1957-02-11

PETITION OF ALBERTA INDIAN ASSOCIATION TO THE QUEEN


Mr. Speaker:: The clerk of petitions has found that the petition which was filed with the Clerk by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on Friday, February 8, 1957, from the Indian Association of Alberta is irregular on the following grounds:
(a)	It is not addressed to the House of Commons and parliament assembled;
(b)	It is not in the form required by the standing orders and practice of this house since it bears no signature and does not conclude with a prayer, nor is it introduced by a member of the house. Bourinot at pages 233 and 234 states:
In case any Irregularity is reported in any of the petitions the Speaker will state it to the house and rule that the petition cannot be received.
In accordance with that I must rule the petition out of order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced in the House of Commons in London today that he and the President of the United States would be meeting in conference from March 21 to March 24. Evidently as a courtesy to the Prime Minister the President suggested that the meeting take place in Bermuda. That is the arrangement which has been agreed upon. Since we heard of the arrangements that were being made we naturally renewed the assurance to the Prime Minister that he would be very warmly welcomed in Canada if he found it possible to come here on the occasion of his visit to Bermuda, but he informed us it would not be possible for him to come either before or after his conference in Bermuda with the President.
However, as there seemed to be matters which it would be valuable to have discussed at this time-matters of common concern to
the United Kingdom and to Canada-it has been arranged that I will join him in Bermuda on the 25th and 26th of March to discuss these matters of special concern to the United Kingdom and Canada.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we welcome any meeting with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or the President of the United States. A meeting such as that cannot but be beneficial and helpful to the friendship, comradeship, and the common dedication of the forces of freedom they represent, and I am very happy to learn that the Prime Minister will be present on this occasion.
He will remember that last November or December we suggested from this part of the house that in order to bring about the closest possible relations between the United Kingdom and the United States and Canada a conference might be welcomed here in Canada in the city of Quebec, and I am wondering whether the Prime Minister gave any indication to the President, and to the Prime Minister of Britain along those lines.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not, and I hope I did not convey the impression that I would be taking part in the discussions between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President. I am to join the Prime Minister after the conclusion of his conference with the President.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I understand that.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 104, to amend the Indian Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent the expulsion from Indian reserves of persons who have had Indian status for many years and thus bring to an end what some newspapers have called "the brutal and inhuman treatment being meted out to some of our Indians."
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Motions for Papers FISHERIES



SOCKEYE SALMON


Hon. W. E. Harris (for ihe Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement a convention between Canada and the United States of America for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system, signed at Washington on the 26th day of May, 1930, and a protocol thereto signed at Ottawa on the 28th day of December, 1956, and for carrying out Canada's obligations under the said convention and protocol.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
I Later:]

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Fisheries or the parliamentary assistant. Would one or the other of them tell the house the terms of the new north Pacific fur seal agreement which I understand was signed in Washington on Saturday? I am particularly anxious to know whether the Canadian quota remains the same as in pre-war years.


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no notice of the intention of the hon. member to ask this question. I will therefore take it as notice and bring in an answer tomorrow.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-INQUIRY AS TO DEVELOPMENT WORK AT SITE OF MORAN DAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries possib] j the acting minister or the parliamentary assistant could take this question as notice. 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?


John Watson MacNaught: I
shall be glad to take the question as notice. [Mr. Harkness.l



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Balcom:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged during 1956 and 1957, between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia, respecting a combination land reclamation-highway project across the Annapolis river.
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: We shall accept this with the usual reservation that we receive the consent of the provincial government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the government and Scandinavian Airlines, also between the government and the council of the city of Winnipeg, since January 1, 1956, related to the request of the said air line for permission to provide air passenger service at Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the house that there has not been, since January 1, 1956, any request of the Scandinavian Airlines for permission to provide air passenger service at Winnipeg, Manitoba, and in consequence there is no correspondence between the government and Scandinavian Airlines with regard to such a request. There was an exchange of letters between the mayor of the city of Winnipeg and myself as Minister of Transport which has already been made public. I shall be glad to table that correspondence but that is all I am able to give the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Zaplitny:: May I point out to the minister that the request does not relate to January 1, 1956. Only the correspondence relates to that date. The request can be as of any date.


George Carlyle Marler: Well, Mr. Speaker, there has never been a request for permission to provide air passenger service at Winnipeg, so the date is not material.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the remarks of the Minister of Transport?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Coldwell:
For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, agreements and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any of its responsible officials and the provincial govern-

ments or any of their officials, from November 1, 1956 to date, regarding the immigration, reception, care, placement, etc., of Hungarian refugees.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection whatsoever to this motion but I assume it will be understood that the provincial governments concerned will have to be agreeable to production. I know no reason why they should not be.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware that some steamship lines bringing immigrants to this country by-pass Canadian ports and land them in New York, from which point they go directly to other Canadian provinces by rail?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker,
there are no assisted passage warrants issued by my department for any except Canadian seaports or airports. Hungarian refugees who are given free passage are given it only to Canadian seaports or airports. Of course, I dare say it does happen that immigrants who are paying their own way may pay their way on ships to New York and travel by air or rail to Canada afterwards. Naturally there is nothing any government can do about that.



ADMISSION OF CHINESE FEMALES TO MARRY CANADIAN CITIZENS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the policy that permits the admission to Canada of females of Chinese nationality for the purpose of marriage to Canadian citizens to be continued?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, this was established as an experiment for a certain length of time. So far as I am aware the experiment has worked out quite well, and I think it may well be continued.



AMISH MENNONITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. A. Matheson (Queens):: Can the
minister inform the house whether the Amish Mennonite people are being admitted to Canada as immigrants? If the answer is in the negative, can he say why?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I think it is well known to all hon. members that under our immigration policy no account whatever is taken of the religion of prospective immigrants. Strictly speaking, therefore, the answer to the hon. gentleman's question is that no one is excluded because he is an Amish Mennonite. It does happen that some people who are Amish Mennonites do object to accepting citizenship of a country and to participating in elections and other ordinary democratic procedures. As it has always been laid down that the main purpose of our immigration policy is to add to the citizenship of this country, such a factor is taken into account when it is present in a particular case. It is not because they are Amish Mennonites. The same consideration would apply to any other prospective immigrants about whom there was a really serious ground for believing that they did not intend to become citizens.



HUNGARIAN REFUGEES-PROVISION OF COMFORT ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: May I
inquire of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when I may expect an answer to my question asked on February 1, and also to the supplementary question I asked on February 7, relative to a telegram from the chairman of the Abbotsford and district citizenship council requesting information as to a comfort allowance for Hungarian refugees in that area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I
answered the telegram and I thought probably the hon. member would be informed of the answer and also that it probably would not be of any great interest to the house. The answer is that all immigration officers receiving Hungarian refugees are authorized, in the case of necessity only, to provide pocket money up to a maximum of $5 monthly for adults over 16 years of age only. Since pocket money was issued on arrival no additional issue would be made until one month after arrival.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar;: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house the subject matter of a further bill affecting prairie farmers to which the Minister of Trade and
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry Commerce referred in the house last Friday afternoon? What I am particularly interested in knowing is whether the bill will be introduced at this session despite the threat made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if it were going to be debated it would not be introduced.
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I made no such threat; and if my hon. friend will read from Hansard what I said on that occasion he will find there is no foundation for his remarks.


Mr. Coldwell:: Well, I took the minister to mean that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there is a resolution on the order paper and when the resolution is passed the bill will be ready for introduction.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister tell the house to which resolution he refers? I have the order paper before me and I do not see at the moment one that has been introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is a resolution concerning amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and there will be a resolution concerning interim loans on wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the resolution regarding loans will be introduced. Apparently that is the one to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred and which the Prime Minister inadvertently or mistakenly said was already on the order paper.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry; I did not look at the order paper. I said what I did because the resolution had been before us and it had been determined that we would get the approval of the Governor General to its introduction.


Major James William Coldwell: Since the Minister of Trade and Commerce asked me to look at Hansard, may I say that I have looked at Hansard, and if he will look at page 1124 he will see that he used these words:
I cannot ask for the time this session from the leader of the house which would seem to be required to put that bill through and it may have to go over until the fall or whenever we have another session. I might try it for a day. If it goes through, all right, but if it does not the bill is out.
I took it to be certainly, as I used the term, a threat that if the bill did not go through in a day, then it would not go through at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That remark
was made in the light of the fact that it took four days' debate to have the bill for a change in one date discussed. I also recall that it took several weeks to put through a similar bill at the last session. I said that this session we had not time for the discussion should the C.C.F. try to talk the bill out, as they have tried to talk out other bills. Every member of the C.C.F. spoke at length on the change of date bill, just as they tried to talk out the wheat legislation of last session.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise on a question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker. Certainly my colleagues did not try to talk out the bill. As a matter of fact, the bill continues an act in which we were primarily interested when the government was opposed to a wheat pool in the sense we have it now. Had the objections to extraneous matters been raised that were raised by my friend the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) to the speech that was made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) the debate would not have been that prolonged.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the answer the minister gave me on Friday last that the guaranteed depth of the Fraser river at low water in the first narrows is 37 feet 6 inches, would he now answer the question I asked him that day, namely would he guarantee that the same depth will be maintained at all times from the mouth of the Fraser river to the city of New Westminster, that is to a depth of 37 feet 6 inches?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member will recall that when I answered the previous question I said that the design depth over the centre line of the tunnel was 40 feet 9 inches and that the government of British Columbia was to undertake to maintain that depth both over the centre line of the tunnel and within a certain distance of either side of the centre line. It is the government of British Columbia that is giving the undertaking to maintain the depth to which I referred.


Frederick George Hahn: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The question has to do

Inquiries of the Ministry
with the possibility of ships going past the Deas tunnel to the city of New Westminster. There is 40 feet 9 inches of water over the Deas tunnel. I should like the minister to tell the house what the purpose is of having the tunnel down that depth if you are not going to be able to run ships up to the harbour at New Westminster.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend knows what the purpose of the tunnel is.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The question as to what purpose the department might have is a matter which should be debated and this is not the time for a debate.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Justice. I believe the Minister of Finance is the acting minister. I wonder whether the minister could inform the house whether or not he has received a report from the restrictive trade practices commission in connection with the recent increases in the prices of gasoline and fuel oil. In view of the fact that a probe has been ordered in the United States to investigate price-fixing collusion by the major oil companies, will the minister consider again ordering an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall make inquiries, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not the report has been received and advise the house.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be permitted to give an answer that I promised to the hon. member for The Battlefords. On Friday he asked me whether the time had expired under the Indian Act when Indians could protest the occupation of other persons on a reserve. He also asked whether there were any persons, other than those in the Samson case, under protest at the moment on Indian reserves.
The answer I gave to the first question the other day was correct. It is no longer possible to make protests about persons whose
names were placed on the band lists which were posted pursuant to the act of 1951. Such protests had to be lodged within six months of the posting of the lists. The only protests which can now be entertained are those respecting names which may be added to the lists from time to time in the future.
In addition to the Samson case there are four other cases which have been appealed to the courts where the courts have not rendered a decision. These cases involve 23 families. In the case of 18 families, the appeal is against the decision of the registrar that those families have Indian status. In the case of the other five families, the appeal is against the decision of the registrar that the families do not have Indian status.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: May I
direct a question to my genial friend the Minister of Finance? Is he making progress in the preparation of the budget that will be presented to this house before the dissolution of parliament?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have made a great deal of progress on the budget in recent days.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Can the Minister of Agriculture tell the house what is the present status of negotiations between Nova Scotia and the government of Canada with respect to the causeway across the Annapolis river, the announcement of which was made some time ago and which has not appeared in the main estimates?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just a few moments ago I agreed to bring down the correspondence in connection with the matter under notices of motions for the production of papers. I presume it is the same matter about which the question is being asked.
There has been no change whatsoever in the meaning of the correspondence or discussions which have taken place as a result of the fact that there has been a change of government. There has been a change of government in Nova Scotia since the negotiations took place in connection with this matter and the present government has been notified, as the correspondence will indicate,

Inquiries of the Ministry that we are prepared to proceed right from that point in the matter as though there had been no change.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention to appoint a transport controller?


George Carlyle Marler: I have already made some comments on this subject in the house. I do not think I can usefully add anything to what has already been said.



STATEMENT ON OPERATION OF FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on February 6 I directed a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. If the minister has taken notice of the question I wonder whether he is prepared to give an answer to the house? My question was this:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether the government has sufficient concern about the serious condition facing the poultry industry in Canada with respect to eggs to take government action to assist the industry?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Well, Mr. Speaker, a number of questions have been asked on this matter and one was asked on Wednesday last which had to do with the detail of the same matter, and I shall answer the larger question later.
On Wednesday last the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson) asked a question regarding the price of eggs being delivered to grading stations in his constituency. I have made inquiry and am advised that apparent prices available to producers in that area have been on the basis of 30 cents or more per dozen for grade A large eggs, which is regarded as being in line with the support price.
With regard to the larger question which has been referred to by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, the arrangements which have been made in connection with eggs date back to about six years ago, and we have been carrying on the same policy from that time down to the present, which is to the effect that we are prepared to accept eggs in storage at storage points across Canada on the basis of 38 cents a dozen at the storage


plants. Difficulties have developed on two or three occasions during the last six years which have made it necessary for us to change the regulations from time to time in order to make it possible for us to enforce the intention of the policy which we are following.
We had some difficulties two years ago which resulted in our having eggs off the market at a time when eggs were going up very high in price. They went up to 85 cents a dozen and we were holding 107,000 cases of eggs. Therefore, during the next year we changed the regulations to make it possible to put the eggs back on the market at any time, with the result that we continued on through last year without any difficulty.
This year, for reasons over which we have very little control, there did develop a very high supply of eggs around the middle of November and it increased into the month of January. The regulations, as they stood, were found again not to be such as to make it possible fully to enforce the intentions of the policy, and so we have again changed the regulations to make it possible for us to take the eggs, oil-dipped, as of a date in January and we continue to do so. That has had the result in most places of putting the eggs up to 30 cents grade A large to the producer. There are odd places where they are down to 29 cents and there are some where they have been down perhaps even lower than that. The difficulty in places where they have been priced lower, such as, say, in western Ontario, in certain parts of Saskatchewan and elsewhere, is that we have no control whatsoever over the dealings within a province. Since control over intraprovincial trade is with the provincial authorities and always has been, if someone does sell eggs at 28 cents a dozen, grade A large, intraprovin-cially we have no means of prosecuting anyone for doing that, nor have we any authority to say that they must be sold at some other price. There will be places across the country where eggs are sold at prices lower than the 38-cent price delivered at storage plants. That is sometimes due to the fact that the storage plant is a long distance removed. All I can say is that in so far as it is possible to enforce the idea we are prepared to buy eggs at 38 cents grade A large at storage, and that is all we can do under the circumstances. We say we are prepared to buy eggs at a certain place under certain conditions at a certain price; if the eggs are delivered there we buy them, but if somebody undertakes to sell eggs to some person at a lower price than that within the province we have no way of enforcing the price. We cannot compel him to deliver them to us at some other point.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Where does the minister get his information with respect to the riding of Victoria (Ont.) to the effect that eggs are selling for 30 cents? I have information from his own department that slips have been issued at 26 cents for grade A large.


James Garfield Gardiner: We sent people up there to look into the matter and they report that they could have got 30 cents if they had taken them to the place where the required conditions were met.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Where is the right place? The slips I have are from every grading station in the riding.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member had better consult the government of Ontario and get them to enforce the price that is available.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The minister had better do something for the dominion government.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister any progress to report in connection with the consideration to which he referred on January 14 to be given to the plight of superannuated civil servants, especially those whose pensions are in the lower brackets? Is he yet in position to announce whether an increase in those pensions will be provided?


Walter Edward Harris: I suggest that this is not a proper question at this time. I do not want to labour the point, but I think the rules provide that questions are asked to elicit information for use in subsequent debate in the house. A question should not be asked at regular intervals if the government is formulating policy because everyone in the house knows that government policy is announced in the normal way in the house if the house is sitting, or if the house is not sitting by a public statement. I suggest that we do not waste too much time in asking this kind of question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and as he
Inquiries of the Ministry is not in the house perhaps someone else could answer it. Is the minister aware that there is a serious situation existing in Hamilton with regard to delay in providing unemployment insurance benefits, particularly to workers in the automobile industry who have been laid off recently?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minisier of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I will draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the hon. member's question.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege which may not seem important to the house generally but which would involve considerable injustice to the Conservative opposition if I did not rise at this time. The Star-Phoenix of February 9 contained an article which stated that in the course of my speech I had blasted members of the Conservative party in this house for having voted against certain resolutions, and the first one named was the resolution in regard to federal aid to education. I immediately called the editor and he assured me that it was a mistake on their part which will be corrected today.
So it may be clear may I state what I did say. I gave the Conservative party full credit for having supported that resolution on former occasions. I stated that Mr. Drew, a former leader of that party, had on several occasions spoken immediately after I had and led his followers in support of that action, both by voice and, when the opportunity occurred, by vote. The mistake may have arisen from the fact that I had said that I thought that for certain reasons, which I need not go into now, the support of that party had been somewhat less enthusiastic than before and that I was disappointed that the only member of the party who had spoken in favour of the resolution was the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan).



INQUIRY AS TO STATUS OF EXPORTS AND SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce a question because of the criticism offered by many hon. members to the effect that Canada was losing sales of wheat in the markets of the world and
1X52	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry also because there appeared in the Manitoba Co-operator details ol wheat sales which showed an increase for last year. My question to the minister is this. Is there any foundation for this criticism? Second, what other countries in the world have increased their sales?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, we do not discuss sales of wheat, we discuss exports of wheat. Exports of Canadian wheat were higher this crop year than at the same date last year to the extent of 26 million to 27 million bushels. We have increased our sales of wheat to our three largest customers, the same customers this year as last year, Great Britain, West Germany and Japan.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I thank you.


Mr. Winch:: I have a second question-


Mr. Speaker:: The first question should not have been asked.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have arranged to make available a departmental release summarizing the results of the survey of investment intentions for 1957. On the basis of the plans reported in the survey, total capital expenditures in Canada, both private and public, would reach $8.5 billion in 1957. This outlay, if realized, would represent an increase of 8 per cent over the $7.9 billion spent in 1956.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West on Thursday regarding the humane slaughter of meat animals, I regret that I am not in a position to go into the matter in any great detail. It would seem more appropriate that discussion of this somewhat involved question should take place on estimates rather than during the question period.
However, I can indicate to the hon. member that officials of the Department of Agriculture have had the question under study and information has been collected from official and other sources in the United States and from several European countries. This has


been discussed with responsible officers of the packing industry and there have been some discussions between the industry and certain sections of the S.P.C.A. to which officials of the department have been invited. At the present time both groups are considering the issue in a frank, exploratory manner.
As the hon. member knows, there already are provisions in the Criminal Code under which action can be taken against persons responsible for cruelty to animals, whether such cruelty is associated with slaughter for meat or otherwise. Study so far given to the problem by our officials does not indicate the desirability of further federal legislation on the matter at the present time.
I can assure the hon. member that the minister and officials of the Department of Agriculture are genuinely interested in promoting the most humane methods possible of slaughtering meat animals adaptable to meat packing operations in Canada, and are pursuing the course which they think is best fitted to achieve that end.


Harold Edward Winch: May
I ask a supplementary question?
Has there been any discussion between the minister's department and the provinces on the question of jurisdiction in this matter, and has there been any understanding between the department and the provinces that the provinces would like the federal government to take appropriate action under federal legislation?


James Garfield Gardiner: As the statement indicates, there have been discussions with the provincial authorities and those who are interested in the question in general, and we are at all times giving consideration to those matters in relation to which we have authority. But-and this, of course, is obvious from the question asked-there are certain matters which can only be dealt with by the provinces themselves.


Harold Edward Winch: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, is there any understanding yet that the provinces have asked your department to accept the responsibility of bringing in legislation?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no doubt-although I cannot give an instance of it-that this kind of request has come out in the discussions which have taken place, but the constitution pretty well settles the question whether we can or cannot legislate.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.



MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POLICY

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, today's announcement by the Prime Minister regarding the meeting that is to take place in Bermuda, at which he will be present during the latter day or days, is one more indication of the degree to which Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom find themselves allies, making their respective contributions to the preservation and maintenance of peace with freedom throughout the world.
However, I was disappointed that the Prime Minister did not see fit to invite the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to Canada. I cannot understand the attitude of the government in this regard. In the days of war, at the Quebec conference, there was begun a movement, in a joint alliance, that led to victory. Why the government of Canada should now seem so afraid to do anything in so far as our country is concerned to bring together Britain and the United States in a conference is difficult of understanding. I wonder what is the reason for this.
Notwithstanding the vast reserves that we possess, the contribution that has been made in two world wars, the degree to which today our mineral arid other resources are making their contribution to the forces of freedom everywhere in the world, for some reason that has not been explained, though there is a tremendous desire-and a commendable one -to make a contribution in the United Nation's, there does not seem to be a similar attitude of mind when it comes to bringing together the United Kingdom and the United States with Canada.
Only today Canadians heard with, I would say, considerable surprise an announcement made over the American Broadcasting Corporation' by Mr. E. O. Newman regarding Canada's attitude last fall during the Suez affair. We have never been able to find, nor were we able to secure, the message that was sent by the government of Canada to the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Anthony Eden. What that message contained no one knows, because when application was made to the United Kingdom for publication of that message the government of Canada very carefully provided in the request that if that message were to be made available then all of the correspondence and all of the private messages which had passed over a period of months would have to be included.
And over and over again, because of the government's failure to produce that document and its apparent desire to conceal it, 82715-73
Natural Resources-Development having regard to the kind of message that was sent to the government of the United Kingdom, information is forthcoming in various ways interpretative of what that message included. Arid today we are faced, over the American Broadcasting Corporation system, with information that the Prime Minister's letter to Sir Anthony Eden in the fall of 1956 contained a warning that unless Britain and France called off the invasion of Egypt within 24 hours Canada would withdraw from the commonwealth.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Whoever
made that statement, Mr. Speaker, made a very inaccurate statement and one that is entirely false.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that statement on the part of the Prime Minister places him in a position where he interprets the message-


An hon. Member:: It does not. *


John George Diefenbaker: -where he says that
we cannot see the message, but where he gives us the contents by negation.
And when I heard the Prime Minister say today that no invitation had been' extended to Britain and to the United States to meet here in Canada, I found it difficult to understand the reasons why, after so long, this government, in view of Canada's outstanding place in the international world, should seem so diffident about doing a thing that on the face of it would seem to be a reasonable one.
Certainly, the events of the past few weeks indicate that there will be an acceleration of the "cold war"; that everywhere in the world it will be waged more aggressively than ever before, and that we, within our own country and within the nations of the free world, will have to give more and more attention to the preservation of our freedom on the defence front, and also to the preservation of our economic strength in order to meet the trade offensive that is being launched everywhere in the world.
Everywhere today the search is for the raw materials necessary for defence. One of the major reasons for Nasser's action in the Suez and also the degree to which he is undermining Britain and France in the Middle East is the fact that in that area there are vast supplies of oil which as Nasser has set forth in his book are necessary if the instruments of technology are to be mobilized effectively. We know more in the last weeks as the result of Khrushchev's announcement that the de-Stalinization of the idol has taken place. He now reverses that attitude and everywhere in the world the U.S.S.R. is engaged


Later, in 1955, a further motion was presented by way of amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It was moved by the then acting leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and it proposed that action should be taken for this, among other purposes:
To facilitate and encourage the processing of our natural resources in Canada, and thereby increase opportunities and employment for Canadians.
Then, on the 9th of July, 1956, less than a year ago, a motion was presented by Mr. Drew, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), in these words:
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 for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources, and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
That was in July of 1956. That was when the Gordon commission was engaged in hearing evidence across this country, a commission which cost Canada at least $1 million and which by its report has given support to almost every one of the points raised by this party in July of 1956 and back through the years to 1952. Yet we hear nothing about what the government intends to do with the Gordon report. Is the report to be embalmed? There has been a thunderous silence on the part of the government with respect to the action that it intends to take in this regard. The only words that have been spoken have been words of condemnation by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Is it not a strange thing that the report of the Gordon commission, which was referred to in such warm terms in July last by members of the government, which was going to set forth in detail the course to be taken by Canada, which would be the instrument whereby the government would have information upon which it could act, has at this session been filed and forgotten? It has been put away in mothballs. I asked the Prime Minister on one occasion what the government intended to do, and in effect the answer was that at this session the government had no program in this regard.
Will the government say what portions of the report will receive its imprimatur? We know there are certain portions that have already received the utmost condemnation from the government. It is a strange thing that this commission, which was to be the chart, the compass of Canada's future in the

next 25 years, has indeed become something in which the government shows but little interest. Is it because with regard to national development, with regard to the criticisms of this party, respecting not American investment in Canada but the degree to which the investment in Canada by foreign corporations was uncontrolled for the benefit of Canada, we in this party advocated and now advocate a national policy that will provide a dynamic influence in the economy, that will have a sense of national purpose and national destiny.
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; not a policy of nationalism but one whereby Canada in the days ahead will remain an independent Canada and will not inexorably drift into economic continentalism; one whereby Canada will maintain her economic independence and her sovereignty; a policy that will provide national development for a greater Canada in which growth and prosperity will not be purchased at the expense of our economic independence and our effective national sovereignty.
When we said these things and warned of these dangers in past years, we were met by a contemptuous attitude on the part of the government. Today as one reads the Gordon report one can only conclude that Mr. Gordon and the outstanding group associated with him found that there was a solid basis for the amendments which we moved and the courses which we suggested. Our attitude was misinterpreted. It was said that we were opposed to a flow of foreign investment. Over and over again we took our stand on that matter. We said it was necessary, that it was part of our development; but we pointed out that the Canadian share of ownership and control was declining in certain mining, smelting and petroleum industries and in certain manufacturing industries. We pointed out that, as realists, we understood that if foreign investment were to stop or to be seriously hampered, a serious if not deadly blow would be struck at our development.
We did not object to United States investment but we asked for a positive national policy which would prevent foreign investment from furthering the process of continental economic integration and ultimately undermining our national identity. We said we wanted to encourage foreign concerns to develop more Canadian interests and character in their operations. We wanted them to sell equity interests in Canada. The ministers of the government ridiculed our suggestions at that time. We said that Canadians
Natural Resources-Development should be on boards of directors and that Canadians should have the opportunity of investing in industries operating in Canada. We pointed out that it was possible if not likely that foreign corporations operating here would have in mind at all times not Canadian considerations or Canada's public welfare. We contended that if foreign investment were to remain predominant in our resource industries this country of ours, with its almost fathomless resources, would come to have a purely extractive national economy supplying the materials for other nations to process and to turn to useful purposes.
Those were some of the questions that were raised. We said it was not in keeping with Canada's destiny that foreign industry should have almost absolute power and control over many enterprises in our country; that in many cases Canadians were denied having more than token interest in those companies. We suggested that there should be an opportunity of a greater participation in those companies by Canadians and a voice in sharing in the destiny of important sectors of our economy and in particular among those extractive industries to which I have made reference.
Those were the views that were expressed. Those were the views that, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last July, were categorized as some of the greatest rot he had ever heard. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read some of the suggestions made by this party on July 9, 1956 and which, in the light of subsequent events and an analysis of the Gordon commission report, now stand out as being approved by that commission as justifiable criticism of the situation then prevailing. I am going to quote for a moment what Mr. Drew said at that time in a speech in which he set out the views of this party on this question, and in particular in connection with the financial expansion from the United States into Canada and the interlocking economy created as a result. He raised certain points and in particular, as reported at page 5777 of Hansard, July 9, 1956 he set out some of the results of the situation which had developed:
1.	A heavy net outflow of interest and dividends increases the amount of goods which have to be shipped abroad to raise the necessary foreign exchange. In other words, the profits are drained out of the country and the amount of goods which can be imported at any given level proportionately reduced.
2.	Foreign interests control the pricing policies of their Canadian subsidiaries in a way that could be a great disadvantage to the Canadian consumer.
3.	Foreign financial control is in a position to decide the extent and the form of the operations of their Canadian subsidiaries, and they can use earnings from their Canadian subsidiaries to finance expansion of plants outside of Canada.
1156	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development
On October 16, 1956, speaking in Chicago, the Minister of Trade and Commerce used many of the arguments which we had used and which were criticized here in the house. He did this as he spoke to Americans with regard to Canadian operations of United States corporations. Among the things that 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 some of the things that over the years this party had been advocating. Indeed the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the month of October, having for a period of five years or more cast nothing but contempt and scorn on the views expressed by this opposition relative to this matter, adopted several of them on the occasion of that gathering in Chicago. Indeed, he went on to point out one serious situation that arose, because these companies were United States companies operating in Canada. When subsidiaries here in Canada endeavoured to export from Canada in order to fill orders in international trade in various parts of the world, they were stopped from doing so and the exports were made from the United States. All this we on this side had referred to over and over again.
In addition to the points to which I have already referred the attitude taken by this party included certain other criticisms. I quote again from page 5777 of Hansard for July 9, 1956:
In many cases senior positions in Canadian subsidiaries are held by other than Canadians.
Foreign management may use its Canadian plant to manufacture goods for export only when the United States plant is too busy to handle its export orders. This creates undesirable fluctuations in production and employment in the Canadian subsidiary.
When we stated that last July we were answered by laughter and ridicule, yet by the month of October, apparently under the impelling influence of the Gordon report which today seems almost as dead as the Dodo so far as the government is concerned, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) changed his attitude very considerably.
It was also pointed out by Mr. Drew on the same page of Hansard:
A foreign company may not give the Canadian public adequate information about the affairs of its Canadian subsidiary. A number of Canadian 

subsidiaries today are operating under laws which do not compel them to give the information which is essential for an understanding of their operation.
This point, too, was brought out by this party, and again in his Chicago speech the Minister of Trade and Commerce adopted that criticism in part and indicated that it would be to the interests of Canada if United States companies or their subsidiaries in Canada would provide information similar to that required by the S.E.C. in Washington.
Then we stated:
United States interests doing business in Canada are subject to some laws of the United States such as the anti-trust laws. No matter how desirable the purpose of any of those laws may be, the result is that there can be an interference with business in Canada by the decision of the United States court or other tribunals.
The next paragraph reads:
Industrial research for Canadian owned subsidiaries of foreign owned corporations may be carried on outside the country so that there may not be adequate inducement for skilled personnel to remain in Canada.
Again, this idea was adopted by the minister in his October speech. Our position today is this. While we do extend a considerable additional amount of assistance to students in the universities, many of our technological and trained scientific men find it necessary to migrate to the United States and there engage in research in the mother companies of Canadian subsidiaries. Over the years we have contended that United States companies in Canada, and their subsidiaries, should be required to divert a share of research to the Canadian company proportionate to that expended in the United States.
I am not going to quote further from that speech of July 9, 1956. All I have quoted is for the purpose of showing the degree to which those criticisms that we made as to the danger of the situation were founded on reality, and their weight has now received the support of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, not in this House of Commons but in a speech delivered in the city of Chicago.
When we were taking this stand which the Minister of Trade and Commerce ridiculed as a nationalistic one and characterized as an emotional outburst against United States capital, he said, in effect, we were indulging in scare stories, in fantasies. Then, a few months later, in a speech in October, the minister quoted verbatim from the Gordon report in certain particulars and supported many of the criticisms which we made and will continue to make.
What of this report? What does the government intend to do about it? Are the recommendations to be carried into effect? If they are valid recommendations, they should be used. They must be valid because several

of them to which I have referred have received the approbation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Why should there not be legislation introduced at this session in order to correlate all the recommendations and to give substance to those that could be made the subject of legislative enactments.
I am not going to quote from the report except to refer to certain pages that are indicative of support for the stands that we have taken. At page 48 the recommendation in connection with iron ore is that it would be difficult to greatly extend the fabrication or processing of iron ore in Canada. Then, the report continues:
There may be sound arguments and better opportunities for refining a greater percentage of certain metals-for example, nickel, lead, zinc, titanium and perhaps uranium-prior to export, but each situation requires careful study on an individual basis before any such conclusion would be justified. . . .
As a way in which to come to grips with this problem, there might be some merit in requiring exports of ores, concentrates and other semi-processed commodities to obtain export permits, which when issued would be good for a stated number of years. Each case should be examined carefully and individually. New mines, for example, could be given every opportunity to get under way and into production. But it could be made clear that the circumstances in each case would be re-examined at stated intervals and that exporters would be expected over the years to do more processing in Canada except when the obstacles in the way of doing so proved to be real and the cost disadvantages appreciable.
At the moment I am not advocating export permits. I am asking the government, now that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has at long last agreed with many of the suggestions that have been made by this party, what is going to be done in order to preserve to the greatest possible benefit of Canada those vast mineral resources that are ours? What attitude does the government take? Our resources are not inexhaustible. This becomes apparent when one reads of the situation in the United States and how in recent years many minerals have become reduced to a degree that could never have been anticipated 25 or 30 years ago. When the United States becomes more dependent upon Canada, what are we going to do about it? According to Professor Allan N. Bateman, chief of the department of geology of Yale University, by 1975 the United States will be dependent for 65 per cent of its copper, in part from Canada, whereas during the war it was only dependent for 37.6 per cent of its requirement.
Iron ore, during the war, 2 per cent; by 1975, from 35 per cent to 45 per cent, mainly dependent upon Canada and Venezuela; lead, during the war, 44.2 per cent; by 1975, 70 per cent; mercury, 43.2 per cent. By 1975 it will go up to 80 per cent. Petroleum; it was
Natural Resources-Development not dependent upon importation during the war. By 1975, it will require in imports from Canada, the Middle East and Venezuela, 50 per cent of its needs; sulphur, from nothing to 50 per cent; titanium, from 26 per cent to 80 per cent; tungsten, from 61 to 70 per cent; zinc, from 36.7 per cent to 60 per cent. In every one of these instances there are, of course, other countries which provide a portion of the necessary supplies.
Last year the dominion bureau of statistics answered those who contend that Canada has an inexhaustible supply of raw materials, and indicated that Canada's present resources would be exhausted in varying degrees in from 22 years to 64 years if further discoveries were not made. The figures were that Canada's copper resources would be exhausted in 24 years unless further discoveries were made; petroleum in 22 years; lead in 26 years; nickel in 30 years; zinc in 30 years; and asbestos in 64 years. All of this indicates that our resources are not inexhaustible and that action should be taken to encourage the processing of those resources in Canada in a considerable way instead of shipping them in the main in raw form.
Now, sir, that is the background of the amendment which I intend to move after I have placed before the house certain suggestions and ideas with regard to a national development policy. We say first that every encouragement must be given to the processing of domestic raw materials in Canada to a much greater degree than exists today. The reason is that our resources should be utilized to the maximum advantage of the Canadian people. Again, I repeat, that does not mean the discouragement of foreign investment, but it means that investment in Canada in our resources must be directed to the maximum benefit of Canada. We follow the recommendations of the Gordon commission in this connection, that wherever possible foreign companies should employ Canadians in senior management and technical positions, should retain Canadian engineering and other professional and service personnel and should do all of their purchases of supplies, materials and equipment in Canada.
I mentioned a moment ago the degree to which we are losing such a percentage of our highly trained engineers and technical scientists to the United States because of the fact that in connection with research, most, or all in many cases, of the research done by these large United States corporations operating in Canada is done in the United States rather than in Canada. We feel if those companies within our country

Natural Resources-Development would provide that a reasonable share of the expenditures be made for research in Canada it would assure the keeping in Canada of outstanding young men and women for the building up of Canada and would assure as well that our technological advancement would be in keeping with the tremendous resources that our ours.
Second, 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 in keeping with the tremendous potentialities of that area. There is no question of constitutional division of responsibility between the dominion and the provinces in the North West Territories. In that area there are vast resources that should be developed, with the state making possible that development by providing the means and the climate for private industry to develop and expand. I can see this northland of ours with developments envisaged by D'Arcy McGee in his magnificent speech at the time of confederation as he saw that great Canada. I can see cities in northern Canada north of the Arctic circle. There are vast power potentialities in that area. I can see cities developing there as they are developing today in Norway, if only the government would catch the vision of the possibilities.
As we enter this age in which science we believe will dwarf the achievements of the past, the northern storehouse in the territories must be rendered accessible and available. Airway transportation cannot discharge that responsibility. Railways are limited in what they can do. Water transportation is insufficient.
I am one of those who believe in the vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and of Sir Robert Borden in 1912; I am one of those who believe that there should be undertaken, in cooperation between the federal government and the provinces, a national highway policy to provide highways for vast developments in the north. The challenge of communism now and in the days ahead demands that our vast northern resources shall be made accessible and available to industry. A proper resources program whereby the federal government would make contributions or assure costs in co-operation with the provinces would be one that would make available and accessible vast areas in the north that still remain undeveloped and will remain so unless action is taken.
In this connection, many hon. members in the last few days have received a resolution that was passed some time ago. I give this as an illustration only because it represents the general summary of the possibilities. It

is contained in a brief submitted by the Uranium City chamber of commerce and the Prince Albert chamber of commerce in regard to the vast developments in Uranium City and in northern Saskatchewan, and to the need of action for development. It points out that in the Beaverlodge area on the north shore of lake Athabaska, with its focal centre at Uranium City, is an area that has developed rapidly within the last decade. In 1956 it produced some $27 million worth of new wealth in the mining_of uranium ore. Large-scale expansion programs are now under way. The resolution shows that what is needed is transportation. The water route takes too long and the air route is too costly. It comes up with the suggestion-it is one that I said a moment ago was advanced in this house as far back as 1912:
That we urge the government of Saskatchewan to approach the government of Canada for grants In aid for the construction of such a road and that we request the government of Canada to consider such grants in aid as part of the national program for the development of our natural resources.
I mention that because it is an example of the kind of thing I have in mind. After all, in so far as northern development is concerned, the responsibility within, the provinces is left to the provinces but the major beneficiary is always the federal government in the additional taxation which is made possible by reason of the expansion.
We in this party have enunciated certain principles in this regard which we believe are necessary if the development of our country is to equal its possibilities. 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 co-operation of the Canadian government in carrying out such development. In the case of projects which are not directly self-liquidating we believe that in co-operation with and at the request of a province the federal government should embark upon a bold and aggressive program of the development of natural resources by means of railways, highways and access roads, and also reclamation and conservation schemes, and that these projects will make available to this and future generations the natural wealth of Canada.
Also in connection with power development which is so necessary we believe that Canada's right to the potential hydroelectric power latent in international rivers in Canada should not be parted with under any circumstances, and that the benefits of such hydroelectric power should be preserved for the ultimate use of the people of Canada. These are one or two suggestions in connection with power development which we

believe deserve the serious consideration of this parliament and the Canadian people.
We think that there should be an exhaustive investigation into our power resources in a manner similar, to that followed in the United States by a representative of the atomic energy commission and also by the Paley commission. In this way the energy requirements of this nation and the degree to which they will be available to us will be set out in authoritative detail. In order to meet the industrial demands of Canada's future there is a need, as is set forth in the Gordon commission report, for the setting up of a Canadian energy board with a membership composed of technical personnel which might be selected by the ministers of the departments particularly interested and also by the president of the national research council. Upon that committee as well there should be representatives of industry and of the dominion and provincial governments to the end that the most effective use of the energy resources of Canada in the interests of public welfare may be assured.
These are recommendations which are contained in the Gordon commission report, but they were first brought before this house on October 22, 1951 by this party in a speech delivered by Mr. Gordon Graydon in which he set out with unusual prophetic capacity for Canada's future the need of the setting up of a national development and production board. I suggest that perhaps the name "energy board" should now be used as the Gordon commission has used that name as being more representative and typical of the needs of Canada. As Mr. Graydon said, that board should be set up and be composed of representatives of government at the federal and provincial levels, of the agricultural industry, of labour and of other branches of our national endeavour. It should achieve among other objectives a survey of the national resources of Canada in relation to their availability and the foreseeable demand as indicated by the requirements of our defence program and also the domestic demands of an expanding economy, and it should recommend upon the basis of such investigation how best this nation could meet the demands and obligations that face it in this regard.
We believe that there should be formulated a federal power policy in voluntary cooperation with such provinces as desire it in order to assure a continuing expansion of low-cost energy in Canada. Such a policy would help create, if asked for by the province of British Columbia, a huge industrial empire there and it would certainly revolutionize the maritime provinces which in the main today find themselves in a position of retarded advancement because of the lack
Natural Resources-Development of power development and the failure of successive governments to provide power facilities and thereby assure the decentralization of industry.
In so far as the territories are concerned, which come under the jurisdiction of this parliament, it has been estimated that there are millions of horsepower of electrical energy waiting for development and any expenditures made today in order to make possible an extension and expansion of power development in the future will pay dividends. Such expenditures would be self-liquidating and will repay dividends one hundredfold in the years ahead. It will also assure that in those parts of Canada that today find themselves unable to keep lip with the general rate of development in other parts of Canada there will be an equalization which up to the present time has not been considered by this government.
On the prairies, and in particular in Saskatchewan, it would also assure developments such as the South Saskatchewan river project which becomes a matter of consideration whenever an election is in the offing but then seems to be forgotten as an unfeasible proposition thereafter. To say that a development such as the South Saskatchewan dam is not economically feasible is to forget the national policy of Sir John Macdonald which was followed throughout the years that he was in power. Alexander Mackenzie doubted that it was feasible to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. Sir John said it was feasible and indeed essential if we were to have the development that is ours today in the western provinces and which otherwise never would have taken place. The same thing was later true within the British empire and latterly within the British commonwealth.
Then finally I say that it is interesting to read the recommendations of the report in connection with taxation and the need of taxation changes that should be made to encourage industry within this country, and developments. I shall do no more than refer to the pages of the report. Pages 58 and 59 deal with the oil and gas industry. Also in so far as foreign investment is concerned, under the taxation laws existing today, United States corporations are placed ip a better position and have greater opportunities to take over the oil development of this country than Canadian corporations. Certainly, Canadian corporations may not be able to ask for advantages over those corporations that come into our country and assist in its development. But Canadian corporations have a right to equality with those that come in from foreign countries

Natural Resources-Development and I repeat what I have said on previous occasions-that the time has come-and, certainly the Gordon report indicates and emphasizes this-for the entire tax structure in Canada to be overhauled with a view to providing encouragement to the promotion of primary and secondary industries in our country.
Promoters, investors and those who venture in risk enterprises should have precisely the same advantage with regard to taxation as exists in the United States, for unless this is provided here in Canada, Canadian promoters and investors are placed in a secondary position, a condition of affairs that no one can possibly justify. And in making this survey of the tax structure of Canada, federal, provincial and municipal steps should be taken to assure by the necessary changes in taxation, many of which are recommended in the Gordon report, provision for the encouragement of Canadian corporations. In addition to that, the provinces and municipalities, with their own responsibilities for development, should be assured of sources of revenue whereby a more equitable share of tax yields would be made available to them, thereby permitting them to discharge their full responsibilities in the direction necessary for the proper development of this country. These are but a few of the matters that will be considered during the course of this debate.
We look back on what was said in July, 1956 with a considerable amount of appreciation when we realize that many of the things which we advocated now find themselves in the Gordon commission report. I again ask the government this: what are you going to do about it? Are you going to let the report die a natural death, or are you going to act on the evidence that has been gathered by this commission if Canada is to achieve its proper development? Is action to be taken now? If not, why not?
There is no reason why measures should not be introduced at this session in connection with taxation which will assure that the handicaps under which Canadian investors operate today will be removed and Canadians will thereby be encouraged to share in our national development to a greater degree than has been possible under the hobbling influence of taxation measures at present on the statute books. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"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 for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present


serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources, and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population."


Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed to say a word at this moment because of the broad description of "various matters" included in the amendment that has been moved as a grievance? I have made the point before, and I would like to tell the house that in my humble opinion this is not the type of grievance provided for under our rules upon a motion to go into supply.
The citation to which I would like hon. members to refer is citation 345-Beauchesne, Third Edition-to start with, especially the latter part which says:
Members may discuss various matters on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair without any amendment being proposed; but once debate is stopped on one matter and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former.
The question is: What is "a matter" with respect to this? Let us turn to citation 468, which says:
It sometimes happens, on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply, that members air grievances without moving amendments. A member may speak on railway rates-
That is a matter.
-another on naturalization-
That is another matter.
-and so on. Five or six different matters may then be brought to the government's attention. But no member is allowed to speak more than once on the motion. He cannot discuss all the matters which may then come up, and when he has spoken on one of them he has exhausted his right to speak to the motion before the house, namely, "that the Speaker do now leave the chair".
If no amendment had been moved at the end of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), what matter would hon. members consider would have been before the house? Is it the Bermuda conference? Is it the Quebec conference suggested by the Leader of the Opposition? Is it the suggested policy about the development of natural resources? Is it the Gordon commission report? Is it American investment in Canada, or foreign investment in Canada and its implications? Would it be federal-provincial co-operation in the matter of economics? Would it be grants in aid of the development of our northern resources? Would it be power development policies? Would it be the equalization of economic opportunities across Canada, such as the South Saskatchewan river dam which, hon. members will recall, was the subject of a grievance at one point-I think it was a year or two ago? Would it be changes in taxation?

I say again that if no amendment had been moved, where could the Speaker intervene and say: "These matters have already been dealt with. You have got to speak in a relevant way to the matter that has been placed before us". Under the amendment the field is so wide that I do not think there is any matter which cannot be linked with the amendment. I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to speak.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not through. If I may continue, may I say that this matter is important to the house. There is another point I should like to stress. 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, certain developments affecting economic policy and various facets of our economic activities and that they should realize what the situation is if they make on this amendment the speech they would like to make on their own notice of .motion when it is considered. If we had reached the time when the days for the consideration of notices of motion had expired it would be a different proposition but we have not reached that time. Since we have not it may be that some hon. members will find themselves in a predicament when these notices of motion are called and they may have to violate the rule against repetition because they will want to speak on their own motions and others will want to follow them.
In 1954 the then leader of the opposition had moved a wide amendment of this type and I ventured to express to the house the same opinion as I do now. I said that this was a very important matter. It is an important matter because I would not want to restrict the right of hon. members to air grievances. I am merely placing the position before the house. It seems to me to be a reasonable proposition that a grievance should not be of an all-embracing nature but should concern a more definite and specific matter. At that time I said that I would not want to decide the matter myself and would put it to the house and at that moment the then leader of the opposition withdrew his amendment. That was on April 26, 1954 and the discussion on the point is to be found at pages 4110 to 4112 inclusive of Hansard.
Again this time I am not going to rule the amendment out of order. I am not going to do anything unless there is in the house an indication that my views have an appearance of correctness-
Natural Resources-Development


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: -and that they are not of such a nature as to curtail the right to air grievances. I hear hon. members to my right applaud, but I should like to point out that on a motion to go into supply the right to move an amendment is an opposition right and I think that the problem here is one for which the opposition has to take a responsibility.
I think it is to their own advantage because these wide debates, especially at the beginning of a session, open up such a vista of discussion that there are bound to be repetitive statements whenever other matters come up in the form of notices of motion or otherwise. I leave the matter to hon. members themselves. It may be that the opposition prefers to do it this way. There have been other amendments of a wide character. I mentioned the one in 1954 with respect to which I expressed serious doubts and the then leader of the opposition withdrew it. But there were others of a similar character moved at a later time.
As I say, I leave the position wide open to any representations which can be made. If hon. members do not care to make any representations I will leave the matter as it stands, but if they do I may be influenced by the representations they make.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to presume to suggest anything, but there was no objection raised to this amendment last year by Your Honour or anyone else. It is the second or third time that a similar amendment has been before the house and my recollection is that on no occasion was there any objection raised. The effective words are these:
. . . the adoption now of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources . . .
Then the purposes are set out. Those are the effective words. As late as July 9 last a similar amendment was placed before the house and this is the same amendment.


Howard Charles Green: The very same words.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no question whatever raised then. I point that out because of the fact that Your Honour referred to the amendment as being rather comprehensive. It is all restricted to one thing, a national development policy which will have certain results.


Mr. Speaker:: In 1954, when I spoke on the proposed amendment of the then leader of the opposition which he withdrew, I thought I had said all that was necessary, that if members of the opposition did not care to amend their ways with respect to these motions then it was up to them.

Natural Resources-Development


John George Diefenbaker: If Your Honour did I have not seen it, and I have looked all the way through here.


Mr. Speaker:: I am talking about the session of 1953-54, but as to the motion to which he refers, and about which I did not say anything in my earlier remarks, I indicated that I had had some conversations with some hon. members and had pointed out that the amendment embraced about six notices of motion already on the order paper. As a matter of fact, during the debate on the amendment to the motion to go into supply there were discussions on power developments in the maritimes and other projects.
There is one thing more I should like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition. One cannot divorce the speech that one makes from his amendment. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken in a much wider manner than is covered by the amendment with which he concluded, but from the point of view of relevancy I have to take into account the speech he has made in allowing other members to address themselves to the amendment. As I say, I consider an amendment to the motion to go into supply as being an opposition motion and there are bound to be some difficulties later on. It is up to hon. members.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, if there is no further discussion on the point of order I should like to comment on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, may I say that I agree it will be a good thing for the Prime Minister to go to Bermuda and meet with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister met the President of the United States and had a chat with him and I imagine he will have the same sort of chat with Mr. Macmillan.
I would have liked to pursue international affairs further because I feel that at this time some expression of opinion should be made regarding matters coming before the United Nations tomorrow and particularly with regard to Canada's attitude toward some of the questions that will arise there. But I do not think I should do that. I think I should confine myself to the amendment already moved. I quite agree with what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that there is a danger not to the government but to the members of the opposition parties in moving omnibus resolutions. I know that from time to time in the past, on the address particularly and sometimes on the budget, we ourselves have been tempted to include four or five different matters in the amendment. The result has been that when something
[Mr. Speaker.!

extremely important came up with regard to one of the matters to which we had referred on the amendment on the address, we have been precluded from doing something about it later in the session. I think it is very good of you, Mr. Speaker, to remind the house, and particularly those of us on the opposition side, of the dangers of moving omnibus resolutions in connection with going into supply, or on the address or on the budget.
We are most decidedly in favour of the government's adopting a national development policy for Canada. We have always been in favour of such a policy. Indeed, it is implicit in our philosophy of how the development of the Canadian economy should be proceeded with. We have always believed that the country should have some sort of plan in accordance with which it might move, a plan that would enable the people of Canada to guide the development of their resources in the interests of the people of Canada so that the results of these great productive enterprises and the development of our great resources might be available to all our people rather than be concentrated in the returns' on investments by persons who invest their money in the great private industries and corporations; that our farmers and our workers, our old age pensioners and our children should benefit to the maximum extent that it is possible to do from the development of these resources which have been placed so abundantly in this country by Providence over the ages. Hence we are in favour of a national development policy for Canada.
When we look over the history of this country since it was settled, I was going to say, or more particularly since confederation, what do we find? Until I came down here this afternoon or shortly before then, I was unaware of the fact that an amendment was going to be moved. I did not know what the amendment was or its terms when I came into the house this afternoon. However, I have in my hand a statement that was made in 1879, twelve years after confederation, by Sir Leonard Tilley. Speaking in this chamber at that time he said this:
I am not, I think, over-sanguine when I say, that the day is not far distant when the population in the western country will be greater than in Canada-
By that of course he meant in Upper and Lower Canada, now Ontario and Quebec.
-and when the maritime provinces, with their coal, iron and water power, will be the manufacturing centres for this vast dominion.
But what actually happened was that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built and the vast areas of the west were opened up

for settlement, the prophecy of Sir Leonard Tilley was brought to naught because the economic balance within the country was more or less upset by the developments in western Canada. Instead of having a planned development of our country which preserved the industries which had already been established in the maritime provinces, for example, and which for some time reaped the benefits of the expansion to the west when the great steel mills of Nova Scotia provided the rails upon which the trains and the commerce across Canada ran, we find that industry shifted to central Canada; and ever since that time there has been an imbalance in the Canadian economy. More and more over these late years, particularly during the late war years, we find the concentration of industry speeding up in central Canada.
May I just in passing say that because we have no direction of the development of this country, no attempt to tell the industries that it would be wiser if they established themselves somewhere else, we have a concentration of industry in this country which causes us to stop and think when we look at it from the point of view of possibilities. I did not say probabilities, Mr. Speaker; I said possibilities, and I hope that the possibilities are improbabilities. In the event of a modern war, with the great industries of Canada concentrated in the Niagara peninsula and around the cities of Hamilton and Toronto and for a little way along the lakeshore, those industries would be found to be in a position so vulnerable that Canada could be put out of business economically almost as easily as the great centres of industry in the United Kingdom could be put out of business under the same circumstances. I am thinking also of Sarnia, our canal, and so on. Hence we are in favour of a national development policy, but we would go a step further than my hon. friend went.
We believe that that development policy should be planned and that some direction should be exercised by the governments of Canada and of the provinces in order to make sure that in the development there is no imbalance such as that which we find in our country at the present time or that the imbalance that now exists should be corrected to an extent. One welcomes, of course, the industrial expansion that is going on in western Canada on account of the new discoveries there of gas, oil, uranium, nickel in Manitoba and other resources of that description. But again, all that has been done not under any national plan or with any conception of the development of Canada as a national economy. It has simply been done because people are finding it more profitable to go there.
82715-74J
Natural Resources-Development
That brings me to this point in connection with national development. If we are going to have national development along the lines that my hon. friend suggests, so that Canadians may participate in that development, we should have a direction of investment in development. What we should have above all things, it seems to me, is a national investment board directing investment into socially desirable operations. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we make no bones about the fact that we believe that the development of some of our great resources and of our utilities, should be undertaken as public projects. We made that position abundantly clear in connection with the pipe line which is to be built across Canada. We failed in our attempts to persuade the government-and I suppose we failed in our attempts to persuade the people of Canada-that the proper way in which to undertake a project of that description was through a great public utility like the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission or a number of other similar utilities across Canada. Indeed my hon. friend this afternoon suggested that certain great electric projects in the provinces might be undertaken with the co-operation of the federal authority or in other words as public projects partly financed as federal and provincial undertakings. I agree that that would be a step in the right direction. I want to say further that I should like to see our industries more completely under the control of Canadian public authorities. Other great utilities and projects that are not brought under public control I would like to see under the control of responsible citizens of Canada.
In connection with the great project, the Trans-Canada pipe line, I hope that Canadians, now it has been decided this is going to be a private enterprise project, will see to it that there is sufficient Canadian capital invested in it to bring it under Canadian control so we shall have some authority over those who are going to control it.
So then, Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of this amendment. There are so many projects that would come within a national development plan that one can only begin to enumerate them. We have great drainage problems in the maritime provinces which would restore to the people of the maritimes land that could be tilled or upon which cattle could be raised. We have the great tides in the bay of Fundy which are going to be investigated and which might be of great use to the people of the maritime region provided the federal government undertook a large measure of responsibility for financing power projects which could not be undertaken by the maritimes themselves.

Natural Resources-Development
None of us like to think that the development of our country by regions is uneven, but under the present hit-or-miss private enterprise system we find that there are regions of Canada that are depressed, and the most depressed of the regions is the maritime region. As I said, I did not have time to look up data, but X happen to have in my desk some figures on the relative positions of the various parts of Canada which I used elsewhere a short time ago. For example, the average per capita personal income by provinces clearly indicates that in 1954, the last year for which I have figures, Ontario and Quebec led all Canada and the maritime regions certainly brought up the rear. From a high income of $1,470 per capita in the province of Ontario we go right down to $640 in Newfoundland, with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island only slightly better than the per capita income for Newfoundland. Now, that is not good enough.
If we had a proper development policy, we could see to it that the benefits of development were spread more evenly over the several regions. Even within provinces there are grave discrepancies of personal income. Many people in Canada are not enjoying the benefits they should be enjoying. We have often spoken in this house of our old age pensioners. In 1949 the old age pension was increased to $40, and if we take the value of what a dollar would purchase then that is equivalent to only $32 in 1957 purchasing power. Today, it takes $40 to buy what $32 would buy in 1949. The same thing applies, of course, to family allowances; they have been more than cut in half since they were introduced. One could mention also veterans pensions and the P.F.R.A. payments to our farmers in western Canada which have been cut by more than half. The people who have suffered the most, and I noticed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) recognized this in an address he gave on Saturday night, are the people on fixed incomes, the people who in the last 10, 20 or 30 years have purchased life insurance, Canadian bonds or Canadian stocks in order to build up some security for their old age. There has never been in the history of Canada more confiscation of individual savings than under the present government because they have allowed this to happen. If we are going to have a national development plan then we have to see to it that this plan takes into consideration the needs of the regions and, within the regions, the needs of individuals. In this way we would not have poor provinces and rich provinces; we would not have poor people and multi-millionaires from whom, when a
IMr. Coldwell.l

couple of them die, we can collect a hundred million dollars in death duties.


Solon Earl Low: And then spend it on canned culture.


Major James William Coldwell: Never mind what it is being spent for, I am not dealing with that. That is a matter for a separate debate. I am pointing out we can collect that amount from a few people across Canada.
I have mentioned the maritimes, and the South Saskatchewan river project was mentioned. You know, I cannot understand the Gordon report in this respect. This report says it is necessary to change from a wheat economy into a mixed farming economy, and then goes on to advise the government that it should not consider large irrigation projects. This, of course, must refer to a large irrigation project, the South Saskatchewan river project. If you are going to encourage farmers to grow less wheat, then they have to grow something else. So long as those 400,000 acres remain unirrigated they are going to be a wheat proposition. They will raise semi-arid plants of which wheat is our best example. If you carry out the project, then you can grow legumes or perchance you can grow sugar beets and vegetables, establish canneries and so on and reduce wheat products. I am not going into the Gordon report, but I have read it, and I must say I am not going to endorse it by any means because I find a number of similar illogical positions taken in that report. All I can think is that Mr. Gordon was pressed to bring in some sort of a report and he sat down some evenings and dictated it to his stenographer as quickly as he could. This appears to be the case when I read parts of that report.
Then we have such projects that should be undertaken on a national scale. I am firmly of the opinion that we need a national development policy. I do not know what the resources of the north are. I am quite sure if the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra were in his seat this afternoon he would recall that both he and I and the former minister of national defence, Mr. Claxton, were surprised when we were attending a meeting of the foreign policy association in New York in about 1941, I think, to hear Mr. Stefansson, the Artie explorer, say that the largest reserve of oil in the world was in northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Afterwards I asked him if he knew of any geologist who would support that statement, and he named the vice president of Standard Oil of New Jersey. I asked him where I could obtain a copy of what that gentleman said, and he told me from the University of Missouri. I got a copy of

the lecture he gave in which that statement was made, and I recall that I read a portion of it in this house. But I do not think it struck any of us at that time that there were those tremendous potential resources in that area. Now, if we made proper inquiry and if we had some idea of the national development plan, this sort of estimate of what we have to develop and what we have to plan could be undertaken and made, and we would know better how to proceed.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that in northern Canada there are probably resources of which we have no knowledge which will bring to the people of Canada in the years to come a great deal of wealth, many opportunities and a better life.
With respect to the resources that we have, not only do we need development but we need conservation. Those of us who have lived in western Canada over the last half century-and it is going on to 48 years since I first went there-will remember how we thought the soil could not be depleted and that it was inexhaustible. The years of the 1930's came along and we learned a lesson. Today if you go on the prairies you will find the farmers there are practising conservation, so that if the dry years do come again and the winds blow there will never be the erosion there was in the 1930's. Our farmers are doing their share today in conserving the soil of the western plains.
Then as one goes through our forests and sees the depletion-yes, in some areas I know the forest reclothes itself and will give a yield of trees over the years-he comes to the conclusion that in some areas of this country if we want a perpetual forest cut there will have to be planning, there will have to be a conscious planning and authority. Yes, I agree it should be provincial but with federal encouragement, to see to it that the trees that are cut down are the trees that are ripe, to see that the trees which are taken out are the trees that are no longer needed there. The smaller trees should be encouraged to grow, or areas of land now treeless, which were once treed, replanted.
Last autumn I had the opportunity of driving through the Black Forest in Germany and seeing some of the lumbering that was going on there. Of course I was told what I knew already, namely that the Black Forest had been lumbered for centuries and would continue to be lumbered for centuries to come, because there is a plan. The government lays down the method by which the forest shall be cut and manner in which it shall be conserved.
I was in Norway and I saw the same thing there. No Norwegian can take down a tree without a permit. Are the people happy
Natural Resources-Development about it? They do not see it as regimentation. No; they look upon it as conscious planning for the welfare of the people in the days to come. If we are to have a national development authority or plan, then we must have certain measures of control in relation to such a plan.
I know that jibes are sometimes thrown at us that we like controls. I do not like controls. I do not advocate them for the sake of instituting controls; but in certain circumstances we need public controls in order to protect our people and our resources from exploitation, or our forests from being denuded, and to keep them for future generations. I am happy to say that in some of our provinces controls are being exercised. For example, oil control is being exercised by the provincial governments; gas control is being exercised by the provincial governments so it cannot be all used up at once, or in only a few years, leaving future generations without the resources that are necessary for the public weal. The same thing applies to mining, and so on. Therefore we are all in favour of national development.
One could point out the many fields in which that development could take place and how it could be done by planning. I am not going to do that this afternoon but, of course, you cannot have development without finances. If you are to finance it properly, then you must somehow or other direct investment into socially desirable projects. As I said at the beginning, and if I were moving the amendment, I would say precisely that the government should establish a national investment authority to direct investments into desirable economic and social projects within our own country.
May I say to members of the government that if they were true to their platforms of the past they would vote for that, because my recollection is that for some years they had a national investment board as one of the benefits they were offering to the people of Canada if the Liberal government were returned to power; but we have not heard anything about it in recent times.
Well, now, several of my colleagues will develop various aspects of this problem and I am not going to intrude on what I expect they are going to talk about. All I want to do is place my party on record as being in favour of this:
. . . the Canadian people requires the adoption of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada.
Of course I would want something else in there to make it entirely satisfactory, such as "for all the people of Canada as individuals as well as groups of people in

Natural Resources-Development Canada". To that extent we favour this amendment and, of course, shall vote for it when the time comes. But again let me reiterate, if we are to have national development in the interests of all parts of Canada and of all the people of Canada, it has to be planned; it has to be directed consciously in the interests of the people of Canada, and great projects of fundamental importance to the people of Canada will have to be under public control and some under public ownership at the same time. Having said that, I am going to resume my seat.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which has been moved by the official Leader of the Opposition is so broad that if we were to take it in its entirety I think it would result in making it impossible for any hon. member to bring up and discuss any other grievance he might have in mind. It is really allinclusive at it stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The whole welfare of Canada.


Solon Earl Low: Yes; and for that reason I would indicate the part which we would like to discuss, at any rate, and it would be the same as that discussed by the leader of the C.C.F. party. I refer to that part of the amendment which reads:
. . . the Canadian people requires the adoption now of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada.
If the Leader of the Opposition would consent to have us concentrate attention on that portion of it, and when the vote comes have it understood that we are voting for that part, I feel that we would have better order in our talk and there would be a much better expression of opinion when we got through.
I am always glad to have these amendments brought in, Mr. Speaker, because they have the effect of concentrating the attention of hon. members on things that are very worth while, and particularly they give us a chance to express ourselves on how we feel with regard to the effect of government policy upon the development of resources.
I want to look at this whole resolution from the point of view of federal government policy, which does have a tremendous effect upon our resources, whether they are developed properly and in the interests of the people or just the reverse. It is because I feel this way that I intend in the time at my disposal this afternoon to deal with six important points of view which we have with respect to national policy. If we are going to have a policy of national development, then in my judgment it would have to consist of these six things at least. I am not thinking for one moment that my list will
[Mr. ColdweU.j

be all-inclusive, but at any rate these are the six items we put forward as a minimum which would have to be included. They are being suggested in the hope that the government will give careful consideration to the development of such a policy, because my judgment tells me that without this type of co-ordination, without this type of national consideration, we can never hope to get the maximum development of our resources and therefore we will always fall somewhat short of our aim to give full employment to our people and a full enjoyment of the products of their labours.
It seems to me that what is needed more than anything else at the present time is more co-ordination of federal government policies in order that one policy will not run counter to another. For example, I am thinking of the government's over-all blanket credit restriction policy. These credit restrictions have had a very detrimental effect upon the development of resources in Canada. When the government imposes over-all blanket credit restrictions without considering the whole field of fiscal and monetary matters, which would include the taxation policy, the investment policy, government spending, construction policy; unless they give careful consideration to the co-ordination of all these things in the best interests of the Canadian people, then one is going to run foul of the others and we will have a nullification of our efforts. That is what we are experiencing today.
We in this group have suggested consistently that the government set up a national financial and economic commission which will have as its purpose the co-ordination of government fiscal, monetary, investment, public works and budgeting policies which will be in the interests of the Canadian people. When you have that sort of commission guiding and advising the government you are going to have a co-ordinated effort, you are going to have well-adjusted efforts toward a maximum of development, without having such things as this blanket restriction policy which is causing such a retardation in the development of our resources.
There is a second important thing you must have, it seems to me, if we are going to experience a worth-while development of our national resources. I think the government of this country has to give consideration to a fairer and more just division of the revenue dollar among the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Most of the development of resources takes place within the provinces under the guidance of provincial governments, because under the constitution property and civil rights are given

exclusively into the care of the provincial governments. But the provinces do depend to a certain degree upon their creatures the municipalities to bring along certain development projects. They depend upon them to a very large degree, but if the municipal and provincial governments are forced to come to the federal government periodically with their caps in their hands to ask for hand-outs, there is not going to be very much development.
I am thinking now in terms of large power projects and railway developments which are essential to the opening up of vast new areas, and which will in the end encourage and stimulate the development of mining and other resources. I am thinking in terms of irrigation and drainage projects and all that sort of thing, which have for their aim the fullest possible measure of economic development of our country in the interests of providing a better standard of living and increasing the strength and security of our people.
As I said, if the provincial and municipal governments have to come to the federal government with their hats in hand asking for hand-outs, then they are not going to get very far. This government has shown time and time again that when such things happen they simply have no idea of the importance of the things the provincial governments are promoting. They do not seem to have any vision with regard to the future of these things which the provincial and municipal governments are doing. As a consequence they get into their hands the control of an unjust share of the revenue dollar available in this country, which they dole out to suit their own whims. As a consequence there is a slowing down of development, there is unfair development, development is retarded in one section and accelerated in another, as has already been said. If you are going to have anything like uniformity in development you must decide on a fairer and more just division of the revenue dollar among the different levels of government. When you do that sort of thing the provincial and municipal governments will go ahead and do the job without having to wait for handouts from the government of Canada.
It seems to me there is a third important thing which ought to enter into our plans for the future economic development of this country. I think we have to make an early start on a revision of our taxation structure so as to make it possible for three important things to happen. In the first place we must make it possible for domestic industry to compete successfully with foreign industry. Thus far our taxation structure has favoured alien industry to the detriment of Canadian
Natural Resources-Development industry. How in the world can we ever become great, strong and secure under a system like that?
The second thing a revision of the taxation structure ought to achieve is to provide an opportunity for the average Canadian to build up savings so Canada can finance a greater share of her economic expansion and development out of Canadian funds. During the past year or two especially there has been a great deal said about the abnormal amount of money coming in from other countries for the development of Canadian resources and industry. I suppose under the circumstances and in the light of the great trade deficit we have with the United States each year it has been a godsend to have that investment coming in from the United States. No one can criticize the amount that comes in when you realize that we have a trade deficit of $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion each year with our neighbour to the south.
It seems to me that what we ought to be doing is getting at the root of our trouble. The people of this country have not been allowed thus far to build up a very substantial volume of savings out of which sufficient investment could take place to bring along our resources as they ought to be brought along.
We have to rely therefore on investment from other countries if we are going to get the development, and I say that at the earliest possible date we should examine this whole taxation structure to see what effects it has been having on individual savings and, therefore, on investments; and if we do that we shall at least make some progress. We in this group are putting forward the view that we would make the revision I have suggested, and see to it that there is opportunity for savings to be held by the Canadian public and gathered together in the aggregate to be invested in some acceptable form, as would be the case if the Canadian people did have that great aggregate of savings.
The third important thing which we feel should be achieved through the revision of the taxation structure is this. Canadian goods today are suffering a handicap in foreign markets because of the inordinate weight they carry by way of commodity taxation. The prices of many Canadian goods are forced up to the point where we cannot compete successfully with goods coming into Canada from foreign markets, or with foreign products in the markets of the world. We are bound to take this into consideration and correct it if we ever expect Canadian goods to compete successfully.
Thus our taxation review program would need to keep these three aims and objectives
1168	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development in mind, and I believe that if proper attention were given to these three considerations we could put Canadian producers in a far better position in this competitive world of trade than they are at the present time. Before I leave this question, Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing I would like to say. What is the use of building up our Canadian industries and developing our Canadian resources if it is going to be impossible for us to compete in world markets with the products that come from the development of these resources? It would be foolish in the extreme to think we can do anything successfully in this world of trade, even with all the materials we might have in storage, unless we make it possible for our producers to sell their goods in competition with other nations.
The fourth important matter which we must include in our national development policy, if we are going to adopt one, is this. We think it is essential, and in the interests of our country as a whole, to set up a national statistical and advisory bureau to chart, measure and record all Canadian resources including those having to do with the production of energy; and to study and advise continually-and I mean, here, to advise the provincial and municipal governments, together with those concerned with this country's production and the development of our resources-as to the most effective ways in which to preserve, utilize and, where possible, improve those resources for the benefit of all Canadians.
That is quite a comprehensive idea, Mr. Speaker, but until such time as we adopt a proposal of this kind, our progress is going to be haphazard; it is not going to be uniformly in the interests of the various provinces, and a great many things will be overlooked.
We do feel that at the present time, when our sources of energy are coming into great prominence and into great need, the bureau which I have suggested could be of special benefit to Canadians. I know that certain things are being done in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and also in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. We know that is so, but what is being done now is only a fraction of what might be done.
Mention has been made here today of a certain great waterpower project which many people have envisaged. I think it was the Moran dam. My hon. friend from New Westminster mentioned it. I do not know how far the government has gone in its consideration of that project, but its implications are immense; it staggers the imagination when we read the figures given by reliable 

engineers concerning it. I am told that one of the important things holding up this scheme at the present time is the consideration of the damage it may do to the salmon fishing industry. I am told that here we have the matter of a two or three million dollar industry that is impeding and holding back a tremendous energy-producing project which would in the aggregate produce each year as much as ten or eleven times what the fisheries will produce.
I am not suggesting for one moment that we should go ahead and override the judgment of those who are interested in the fisheries. I am suggesting, however, that if we had a bureau of the type I have proposed -a national statistical and advisory bureau -they could be working continuously, on all the phases of this great project at one and the same time, and through their advice and studies they might be able to come up quickly with a solution to this fishery problem which would make it possible to go ahead and develop the Moran dam project without interfering too much with the salmon fishing. That is the kind of thing which, it seems to me, it would be very well worth while to study, and it is the kind of thing this bureau should have constantly under consideration.
There is one other matter on which I should like to say a word at this time. We have in Alberta, as has already been stated, vast areas of bituminous sand. The government of Alberta and the research council of that province have spent a great deal of time and money experimenting with the extraction of the bitumen from the sand, and they have succeeded in developing methods of doing so. However, up to the present date, perhaps, no method has been successful to a degree that would make it possible to sell the oil in competition with oil coming from oil wells.
I know the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has also done considerable work on this project, but it seems to me that all groups in Canada should be giving as much consideration as possible to the achievement of a method of extracting the oil from this sand so we can put Canada into the self-sufficient class as far as production of oil is concerned. It can be done. Not only that, but judging by the figures which are available it would be possible for us to supply completely the needs of Britain, France and other countries in western Europe, in addition to our own, out of the sands in northern Alberta for a good many years ahead. That sort of thing, it seems to me, could very well be brought

under the co-ordination of such a body as the national statistical advisory bureau which I have suggested.
The fifth important thing, it seems to me, if we are going to achieve the maximum successful development of our resources in this country, is this. I think the one real shortage we have in Canada today is in the field of trained personnel. Manpower, generally, is not scarce, and as evidence of that there is quite considerable unemployment in Canada today. But in the field of trained personnel we are lagging behind.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I am interested in what he has just said about a considerable amount of unemployment. That is not my information, and I wonder if the hon. member could break that down a little?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I can. At the present time the lumber industry in British Columbia is in a slump and there is quite a sizeable unemployment problem. The hon. member for New Westminster reports that there are 10,000 lumber workers unemployed in the city of New Westminster alone, the largest number in the history of the city. I just received today from Windsor, Ontario, a letter from one of the unions in the automobile industry complaining that they have not had so much unemployment for quite a long time as they find in that area now. So it goes in quite a number of areas across Canada. There is a considerable amount of unemployment in the general labour field.
But certainly no one can make that statement successfully in the field of technically trained personnel. What we do need there is a stepped-up, accelerated program of training of technical personnel. To this end we must be prepared to increase our bursaries, scholarships and so on in order to induce young people to go on and take training to the extent that we will have a bank of personnel sufficient to take care of the needs of the future. We believe that should be included in any national program that has for its aim the maximum development of our resources.
Finally, we will have to give a whole lot more attention to transportation and communications. I have been keenly interested in the development of our northern area, because I have had enough information on which to build a faith that this great northern area is extremely rich in resources that in time will contribute to the strength and security of this great country and the higher living standards of the Canadian people. But it is no use just leaving them there undeveloped. We must take positive steps now to see to it that wherever minerals are found, 82715-75
Natural Resources-Development wherever any great resource exists in that north country, we stimulate development, and it seems to me that one of the methods of stimulating is to provide adequate transportation so that people will be induced to go in and develop these resources with some decent chance of being able to market their products at a reasonable price. To do that they have to have transportation.
I have in mind, for instance, the very large fields just south of Great Slave lake in the Northwest Territories, not very far from the northern boundary of Alberta, where in recent years prospectors have discovered vast areas of base metals. It is estimated by the best technical brains we have in our country that there are no less than 60 million tons of high grade ore that can be mined in that area by open cut methods, which means that you do not have to go to the great cost of sending down deep shafts. You simply remove the overburden with drag-line steam-shovels, blast the stuff up and move it to the smelters and refineries. If that base metal field is to be developed properly transportation facilities must be provided.
It would require approximately 300 miles of railway construction to put a rail line in there from Grimshaw, Alberta. If a rail line were built I do not think there is any question but that the development of the field would go ahead; and not only that, it would stimulate further exploration and development in the area where there is every evidence that minerals of all kinds away beyond present imagination would be found. That sort of thing has to be; but if you are going to get the development you have to provide the transportation first and not have transportation follow development. Somehow or other the railways seem to have got into the state of mind where they feel that development has to come first and be carried to the point where the railways will be guaranteed the full return of their costs right from the day they start running into the area. Where is their pioneering instinct?
It seems to me that the federal government through its various branches could give a great stimulus to the development of these resources in the far-flung areas of Canada by helping a little more in the development of transportation. When the province of British Columbia wanted to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway into the Peace river block and link it up with the Northern Alberta Railways in that great block they had to come to the government of Canada to see if they could get some help. Here was an example of having to come to the senior government cap in hand.
1170	HOUSE OF
Natural Resources-Development
The government of Canada, to be fair and honest, did give them some consideration. They gave them a subsidy of so much per mile for a limited number of miles, but it was not anything like what was necessary to complete the development or to make it possible for the government of British Columbia to build a railway sufficiently far into the north to tap all the resources that are available there. Therefore the government of British Columbia has had to go and borrow money. Things like that, Mr. Speaker, where a provincial government has to come to the federal government for aid and then only gets a fraction of what is required to do the job, cannot possibly contribute very much to the kind of thing we envisage here, the optimum development of our resources in the interests of the people.
Therefore I think we should adopt a national policy with these six important features; perhaps others, but these six anyway. To recapitulate, they are a national finance and economic commission to coordinate government fiscal, monetary, investment, public works and budgetary policies in the interests of all our people; a fair and more just division of the revenue dollar among the federal, provincial and municipal governments; the revision of our taxation structure; the establishment of a national statistical and advisory bureau that would chart, measure and record all Canadian resources, including those having to do with the production of energy; the training of adequate personnel so we would have sufficient to call upon in our developmental efforts, and better transportation facilities, especially into those areas that are somewhat isolated from the centres of population.
I believe, as I say, that if we were to adopt a policy involving at least these six important features we would then have a national policy that would be successful in doing the job envisioned by the Leader of the Opposition. Before I sit down I want to say that we support that part of the amendment which, as I indicated earlier, has to do with resources development.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in advancing this amendment today the members of the Conservative party are doing so because we believe very sincerely that it sets out what should be the long-term policy for the development of Canadian resources. On this issue there is a basic difference between the thinking of the government and our thinking, and first of all I propose to read the amendment. It advocates:

. . . that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources, and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
Let us now look at the policy of the Liberal party in this regard. Government policy since the war has been in the first place to concentrate on trying to promote trade with the United States. Right through that picture this government has tried to put all Canada's trading eggs in the one basket. In the second place, its policy has been essentially to export raw materials, or materials which have been semi-processed, and to import manufactured goods.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that continues to be the policy of the Liberal party today. I have good authority for my statement, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On December 3 of 1956 he spoke to the Women's Canadian Club in Montreal reporting on his trip to Japan. In the course of that speech he had this to say:
But, as you know, Canada finds it economical to produce large surpluses of raw materials and foodstuffs with which to pay for the large quantities of imported produce and manufactured goods.
Then he also had this to say. He was telling these ladies what he had advised the Japanese. He said:
I pointed out to them that Canada is the largest import market in the world for manufactured goods . . .
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have not the slightest ambition to make Canada the largest import market in the world for manufactured goods. We believe that Canada should be manufacturing far more of her own goods than she is manufacturing today. But here you have the responsible minister boasting of the fact that Canada is the largest import market in the world for manufactured goods.


Mr. Byrne:: After all, he is the minister of trade.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps my good friend the hon. member for Kootenay East will pay attention to what the Canadian Labour Congress have to say if he will not listen to me. No wonder that in their brief presented to the government of Canada on January 23 of this year they had this to say:
.	.	. we question whether it is necessary and
desirable for Canada to have to import $3,600 million worth of fully or chiefly manufactured goods as we did in 1955. We ask the government to give careful and active consideration to this question. We think that encouragement should be given to the development of secondary industry in Canada.

Why should they not think that? It means jobs if secondary industry is developed in Canada. The result of Liberal policies since the second war is now becoming clear. The government has been leading Canada steadily into greater dependence on the United States in the economic field, just as the government has been leading Canada into dependence on the United States in the field of external affairs.
Mr. Speaker, may I suggest this afternoon that now is the time when it is vital for Canadians to face this question of the use of their resources. I say that for several reasons. One is that since the war there has been a great increase in new discoveries of resources in Canada. By the way, I may say that those discoveries were made without the government being able to claim any great credit for them. I refer, for example, to oil, natural gas, iron ore, uranium, titanium and many others. The last ten years has been the greatest period in Canada's history for the discovery of new resources. It is therefore far more important now than it ever was previously-and goodness knows it was always extremely important in Canada-for us to decide how these resources are to be used.
Again, the United States in the same years suddenly discovered that she is running short of raw materials. That situation is caused partially by the great use made of United States natural resources during the recent war and subsequently. In any event, the United States is becoming a nation which will be short of most of the vital materials. That means there will be-and there is every day-an increasing demand by the United States for Canadian raw materials. In that regard it is worthy of note that while they need our raw materials all the more and want them all the more, they are being extremely careful not to change their fundamental policy, which is this. While they will allow raw materials from other countries into the United States so they can turn them into manufactured goods, they are extremely careful not to allow manufactured goods in from other countries such as Canada, for fear that those manufactured goods will compete with the goods produced in the United States. They are still sticking tightly to that policy which was one that built them into the great nation they are today.


Mr. Prudham:: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question?	[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


George Prudham: Is the hon, gentleman aware of the fact that the Steel Company of Canada is dependent for its ore supplies entirely on the United States?
82715-75*
Natural Resources-Development


Howard Charles Green: I am aware of the fact that the Steel Company of Canada gets quite a large portion of its iron ore from the United States. I believe it is now getting more from Canada.


George Prudham: Not yet.


Howard Charles Green: However, that does not alter the broad picture which I have been painting and with which I think the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will agree. If this government carries on as it has been doing; if it does not adopt a new policy with regard to natural resources, the United States is in a fair way to get the main benefit from Canada's raw materials.
This question has been highlighted by the Gordon report on Canada's economic prospects. That is an extremely important report.
I remember how proud the ministers were when the setting up of this commission was announced. It was to decide what we were to do for the next 25 years. There had never been a commission like it. It was a commission to end all commissions. They were going to go to the people with the report that came from this Gordon commission, and they were going to sweep the country from coast to coast.


An hon. Member:: We will.


Howard Charles Green: What a difference there is
today. If you mention the Gordon report the chin of every one across the floor falls about an inch. The government is resentful of the report. The Minister of Trade and Commerce used a club on it last week, and the other ministers avoid it like the plague. You would think it was full of political typhus germs from the way the ministers steer clear of it. Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad thing to happen to a million dollar report. I feel extremely sorry for Mr. Gordon for the way the recommendations made by him and his fellow commissioners have been treated by the members of the cabinet. But there the report is, and it merits study by all Canadians, even though the government tries to shove it under the rug.
We believe that a national development policy must, in the first place, bring to Canadians the maximum return from their own resources. I am going to give several examples. First of all there is natural gas. We have heard at lot about natural gas in this chamber in the last eight years. Most hon. members will recall that this question first came to the fore over the piping of natural gas to the west coast. There were several groups of promoters who wanted to take gas from southern Alberta, pipe it over the boundary into southeastern British Columbia and then into the United States at

Natural Resources-Development the first possible practicable point, through the state of Washington to serve Spokane, Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, and then have a little stub line up to Vancouver. We would get Canadian gas after the people of the United States had had all they wanted, if there was any left.
There was another proposal that gas should be piped from the Peace river district of British Columbia down through the centre of our province to serve practically every community on the mainland. You remember, Mr. Speaker, what a row there was in the house. The Liberal members with the exception of George Cruickshank, who was then member for Fraser Valley, Jack Gibson, the member for Comox-Alberni and one or two others, were all for this plan of getting gas from southern Alberta down into the United States. My good friend the hon. member for Kootenay East was one of the main advocates of such a course. I do not blame him, because he represents that part of British Columbia. The Prime Minister flew into a rage on two or three occasions, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce got very excited. They were obviously in favour of getting these charters through which would enable the promoters to pipe gas from southern Alberta down into the United States. The Conservatives and our C.C.F. friends, on the other hand, stood firm from the start for a Canada-first policy. As a result of that stand-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You nearly lost the pipeline.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Does the hon. member know that because of the decision to pipe gas down from central British Columbia it is going to cost the people of the southern mainland about one-third more than it would have by the route proposed by the other people?


Howard Charles Green: If my friend's policy had been followed they would not be getting any gas, because it would have gone to Portland and Seattle.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Howard Charles Green: As a result of the stand taken at that time the pipe line is being laid now from the Peace river right down through the province of British Columbia, with great benefit to all that part of Canada.
Then there was the case of gas to eastern Canada. Who was it advocated a Canada-first policy in bringing gas to eastern Canada? It was not anybody on the Liberal side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Of course it was.


Howard Charles Green: No; again it was the Conservative and C.C.F. members who advocated


that policy. The Liberals were late converts, Mr. Speaker. I have here the report of a speech by Hon. George Drew dated March 10, 1953, in which he is reported as saying:
"Let the government declare that the first interest to be served will be the interests of the Canadian people-a Canada-first policy in the use of these resources."
This was after we had advocated that course many times before that date. Finally, three days later the Minister of Trade and Commerce made an announcement that he, too, was in favour of a Canada-first policy. But even after he had changed his mind there was great worry about what he would do. In 1955, two years later, the mayors and reeves from the lakehead and from northern Ontario were worried to death for fear he was going to change the policy again and have gas go down into the United States instead of through their area. They wired for an appointment and they were turned down. They were told the minister represented the lakehead and he did not need any help from the mayors in that part of the country. Then apparently the Prime Minister intervened, and we have this dispatch dated July 19, 1955, saying they can come along and meet the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Then the dispatch continues:
Agreement by Mr. Howe to the meeting was a sharp about-face.
However, now he is apparently a convert to the Canada-first policy for natural gas to eastern Canada. We are very glad that he has seen the light on this particular question. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, we are still watching to see to what extent the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company is going to control this Trans-Canada pipe line to eastern Canada. We are glad some steps have been taken to give Canadians a chance to buy into the company. Those steps never would have been taken if it had not been for the protests made in this house by the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: I do suggest the Canadian people would be well advised to keep their eye on Trans-Canada pipe lines to see what the Tennessee Gas Company does.


George Carlyle Marler: I notice the hon. gentleman cannot help laughing when he says what he has just said.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is the discomfiture on the other side of the house that makes him laugh.


Howard Charles Green: I notice I am getting a lot of interruptions from the other side of the house, and I have not said anything I do not sincerely mean.

Then we come to iron ore. We have huge deposits in the Quebec-Labrador area which have been opened within the last few years. I believe over 12 million tons were shipped away from Sept lies during 1956, of which about 10 million tons went to the United States in the raw form. It was just dug out by steam shovels, put on freight cars and then dumped into the ships. It was not fabricated at all. We realize that there must be a lot of iron ore shipped out that way, but why do the government not make some attempt to have that iron ore at least partially fabricated in this country? They have not taken one step in that direction.
The former director of scientific services in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys had something to say about that. I refer to Dr. G. S. Hume. Back in March of 1953, in the course of a speech, he had this to say:
It is suggested as not beyond the possibilities of our research scientists to find ways and means in Canada to utilize electric power and iron ore occurring together in the same area to at least effect a partial processing which would be of immense benefit to this country. The Ontario research foundation has been doing excellent work on the study of iron and our mines branch at Ottawa has a number of scientists well versed in the technology of treatment of all kinds of ores. Thus well directed efforts might accomplish much toward reducing our iron ore to the metal before shipment outside Canada . . .
Another example is found in British Columbia. Some of us have been pointing out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for several years that iron ore is not found there in large quantities, as yet in any event, yet there have been shipments of several million tons in the raw state to Japan. This policy makes it that much more difficult to establish a steel industry on the west coast. The minister has replied that he could not do anything about that.
If the government had wished to do so it could have taken steps to control the export of that iron ore. Now it looks as though, with the help of the Japanese, something is going to be done. The Japanese are saying, why don't you turn that ore into pig iron? Japan wants pig iron now instead of the iron ore, but there has been no move by this government to further the processing of that ore in Canada. Zinc and lead in New Brunswick are another example. There we have large deposits of tremendous importance to that province, yet it looks as though all that ore will be merely dug up and then shipped away to the United States to be smelted.


Robert Henry Winters: Not as ore.


Howard Charles Green: It certainly will not be smelted in New Brunswick unless this government wakes up and does something to assist the
Natural Resources-Development province of New Brunswick in getting the necessary power. If the government would enter into a joint investment program with New Brunswick for the development of power on the Saint John river, I believe it would be possible to establish a smelter in that province to smelt those ores.
I really do not see, Mr. Speaker, how anyone can quarrel with a policy which insists that every effort must be made to manufacture our own raw materials in Canada. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce dealt with that in their policy declarations for 1956-57. Let me read:
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes that such policies must recognize
(1)	The primary interest of Canadians in the development of Canadian natural resources.
(2)	That the greater extent to which these resources are refined or converted within the country, the greater the return to the Canadian economy.
The Gordon report made recommendations with that in mind. I shall not read again the paragraph on page 48 of the report, which was read by the Leader of the Opposition, but it goes so far as to suggest that the government might institute a system of export permits for the export of certain raw materials from Canada, making it a condition of the permit that there would be certain processing done within our country. That shows how important this problem is to Canada today, not 50 years from now; yet the government does not show the slightest interest in adopting a policy of that kind.
Then we believe that a national development policy must correct the serious unfavourable trade balance. You know, Mr. Speaker, the unfavourable trade balance in 1956 was really something. The over-all trade deficit with all nations amounted to $848,800,000. The highest it had ever been before in the history of the country was $361,100,000 in 1955. In 1956 it was more than double that amount. With the United States the unfavourable trade balance amounted to over $100 million a month. The total was $1,290,100,000. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce was questioned about it last week he had this to say, as reported at page 967 of Hansard:
There is an over-all trade deficit which is due wholly to the present abnormal rate of capital investment . . .
That was just an evasion, just a case of trying to cover up the situation with a statement so far removed from the actual facts that it really does not merit consideration. Last year when the minister was criticized for an unfavourable trade balance with the United States he made the excuse-and I am referring to page 5797 of Hansard-that oh, we were getting in a lot of material and
1174	HOUSE OF
Visit of Premier of France equipment with which we were going to be able to manufacture goods, and then we would not have to buy manufactured goods any more from the United States. He left the impression that the situation would be much better this year. What is the actual result? The result is-


Walter Edward Harris: The greatest production we have ever had.


Howard Charles Green: -the biggest deficit with the United States we have ever had, infinitely bigger than it was last year, and it will probably be a good deal worse in 1957. And yet this government does not give the slightest indication of doing anything about it. We export our raw materials and our semi-processed goods, Mr. Speaker, and we continue to import largely manufactured goods. At some time this has to stop or we shall be entirely dependent on and in the hands of the United States.
We have suggested on this side as a remedy that there should be a commonwealth trade conference, having in mind that we would get more of our trade spread out among the members of the commonwealth rather than concentrating it almost entirely in the United States market. It would give us a better chance to sell our foodstuffs and certainly our manufactured goods.
Then I believe more encouragement should be given to the secondary manufacturing industries in Canada. The Gordon commission went into that very thoroughly, and I imagine this is one of the chapters that the members of the cabinet hesitate to read. Mr. Gordon and his associates set out clearly what is happening. They say:
Our secondary manufacturing industries sell most of their products on the domestic market; in 1955 only 6 per cent of the total output was exported. The main reason for this is the tariff and restrictive commercial policies of foreign countries.
This is particularly true of the United States whose tariffs, the report says, are in general much higher on manufactured goods than on raw or semi-processed materials. Yet in Canada these secondary manufacturing industries are finding their keenest competition coming from the United States. Here we have an industry which employs 20 per cent of the Canadian civilian labour force. In 1955 it employed 1,050,000 persons, and in that year it produced 22 per cent of our total net output. At page 66 the report says:
The future growth of secondary manufacturing industry in Canada will depend largely upon the size of the domestic market for its products and the share of that market which Canadian manufacturers are able to obtain. Exports will probably be of even less importance than in the past unless important changes take place in the commercial policies of other countries.


The commission goes on to recommend- this will be of interest to the Minister of Finance-two things. The first is that the industry be given the privilege of writing off over a very short period their capital investment in buildings, in machinery and in equipment, which the commission points out would be a most useful and effective incentive for reducing costs and increasing the ability of secondary manufacturing industries to compete successfully with imported products.
They make another recommendation that the government and other large bodies such as railways should make a practice of discussing their prospective requirement and their capital expenditure programs with their principal suppliers well in advance, so there could be a more efficient spacing of production, leading to lower production costs; and they instance freight cars. These appear to be practical suggestions, and I do not see why the government should not take some steps to implement such recommendations; but as yet no action by the government is indicated.
It is six o'clock, Mr, Speaker.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISIT TO CANADA BY PREMIER MOLLET OF FRANCE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to revert to motions for just one minute?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the Prime
Minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to inform the house that Premier Mollet of France has accepted the invitation of the Canadian government to visit Canada after his conference with President Eisenhower in Washington, which will probably be toward the end of this month. I have not yet ascertained just exactly on what date he will be visiting Ottawa, but as soon as it is ascertained I will inform hon. members.


Howard Charles Green: That is very good news, but I suggest that the Prime Minister endeavour to arrange for Premier Mollet to address the House of Commons and the Senate, as has been done on former occasions.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That will receive consideration, but I do not expect that his visit here will be of very long duration and some of these visits have come at week ends, as hon. members know. When

the exact date of his visit has been fixed we will see what arrangements can be made so that all hon. members may have an opportunity of meeting him and possibly of hearing him.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, before the house rose at six o'clock I had been pointing out some of the things we Conservatives believe a national development policy must do. One was that it must bring Canadians a maximum return from their natural resources and, second, that it must correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances and particularly the unfavourable trade balance with the United States.
This evening I would like to go on to deal with something else such a policy must do. We believe it must foster a wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of their own resources. After all, this involves the control of our own Canadian natural resources, and this country cannot afford to have such resources controlled from head offices in the United States.
This problem arises because of the very strong United States influence in our resource and manufacturing industries. That is pointed out at page 88 of the Gordon commission report, as follows:
The more important Canadian industries in which a relatively few companies controlled by nonresidents have a dominating influence include the oil and the gas industry, some sections of the mining, smelting and refining industry (including in particular, nickel, iron ore, aluminum and asbestos) some sections of the chemical industry and at least three of the more important secondary manufacturing industries, namely, automobiles, electrical apparatus and supplies, and rubber products.
The Gordon report goes on to make certain recommendations. For example, it recommends certain objectives as being desirable for foreign firms operating in Canada, such as, for example, the employment of Canadians in senior management and technical
Natural Resources-Development positions, the purchasing of supplies, materials and equipment in Canada, the publishing of financial statements, and the full disclosure of their Canadian operations. In addition it recommends that the larger Canadian subsidiaries should sell an appreciable proportion-perhaps 20 to 25 per cent-of their equity stock to Canadian investors, and should include on their boards of directors a number of independent Canadians.
Then the report goes on to recommend ways in which all this can be brought about. Perhaps the Minister of Finance would be interested in these recommendations of the Gordon commission. They recommend certain tax concessions at page 91, and they say:
These suggestions for new and special tax concessions were put forward primarily with the object of assisting Canadian companies and Canadian businesses to compete successfully with their much larger competitors in other countries whose financial resources and research facilities in many cases far surpass what is available in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the part of the proposal which would help remedy the situation to which I have referred.
With this in mind, and if these suggestions for new and special tax concessions are accepted, it might not be unreasonable in the opinion of the commission, to make them conditional in their application to foreign-owned Canadian subsidiaries upon such companies, and more particularly the large or well-established ones, selling some part of their equity stock to Canadians and appointing independent Canadians to their boards of directors.
Then the report makes a further suggestion that it might be possible to charge a higher rate of withholding tax on dividends paid to United States residents by Canadian companies unless an appreciable percentage of the equity stock of such companies is held by Canadian investors.
These seem to be reasonable suggestions, and we would like to know what the government intends to do about them. I have been very much impressed by a pamphlet which was distributed to us all late last week by the Empire Trust Company of New York. It is entitled, "Observations on the Gordon Commission Recommendations Concerning United States Investment in Canada" and the situation is summed up very accurately, Mr. Speaker, in a paragraph on page 6 which reads as follows:
In the opinion of many Canadians, however, there comes a point where the "continentalization" of the North American economy in many ways implied by the attitude of the U.S. corporation runs counter to the best interest of Canada. While many of the arguments against the "continental econofny" approach may be described as nine parts emotionalism and one part fact-
-this is an American summary-
-there is one that is irrefutable-the conflict in respect of the development of Canadian resources that may well arise between the objectives of the U.S. parent and those of the Canadian authorities.

Natural Resources-Development
Certainly there is a problem here to be met. Last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce scoffed at the suggestion that there was anything wrong with the way Canadian resources were being exploited by foreign concerns. But then, after the house rose, he made a speech to American businessmen which was really a repetition of the points raised by Hon. Mr. Drew last session and repeated today by the present Leader of the Opposition. I would like to read to the house a comment in the Victoria daily Colonist concerning the visit made by the minister to Chicago:
Rather like an elderly ram addressing an audience of wolves, C. D. Howe asks American industrialists to be kind to Canada.
He travelled to Chicago recently and pleaded with United States corporations to allow Canadians a bigger share in Canadian resources.
He thus became the first Canadian minister of state to enter a foreign country with hat in hand, and mildly suggest that foreign industrialists let us keep some of Canada for ourselves.
This question cannot be shrugged off. It has to be faced. But this session, unfortunately, the government does not appear to be lifting one little finger to deal with it. Mr. Speaker, the indifference of the government to this problem of processing more of our natural resources in Canada, to our unfavourable trade balance and to the need for encouraging the wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of their own resources, and the complacency of the government with regard to the whole situation is leading Canada into a position of economic colonialism vis-a-vis the United States.
We believe that Canada can be one of the great nations of the world in her own right, but only by adopting without further delay a national development policy of the type suggested in our amendment.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate so far with a great deal of interest, and I have been looking at this amendment for the last few hours, forming my own opinions as to whether it can be implemented or otherwise.
The language of the amendment is, of course, all right. There is nothing wrong with it. And, as other speakers have pointed out, the main part of the amendment concerns the development of a national policy to exploit our own natural resources.
If I were a newcomer in the house and did not know the background of farming out our resources I would be inclined to go along with the arguments I have been listening to; but having been here for some considerable time, having taken part in similar discussions over the years and, in fact, having initiated discussions of this kind by

resolution and in other ways, I think the arguments being advanced at this time are a little bit late and rather impractical, to say the least.
During the course of presenting his arguments leading up to the amendment the Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear that the national development policy he advocates must be brought about within the ambit of free enterprise. I said a moment ago that I consider the proposition impractical in the light of the circumstances surrounding the development of our resources today. For a start I should like to ask him how he proposes to get co-operation from the headquarters of the large United States organizations, located mainly in New York city, which have secured certain rights under leases granted particularly by the legislatures of this country. How is he going to bring these companies into a partnership that would help to develop the resources of Canada which they have today under lease?
Second, I should like to point out this fact. When we ask the federal government to implement a Canada-wide national development program we should remember that the resources of the country are in the hands of the provinces and the federal government has no authority under the British North America Act, unless we want to change it, to go into the provinces and do anything with respect to the development of resources.
Third, I should like to make this point. I said a moment ago that this debate was rather late, and I say that for the reason that in the development of pipe lines for natural gas and oil in this country the first five master bills were brought into the house in 1949. At that time we put forward all the arguments that were made this afternoon with respect to farming out our resources to United States interests. We not only made those arguments as far back as 1949 and 1951 particularly, but we also moved motions in the house that these pipe lines should be designated as common carriers so as to keep at least the main valves of the pipe lines in Canada instead of in the United States.
We did not get very much support in the house except from members of our own group. That development is finished. The policy with respect to that resource has been decided not only by the federal government with respect to the question of a common carrier but by the provinces that are developing natural gas and oil.
When we come to iron ore resources we are also a bit late, for the simple reason that when these resources were farmed out in

the first place it was the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland which gave the exploration companies leases over a period of years to explore and develop. But when the application came before the house for a franchise to build a railroad into northern Quebec, and there were a lot of other concessions along with it, again I and other members of this group pointed out that these exploration companies with Canadian names that were getting the franchise were merely a front for large United States interests such as M. A. Hanna Company, the National Steel Company and others who were getting the iron ore resources and the franchise for the railroad to exploit the ore in Ungava and Labrador.
We suggested at that time that the bill to grant the railway franchise should be sent back to a committee so its implications could be studied. We also suggested that the federal government should hold at least 51 per cent of the shares in that development in the right of the Canadian people if risk capital could not be found in Canada to hold at least some of the shares for the Canadian people. We were not supported then. I suggest to my hon. friend that the time to decide about holding these resources is when legislation is going through the house and through the legislatures of the provinces for the purpose of farming them out. We pointed out particularly with respect to the iron ore resources that the future of North America depends on steel. It runs all through our economy. The section of North America that controls the iron ore resources of Ungava and Newfoundland will be able to place in the hands of the government of that section the future development of North America.
Not much attention was paid to those arguments, and today the legislation is there. To get the kind of national development suggested by the Leader of the Opposition it would be necessary to abrogate those agreements and it would be necessary to get the provincial governments to go along with the abrogation. It is all right to move this kind of amendment, but as far as I am concerned I should like to remain within the realm of the things we can do rather than suggest things that I am pretty sure are practically impossible today.
To say that the federal government should enter upon a national development program also presupposes that the government should set up a fund for the purpose of developing our resources where risk capital cannot be found, and unless the fund goes along with such a development policy it will not be very successful. The government will also have to have the power to enforce such a policy,
Natural Resources-Development something they have not got at the present time with the exception of the power to make public works available, and so forth. But I am afraid I cannot see how this particular piece of machinery could be put to work, because all the things that are presupposed in the amendment have already been decided by acts of parliament and of the legislatures. That is something that will be pretty hard to undo.


George Clyde Nowlan: Nonsense.


Clarence Gillis: All right, you tell me when you get up.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will.


Clarence Gillis: How are you going to get control of the pipe line?


George Clyde Nowlan: I never knew you to be a defeatist before.


Clarence Gillis: I am stating facts. I am not playing politics. Before I am through I am going to tell the government some things they can do.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is good. Go ahead and do that.


Clarence Gillis: But do not try to fool us with this kind of hogwash. Our iron ore resources and the pipe lines carrying gas and oil were farmed out to United States interests with the acquiescence of my hon. friends the Tories. Then the St. Lawrence seaway project came along, a project that just means the development of hydro power in central Canada as far as I am concerned, and in addition the provision of a seaway for the Americans to haul the iron ore up the lakes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In American boats.


Clarence Gillis: I was the only person in the house who rose and protested along the lines suggested here this afternoon, namely that any large public investment made by the people of Canada through the taxpayers' money should at least bring some results to other sections of the country. But today, of course, everybody can see what the implications of these things are going to be.
I am just mentioning these few points in order to bring this discussion back into the realm of realism and to face facts as they are. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to give the federal government the powers to do the kind of job suggested in this particular resolution. If my hon. friends are prepared to do that, they should say so. But if it is merely a matter of talking about it and advancing a great many nice words, telling a nice story that can be publicized across the country without any possibility of bringing that particular program into effect, that is

Natural Resources-Development another matter. That program is needed, but we are just about ten years too late in going after it.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition talked about the development of a national energy board; and of course, being a good politician, he said that idea came from his particular party, that the late Gordon Gray-don advocated it in 1951 and Mr. Drew in 1953. The hon. member has been in this house as long as I have, and he will recall that I initiated discussions on that particular question as far back as 1941 and that I moved a motion in this house on April 17, 1946, not only advocating that national energy policy but setting out the mechanics that should be used in bringing it about. That was before the setting up of the dominion coal board as it exists today.
I am mentioning that fact just in order to keep the record straight. I have always had the opinion that in this world you can get anything you want provided you do not care who gets the credit for it. If the Leader of the Opposition had not raised that matter this afternoon and obviously pinpointed it in order to lead people to believe that any of these ideas had come from just one source, I would not have mentioned it. But I am setting the record straight by telling him that from a time going back to 1941 I have been advocating a national fuel board and a national energy policy in this house.
I am glad to see that we are making progress in that field, and I am glad to see there are some people in the government somewhere who have the good judgment to pick up things, no matter from where they come. I am reasonably sure that within the foreseeable future-maybe before this house closes-you will have an announcement that the kind of thing you are advocating by way of a national energy policy will be brought into being. I think that a departmental committee that has been sitting for several years now within the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has gathered just about all the information and data necessary to bring about that national energy board; and I want to say that it is badly needed.
A moment ago I said I was going to tell the government some things that I thought they could do. One of those things is the setting up of that board. They can do that. It is within the power of this government. But whether or not this government has the authority to do the kind of job that board should do remains to be seen. That will depend largely on the provinces also.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the hon. member
place the resolution before the house? I refer to the one he mentioned. Was it on a fuel policy?
[Mr. Gillis.l


Clarence Gillis: A national fuel policy. The field has broadened since then. You now have oil in it and you have atomic energy. I said I was doubtful whether the kind of board that is visualized will have the authority to do the kind of job it should do. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that, with the mechanics of confederation as they are today, with control of fuel in the hands of the provinces, it is going to be necessary to deal with the provinces on the question of a national fuel board. They are going to have a big say in it. The companies which have the resources leased out today and can develop them or not, just as they see fit, still have them leased from a provincial government and not from the federal government. If that board is just going to be the kind of board that can suggest and plead, without any power of regulation, then I think that board is not going to perform the function it should perform.
When I talk about energy I am particularly interested in the energy that is produced in my own province. I am particularly interested in it because that energy-I refer to the coal industry-is the main base for the whole economy of that province. That industry is in fairly bad shape today, and in my opinion it requires some other body to bring some planning and some sanity to the management of it, if it is to survive.
In the last report of the dominion coal board

if any one wants to look this up it may be found at page 12-it is definitely suggested that the coal industry of that province is in bad shape. Of course the federal government has made money available for mechanization purposes and so forth. That was several years ago. During that period that action has not improved the industry very much. There has been the closing of several mines, with consequent unemployment. There have been five major disasters and several fires. I sometimes think that perhaps in the rush to secure production where it is not possible, the safety factor in those mines is being lowered to a point beyond that at which it should be maintained.
That is, of course, a matter that is in the hands of the provincial governments; but to date, in my judgment, they have not made a very good job of it. Whether or not the production targets that are being set by that industry can be met is something that remains to be seen. Most people in this house who have heard the matter discussed, particularly the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, will recall that back four or five years ago it was said to be just a matter of mechanizing these mines, and that was to bring about the millenium as far as coal was concerned. That has been done.

After that was done it was a question of markets. It was said there were not sufficient markets. Something has been done about markets. As far as the operating company is concerned, my opinion is that over the last year they could not supply the market that was available to them within somewhere about a million tons of coal. So the question of markets is not there. It is nearly time somebody began to find out who is fooling whom as far as that industry is concerned. The federal government has a stake in it by way of subventions and so on. In fact they have kept it breathing over the last number of years.
I look at the newspapers and I pick up clipping after clipping just since we came back to this house. The town of Westville is becoming another ghost town. The mine is closed. Coal mining in that area of Pictou county has been wiped out. There just is not any more. Something will have to be done for that particular community.
As I said before, these leases are farmed out by the provincial governments to big companies. When one big company dominates the life of any town or city in which it operates, you are in trouble. All they have to do to keep you in line is to say, "We will close up." They are using that threat at every opportunity.
I have received a resolution from the people of Westville saying that the lease of the company in that area should be broken so some other operator might be given a chance to come in there. Then you pick up press clippings-you can get them by the dozen, and I do not want to bother the house by reading them-saying that coal dealers complain supplies are not available right in that area. Local, domestic coal cannot be supplied. Press clippings indicate that there is difficulty in getting coal right in the area represented by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, an area in which coal is produced and where they are closing the mine, holding leases and preventing any other operator from operating the mines.
I hope when this national energy board is set up it will have competent personnel who can look into that particular angle of the matter. They could ascertain whether or not the people who are managing the industry are managing it in the best interests of the people who have to make a living there and in the best interests of the community, and whether or not the industry is pulling its economic weight in the whole national picture. The members of the board should be able to sit down and iron out the kinks that exist in the fuel industry, because that industry has to measure up to and meet the
Natural Resources-Development competition that comes from Alberta oil. It is not in a position to do that today.
The Gordon commission's report recommended that the whole question of subventions should be investigated. They suggest that the subventions now paid for the movement of coal into Ontario and Quebec should be revamped so they would apply to coal that is marketed in the Atlantic area. Well, water-borne coal is now receiving a subvention of around 88 cents a ton moving from Atlantic ports into Montreal. I leave that thought with the minister. I am not going to argue about it, because if press reports are correct this company cannot supply the coal markets it has at the present time. If that is true, then the answer would not seem to be in subventions, the answer would seem to be in production. Of course production is the company's responsibility. Whether or not they are going at the thing in a way that will get that production is not for me to say; that is for the mine workers to say.
I might point out to the house that the mine workers employed by Dosco are patient and long suffering. They have not had a wage increase in the past three years, yet the wages in practically every other industry in this country have been going up and up. They see the steel plant alongside of them with 4,500 men working for the same company, and their wages have gone up over the years as well as increases in fringe benefits. The mine workers have had no improvement in their wages or their fringe benefits. Negotiations are under way now with the mine workers. A second conciliation board is trying to iron out the difficulty. Judging from all the conflicting reports one sees I am rather doubtful whether anything is going to come out of it. I feel the federal government has some responsibility in the matter because of the enormous amount of money they put into the industry by way of subsidies and subventions.
I hope when this national energy board is set up, and I believe it will be set up, it will have some authority to speak to the provincial people about the management of the resources that belong to the people of that province. Most people seem to forget that when a company takes a lease on resources in any part of the country the company has a right to do what it likes with those resources. However, those resources still belong to the people, and the particular provincial government farming out those resources is the custodian of them and is answerable to the people for the way in which the resources are exploited. In Nova Scotia they are not doing a very good job of exploiting coal.
Now, with respect to this question concerning the formation of big companies-this is

Natural Resources-Development the question of fuel again-I may say that we seem to think once we get a pipe line piping gas into a town or city or pumping oil we are going to have cheap fuel. We forget that as long as there is competition the price will be kept down, but just as soon as the oil company gets control in a certain area and no other fuel is available, they will put the gun to you. As proof of that I am just going to read a few extracts from a letter I have from Langley Greenhouses Limited at Langley Prairie, British Columbia. This is signed by the president of the company. I am not going to read all of it, but it says:
In this connection we beg to advise you that during the past 12 months the oil companies have advanced their prices to us for fuel oil by approximately 20 per cent. This is for pickup at the refinery by tank truck. As our fuel oil costs us from twenty to twenty-four thousand dollars per annum the increase amounts to a considerable sum which we have to absorb in our operations.
When the Trans Mountain pipe line was completed we believed it would reduce our fuel costs, instead of this large increase. Our suppliers have been Imperial Oil Limited; their net earnings last year were $69,100,000, a net profit increase of 11.3 per cent over 1955, and we believe it would be difficult for them to justify the large increase in oil prices.
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. The same factors will apply equally to natural gas. Anyone who thinks he is going to get cheap gas in Montreal or Toronto once the competition of other forms of energy has been eliminated is going to be in for a rude awakening.


Frederick George Hahn: They still sell coal there. I buy it myself.


Clarence Gillis: You will be able to answer later. You can make a speech. If you want to defend Imperial Oil, that is for you to say.


Frederick George Hahn: I do not want to defend them, but there is still coal there.


Clarence Gillis: Once they eliminate competition you are at the mercy of the company. I had a call from a small industrialist in Toronto who went over to oil on the assumption that it was going to be cheap. He inquired of me where he could place an order for Nova Scotia coal for power purposes. He had switched over to oil and it was now so expensive he had to get out of it. I am merely suggesting that this whole fuel question has to be looked at rather carefully. You can pick out examples from newspapers in the United States and Canada where gas lines have broken, something went wrong with one of their manufacturing plants, and they had to move the people out of their homes


and find homes that were not heated with gas in which they could put those people until repairs were made. All these hazards will have to be faced, particularly with a line coming down from Alberta to the province of Quebec.
I am sorry the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is retiring from his post after this parliament. You know, you just get these fellows trained and they leave you. The minister has been doing a good job. I hope before he leaves the department he will leave as a monument to himself a national energy board to iron out the many kinks in connection with fuel at the present time and in the future.
I think one of the main problems in this country is the decentralization of industry. I believe the province of Ontario is in trouble now and will be in a lot more trouble within the next few years because of overdevelopment. In talking to the mayors of Canada a few years ago Mr. Frost said, without any equivocation, that all this additional development in the province was raising terrific problems in the municipalities with respect to schools and all the rest of it.
This is pretty well supported in an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on February 6. In a speech made by one of Mr. Frost's chief lieutenants in the legislature he pointed out the financial difficulties facing the province. He said the province had a $45 million deficit last year, and that the debt to date was around $700 million. He went on to point out the additional expenditures anticipated in the next few years, and finished up by saying that unless more help was forthcoming from Ottawa the province of Ontario would have to impose extra taxes, corporation taxes and perhaps go into the income tax field as well.
I suggest that the answer to the problems of Ontario is decentralization of industry. Decentralization of industry will help Mr. Frost considerably. Many of the industries that are being set up today in this province could be farmed out to other sections of the country, and that applies particularly to secondary industries. There is lots of room for them in the maritimes. Don't let anybody tell you there is any shortage of power in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia can supply power to any industry that wishes to come in there. This is not my statement; it is the statement of the Atlantic provinces economic council, which has been doing research over the past several years.
Decentralization would relieve this province of some of its difficulties. As someone said this afternoon, this country would be very vulnerable in time of war. Two or three

well-placed atomic bombs would put us in the position where nothing would be moving in Canada at all. As the editorial clearly points out, the financial difficulties of this province arise from having to farm money out to municipalities for all kinds of services. This province is going ahead too fast. The services that are being created for new people coming in, for new industries being set up and for industry being expanded, are putting a load on the provincial government and the municipalities they are not going to be able to carry. That is particularly true of the municipalities.
I think the federal government should take another look at the Maritime Freight Rates Act. They say they are doing it. I hope they are, because transportation costs are one of the biggest factors that militate against the establishment of subsidiary industry in the maritime provinces. I think they should overhaul the tariff schedules to find out what tariffs are militating against the outlying sections of the country. I think they will find a lot of revisions could be made in tariff schedules to help both the east and the west, particularly in those tariff schedules which are designed merely to protect central Canadian manufacturers.
I believe the federal government would be well advised to ascertain the possibilities of setting up a national development board. They should find out what the mechanics are, and what co-operation they can get from the provinces. But, in addition to that, there has to be a national investment fund to make capital available to sections of the country where risk capital cannot be found, and risk capital cannot be found today to develop anything in the maritimes. What development is going on in the maritimes they are trying to do themselves. I might say they are not getting very much help.
I hope the Minister of Public Works will remember a letter I wrote him a short time ago on behalf of a small section of one community which is endeavouring to create an industry. They cannot create that industry unless the minister's department builds a breakwater or provides anchorage for the ships or small boats they intend to use in a fishing and canning endeavour. They are working on it themselves and are getting it done by local capital.
I know the minister is going to put something in the supplementary estimates for that particular development. It is a cooperative development. This is one way by which the federal government can help in creating industry where local capital is being found for the development. The Atlantic provinces economic council has all the
Natural Resources-Development machinery there. If the minister can find some money for them they can farm it out. They are finding local capital to develop some small industries, particularly in the Cape Breton area.
The four things I have mentioned are practical suggestions. They are within the powers of the federal government. The government can overhaul their tariff schedules. Their experts can tell them what tariffs are impeding the progress of the outlying sections of the country. The government can set up a national energy board and do a good job within the limitations of the federal government with respect to the resources of the provinces. They can think about a national development program and the finding of the money necessary to assist in the provinces, where people are endeavouring to establish something for themselves.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words tonight on the amendment to the motion to go into supply. I would like to relate my remarks concerning the amendment to the constituency of Cariboo, where we have possibly a great deal more in the way of natural resources than most people realize. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the development of those natural resources depends to a greater extent on transportation facilities than on anything else. If we have not the transportation facilities in connection with the development of natural resources we just do not get the development.
The provincial government, of course, is providing an outlet from the great Peace river area in the form of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, which is going to be of great help to those who are looking for the great development that is to take place in that part of the country. We have, of course, been advocating the recognition of this development by the federal government in the way of construction grants.
The federal government has offered a grant of $25,000 a mile for 50 miles of construction. I have a feeling that in the not too distant future another look will be taken at this situation, and the results of the development going on in this part of the province will show that further construction grants are most desirable from the federal point of view.
Development is taking place in Cariboo riding as in other parts of Canada, and this does give a broader tax field to the provincial and federal governments. With the broadening of that tax field it is only reasonable that the federal government, benefiting as it does from that broadening tax base,

Natural Resources-Development should consider granting assistance in the development that is taking place.
It is necessary to develop within any area a climate attractive to capital investment. If we are going to have the development of our natural resources we must create a climate which will bring about the capital investment needed to develop the natural resources. Last year $1,200 million of new capital came into the province of British Columbia. That is a large sum of money that has been invested in the province, and this is due to the proper climate for industrial development.
I was glad to notice from a press dispatch that we are going to have some help in the west in the form of human resources. It is said that the minister of immigration has a plan by which many Britons will be able to come by air to western Canada for a set sum of money. We assure these people that they will be most welcome. Human resources are absolutely necessary for the development of natural resources.
I should like to interject here for the benefit of the Minister of Finance that in the development of natural resources in the north it becomes necessary for management to offer certain concessions to labour in order to have them remain on the job and help to carry out this development. A protest was made to the government in respect to the taxation on these concessions. I hope that in the near future the minister will help us to develop our natural resources by taking cognizance of the fact that it is necessary to give some consideration to those people who are working in outlying districts away from hospitals, schools and other amenities.
Referring further to our natural resources, particularly to the Cariboo, I should like to say that at the provincial level there must be a full return to the people of the province from the utilization of the natural resources in any particular district. The provincial government must see that there is a sufficient return to the people for parting with these natural resources. That is a provincial responsibility and it goes along with resource development. In the last year or two we have witnessed negotiations between the federal and provincial governments resulting in tax agreements designed to more or less distribute the wealth of Canada from the have provinces to the have-not provinces, and in that way the return to the people of a province in respect to natural resources will be reflected in benefits to all of Canada.
One of the great natural resources in the Cariboo is in the form of farm lands. We have good land in the Quesnel area, up


through Prince George and in the Peace river block. It is my hope that once again agriculture will get a fair share of the national income. As this land is developed and used for the production of foodstuffs to be consumed in Canada I should like to see the people working in agriculture get a fair share of the national income. It is necessary that they get just exactly that in order to develop our natural resources.
Then a word with regard to the timber resources of northern British Columbia. It has been stated in this house, and it still stands true, that Prince George is the white spruce capital of Canada. I think most hon. members are familiar with the fact that the Sloan commission has been sitting in British Columbia for some time investigating land tenure as far as timber is concerned, sustained yield programs, silviculture practices and other related matters. This is the second commission that has been set up in British Columbia, and was made necessary by changing times and methods in the handling of timber.
Plywood plants are more numerous in these later years, and there have been plans for great expansion in the pulp and paper industry up in the Quesnel area. There is a plywood plant operating there now, and there is a pulp mill on the drawing board. We expect to have a pulp mill in the Peace river block in the not too distant future. Much research has been done in this regard up to the present time.
We have great water resources in British Columbia, and Cariboo constituency has not been left out of the picture in that regard. In the development of our water resources I submit that we must be mindful of the fishing industry. The world population is increasing very rapidly, and the fishing industry may become a most important factor in the feeding of that population in the not too distant future. So I think we must be ever mindful of the fishing industry when we consider the development of power.
In the field of gas and oil we all know of the great developments in the northern part of Alberta and in the Peace river block of British Columbia. There is a great amount of natural gas available for consumption at the present moment, with more reserves on hand. A pipe line to Vancouver and on into the United States is being built at the present time, and I shall have something to say on that matter a little later. In connection with gas and oil I emphasize that it is necessary that the province guard the people's rights so they may have a fair return for these natural resources. This is being done.

In the Cariboo riding there are large deposits of limestone and shale for the manufacture of cement. As we find the province developing the demand for cement is bound to increase; and as the northern part of the province develops, a cement factory would meet a growing need in the north country.
In and around Prince George, and in many parts of Cariboo riding, we have large deposits of clay for pottery and for brickmaking. With the advent of natural gas these industries will be developed. In the Quesnel area we have a large deposit of diatomaceous earth, and we expect that in due course this will become widely used in industry.
We have heard from several speakers this session about the trouble in which the coal industry finds itself today. We also have large deposits of coal in the Pine pass country and in the Hudson's Hope area of the Cariboo riding. When I say large deposits I mean very large deposits. Moreover, the coal is of very high quality, and it is expected that in spite of the difficulties through which the coal industry seems to be passing, development of these resources will proceed very rapidly once the railway is built into that area as projected. It is well known that we have a great deal of base metal in the Cariboo riding, gold in the Wells-Barkerville area, and one of the largest quicksilver mines on the continent in the Fort St. James area.
In addition, the Cariboo riding is one of the greatest natural tourist attractions in the whole country; the big game, hunting and fishing business has been carried on in this part of the country for many years, and it has been my pleasure at various times to have gone out with the so-called dudes from parts of the American continent other than Canada looking for grizzly bear and other big game in the mountains. We also have, of course, the highest mountain in the Canadian Rockies-Mount Robson-and a wonderful park is being developed at that point.
The development of local industry in the Cariboo riding will obviously be accelerated by the fact that we shall soon be able to avail ourselves of natural gas. Before I discuss that any further I would like to express my appreciation to the provincial government for the co-ordination of transportation with capital expansion programs. It was absolutely necessary that the Pacific Great Eastern Railway be extended into the Peace river country in order that the Westcoast Transmission Company should be able to build the West-coast Transmission line for natural gas. It is my understanding that when the scrubbing plant which is now being built at Taylor Flats between Fort St. John and Dawson Creek is completed, there will be two trainloads a day of by-products sent out from this
Natural Resources-Development natural gas supply. It is absolutely necessary that these by-products should be shipped out by rail. Therefore the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern line was timed and worked in with the development of the natural gas industry in that area.
So, all in all, I suppose, we have in the Cariboo riding one of the greatest possibilities for development which lies before any area in Canada, and I might say that it has been a privilege and a pleasure for me in these last four years-it is almost four years now-to represent that great part of the country here in this House of Commons.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member for Cariboo care to indicate whether or not he is supporting the amendment?


Mr. Wylie:: That sounds to me like an emission of natural gas from the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I think there will be a little more time for me to give full consideration to that after the debate has been completed.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What was the 40-minute speech for?


Bert Raymond Leboe: You just vote for your party. You do not give any consideration to the debate at all.


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make a rather full statement about the part the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys plays in resources development when the estimates of the department came before the committee, but after listening to the debate here today I thought it would be timely to make a few remarks at this point.
The amendment before the house is:
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 for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada . . .
That is part of the resolution, and the part with which I would like to deal.
For the last seven years I have had the honour to be associated with the great resources development department of this government, namely the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. The hon. member for Cape Breton South very properly reminded the house that the resources of this country belong to the provinces. This is a vast country, 4,000 miles from coast to coast, with a great variety of terrain and geographical conditions, and I believe the fathers of confederation very wisely decided that its resources could be better developed by provincial governments in the light of the closer

Natural Resources-Development and more local control which they could exercise. This ownership of resources by the provinces places on the provinces themselves the responsibility for development. The federal government has the over-all responsibility to act in the interests of Canadians wherever they live.
We are very fortunate in Canada in that our mineral resources are fairly well distributed across the country. In the earliest days of settlement, when the pioneers settled the prairie provinces and, indeed, this part of the country too, they considered the great Canadian shield a barrier to human occupation. Today it is known to be a storehouse of mineral wealth and treasure.
The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has five branches, and one of the oldest branches of all, the geological survey of Canada, has been mapping the geology of this country for the past 100 years or more. The work of our department is usually many years in advance of actual development. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made the remark this afternoon, if I heard him correctly, that this government has done very little to help discover new mineral resources. He went on to talk at great length about iron ore development in Labrador. I would remind him that the geological survey of Canada reported the presence of that iron ore deposit before the turn of the century, and there are many other instances across Canada where the geological survey has reported the presence of ore bodies many years before development took place.
A recent example is the great Blind River uranium development in western Ontario. That discovery and development was based on a geological report of the 1920's.
I could give many other instances. Today we are endeavouring by a study of the geology of the country and the production of maps-for maps indeed are the keys to the unlocking of our resources-to take some of the risk out of the highly risky business of resource development. Every year the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has 175 to 200 survey parties in the field in all parts of Canada. In recent years there has been very active interest in the Northwest Territories. My colleague will probably speak about the development of the territories later, but during the last five years the geological survey branch has conducted first look or reconnaissance surveys in that great area from Hudson Bay westward to Yellowknife. Last year they had a large party in the northwestern part of British Columbia.
Using modern techniques of surveying, including helicopters, we are now able to accomplish in one session what a few years

Natural Resources-Development conduct. However, the new building program now under way is going to provide a good home and good equipment for a good job.
I should like to give a list of these buildings; I think it is worth noting. The radioactive and chemistry building is under construction. The contract price is $3,134,000. The contract has been let for $6,330,000 for the geological building for the geological survey of Canada. There is the administration building, for which the contract has been let at $2,398,000. The surveys and mapping building to house the mapping branch will cost an estimated $8 million. This government is very much aware of the need for the development of our resources. Anyone who is in doubt should make a survey of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys establishment.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I join with the hon. member for Cape Breton South and others in expressing regret that, according to the reports we have read in the newspapers, he will not be back in this house after the next election. I certainly agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South that the minister has given some direction in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and we appreciate the services he has rendered.
Frankly, however, I do not think his comments tonight were quite in keeping with the resolution which is before this house. The house is discussing the control of raw materials which have been or may be discovered in this country, whereas the minister dealt more or less fully with the work his department was doing in developing the natural resources of this country. I think they are two separate things. The minister stressed the work done by the geological survey of his department. With what he said I think we all can concur. We realize that we have there a large group of devoted civil servants who have done a great deal in developing the natural resources of this country.
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister who has just spoken belongs to the Howe school which sneers at the Gordon report, or whether he belongs to the other school which perhaps accepts it more or less regretfully. But if the minister will turn to page 49 of the Gordon commission report he will find one specific paragraph dealing with the geological survey.
It states:
One way in which further aid and stimulus might be given to the mining industry would be to step up quite considerably the rate of mapping and surveying by the geological survey. Excellent


work is being done by this branch of the government service, but unless a considerably larger staff is recruited and steps are taken to retain those who are recruited, the preparation of a geological map of Canada will not be completed for many years.
Then the report goes on further to deal with the work the geological survey has done. We admit it has done some work, but there is still much room for development in that connection.
The minister also referred to the geophysical survey and the hydrographic service of his department. We realize that is valuable work. I remember that last year, in committee of supply, the minister admitted that many of the maps which are at present under his department-despite the million which he said were published last year-are based on maps which were prepared by British naval captains and officers back in the days before Canada became a nation. Hence there is a great deal of room for development in that field as well. But as I said, what we are concerned with particularly in this resolution is the control of these resources as they may be developed.
My friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who is usually an optimist, I thought tonight adopted somewhat of a pessimistic attitude toward this resolution.


Clarence Gillis: A realistic attitude.


George Clyde Nowlan: He says "realistic". I trust he has not become like Father Time in that he confuses pessimism with realism. I thought in his remarks tonight he was almost shrugging his shoulders and saying, as the saying goes, "Nothing can be done nohow, nowhere, no place". He said these national resources came within the control of the provinces, he spoke about the tremendous leases and contracts which have been granted, and he implied that nothing could be done.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, despite the fact that he is retiring, is much more optimistic than is the hon. member for Cape Breton South, because the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys pointed out the tremendous developments which are taking place every day, the new fields which are being discovered, the new mines which are being opened. Undoubtedly others which have not yet been leased will be leased to some of these huge corporations which are so repugnant to the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
As the minister pointed out, there will be tremendous discoveries come in the future. It is with that vision in mind that we are bringing forward this resolution tonight. It is granted that there are some resources which are leased. It is granted that there are contracts which have been made. But contracts

have been made before by provincial governments and ways and means have been found whereby the federal government, if necessary, could step in and control the matter. I remember an instance a year or so ago when our friends to our extreme left in the Social Credit party were extremely energetic in discussing the control of a river in British Columbia which they said came within the scope of the province.
It only took this parliament about five seconds, under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to introduce a bill which took control of the river away from the province, or purported to do so, and brought it within the federal arena. I think uranium is a natural resource which comes within the scope of the provinces, but uranium seems to be fairly well controlled by the dominion government.
One could go on and on but frankly, Mr. Speaker, I hope the pessimism shown by the hon. member for Cape Breton South is only temporary, because we enjoy his optimism. We would regret feeling that time has rolled on so rapidly there is nothing that can be done in this world to alleviate the conditions which he admits are bad and about which he says it is now impossible for anyone to do anything.
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a most important one. I have been out of the house, frankly, as some hon. members know, for the last few days. I have been in the east, in my own constituency and in the maritimes generally. I would say there are two questions which are of vital concern to the people of that portion of Canada today. The first is our external affairs and the situation which has developed in that connection vis-a-vis the relationship of Canada, the United States and the commonwealth. This is not the time nor the place to discuss that, but because of that perhaps the feeling, emotional or otherwise, has been greater about the second question. I found more interest and more concern about the control of Canadian corporations and Canadian natural resources by United States interests than I have ever experienced before. There is an atmosphere in connection with this matter today which is much more intense, I think, than perhaps the members of the government realize or, frankly, than I realized until I talked with many people of all political parties who were concerned with these two matters.
Let us not have any foolish statements in this respect, Mr. Speaker, about the Conservative party being opposed to the importation of United States capital. It is not; it welcomes it. We realize that United States capital has played an important part in the
Natural Resources-Development development of this country. We welcome United States capital at any time. However, it is one thing to welcome United States capital and it is another to witness a situation developing whereby we might become the economic vassal or economic satellite of United States interests.
Now, that is not Conservative propaganda. It is suggested that this matter was discussed some years ago. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, there is no point in one person trying to take credit for introducing this prior to another person. I do not know when it was first discussed in this house. I know it has been discussed many times during the years I have been here, with some intensification during the last three or four years. I have heard it suggested that this is narrow, Tory propaganda. They go back to these old cliches about no truck or trade with the Yankees, and so forth and so on, all of which is sheer nonsense. At least now we do not have to stand at the same time as our own lawyers and our own witnesses arguing our own case, because we can call many witnesses.
We can call, for instance-perhaps they will say they are associates of the Conservative party, but I think they are now mostly associates of the hon. gentlemen on the other side-the bank presidents of this country, who in their annual statements have worried about this situation and have deplored it. We can call the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself, and quote the speech to which the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred this afternoon. Of course we can call the Gordon commission, but I am not sure whether or not that should be quoted to hon. gentlemen opposite. At least, this was the bible on which they were going to run the next election, and they are going to have a hard job running away from some of the things contained therein.
The Gordon commission very carefully, of course, as a royal commission should and as able, intelligent men would, does not come out with any flagrantly violent statement, but if you read the report you will find they are rather concerned about this matter. They deal with questions reflecting on the control of Canadian corporations by United States interests. Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra spoiled the only speech I was going to make tonight by reading to the members of the house this report from the Empire Trust Company. It is a rather amazing document, Mr. Speaker. Here you have a United States corporation, one of the wealthiest trust companies and financial organizations in the United States,

Natural Resources-Development whose investment counsel department issues this brochure dealing with the Gordon commission report and the reaction of Canadians to that report. I think every hon. member got a copy of this brochure, and I presume it has been read. It certainly is an intelligent and sympathetic appreciation of a possible Canadian viewpoint.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra read one pertinent paragraph, and those who read Hansard, and who read my speech in Hansard can look back to his in the same issue and they will read the paragraph of this brochure to which I was going to refer. Then the article goes on, after dealing with this question of United States control, and says that the Canadian fear is justified-
. . . when the ultimate managerial decision will be made by persons whose thinking is conditioned by the prevailing state of affairs in a different economy.
In other words, to paraphrase that, one might say when the ultimate managerial decision in Canada will be made by persons whose thinking is conditioned by the prevailing state of affairs in the United States. They say Canadians are justified in worrying about that, and they go on to give examples:
Take the case of the development of natural resources. A United States company chiefly concerned with its world-wide raw material position may choose to "sit on" its oil or iron ore in Canada as a hedge against the future unavailability of reserves located in more politically sensitive areas.
Then they cite how during the depression years United States corporations withdrew their money from Canadian subsidiaries, leaving the Canadian subsidiaries broke, in order to finance their own operations in the United States and thereafter the subsidiaries were never able to get going again. As I said, I think we should appreciate the fact that there are people in the financial world in the United States who are broadminded, who are intelligent, and who have no desire to exploit this country. The fact that you do have a financial house which will deal with the situation as intelligently and as sympathetically as they have speaks well for that type of United States businessman. It is also a full answer to anyone who says that when we raise this question in the House of Commons it is Tory propaganda and should be treated accordingly.
So much for United States control of Canadian corporations, and I am going on now to this question, of the processing of Canadian raw materials in Canada. I feel the emphasis on this point has developed during the last five years because of the publication of the so-called Paley report in


the United States. There you had a commission set up by the President of the United States to study the economic resources of that country. A tremendous study was made, and the report covered several volumes. The net effect of that report is that in some cases the United States is now, and in many other cases will rapidly become, a have-not country in so far as raw materials are concerned. The Paley report emphasizes the fact that if the United States is to continue to be an industrial nation it must get its raw materials from other countries and bring them in for processing and manufacturing.
You may believe me, Mr. Speaker, that this is of interest to the people of Canada, particularly the younger people.
The matter has been discussed. I realize the possibility of criticism, and I realize the implications. Here is the old Tory party talking about tariffs, and they must be involved, and so forth and so on. There are all these cliches of the decades which we have heard, and all the political controversies of this country; but I had one most interesting experience a year ago in travelling around and through the maritime provinces with the then leader of the opposition, Hon. George Drew, and speaking in a non-political way to student bodies at Mount Allison, at Dal-housie, at St. Francis Xavier and at Acadia University.
They were non-political groups, student bodies; they were not political organizations but student bodies to whom he spoke. Obviously, everyone knew who he was and what he would be like. At least half the audience would not be interested in him when he came in, but as he developed this thought, the tremendous potential of Canada in those raw resources and the problem which was posed in the future as to whether those could be manufactured in Canada or whether they should be manufactured elsewhere, in each case when he finished that audience of rather cynical-perhaps "cynical" is not the right word to apply to young students- that rather suspicious and doubting audience rose and gave him a tremendous standing ovation because of this picture of Canada of the future and what might happen if this development took place within Canada.
These young people, Mr. Speaker, had only one interest, at least one primary interest. That was an economic interest, namely to live in Canada and to obtain employment here. Most of them did not want to go to the United States to earn a living. They wanted to live, preferably in the maritimes but certainly somewhere in Canada, and they saw this picture which was being developed

as an opportunity for them to obtain employment in Canada. That is why they greeted him and his message as they did.
Certainly the figures which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra or the Leader of the Opposition, I forget which, put on the record this afternoon showed the present rate of depletion of Canada's natural resources. I emphasize these words "the present rate of depletion", assuming no greater expansion of that development. Time is very short. In many cases in 15 years, 18 years, 24 years and 26 years we too shall become a have-not country with respect to many of these minerals.
That is why, as I said, this resolution is timely, and that is why it is so important. Now, apply that to the area of which I have some knowledge, the maritime provinces. There are apparently two schools of thought with respect to our natural resources. I hold in my hand an editorial from that very excellent paper published in New Brunswick, the Fundy Fisherman, which cannot be accused of being an ardent supporter of the Progressive Conservative party, at any rate, Mr. Speaker. This editorial outlines the great natural resources of the maritime provinces.
I am not going to put it on the record because I realize that they are a trifle optimistic. They point out, and quite properly so, that the greatest fisheries in the world, with all due respect to British Columbia, are to be found in that area. There are natural resources second to none; there are vast deposits of limestone, coal, iron and so forth. There are thousands and thousands of square miles available for oil exploration which have not yet been surveyed by the geological survey of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. And so it goes.
Then you get the Gordon commission report, which rather apologetically shrugs its shoulders and says that nothing can be done for these poor people but to buy their tickets and send them out of the provinces somewhere. Somewhere between these two extremes is the proper situation with respect to the maritimes. There are tremendous natural resources there. There are more which can be discovered.
Take the mineral deposits in northern New Brunswick. I sat on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines last winter when that committee was considering the construction of a branch railway line running between Bathurst and Newcastle. Mr. Fairweather, the vice president of the Canadian National Railways in charge of development, was there and he said to that committee, as his considered opinion, that the
Natural Resources-Development base metal deposit in northern New Brunswick was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, in Canada and possibly in North America. He said it had only been scratched in so far as the future development of that area is concerned.
What is to be done with that? Are those ore bodies to be taken out of there and shipped to the United States for processing, and a few people employed in mining them? Or is northern New Brunswick, and the whole province of New Brunswick, to become an industrial area because of the development of this base metal deposit which, again I say, Dr. Fairweather said was in his opinion the most important in Canada. When you think of the pre-Cambrian shield, when you think of the base metal deposits in Ontario, Quebec and in the rest of Canada-and he puts the deposit in New Brunswick up against them- you can envisage some of the possibilities of development there.
Now, one can say, and quite properly, well, what about the power for the development of that area? Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think Beechwood, important as it is, would ever produce enough power to develop that whole area because, if the province of New Brunswick develops, Beechwood itself and the power from there will be required for domestic and various other uses in New Brunswick. Probably the proper place to get the power from is across the river and have it come down from the province of Quebec. Whether or not that can be done depends upon a certain situation. At least, for the moment it cannot be done. But there is another solution, and that is the establishment of thermal-power units along the coast burning Nova Scotia coal and developing power from that coal, thereby providing employment for Nova Scotia miners and also providing for the development of that area in the north.
When I speak of power in New Brunswick I think of the tremendous power development on the north side of the river. It is one of the greatest power potentials in North America. If that power is not to be kept within the province what is going to happen? Northern New Brunswick may develop its own power there, naturally, but also on the north side of the river an industrial area is going to develop during the next two decades. Thousands and thousands of people will establish themselves there if we maintain a policy of manufacturing things in Canada that can be manufactured here. If that is done markets will be provided for the farmers of Nova Scotia, for my farmers in the Annapolis valley and for the farmers of Prince Edward Island. Agricultural markets

Natural Resources-Development will be developed, which are sadly lacking at the moment, but which could be developed.
Since I am speaking of power I want to refer to one remark made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and I quite agree with him that there has been a misunderstanding with respect to the power situation in the province of Nova Scotia. There is available today power for ordinary domestic use and power which may ordinarily be required in that province in the immediate future, primarily due to the industry, imagination and courage which have been shown by the directors of the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company in supplying these huge steam plants in Halifax and elsewhere which burn Nova Scotia coal. That puts us in the position where no ordinary industry that wants to come into that province has to be refused because of a shortage of power. In fact, no one has been refused. When you think of the tremendous power requirements of an aluminum plant, or something of that kind, where power is an essential, we certainly have not got that. But there again there are tremendous possibilities of tidal power at cape Split, Passamaquoddy, and others to which reference has been made in the house, where co-operation between the provincial and federal governments could result in a great deal being done in that field.
I have spoken of New Brunswick. It is not my own province. In Nova Scotia we have not had the fortune so far to discover great base metal deposits such as were discovered in northern New Brunswick. Do not forget that the pre-Cambrian shield that runs across northern Ontario and Quebec dips and comes up again in northern New Brunswick, dips and comes up half-way across the island of Cape Breton. What has been discovered in one place, when these geological surveys are completed, might easily be discovered in another place.
For instance, we have a steel plant at Sydney which provides employment for many people. However, there are men working in that plant and people generally in that area wonder why iron ore should be mined in northern Quebec and Labrador, brought down the St. Lawrence, transported up the great lakes and into the United States. They wonder why we should be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build the St. Lawrence waterway for that purpose when none of that ore is coming down to the natural geographical location at Sydney, which is like a wharf sticking out into the Atlantic. Secondary industries could be established and you would have contact with all markets of the world with the cheapest transportation possible. That is one reason we are interested


in the development of our resources in Canada rather than having them shipped to the United States.
It was not so many years ago that we went through a similar experience to this, but in a smaller way, in the province of Nova Scotia. I am referring now to provincial governments. More years ago than I like to recall I happened to be a member of the legislature when the question of the erection of a paper mill in Nova Scotia came up. The leases were tied up with United States interests, and it was suggested that this was Tory propaganda going around that the paper would be made in Nova Scotia. The Rhodes government of that day provided the requisites in the way of timber and a paper mill, perhaps not tremendous when compared with other mills throughout the world but nevertheless a sizeable mill, was built at Liverpool by the Mersey company. The prosperity of that whole part of the south shore is dependent upon that industry. A town has been maintained and employment given throughout the years because of the inauguration of the simple little principle which is set forth in this resolution, the processing of Canadian raw materials in Canada.
I realize that this has to be treated sensibly. No one is suggesting for a moment that we should cut off exports of raw materials to another country. There exist obligations, there exist contracts, there exist rights, all of which have to be protected. There are types of raw materials which perhaps cannot be processed economically in Canada. I have one instance alongside my constituency. As the Gordon commission says, each one of these cases must be considered on its own basis and an individual study made.
We have deposits of gypsum in that part of the country. Because of the geographical location and the cheap water rates we are able to ship tons of this gypsum to the Atlantic states, where it is manufactured into plasterboard and other components of the building industry. There are tremendous gypsum deposits in Illinois and probably many other places in the United States. If one insisted on this being manufactured in Canada and if a duty was imposed by the United States government, it might be possible for those plants located on the seaboard to pay the freight rate, which they cannot afford to pay today, to bring the gypsum from the interior.
We are approaching this on a reasonable basis. No one is suggesting that this is the end of everything, that this is the solution of all problems. When the Conservative party forms the government this year it is not going to cut off all existing contracts and

revolutionize the whole set-up. There will be a reasonable approach to the problem which must be taken if Canada is to provide employment for the young people of this country.
With the natural resources which we have, with our young people who are with us, we must meet that challenge. That is the challenge facing the government of Canada. If it is met, Canada will become one of the
Natural Resources-Development great nations of the world. If it is not met, Canada will languish and always be a secondary power depending upon the economy and spending of the great country to the south.
On motion of Mr. Lesage the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Harris the house adjourned at 9.56 p.m.

- Questions ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:



GORDON COMMISSION PRELIMINARY REPORT


Mr. Dufresne: 1.	How many copies of the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects were printed?
2.	What is the price per copy?
3.	How many copies were distributed free?
4.	Are copies shipped the same day that orders are received?
Answer by: Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):
1.	English edition, 10,000 copies; French edition, 2,500 copies.
2.	$2.
3.	English edition, 900 copies; French edition, 334 copies.
4.	After tabling in the House of Commons and stocks permitting, yes.




[Stage Direction]
Question No. 84
Mr. Dufresne:: 1.	What was the cost of producing the printed copies of the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects?
2.	Has the government printing bureau a costing system similar to that used in commercial establishments?
Answer by: Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):
1.	$15,950.
2.	Yes, similar to that prescribed for commercial establishments by the printing industry of America.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Low: 1.	How many employees are on the payroll of the Canadian wheat board?
2.	What are the salaries paid to these employees?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
The employees of the Canadian wheat board are not civil servants. They are employed by the board at salaries in line with those paid by other grain organizations. Publication of salaries paid to individual employees would therefore be prejudicial to the operation of the board.
The annual report of the wheat board for the crop year 1955-56 shows total salaries paid to board members, officers and staff of $1,921,159.48 and the staff and officers as at July 31, 1956, totalled 723.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Balcom: 1.	What was the total value of the agricultural products produced in Nova Scotia for 1956?
2.	Of this total, what was the value of: (a) the apple crop; (b) the egg production?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and
Commerce:
1.	This information is not, as yet, available. The preliminary estimate of cash income from the sale of farm products for Nova Scotia for 1956 is $44,746,000.
2.	See answer to question 1.	(a) Not
separately classified. The preliminary estimates of farm cash income from the sale of fruits in Nova Scotia for the period January to September, 1956, is $1,594,000.	(b) The
preliminary estimate of farm cash income from the sale of eggs for the period January to September, 1956, is $4,867,000.



CANSO CAUSEWAY SHIPPING TONNAGE

Mr. Balcom: What volume of shipping (ships, tonnage) has passed through the locks of the Canso causeway, since its inception to and including December 31, 1956?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
The volume of shipping which has passed through the locks of the Canso causeway since its inception (September 2, 1955) to
and including December 31, 1956, is:
Number of vessels	 3,904
Registered net tonnage .... 280,204 Cargo tonnage	 81,494



POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION COSTS, JONQUIERE AND ARVIDA, QUE.

Mr. Girard: What amounts have been spent by the federal government for the construction of the post offices of Jonquiere and Arvida, respectively?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourget, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
Jonquiere federal building	$425,157.74
Arvida federal building	 238,835.89



END OF VOLUME I


[Stage Direction]
*>1$, ?[DOT]l! o z,

[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1957
[Stage Direction]

NAT,°
caZa0ARC
use of Commons! ©etmtetf
[Stage Direction]
Speaker: The Honourable L. Rene Beaudoin
Tuesday, January 8, 1957

[Stage Direction]
The parliament which had been prorogued earlier this day met again at Ottawa for the dispatch of business.