that is an extractive industry, and it is through; something must be done about the community." Usually that can be recognized some considerable time in advance, however. People who own their homes there probably have made arrangements so they are not too terribly prejudiced by that occurrence. Nevertheless, there is a problem in that connection.
I suggested by inference, with reference to the town of Glace Bay, that there could be government assistance for the coal industry, not perhaps the direct establishment of industry, though that is one phase of it, but assistance to the industry itself which will, as it
Economic Rehabilitation did in the case of Glace Bay and the coal mining industry generally of Cape Breton, reestablish that industry for a period of 20 or 25 years.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., said he could not understand the hon. member for Cape Breton South when he said that transportation was a problem affecting us in Nova Scotia. He thought that if we were able to manufacture goods in Nova Scotia we would be able to overcome the transportation problem because, after all, we were on the Atlantic seaboard and therefore had an export position. I quite agree with the latter deduction. I have said-and in that perhaps I think there is no difference between the hon. member for Cape Breton South and myself-that we should be able to capitalize on that export position. Transportation, in so far as water export is concerned, is to our advantage. But what we do require are facilities such as I might mention in a moment, with which to deal with that matter. When the hon. member for Cape Breton South was referring to transportation problems, I am sure he was thinking of transportation to the Canadian market.


Clarence Gillis: I might inform the hon. member, if he will excuse me interrupting, that I quoted the Nova Scotia government's presentation to the Gordon economic commission.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I say, what I am sure the hon. member had in mind was the transportation problem to the Canadian market; and that is a real problem. The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to other provinces and said he wanted them to remember that they had frontiers which could be rolled back, whereas we had none. That is perfectly true. But there is another thing that should be remembered. I think it is recognized, but I wish to emphasize it in view of what the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., said a moment ago.
When the maritimes entered confederation this transportation problem was envisaged. The government of the day appreciated it, and we were told there would be a solution to that problem by the construction of a railway from the maritimes to central Canada which would give us access to those markets. The Intercolonial Railway was built for that purpose, and we were told we would be able to move our goods over that railway and into the Canadian market and so be in a competitive position with industries in other parts of Canada. That pledge has not been kept.
Another point that must be borne in mind is that the Intercolonial Railway was built over a twisting, tortuous route along the coast of New Brunswick and the bay of Chaleur and into the province of Quebec, in order to protect the provinces of Ontario and

Economic Rehabilitation Quebec from possible attacks by a foreign power. We were to have this railroad established over this long route, so that troops, presumably British troops, could be brought to Halifax and forwarded to Ontario and Quebec along that long route. That was the D.E.W. line of those days.
Today we in the maritimes are paying the price for that, because those pledges have been forgotten; they have been overlooked. We are benefited by the Maritime Freight Rates Act, which means at best only a discount of 20 per cent. We are paying virtually the same freight rates on that long, tortuous railway as any other shipper in the country. That is one approach that can be made toward the solution of this problem in the maritime provinces.
The Minister of Labour says it is very difficult to establish industries directly. I realize that is true, but I think this government could do much more toward that end than has been done. In the matter of rail transportation there is a direct contribution that can be made and must be made.
Again, referring to the water transport position which the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) raised, that can be overcome only if we are provided with adequate shipping so we can take advantage of the export position. I mentioned that the other afternoon in discussing the estimates of the Department of Transport. I am not going to develop it further here, but I hope to do so at a later date. However, when we have a situation such as exists in the maritimes at the present time, when we are not able to ship our products-the ones we do have-out of the province by water because, for instance, we have not refrigerated space for shipping apples, then there is some contribution that can be and should be made toward that end. It is the responsibility of the government to do so, because you cannot expect private enterprise to initiate shipping lines. They might perhaps be able to do so later on, but not at the moment.
Again, the hon. member for Cape Breton South was speaking concerning the situation confronting the coal industry. Today I received a letter from a friend of mine in the Truro yards, and he tells me that in those yards on last Friday were 500 cars of coal, steel and lumber tied up because there are no locomotives to move them. We must praise our friends from the west, who make such a case for wheat, because he says that all the cars he sees going by are carrying wheat. You might expect the coal industry to be maintained, particularly at this time when there are blizzards occurring in the maritimes and there is a demand for coal,

but how can it be maintained when these cars are allowed to remain in the yard? That is one part of this question.
I want to subscribe entirely to what the hon. member for Royal said. No matter how important they are, the steps suggested here are virtually palliatives when the ultimate, over-all question is considered of developing an economy which goes from the east coast to the west coast. That is what we require, and that is certainly what I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton South, as well as every other maritime member, wants for the maritimes. It can be done, but you must have an over-all approach to these problems, and something in that connection can be done.
Again referring to the coal industry, I have perhaps more faith in that industry than the hon. member for Cape Breton South because of the fact that the dominion coal board says that over the period of the next five to ten years there will be an increasing demand for coal again as costs of other fuels continue to mount and reach the level at which coal will become an economic fuel throughout the country. But certainly that does not minimize the problem which he suggested to the government, and I am not criticizing it for this at the moment, not only because of any pipe line which may be constructed but because of the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway which will virtually eliminate the market for maritime coal in the St. Lawrence river area.
There again, Mr. Speaker, transportation may solve that. problem to a certain extent because last year, as we know, Nova Scotia was able to ship coal to Great Britain, to ship coal to Newcastle. That old cliche of carrying coals to Newcastle, the impossibility of impossibilities, became a reality last year, and to some extent it materialized because of the government providing a subvention for the movement of that coal. I am not so sure but that in the future there may be more and more coal moved to that market as Great Britain becomes more and more dependent upon imported fuels. There again the government can make a contribution toward that end by making it a permanent policy, not one from day to day and one shipment to another, with respect to whether the subvention will be paid now and not paid next month. That is a contribution which can be made.
Then there is the matter of the turbo engine. The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to dieselization. I certainly feel that something more should be done about the development of the turbo engine using coal than has been done heretofore.

The hon. member also referred to the competition of residual oil with coal. That is a possibility, possibly a probability, but the maritimes are trying to help themselves in that regard.
I referred the other day and I do so again to the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company. If any company in the world should burn residual oil in their furnaces in the development of electricity, it is the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company Limited, whose plants are located on one side of Halifax harbour, and directly opposite on the other side of the harbour are the vast tanks and refining plants of the Imperial Oil Company where the residual oil of which he speaks is brought in from Venezuela. But the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company is not burning residual oil. It is burning Nova Scotia oil in its furnaces and proposes to continue to do so. It is thereby making a contribution of its own toward the stability of that industry and the economy of Canada generally.
Without taking further time in the discussion at this point, Mr. Speaker, I do want to emphasize again that there are contributions which a government can make. Regardless of moving people from one locality to another, forgetting for the moment the establishment of specific industries in any one place, if we decide on an over-all program for the development of this country as a whole, then in matters of transportation and other things a real contribution can be made. A study of resolutions such as that which has been moved by the hon. member for Cape Breton South this afternoon will, I trust, focus more attention on the problem and suggest approaches which this or any other government can make toward a solution.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I inject myself into the debate this afternoon at the risk of becoming known as the central Ontario expert on the maritimes. Of course the resolution as it is worded does not necessarily encompass strictly a discussion of the maritime area, although it is understandable that the particular interest of the hon. member for Cape Breton South in introducing it would be centred on what seems to me to be the perennial problems of that part of the country. I want to compliment the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I think he is one who has spent his life as a champion of the needy, the under dog, and he certainly does give effective expression to the needs and wants of the maritime region in general and his own riding in particular.	.
When I compliment him, I do not, of course, want him to feel that I agree entirely
Economic Rehabilitation with everything he has put forward for our consideration. He said he hoped the resolution would be thought-provoking, and certainly it is obvious that it has been just that. I think it is out of discussions carried on in a relaxed atmosphere such as this that we may often find very comprehensive and concrete proposals emerge. Let us hope that is the case here.
The resolution suggests that the government should give consideration to providing economic rehabilitation in areas where extreme hardships result from the closing down of the principal industries. Two methods of rehabilitation are suggested, I presume in order of preference. They are first, through direct government assistance and, second, through methods of assisting the movement of the people concerned.
It is rather awkward in these matters to get down to cases so far as direct government assistance is concerned, and so far the debate has been noticeably void of very many effective suggestions, shall I say, as to what direct government assistance might be provided. It is also obvious that the latter part of the resolution regarding assistance to people to move from one community to another is at best something placed there as a sort of distasteful alternative to anything else that might be done, as something that we do not want to be put in the position of having to carry out.
It seems to me that the problem is not so much one of looking after communities where a particular industry has failed, resulting in the people of the community being left without any employment, but rather is a general problem of the diversification of industry in Canada. Obviously a company town depending on one industry is in a very poor position if anything happens to that industry through labour difficulties, a depression, recession or anything else that may occur. It is the question of having a sufficiently broad diversification of industry in any locality, not merely in the maritimes, to provide a cushion so that when difficulty occurs there is something there to take up the slack.
This has been a problem in Canada since confederation. It was noticeable in the last depression of the 1930's when we were-and we still are to some extent-a country engaged mainly in the extractive industries or industries involving the development of our natural resources where the bulk of the product is exported. Obviously when trouble does arise in the world-and we saw world deflation in 1930-the effects on such an economy are felt immediately in a country

Economic Rehabilitation where you are depending almost entirely on exports to the rest of the world.
The diversification required was not present in the thirties, and of course since that time we have made great progress in the development of our secondary industries. I think that is the whole key to the solution of this particular problem, both in the mari-times and in other parts of the country. How best can you develop secondary industry and, of course, how best can you continue the development of your resource industries?
I want to examine for a moment some of the factors that make for the location or the establishment of industry in a particular locality. I want to do this and endeavour to outline what I might call the natural forces that go to make for that location of industry, and then endeavour to see what you can do to tinker-"tinker" is not a very good word- rather to influence the natural forces, and then to look at some of the things that this government actually has done in this field. I thought this might be a logical and reasonable approach to the problem of the diversification of industry.
The natural factors and forces that go to make for the establishment of industry have been mentioned many times in this debate and I will not labour the point. Obviously transportation is one of the keys. Transportation is perhaps one of the most important single factors in our geographically widespread country. Transportation has had a terrific impact, of course, upon the maritimes. The maritimes at confederation and after it were thriving. They were not obliged to compete in the first instance with steam transportation of any kind, whether it be by rail or by ship. Then we saw the development of the railways, cheaper transportation through that means and through the steamship; the maritimes not able to ship their goods and manufactures as cheaply to central Canada where the dense market was building up and, on the other hand, central Canada able to ship its products to the maritimes through the cheaper transportation and cheaper costs arising from its greater ability to mass-produce goods.
Situated as they are geographically the maritime provinces-and I am excluding Newfoundland-certainly got the short end of the stick so far as the development of transportation is concerned. I know there is great concern over our latest transportation advance in the St. Lawrence seaway. We hope the impact on the economy of the seaway and the power project that goes along with it will be such that it will produce sufficient extra or increased business to outweigh any bad effects it may possibly have on the maritime economy.

Of the other factors I would put next in importance sources of energy. By that I mean hydroelectric, coal, oil, gas and now atomic energy. Of course we have a hydroelectric economy, and certainly some parts of the country are greatly endowed with cheap sources of hydroelectric power. Taken with the transportation factor, the two forces are almost impossible to overcome in so far as competition from other parts of the country is concerned.
Another factor is labour. In my opinion labour will go eventually where the jobs are. But, of course, when locating every manufacturer wants to see a reservoir of labour in order to be able to produce his goods. It seems to me that the maritimes particularly provide a good source of labour.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: Thank you.


Frank A. Enfield: One hon. member says "thank you". I made that point because I had been impressed by the willingness to work of the maritime members whom I have had the good fortune to meet in the house.
The fourth point, of course, is the availability of raw materials. Again that is really part and parcel of the transportation problem. We have seen how we have been able to build up a heavy steel industry on the great lakes not only in Canada but in places like Cleveland, where cheap transportation by ship through the great lakes system has allowed free movement of coal and iron ore, thus putting the industries concerned in a highly competitive position.
Last but not least is the availability of a market. If you can show a manufacturer where he can sell his goods at a profit, you can almost certainly promote something. You can almost certainly sell him on the idea of locating if you can show him that he can produce a particular object, whether it is a can opener or an automobile; and if you can show him where he can take that object and sell it on a competitive basis, of course he is ready to go in. In my opinion it is the availability of a large market close at hand that is the big factor.
Of course that is the one factor with regard to which the maritimes have a particularly difficult row to hoe, closed off as they are from the natural market on the Atlantic seaboard of the New England states; completely surrounded, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said, by the sea, and a long distance from the central Ontario market where transportation problems have worked to the maritime's disadvantage. There you have an isolation from any market.
The example of the recent development of a homely foodstuff like fish sticks outlines that

point particularly well. This food commodity which was produced and found to be extremely attractive to the large urban areas, was immediately cut off from shipment to the United States by import tariffs on the part of that country. Hence the only market left-and it was an uncertain one-was that in Montreal, central Ontario and the western regions of Canada.
To my mind those are the five main factors in the location of industry; transportation, energy resources, labour, raw materials and markets. Those are things you must examine if you are going to try to produce a climate in which the development of secondary industry will take place.
What are the most important of the above factors? The balance changes, of course. In the extractive industries I think close proximity to the market is not a main factor. Let us take the example of aluminum. The aluminum producing plant is taken to the source of supply of the hydroelectric power necessary to produce the aluminum. In aluminum we are really exporting huge quantities of hydroelectric power because that, of course, is the main ingredient in aluminum. All the ore that is used in the manufacture of aluminum is imported. On the other hand, exports of aluminum go everywhere. It is not merely a question of close proximity to the market. It is a question of the availability of huge quantities of energy resources in the form of hydroelectric power, and that is that.
In pulp and paper we have the same thing. You also need a source of hydroelectric power in addition, of course, to the spruce forests or what have you necessary to produce your pulp. We have had troubles, however, with the company town problem or the ghost town problem, as it has been termed, in these extractive industries. In northern Ontario there are two towns, namely Kapuskasing and Espanola, which are good examples of how this problem can work. I want to read a short extract from a book called "Introduction to Political Economy" by Professor V. W. Bladen of the University of Toronto. He outlines briefly the two contrasting pictures of Kapuskasing and Espanola. I quote from Mr. Bladen's book as follows:
The pulp and paper plant must be located near the source of wood, and, therefore, generally far from the centres of population. To provide the necessary labour supply it is necessary to provide a town for the workers to live in. Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company, for instance, is located at Kapuskasing in the midst of 5,000 miles of spruce forest.
I should interject here that this was written in 1941 and the figures must be related to that time. However, the example still holds.


Clarence Gillis: It is still good.
Economic Rehabilitation


Frank A. Enfield: It is still good.
In the first great war a prison camp was located here because it was so far from anywhere that prisoners had little chance of escape. At this inaccessible point the company needed a labour force of about 1,000 men. They therefore built an entire town of 35 blocks, with 2 community centres, 3 churches, public and high schools, and 325 company houses. There are in addition many privately owned houses. Its population in 1940 was 3,500. The company's investment in the town is nearly $5 million. The town is organized as a municipality. This is the company town at its best-
Now, leaving that for a minute I may say that Kapuskasing is lucky. The company has continued to flourish and it is still a flourishing community. But look at the vulnerability of the people in Kapuskasing, dependent entirely on one company for their livelihood.
I am now quoting Professor Bladen again:
The story of Espanola is less happy. In 1928 it was a flourishing community of nearly 4,000. There was no municipal organization, the town being governed autocratically by the Spanish River Pulp and Paper Company. The company had built the town, provided the water and electricity, laid sewers, built streets and sidewalks. It established and maintained good schools; and even built the churches. The workers' houses were leased for $17.50-$22.50 per month. They were comfortable, well-built houses with all conveniences including a furnace. Water and electricity were free, and there were no taxes since the company ran the town. The stores, the bank, the skating rink, theatre, community hall, the hotel and boarding houses were all owned by the company and either operated or leased by it .	. . In 1930 the mill
was closed and has never operated since.
I think, interjecting again, that since this was written Espanola has again come to life with the resuscitation of the company.
Some of the skilled workers were moved to other Abitibi mills; others left in search of employment. In 1940 there were 1,200 left, of whom 1,000 were on relief. The company continued to maintain the water supply and the electricity supply, and kept the school open. Espanola gives a lesson in the danger of a town depending on one mill.
That, I think, illustrates the danger and the problem, very graphically, of the two towns. There has been an interesting development in Espanola since that time. In about 1948 the town was operated by a company called the K.V.P. fine paper company, and a local group of citizens brought action against the company to prevent pollution of the waterway. The case went through the normal trial court, the supreme court of Ontario; from there to the Ontario court of appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally it went to the privy council, and the privy council held that the local residents who complained about pollution were correct in their claim, and upheld an injunction to prevent the company from further pollution of the waterway.

Economic Rehabilitation
I suppose this background of strife that the town of Espanola had left a mark on the populace and on the Ontario government, because immediately after the privy council decision was passed the company marched down to Queen's Park and a private bill was put through the legislature allowing the company to continue in operation despite the pollution. It shows the problem involved there and the fear of what would happen to that town if the company were forced to cease operations as a result of that series of events.
So much for the extractive industries, and how the problem occurs in that area of our economy. What about the secondary industries? Here the factor is markets. I quite agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South when he took pains to point out, not once but two or three times, that it is a question of markets and transportation costs that governs the establishment of secondary industries. He referred to that when he was discussing the coal industry in his particular part of the country, and when he made his suggestion that a capital risk fund or public investment fund, as he called it, that would stimulate activity be set up. I do not know whether or not I agree with that, but I should like to deal with it in a moment. I think if you can find markets, particularly in the maritimes, the labour and power will be found. I think transportation costs will be paid. It is a question of finding a place to send your goods where they can be sold at a profit.
Look at our situation in and around metropolitan Toronto. I realize we are most fortunate indeed in that area. We have virtually a golden horseshoe, you might say, extending from Oshawa around the end of the lake and as far as the city of Niagara Falls, covering Toronto, Burlington, Oakville, Hamilton, St. Catharines, Welland, Thorold and Niagara Falls itself. There is certainly no lack of markets. We have a tremendous local market in that area. I believe the automotive industry sells about one-third of all the cars produced in Canada in that area. We are fortunate in having the Niagara power system, and we will be within reach of the power being developed on the St. Lawrence. We have cheap transportation by way of the great lakes. We have some of the largest industrial cities in the United States surrounding the lakes which are easily reached.
In York-Scarborough alone we have two large plants, Frigidaire and John Inglis, catering to a purely domestic market in that area. Then there are the motor companies such as Volkswagen, Rootes, Ford Motor Company at Oakville, General Motors at Oshawa and Studebaker at Hamilton, all
(Mr. Enfield.]

dealing with local domestic markets. Many of these are what are known as secondary manufacturing industries. In Scarborough we have the Canada Foils Company and Acme steel plant, both supplying the local market. Then there is the S.K.F. roller bearing plant. Recently we made one of the largest deals, as they are called in Scarborough, for a new industry when the Minneapolis-Honeywell people purchased a site at a cost of $250,000. It shows you what happens where you have all these factors of market and transportation in your favour.
But even in areas such as these you have the problem of the company town which is the subject matter of this resolution. In the local strike of General Motors Corporation employees there were many towns which were affected, but none were affected so much as the city of St. Catharines. There the McKinnon industry closed down during the strike, and it meant a difference of $1 million a month in wages to that city. Again, St. Catharines, while having some diversification of industry, is dependent on this one branch of the General Motors industry, and the loss of $1 million a month in wages had quite an impact on that town for the four or five months during which the strike continued. Therefore the problem is not confined to one particular part of the economy; it can occur even in a part where normally conditions are very good indeed.
We have General Motors plants in York-Scarborough. As I mentioned, the Frigidaire plant is there, but we have so much diversification, so many industries, that a cushion is provided and the effects of the strike were not felt nearly to the extent that they were in some other cities I have mentioned, such as St. Catharines and, of course, London, Ontario, and Windsor.
To my mind that outlines what you might call the natural forces that go to make up the diversification of industry and hence prevent this problem we are discussing; but what can you do? What is the role of government in this situation? Are we just simply to take plants and dismantle them and say, "Well, we are going to move them to some other part of the country and set up industries en bloc, wholesale"? That kind of approach is completely impractical. On the other hand, it is just as bad to sit back and take no action whatsoever, to take a passive action and say, "Well, the natural forces that go to encourage industry will in the long run look after the situation".
What, then, can government do? We have had two or three suggestions here this afternoon. The one that has a great deal of merit in it, of course, is the retraining program that was dealt with at length by the

hon. member for Victoria, B.C. and the Minister of Labour. We had a suggestion by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that a public investment fund be set up. This does not appeal to me, because I cannot see putting any money into an area to set up an uneconomic crown corporation with all the ills, problems and strife that accompany such a development. I think we would have to come in and take a little more indirect action before the point can be reached where your public investment fund would work properly.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings suggested that we should develop an over-all Canadian economy. I agree, but what bothers me about such statements is that they are so general in their concept that no hint is given as to how it can be done. That is what we are talking about. We are endeavouring to discover methods how an over-all Canadian economy could be developed, and we need concrete proposals if we are to accomplish anything.
I would set out a 4-point program that we could study, and this is in conclusion. My first point is taxation policies. Taxation policies have a terrific impact on the development of industry. They have the greatest impact of any governmental activity. Take the corporation tax, at something like 47 per cent. Obviously, as the corporation tax is changed corporations will or will not expand or contract, as the case may be. We can provide special tax concessions, and we have done so in gold mine depreciation writeoffs, in the oil industry, for example, and in freight rates. We do have some freight rate subventions in the maritimes. Perhaps that needs overhauling. Perhaps we need to take a good look at it. Taxation along that line would be a very good thing to follow up.
We have our dominion-provincial tax agreements, which endeavour as far as our fiscal policy is concerned to spread our income more evenly across the whole country so that areas such as the maritimes do get a more equitable share of the tax revenue of the federal government. This surely must be of considerable help to the maritime areas.
I have not time to canvass taxation policies thoroughly, but I do think that a great deal of thought should be given to the impact that changes in taxes and new concepts of taxes can have on the development of industry.
My second point is industrial research. We have research going on in atomic energy. Think what a difference it will make to the maritime power resources when atomic energy is available at a cost that can compete with the cheapest form of energy existing at the present time. Why, it would mean 67509-145J
19, 1956	2277
Economic Rehabilitation a great deal to the base metal mines in New Brunswick, for example, if atomic energy were available at the present time in New Brunswick. Of course research along those lines must continue, and it must be emphasized a great deal more.
I was pleased to see the Atlantic provinces economic council set up, which is a form of research of the best kind, because it takes a positive approach to the problems of the maritimes. It is endeavouring to encourage private industry to come in; it is trying to make the best of the resources they have in the maritimes and in the other Atlantic province of Newfoundland. The council is seeking to revive agriculture, to survey power resources, to make the most of what is there and to encourage a bigger and better tourist trade. These are all positive approaches that governmental bodies can make.
My third point is that there must be a positive effort by the local and provincial governments to promote industry. You can sell industry. The town of Renfrew, which was dependent on textile mills, was in bad shape; yet through some very aggressive and imaginative action by the local council, and I must say the province, they were able to establish an electronics industry which recently opened its doors in Renfrew and is going to employ more people than were previously employed by the textile industries there.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned cement. They have all the ingredients for making cement in the maritimes; they have all the ingredients for manufacturing bricks and other building materials. They will have a cheap seaway to central Ontario, to the area that is crying for building materials of this kind.
My fourth point is information service, the handling of inquiries from foreign countries. How do we handle these? Where do we steer them? Do we encourage inquiries about the areas that most need the industry? Included under this heading are our technological services and information that mapping survey work provides, and of course information provided by our national research council, which should be emphasized more. It should be pointed out to business that this information is available.
I have had time to scratch only the surface of this problem. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to be done under these four heads to alleviate the particular problem with which the resolution deals.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Economic Rehabilitation AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Economic Rehabilitation
There is a good deal to the point made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough that there is a limit beyond which we cannot go in establishing industries that are uneconomic, but since we are spending upwards of $2,000 million a year on defence on the assumption that there might be war, I think we are making a great mistake in crowding so many people into areas like Toronto and Montreal and around the golden horseshoe, as the hon. member for York-Scarborough described it. When scientists tell us that one hydrogen bomb in the area of Windsor, given a favourable wind, might destroy all life as far as Oshawa, we probably should review our policy and decide whether we want to have large areas in Canada that will be uninhabited and bring people to central Canada where we are concentrating so many of our industries. I have no doubt that many of the people who have gone to the prairies to produce grain for a hungry world are quite prepared to come back to Ontario and Quebec if that is the wish of the government, but that is going to create very real problems in housing, educational services and other services in central Canada.
I'do not think it is desirable to have in the two central provinces of this country 70 or 80 per cent of the people of Canada. So I suggest that the proposal made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South should receive the sympathetic consideration of this government, that we should take some long range views of the problems he has presented, and that we should set up a public investment fund to see to what extent we can go in establishing industries in that area. If we are not prepared to give some encouragement to the establishment of industries in that area, then we should come out frankly and say it is the intention of this government to have the people move to the districts surrounding the golden horseshoe, which was described so well by the hon. member for York-Scarborough just before the supper recess.


Mr. G. T. Purdy (Colchester-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should like my first words this evening to be words of commendation to the hon. member for Cape Breton South on his introduction of this resolution. He said in opening that he intended that his remarks on this resolution should be provocative, and we realize that he has brought about a considerable discussion this afternoon and this evening, we will agree with this. I am very glad that it has been possible to bring to the attention of this house the situation with


respect to the maritime provinces and I might say, with the addition of Newfoundland, all the Atlantic provinces.
Having referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, to which I shall probably return a little later, I should like now to thank the hon. member for York-Scarborough for the many kind words he said with respect to the maritime provinces. I would have been more pleased, however, had he told us that in that overdeveloped area of his there were a few industries that he could spare and that he would try to have located in the maritimes. I hope he will take that under advisement.
It is not often that I agree with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. This afternoon, however, I did agree with him when he put before us the problem presented by the failure to fulfil the promises made at the time of confederation with respect to the Intercolonial Railway, which would have permitted us to market our goods in the central provinces. I would have thought, however, that in fairness the hon. member would have gone a little further and explained to the house just what, in addition to the lack of transportation facilities which we were promised, started the maritimes on the down grade. I would have thought he would have explained to the house that it was the fiscal policies of the party he still supports which started us on the down grade.
I would have thought he would have gone on a little further in dealing with history and referred to 1911. At that time, before our industry in the maritime provinces had gone down too far, we had a chance to rehabilitate our industry by again starting trade north and south in the same way that we were trading at the time of confederation. But no, the hon. member never mentioned that. He never mentioned the great cry, "No truck or trade with the Yankees", or what happened to the wonderful reciprocity treaty proposed at that time which we have never been able to have fully implemented since.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that even during this session of the house we have again heard, in connection with certain legislation before us, rumblings of that old cry, "No truck or trade with the Yankees". Surely the once great Conservative party must realize that the day of narrow-mindedness of that sort has gone, and that they will never get to power in Canada on such a cry.
I read the resolution of the hon. member for Cape Breton South and, coming from Nova Scotia as I do, I realize there are many places there where the full and all-out application of such a program would be of

immense benefit. I also realize that under present legislation respecting employment services, as outlined by the Minister of Labour this afternoon, much has been done to alleviate the problem presented by the hon. member.
However, when I read the resolution I first had to ask myself, is it feasible; is it workable? The hon. member gave the answer at the outset of his remarks, when he stated that he had been branded as a socialist and that his party believed in combining socialism and private enterprise. But after having studied the resolution, having given it all the consideration I can, I say to the hon. member that I am positive that if his resolution were implemented in full we would have not only a socialist government but a dictatorship.
I am not so sure that the hon. member does not associate socialism and dictatorship because you cannot say to me, sir, that you can pick up a family holus-bolus from where their roots are and move them around like pawns on a chess board, as would be the case if the resolution were put into effect 100 per cent. Perhaps I would not have spoken this evening if I had not chanced to pick up this morning's Gazette and noticed an article there headed, "U. S. Company Closes Plant in Ontario". The article goes on to say that because of a strike in the plant the manager has announced that the plant will be closed and will not again open to carry on manufacturing activities in Ontario.
X thought for a moment of what would be the situation in a few towns in my own constituency where there is only one industry if such a thing should happen. It would be a catastrophe, just as the hon. member has visualized in presenting his resolution. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members of the house, that irrespective of all the good thinking of the majority of workers in small plants, what would these workers think if they knew there was legislation under which, if the plant should be closed, a kindly government would pick them up, move them holus-bolus and settle them in some other town in a far better environment?
In other words, if the resolution were put into effect 100 per cent you would merely be encouraging the closing down of plants in order that a percentage of the workers could get a more favourable environment in which to live. Frankly, I think that might work in one way to the benefit of Nova Scotia, because I cannot think of any better environment than that of Nova Scotia as a place for the people of Canada to work and live. However, that is my thinking.
Then I gave a few minutes thought to how such a scheme would operate. The hon.
Economic Rehabilitation member mentioned that a public investment fund of some sort should be set up, but you know funds do not grow on trees. You have to find the money to put in those funds. He did not tell us where we were going to find the money. I thought we could work it out by undertaking some sort of scheme such as the unemployment insurance plan involving both employer and employees. I wondered how favourably employers and employees would regard such a scheme. It would seem to me that such a scheme, if set up, would merely hasten the day when many industries getting along on a marginal basis at the present time would be forced to close and throw their employees on the resources of this fund.
I also suggest that if we had full implementation of what is proposed in the resolution staring us in the face there would be a lack of incentive on the part of people to put their shoulders to the wheel and try to make an industry pay. In a good many of our industries there has to be full co-operation between labour and management. I am not saying anything against labouring people, because I have every respect for them; but there would be a small segment of labour which would say, "Why should we exert ourselves to try to make this industry a success? If we do not make it a success we have a kindly government which will come along, pay us relief while we are out of work and then move us some place else where we can go to work." As I say, I have come to the conclusion that such a plan would not work except under a dictatorship.


Clarence Gillis: You have very little faith in human nature.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: You would do away with the rugged individualists. I know that the hon. member for Cape Breton South comes from a great race of rugged individualists, but you would do away with the type of people who have helped to make Canada and Nova Scotia what they are. At the present time the free world is fighting a cold war with those behind the iron curtain. If we took that attitude and said to labour and management that we were going to tax them and put them out of business in order to build up an organization such as I visualize, it would be a great step toward losing the cold war because we have to have initiative, the strong individualist and the work of every Canadian and other person outside the iron curtain to withstand the attacks that are being made on us today.
I know the hon. member for Cape Breton South has vivid recollections of the many once prosperous mining towns in Cape Breton which are now ghost towns. But I suggest

Economic Rehabilitation that the history of the world shows that a large percentage of our mines are expendable, as are similar industries. When our people went into those communities they knew what they were going up against.
Following the hon. member's argument a little further, I am suggesting that if the government were to take the responsibility of looking after all these problems which arise, then the government would be obliged to take the responsibility for saying whether new industries could start or new mines could open. There would have to be an over-all power that would say, "No, you cannot start a mine there or you cannot start that industry there because it is going to peter out in such and such a number of years and you are going to be a problem to our fund and our fund is not going to be able to carry it". I say that you cannot have the one thing without the other. I am suggesting that such interference by government with industry would mean the downfall of this country.
As I mentioned before, the hon. member for Cape Breton South has had a great deal of experience. The records show that the hon. member was born in Londonderry, Colchester county, which is part of my constituency, and more commonly known as Acadia Mines. I do not know at what age he left that area. If he had chosen to remain there I suppose he would probably have been the hon. member for Colchester-Hants today. Nevertheless he was born in a great part of our province, called after Londonderry, Ireland. It is a little late for St. Patrick's day, but the tradition is still there. I suppose he recalls, as I do, that at the turn of the century Londonderry or Acadia Mines was a thriving community with a population of something like 2,500. At night the sky would be red with the reflection from the blast furnaces. All in all there was a tremendous amount of activity around that settlement at the base of the Westchester mountains.
Today it is not a ghost town. However, it would have been a ghost town if the hon. member had had his say at that time and the people had been moved out holus-bolus when industry closed up shortly after the first world war. Today we have not a community of 2,500 but we have one of about 500. It is true that not many new houses are being built. There are a number of old houses falling down, and more being destroyed by fire and time. Nevertheless in that little community we have a great community spirit. There are good schools. The people have a fair number of automobiles, radios and television sets. They have a great community spirit. They have one of the best baseball teams in Nova Scotia. But if my hon. friend


had had his way these people would have been moved out holus-bolus when that industry went down and what is now Londonderry would have been again just a wilderness.
There is one other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would say and it is this. While many of the mechanics and artisans from that plant which closed were scattered to various parts of Canada, they took with them the skills learned there and they made a great contribution to Canada, as I know my hon. friend did with respect to Cape Breton when he left Colchester county in order to go to there.
There is another thing I should like to say. I do not think that Londonderry is done. I believe time will show that in regard to the mines. They were not really mines; they were merely very rich pockets of ore which were possibly worked out. There is plenty of ore in those hills. I believe that the knowledge that was gained by the people who worked in those diggings, which was passed on to their sons and which is retained in that community by the people not being evacuated, as has been suggested, is going to bring to the fore the possibilities which are there. I believe that once again the smoke will belch from a great industry in what is now that quiet little village.
Of course I could go on to mention several other places in my constituency where similar circumstances exist. I could mention the village of Kempt Town. There is a coal mine there; and with all respect to the Cape Breton people and those of Pictou county and Cumberland county, may I say that the Kempt Town seams are the one spot in Nova Scotia where we really have what is practically anthracite coal. Unfortunately the seams are thin. The mine was closed, and it is closed today. Nevertheless there is a great deal of information possessed by the people whom my hon. friend would have moved to Ontario under his scheme. As I say, there is a great deal of information still held by the residents of that community. As a result of this information which is passed on from father to son, I believe that in time, that mine will again be opened and that we shall have mined in Nova Scotia a type of coal which is comparable to Pennsylvania coal.
What I have been saying, Mr. Speaker, has perhaps not too much to do with the whole problem. There is one point on which I should like to correct the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. This afternoon he stated that the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company used coal entirely in firing their boilers for the production of electricity. Unfortunately I am afraid that is not the fact. I visited one of their plants when they broke

in a new unit last fall. There were two immense furnaces side by side. I was told that one was fired by coal and one was fired by oil. As I recall it-I may be wrong in this-the information I obtained was that the cost was approximately equal.
I expressed the idea then, and I do it again now, that if that was the case, why would it not have been better to have used coal entirely? On the other hand, as was brought out this afternoon, we have a great refining plant across the harbour, and if they could not get use for part of their fuel oil I presume they would have to cut down the refining operations. It is therefore sort of a toss-up between the two.
I have rambled on at some length-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: I agree that it has been at some length, but I have heard the hon. gentleman talk longer and say less than I have said. As I say, I believe that the best way to meet this problem-and it is a problem-is to follow out the program laid down by the Minister of Labour. I agree with him 100 per cent when he says that in those places where there is depression owing to the closing down of industry, they will do everything they can to put the people through vocational training and train them for other positions. But I do not think you can take people holus-bolus from their heart-roots and from the graves of their ancestors and move them from one place to another in a democracy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the maritime provinces I am one of those who believe that although we have had some rather difficult times, we are doing something. There is the fighting will to win in that part of the country, and I think we will win through. I was going on to say that I believe the problem is being reasonably well handled at the present time. I would not want to be branded as one who would even suggest we refused to help communities which are absolutely down and out, and where the people have done their very best. I would certainly support any legislation introducing any scheme that would aid such a community. However, if it were of general application I do not think it would work out. I take the same attitude toward these communities as I would to an individual who came to me for help. If I were sure he had tried hard and could not make a success, I would give him some help. I would certainly support the government if they took the same stand. I am of the opinion, however, that we cannot, as a nation, legislate ourselves into prosperity. I am afraid this program would be leading up to that.
Economic Rehabilitation
In so far as most communities are concerned, I think the solution of these problems will be brought about by a continuation of the type of government we have had in this country since 1935. You will recall that figures show that our gross national product was $4 billion in 1931 and today it is $26,600,000,000. This, of course, is the result of Liberal policies.
In support of my statement concerning the solution of these problems, which will recur at a few points in the future, I should like1 to quote one paragraph from the submission of the Canadian Manufacturers Association to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. It is under the heading of "Population and Employment". Under the subheading "Population" it has this to say:
In its vision of a greater Canada, the association has examined the studies of a number of recognized Canadian authorities as to what the population and gross national product of Canada will probably be in 1980. Obviously, any prediction is subject to a rather wide margin of error, based as it is on certain assumptions such as no major war occurring in the next 25 years, birth rates continuing at, or close to, present levels, low death rates as now, substantial immigration, and continuing technological improvement. Our considered estimate, taking the foreign factors into account, is that the population will be from 26 million to 28 million in 1980 and the gross national product will be from $68 billion to $72 billion (at present prices). As regards the gross national product especially, this estimate is likely on the conservative side.
On the basis of past experience the Canadian labour force in 1980 might be from 9 to 10 million. The association believes firmly that the most important single task of the people and government of Canada is to make as adequate provision as possible for the economic and steady employment of this labour force.
It has been noted that the percentage of the labour force employed in the primary industries is decreasing whereas the percentage employed in manufacturing is increasing. This trend will continue. It is the manufacturing industry that must provide a great deal of the employment for an increased population.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say this. I noted in one of our newspapers the other day that the wife of an ambassador who had been assigned to Ottawa had this to say:	In her experience the women of the
world were very much alike. They wanted to look after their families and their homes. Now, I would say that I believe the interests of the men lie along the same lines. They want to look after their families and their homes, and they are willing to work to do that. If we all get behind the problem in Canada and in Nova Scotia and apply ourselves, I do not think there will be any necessity for the program requested in the hon. member's resolution.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: It may
seem presumptuous on my part to enter the

Economic Rehabilitation debate when there are so many members here from the maritime provinces who are ready and willing to rise and express their feelings concerning their own area. However, I believe it is fitting that some speaker from the west should participate, and some speaker from the Social Credit group of which I have the honour of being a member.
I would say in a general way that I cannot see how we could possibly improve conditions in the maritimes if we continue to follow the same general policy which has caused so serious a deterioration in the maritimes ever since they entered confederation in 1867. The number of commissions that have been set up to examine into the situation in the maritimes is very considerable. We have had the Jones commission, the White commission, the Duncan commission and several others. Every one of those commissions has found a most undesirable state of affairs existing in the maritimes. Every one of them has found that condition exists because of certain other conditions which ought not to be there. But somehow or other nothing has ever been done about the situation.
I feel that it is idle to hope to have a sound and prosperous Canada unless we have a great and prosperous maritime section. I am convinced that something more has to be done than has been done in the past. I do not propose to go into this matter to any great extent tonight, but I may say I have been arrested by certain things which have come into my hands within the last few days. I have before me the statement of the city of Halifax to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, dated October, 1955. At the same time I have in my hands a copy of the statement by the government of Nova Scotia to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations dated February, 1938. I have in my hands also the letter of transmittal by the Halifax city solicitor, Mr. C. P. Bethune, Q.C., dated October 18, 1955.
In these three documents one can find some most impressive reading. May I quote three or four statements from Mr. Bethune's letter. On page 2 I find this paragraph:
In the alternative, the only way in which such fair contribution by the government towards the cost of municipal services can. be reduced is by the promotion of private business enterprises in this city which will contribute to the city's costs.
The government to which he is referring there is the dominion government.
In this, we believe, the government should assume some responsibility.
The next paragraph is most striking.
So far as Halifax is concerned, it is submitted that the city's natural endowment calls for the development of trade through the port. This will necessitate the provision of greater pier and storage [Mr. Blackmore.l
facilities, such as those proposed as far back as 1913, when plans were made by the federal government to develop the port on both sides of the harbour by the construction of the sea wall and piers. Certain land was then earmarked for improvement but unfortunately the plans were not proceeded with.
The question that every member of this house ought to ask himself, Mr. Speaker, is, why were the 1913 plans not proceeded with, and why have they not been proceeded with up to the present time? That seems to be the difficulty in respect of all the maritime provinces. There seem to be a great many promises and commitments on the part of the federal government, either explicit or implicit, but never anything done. It reminds me of the story of a certain British leader who was said to be always on horseback but never going forward. In my judgment it is high time we began to go forward.
Let us follow through in respect of this dock at Halifax, and the plans for making this port a good port. Anyone would say that the very first thing that could be done and should be done by the dominion government is to build that dock and make the port of Halifax so that it will take care of the needs of all commerce today. I do not suppose that even such an apologist as the hon. member who just took his seat, who seemed to spend all his time trying to make it appear that Nova Scotia was in fact doing all right, that they did not have anything to worry about, really believes that. I suggest that he ought to be ready to explain why that port has not been made as it ought to be, and he should be here on his feet demanding that that port should be made as it ought to be. Yet he comes up here and apologizes for what is going on down there.
Let us just consider another statement or two from this same letter:
Much of the land so earmarked has now gone to other uses, and unless immediate attention is given to the matter, all that remains will be otherwise occupied, and the costs of acquiring the same for port development will be prohibitive.
That will mean that the port of Halifax, in all probability, will never be made the port it ought to be as the eastern seaboard port of Canada; yet nothing is being done, and the hon. member for Colchester-Hants rises in his place here and apologizes for what is going on.
Let me read another paragraph:
Another essential is the improvement of transportation facilities serving the port, both highway and railway, in order that this Canadian port may be able to meet the competition of foreign Atlantic ports.
Surely the federal government can take care of these highway needs. Let no one rise in his place here and pretend that it cannot

be done. But why is it not done? The writer of the letter mentions both highways and railways. Surely we can build highways suitable for the servicing of a Halifax that will be the finest port on the whole Atlantic seaboard. If the government can build the St. Lawrence seaway, do not let anyone tell me that it cannot build the port of Halifax if it chooses to do so.
Let me read a little more:
Physical facilities, however, are not, in themselves, enough, though they will be of value in developing port trade. The value of such nonphysical facilities was recognized by governments, prior to 1935-1936, by the granting of special tariff concessions to those who imported goods through Canadian ports.
Note these words with particular care:
This tariff preference resulted in retaining for those ports more than 90 per cent of Canada's overseas import trade. It was destroyed by a trade treaty-
By whom? Not the Conservative party, but the Liberal party. Notice what it goes on to say:	.
This tariff preference resulted in retaining for those ports more than 90 per cent of Canada's overseas import trade. It was destroyed by a trade treaty with the United States in 1936, which treaty had the effect of opening the ports of that country to Canadian business. As a result there was a heavy diversion of traffic from Canadian ports.
No Liberal can escape the blame which is attached to the present administration in Canada for that trade treaty, or for permitting that trade treaty to stand. In a general way one would say that any government of Canada which would sign a treaty which would do that kind of thing to the city of Halifax was utterly unfit to govern the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, I do not think there is any doubt about it. After all the promises that were made to the maritime provinces before confederation and since confederation, to have a thing like that done constitutes worse than an abject betrayal, and there can be no other way of putting it.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Halifax is the only prosperous place down there.


John Horne Blackmore: You had better tell that to Halifax.


Henry Joseph Murphy: If you would sit down I would tell you the truth about Halifax.


John Horne Blackmore: If one cannot rely on the solicitor for the city of Halifax in preference to the hon. member for Westmorland with respect to this situation it would be a most amazing thing. Let us go on. The hon. member for Westmorland will have time to
Economic Rehabilitation rise in his place and talk, so let him please let me say what I have to say. I do not care whether he does or not; I am going to say it.
Now I go on to the bottom of page 3, and I quote these words:
Therefore, it is submitted some adjustment should be made in the tariff system, or some other measures should be taken to ensure that the protected industries, if they are to enjoy that protection, should channel the shipments of their goods over Canadian railways and highways and through Canadian ports.
I left off certain words about Canadiaii industry which would have connected up with the part I quoted, but the general idea is that protected Canadian industries in our central provinces were beginning to ship their goods down to United States ports to the neglect of the Nova Scotia port of Halifax. He points out the fact that those industries could at least take the trouble to channel their trade to the port of Halifax if they want to be anything like square.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He will agree with that.


John Horne Blackmore: You would think so. One of the reasons the maritimes have never got anywhere, let me submit, is that they have sent to parliament members not to fight for them, as the member for Cape Breton South has done, but to rise in their places and excuse the neglect which those provinces have suffered down there for these many years. They rise in their places as proponents against their provinces and not for them.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I would not say that.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, it is time you did, because you stand condemned. A lot has been said about the amount of time that has been spent on the wheat question. Do you think that if we had Liberals and Conservatives sitting where the C.C.F. and the Social Credit groups are sitting you would have had the case for the prairie grain growers put in the way in which it has been put in the last few years? The only thing that caused the Liberals to talk in favour of wheat farmers was the fact that they were being put to shame by the work being done by these two independent parties. That is all right; just do not make smart retorts to explain the situation. You just cannot explain these things. Why in the world the electors down in those maritime areas do not become awakened to this thing I cannot understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will be.


John Horne Blackmore: It is just about time they began to realize they have been standing in their own light for years and years by sending up men here to parliament who were committed to support the government instead of the maritime provinces.

Economic Rehabilitation
Let me go on with a quotation from the submission of the city of Halifax to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects in October, 1955. I read from page 27, division 9, on the port of Halifax, which indicates that Mr. Bethune was quite in line with the people who prepared the submission. I quote:
References to port facilities in this memorandum include berthing facilities, sheds, both transit and storage, railway facilities, loading operations, manpower, and all matters relating to the efficient operation of a modern port.
In this he mentions berthing facilities, sheds, loading operations and manpower, and railway facilities. Apparently there is a deficiency in Halifax in reference to every one of those essential items. To tell me that the federal government cannot take care of these matters is simply to make the person who tells that ridiculous. They go on to say:
Many millions of dollars have been expended by the government of Canada, both through national harbours board and departments of the government, to improve the port facilities at the inland ports of Montreal and Quebec. No criticism of this is offered by the city of Halifax, even though the ports are useful for only seven months of the year because of ice conditions in the St. Lawrence river. It is. however, submitted that sufficient expenditures should also be made at the port of Halifax provide adequate facilities even if this port nas the past been considered a "winter port" and used as a substitute for the above mentioned inland ports during the season of the year in which these ports are unavailable.
Anyone with any kind of tendency to reason will say, "Why when Halifax is an all-year port, are there not sufficient port facilities in that city when we spend vast sums of money on port facilities in Montreal and Quebec which are usable only seven months in the year?" You would think that anyone with any sense of reality at all would see the absurdity of that sort of arrangement.
I do not feel that I should spend very much more time on this particular matter, and I do not propose to do so.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: Someone apparently wants me to stop talking. This is another man from the maritimes who was sent up here to look after the interests of the people of the maritime provinces, and he is trying to shut up a person who is trying to help them.
The question has been raised as to what can be done about the whole situation. I say that there is only one way in which you can put the maritimes on a going concern basis, and that is to introduce economic conditions under which they will be able to carry on prosperously.
When the house was dealing with another resolution about two weeks ago I said that 
what any area must have is control of its credit. Conditions must be such that the people within the area are able to borrow money when they want money, and get it at reasonable interest rates. I referred to the treasury branch system which was set up in Alberta by Social Credit, as a result of which the people were able to borrow money at 3 per cent less, and under far more lenient conditions than they could borrow from the banks. I said at that time that this provision was the first step in the rehabilitation of Alberta.
I submit that until you have a measure similar to that in the maritime provinces you will have no chance of prosperity. Yet, as I pointed out two weeks ago, credit facilities in the maritime provinces are controlled by banks whose headquarters are in Montreal and Toronto and whose managers are not in the least concerned directly in the welfare of the maritime provinces, except in so far as it might possibly help the industries of Ontario and Quebec.
So the very first thing we will have to do is make arrangements whereby the people of the maritime provinces will be able to borrow money with which to produce any kind of thing that needs to be produced; pigs, chickens, cattle, sheep, anything they want to produce. Let them be able to borrow money at low rates of interest so they can produce; then that money will go out into circulation and thus enable them to sell their goods.
I spoke to the hon. member for Cape Breton South just before I began speaking, and by the way I was not prepared to speak on this subject because I did not expect it would come up. I asked the hon. member how much it cost for money in the maritime provinces, and he told me about 5J per cent. I would say that 51 per cent is 2 per cent too much. There is no conceivable reason in these modern times why anybody who wants to produce goods should have to pay 5i per cent interest to get money, especially in the maritime provinces where there are such a small number of markets, where conditions are so depressed, where there is so little over-all purchasing power. I asked the hon. member if it cost the merchant or the manufacturer the same rate, and he said it did.
You can see how the cost of production is increased in the maritime provinces by the interest rate on the money they borrow. I asked the hon. member if it was easy to borrow money, and he indicated it was just as easy to borrow money down in the maritimes as it was in Alberta before we brought in the treasury branches. At that time the

banker in Alberta sat behind his desk and ruled like a king dealing with poor subjects or slaves, when a person came in to borrow money. But he changed his ways very rapidly after the treasury branches came in. I think if we had treasury branches in the maritime provinces the banker down there would become a little bit more sociable too.
That is the answer; money must be available to everybody who is at all creditworthy to enable him to produce goods. He must be able to borrow it at reasonable rates, which I maintain should never be more than 3J per cent.
I asked the hon. member for Cape Breton South some other things. I am relying upon him to a considerable extent because he is the one man from the maritimes who ever talks for the maritimes. If the maritimes want people to talk more on their behalf they should send up men like this man, who is not bound hand and foot to a party machine, who is able to get up and speak for his country instead of for his party.
I asked the hon. member how much the maritime people were buying from the central provinces, and he told me that Mr. Waldo Walsh, deputy minister of agriculture for Nova Scotia, had said that they buy $100 million worth of goods a year from the central provinces. What are the central provinces buying in return? How in the world, using just plain common sense, do you think the maritime provinces can be successful and prosperous when they are buying $100 million worth of goods from the two central provinces and are able to sell back only a very trifling amount of goods in return?
If the maritime provinces are going to have any chance in the world they ought to have their own markets available to their own production. It is just as simple as A, B, C. If they cannot sell $100 million worth of goods to the two central provinces to pay for the $100 million worth of goods they buy from the two central provinces, something will have to be done to keep goods from the two central provinces from going down into the maritime provinces and monopolizing the market.
Someone will say, "How could you do that in a free country?" Apparently we can do pretty nearly anything when the four western provinces or the four maritime provinces are not concerned. Pretty nearly everything can be done for Ontario and Quebec, but apparently very little for either of these other two groups. If we make up our minds to do this thing, we can do it. Is there any reason at .all why we should not have a sort of gentleman's agreement or arrangement under which the producers in the two central provinces
Economic Rehabilitation would agree that they would not sell goods in the maritime provinces beyond a certain point unless the maritime provinces so requested?
That would enable the maritime producers to keep the maritime markets to themselves. You would very soon find that they were prosperous. Otherwise just continuing the conditions they are now operating under, with the financial circumstances prevailing and the trade circumstances prevailing as at present, they will continue to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the next thousand years.
If we want to do anything that is worth thinking about we must take care of these two matters. Do not tell me that the Liberal government cannot do it, not for a minute. These are two things that may be done. I could go on and say a great deal more, but I fancy that is enough for one time. I say the time has come to begin to do something. We have dawdled and callously ignored the rightful demands and requests of the maritime provinces quite long enough.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third debate that has occurred in this house this session that has brought forward the broad problem of economic development. In each of these debates there was a high degree of participation by members of all parties representative of the Atlantic provinces, and it was my belief that these members had approached the problem of economic development for that area with moderation and insight, and in a manner that would appeal to the house and to public opinion as a whole. I believe the participation in the debate today illustrates quite clearly that the representatives of the Atlantic provinces from all political parties are not derelict in their duty in presenting to this house the peculiar problems of that region of Canada.
Just three weeks ago I had the privilege of attending a seminar in Boston on the subject of economic development as applied to the province of Nova Scotia. I wanted to connect the remarks I intended to make on that occasion on economic development in Nova Scotia with the current thinking in so far as international economic development in general was concerned, and for that reason I went into some of the studies the United Nations conducted on general economic development throughout the world, a subject that is of interest and concern to everybody.
There were two main elements in the discussion of economic development in so far as it applied to what are known as the underdeveloped countries. The first element of development was the provision of technical services or technical information, not only in the form of guidance but also in the form of

Economic Rehabilitation technicians of all kinds. The second element in the international economic development was the lack of capital in the countries concerned, arising from the low incomes and inability to save and consequently to accumulate moneys as capital to invest.
When we attempt to apply this approach to the economic development of Nova Scotia, or the Atlantic provinces in general, we find that these prevailing concepts are just not applicable at all. First of all, in so far as technical personnel is concerned, the Atlantic provinces likely have the highest concentration of institutions of learning of any part of Canada. It is true that many of the graduates of these institutions move to other parts of Canada, but it is still true that of the maritime universities for which I have data, approximately 40 per cent of the graduates have remained to pursue their occupations in the Atlantic provinces. The result is an abundance of highly trained and highly literate people to participate in the development of our part of the country.
The second problem that concerned the people interested in international economic development was the low rate of savings occasioned by low incomes. I must confess that my investigations show that Nova Scotia, for example, has one of the highest rates of savings of Canada, and I was told by one of the experts from the Arthur D. Little Company in Boston, which is currently studying the economy of Nova Scotia, that the rate of saving in Nova Scotia was higher than in certain developing parts of the United States.
We have the technical personnel and we have the savings, but we have not produced economic opportunities of sufficient appeal to bring these two decisive elements together for the development of the Atlantic provinces of Canada. I mention these two considerations because, in talking about regional economic development, we do not really get much assistance from the thinking that is going on in the United Nations and other vorld organizations.
Of course our attention is brought to bear upon economic development in the Atlantic provinces not because the Atlantic provinces are not developed nor because the Atlantic provinces are remaining stagnant. These provinces are moving ahead in certain areas, and moving ahead very constructively. The problem that agitates the minds of residents of those provinces is that our rate of growth is slower than the rate of growth for the rest of Canada. That is the cause of great concern. If we take such important economic indices as income per capita, or income per member of the labour force; if we take per capita investment or average weekly wages
[Mr. MacEachen.l

or average weekly earnings, we find that in each of these categories the Atlantic provinces are lower than the average for Canada as a whole.
The disparity in economic development causes international tensions; for the same reason disparities in economic development in the country are bound to breed domestic disagreements of various kinds. That is why this problem-though certainly I do not intend to bring forward tonight concrete recommendations for its solution-is a subject very worthy of debate, and that is why it requires the attention of this house.
We know that part of the reason for our slower rate of economic development is the location of the Atlantic provinces, meaning distances in the geographical sense and accompanying transportation costs. We also realize that the trade policies necessary for the development of the nation-and this has been highly documented-have adversely affected the economic development of the extremities. The national policy of 1878, designed to create a new national market for the inland industries of central Canada, completely changed the orbit of commerce and trade in which the maritime provinces lived and the conditions existent at that time have never been completely restored.
We know, too, that the national effort involved in two wars served to accentuate the economic concentration in the central regions of Canada. We know also that the branch banking system in its very organization has served better the credit requirements of the central regions of the country.
The purpose of mentioning these influences is simply to indicate that the development of Canada as a whole has not been left entirely to the natural operations of economic laws but has been affected, and affected decisively, in certain areas of development through either explicit or implicit government direction and policy. It is for that reason that I feel we are really following a great historical tradition in this house when we talk about policies that may serve to build up areas of Canada which up to the present have not participated in our prosperity in the manner that we all desire.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South has mentioned the threats that are occurring in the coal industry. The past year has been a good year in that industry, but the long-run picture is uncertain and it may be that such activities as the dieselization of the Canadian National Railways, the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway and the projected pipe line may have a harmful effect on the coal industry of the province of Nova Scotia. If such a harmful effect occurs, then it means a very

serious blow to the economy of the areas which the representative for Cape Breton South and myself have the honour to represent in the house. These and other areas throughout the province of Nova Scotia will be affected.
The federal government has an interest in the coal industry and in its rehabilitation because we have made very generous provision through legislation in this house for the assistance of the coal industry. The annual subsidy payments, the coal mining assistance act and certain important research are representative of the interest the federal government has taken in the maintenance of this industry which is so vital to the economy of Nova Scotia. For that reason it should be a concern of the House of Commons to assist, through discussion and helpful suggestions, in the provision of alternative industries in the event that further declines occur in the industry.
A similar situation was brought about by the construction of the strait of Canso causeway. The unemployment problem has been handled very successfully by the Canadian National Railways and by the temporary construction activity in this area. There is insecurity and uncertainty among the community leaders, however, because of the decline in real estate values, and because of fear of the future as it will affect these communities.
I think it is clear that in all the cases I have mentioned things are occurring in the economy that are helping the people as a whole. We are hopeful that all these projects will be thoroughly beneficial to all the people of Canada, but we are also hopeful that no part of Canada will be expected to bear too great a sacrifice in the development that is so beneficial to all.
I think this debate has brought out some very important things for the province of Nova Scotia. I was glad that both the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings mentioned that the resources of Nova Scotia are limited. In comparison with other provinces of Canada we have modest economic resources. We are a mature economy, and in the future our development must depend upon a greater and more intensive utilization of mineral wealth, forest wealth, fisheries and the tourist industry.
In each of these categories there is a great deal that government can do, both federal and provincial, through acceleration of mineral exploration and through the provision of services like the forest inventory, in which this government participated and which is now opening up one of the most promising
Economic Rehabilitation areas of development in Nova Scotia, namely the possibility of paper mills in the strait of Canso area and elsewhere. It is through acceleration, with present government services directed with greater intensity to what might be called special areas, that much can be done.
Several of those who have participated in the debate have mentioned the difficulties of establishing secondary industries in the maritime provinces. The hon. member for York-Scarborough, and the hon. member for St. John's East in a previous debate, outlined very valid economic forces that serve to select areas for the development of industry. There is one type of industry that is supply-directed. It locates near valuable raw materials. There is another type of industry that is market-directed, which locates near the greatest concentration of people. Neither type of industry is well suited to the Atlantic provinces because of the economic factors that have already been brought out. But there is a final type of industry that the economist calls a footloose industry, which is well suited to location in this part of Canada. Footloose industries are those industries about which there is considerable indifference as to location. They do not go to the market. They do not go near the source of supply. Characteristic of these industries are the textile industry, the refining of crude oils and other industries of this type.
Here, the people who participated in the seminar at Boston were quick to point out, lay the greatest possibility for the development of secondary industries in the province of Nova Scotia. The development of this type of secondary industry combined with the proper, intelligent utilization of the modest resources we possess should, I think, allow the citizens of Nova Scotia and the other provinces to live the satisfactory life that has been characteristic of our part of Canada.
We are conscious of many non-economic qualities of life in the Atlantic provinces. We, Mr. Speaker, were the seat of responsible government. The island of Cape Breton was the seat of industrial trade unionism in Canada. These are among the types of development that do not occur or are not mentioned in a debate on economic development. I believe that the development of the resources we have, combined with wise selection of secondary industries and intelligent co-operation and the will to survive, is part of the formula for success.
We want easy access to the Atlantic provinces and easy egress from the Atlantic provinces. We want economic opportunities for a growing number of people, but we do not want to keep people in the Atlantic

Economic Rehabilitation provinces if they thereby depress incomes and standards when migration would suit them and suit the areas best.
For some of the reasons I have mentioned I think the resolution put forward is extremely interesting, and I think it will be useful in forming public opinion on a very important issue of special interest to the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of various hon. members who have taken part in the debate, but more particularly to those of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond and the hon. member for Mackenzie. In a very clear way the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond gave us an economist's analysis of the situation in the maritimes.
I might say here that I am grateful to the hon. member for Mackenzie for some of the things he put on record which have to do with my own province and even with my own riding. It is not entirely accidental that he saw fit to do this because after all he is, I believe, a fourth generation islander, or a four times removed islander. His ancestors came from my riding, and he himself is now a resident of Saskatchewan. He is perhaps an example of the very thing we are talking about. His ancestors found it economically necessary to move from the maritimes to what was then Upper Canada. Then at a later stage people from the older parts of Canada were persuaded, chiefly for economic reasons, to migrate to western Canada where opportunities were said to be greater.
Continuously, at least since confederation, there has been an economic pressure which has forced the people of the maritimes to emigrate and seek their livelihood elsewhere. At the moment I might say that1 great numbers of maritimers helped to develop the newer parts of Canada, especially the four western provinces. As a matter of fact I think the migration is almost entirely one way. At the moment I can think of only one case of someone migrating from the prairies to Prince Edward Island. That particular case was my wife. She assures me that her considerations were other than economic ones when she took that course.
I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South should be congratulated on bringing this topic before the house for discussion. I feel that he had in mind this chronic state of depression, in varying degree, which has existed in the maritime provinces for many years.. We find always that most of our young people are forced to migrate. The unemployment figures for the maritime provinces are in reality greater than one would suspect,
[Mr. MacEachen.l
because they show only those people who are unemployed and who have not yet emigrated. The result is that when a disproportionate number of our young people move elsewhere or join the services, the mean age of the average maritimer becomes greater than that of people in the other provinces of Canada.
This and many other facets of this problem tend to create a condition in which commerce and development stagnate. Small industries are continually dying off. They are being bought up by larger competitors from some other parts of the country and, after a few years, are closed down because it is not felt that they are economic.
Last year I sought from the dominion bureau of statistics figures with regard to the number of industries in the maritimes which over the years have been forced to close because they were unable to compete with their larger counterparts in central Canada. I was told that the dominion bureau of statistics kept no record of this sort of thing, and that figures along that line were not available from them. If they were available, I think they would give some very enlightening information.
There are, of course, several ways of looking at this problem. The economists may look at it purely from the cold economic point of view and say that if an industry is not profitable, if it is not self-sustaining, it should not exist. They do not concern themselves with the humanitarian and other problems which may develop as the result of such a failure to carry on. There is perhaps a philosophical point of view which considers the humanitarian problems, the social effects that economic depression may have on an area. But there again that thinking may be circumscribed so that the whole picture is not seen. There is also a military viewpoint. From the military viewpoint it can be argued soundly that if our industry is to survive indefinitely in this atomic age, it should be dispersed, that it should not be allowed to congregate in a few large areas where it presents attractive targets for atom bombs. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it behooves us to take a wider view. The political view should be one which embraces all of these factors.
I think it is nonsense to say that central Canada goes along and prospers because it is economically sound and can stand on its own feet, and that its prosperity is not caused by any artificial stimulants which may have been given it. Nothing could be further from the facts. If the tariff protection which exists in this country for Canadian industry were to be totally removed, I am quite sure that many of our industries in central Canada would melt away in a short time. If some of the

uneconomic or temporarily uneconomic great projects which were brought forward by governments in this country through the years had not ben carried out, I am convinced that great areas of this country would not have been developed. An example of such a project, of course, is the building of the first transcontinental railway. More up to date examples are the St. Lawrence seaway and the gas pipe line that is under discussion. Many of these things are not strictly economically sound.
As I said, we should also consider the view that the philosopher would take. After all, we must attach some importance to the social effects that economic depression has created in certain parts of our country. How can we be proud to be Canadians if we know that in certain areas of this country there are people who are in dire financial straits through no fault of their own? We should recognize also that there is definitely a military problem involved here. We should look rather carefully at the possibility of stemming this trend toward having our key industries concentrated in a small area. We should make sure that encouragement is given to developing a dispersed industry in all parts of the country. Such an industry would help to revive the small towns in many areas, and would be a stimulus to agriculture, transportation, service industries and all business firms in those areas.
The government has a responsibility here that it cannot avoid. The government should give serious consideration to this resolution. I particularly approve of the last part of it, which says:
-such rehabilitation to be achieved through direct government assistance for the establishment of additional or alternative industries in the areas concerned-
There is one reservation, however, in that I should like to be able to put my own interpretation on what direct government assistance means. The resolution goes on to suggest that if that fails, means should be found for transplanting the people concerned to some other part of the country. I think that is a course which should be followed only as a last resort, but it would be unavoidable in some cases such as mining towns which were built on resources that had been exhausted.
There are many ways in which the government could take action to improve the situation in some of these depressed areas. There are tariff adjustments which might be made which would benefit them. There are freight subventions which might be considered. There is defence expenditure and government buying generally. It might be said that these suggestions are not practical, that they are
Economic Rehabilitation suggestions that are not really feasible. It might be well for us to look briefly at what our neighbour to the south is doing in this connection.
In the United States it is recognized that governments now do a great deal of the business of the country directly. Defence production and other government purchasing is really big business. In the United States they see to it that some effort is made to even out the effect of government buying. They have a system which gives to areas where there is considerable unemployment a preference in government purchases. They have a differential advantage of 6 per cent on government contracts for the supply of material, and a differential of 12 per cent where their competitors are foreign firms. This is a principle which might very well be considered for Canada. It has the advantage of tending to disperse vital industries across the country so they are not so vulnerable from a military point of view.
There are many other ways in which the United States government tries to relieve this problem. For instance, I have with me a publication of the United States department of commerce which has the title, "What will New Industry Mean to my Town?" In this publication they study the effect of the establishment of new industries in two small towns in two entirely different parts of the United States. They point out that such developments increase employment, stimulate business and have many other beneficial effects. They also point out that this creates certain problems for the small towns concerned, and that the effects of the creation of new businesses in small communities are not all on one side of the ledger.
Then, too, the United States government is very careful to try to assure that small businesses get their share of government contracts. There is a publication here from the small business administration of the United States government entitled, "U.S. Government Purchasing Directory". In it they point out that in various ways they encourage small businesses to tender for the supplying of materials to the defence department and other departments. In the foreword to this publication I find the following statement:
One of the major responsibilities of the small business administration is to carry out the policy of congress, as stated in the small business act of 1953, as amended, that small business concerns should receive "a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts for supplies and services for the government".
This is a concrete illustration that our neighbour to the south finds it not only possible but advantageous to try to encourage
2292	HOUSE OF
Economic Rehabilitation small businesses in the extremities of the country to get their fair share of government contracts, and in that way share equitably in whatever prosperity their country may enjoy.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to take up any more time of the house, except to say that in principle I heartily support the resolution before us.


Mrs. Ann Shipley (Timiskaming):: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton South for his kind words about me and his concern for my people and others in like circumstances. I have been listening to this debate all afternoon, and I kept reading the resolution over and over again. It appeared as though the interpretation put upon the resolution by some of the speakers was that it concerned the maritimes alone. Well, the mover of the resolution did not speak in that vein, nor do I think the wording of the resolution would lead one to believe that is so. It is a general resolution stating that:
-the government should give consideration to the advisability of providing for the economic rehabilitation of people living in communities and areas in Canada where extreme hardships are resulting from the closing down of the principle industries-
In no way, Mr. Speaker, do I want to belittle any claim the maritimes feel they have on the nation. They have my keen sympathy. But on the other hand I object now, as I have objected in the past, to members of the opposition giving the impression to the people of Canada that anything that besets them becomes the responsibility of the federal government. I come from a mining area in the northern part of Ontario. We have faced almost ghost towns, but fortunately by our own grit and initiative, with no help from anyone, we have been able to pull through. It was luck, chiefly, if I must be honest.
But here we are a part of this great province of Ontario. The municipalities located near the mining industries are set up under the jurisdiction of the laws of the province of Ontario. The loans that are made by the municipality itself are controlled by the Ontario municipal board. The extent to which that municipality develops is controlled entirely by the provincial government. In the course of time almost any mine will peter out, and the mover of this resolution specifically referred to wasting resources. Am I to believe from this resolution that the moment the assets of a mine become exhausted the responsibility for the people of that community, in a wealthy province like Ontario, should immediately become the responsibility of the federal government? I would say no.
[Mr. MacLeanJ


Clarence Gillis: No; I made that quite clear.


Marie Ann Shipley: I am sorry; I missed that point.


Clarence Gillis: It is a joint responsibility.


Marie Ann Shipley: The hon. member is the only one who did, then. Here is the whole situation as I see it. If any province has a claim on the national responsibility, and if a situation has been created for the benefit of the nation, then I say that province, or a particular section of that province, has a claim on the national income and on national support. Otherwise, if the province is financially able, it should look after that situation, and it cannot come too soon to suit me.
I am grateful to the hon. member for Cape Breton South for bringing this resolution to the house. Plans should be made now, not only in my own province but in many provinces throughout Canada. It will happen rather suddenly so far as the rest of the people are concerned. Those of us who live in those areas can see it coming. There are millions of dollars worth of assets there. At a time when housing, schools, churches and public buildings are in short supply in Canada, it is inconceivable to me that the life savings of thousands of people should be left behind. In our particular case we are almost in the heart of Canada. When the mines are exhausted where I live, surely we are not going to let these places become ghost towns. I say we will not, but I say we should start now.
If there are places in Canada where there is a national responsibility, so far as we are concerned it is in the gold mining areas. That is being taken care of by the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. But that is where the responsibility of this government lies, because the restrictive measures in so far as the sale and use of gold are concerned are a national responsibility, and they should take care of it, as they do, for which we are very grateful. But if there are any other areas of national responsibility I hope when the provinces concerned ask for help, this government will take the matter under advisement and make plans now. I am not referring to the over-all problem; I am referring to the instances that were cited by the hon. member who introduced the resolution and that were described in the resolution.
Of course there are certain federal government agencies that can be utilized should such a situation occur, such as those described by the Minister of Labour this afternoon, but those are available to all places to take care of similar problems.
This afternoon the hon. member for Royal said, "Well, in Ontario there were lots of

places where people who are out of employment by reason of the exhaustion of mines could find employment", or something to that effect. These were not the exact words. Well, my goodness, I wish he had lived in a mining community where, when he went there, there was nothing but mud for streets and huts to live in, and worked hard for years and years to build up a community of which he was proud, in which he had invested every cent he owned and had built up something worth while. To suggest that men can find employment elsewhere in Ontario is, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, very shortsighted, and it is perhaps a heartless way to look at the matter. I am sure the hon. member himself has not been faced with that problem, and he did not give the matter enough thought or he would not have made what to me is such a heartless statement.
There are others who say well, when these people go into mining communities and invest their money in homes, and they pay six times as much as is normal to put sewers and water through the rocks, they know that the mining community is expendable, and why do they spend their money? Well, there again it is a thoughtless and narrow-minded person who would make such a statement; but I have heard it, Mr. Speaker. If those people would stop and think for a moment they would know that those lumbering camps, the mining communities and so on, have opened up Canada. Those are the people to whom Canada owes a tremendous debt. They would not say well, we knew it was expendable.
In many instances it has been our whole life. Our children were born there. They have grown to manhood there; they have been educated there and it is their home. Surely with the tremendous wealth in my own province something can be done to induce industry to establish itself there. It would take
19, 1956	2293
Economic Rehabilitation very little. We are not so out of the way, but there are so many different situations. In some provinces and in some parts of the same province the situation is very different. The provincial government should begin to analyse each situation and arrive at a solution to take care of each particular situation.
There is just one particular point I should like to make in my closing remarks, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act which has helped many communities in northern Ontario, northern Quebec and other parts of Canada. I am sorry my colleague the hon. member for Villeneuve has not had the opportunity to speak on this subject. There is one community in his riding, Villeneuve, that would have had to close down three or four years ago but for the assistance of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. What has happened? They have found copper within 12 miles of the area where the gold mine was exhausted, and that splendid community will be available for that purpose. That is just luck, and we all cannot be that lucky.
Therefore I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the discussions that have taken place today will be heard by the provincial governments concerned, and that they will take action for those of us who need action from that particular source.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: I was asked on Friday to indicate when the budget debate would be resumed. It has been agreed that we shall do that on Friday next.


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

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

Mr. Pearkes: What amounts have been paid to date as Canada's share in the construction, equipping and maintenance, including pay and allowances, for military and civilian personnel of: (a) "Pinetree" line; (b) mid-Canada line; (c) D.E.W. line?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
(a)	$175,067,690.
(b)	$26,673,816.
(c)	In the provision of the northern early warning systems, the United States undertook responsibility for constructing and equipping the D.E.W. line, and Canada, the mid-Canada line. Canada, therefore, has made no payments as a direct share of the cost of constructing and equipping the D.E.W. line. Canadian government departments, in particular the departments of national defence, defence production, transport, and northern affairs and national resources, have used their facilities to assist in the construction of the D.E.W. line, and, wherever possible, the United States government has used Canadian contractors, materials and labour.


EX-REGULAR ARMY PERSONNEL IN RESERVES
Mr. Pearkes: 1.	How many ex-members of the Canadian regular army have enrolled into the Canadian regular army reserve?
2.	How many of these reservists attended training last year with the regular army?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1.	215.
2.	110.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION NO. 56-M573
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): 1.	How many classes are to be taught by the instructor in bookkeeping advertised for under civil service competition No. 56-M573?
2.	What will be the average number of students per class?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1.	There will be a total of 16 courses per year, 12 of trade group 3 and 4 of trade group 4, with 50 periods of instruction in each course.
2.	15.


COLONEL WOOD ROWE PURCELL
Mr. Castleden: 1. Has Colonel Wood Rowe Purcell been placed in command of Canadian army's warfare and Arctic branch at defence headquarters?
2.	If so, how many Canadian troops will be placed under his command?
3.	Is he being attached to Canadian national defence for pay, allowances and expenses?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1.	Colonel William Wood Rowe Purcell is a United States exchange officer on duty at national defence headquarters. He is presently serving as the senior staff officer in the air, Arctic and mobile striking force section of the directorate of military training.
2.	None.
3.	No.


SURPLUS BUILDINGS, BARRACK GREEN, SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. Bell: 1.	What buildings, by numbers, have been declared surplus by the Department of National Defence in the Barrack Green, Saint John. New Brunswick?
2.	What, if any, are to remain?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:
1.	5, 6, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 42, 44, 50 and 51.
2.	(a) 17 and 38 will shortly be declared surplus; (b) 16, 21, 25, 33A, 45, 46, 49 and F4 will be temporarily retained; (c) 33, 34, 36, 37 and FI will be permanently retained.


PATENTS INQUIRY
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Is the commission inquiring into patents, copyrights, and related subjects, authorized to make recommendations revising the manner in which registered patent attorneys and agents may practise before the patent office as firms of patent attorneys or agents?
2.	When is it expected that the report of the said commission will be made?
Answer by: Mr. Pinard:
1.	It is considered that the terms of reference of the royal commission on patents, copyrights, trade marks and industrial designs include a study of the manner in which patent attorneys and agents practise before the patent office, and in fact certain public evidence has already been given in this connection.
2.	At the end of 1956 or early in 1957.


COST OF LIVING STATISTICS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the cost of living index or the total consumer price index (whichever can be given in constant or comparable figures) for each of the following years: 1926, 1927, 1930, 1933, 1936, 1939, 1942, 1943, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955?
2.	What is the comparable figure at the present time?

Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
1 and 2.
Consumer Price Index (1949=100)
1926		 75-9
1927		 74-6
1930	 75-3
1933	 58-8
1936	 61-1
1939	 63-2
1942		 72-9
1943		 74-2
1947	 84-8
1949		 100-0
1950		 102-9
1952	 116-5
1954		 116-2
1955		 116-4
February 1956	 116-4


GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCTION STATISTICS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was Canada's gross national production in each of the following years: 1926, 1927, 1930, 1933, 1936, 1939, 1942, 1943, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955?
2.	What is the anticipated gross national production for 1956?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
1.	Gross National Product
(millions of dollars)
1926 			 5,294
1927 			 5,647
1930 			 5,546
1933 			 3,552
1936 			 4,701
1939 			 5,707
1942 			 10,539
1943 			 11,183
1947 			 13,768
1949 			 16,462
1950 			 18,203
1952 		
1954 			 24,148
1955 			 26,624
2. No forecast for 1956 available at present.
Questions


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT CF-EYX
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame: de Grace):
1.	What were the names of the passengers on the flight of Department of Transport aircraft CF-EYX between Montreal-Ottawa and Ottawa-Toronto, on November 26, 1954?
2.	What was the purpose of their trip?
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
1.	(a) Montreal-Ottawa: A. de Niverville, director of air services, Department of Transport, Ottawa; S. S. Foley, district controller air services, Department of Transport, Toronto; D. A. McIntyre, district superintendent airways, Department of Transport, Toronto; D. W. Saunders, district superintendent air regulations, Department of Transport, Toronto; W. McDowell, district radio engineer, Department of Transport, Toronto; D. Bell, district aircraft inspector, Department of Transport, Toronto; R. W. Bradley, district airway engineer, Department of Transport, Toronto; R. E. Harris, senior area traffic controller, Department of Transport, Toronto; S. Haskins, meteorological services, Department of Transport, Toronto; H. White, airways serviceman, Department of Transport, Toronto; (b) Ottawa-Toronto: As above with exception of the director of air services.
2.	(a) To return to their headquarters the district officials listed, who had been in Montreal attending meetings on matters relating to traffic control and airport construction;
(b)	the director of air services was in Montreal en route from overseas. The flight to Toronto was therefore made via Ottawa where the director deplaned and the aircraft proceeded to its home base at Malton.

Tuesday, March 20, 1956