1957-02-12

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 12, 1957


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Would the minister advise the house why Oregon potatoes are being used in the camp at Abbotsford, British Columbia, where the Hungarian refugees are presently housed, when British Columbia potatoes of equal or better quality are available through either the British Columbia coast vegetable marketing board or the British Columbia interior vegetable marketing board?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I do not know
whether the statement is true or not, Mr. Speaker, but I will find out whether it is.



HUNGARIAN REFUGEES, ONTARIO  APPORTION- MENT OF SETTLEMENT COSTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he is in a position to make the statement to the house which was promised in his absence by the acting minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, regarding negotiations between this government and the government of Ontario concerning the sharing of costs for reception arrangements for Hungarian refugees?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I noticed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is incidentally not the acting minister and was not while I was away, said I was preparing a statement. I do not think he said I would give one, and I could not give one that would be within the rules of brevity. The premier of Ontario indicated in the legislature the other day that this was not an urgent matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It may not be an urgent matter to the premier of Ontario, but I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question because some of us here regard it as rather urgent. When may we expect a review of 82715-76
the situation by this government in the hope that this government will accept its full responsibility and not try to pass the buck to the provinces?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a question, but this government is not trying to pass the buck to anyone and has always accepted its full responsibilities in this field.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: May I address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it true that two fine statuary figures representing Truth and Justice, made 36 years ago by the great Canadian sculptor Walter Allward, are still in storage in Ottawa? If so, would the government consider a request by the British Columbia centennial committee to make use of these figures in front of the public building which is to be erected in Vancouver for next year's celebration?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to the first part of the
question is yes; these two figures are in storage in Ottawa.
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de
Grace): Truth and justice have been in storage for the last 20 years around here.


Robert Henry Winters: They were put in storage by a Conservative government, I may say. It is we who have uncovered them. These two figures were designed as part of a statue, and before using them alone as free-standing figures the location would have to be considered very carefully. That would restrict their use somewhat. But there has been quite a revival of interest in these two particular statues and we would be glad to consider the request of my hon. friend along with the rest.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND  APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON REVISION OF TERMS OF UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister the following question. What are the intentions of the government regarding the

Inquiries of the Ministry appointment of the royal commission on the revision of the terms of union with Newfoundland?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government was set out in a letter to the premier of Newfoundland dated September 5, 1956. This letter was published at the time and I will be glad to make copies of it available to the hon. member. The position of the government has not changed since then, and we expect to announce the appointment of the commission quite soon now.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfort):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. When the embargo against imports of United States pork products is lifted, will the minister give assurance that the hog producers will not suffer a loss by a drop in hog prices and that at least the present support price of $23 f.o.b. Toronto will be maintained?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when the time
arrives that there is a possibility of the embargo being raised we will give consideration to all these questions under the circumstances then existing.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he bring the house up to date on the present status of the proposed strike at the Polymer Corporation at Sarnia? I ask him this question because if there is a strike at Polymer it will probably affect another two or three thousand employees in the same city.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no information on the prospects of a strike at Polymer. I hope there will be as few strikes as possible at this period because the manpower of Canada is, I think, taxed almost to its utmost capacity.


Joseph Warner Murphy: In view of the seriousness of the situation, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would make inquiries. A strike vote was called last Sunday and it may be that a conciliator has been appointed, but I think the house would be interested in knowing what is the situation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence as one former simple front line soldier to another. Has the minister's attention been drawn to press reports of comments on the battle of Britain made to the press by Lieutenant General Joseph Kammhuber, chief of staff of the new German luftwaffe, now a guest of the minister's department? If so, does the minister consider these remarks a correct interpretation of history or appropriate at this time?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The answer to the first part is that I have seen the newspaper reports in question. Lieutenant General Kammhuber came to Canada as chief of the new German air force in connection with the purchase of planes and the training of West German pilots. I must remind the house that he came as from one NATO country to another. While he was here he submitted himself to a press conference. Whether the questions put to him and the answers he made at that press conference were appropriate under all the circumstances I think is a matter of opinion.
As to the question whether his observations constitute a correct interpretation of history, I must say I make no claim to infallibility in interpreting history but as for myself I have always regarded the best interpretation of the battle of Britain as being the one contained in Sir Winston Churchill's words, when he said that never in the history of mankind have so many owed so much to the efforts of so few.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harlcness (Calgary North):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister read to the house or table the reply which he indicated on Friday last he was making to the Indian Association of Alberta in reply to their petition?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as soon as that reply has been dispatched and has had a reasonable chance of reaching Calgary,

I shall be glad to make copies available to hon. members along with a copy of the petition itself.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-ROYALTY PAYMENTS ON HOBBEMA RESERVE, ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin):: Can the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us whether or not the 118 Indians from the Hobbema reserve are receiving their royalty payments while the appeal is pending or whether they are being held in trust for them, and whether the receipt of them will depend on the outcome of the appeal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand, sir, that once the appeal was entered these people were treated like the other members of the band, and that they will be assumed to be members of the band unless the courts should decide otherwise.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received representations urging that old age security and old age assistance be made available to newcomers in Canada provided they have become citizens of this country? In view of the stress that was properly laid yesterday on the question of citizenship by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will further consideration be given to these requests?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I would be unable from memory to say just when and from whom representations were received, but I know such representations have been made and I know that the matter is under consideration.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Has the minister observed that he is the subject of verse in a morning paper, and has he considered whether the pain of his budget might be less if he could produce it in verse?
82715-76i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I observed the poetry to which reference has been made. All I can say is that I shall not deliver the budget in poetry.


An hon. Member:: It gets "verse and verse".



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister consider that no government action is required to correct the situation revealed in the departmental release tabled yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which estimates that there will be a decrease of 18 per cent in housing construction in 1957 and an increase of 16 per cent in non-residential construction?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the press release yesterday indicated that a more detailed statement would be brought forward shortly. I do not propose to make any comment on the material in it until it is published. However, I should point out that if it is correct-I refer to the press statement, and I have no reason to believe that it is not correct-that there will be a decline of 18 per cent in housing construction in Canada this year, that percentage is a great deal less than the members of my hon. friend's party have been trying to make out.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmoulh-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. What steps will the Department of Fisheries take, in view of the recent announcement of a proposed hydro development in Shelburne and Yarmouth counties in Nova Scotia, to ensure that there will be no unnecessary detrimental effect on the salmon and trout fishing in the rivers involved in this important development?


Mr. J. Waison MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assisiant to fhe Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The question is based

Inquiries of the Ministry on an article appearing in the Chronicle-Herald. As pointed out in that newspaper article this development is only in the planning stage. The department will co-operate with the Nova Scotia power commission to see that adequate and proper provision is made to ensure the protection of the fish populations in the rivers and lakes in that area.



STATEMENT ON NEW NORTH PACIFIC FUR SEAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Watson MacNaught: 

BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Watson MacNaught: Yesterday the hon. member for New Westminster asked this question:
In view of press reports that there is tremendous development work going on around the site of the proposed Moran dam, 20 miles from Lillooet, would the minister make a statement regarding this matter?
The Department of Fisheries has been and is in close contact with the proposed construction of the Moran dam. The department's senior officers, engineers and biologists have reviewed the proposed construction in an effort to determine the effects it would have on the passage of the valuable salmon resources of the Fraser river and its watershed. It is understood that the promoters of the Moran dam project have been making test borings in the area where the proposed dam might be built.
Information in the department indicates that there is no "tremendous development work" going on around the proposed site. The officials of the department are continuing to keep in close touch with the situation and are meeting regularly with the officials of. the company promoting the Moran dam project.



SOCKEYE SALMON CONVENTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries. Will he table a copy of the protocol which was referred to in the resolution presented yesterday by the Minister of Finance?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the procedure in relation thereto, and if it is possible to table the protocol in question it will be tabled.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the renewed interest in the matter of redistribution, which has arisen because of the recent census release showing a wide disparity in the population figures of the various federal constituencies in this country, will

the government reconsider the matter of having this question studied at this session by a committee, as was recommended the year before last by the committee on privileges and elections?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: do not know whether this renewed interest to which the hon. member made allusion is his own only, but in any event-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister not read the newspapers?


Roch Pinard: I think the interest disclosed there cannot be enough to justify this house considering this problem at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister accept with my compliments copies of maps of the redistribution now being effected in the province of Manitoba, so he might see what can be done by an independent commission?


Roch Pinard: I shall be pleased to look at these maps, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall send them over.

The house resumed, from Monday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.



MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with some of the points discussed yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to deal first with his criticism of our policy, or what he calls our absence of policy, toward northern development. It is true that it is only in these last few years that the Canadian people have been in a position to proceed with northern development. Our people in Canada and elsewhere are tempted to make comparison with the kind of development that has occurred in the northern parts of other countries, and particularly in Russia. Well, climatic conditions and conditions in general are different, but there is also this fact that we must not forget. The cities of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk had been well established before Jacques Cartier came up the St. Lawrence river, so that the development there started centuries ago, while ours has just started.
Up to the first world war our forefathers and fathers were busy with the settlement of the west. Then, we had the first world war, followed by a recession and then by a very short period of prosperity. This was
Natural Resources-Development followed by the Conservative administration of the 1930's which was noted for a great depression.


Mr. Fleming:: Be fair; a world-wide depression.


Jean Lesage: Then all our energies were
required to fight the second world war. Therefore, it is really since the postwar period that it has been possible to look forward to our northern development. During the last few years there have been each year increased expenditures for the development of the north by a number of departments of this government, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, public works, national defence, transport and health and welfare, and, of course, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
The year to year increase in the estimates of the northern administration and lands branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources gives an indication of the increased tempo of activities north of the 60th parallel. The expenditures made by the northern administration branch are independent from the large expenditures made by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works. In 1953-54 the expenditures of the northern administration branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources were a little over $3 million; in 1954-55 they were $4 million; in 1955-56 they were $6,500,000 and in 1956-57 they were a little over $11 million. The estimates for the fiscal year commencing the first of April 1957, covering the period 1957 to 1958, are a little over $17 million which means that in five years the expenditures of the northern administration branch of the department have increased five times. Five times in five years; this is an interesting tempo of development and activity in the north.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the most vital factor in northern development is the provision of adequate means of transportation so that traffic can move in and from the territories as easily and cheaply as possible. Prior to 1953 major highways had been built, leading to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, including the Alaska highway, the Mackenzie highway and the Whitehorse-Mayo highway. Since 1953 the Whitehorse-Mayo highway has been extended 115 miles to Dawson. An extension of the Mackenzie highway to Yellowknife has been started with plans for this road to be extended in time to Great Bear lake. A number of development roads have been constructed from federal funds or federal assistance has been given toward their development. The

Natural Resources-Development total cost of the highway to Yellowknife from Hay river which was started last year and is continuing this year will be of the order of $12,500,000. Major bridges have been constructed and are being constructed especially in the Yukon.
In addition the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, through its officials and through the minister, has made representations to the air transport companies and the water transportation companies and has been successful in obtaining major reductions in freight rates.
The second vital factor which was mentioned by my hon. friend is the development of hydro power in the north. The Northern Canada Power Commission was founded in 1948 under the name of the Northwest Territories Power Commission. Last year a bill was passed by this house to change the name to the Northern Canada Power Commission. Its first major development was at Snare river to serve the mines in the Yellowknife area of the Northwest Territories. Since 1953 the commission has completed a major plant at Mayo in the Yukon at a cost of $4 million to serve the silver, lead and zinc mines of the Keno area and it is now adding a further unit to this plant at a cost of $500,000 to double its capacity. The commission is also undertaking at the present time the construction of a major plant at Whitehorse to serve the growing needs of that city. The initial installation will provide 15,000 h.p. at a construction cost of $7 million.
It will be understood that most of the development in the north will depend on the exploitation of our minerals. My colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) outlined last night what his department is doing with regard to the geological exploration of these vast areas, and I can report that the production from existing mines is continuing to expand, generally speaking. Exploration by private enterprises is very active, and lately the department has granted three major mining reservations on areas containing copper and nickel deposits. These are in the far northern part of the Northwest Territories and their resources can only be explored effectively by major companies with large financial reserves. The companies which have obtained these reservations will spend millions of dollars during the coming years in order to explore the quantities and grades of ore which lie in that part of the region, and the development of these areas would make practical expanded exploration by individual prospectors.
The department has also granted two major oil reservations at Peel plateau lying
[Mr. Lesage-l

across the boundary of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and the Eagle plain in the northern Yukon. Exploration by the companies concerned is going forward and is very active. Apart from these reservations there are 11 million acres in the Northwest Territories under ordinary oil and gas exploration permits.
Last summer we turned to exploit the woodland resources of the Northwest Territories for the first time. To make possible the better management of forest in Wood Buffalo park on the boundary of the Northwest Territories, the department gave five cutting rights following public competition for two major timber berths. This involves cutting rights on about one and a half billion feet board measure of spruce and poplar. It is resulting in the erection of sawmills, a planing mill and a plywood plant; and in the employment of some 250 persons based at Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories. Commercial use of this timber will, no doubt, stimulate interest in the vast timber resources of the Territories.
I could go on to talk about the townsite improvements at Whitehorse and Aklavik-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Before the minister goes on, can he tell us whether or not there has been any survey or estimate made as to the power potentialities of the Northwest Territories, and if so, what estimate has been arrived at?


Jean Lesage: I would be in a position to give the hon. gentleman a figure tomorrow. I do not have it here.
As I was saying, I could go on to talk about townsite improvement at White Horse and Aklavik, and about the large education program which is going forward and the vocational training program for the Eskimos and Indians of the Northwest Territories. We are doing everything we can to deal with the difficult problems we have north of the 60th parallel and especially in the Northwest Territories where the key to economic development is transportation.
Then there is the human problem of this population in the north. We cannot develop 40 per cent of Canada in five years; I do not believe we can have people who are still living in the stone age transferred overnight to the atomic age. We have to proceed regularly and in an orderly fashion, but we are making steady progress and, I am sorry to say, sir, I find that the accusation which was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is certainly unjustified.
During the discussion yesterday, mention was made by a few hon. members, I believe,

of the possibility of setting up an energy board. There exists at the present time an energy committee. Two years ago an interdepartmental committee was established to collect and consolidate all information in the federal government service pertaining to energy. The committee was set up to study the whole energy problem in Canada, and after a couple of meetings it was decided, as a first step, to put the statistical information in order.
A subcommittee was appointed to meet with the dominion statistician and make arrangements whereby there would be a gradual change in reporting on all forms of energy by the dominion bureau of statistics. This was done so that all these statistics could be coordinated and correlated at a focal point, so that anyone who wanted information on energy in Canada could find it in one place and in a form that could be converted and related to a common denominator. For purpose of comparison, coal is used as the common denominator.
The committee is under the chairmanship of Mr. W. Uren, of the dominion coal board. The work of the committee has progressed to the point where it is expected that soon the statistics will be in such a form that they will be extremely useful to provincial governments, industry or anyone who is interested.
The committee proposes to keep this information as up-to-date and useful as possible. The work that is being done appears to be in line with the resolutions adopted by the provincial mines ministers' conference last fall.
The departments who have representatives on the committee are Mines and Technical Surveys, Northern Affairs and National Resources, Trade and Commerce, Finance, National Defence and the national research council and the dominion coal board.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn, if I may, to the amendment that was presented by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I quote from this amendment:
That this house is of the opinion that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources . . .
The Leader of the Opposition also had this to say, and I quote from page 1155 of Hansard:
We do not want a day-to-day course wherein there are great developments in Canada depending on the world situation, but a plan; not a planned economy but a national policy.
So the Leader of the Opposition wishes to have a national plan-an over-all master plan for the development and management of resources in Canada. Mr. Speaker, 1 do not
Natural Resources-Development believe it is up to the federal government to initiate, produce and administer such a national policy according to such a master plan.


John George Diefenbaker: In co-operation with the provinces.


Jean Lesage: That is not in the amendment.
I am sorry.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right.


Jean Lesage: That is not in the amendment, and what the Leader of the Opposition proposed yesterday was a master plan-a national policy. Any such assumption ignores one vital question. Should we take the initiative in the exploitation of resources in the provinces? I say that such an assumption ignores the essential federal character of this country, and it is surprising that such a suggestion should have come from the source it did. If it had come from the C.C.F. party I could have understood it, but here is a party which has always claimed that it was the great defender of provincial rights; and there is nothing that could violate the autonomy of the provinces more than to try to impose or superimpose a national policy with regard to the development and management of natural resources which are the property of the provinces. The use of the term "resource management" helps us to understand who should develop the resources, who should manage them, who should deal with them. Who manages any estate or property? Basically and essentially it must be the person or party who owns the estate or property and in the field of resources in Canada that person or party is normally the province. Under the British North America Act each province has ownership and full control of its lands, forests, mineral resources and water resources. There are a few aspects where the federal government has something to do with resources.


John George Diefenbaker: That was made perfectly clear on several occasions during my speech, and all the minister is doing is producing a straw man.


Jean Lesage: It might have been made clear but it is certainly not clear how this parliament or this government can establish a national policy, a master plan, in the domain of resources without infringing on provincial rights. That I cannot understand.


Mr. Siuder:: They cannot either.


Jean Lesage: In Ontario it is the province of Ontario that owns the mineral resources and it is the province of Ontario that lays down-
1200	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development Mr. Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. That was made very very clear over and over again. At the top of page 1158 I said:
. . . in so far as northern Canada is concerned, there can be no question whatever that in the territories there has not been a policy of vision . . .
And so on.
There is no question of constitutional division of responsibility between the dominion and the provinces in the Northwest Territories.


Jean Lesage: I just said that.


John George Diefenbaker: A little later, dealing with development in general, I said:
We believe that the welfare of the Canadian people requires joint investment from time to time for the development of power and other self-liquidating projects in any province where the government of such province requests the cooperation of the Canadian government . . .
All my hon. friend is doing is simply building up a straw man in order to knock it down.


Jean Lesage: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has built a straw man and he cannot even destroy it. The truth is that the quotations just made by the Leader of the Opposition have regard to joint investment with the provinces. I have not touched that subject yet. I have reproached the Leader of the Opposition for his suggestion of trying to impose or superimpose a national policy for the development of resources by this parliament. That is what I have reproached him for. I do not say we should not invest with the provinces. We co-operate with the provinces all the time in the domain of resources. We are doing it all the time but it is at the request of the provinces that we do it. We do not initiate because we are not the owners of the resources. It is up to the provinces to initiate.
In Ontario the mineral resources are the property of the province of Ontario and it is up to that province how they are going to be exploited, how they are going to be used, what they are going to do with them.


Mr. Hodgson:: May I ask the minister a question? Does he mean to say that the provinces have any say with respect to uranium mining operations in Canada


Jean Lesage: I never said that, sir. On the contrary, uranium was first found in the Northwest Territories at Great Bear Lake-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It was first found in Hali-burton county in 1930.


Jean Lesage: -and being located in the Northwest Territories it was a resource of the federal government. In Quebec the forest resources are the property of the province 

and it is up to the province to manage the forest resources. I do not believe we should try to tell the government of Quebec what it should do with its lumber or pulpwood-


John George Diefenbaker: Who else does?


Jean Lesage: -how it should be exploited. The Leader of the Opposition does when he says that what we need is a national policy for the development and use of our resources.
In general, sir, people believe that much has been done in Canada, especially in recent years, to encourage wise resource management. What the Leader of the Opposition asks, what some people ask and, in fact, what the leader of the C.C.F., I believe, asked yesterday, is whether there is any co-ordination in our resource policy or is it done on a hit or miss basis. I believe those are the very words of the leader of the C.C.F. party.
There is no lack of unanimity or clarity as to what the principles and objectives of a resource policy should be but problems arise when you try to lay down a policy. There is substantial unanimity in Canada as to the principles and objectives of good resource management. But what is a policy? The policy is the action, the action of the person or party who owns the resource. It is not merely a question of principle. It is a question of the application of the principles, and in a country like Canada these problems cannot be settled by any master plan as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
Each case of resource management and development has to be considered on its own merits in relation to the particular resource in question, the locality and the particular interests of each party. There is far more frequent discussion between business, the federal government and provincial governments on specific resource management problems than people realize or know. These meetings are not newsworthy most of the time and therefore they get little publicity. However, it is a fact that consultations on co-operative federal-provincial measures usually are specific rather than general in character. They usually relate to a particular resource and to particular action to develop or manage it, or they will even relate to specific problems of one resource in one area.
This specific and limited method of approach does not mean that resource policy in Canada is simply an untidy mass of "ad hockery". In a broad sense there is an underlying agreement on the fundamentals of resource management, that it should make the best possible use of resources in the public interest, that renewable resources should be managed in a way to renew them

in perpetuity, that their development should be economic and that the best means to ensure that it will be economic is, in general, private enterprise. These fundamentals create a basic consistency in resource management and the principles of resource management.
But to try to impose an over-all blueprint, a national policy, as some understand it, for resource management, to do that is to depart from the facts of our national situation. In a country as vast as Canada, with widely different conditions and with different problems in different areas, there cannot be a single and unified policy for the management of resources. The fact that the British North America Act places resources under the control of the provinces is not a matter of accident or coincidence. It is rather a reflection by the fathers of confederation of the basic facts of our national existence.
Resource problems are generally regional problems or local problems and must be handled on a regional or local basis. Thus it is that the facts dictate and our constitution requires that our resource management be in the hands of the provinces. This is the framework and the background in which we must see the problems of resource management and development in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: That was made clear over and over again.


Jean Lesage: Accordingly, to advocate a national policy on a national basis, as has been done by the Leader of the Opposition, as a responsibility of this parliament or this government is to misread the facts of our economy and the spirit and letter of our constitution.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise on a question of privilege to say this. The minister's entire speech, in so far as the question of constitutional power is concerned, has no reference whatever to the remarks I made and is simply a straw man. Everyone of us believes in the constitution.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let that statement go without quoting again what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) had to say yesterday:
We do not want a day-to-day course wherein there are great developments in Canada depending on the world situation, but a plan; not a planned economy but a national policy; . . .
That is clear.


John George Diefenbaker: And over and over again I mentioned a national policy in co-operation with the provinces requesting assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Calgary North proceeds with his remarks may I just rise for one second to ask the 82715-77
Natural Resources-Development Hansard reporter not to take some of these interjections which are not meant for the record.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the remarks which I intend to make in connection with this resolution, I should like to make some comments on the inaccurate and misleading statements which have just been made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). The minister started out in his speech by saying that the depression of the Conservative period of the thirties held up development in the north and so on. There is no doubt that development in the north was held up by the depression but I should like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative government which held office from 1930 to 1935 inherited the depression from a previous Liberal government. That depression started in 1929 and had been under way for a year when a Conservative government took over and tried to clear up the debris which had accumulated by that time. Any responsibility for holding up development in this country owing to the depression is due to the fact that it was a Liberal government and its policy which brought that depression on in this country or at least accentuated it in this country. It was a world-wide depression but the policy followed by the Liberal party certainly accentuated it as far as Canada was concerned.
The minister made a great point of the fact that the estimates for northern affairs had increased five times in five years. I must say that that situation has only been brought about owing to urgings extending back over many years by members of this party to do more as far as the development of the north and of our resources generally is concerned. When I first came to this house twelve years ago I remember that John R. MacNicol was talking day in and day out about the development of the north and the development of our resources generally across this country. That sort of pressure has been exerted from this side of the house in all that time and I know that it was being exerted many years prior to that time. It has only been after a good deal of urging and after a great deal of pressure being put on the government that they have finally begun to do something as far as the development of our north is concerned.
I might point out that only the year before last, when the estimates of this department were before the estimates committee, members of the opposition made strong pleas for the building of roads and for a survey to be made in connection with the building of a railway in order to open up the northern

Natural Resources-Development territory. At that time the minister kept saying that we cannot do this, that it would not be economic and gave all kinds of reasons why these things could not be done. But last year I was glad to see that they had paid some attention to what we on this side had said and were beginning to talk about building roads, were beginning to talk about making a survey for a railway and of the possibility of building a railway. Therefore in spite of the boasting of the minister about the estimates having been increased five times in five years, I would say it is a direct result of a great deal of pressure put on not only by us but by people all over Canada. It has been slow in coming and has been so far quite inadequate in the amount that has come.
The Minister had something to say about oil and gas exploration in the Northern Territories and apparently took credit to the government for the oil and gas leases which had been made out there, the exploration that is taking place and so on and so forth. The government has had absolutely nothing to do with the oil and gas exploration in the northern territories. It was done by the oil companies and individuals in spite of the government rather than because of any help it gave them. These people were handicapped in their exploration in that country by extremely high costs of transportation into and out of that country owing to the monopolistic practices and monopolistic policies which this department has pursued with regard to transportation into the northern areas. Water transportation has been a government monopoly and air transportation has been closely controlled. People who wanted to get charters to fly in there have been refused them, and so on.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then prices have gone up. They have prevented competition that might have brought the cost of transportation down and thus have encouraged development, particularly oil and gas exploration. I might just say that whenever any development of any kind takes place in this country the government tries to take credit for it. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources did so this afternoon and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) did so yesterday. Actually this development has taken place in a large number of cases in spite of the red-tape regulations and the taxation policies which have been followed by this government and which have tied the hands of the people who were trying to develop the country and have

hindered the individual developers from going ahead and actually getting something done.
Yesterday the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys said that the oil development of Alberta in its early years was built up on the dominion geological surveys. Apparently he does not know the history of oil and gas development in Alberta at all. The first gas development came at Medicine Hat through people just drilling wells looking for water. The first oil development in Turner valley came about because there was an oil and gas seepage there which even the Indians had made use of and which had been known for many years. People went ahead on that basis. I must say that the oil development during the past 15 years has been aided considerably by the geological survey made in recent years. I am not denying that exploration development has been assisted. But as for the government taking any great credit, because of its geological survey, for the oil and gas development in Alberta, it is just ridiculous.
Next the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said that what the Leader of the Opposition proposed in this resolution was a national plan, the sort of thing he would have expected from the C.C.F. party. He was trying to give the impression that what this party has asked for in this resolution not only this year but last year and in previous resolutions in former years was a planned economy. Nothing is farther from the truth. What we have proposed is a national policy which will make development possible, not a national plan which is going to fix people interested in development-individuals-in a cast-iron program and so forth. It is a policy which will make development possible. It would include, of course, irrigation, drainage, forest conservation, transport matters, freight rates and a whole host of things along that line. It is a matter of having policy along all those lines in order to create a favourable climate for development. That is just what this government has not done.
Following that, the minister said that what the government has done is to follow a specific and limited method of approach in this matter. My comment on that statement would be that it is much more limited than it is specific or anything else. In fact, it has been so limited as to be negligible as far as quite a number of things are concerned.
I would say that the policy to be followed, if it is going to be a success, must be such as to make development possible and economic. In other words, it must create this favourable climate for development of which I spoke a short time ago.

All of us in this country have heard repeated many times the statement Sir Wilfrid Laurier made some 50 or 60 years ago that the 20th century would belong to Canada.


An hon. Member:: And it does.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I notice this statement gets great applause from the other side of the house, but I am just going to point out that, while there were many predictions that in this century our population and development would increase in a way comparable to the United States in the 19th century, so far those predictions and hopes have not been realized. It is true that population and development have been moving ahead at a somewhat more rapid rate during the past 15 years, but generally speaking we have not gone ahead in the way it was expected we would at the end of the last century.
The question then arises, Mr. Speaker, as to why the increase in population and development has not met the high hopes of our fathers and grandfathers at the turn of the century. This has not been the result of any lack of natural resources. We have them in the form of arable land, forests, minerals, fisheries and so on, to perhaps a greater extent than any other country. The reasons, therefore, must be looked for elsewhere. External factors, which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) mentioned, have had some effect. The two wars and the great depression were external factors which did slow up our economy and stop the flow of immigrants into this country. There is no doubt that part of the answer lies there, although on the other hand the two wars did stimulate certain industries and cause a considerable amount of development.
However, I believe the main reason we have not gone ahead more rapidly than we have can be found in the general fiscal trade and development policies followed during the past 56 years of this century. I believe they have been wrong in conception and lacking in foresight and imagination. The responsibility for that lies largely with the Liberal party. They have been in power for 41 of these past 56 years, and on their past performance record as well as on the basis of their present attitude, little can be expected from them in the future in the way of development policies and concrete progress in this country. Canadians have greater opportunities for the future than perhaps any other people in the world, but to realize those opportunities we need a national development policy such as is advocated in the amendment we are now discussing.
The natural resources upon which a great nation can be built are here in abundance
Natural Resources-Development but they will not, by themselves, bring development and prosperity. This requires their proper utilization. Natural resources may be divided into two groups or kinds. First there are the renewable resources which are arable lands, forests, fisheries and hydro-electric power; secondly the exhaustible or non-renewable resources, minerals and all kinds of metals, asbestos, etc. on the one hand, and energy producing minerals, coal, oil and gas on the other. Our development during the past 15 years has been chiefly in the direction of the exhaustible resources which we have been producing and, in many cases, shipping out of the country in a raw or semi-processed state.
If we are to realize the great future which is possible for us, we must pursue policies which will ensure a much greater proportion of our exhaustible resources being completely processed in Canada. We must put greater emphasis on the development and proper use of the renewable resources which we will never run out of if they are handled properly. In this connection I would just say, as an aside, that I am glad a committee on land use has been set up in the other place to study that very wide question.
It is an extremely important subject and one upon which a great deal of study could properly be put. I think, as a matter of fact, it may be the crux to the continued and increasing fertility of a very large part of the land in this country.
I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the national development policy with special reference to my own province of Alberta to indicate some of the developments which have taken place there, some which are projected, and to discuss some of the things which can be done to encourage further development. Most Canadians, and those people in other countries who know anything about Canada, associate Alberta chiefly with oil and gas. Since the war there has been an enormous expansion in that industry. The figures in connection with it have been given to this house and have appeared in innumerable newspapers and magazine articles, so I will not take the time of the house to repeat them. The situation may be summarized in this way. A vigorous exploration program has established sufficient reserves of gas to meet the foreseeable needs of the country, both as fuel and as an energy source, for at least 20 years. An exploration program has discovered oil reserves sufficient to meet Canada's needs for about the same length of time. The commercial development of the Athabaska tar sands now under way indicates that these tar sands will be the chief world reserve of oil in the years ahead when the present oil
1204	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development being secured from wells has been exhausted, and, as a matter of fact, will enter into use commercially starting about 1960. In other words, much has been accomplished so far as oil and gas development is concerned.
However, this development is being held up by the tax laws under which the oil and gas industry operate. Even more important, I think, is the fact that Canadian companies are at a disadvantage as compared with United States companies, with the result that Canadians have been unable to play as large a part as they should, or as they would, under more equitable tax laws. The Gordon commission report dealt with this matter, and I should like to refer to it. I am reading from a summary put out by the Department of External Affairs, page 7, taxation of the oil and gas industry. This summary states what the criticisms are so far as the oil and gas people are concerned.
There are three important criticisms of our tax system in so far as the oil and gas industry is concerned, viz:
(a)	Canadians are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis United States operators in the Canadian oil and gas fields.
(b)	Certain acquisition and property costs are not allowed as deductions in computing taxable income.
(c)	The method of computing depletion allowances is not as favourable as in the United States.
For some years these have been the complaints of the people in the oil and gas industry. They were voiced in the house every year when the budget was under consideration and the Minister of Finance and the government generally have been asked to do something to make the situation better. The Gordon report makes these suggestions. They are more or less of a compromise between what we have at the present time and what the oil and gas industry has asked for. They are:
1.	Acquisition costs should be allowed as deductions in computing taxable income subject to provisions against pyramiding.
2.	Present methods of computing depletion allowances should be changed. Either a lower rate of tax should be charged on profits earned from exploration and production activities or the depletion allowance should take the form of a deduction from the gross profits earned from production.
I would hope-and I ask-that the Minister of Finance would at the very least adopt these suggestions contained in the Gordon report and incorporate them in this year's budget.
Any reasonable national development policy, of course, would contain taxation features which would make possible the reasonable development of our natural resources not only as far as oil and gas are concerned, but as far as other natural resources go. That should all be included in a national development policy worthy of the name. In order to make a start on the thing, 

once again I reiterate that the Minister of Finance should at least incorporate these Gordon commission recommendations in his budget of this year.
Now, although in recent years attention has been focused chiefly on Alberta oil and gas resources, they do not constitute our greatest resources for the long pull. That lies in the large area of arable land in our province, which is the greatest of any province in Canada. Except for a small corner in the north-east covered by the Canadian shield, rock formation, and the mountainous area of the south-west where we border on British Columbia, all the rest of the province could be used for agriculture. It is true that there is a good deal of muskeg in the area west of of Edmonton and in the northern part of the province; but much of this, with drainage, could be made into the richest of land. As an example of that, I point to the Holland marsh in Ontario which, once it was drained, has proved to be the best vegetable-growing piece of land in the province. There are very large areas in Alberta which consist of swamps or muskeg or marshes, or whatever you like to call them, which similarly could be turned into extremely valuable agricultural lands by drainage, and much of that drainage could be put in at a very small cost.
The opening up of new areas for agriculture has been very slow in recent years. It has been slow because the policies which this government has followed have depressed agriculture and, of course, with a depressed agriculture there is no incentive for any individual or any province to go ahead with the opening up of new lands for agricultural purposes.
The building of railways in order to open up any of these areas in the northern part of Alberta has not been considered because the surpluses of agricultural products which we already have, have depressed the markets and the distance that these areas would be from a market would make their development for agricultural purposes uneconomic at the present time. I should like to point out, however, that this will not always be so. Plans to open up these possible and potential growing areas should be under active consideration and plans should be under way for the building of railways into them.
Railways into those areas would not alone serve to open them up for agricultural purposes. They would also serve to open them up for the purpose of making use of some of the minerals in the northern areas. We advocated a railway, which I mentioned just briefly previously up to the Great Slave lake in order to make possible the use and exploitation of the very large mineral

deposits there, particularly those at Pine Point. It would, of course, go through an area which would then be opened up for agricultural development.
The chief difficulty that western agriculture has been up against in recent years has been the inability to sell the wheat which we have grown, and the consequent building up of very large surpluses which, together with the world surpluses, to which the United States is the greatest contributor, have depressed prices. The Gordon commission comments on this at page 31. I will just read a sentence from the report:
The difficulties of today notwithstanding,-
They are talking about the surplus, and so forth. I continue:
The difficulties of today notwithstanding, if our estimates of foreign and domestic demand are reasonable ones, it does not seem that Canada should plan any permanent reduction from the present acreage sown to wheat.
I do not know what they mean by "permanent reduction from the present acreage sown to wheat", but if they have any reference to conditions as they exist, and as they are likely to exist in the next few years at least, I disagree with the commission's finding in this regard. I do not think they paid sufficient attention, probably, to the situation in other countries, especially in the United States. There has been a very great increase in the production of wheat in other countries of the world and particularly in the United States. In the United States it has been produced on a smaller acreage. At the same time we have the fact that in the United States, in spite of a very large increase in population, they are consuming less wheat than they did before. I have a few figures that I should like to put on the record in that connection. In the 10-year period 1930-1939 the United States produced an average 746 million bushels of wheat per year but in the 10-year period 1945-1954 they produced 1,145 million bushels of wheat per year. During the period 1930-1939 they consumed 685 million bushels of wheat annually, but in the latter period, 1945-1954, they consumed only 680 million bushels of wheat per year. In other words, they consumed 5 million bushels less in spite of the fact that their population increased during that period by many millions. To some extent the same thing has been true in other countries. The total production of wheat in the four large exporting countries, Canada, the United States, Australia and Argentina in the period 1930-1939 was 1,488 million bushels per year, but in the period 1945-1954 it was 1,973 million bushels yearly. In other words, in the world as a whole, and particularly in the United
Natural Resources-Development States, production has gone up but consumption has not gone up to anything like the same extent. Therefore, I think that unless there is a great world drought, which I do not think is likely and which we all certainly hope will not take place, we can not expect to sell our present wheat production for many years to come. Consequently, I believe our policy should be to reduce acreage, to put this acreage into grass and into coarse grains and thus increase livestock production.
Our policy should be along that line. It should be a conservation policy designed to retain the fertility of the soil as well as cutting down our production of wheat and increasing our production of livestock, which it would appear we could fairly safely do.
I find the recommendations of the Gordon commission with regard to agriculture extremely contradictory. Let us examine what they say on page 27 of the report:
. . . the anticipated growth of the domestic market and a continuation of the trend toward increasing consumption of meats; these factors, taken together, will result in substantially more hog raising, particularly on the prairies, and in more cattle raising in all parts of Canada.
In other words the commission envisages a bigger market for livestock but it not only suggests no way to increase production but actually recommends the very things which will hold down production. The report goes on to say:
Settlement policies designed to bring more land under cultivation were essential in the early days; and other programs with the purpose of inducing expansion of production may have been appropriate.
This is a policy of defeatism which the commission recommends as far as agriculture is concerned. At page 27 the report continues:
Under the conditions of today and of the near future such policies and programs would tend to have a depressing effect on farm prices and incomes. We suggest that substantial irrigation projects, while desirable from the standpoint of local areas, could be harmful rather than helpful to farmers in the aggregate.
It appears obvious from what I have read that the commission is recommending there should be no increase in irrigation projects or anything of that sort and thus what they really recommend is that we do all those things which will prevent the increase in the production of livestock which they claim is necessary. They recommend that we retain our present wheat acreage, that we open up no new land for agriculture and build no new irrigation projects. A great proportion of the land in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan can economically and profitably grow only wheat because coarse grains do not do well on that dry land. If we are going to increase livestock production we will have to put in irrigation in order to provide pasture and hay to see the cattle through the

Natural Resources-Development winter and in order to grow coarse grain. All these things are recommended against in the report. I would hope that the policies that would be followed as far as agriculture is concerned would be opposite to the recommendations contained in the Gordon commission report.
The Red Deer river irrigation project which could be launched in Alberta would make possible the development of a large and profitable livestock industry on what is now some of the driest land in the province. A project of this nature certainly should be realized. What we should be laying definite plans for and proceeding with to some extent is the opening up of new areas by railways and highways.
Turning to another matter for a moment I might point out that Alberta has a vast forest area, a large percentage of which is composed of straight pulpwood; in other words, the trees are not very large although there is also a great deal of saw lumber. In spite of the size of the forest areas of Alberta, many of them located close to railways and with highways running through them, no pulp and paper mills have been established in Alberta so far. One is being built at the present time and another is projected. This long delay in establishing pulp and paper plans in our province in spite of the wood that is there and the way in which the business has flourished in the last 15 or 20 years has been entirely due, I think, to the high and discriminatory freight rates under which we suffer in that province. We are at the very apex of the freight rate structure and as long as the structure remains as it is we in Alberta are going to have great difficulty in establishing industries. The pulp and paper industry is an outstanding example because there has been a great demand for pulp and paper. It has been one of the most profitable industries in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and the maritime provinces. In spite of the supply of wood that is available in Alberta it is only at this time with the price as it is today that there has been any attempt to develop a pulp and paper industry in Alberta. This points up the fact that we are discriminated against by the freight rate structure.
While I am dealing with the subject of forests I might say that the eastern Rockies forest conservation scheme is a good example of what can be done by federal and provincial co-operation in matters of this kind. That scheme which was carried on for some five years through co-operation between the two governments and which has now been turned over to the provincial government for administration will mean that a large area on
IMr. Harkness-1

the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains will eventually be reforested and in the meantime the forests that are left there will be protected from loss through fire. This will have extremely far-reaching effects not only so far as the supply of pulpwood and timber is concerned-that will be one of the minor effects-but also with relation to the spring run-off. Perhaps the greatest effect will be to prevent the spring run-off from being as rapid as it has been and will assist in preventing many of our streams drying up, so they will be available for irrigation, stockwatering purposes and so on.
I believe that a national development policy should certainly have included in it many provisions for reforestation schemes, forest conservation schemes and measures of that kind to be executed as co-operative ventures between the federal and provincial governments as was the case with the eastern Rockies forest conservation scheme.
Another matter of importance is the vast coal resources of Alberta. The great bulk of Canadian coal lies in the province of Alberta. I have forgotten the exact figure but I believe between 11 per cent and 13 per cent of the world's known coal reserves are located in the province of Alberta. You might say that the province is virtually underlain by coal. Despite the extremely large reserves of coal in Alberta the industry in that province has dwindled continually. A number of the towns that were growing and thriving have now become ghost towns in which no one lives except a watchman. This has been due, of course, to the dieselization of the railways, to the increasing use of gas and the increasing use of oil for heating. Apparently, however, there is no policy on the part of this government to make any use of the great reserves of coal. There seems to be no plan calling for anything of an important nature being done in the way of research so that the vast coal deposits might be used as the basis of chemical industries. Coal is the basis of chemical industries. That coal might be used as a source of electric power or a source of gas when the supply of natural gas runs out. These are all avenues which should be under active exploration, but I feel very little is being done about them.
Another matter is this: the coal people in Crowsnest pass have themselves been trying to save their own industry and save their population, and continue to provide employment for their workers there by using that coal to develop an iron smelting industry. There are iron ore deposits in that area and, of course, there is plenty of limestone-all three of the chief essentials for an iron industry. They have carried oh quite extensive geological surveys and made engineering

studies and so on with a view to establishing an iron and steel industry there in Crows-nest pass.
As tar as I know they have really had no government assistance except tor some help from the geological survey department. Again, the chief stumbling block which prevents the project going ahead is this question of the inequitable freight rates from which we suffer in Alberta particularly, although this applies, of course, to all of western Canada. These freight rates are the chief and determining factor with regard to this project, and the same applies in the case of all industrial development in our province.
The freight rate structure as it exists serves, in effect, as an internal tariff barrier which operates against us iri Alberta in just the same way as a tariff against, say, the United States, or Britain or Japan would operate; and until that internal tariff barrier is removed it is going to be very difficult for us in Alberta to go ahead with the industrial and other development which could and should be taking place there.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on a national development policy in only a few of its aspects and as it might be employed to increase development and prosperity in my own province of Alberta. Some of the other aspects have been dealt with in other speeches by hon. members. The necessity for such a policy is self-evident, and I say: let us get on with it.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, this omnibus motion put forward by the official opposition is, in my humble opinion, another example of their almost complete disregard of the rules and precedents of the House of Commons as exemplified last year and so far this session.
This motion embraces almost every economic aspect of Canadian development. There are at least five, and perhaps six, private members' motions on the order paper which would embrace various aspects of our development, and this motion appears to me to be an attempt to steal the thunder of the opposition members and of some members on the government side.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will they vote for it, then?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The sponsors of the motion
are making political hay while the sun shines, anticipating, perhaps, something in the hear future by way of a general election. But I do not think they need be in such a rush. The people are beginning to find them out with this kind of talk.
The motion asks that the government set up a national policy for development. It
Natural Resources-Development is hard for those of us who sat on this side of the house last spring listening to the official opposition arid others fight to the death to prevent the start of the greatest national project that Canada has ever undertaken, the Trans-Canada pipeline-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Rot.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -to understand why they should put forward a resolution in these terms. At that time the opposition chose to disregard the rules and precedents of this house, and almost brought the house into disrepute. As I say, it is difficult for us to understand their present action. However, the resolution does provide a very wide field and I intend to take advantage of that as other hon. members have done.
I will refer for a moment to the speech made last evening by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) who spent most of his time eulogizing the provincial government of British Columbia. I neither deny nor approve of what he said. But at the conclusion of his speech I questioned him as to the stand he was taking with respect to the amendment, and after having made a 30-minute speech he was unable to tell me whether he approved of the motion or whether he disapproved. That is an indication, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition are bringing in motions which are designed almost entirely for political purposes and intended to disrupt the orderly procedure of the House of Commons.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The orderly procedure of the steamroller, you mean.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Peace River introduced the question of the extension of railways. He thought that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway had lost all of their pioneering spirit; they were unwilling to extend the railroad to the Pine Point district. That is a subject, Mr. Speaker, that could have been discussed twice under private members' resolutions, but it was introduced under this omnibus motion.
I had intended speaking on one of those resolutions and supporting the suggestion that the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways should extend the line to Pine Point. My particular reason for making such a request is that such an extension would open up a large body of lead and zinc ore, which would have the effect of prolonging the life of the great Sullivan mine.
The Sullivan mine is located in my riding in British Columbia, and a large town-as mining towns go-of about 6,500 people has been built there almost entirely centring around the life of the mine. There is no immediate danger of the ores being depleted,

Natural Resources-Development that is, for some years to come. However, the development of the lead and zinc resources at Pine Point, where I understand the owners or part-owners, at least-the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company-are ready to take out about 800 tons of concentrates daily, would prolong the life of this great mine at Kimberley, thereby protecting the investment and interests of a large number of my constituents. As I say, the matter has been introduced in this debate, and for that reason I am mentioning it.
The hon. member for Peace River said that the two great railway companies have lost their pioneering spirit, and then he went on immediately to discuss the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, which is, of course, another railroad. But immediately, he asked the federal government to come to the rescue and build the railroad to the far north. Where is their pioneering spirit? I am one who has continually petitioned the government to give further assistance to the P.G.E. It is a great provincial railroad, and it will work in the best interests of the province, but when we present these arguments we should keep our consistency relatively stable.
The speech to which I listened with greatest concern yesterday was that of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), who seeks to prove by his misconception of the facts that there is a large body of members on this side of the house who are prepared to give all our natural resources to the Americans and be content to sit back and play second fiddle. In my opinion he has misrepresented the facts regarding the entire natural gas development in Canada beginning with my early days in the house in 1949. Last evening the hon. member had this to say respecting the development of natural gas in British Columbia.


Mr. Green:: What page?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Page 1171 of Hansard for February 11, near the bottom of the page on the right-hand side. He said:
First of all there Is natural gas. We have heard a lot about natural gas in this chamber in the last eight years.
No truer words were ever spoken.


Howard Charles Green: We are hearing a lot right now.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. piember went on to attempt to prove that and referred to the fact that some members on this side of the house, including me, were prepared and willing to grant a charter to a natural gas transmission company which was willing to build a pipe line through southern British Columbia along the border either entirely on the Canadian side or with a section in the United States,


having attempted to prove that we were prepared to give away our birthright because we were willing to grant the charter, the hon. member went on to say:
We would get Canadian gas after the people of the United States had had all they wanted, if there was any left.
If that is not direct misrepresentation of what the actual facts are, I do not know what it is. Those words bear remembering. I ask hon. members to keep those words in mind as they are related to some of the actual facts and figures I intend to present in a few minutes. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra went on to say:
My good friend, the hon. member for Kootenay East-
I wish to assure the hon. member that his salutation is reciprocated.
-was one of the main advocates of such a course. I do not blame him, because he represents that part of British Columbia.
I want to say categorically that as a member of parliament I have never taken a parochial attitude. When there are matters of concern to my own constituency I work for them wholeheartedly, but in this particular instance my concern was for the people of British Columbia generally and more particularly for the vast number of people in the lower mainland of British Columbia including the riding of Kootenay West and my own riding of Kootenay East.
I have said that my concern was for the whole lower mainland of British Columbia. I am also concerned about the northern portions but they are being developed very rapidly and undoubtedly will receive great benefits from the natural gas pipe line under construction through the rugged interior. I shall have something to say on that later in my speech.
The company to which I refer, the Alberta Natural Gas Company, proposed to build a line from southern Alberta joining with an Alberta grid and would have built a line through the Crowsnest pass which would have served the communities to which the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) referred a few moments ago. These communities would have been provided with natural gas and the scrubbing of the gas that probably would have been taken from the Pincher Creek area would have resulted in the development of a large by-product plant. Many of the people in the Crowsnest area on the Alberta side would have been employed in that plant rather than working for two or three days a week as they have been for the past several years in the coal mines.
The hon. member for Cariboo pointed out last night that that type of industry is going

to be developed at the wellhead in northern British Columbia. Therefore it holds true that the same thing would have taken place in the Crowsnest pass area where people are unemployed at the present time, people whose homes are there and who are ready to work.
The line would have continued through to Cranbrook and would have supplied that small city of about 4,000 people. I am using the figures presented at the time the pipe line company was seeking a charter. The line would have served Kimberley, the home of the largest lead-zinc mine in the world and a city of about 6,500 people. It would have continued on to Creston and have served another community there of about 3,000 people. It would have continued on from Creston over the proposed Creston-Salmo highway route to Trail.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member contending that the plan of the promoters was not to go down into the states at Kings gate long before they even got to Creston?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Before answering the hon. member's question, I want to remind him that while he was speaking yesterday I sought to ask questions, and I was allowed only one question. If the hon. member will assure me that he will not interrupt me during the rest of my speech I will be glad to answer his question.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead. That is fair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If a man asks you to go with him a mile, go with him twain.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre like to get into this debate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am just offering a helpful suggestion.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The application by the Alberta Natural Gas Company was to build a line to serve almost the identical market as that proposed to be served by the successful bidder for the franchise, Westcoast Transmission Company. To satisfy the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and some others who maintained that the line must be built over the top of the mountains at all costs, the Alberta Natural Gas Company was prepared to build the line entirely within Canada. No lines would be built in the United States whatsoever except the feeder lines that would be required for heavy users such as the atomic energy plant at Hanover, the city of Spokane, and so on. So I hope that answers the question.


Howard Charles Green: Of course that was not the main point at all.
Natural Resources-Development


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I say that their plan was to go into the United States. If the hon. member will bear with me, I will give him some figures that might cause him to begin to wonder whether his plan was the wisest one after all. They would have continued to Trail, where at that time there was a consuming public of 12,000 souls. However, according to the evidence as set down by Mr. A. F. Dixon who was appearing for the company, and I think that no one disputes his knowledge of pipe lines and their economy, he pointed out that Trail and Hanover, Washington-that is the atomic energy plant, which is directly south of Trail-would consume as much natural gas as the entire Vancouver area; that is the lower mainland. So while the population of about 30,000 souls in Kootenay and West Kootenay was not large, yet the consumption of gas itself would be certainly very large indeed. The line then would have continued on to the Okanagan and from there into the Vancouver area.
To prove my contention that Trail would be a large consumer, the largest consumer in Canada, the one single plant together with the small atomic energy plant would use as much as the greater Vancouver area I shall later quote a text. These were the figures, of course, in 1951. Undoubtedly there have been changes since that time.
The Consolidated company, being a large consumer, would have been treated by the Alberta Natural Gas Company as a distributor and would have received the gas at the distributor's rate or in other words at the wholesale price. I do not know what their plans were but undoubtedly the cities of Trail, Tadanac, Warfield and Rossland would have enjoyed much the same consideration.
I will quote from the report of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in the first session of 1950, at page 65. This question was asked by Mr. Ferguson:
Q. You will sell to the people who have that franchise already?
A. Yes, the only exception to that will be in the gas supplied to the Consolidated Smelting Company at Trail and to the atomic commission.
That would be the atomic energy commission in Hanover, Washington. And further on:
Q. Trail and the atomic energy commission?
A. Yes, they have a much larger market than the city of Vancouver.
That is a quotation which means that those two consumers would consume as much as the entire Vancouver area. The witness was later

Natural Resources-Development asked by Mr. Smith with respect to an agreement with Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and he said:
The figures given to us by officials from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company are to the effect that there will be three billion a year as a minimum and 5.3 billion a year that they say is possible depending, as I said yesterday, on some developments that are going on there now, whether they can use the gas satisfactorily.
The new development has been completed. The five billion would have been consumed. It seems to me that at a figure of 30 cents a thousand cubic feet it would run around $5,000 worth of gas a day, quite a considerable amount.
It was my contention and that of some of the other members on this side of the house that, inasmuch as the pipe line was going to serve a single market, the economic and the sensible thing to do would have been to build the line to the markets and at the least possible cost. During the committee it was shown and not disputed that the line through the southern part of the province would cost considerably less and owing to the fact that consumption would begin almost at the wellhead the actual cost of the transmission would be greatly reduced indeed.
It seemed that Westcoast Transmission were extremely anxious to obtain the franchise. They realized as did everyone else that on one line, and one line only, of those proportions could be built into this marketing area and that the market just did not warrant two lines at that time. Westcoast Transmission appeared before the Alberta petroleum and natural gas conservation board and was quoted to have said as follows and I am quoting again from the text referred to earlier at page 105. The witness was being questioned as to how the price would be related, whether the price would be consistent all along the line or whether a consumer at the far end of the line would have to pay more than would a consumer near the wellhead. Mr. Dixon stated that it was the policy of all pipe-line companies, and certainly had been the policy of the pipe-line companies in the United States, to consider the fact that the line was only made economically feasible because of the consumers along the line, that each one would pay an equal price.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked a question as follows:
Q. I asked you that, Mr. Dixon, because in the reports of the evidence given before the Alberta Natural Gas and Petroleum Board-I am quoting from a dispatch of February 18, from Calgary, which reports this evidence having been given there in the hearings of the Westcoast Transmission Company:
"We plan to go through the Yellowknife pass; they say the total cost in Vancouver will be 29.2 per cent."


I suppose that is 29.2 cents. Then the witness replies:
A. Pardon me, that is not a correct statement.
1 was there and heard what was said.
Q. It says United States points will have to pay an additional 6.4 per cent-
I want the house to pay particular attention to this.
-per thousand feet bringing the cost there to 35.6 per cent, so apparently this other company is planning to charge a higher rate in the cities that are further away from the source of the gas.
It appears that the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra was seeking to prove that the Alberta natural gas company, if it received a permit to build a portion of the line through the United States, could conceivably charge the people of Vancouver a higher rate than those consumers in the United States. He was attempting to prove this by questioning Mr. Dixon on the evidence Westcoast Transmission Company Limited had presented before the Alberta natural gas and petroleum board.
What was the inevitable result? It is my understanding, and I think my figures are correct, that the price at which gas now being delivered into the line, or will be delivered into the line to the United States companies, is considerably less than the price at which it will be delivered to distributors in Canada. These figures are taken from public documents tabled with the board of transport commissioners. The Westcoast Transmission Company has entered into an agreement with the Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corporation to provide 200 million cubic feet per day initially, increasing to 300 million cubic feet per day on January 1, 1959, with provision for a further increase by agreement of the parties to 400 million cubic feet per day. The price on a 90 per cent load factor basis is 22J cents per thousand cubic feet prior to January 1, 1959, and 22 cents thereafter; that is a reduction from 22J cents to 22 cents. This is the transmission company from the United States that initially opposed the application by Westcoast Transmission to export gas into the United States. The federal power commission of the United States refused to accept the importation of that gas until the price was brought down to that figure. Now, a line built by a more economic route could have undoubtedly met this price at a profit.
What is happening in the lower mainland and Vancouver? The British Columbia Electric will pay to the Westcoast Transmission an average of 30.7 cents per thousand cubic feet. The Inland Natural Gas, which intends to distribute the gas in the interior of British Columbia-I am hopeful they will be able to do so at an early date-will receive gas at a

similar figure. There may be some explanation for these figures. There may be something that would explain why, after all of these assurances that natural gas would be sold to Canadians at more favourable prices, Canadians have to pay 30 cents while the Northwest Pacific Pipeline Corporation will be receiving gas at 22J and 22 cents. It was for that reason that I, perhaps in my ignorance, supported the chartering of a company which would have enabled the company to apply to the various agencies to obtain permission to build the pipe line. Two or three times during a session the hon. member for Yancouver-Quadra attempts to mislead the public, as he has done in the past, regarding this pipeline question.
Now, there is no comparison between the Trans-Canada Pipe Line and the Westcoast Transmission Line or any pipe line which would be providing gas for the lower mainland of British Columbia and the northwest Pacific. The bulk of the gas coming to the east will be used in eastern Canada, and of course we have this huge consumer, the International Nickel Company, in northern Ontario. I do not want the hon. member to think, therefore, that there is any connection, in so far as policy is concerned, between these two lines. The Westcoast Transmission Company, or any other line which may be serving British Columbia and the northwest Pacific, is doing so on the basis of at least 85 to 90 per cent of the gas going to United States markets. When I say that, I want to hasten to assure the house and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that I do not subscribe to this hate America campaign that has been carried on recently both in the house and in the newspapers by some hon. members. All I want is to have these things done economically and in the best interests of Canadians generally. I am sure when they are done on the most economical basis, then that is for the greatest good of all Canadians.
But let us get back to Inland Natural Gas, which will now join the main line somewhere along the Fraser river. I do nbt know just exactly where they intend to make their connection, but before their line ever reaches the largest potential consumer they will have travelled 400 or 500 miles, so this great consumer in West Kootenay will be at the end of a pipe line anywhere from 1,100 to 1,400 miles long. A line directly across British Columbia through Crowsnest pass would provide them with gas at a distance of perhaps 250 miles or 300 miles from the wellhead.
While the Alberta Natural Gas Company did not have any firm contracts, they had discussions with the Consolidated Mining and :Smelting Company and were prepared to
Natural Resources-Development supply them, as I said earlier, on the basis of their being a distributor, and the gas would have been economically competitive in their metallurgical plant. I had occasion to discuss this and other matters not so long ago with the western general manager. I questioned him directly as to whether or not they intended to make use of the natural gas which would be coming to them through Westcoast Transmission and Inland Natural Gas. The answer was that the price was too far out of line; that it was not competitive with their present fuel. Therefore this great plant, under present circumstances, will not be able to use the natural gas. Where do we go from there?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Hansell:: May I ask the hon. gentleman just one question. I listened rather attentively and I am not yet able to determine whether he is in favour of the amendment or against it? Would he mind stating his position?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, it is with very great regret that I find I am unable to conclude my remarks. As I said, the field was so large that I just could not remain within the time limit. I wish to assure the hon. member that, like the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, I feel the provinces are doing an excellent job and that we should in no way interfere with their development of their natural resources unless they make representations to the federal government. For that reason I shall oppose the amendment.


Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the question before the house is a proposal by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of his party calling on this parliament to adopt a national development policy. It is a very wide subject and one in which every Canadian must find interest because, if such a step were taken, it would affect every part of this country.
So far the discussion has-and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will pardon me for using this term; it is not meant to show any disrespect to him-has sounded very materialistic. That is to say, in my opinion it has not been related to the needs of the Canadian people. We have talked so far in terms of development as if we were talking of development for the sake of development, as if we were to develop our resources in a sort of vacuum without it being related to the everyday lives of the Canadian people. It is from that point of view particularly that I wish to say a few words today.
1212	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development
My colleagues in this group and I feel that certainly this parliament should do everything possible, along with private industry, to develop this country in every possible respect, but in doing so the public interest must be given first position. We must at all times be conscious of the fact that our resources, our industry and our whole capital structure are here for the people, and not the reverse. The people are not here to serve the economic system; the economic system is here to serve the people, and it is our duty as representatives of the people to find ways and means in which it can serve the public interest in the most efficient and fairest manner. The attitude of our party is set out very clearly in a statement which was issued approximately a month ago by the national council of the C.C.F. I would like to put it on the record. It consists of only one paragraph and I think it is worth while. We state:
The C.C.F. believes that the people themselves, through their democratically elected governments, should have the final voice in determining the nature and direction of our economic development. This means that our governments-both federal and provincial-must play a much more active part in the nation's economic life than is permitted under the old-fashioned laissez-faire philosophy of the Liberal, Progressive Conservative and Social Credit parties.
Now, let us relate that to the motion before the house. After having analysed carefully the proposal in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition and then trying to discover by reading his speech and the speeches of those in his group who spoke after him how they would go about bringing that into effect, I must admit that I found it very frustrating. It was somewhat like trying to find a black cat in a dark room, particularly when the cat was not there.
Once again it seems to me the Leader of the Opposition has carefully hung his clothes on a hickory limb and has refused to go into the water. He has placed before this house the proposition that we should adopt a national development policy, and then has failed to tell us what his party would do to bring about such a policy. The closest he came to it was when he used the words which have already been quoted by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, where he said, as reported at page 1155 of Hansard:
We do not want a day-to-day course wherein there are great developments in Canada depending on the world situation, but a plan; not a planned economy but a national policy.
Well, now, that is really a mouthful of words, but that is how it is. He wants a plan; he wants a national policy with a plan. The words themselves I do not think were thrown in casually. Taking into


account the responsibility that is carried by the Leader of the Opposition as a potential or possible next prime minister of this country, I think the words must have been weighed very deliberately. I took careful note of them the second or third time I read them and wondered why he related great developments to the world situation. I just wonder whether he did not have in the back of his mind when he used those words, "great developments in Canada depending on the world situation" the experience of the economy of this country as it developed following the second world war.
This is exactly the point at which my colleagues and I have been driving for many years. We have been pointing out that our economy, unfortunately, seems to expand and boom only as a result of some international conflict or threatened conflict.
In the 10-year period from 1930 to 1940, when Canada and the rest of the world were relatively at peace, we had the same resources in this country that we have now; and though our population was smaller it was certainly as intelligent, capable and energetic as it is today, yet this country stagnated. We were told by one federal government after another-and here I distribute favours equally, because we had both a Liberal and a Conservative government during that period-that we could not do this or that simply because there was no money.
Despite the fact that members of the C.C.F. group tried again and again to prove to the government of the day and to the people that after all money was production, and as long as people were capable of applying themselves to the resources of our nation that in itself was the creation of money and not the paper it was printed on, it took a war with its attendant suffering, bloodshed and destruction to wake up the government of the day and make them realize that it is possible to use our own energies, resources and ingenuity to develop our own nation. Now we find ourselves faced with many of the same problems.
What are some of the things the Leader of the Opposition complains of and wants action upon? I have divided his motion into five parts for convenience. He may have arranged the points in a different order, but here are the five parts I took out of it. In the first place he wants greater development, of our natural resources. Second, he wishes-something done to encourage greater processing, that is more secondary industries, rather than letting our raw materials go-elsewhere for processing. Third, he wants something done to correct our unfavourable-

trade balance. Fourth, he wants wider Canadian financial participation in companies which are subsidiaries of parent companies in the United States, particularly or in other foreign countries. Fifth, he desires greater opportunities for employment.
These are all very laudable objectives, and in my opinion are matters that require some attention. Unfortunately, however, neither the hon. gentleman nor any of his colleagues has so far given us a clue as to what they would do about any of these matters except in one instance, and I want to refer to that right now, when the Leader of the Opposition in his address, as will be found at page 1156 of Hansard for February 11, referred to the speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Chicago on October 16, 1956. He put on the record four requests, if one might call them that, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce made of these United States corporations as their business applies to their subsidiaries in Canada, and he quoted this with approval. I want to use his own words. He said: Among the things he asked for were those which he had ridiculed when they were advanced by this party over and over again. In the course of his speech there he said this:	1. Let Canadians
have a chance to become minority shareholders in subsidiaries. 2. Provide more opportunity for advancement of Canadians to top jobs. 3. Let Canadian branch plants take on more export business. 4. Make public more information on branch operations in Canada.
Those were four of the things which the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Chicago asked the United States corporations to provide, and the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that these were the objectives which his party had advocated in this country and in this house.
I am not going to deal with all four requests, but let us examine the first one. The Leader of the Opposition quotes with approval as one of his party's great objectives, "Let Canadians have a chance to become minority shareholders in subsidiaries". Now, Mr. Speaker, is that an objective worthy of a great national policy? If Sir John A. Macdonald could hear this I wonder how he would feel hearing the Leader of the Opposition say that he approves as an objective the plea, "Let Canadians have a chance to become minority shareholders in subsidiaries". Have we sunk so low in relation to our good neighbour to the south that we would be satisfied if they would only let us have a small share of their subsidiaries in our own country?
Is that a great national policy? I am sure Sir John A. Macdonald would have brushed that aside and called it petty and unworthy of this great nation. We have the resources and the population, yet we are begging great
Natural Resources-Development United States corporations to please let us have a small piece of control over their subsidiaries in our own country. That is why I say that if we are going to realize any of these objectives we are going to have to seek wider public participation.
This brings us squarely to the fundamental difference between the approach of the C.C.F. party and the approach of the other parties in this house. I say that with all due respect. They have their points of view and are entitled to them and I respect their points of view; but certainly when they come before parliament and stand in the public forum and say to the Canadian people, "We want to accomplish the five things contained in this motion but we want to do this without any planning, without any public ownership and without any interference by the government", they should not expect to command support for their point of view.
Just to make matters more confused the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources rose to his feet immediately after the Leader of the Opposition put forward his motion and pointed out all the reasons why none of these things could be done by the federal government. As if the motion was not weak enough to start with the minister appeared to want to completely demolish it, if I may use that term. Is that the kind of thing that will bring about the changes set out in this motion, or at some point will we say to ourselves, "If we want to develop our nation and mobilize the natural, material and human resources of Canada for the greatest benefit of all people in this country, then this government and the provincial governments and municipal governments will have to meet and discuss and co-operate in finding a field in which each can most properly apply itself to accomplish these things. We must not sit back and wait for some magic wand to be waved by some huge corporation in the United States in order that these things may be done for us."
Either we are serious about this matter or we are not. If we are serious that it is the function of government as such, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, to use its organizational power and its financing power to bring about these developments, then I should not think we would need to waste time waiting upon some private institutions to do it but should get together on all levels of government.
We do not need to be involved in an argument on the question of provincial autonomy. The Canadian constitution, the British North America Act, is there for all to read. All of us may not interpret it in exactly the same way, but there is fairly common agreement

Natural Resources-Development as to how the powers are divided; there is really no basic conflict about that in this country. The provinces know what their jurisdiction is, the federal government know what is theirs, and the municipalities know what is theirs.
There is nothing in the British North America Act which says these three governments cannot get together and participate in joint projects for the benefit of all the people of Canada. I do not believe there is a premier of any province of this country who would not co-operate if he saw the federal government proposing something which was going to be for the benefit of the people of his province as well as the benefit of the people of every province.
This bogey of provincial autonomy can be removed from the whole argument, and then the question boils down to this. Does this parliament believe that it has a public function, that public enterprise has a field in which it shall operate, or does it not; or does it believe it should be left to private enterprise entirely and that we should be simply back seat drivers?
Now, we in the C.C.F. party make it quite clear that we believe there is a wide and important field for public enterprise, and we believe there should be basic economic planning. I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, why this word "planning", particularly when it is associated with the word "economic", should be such a terrible word in the view of some hon. members of this house. I have heard fairly violent reaction to that term "economic planning". Some people say, "Oh, that is interference. That is terrible, and we will have nothing to do with it."
But let us imagine, Mr. Speaker, that this chamber, instead of being the chamber of the House of Commons, was a chamber in which was taking place, let us say, a huge board of directors' meeting of some big company such as Ford of Canada, or Ford of the United States, or General Motors, or General Electric. And imagine the chair the Speaker now occupies was occupied by the president of the company, and he got up at this directors' meeting and said, "Gentlemen, we are gathered here to conduct the affairs of this company, but please-no planning." Can you imagine how long he would last as president of that company? Why, the very basis of the efficient, successful and intelligent operation of any private concern, whether large or small, in this country or elsewhere, has always been careful, meticulous planning. Yet hon. members of this house seem to think that if this government were to launch upon an economic plan for the

benefit of the people of Canada, something would automatically be lost somewhere.
I do not know what they are afraid of, unless they feel that if the planning were done by a public body it would encroach upon some of the monopolistic positions held now by some of the big industries in this country and elsewhere. If that were to be the result I, for one, would not weep any tears over it, because I think this is one of the things that will have to be done eventually, anyway.
We believe in basic economic planning. We believe in planning not only because we want greater development of our resources and industry as such, but because we are entering now, or perhaps have already entered, upon a new era. Not so long ago we used to talk in terms of the industrial revolution. We are now entering the atomic age, in fact we are in it. What are we doing about it? Are we going to sit back and allow the present economic structure, the present industrial structure, to enter into the atomic age and try to build an atomic superstructure on a crumbling economic system, or are we going to do some basic planning, clear away the underbrush first and determine what are the new factors which have entered the economic picture?
Governments will be bound to interest themselves in these things. I found, somewhat to my surprise, in mingling with many of the delegates to the United Nations during the past few weeks and talking to delegates from nations which we ordinarily consider to be backward nations, or underdeveloped nations, that many of these small countries are today starting from a point, industrially speaking, higher than we have reached in Canada. The reason is this. They did not have to clear away the rubble and anachronism of old industrial plant; they started at the atomic age. They do not talk in terms of steel locomotives or even of oil and gas; they talk in terms of atomic energy, today, and these nations are going to make progress.
We in Canada are in a much better position to make this kind of progress because we have the materials and the know-how with which to work. In this sort of atmosphere I cannot conceive that any government or parliament would refuse to give its attention to basic economic planning in order that they might have full knowledge of what was available, what could be done, and which fields of industry could be most intelligently developed.
There will be objections. Some people will say, "That interferes with private enterprise." They may think in terms of the government

taking over certain industries. That is not the point. The government do not need to take over anything in order to take action under public enterprise; they can start from the ground floor. For example, when the government set up a synthetic rubber plant at Sarnia-a plant which has been lauded by the hon. member for that area as one of the most modern and efficient in the country, and a plant of which all Canadians can be proud- the government did not need to expropriate a bunch of rubber companies. The government went in there to fill a need, and by doing so they discovered new techniques, new ideas and new projects. They built a new industry in this country.
There are other fields in this country which are not at the present time occupied by private enterprise but which could be occupied by public enterprise if there were some dynamic drive and some planning behind this government. We had an example last year in the gas pipe line. When we think of all the tortuous twists and turns, the heartaches this government and parliament have gone through in order to try to give a monopoly in gas transmission to one company when it could have built this pipe line as a public enterprise and had it operating today, had they started the project 10 years ago, such wasted effort seems hardly conceivable. But the government are still trying to find some way by which to avoid this kind of responsibility; they are abdicating their position in fields of public enterprise which are crying to be filled in favour of private industry, which can only enter those fields provided it is given every conceivable advantage and concession.
Let us bring in those fields where there is a clear-cut case for public enterprise. Let us build model industries and use them as an example of what can be done using the most modern techniques, and this will help private enterprise instead of interfering with it. This can be done, and it is the only way in which this motion can have any meaning whatsoever. Under the old-fashioned idea of private enterprise being responsible for everything, this motion would have no meaning at all. Although I am not opposed to it -it can do no harm-certainly the adoption of the motion with no provision for planning under public enterprise and no responsibility upon parliament for bringing into effect the things proposed would simply amount to a declaration of good intentions. That is all you could call it.
There is another good reason why public enterprise should be used in several fields, and that is to make effective the declared policy of, I think, all parties in this house.
Natural Resources-Development I have heard hon. members from every group in this house get up at different times and inveigh against the encroachment of monopolies and combines into the sphere of private, independent businesses, particularly smaller businesses. Yet we have found that in trying to apply the Combines Investigation Act from time to time to remedy that situation the results have been most discouraging. A monopoly or a combine is taken before a court and found guilty; having filched, say, $1 million from the public the concern is fined $25,000 and then sent back into the same field to rob the public again. All this amounts to is a licence to rob the public.
If we are serious about the control of monopolies and combines, the field of public enterprise is the one that will have to be used. If we, today, were operating, let us say, a fertilizer plant for agricultural purposes, the fertilizer companies which at present form a combine which holds a death grip on that product would not be able to soak the public to the extent they are now doing. The same could be said about farm implements and a great many other products which today are in the hands of private monopolists who are exploiting the people of this country.
The question then comes up, where are we going to get the money? It is going to cost money to go into this field, develop these crown companies and so forth. We advocate as part of our C.C.F. program, and have advocated for many years, that there should be a national development bank owned by the people of Canada, and that there should also be an investment board so the people of Canada who wish to make an investment, whether they be wealthy, poor or whatever their economic position, may know that they can make an investment in the public board which is there for the purpose of promoting the best interests of the country. That system can be used on a national scale to promote crown companies and public enterprises in order to help develop the country.
I believe there is sufficient capital in Canada to do everything we can endeavour to do. I have never been sold on the idea that we need to import huge volumes of capital from some foreign country time and again in order to do what is called for by our economy. After all, what opens up our resources, what builds our economy? It is the labour and know-how of the Canadian people that do it in the long run. It is not somebody else's money that gets the minerals out of the ground. It is not somebody else's money that builds big hydro plants. It is not somebody else's money that opens up new agricultural areas. It is the labour, muscle, intelligence and know-how of the Canadian

Natural Resources-Development people. That is where the capital is. The capital is in the physical and mental powers of the Canadian people. I think we should stop leaning upon somebody else's capital and start using the capital available among us. After all, that is what we must do if we are serious about what is proposed in the amendment.
We talk about money, and we inevitably run into the question of inflation. We are told by the press that the Minister of Finance said in Toronto a week or two ago that if inflation encroaches any more upon our economy we are going to have to choose between inflation and depression. He used that statement more or less as a shocker to try to persuade private industry and the government to some extent, I suppose, though he was not very successful in that regard, to hold off and not invest quite so much this year as last year because it is going to create more inflation and then we will have to choose between inflation and depression. Again this indicates the helplessness, the complete drifting of the government.
An announcement was made in the house the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and a statement was later distributed with respect to the investment intentions of private and public bodies in 1957. What do we find? We And that there is going to be another increase. Although it does not appear on the record, I noticed that the Minister of Finance made a grimace of dismay when the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced that total investment this year would approximate $8.5 billion. It would seem that the Minister of Finance considered that as a blow to his anti-inflation campaign. And so we go on. The government which warns industry not to overinvest, not to create inflation, does not take its own advice, and then tells us that we have to choose between inflation and depression.
Is the government serious about that? I sometimes wonder. If you look at the newspapers these days or turn on the radio or television what do you find?	You find
hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent in this country to tell people to do what? To buy; buy as much as you can; buy this and that; go to a finance company; pay a dollar down and a dollar a week and away you go; buy your head off. Everybody is trying to push out everything they can. We are told to buy new automobiles, to build new buildings, to buy everything else we can, to spend our money; and then the Minister of Finance says we will have to stop this spending spree or else we will have to choose between inflation and depression.


Which way are we going? Are we serious about inflation or are we not? Today the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources got up, as do various ministers from time to time, and pointed with great pride to some of the new developments in the north and indicated that he saw a promise of much greater development. In other words, we talk one day in terms of wanting to develop the country and increase investment in the development of the country and the very next day the Minister of Finance will come back and cry about inflation. Does the government know where it is going so far as inflation is concerned? Is it serious about what it says, or is it just trying to fool the public?
As a matter of fact there is no need for the people of the country to make a choice between inflation and depression. We went through a period in this country when we had to exercise price control, and that can be done again. If that is found to be the wisest thing for the economy, then that is what should be done. The situation should be faced boldly and honestly, and the people should be told that that is one form of control which can be exercised to keep the economy on an even keel. The government should not conduct a war of nerves against the people by telling them one day not to buy because it will create inflation and the next day to buy all they can to develop the nation. They cannot have it both ways.
These are some of the things that come to our minds when we look at an amendment of this nature. I have mentioned some of the fields of public enterprise that can be used, but I also want to say that in planning the development of our industry and our resources we should never forget that the objective of such planning should be the general welfare and the raising of the standards of living of the Canadian people. If it does not have that result, then it is all futile and worthless.
That is why at every opportunity the C.C.F. has emphasized, and I think quite rightly so, that there should be the greatest possible social security for all our citizens within the framework of our productive capacity. We have emphasized that the welfare of our people should be our first objective, that we should provide the best possible health and hospitalization services, allowances in case of sickness and accident for families and federal aid to education in order that we may achieve the highest standards of education in this country.
Why should we not achieve the highest standards of education? We talk about the great developments that are going to take

place in Canada, and we hope they will. Yet we find that day after day we are short of technicians, engineers, scientists, economists and all kinds of trained personnel. Why? Because the federal government apparently has decided that the field of education is one which will have to be by-passed.
All these things come to my mind. I simply want to say, speaking for myself at least, that unless the amendment is related to the willingness of parliament or the government to take independent action altogether apart from what may take place in the field of private enterprise, then the adoption of the amendment will mean that we will be adopting a conglomeration of good intentions. It will do no harm, but it will do no earthly good. I hope that members on both sides of the house will look at the amendment, adopt it, and then provide the public machinery which is available to us to achieve the objectives of the amendment and thereby put some flesh on its bones.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my remarks it is my intention to move an amendment to the amendment to this effect:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word "which" in the third line the following words:
"in co-operation with the provinces."
I shall leave that for now, just so the house may familiarize itself with the objective. However, in speaking to the motion that is before us at this time, may I say that I was somewhat drawn into the debate by the hon. member for Cape Breton South when he had occasion to read a certain letter to the members of the house. It came from Langley Greenhouses Limited at Langley Prairie, British Columbia. I am more familiar than is the hon. member with the constituency in which is the city of Langley Prairie. He had these remarks to make with respect to the problem that faces Canada today in connection with the coal industry:
This company believed that when the Trans Mountain pipe line went in there they were going to get cheap fuel. Once the other form of energy was eliminated oil prices began to rise. This is the trouble with having all your eggs in one basket.
Mr. Speaker, the implication left by the hon. member was that there was no other fuel available in that area. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We find that there is propane, butane or rather methane, natural gas, the coal which comes both from Nanaimo and from the coal fields of Crowsnest as well as wood and other fuel products and oil from which to choose. Possibly this company of which the hon. member spoke did not take the precaution to discover first just exactly what the cost of conversion was
Natural Resources-Development going to amount to in changing from coal to oil, which it is now using, with the result that it is costing it more money. But to suggest that today there are no other fuels avialable in that area in competition with oil is completely wrong.
One of the questions having to do with our natural resources, of course, is this question of forest and forest products. Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that a great number of misstatements have been made and a great deal of concern has been expressed in this chamber and elsewhere across the country with respect to the use of forest products today. In my own province, which gets at least one-half or more of its income from the forest industry, we find an alarming state of affairs.
My purpose in bringing this matter forward at this moment is this. The purpose of conservation of our natural resources is the development of those natural resources. We find that our lumber industry is being extremely hard hit at this time for several reasons. The tigh't-money policy of this government is one of the most important. There are other reasons as well. One of them is the sale of our products in the export market. So we have both our domestic and our export market lost to a major degree. This can mean only one thing, namely that the people of the province of British Columbia are going to suffer undue hardships because of the financial policy which has been adopted by this government.
I refer first to the export policy. In this connection I have a clipping from the British Columbian of January 17, 1957, which is headed "Many Factors Hit B.C. Sales". It goes on to give the observations of Mr. H. A. Renwick, president of the British Columbia lumber manufacturers' association, and reads in part as follows:
Dealing first with the United Kingdom market, Mr. Renwick said:
"During recent years B.C. coast mills have exported approximately 25 per cent of their coast lumber production to United Kingdom.
"Until recently 30 per cent of U.K. present consumption of softwoods went into the manufacture of wooden cases.
"The use of substitutes for wood is making great inroads into the container trade there as it has done during the last two decades on this continent.
"We must be eternally vigilant with regard to the end-use of our sawn lumber. Substitutes of high quality are making inroads every year.
That is a phase, of course, that naturally should be dealt with by the research board. The government as such, in co-operation with industry in my province and in other provinces which have a lumber industry, as well as with the provinces themselves, must find the means whereby they can keep this

Natural Resources-Development production at the high level we have experienced in the past few years in order to keep the people in my area and in other lumbering areas of this country fully occupied. The article goes on to say:
"Forecasts of U.K. requirements are difficult. The impact of dollar shortages needs no elaboration. Harold Macmillan, at that time chancellor of the exchequer and now prime minister, announced early in December that the United Kingdom gold and dollar reserves had declined $279 million during the preceding month, and certain drastic steps had been taken to sustain the pound at its current level . . .
"Currently we are competing mainly with Britain's traditional suppliers-Sweden, Finland and Russia-which countries trade in sterling. Any serious devaluation of the pound would practically close the British market to us.
We in this group from time to time have advocated greater acceptance of sterling to make it simpler for the British to carry on, even if we had to accept their sterling now and expect payment in dollars in the far distant future. Certainly we have an obligation not so much to the United Kingdom in this respect as to our own citizens to keep them occupied. What is the purpose of conservation if we are not going to develop our lumber industry and keep it operating? The purpose is, of course to provide employment. There is no value in carrying on in this fashion or in conserving unless we are going to use the resource for a purpose; and the purpose of necessity must be development later. We have reached the development stage. At the same time we are conserving through our sustained yield. We find today that a foreign market, the United Kingdom market which we had developed during the war years, is being denied us because we will not accept sterling in exchange for those commodities or make dollars available in its place.
I find in the Vancouver Province of February 8 a most interesting article with respect to the home market, and having to do with tight money. In this respect I might direct the minister's attention to an article in today's Ottawa Citizen which says in effect that the number of housing units started in January was less than half the number of houses started in January last year. Undoubtedly the minister is aware of that fact. But these are what the effects are with regard to industry. In my own city just a week or more ago we had upwards of 10,000 unemployed. That is the greatest number of unemployed in the history of that city.
With respect to this matter I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I fully realize that we have had severe winter conditions which make it somewhat difficult to carry on the building trades, but that is not the main reason for the situation.


I find in the Vancouver Province of February 8 certain observations made by Doug Collins, a staff reporter who took one week off to make a tour of the city to discover for himself exactly what this situation was. These are some of the things he found; that half of the lower mainland's 1,450 builders will be out of business in a matter of months. That is a drastic situation, when one-half of the 1,450 city builders expect to be out of business within a few months. He also found that National Housing Act mortgages had become a thing of the past. It is practically impossible to get them.
In this article in the Citizen today I find similar observations. It is stated that National Housing Act loans approved in December were down 75 per cent from a year earlier, and bank loans for housing had dropped 82 per cent. These are observations that we must take into consideration if we are going to keep our economy at any high level, much less the high level we have today. We are denying the people of this country the right to build homes.
The article in the Vancouver Province of February 8 indicates that real estate and rents are going up. It indicates also that in order to get any mortgage money of any kind an individual will have to pay between 7 per cent and 8 per cent interest. This reporter tried nine banks and one insurance company in an attempt to obtain National Housing Act mortgages. He could not find a single bank in that group or an insurance company that would provide the money no matter what collateral he had. In the same article there is an indication that a hardwood flooring plant is being forced to curtail its operations and has laid off 33 men. The plastering trade is at a standstill.
Today I noticed in one of the papers that the national employment service has suggested that people should not leave their building operations until the summer months. You can carry on building just as well in the winter months as you can in the summer. How much more obvious is it, then, that you can carry on that same building on the Pacific coast, which enjoys such fine weather during the winter months as compared with the rest of Canada? Here we find building down to an absolute minimum and contractors talking about going out of business. The regional supervisor of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, T. B. Pickersgill, who I understand is a brother of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, said the outlook in respect of National Housing Act mortgages is "not encouraging". Probably that is the shortest phrase a member of that family has used in a long time:

it is not encouraging. The situation is terrible when a person cannot get money with which to build a home.
The plea I am putting forward at this time is that this tight money policy that our government is forcing upon the people of this country be alleviated. We must see that it is easier for those people who want to build homes to get money. This policy is just adding to the cost of rents. I am told that persons renting apartments in the greater Vancouver area have already received notice that their rents will be increased by 10 per cent; that, in itself is an unfortunate situation. One of the insurance firms that this reporter in Vancouver interviewed indicated that their National Housing Act mortgages were completely used up for the year 1957. It was stated there would be no money whatever available for the building of homes until 1958. The banks have indicated that they are lending money only to those persons who are better than average risks.
These are not the people who require loans. The people who require loans are the people in the lower income brackets. Any man who can obtain mortgage money in today's markets is probably the wealthier type of man who can afford a home worth $15,000 or $20,000. The man who cannot afford this higher rate is the fellow who needs a home and who is going to have to pay and pay dearly for his housing in the near future if this tight money policy is continued by this government. Surely the answer to an increase in home building is a change in our monetary policy, a change that will make money available to those people who need it.
I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, my intention to move an amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch):
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word ''which'' in the third line, the following words, "in co-operation with the provinces".
The amendment will now read:
This house is of the opinion that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now of a national development policy which, in cooperation with the provinces, will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada . . .
And so on. The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is that it has been indicated by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that his interpretation of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is that the acceptance of the amendment as it now stands means that provincial autonomy is at stake. I would not necessarily agree with the minister. I do not believe that was the intention of the Leader of the Opposition, but we cannot go by what we think his intention might have been. We
Natural Resources-Development want to be sure to protect the autonomy of the provinces; therefore I have moved this amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It must have surprised some members of the house, Mr. Speaker, to hear suggestions that this type of amendment is not suitable on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. With respect, sir, I say that there could be no more suitable occasion than a supply motion for the assertion, in the form of an amendment, of a policy of general application such as is contained in the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition.
Has the house forgotten, sir, that the most famous policy in all Canada's history, the "national policy", was introduced in 1876 by Sir John A. Macdonald, then leader of the opposition, in the form of an amendment to a government supply motion? We ask for no better precedent than that. Nor will it be forgotten, I trust, that an amendment in identical form was introduced on a government supply motion in this house at the last session, on July 9,	1956. The amendment
received the support of all the parties in opposition, and I am confident, sir, that the present amendment will be similarly well supported.
I had the honour of speaking in that debate on July 9, and it is a temptation, of course, to repeat now the things that one said on that occasion. I hope I may be able to withstand the temptation, sir, and make my remarks today something of a sequel to the remarks I made then.
I am prepared to affirm, sir, that the views put forward at that time by all those who spoke for the official opposition in support of that amendment were sound, were realistic, were forward-looking; and such events as have happened since, and such trends as have made themselves apparent, whether in political or economic life, have gone to confirm and support the views that were put forward on that occasion by members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
There are five elements in the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. The national development policy which is set forth here has these elements to it; first, to develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada; second, to encourage more processing of those resources in Canada; third, to correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances; fourth, to foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources; and fifth, to promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.

Natural Resources-Development
It may not be amiss, sir, to say a word at the outset about the function of government in relation to the development of resources. In the last analysis, the resources of this country will be developed by free men and women. They will not be developed by governments; they will be developed by individual Canadians exercising their initiative, enterprise and skill. But we are dealing here with a very important sphere of government responsibility in facilitating the exercise by individuals of their initiative and enterprise. It is the duty of government to create in general an economic climate within which the enterprise and skill of individuals can flourish.
Governments, this government in particular, exercise a very direct effect upon the economy of this country in many quarters by the vast purchases they make and the contracts they award. And then, within the proper sphere of government there is that wide range of construction projects which are required in the public interest and which do assist in the development of the resources at the hands of individuals. Then, as we have been reminded in the course of this debate, first by the Leader of the Opposition and then by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources this afternoon, there is a very large territory in the north directly interested and involved in any program for the development of natural resources, which does not lie within the boundaries of any of the provinces.
This, then, leads me to say a word about the respective functions of federal and provincial governments. Under the constitution the exclusive jurisdiction over the development of resources resides in the provinces, their legislatures and governments; but within the sphere of federal jurisdiction policy at the national level can have a very broad, direct and far-reaching effect upon the success of the provincial governments in assisting individuals in the development of resources. The federal government has exclusive responsibility over international and interprovincial trade and commerce. Fiscal and monetary policies at the national level have, I suppose, as direct an effect today upon the course of the development of natural resources as any single facet of policy within the whole sphere of government, whether national or provincial.
And, sir, when the Social Credit introduced this afternoon an amendment designed to suggest that the kind of national development policy which is set forth in this motion should be carried on in association or in co-operation with the provinces we say at once, sir, that is the only basis on which a sound national policy for the development


of resources could be carried on. It was implicit in the amendment in the first place. It was stated repeatedly by my leader in his speech yesterday and is to be found, notwithstanding what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had to say this afternoon, in explicit terms on pages 1158 and 1159 of Hansard. The minister evidently has not read those passages with the care he should have.
Therefore, as far as the amendment is concerned, it is completely in harmony with the motion. If the Social Credit members feel that it makes the motion clearer to have these words in, then certainly there is on the part of the official opposition no difficulty at all in accepting the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The marriage is complete.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, the marriage is not complete. If there is any inference to be drawn from association of parties on a particular motion I do not think the minister will get very far beyond the bounds of wedlock in the light of the experience of his party with the same Social Credit party last summer in a certain pipe-line debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about your own?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On that occasion I think the wedding was observed on 69 out of 70 occasions in the space of three weeks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about your own flirtation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am incapable of flirtation, just as the minister is incapable of anything but self-satisfaction and conceit.
Now, sir, I was referring to the scope and effect of federal fiscal and monetary policies. We have all too much evidence today of the effect of federal fiscal and monetary policy upon the efforts of the provinces to proceed with the development of resources within their proper sphere. Indeed, against no section of the whole economy of Canada have the harmful effects of the present fiscal and monetary policies of the government been exerted more than against the provinces in the form of increased costs of borrowing. The same is true of the way in which these policies are hurting the municipalities. These policies are greatly increasing the cost of provincial and municipal financing in this country.
I emphasize that the kind of development we are urging here is for the benefit of all parts of Canada. Sir, the federal government's fiscal and monetary policies today, in the form of high interest rates and restrictions upon borrowing, are hurting some sections of this country very seriously indeed. Look at

the maritime provinces, which have suffered disappointments in the hopes which were held at the time of confederation and which, in the case of New Brunswick under a Conservative administration, which is progressive in fact as well as in name, has undertaken a program of development the like of which has not been equalled in the history of that province. Just when the economy of that province is responding to enlightened provincial governmental assistance in the form of these programs, along comes the blight imposed by these fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government.
Sir, it is a thousand pities that at this most inopportune time the federal government should see fit to apply policies which are having a detrimental effect upon the economy of the maritime area, just when that economy seemed to be assured of an opportunity which it has not enjoyed for a long time.
In a speech made on Saturday night the Minister of Finance is reported to have said that he is not worried about the threat of inflation.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said that is what he is reported to have said. If he wishes to correct the report I hope he will take an early opportunity to do so, because that is the report in the press.


Walter Edward Harris: I do it right now by pointing out that the report did not have me in quotations in that particular part.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister is mistaken in that. I think I can produce it for him. I do not know whether he has read all the press reports, but I saw one press report that quoted the words "not worried about the threat of inflation".


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister says he did not say that I congratulate him on not having said it, because there are a good many other things he would have to explain if he had ever allowed himself to say anything of that kind.
I will say this to the Minister of Finance. There are some other things he should be worried about, including the effect of his policies in arresting national development and the development of resources in this country.
I will also say this to him. His proposed amendments to the Municipal Grants Act to assist municipalities in this country will not do much more in the case of many municipalities than pay the extra cost of financing that has fallen upon them as a result of the minister's policies.
Natural Resources-Development I have a word to say about the responsibility for the development of resources. I have stressed that these resources must be developed for the benefit of all parts of Canada. National policy must have that objective before it, and we see national benefit in policies that are aimed to assist in the diversification of the enterprise and the economic life of the different parts of Canada as far as that can be economically" done. We have known for a long time how much an area like the Atlantic area would be strengthened in its economic life by a greater degree of diversification, with more secondary industry to buttress and diversify the economy of that important area of Canada. The federal government have had opportunities to achieve results of that kind, but I regret to say they have made very poor use of them. They had great opportunities during the war and also in the post-war period, particularly in the period of rearmament that followed 1950, when billions of dollars of public money were being expended and very little ever went to such areas as the Atlantic area. We have brought up this question year after year on the estimates of the Minister of Defence Production, stressing the necessity of distributing as widely as possible throughout Canada these government contracts. But what do we find? The companies that are receiving these contracts are almost invariably companies with head offices in the central part of Canada. It is for this reason, sir, that I say opportunities were given to the government with billions of dollars placed at their disposal by parliament, but that money has not been used to assist in the diversification of the industry and economic life in parts of Canada where that diversification is most urgently needed.
There are also those matters that ought to be government projects, where within the proper sphere of government this federal government has had opportunities in cooperation with the provinces to undertake projects that would have brought not only local benefit in the areas concerned but also benefits radiating out to the national sphere. There is the South Saskatchewan irrigation dam. Those words have tripped off the tongue of the Minister of Agriculture I suppose tunes without number in western Canada. This project has been sterilized thus far because the government opposite is not prepared to see in that project the opportunity that we of Her Majesty's loyal opposition see of undertaking a work that will be for the general advantage of Canada. There is also the Beechwood power development project in New Brunswick. This is something that was and is urgently needed, not only to give power development to that province,

Natural Resources-Development which is the whole key to any industrialization or building of secondary industry, but to bring wide benefits to the entire Atlantic area.


Jean Lesage: You have been in Toronto too long; you do not know what is going on here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Pardon?


Jean Lesage: You have been detained in Toronto too long.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think I have been around this country as much as the minister who has just undertaken to interrupt me; and I will say this to him. I think I know as much about the situation in the province of New Brunswick as the minister does; in fact I think I know a great deal more.


Jean Lesage: Not about the Beechwood project.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I will tell him about Beechwood, too. I will certainly tell him about Beechwood.


Mr. Dickey:: The hon. member should be in the house a little more frequently.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The federal government has failed in its duty to use the opportunity, in association with the province of New Brunswick, to carry forward that project. The Prime Minister of this country refused last year and has refused since that time the simple and modest request of the premier of New Brunswick for federal endorsation of the bonds that were issued by the province of New Brunswick to provide the finances for that extremely necessary and worth-while undertaking. Where have the federal government been? They have had a negative approach to these important projects which promise so much for the general welfare.
We now have the Gordon commission report, which does not hold out very bright hopes for the future of the Atlantic area. There is a great deal that could be done to stimulate the economy of the Atlantic area and give to it the bright future it can and I believe will have if there is some vision on the part of the government opposite and some willingness to co-operate with the provincial governments in that area. The record of this federal government in this sphere has been a record of wasted opportunities, and these opportunities do not recur every day.
I turn now to the second element in the amendment, the encouragement of more processing of our resources in Canada. I


shall not inflict upon the house a repetition of what I said on this subject when I spoke on July 9 last to a similar amendment. In this part of the amendment we in the official opposition are stating what we conceive to be a sound national objective. Providence has given this country a great storehouse of resources, but those resources are not inexhaustible. The experience of the United States has reminded us that even a country blessed with such huge resources as the United States is now facing a situation, as a result of active industrialization, where it is consuming its resources at an alarming rate.
We are told in the Paley report that between 1950 and 1975 the United States is going to have to quadruple its imports of industrial materials. Where is it going to look for them? It is going to look to Canada in large measure for those industrial materials, and there will be great pressure brought to bear on this country to allow the resources of this country to be exported to the United States for fabrication and processing there into finished products, so the expenditure of labour in the increase of the value of the article will be expended not in Canada but in the United States.
We state as a national objective of our party, a national objective that we say should commend itself to all forward-looking Canadians and all parties that set themselves up as fit to lead this country in government, that it should be our aim and purpose to see more and more of Canada's raw material processed, fabricated and manufactured into finished form in Canada for the benefit of Canadians, so that opportunities may be created here for Canadians today and Canadians of generations yet unborn.
The United States tariff is so designed as to exclude imports of manufactured and finished products, and at the same time make it relatively easy to import most of those raw materials that enter into industrial production. The extractive industries in Canada are going to be under pressure in the years ahead to fill the tremendous demand that will exist in the United States. Canada is going to be faced with an issue that may take various forms-but we can rest assured the issue will abide-as to whether we shall be content to extract from our soil these raw materials and then export them, or seek to carry forward right here in Canada their fabrication and processing into manufactured goods.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on this matter of the processing of raw materials in Canada hear the authentic voice of labour. This following passage is taken from the joint submission by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects:
We need hardly say that we are in favour of as much processing of our raw materials in Canada as possible, rather than exporting them in the raw. This has, indeed, been a basic principle of Canadian policy at least ever since 1879, when Sir John A. Macdonald introduced the national policy. It has not always, perhaps, been fully applied. But we think that now very few Canadians question it. They may differ about its application, or its applicability to this or that particular industry; but very few of them will seriously maintain that we ought to be a nation of hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The fact is, sir, that there are some in this country who do think that the future of Canada is to be measured in terms of the extraction of her raw materials from her soil for export. Indeed, that view was put before the royal commission by a very distinguished Liberal in this country. Sir, I quote a passage from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 9 on this subject, which reads:
Up to this time, the cabinet has defended its policy of permitting a disproportionate export of raw materials. Between 1938 and the end of 1956, Canada's export of manufactures rose only 260 per cent compared with the total rise in exports of 411 per cent. If exports as a whole are a measure of increased economic activity, the export of manufactures clearly indicates that government policy is inimical to the growth of manufacturing, and hence to the creation of jobs which will support a sustained long-term drive for new settlers from abroad.
It is estimated that Canadian export of raw materials has created two million jobs in manufacturing plants abroad.
Mr. Speaker, that is surely a matter which can be viewed by Canadians only with the gravest concern. The view of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is that it is not the future of Canadians to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, but that the policy of this country should be directed toward seeking a balanced, diversified economy and the maximum processing of our raw materials right here in Canada for the creation of opportunities and employment for Canadians.
I pass now, sir, to the third of the phases of this national development policy, namely that it should correct the present serious unfavourable trade balance. When this matter was under debate last July, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that we pointed out three serious weaknesses in the Canadian trade position. First of all, we were to a dangerous
Natural Resources-Development and perilous degree placing all our trading eggs in one basket, namely the United States. Second, we were confronted with a record over-all trading deficit on commodity account, and, third, with regard to that country with which we do by far the largest trade we were faced with a huge and record trade deficit.
We pointed then to the fact that 73 per cent of Canada's imports come from the United States, while 60 per cent of our exports go to the United States. On the other hand, the trade that Canada is doing with the country with which we do the next largest trade, namely the United Kingdom, is only a fraction of that which we have been doing with the United States. Just 11.6 per cent of our imports were coming from the United Kingdom, and only 18 per cent of our exports were going to the United Kingdom.
What has happened in the interval? The situation has become much more alarming to those who will think. The fact is, as recent trade statistics report, that in the full year 1956 Canada sustained an adverse balance of trade with the United States of $1,290 million, by far the greatest in our history.
In our over-all trade with the world, Canada in 1956 sustained an adverse balance of $848 million, more than double the 1955 balance. This represents the fourth year in a row that Canada has sustained an adverse balance in her total trade with the world. These are alarming figures. While our exports to the world increased by only 11.8 per cent, our imports from the world increased by 21.2 per cent, over 1955 and the dangers which existed, and which we pointed out in July last, have become even more glaring since that date in the light of these figures. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this trend toward trade deficits runs counter to the experience of most of the commonwealth countries.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is having some trouble with his figures. When these figures to which I have referred-the increase in exports of 11.8 per cent and the increase in imports of 21.2 per cent last year-were the subject of a question to him on February 5, his answer, given at page 967 of Hansard, was that exports were up about 11 per cent and "imports were up about the same amount". That is tantamount to saying that 11 per cent is about the same as 21 per cent or, on the face of the figures, that $999 million, which was the increase in our imports, is about the same thing as $551 million, which was the increase in our exports.

Natural Resources

Development
We have heard the question asked yonder, what's a million dollars? Here, Mr. Speaker, we have it from the minister that $448 million is practically nothing, because $999 million and $551 million are, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce "about the same amount". Is it any wonder that the trade of this country has been falling into the perilous position it now occupies, having regard to this commodity deficit of astronomical proportions?
But the government continues to ignore the position. Nobody over there on the benches opposite is worried. The Minister of Trade and Commerce goes to Japan and says, as reported on October 29 in the Globe and Mail:
Canada is perhaps the most open and unrestricted market in the world.
He does not worry about it. And when the Prime Minister was asked on September 29 about this huge and growing trade deficit, it is reported in the Globe and Mail that:
Prime Minister St. Laurent today declared that Canada's large trade deficit was causing him "no worry whatever".
The Toronto Telegram of the same date had this to say:
He (the Prime Minister) remarked jokingly that when it comes to optimism, he had been converted to Trade Minister C. D. Howe's brand.
I recommend to the Prime Minister that he should choose his brand a little more carefully before he swallows that kind of optimism. It is not the kind of optimism that is related to facts.
The government have stood by and watched the loss of Canadian markets for our agricultural products in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. That has not worried them, and when the Prime Minister was asked in the house on February 5 if the government would take some steps to call a commonwealth trade and economic conference he replied, as reported in Hansard at page 967:
There has been no consideration given to initiating a commonwealth trade conference and there is no present intention of doing so.
Let me make this perfectly clear. So far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition are concerned, we think a commonwealth trade and economic conference should be called as soon as possible, and there is no good reason why Canada should not take steps to initiate the calling of that conference; and if this government declines to do so the Conservative government which will be formed later this year by the present Leader of the Opposition will do it.
The present government's indolence and inactivity have occasioned another danger


which confronts Canada's trade, namely the growth of the movement in Europe and in the United Kingdom in favour of a European free trade bloc. This has reached the point where 17 European countries containing 250 million consumers within their boundaries are proposing to enter into a free trade area and a common market for their manufactured goods. The new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been a leader in favouring Britain's adherence to such a free trade bloc.
This confronts Canada's export trade with very serious dangers. Whether the government is alive to the dangers we can only guess, because we have been told very little, if anything, by the government. It does not wish to acknowledge that it is even concerned. Sir, we have had enough of a government that is indifferent in the face of the loss of Canada's precious markets in the United Kingdom for many of her agricultural products.
I have a word for the Minister of Finance, that Canada is losing trade today because of the high taxes that are imposed upon Canadian producers, and much needs to be done in this regard by him and his associates to help meet unfair competition from abroad.
I pass quickly now to the fourth of the elements in this national development policy, wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources. Last July we drew attention to the serious extent to which the ownership of Canada's resources is passing into the hands of those who are not Canadians. The trend has proceeded since, for in a statement issued by the dominion bureau of statistics last September it is pointed out that there is an increase in foreign control over portions of Canadian industry. The extent of foreign ownership that we pointed out last July has increased in trend since that time.
The Globe and Mail's summary of the report proceeds:-
This investment has resulted in a great growth in productive capacity, said the bureau, "but the resulting liability represents increasing ownership and control by non-residents of Canadian industry."
It also represented "an increasing claim on the income of the country which may be expected to lead in the future to sharply increased payments abroad on income account."
It is pointed out that in the first six months of 1956 net imports of capital were more than double the amount for the same period in 1955.
Let me repeat what we have said before. We wish to encourage the influx of needed capital into this country, whether it comes from the United States, Britain or elsewhere, but we do wish to see Canadians participating financially to a greater extent in the development of their own resources.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce, after deriding in the house our arguments in this respect in his speech on July 9 of last year, went abroad in the fall and declared in the United States precisely the very thing that we had been arguing for here and that he himself had derided here in the Canadian House of Commons. In a speech at Chicago on October 16 he advocated that United States-controlled industry accept these suggestions:
1.	Provide opportunities for Canadian participation as minority shareholders in subsidiaries.
2.	Provide greater chances for advancement of Canadian technicians and executives in United States controlled companies.
3.	Make public more and regular information of branch operations.
4.	Let Canadian branch plants take on more export business so they will act more "like good solid Canadian enterprises".
He followed that speech on the following day with a similar speech at Milwaukee. These are the very things we advocated last year. These are the things involved in the national development policy we have put before the House of Commons. Sir, let hon. members opposite understand this very well, that if they vote against the amendment tonight they will be ^voting against a policy that calls for precisely the same thing that the Minister of Trade and Commerce advocated in the United States last October but denounced in the House of Commons on July 9.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Clerk has
informed me that it is now 8.15. By virtue of the provisions of standing order 56, paragraph 4, subparagraph (d), it is now my duty to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment to the amendment and the amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment to the main motion lost.


Mr. Winch:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). Had I been able to vote I would have voted in favour of the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the amendment to the main motion. Those who are in favour to the amendment to the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the amendment to the main motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members. I understand that the whips are indicating that, for the purpose of this division, their members have been called in.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

(Mr. Pickersgill). Had I voted I would have voted in support of the amendment.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I rise to state a grievance. The grievance I wish to present to the house, and more particularly to the government, is one which I am satisfied is shared by thousands of people in this country; indeed, as I shall indicate in a moment, it is shared by several hundred thousand Canadian people.
My grievance is that the government is stalling on the matter of making it clear to the Canadian people what it is going to do at this session regarding the old age pension. I realize, Mr. Speaker, because I have been told this several times in answers to questions on the orders of the day, that the government takes the position that this is a matter of government policy which it is free to announce in due course. There is no question but that the government has the technical right to hide behind that statement, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is grossly unfair to the people of Canada; that it is utterly lacking in leadership and utterly lacking in statesmanship, for the government to stall in connection with this matter which is, as I say, the concern of a great many people in this country.
I made the statement a moment ago that I believe my grievance to be shared by thousands of people, if not by hundreds of thousands. The basis for that statement is statistical. The fact is that there are nearly 800,000 Canadians in receipt of old age security payments under a statute of this parliament, not including those on old age assistance. Back in 1950, when the question of old age security was under study by a special committee of both houses, we were informed *-and I have on my desk the report of that committee with the statistics contained therein-that at that time something over 43 per cent of the people of Canada then 70 years of age and over were drawing the old age pension which was in effect at that time, which was under a means test. In other words, in 1950 over 43 per cent of Canadians 70 years of age and over were so hard up that they were able to meet the means test which was in effect at that time. I am satisfied that the situation is still the same, namely that more than 40 per cent of the people of Canada who are 70 years of age or over are in difficult circumstances. If there were still a means test more than 40 per cent would still meet that means test and thus qualify for such a pension.
82715-78i
Old Age Pensions
Forty per cent of the nearly 800,000 Canadians who are drawing old age security thus amounts to some 320,000 of our senior citizens who are drawing the $40 a month who, I submit, Mr. Speaker, by virtue of the statistics I have given are in need.
My grievance is that these 300,000 or more Canadians, plus others on other forms of social security, are being treated most unfairly by a government which simply says from time to time when we ask our questions on the orders of the day, "These are matters of government policy concerning which if any action is to be taken, that action will be announced in due course". Mr. Speaker, the people of this country thought this matter would be referred to in the speech from the throne which opened this session of parliament. No reference was made to it in that document. Nevertheless it is still generally believed in Canada, and I share that belief, that this government will not go to the country this year without doing something about old age pensions.
In other words I am not merely making the plea that something be done. I know that something is going to be done. I know that this government does not dare go to the country without doing something about the amount of the old age pension. My plea is that that "something" be substantial, that it be a worth-while increase. More particularly my plea tonight is that there be no more stalling or delay, but that an announcement be made soon as to what the government intends to do.
There are those on the other side of the house who suggest that this is a budgetary matter and that it may be announced along with other social security improvements and other benefits for the Canadian people when the Minister of Finance brings down his budget. I suggest that that is not an excuse behind which the government can hide, because the budget is an item of parliamentary business in which, apart from the reports the Minister of Finance makes, legislation affecting our tax laws is proposed. If any changes are to be made in the old age pension, family allowances or the disability pension, they will have to be not by way of some announcement the Minister of Finance may make on budget night, but by way of legislation introduced in this parliament.
I submit therefore that the government cannot hide behind the excuse that this is a matter which has to be held until the budget is brought down. These are matters of legislation which, as I say, should have been referred to in the speech from the throne, but since that was not done, parliament and the

Old Age Pensions
country should not be asked to wait any longer for an indication as to what the government proposes to do.
This session is getting on, Mr. Speaker. We have been here now for five weeks, and I think we all realize we are not going to be here a great deal longer. In fact I suggest that April 17, which is nine weeks from tomorrow, is the last day on which this house will be in session; and indeed I would not be surprised to see it end on March 29, which is only six weeks from this coming Friday. In the light of the fact that we are approaching the end of this important pre-election session I submit it is not statesmanship, it is not leadership and it is not becoming to the gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches to hold off and stall on this important question.
The belief which is widespread in Canada that something will be done about this matter has been given support during the course of this session by the large number of members who have had something to say about old age pensions. As everyone knows, practically every member of this C.C.F. group has asked for an increase in the amount of the old age pension as well as for other social security improvements, and likewise more than half a dozen members of the Progressive Conservative party and about a half dozen members of the Social Credit party have also asked for an increase in the old age pension. But of even more significance is the fact that at least 13 members of the party that sits to your right, Mr. Speaker, during the course of this session in one way or another have asked for an increase in the old age pension, and in a number of instances they have asked in such a way as to lead us to feel they were hopeful that their request would be implemented.
Those 13 members include 11 hon. gentlemen who asked for an increase by rising to their feet and making speeches of one kind or another. These 11 include the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom), the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Bruneau), the hon. member for St. Hya-*cinthe-Bagot (Mr. Fontaine), the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Mac-Eachen), the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), the hon. member for Antigo-nish-Guysborough (Mr. Kirk), the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore), the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke), the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) and the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Gourd).


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am coming to the hon. member in just a minute.


Elmore Philpott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; on page 1161 of Hansard of yesterday Your Honour ruled that this method of raising a grievance tends to preclude the discussion of motions which are already on the order paper. Your Honour will notice that I have a motion on the order paper calling for early and substantial increases in old age security and old age assistance pensions. At that time Your Honour said:
I am not through. If I may continue, may I say that this matter is important to the house. . . . There are notices of motion on the order paper. I indicated to some hon. members privately last year, and now that the opportunity arises I should like to do so to the house generally, that members place notices of motion on the order paper in which they ask for certain changes in taxation . . .
And so on. Your Honour then went on to point out that the raising of this type of grievance and the prolonging of the debate by these unnecessary discussions takes up much of the time available for the discussion of our notices of motion in their proper order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order, although I have not reread Hansard to see what Your Honour said yesterday I have a clear recollection of your words, and if I am not faithful to what you said you will correct me. As I recall it Your Honour was dealing yesterday with an amendment the effect of which, once a vote had been taken on it, could be to preclude the moving of the subject matter of that amendment though it might be set out in notices of motion on the order paper.
I am not now in a position where I can move any amendment; no matter what I say or do at this time I cannot possibly preclude the hon. member for Vancouver South from moving his motion if we reach it. I am not resting on the point I could make that his motion being No. 8 and there being only four more private members' days his motion may not be reached; but even if his motion is reached the discussion that is taking place tonight on this supply motion will not interfere with that motion being moved. I could quote a very well known precedent on the same point from the fall session of 1949, having to do with the McGregor report on the flour milling combine.
I submit that the point of order is not well taken, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize that was the point the hon. member was going to raise. I thought he was going to complain that I had not included his name in the roll of honour. I was just about to point out that in addition to the Liberal

members I had named as having made requests for increases in the old age pension by means of speeches there were two private members on the Liberal side who had placed notices of motion on the order paper, one being the hon. member for Vancouver South and the other being the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc).
However, Mr. Speaker, if you feel you must rule on the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South I will yield for that purpose. May I just say that my grievance, as I stated at the beginning-and anything else I have said is by way of an attempt to underline that grievance-is that the government is stalling and delaying in announcing to parliament and to the country what are its proposals.
I am not particularly spelling out tonight what we think should be done about old age pensions. That is a matter of record. I am not particularly going into the argument as to why pensions should be increased, though I might well do so if necessary. My particular grievance-and I agree with Your Honour's statement yesterday that we should be taking up particular points of grievance, not general topics-is that despite the indications that something is going to be done, this stalling is still being carried on by the government. As I said a moment ago, I am not merely arguing that something should be done; I know something is going to be done. I am arguing that there should be an announcement soon.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I am veering away from the point of order. Does Your Honor wish to rule upon the point that has been raised?


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South and to the explanation on the same point given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As I see it, his grievance is the lack of action with respect to an announcement of legislation to provide for increases in the old age pension. That is pretty close to the subject matter of the notice of motion on the order paper which has to do with an increase for old age pensioners; and when the hon. member says, "I cannot move an amendment", I would remind him that it is not only when he can move an amendment that he cannot discuss a subject of which notice has been given on the order paper.
Citation 467 of Beauchesne, third edition, says:
. . . provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session . . .
Old Age Pensions
But let us forget about the amendment, since the hon. member is not in a position to move one. So the passage would read:
. . . provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
What would the hon. gentleman have to say about this particular point?


Stanley Howard Knowles: First I would say, Mr. Speaker, that though the point was raised from the Chair yesterday, no ruling was made on that occasion. Therefore I do not think any ruling along the same lines should be made today. After all, there are notices of motion on the order paper-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You break the rules every opportunity you get.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I had better make this clear. The point I was making yesterday was completely different from that which is being presented today. The point I made yesterday was that an omnibus type of amendment was not, in my view, the type of grievance contemplated on the motion to go into supply, and I was just reciting what I thought might be the effect of moving such an omnibus type of amendment. It may, later on, put many hon. members in the position, if they had made a speech in addressing themselves to the amendment, that they would have to be repetitive when notices of motion with a different flavour, or different features, were called for debate.
I think, since latitude is always given to hon. members in discussing grievances, if the remarks which the hon. gentleman intended to make tonight were to be an appeal for increases in old age pensions he would probably be hitting right on the subject contained in the notice of motion of the hon. member for Vancouver South. But I understand his grievance is of a different character. His complaint is that the government has not announced any action at an early stage; as a matter of fact he is complaining that an announcement has not been made yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you have
characterized my grievance accurately, and I think you will notice that in what I have said-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on this point of order? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is presuming that legislation is going to be brought down, and in that way attempting to pervert the rules so he can make a speech on a motion that is already before the house. I am very anxious,

Old Age Pensions
myself, to speak on the question of an increase in the old age pension, but I am equally anxious to see that the rules of this house are observed. The hon. member is doing the same thing now that he did last year at every opportunity. He is attempting to break the rules, and he gets away with it more often than not.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman is not raising a proper point of order at the moment. There was one raised, and the matter was settled. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will please continue to state his grievance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that if I were to make a speech that was merely an appeal for an increase in the old age pension, or if I were to discuss the ideas contained in the resolution put down by the hon. member for Vancouver South or by the hon. member for Verdun I would be breaking the rules. But my grievance is, as I have stated, that several times this session when we have asked questions about this matter on the orders of the day, the government has said this is a matter about which an announcement, if any is to be made, will be made in due course.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That complaint can be made about any question of anticipated legislation. You are just perverting the rules, as you have done for the last two years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have I not the right of a private member of this house to express my opinion on what I think the government is doing on this question? I have already said the government has a technical right to give that answer if it wishes to do so, but it is my grievance that that is not leadership, that that is not statesmanship and that it is not fair to parliament nor to the people of Canada and, in particular, it is not fair to hundreds of thousands of our senior citizens who are being deprived of an announcement which would lift their morale if it were made at an early date.


Walter Edward Harris: May I speak to this point of order, Mr. Speaker, because it seems as if the hon. member is about to proceed with his argument


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only because I thought Mr. Speaker had told me to go on.


Walter Edward Harris: If the doctrine outlined by the hon. member became an established practice we would be departing a long way, in my view, from the theory of grievances on supply.
Grievances on supply are complaints about the administration of the existing law, and
IMr. Byrne.]
existing government policy. They cannot be stated in the form of the complaint: "I know what the government are going to do, but I think they should do it today and not tomorrow." What can be said, though, is: "I know what the government are not doing, and I want them to do something different." When you state it the other way you have to wait until the resolution moved by the hon. member is debated.


An hon. Member:: Is that why you put
it on the order paper?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not going to say why anything is on the order paper. I also want to point out for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that in the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Red Deer on the address, the following words appear:
. . . and their failure to bring old age pensions and other Social Credit payments into line with the present cost of living.
You may or may not consider this was a matter of amendment in connection with this particular point of order.
Let me repeat, sir, that since the days of Charles I grievances have been understood to deal either with what was being done wrongly or with what ought to be done differently. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not bring himself within either of these two categories when he says, "I know what the government proposes to do, but I think it should announce its intentions now instead of waiting until some other time".


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: In the past, Mr. Speaker, wide latitude has always been allowed hon. members of this house in raising grievances. If a particular matter raised as a grievance happens to be covered by a notice of motion, then hon. members in the opposition are completely at the mercy of Liberal members. All Liberal members have to do is to plaster the order paper with notices of motion covering practically every subject and the opposition will be silenced.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could say that the point that there was a notice of motion on the order paper had already been dealt with and I was going to allow the hon. member to continue. But I should like the hon. member to note that when he says notices of motion placed on the order paper may silence members of the opposition it works both ways. If hon. members of the opposition place notices of motion on the order paper it certainly takes time on occasions when other hon. members might like to discuss certain matters. But the fact is that citation 467 has long provided that if there is a matter placed on or whereof notice has been

given in the order paper, that matter cannot be brought up as a grievance. However, I understand that this evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not put forward the question of an increase in old age pensions.
The Minister of Finance has raised the point that it is not his understanding that a grievance should embrace the discussion of what actions the government has failed to take. I have May here, 13th edition, but I have not been able to put my finger on the exact paragraph yet. However, it is my recollection that on the motion to go into supply members may air grievances which are limited only by the wording of citation 467 of Beauchesne's third edition. Members are limited with respect to the discussion of matters which relate to a decision of the house at the current session, to any item of the estimates, to resolutions which may be proposed to the committee of ways and means and of which, of course, notice has been given, or to any matters placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
That was precisely my difficulty last evening with respect to these omnibus amendments. The theory with respect to the latitude given to hon. members on the motion to go into committee of supply is so generous that I did not wish, in any shape or form, to be taxed with wanting to curtail the right to air grievances. I am accustomed to consulting the 15th edition of May and I have not been able to put my finger on the proper reference in the thirteenth edition. In any event, the time is so limited between nine and ten o'clock for the airing of grievances by private members that I would ask the house to take my word for what I have said and allow hon. members to proceed with their grievances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is just one point in the discussion that has been taking place about which I am sorry, and that is that the Minister of Finance has said something which would now block the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver South. This house having taken a decision by a vote on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer, I suggest it would make it difficult for the same subject matter to be moved again in a motion by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
My friends to my left will remember that when they moved their subamendment we indicated to them that we were afraid their action would have the effect of blocking any further motions or amendments on the subject of old age pensions as such, and it is precisely for that reason that I was endeavouring tonight to stay within the framework of the
Old Age Pensions
grievance as I stated it, namely that the government is holding this matter before the Canadian people like a carrot until as close to election time as they possibly can, whereas what they should do in a statesmanlike way is make an announcement at the earliest possible date.
I have one other reference, Mr. Speaker, and I shall conclude my remarks. On Wednesday, February 6, as recorded at pages 1014 and 1015 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning something he had said during the course of his recent television appearance on the program "The Nation's Business". I referred in particular to his words that we need to assist "those members of our national family who are too young, too handicapped, too old to look after themselves", and I asked him whether the Canadian people could take that as an assurance that something would be done at this session regarding family allowances, allowances for disabled persons and old age pensioners. The Prime Minister's reply was in these words:
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I was referring to existing legislation.
The next exchange is simply this:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do we take it from what the
Prime Minister now says in that negative tone that he is closing the door to action on these matters?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I am not closing the door, but as usual government policy will be announced in the house before it is announced over the radio.
One reason, that underlies this whole grievance, Mr. Speaker, is the impression that this television appearance of the Prime Minister gave to the people of Canada. I want to read two or three sentences from what he said so the statement to which I have just referred can be seen in its context. This is taken from the press the day after the Prime Minister made his speech over the television network. He is reported as having said:
. . . some of our fellow citizens have not been doing as well as we would like to see. We must all do what we can to get those less fortunate- whatever they do-wherever they work-to catch up with the general prosperity. And together, we must, as good neighbours, assist those members of our national family who are too young, too handicapped, too old to look after themselves, or who are temporarily without work ..."
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that that excellent statement which the Prime Minister made on that occasion led the press to believe that legislation in this field was being forecast; yet the next day or the day after when I asked my question the Prime Minister tried to say that this reference was only to existing legislation. That is all part of the practice

Old Age Pensions
of the government at this session against which I am complaining, against which I raise this grievance.
The Minister of Finance says I do not know what the government is going to do. Well, he is correct. I really do not know what the government is going to do, but I believe I know what any government going to the country this year would do. My grievance is that this matter is being stalled, and I call upon the government to stall no longer but to announce within the next day or so what it intends to do by way of a much needed increase in old age pensions for the senior citizens of this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a matter if that particular subject is concluded.


Mr. Speaker:: Is discussion of the grievance raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concluded?


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to the grievance raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I shall be extremely brief. One feels compelled to be brief in view of the limitations placed upon debate. During this session my colleagues and I have urged the government upon different occasions to make an announcement with respect to its intentions regarding increases in old age security and old age assistance payments.
We agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the old age pensioners in Canada have been given every reason to conclude that possibly something will be done during this session of parliament. A number of members on the opposite side of the house have indicated their support for such action. Members of the official opposition and members of the C.C.F. as well as our own members have urged such action. In fact, I have yet to hear anyone stand on the floor of the house and indicate that he was opposed to such a proposition. That has caused old age pension recipients right across Canada to conclude that something will be done.
Surely the government knows now, midway through this session, whether it contemplates making an announcement or introducing legislation if such is necessary with respect to this matter. We join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in suggesting that since a decision has been made one way or the other, the government is now under an obligation to make an early announcement with respect to this matter. We stand firmly with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleagues in urging that an announcement be made within the next few days.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that everyone on this side of the house feels that the government's decision with regard to this matter of old age pensions should be announced immediately. I think that is a point of such obvious merit that it hardly needs labouring here, except to say that to delay the announcement is to render a disservice to parliament, but that disservice is dwarfed entirely by the disservice that is rendered-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must point out to the hon. gentleman that if he is speaking to the grievance raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he will not be able to switch to another subject.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: He will have to resume his seat and he will not be able to speak to another matter. A moment ago, when he first rose, I took it that he wanted to raise a different subject.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to do that, Mr. Speaker. I am just concluding-


Mr. Speaker:: Let us not be technical about the matter. If the hon. member wants to do that he will have to conclude speaking about the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and will have to engage in the discussion of a new subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said it very well in a few words, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was trying to lead into it gradually, Mr. Speaker, without too abrupt a switch. But I should be glad to follow your advice in the matter. I shall now deal with the grievance that I rose to deal with.


Walter Edward Harris: May I just point out, Mr. Speaker, that it has been your custom to allow everyone else in the house who wants to speak on the grievance an opportunity to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nobody stood up.


Mr. Speaker:: A moment ago I asked if the discussion was completed, at which point the hon. member for Red Deer rose. As he sat down and the hon. member for Kamloops took the floor, again I asked-perhaps in a very mild and low voice-"Is the discussion concluded?". I do not know whether or not my voice was heard at that moment, but I took it that it was. If discussion is not concluded, may I ask whether there are any other hon. members who wish to speak on the grievance raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the hon. member for Kamloops was extremely anxious to enter this debate with respect to the so-called grievance raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am still at a loss to determine how this discussion can be interpreted as a grievance. Nonetheless, I certainly favour an increase in the old age security payments and, for that matter, those under every other welfare program that we have on the statute books. In my opinion this is not a grievance. It is simply a discussion of whether or not the old age security payments will be increased at this session of parliament. At no time in the house have I heard a statement to the effect that there would be an increase. I have been ever hopeful that there would be an increase.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If this is not a grievance, in the opinion of the hon. member, does he have any right to speak on it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I have been required to bow to your ruling and I humbly do so. However, I maintain that when speaking on this question, I am doing so in the hope that it will be beneficial to the people who are at present in receipt of old age security and old age assistance payments. It is not a grievance. I do not have a grievance.


Mr. Ellis:: Your grievance is against grievances.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think the government have been acting wisely up to this point, and I would beseech them to go further and give an increase. But it cannot be said that the government has been delinquent in not announcing its intentions if it does not intend to increase the pensions; and we have no assurance that there is that intention to increase them. Neither have we had any assurance to the contrary. Hence in rising at this moment to discuss this matter, I am doing as I would have done and as I was prepared to do-when the motion for the hon. member for Vancouver South was brought before the house, but I do not have my notes at hand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will not be reached.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: As has been pointed out, if one does not take part in this debate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will presume-or whether he presumes it or not he will go about the country saying it-that no one on the Liberal side was interested in the old age pensioners. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Old Age Pensions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I went out of my way to name 13 Liberal members who had committed themselves this session in favour of something being done about this matter.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I quite agree with the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those 13 did not include my hon. friend.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I agree that my hon. friend mentioned 13 Liberal members who took part in the debate earlier. But all of a sudden he has determined that he has a strong grievance against the government.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You are satisfied with inaction.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied. Anyone who is satisfied is ready to pass off the face of this earth. Hon. gentlemen should know that. None of us is satisfied at any time, but we keep our demands in perspective and attempt to do what the general economy of Canada will sustain. We do not rush into unlimited undertakings like some of those demanded by hon. members on the other side of the house. Every member on this side is sympathetic and wants to do what can be done for those who are in receipt of a pension.


Mrs. Fairclough:: That is enough.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Hon. members seem to be in a great hurry.


Mr. Barnett:: I should like to know whether or not the hon. member is labouring under the delusion that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is only the cheer leader.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have no misconception at all. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare gets up to speak he says something that is definitely a contribution and that is within the rules of the house, and at no time would he play politics with the plight of aged people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even your colleagues are laughing at that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: My concern at this moment, as I said, is for the continued observance of the rules of this house, and the hon. member who raised this grievance has been stretching the rules to quite a degree.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the discussion concluded on the grievance raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? The hon. member for Kamloops.

B.C. Fruit Growers



FRUIT GROWERS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to bring to the attention of the house for a very few minutes the plight of the apple growers in British Columbia. As you know, sir, and as hon. members know, I have a considerable number of apple growers in my constituency. These men are under a very severe disadvantage as a result of the difficulties they experienced in marketing their 1955 crop.
Sometimes when agricultural problems are raised in this house hon. members who do not come from agricultural areas are apt to say that the farmers are just asking for another hand-out. I want to point out that the fruit growing industry of British Columbia has received in the 14 years from 1941 to 1954, in spite of severe winters which have wiped out a large part of their orchards and in spite of crop failures and other marketing difficulties, assistance from this government-I use the term in a relative sense-totalling $3,622,807.17.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Only that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Approximately $250,000 a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: About a dollar an apple.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, there is the hon. minister who said, "What are apples; they are mostly water, anyway." He, of course, does not take any interest in this. In his view there is nothing important except what the minister deals with, and because he does not happen to deal with apples, they are not important.


John Horace Dickey: He deals with apples much more effectively than you do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He listens to a lot of applesauce from his parliamentary assistant.
This parliament has enacted an Agricultural Prices Support Act, and under the terms of that act a number of commodities have received assistance. When I used the figure of $3,600,000 I was not indicating that was a negligible amount of assistance. I am pointing out that it is not a great deal in relative terms over the period of years involved. The apply growing industry of British Columbia are appreciative of the fact that in 1951 they did receive a substantial payment, namely $1,200,000, to compensate them for a loss they were able to establish they had sustained in marketing that crop. The loss amounted to an average of 39 cents per box. In 1951 a grant in aid, I think it was called, of $1,200,000 was paid when the loss was 39 cents a box.

Now, sir, the loss on the 1955 crop amounted to an average of 48 cents per box or 9 cents per box more than the loss on the 1950 crop. These are facts which are known to all hon. members who come from the apple producing area of British Columbia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was the loss on the 1956 crop?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The figures are not available, but it is hoped that the crop will be marketed at a profit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should say it would.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The figures are not available, but they will probably be available before the figures for the final 1956 wheat crop. Since we are not half way through the month of February, 1957, and the crop is not marketed completely, I do not think even the minister would expect the industry to have figures available. The figures for the 1955 crop are available. The loss was an average of 48 cents per box.
I am bringing this to the attention of the house and the Minister of Agriculture, who is in his seat, with the request that if a submission is made to the agricultural prices support board, as I understand it will be, the government will receive that submission favourably and take action on it so the growers will not be left with that loss on their 1955 crop. What a reasonable figure might be to compensate them for the loss I am not going to suggest here, because I think that figure would more properly come from the industry itself. I simply point out, sir, that when the loss was 39 cents per box there was a grant in aid of $1,200,000. On behalf of the fruit growing industry I would urge that a proportionate grant be paid with respect to the 1955 crop.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am
very glad indeed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Kamloops has raised this subject and removed us from the turgid atmosphere of highly technical points of order to the sunny slopes of British Columbia. I know the hon. member has great sympathy for the fruit grower, because he has lived his whole life in one of the finest fruit growing districts of British Columbia. I might mention that I knew his father when he was minister of lands for British Columbia, and he was of great assistance to the early settlers who came into the Kootenay and Okanagan area 45 to 50 years ago with the idea of clearing land and planting orchards.
I have some experience in the fruit industry myself. I come from a family that has grown fruit in British Columbia for 40 years,

and has experienced every aspect of growing fruit from clearing heavy forests which cost us $500 an acre to clear in 1906 up to the present time. I know what a large investment per acre is required in the fruit industry in British Columbia. I know the long time a grower has to wait to realize on that investment, from 10 to 15 years at least. I know the cost of growing fruit throughout the years.
I see the Minister of Agriculture is listening and I am very pleased, because we have had four days on wheat and I think it quite fair that we should have 14 minutes on fruit. I hope he listens sympathetically to the pleas of the members who will represent the conditions of fruit growers in British Columbia at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was absent for the four days.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know what an amount of work is entailed in raising fruit. It is very tiring, very tedious and under present conditions very costly. I know the cost of fertilizer, pruning, spraying, thinning, picking, and all those operations that have to be undertaken in an orchard, and to a great extent by hand regardless of the degree of mechanization. I know of the inability of the fruit grower to switch from one crop to another because, generally speaking, his eggs are all in one basket. He has invested in an orchard, and because of the nature of his crop he cannot switch when there are changes in prices and things of that sort.
I know the fruit growers have lost some of their traditional markets, particularly in Great Britain and Europe, owing to currency difficulties and for other reasons. I know of the increasing competition they have had to face in recent years from citrus fruits from the south. I maintain, because of my close knowledge of the fruit growing industry of British Columbia-I myself have been a member of the British Columbia fruit growers' association for over 40 years-that the fruit growers of British Columbia are well organized. They have a progressive approach to every problem, and they have done everything possible, within the limits of their powers, to do things for themselves. Whenever they have come to the government for assistance in any direction it is only after they have exhausted all their own resources and are faced with unusual and difficult situations.
Some years ago we were faced with the question of varieties. To some extent, as the result of advice we received from officials of the federal and provincial governments, and from others, many unsuitable varieties were 82715-79J
B.C. Fruit Growers
planted. You could not blame anyone for that. There was no experience in growing fruit in those areas prior to the early days of this century. Many unsuitable varieties of fruit depressed the market of the fruit growers in general. The fruit growers' association, with the co-operation of the growers, did what they could to eliminate unsuitable varieties.
The fruit growers in British Columbia have done their best to explore every possible market and to overcome the difficulties created by present currency restrictions. In the last few years they have conducted an all-out sales effort led by men who have had long experience in the fruit industry-I should say an international experience in the fruit industry-and are capable of facing every problem they have to meet to the best advantage.
To illustrate that, I think in 1955 some 2.97 per cent of the total receipts from the sale of apples was invested in advertising in that year in an effort to stimulate and increase the market. They have done everything possible to meet changing customs and changing demands on the part of the consumer. They have improved the orthodox packs; they have improved their varieties, and they have also improved their packaging methods. Every avenue along that line has been explored. Therefore I think it is not a question of an industry not exercising restraint running to the government for assistance whenever they get a slight bump or a jar, but it is the representations of the fruit growers of British Columbia, of a group of men and women, of growers, who have indicated they are willing to stand on their own feet and do everything possible within their control.
To illustrate the restraint that the growers of British Columbia have exercised throughout the years in their applications to the federal government, or to other governments, for assistance, I want to give the house this information. The total assistance to the British Columbia fruit industry over the period 1941 to 1954, inclusive, has amounted to $3,622,807.17. During the same period a total of 84,359,621 boxes of apples were produced. The amount of assistance rendered this industry by the government during this period -I am speaking now of the federal government-amounted, therefore, to .0429 cents per bushel. I challenge the minister to give an illustration of any other section of agriculture in Canada that has had as little assistance in comparison with the total value of the crop produced.
I mention these facts, Mr. Speaker, because it is very easy to underestimate their

B.C. Fruit Growers
difficulties, and easy for some people without any knowledge of the fruit growers' experience to say that they come running to the government for assistance without having made every effort possible to assist themselves. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member for Kamloops in his plea to the government to give favourable consideration to any representations the British Columbia fruit growers' association may make on behalf of the tree fruit growers of the interior of British Columbia.
I might mention before I conclude that the fruit growers of British Columbia represent the only section of the agricultural industry in Canada that during the war, because of the shortage of crop on occasions, the tremendous demand and the increased purchasing power as a result of war activities, willingly recommended prices for certain crops such as cherries and soft fruits to the government under the wartime prices control board which were lower than could have been obtained if they had just allowed the competition for their goods to exist in Canada generally.
I think, Mr. Speaker, they have exercised every restraint. They have particular and unique problems as compared with some other sections of agriculture, and because of what they have tried to do for themselves to build up in British Columbia one of the finest marketing organizations in the world, when they are faced with problems over which they have little control this government should give their representations serious and, I trust, favourable consideration.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to the grievance raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. The growers of the Okanagan -and I am speaking largely of the apple growers-are facing a serious situation, as was mentioned, owing to severe weather conditions which damaged their trees in the winters of 1953-54 and 54-55. As a result, in 1955 they produced a very small crop owing to the weakened condition of the trees. The crop was small in quantity and it was also not so good in quality, which is unusual for Okanagan products.
I can also assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the British Columbia growers are not in the habit of coming hat in hand to this government for financial assistance; but owing to conditions beyond their control in 1955 they were saddled with tremendous losses in their operations. On the average they received a price of 76 cents per box for the top grade apples.
It is estimated, Mr. Speaker, that it costs $1.25 to produce top grade apples in the 
Okanagan valley. The lower grades, of course, C's and culls, are dealt with in other ways. They have their own methods of taking care of these by processing them into apple juice, canned apple sauce and dry materials. Therefore they are concerned mainly with the top grades, or the fancy dessert apples which have made a name for themselves throughout Canada.
As I say, they realized the sum of 76 cents a box for these apples in 1955. I understand they have made a plea to this government, and they have been advised that the maximum they can obtain is 40 cents a box. Since they have already received 76 cents, they are away over and above what this government considers it should cost to raise a box of apples.
I believe anyone with any sense will laugh at the idea that you can produce a box of apples today for 40 cents. The insistence of the prices support board on retaining that ridiculously low floor price, if I may describe it as such, indicates that they are certainly not taking a realistic view of existing conditions.
I understand that these growers have already contacted this government and have asked that the price they received of 76 cents a box be supplemented from the funds which are in the hands of the prices support board to give them at least sufficient money to continue producing and endeavour under very difficult circumstances to build up their orchards by replanting some of the trees that had been completely destroyed, in order to carry on in the future with some degree of success. In view of the treatment these growers have received in their modest appeals for assistance in the past, and in view of their courage and determination to carry on in the future with a minimum of assistance, I would strongly urge that the Minister of Agriculture and the officials of his department give every sympathetic consideration to their plea for financial assistance in compensating for the difficult years they have just experienced.


Mr. James:: Mr. Speaker-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I see that two hon. members are on their feet. Do they propose to raise a new question of grievance?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, on the present question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Durham.


John Mason James: Mr. Speaker, I speak at this time on this particular grievance in order to let the house know that British Columbia is not the only place in Canada where fruit is grown. We also have a very large fruit growing area in Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Where?


John Mason James: I could mention Durham
county, and I understand there are many other areas where apples, peaches and many other fruits are grown.


An hon. Member:: And asparagus.


John Mason James: In connection with the plea of the British Columbia fruit growers for assistance, I have every sympathy for their situation because the apple growers have also had a difficult year in Ontario. I speak of them in particular, though my remarks could apply equally as well to the growers of many other types of fruit. One of my colleagues has mentioned peaches to me, and these are grown near St. Catharines where he comes from. There are many other hon. members from Ontario who could speak of the difficulties experienced by fruit growers in their areas, and who would join with me in urging the government to provide every possible assistance to the fruit growers of Ontario.
I understand some difficulty has arisen in past years through providing assistance to fruit growers in one part of Canada and not providing assistance to fruit growers in other parts of the country. I can well recall instances in the past when assistance was provided to apple growers in British Columbia or Nova Scotia but not to those in Ontario. In some instances this has seriously annoyed the fruit growers of Ontario.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But they do not export.


John Mason James: This was not a large factor but it was an annoying one, and what we found was this. The fruit growers of British Columbia or Nova Scotia, as the case may be, on occasion received subsidies and the Ontario fruit growers did not. The next thing we discovered was that Ontario markets were being lost to British Columbia or Nova Scotia apple growers who, whether you like it or not and you can apply it in any way you wish, in effect used the money they raised for a vast promotional build-up in Ontario, and they were able to take over markets such as the large grocery stores in this province. It was very difficult for Ontario growers to compete with them because, as you know, British Columbia apples are packed and wrapped much fancier than are ordinary Ontario apples. It has been suggested by some of my hon. friends, though
Unemployment Insurance I would not have dared to suggest it, that the flavour of British Columbia apples is not nearly as good as that of Ontario apples. The consumers were overcome by the huge advertising program that was conducted; a subsidized advertising program, if you wish to describe it that way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is my hon. friend saying that the Ontario people are gullible?


Mr. Harrison:: You have had your subsidy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are Ontario people gullible; is that what you are saying?


John Mason James: No. Ontario people are not gullible.


An hon. Member:: No, just tolerant.


John Mason James: Ontario fruit growers have had a difficult year and they would like equal treatment with the other parts of the fruit growing industry in Canada; that is all they ask for.
As a matter of fact our Ontario fruit growers on the rare occasions when they have asked for any assistance have asked for it in a form that would help the industry in the long run.
It is my plea that any assistance that might be forthcoming from the government-and I would certainly like to see any possible assistance given to the fruit growing industry in all parts of Canada, because I realize it needs it and many of my hon. friends also realize it needs it-will not be just a selective measure for one part of Canada but will be spread right across the country and made available to fruit growers everywhere. At the same time, if there are any people here who have not eaten Durham apples I urge them to start eating them at the earliest opportunity, and I can assure you that you will find they are wonderful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I presume that subject is exhausted. I have a grievance I should like to raise and I shall not take very long. I see that I have two minutes at my disposal, and I believe I can state my grievance in two minutes.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Thirty seconds.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I could probably say
more in 30 seconds than the hon. member who interrupts can say in 30 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Unemployment Insurance Mrs. Fairclough:	Mr. Speaker, this is a
serious subject and I do not want to get into the realm of the facetious, because I am gravely concerned about the plight of people in many centres across Canada today who are having to wait for what seems unreasonable lengths of time in. order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
I brought this up in the house yesterday. I probably should apologize to the Minister of Labour because unfortunately I was not aware at the time that he was not here and was not represented in the house. Probably he has been informed of my question in the meantime. I should like to bring to his attention, to the attention of the government and of this house the fact that although we are under the impression that these claims for benefit are met promptly in the various offices across this country, such is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to encroach upon the time of this house further. I realize that my time is up and I think I have made my point. I ask the Minister of Labour to take this matter into consideration.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1.	General administration, $628,277.

[Stage Direction]
94. Departmental administration, $4,880,806.
[Stage Direction]
172. Departmental administration, $543,155.
[Stage Direction]
297. Departmental administration, $637,817.
[Stage Direction]
333. Departmental administration, $2,091,516.
[Stage Direction]
435. Departmental administration, $1,937,680.
Proceedings reported.

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the order of business will be, first, the Canada Council bill; then the Export Credits Insurance Act; then the resolution on the Canadian Farm Loan Act, and finally the resolution in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources with respect to certain museums.


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

[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. Smith (Battle River-: Camrose):
1.	What were the names of the bands of Indians which were recognized as treaty Indians, living on the Hobbema reserve in 1951?
2.	What are the names of the recognized bands of Indians on the Hobbema reserve at the present time?
3.	How many persons who formerly lived or are living on the Hobbema reserve and recognized as treaty Indians have been deprived of their treaty rights, as a result of the 1951 amendments to the Indian Act?
4.	To what presently or formerly recognized band or bands did the individuals mentioned in (3) belong?
5.	How many of these individuals are within the
following age brackets:	under 20, 20-39 , 40-59,
60-79, 80 and over?
6.	For what reason or reasons were the individuals referred to in (3) deprived of their treaty rights?
7.	How many individuals, formerly recognized as treaty Indians, living on reserves in Alberta, other than the Hobbema reserve, have lost their status as treaty Indians since 1951?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	The bands in Hobbema Indian agency are Ermineskin, Louis Bull, Montana, and Samson.
2.	Same as above.
3.	4, 5 and 6. No members of the bands on the Hobbema reserve have been deprived of treaty rights as a result of the 1951 amendments to the Indian Act.
7. 497, all of whom have become enfranchised in compliance with their applications for enfranchisement.


HUNGARIAN REFUGEES
Mr. Boisvert: Has any agreement been signed between the federal and Quebec governments for the reception and care of Hungarian refugees?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration):
No agreement has yet been signed.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Campbell: 1.	How many acres of land are under cultivation on each of the reserves in the Battleford Indian agency?
Questions
2.	How many acres, if any, on each of these reserves are leased to white men?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
Acreage under
1.	Name of reserve	Cultivation(a)	Saulteaux	
191(b)	Thunderchild	
1,666(c)	Red Pheasant	
975(d)	Sweetgrass	
4,235(e)	Mosquito	
337(f)	Little Pine	
1,447(g)	Poundmaker	
4,392(h)	Moosomin	
1,272
Acreage leased
2.	Name of reserve	to white men(a)	Poundmaker	
1,097(b)	Saulteaux (grazing lease) ..	2,000(c)	Sweetgrass (grazing lease) .. 11,300


POSTAL SERVICE, BURNABY AND RICHMOND, B.C.
Mr. Goode: 1.	How many letter carrier walks were there in Burnaby, British Columbia, in (a) 1949; (b) 1953; (c) how many at present?
2. How many homes were serviced by letter carriers in Burnaby in (a) 1949; (b) 1953; (c) at present?
3.	How many letter carrier walks were there in Richmond, British Columbia, in (a) 1949; (b) 1953; (c) how many at present?
4. How many homes were serviced by letter carriers in Richmond in (a) 1949; (b) 1953; (c) at present?
Answer by: Mr. Kirk, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Postmaster General:
1.	(a) 41; (b) 45; (c) 57.
2.	(a) 12,242; (b) 17,041; (c) 22,740.
3.	(a) 7; (b) 7; (c) 13.
4.	(a) 2,075; (b) 2,388; (c) 4,790.


FARM LOANS ACT, MANITOBA
Mr. Pommer: 1.	How many applications for loans under the Canadian Farm Loan Act were received by the Manitoba branch for the year ending December 31, 1956?
2.	How many of these applications were granted?
3.	What was the amount of each loan?
4.	How many were refused?
5.	How many are still under review?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):
1.	321.
2.	273.
3.	The largest loan is $15,000, the smallest $1,000 and the average $4,632.
4.	30.
5.	18.

Wednesday, February 13, 1957