1958-01-13

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was asked on Friday about a second letter sent by Mr. Bulganin, the chairman of the council of ministers of the Soviet union. I informed the house that such a letter had been delivered to me by the Soviet ambassador that morning. With it the Soviet ambassador delivered what might be described as an unofficial translation. This translation has been checked against the Russian language original and revisions made where necessary. I am now able to table that approved English translation of the letter.
This new letter from Mr. Bulganin is being studied with care. Similar letters have been received by the governments of other NATO countries, and they will be the subject of further careful examination and consultation in the NATO council. The main proposal in this new letter is that a high-level meeting be held in the next two or three months. The specific proposal, and I quote, is for:
-a meeting of leading statesmen on a high level with the participation of heads of governments.
The agenda proposed for this meeting largely covers the same ground as the proposal made in the previous letter from Mr. Bulganin dated December 13, 1957. On one or two points relating to disarmament this letter is somewhat more specific than the previous letter, and these points are now being studied. They do not, however, appear to contain anything that has not been brought up in the discussions held in the United Nations subcommittee on disarmament.
I believe it is the intention of some of our NATO allies to send replies to the first letter early this week. The Canadian reply which is now being prepared after careful coordination of our views with our NATO partners will be sent in a day or so, and the text will be made available to the house. I therefore ask leave to table the letter in question.


Mr. Speaker:: Did the Prime Minister intend that the translation of the letter be printed in Hansard?


John George Diefenbaker: Not unless the house asks for it. It is very lengthy, and I thought it should be tabled and therefore available to hon. members in all parts of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister made two statements. I think, in conducting orderly comment, if the party leaders wish to comment they might deal with the first statement which has to do with the Russian correspondence.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Prime Minister's first statement I wish merely to ask him this question. Is it intended that the reply to which he referred as likely to be sent from Canada this week will deal with both the Bulganin letters, or the first one only which came early last December?


John George Diefenbaker: The first reply will be in reference to the first letter, but I am hopeful that we shall be able to make the replies practically simultaneously.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May I ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the letters. Last week I inquired whether more than two communications had been received from Russia up to that time. My reading over the week end of the Manchester Guardian leads me to believe that a further statement was made by the supreme council of the Soviet union which was handed to the ambassadors in Moscow for delivery to governments and parliaments other than those of Russia, of course, and which contained seven points that in the opinion of this newspaper at least were worthy of consideration.
Has the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs received a copy of that statement from our ambassador? I think it was delivered on Christmas eve or Christmas day to the diplomatic corps in Moscow.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, possibly I might clarify the answer of the other day by reading the explanation which was handed to me by the officials. On Friday, in connection with the second letter from Mr. Bulganin, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked about the number of such communications that had been received. He also raised a question about a seven point program

Inquiries of the Ministry adoDted by the supreme soviet of the U.S.S.R. late in December, that being the one to which ne now refers.
I told him there had been just the two notes, that is the letter of December 13 and the second one dated January 8 and delivered to me on January 10. These were apart, I said, from the New Year's greetings sent to Canadians in general.
I have since confirmed that no formal communication came to us as a result of the peace program adopted by the supreme soviet of the U.S.S.R. This seven point program, the details of which, of course, we received from our embassy at the time, did not contain anything that was not already covered in the Soviet proposals to be found in the letter we had received from Mr. Bulganin on December 13.
I should inform the hon. member, however, that at an earlier stage, on December 1, a request was received at the Canadian embassy in Moscow from the foreign ministry of the U.S.S.R. to pass on to the government and parliament of Canada a declaration dealing with peace and security which had been adopted by the supreme soviet of the U.S.S.R. on November 6. This declaration, which did not contain any points that had not been covered in previous Soviet statements and public pronouncements, was forwarded by the embassy to the Department of External Affairs. The Secretary of State for External Affairs carried out the request of the Soviet foreign ministry by transmitting the text of the declaration to both Speakers, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate, on December 11. I shall be happy to send a copy of this particular document to the hon. member for his perusal.


REPORTED RUSSIAN DRIVE TO ESTABLISH EUROPEAN BUFFER ZONE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given him notice. Would he care to comment on Canada's position with respect to the neutrality drive by the Soviet government for the establishment of a buffer zone in Europe?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I have not received notice of that question, and I will have to ask for an opportunity to consider it and give an answer at a later date.


CODE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RESPECTING OUTER SPACE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, which I hope will be taken more seriously than when it was addressed on previous occasions to other ministers. My question is suggested by a paragraph in President Eisenhower's most recent letter to Premier Bulganin. In view of the tremendous bearing that man's activities in outer space, such as the launching of satellites, space travel and control of the weather, may have on the future existence of mankind, will the government put some of its top people in the departments of justice, external affairs and transport to work-


Mr. Sinclair:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -on
the problem of coming up with a code of international law so there will be an agreed basis for the control of man's activities in outer space?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I scarcely think that is a question for the orders of the day; however, the matter referred to by my hon. friend is one that is the concern of all nations. The writing of an international code dealing with outer space, the question of territorial limitations and the question of the rights of travel are all matters that are today receiving the active consideration of international lawyers everywhere. Certainly the problem is of such intricacy, having regard to the fact that it took some 300 years to develop the original rules of international law, that it could hardly be determined in a matter of a few weeks.
However, it is a question that certainly deserves serious consideration, and I recall referring to it on one previous occasion in this house as one that will exercise the minds of free men everywhere as well as those in the Soviet union and in its satellites and people elsewhere in the world, to the end that a code of international law may be achieved which I hope will be upheld to a greater degree than conventional international law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I ask out of appreciation of the statement the Prime Minister has made. In view of the fact that Canada has made some notable contributions to international relations in other instances, does he not think this might be a

field where we could, by hard work and application, make a really worth while contribution to the future of mankind?


John George Diefenbaker: I believe Canadians can always do that. As a matter of fact I feel that at the present time considerable advance in the development of international law in this regard is being achieved or certainly undertaken at McGill University, and I hope the problem would receive the attention of other interested Canadians as well as governmental authorities.



OLD AGE SECURITY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement to supplement the statements of policy which the government has already made, and the action which the government has already taken, with reference to the important question of old age security.
Speaking in this house on November 19 last, as recorded at page 1298 of Hansard, of that date, I said:
-we in this government and party intend at the earliest possible date, in addition to the present pension systems, to give full consideration to investigating the insurance system in the United States to the end that we will bring about in Canada a rounded and effective contributory social security system over and above that which already exists.
My reason for referring to the United States insurance system at that time was simply that of all the systems of government old age security in effect in the world today, I know of none which equals the widespread benefits provided under the United States contributory system. I also referred to that matter when I spoke in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, on April 30, 1957.
We have acted since then to improve the level of benefits under our Old Age Security Act by increasing them to $55 per month. But, as pointed out in this party's official statement, "A new national policy," the United States plan of old age and survivors insurance provides average monthly benefits on retirement of $76 for single workers, $128 for aged married couples without dependants and $65 for aged widows.
We have made a preliminary examination of the United States contributory old age and survivors insurance program and have found:
(a)	that it has grown steadily over the years both in coverage and in generosity of benefits;
(b)	that it is now possible for single retired workers to draw benefits as high as $108.50
Old Age Security
a month with corresponding benefits to married couples and to other groups and categories;
(c)	that it provides in addition generous survivor benefits, up to $200 a month for dependent wives and children of insured breadwinners who die before the age of retirement is reached;
(d)	that retirement benefits are made available at age 65 for men and 62 for women, compared with age 70 in Canada;
(e)	that disability insurance benefits are provided for insured persons whose ill health makes premature retirement necessary in advance of normal ages for retirement;
(f)	that all of this is provided, as pointed out in our national policy statement, for an "annual contribution per person of $27.08, not much more than the average contribution by Canadians of $22.70 for the old age pension."
With these facts before us we have decided that further detailed investigation and inquiry should be made as quickly as possible to produce the information which will enable us to determine whether a similar system or some modification of it would be fitted or adapted to our Canadian requirements, in addition, of course-and I should like to emphasize this point-to our present system.
Because of this, the government has decided to establish, by the most careful and objective inquiry into the available facts and experience, how best we can expand the present old age pension system by the addition of an insurance system similar to that of the United States. In that connection, there has been no complete Canadian study undertaken since the parliamentary committee reported in 1950. In the light of the intervening years a further investigation is needed in order to ascertain on the basis of experience what if any changes should be made in the recommendations made by that committee.
For this purpose we have retained the services of Mr. Gordon Huson, professor of business administration at the University of Western Ontario, to make an independent factual study of all the aspects of the United States system and its application to our Canadian problem; and to report thereon to the government at the earliest opportunity.
Professor Huson will undertake this study almost immediately, and will have placed at his disposal whatever facilities are necessary to facilitate the effective carrying out of this important assignment. If in the course of his inquiry Professor Huson finds it helpful to look into the details of comparable systems of retirement security plans in effect in other countries he will, of course, be free to do

Old Age Security
so. But in order to expedite the completion of the undertaking at the earliest possible date it is our intention that he should concern himself principally with the facts relating to the United States program, and with that in mind we have set out his commission of inquiry in the following terms:
To make an inquiry into the facts relating to the old age security systems presently in effect in Canada and the United States of America with particular reference to those features of the old age and survivors insurance program in the United States of America, which make it possible for higher benefits to be paid covering a wider range of contingencies at an earlier age than is provided under present legislation, and to report thereon as soon as may he possible.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, one would think the Prime Minister had indulged today in very extraordinary generosity in affording at least two of us on this side of the house the opportunity to ask him a question.
I am sure the house is most interested in the very important announcement he has made with regard to the government's intention to investigate the old age security and survivors program in the United States which, as he noted, the all-party committee of 1950 carefully examined. May I ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the United States government contributes nothing whatsoever to the program in that country, contributions being paid entirely by employers and employees, it will be the intention of the government to follow the same practice and not make any contribution to that kind of scheme?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend apparently misapprehends the nature of my remarks. We are going to have the plan examined, and on the basis of that examination will determine what changes will be necessary in order to make it applicable to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: Window dressing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group may I say that we welcome the announcement the Prime Minister has made today, which is by way of further elaboration of the statement he made on November 19 when he spoke in the debate on an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply which it had been my privilege to move from this corner of the house. He knows from press reports the position already taken by this party along the same lines, and I may say that if the government or any group in the house proposes a plan whereby there will be contributory old age insurance over and above

the old age security pension now paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, that plan will have our support.
May I ask the Prime Minister if that is in his mind, that any insurance scheme would be over and above and without interfering with the pensions paid to all under the present plan? I understood it that way, but perhaps it could be made clear, particularly in view of the questions that have now been asked by the two parties on this side of the house.
May I ask one other question. Would it be the intention of the government to act immediately upon any report received as a result of this inquiry, or is it the intention of the government to have another parliamentary committee look into this important question?


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the first question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, as I said in my statement the course to be followed would be that it would be in addition to, over and above, old age security.
With respect to the second part of the question, that deals with a matter of technique and the manner of consideration by the house after investigation has been made by Mr. Huson; and the matter will have to remain in abeyance until the report is received.


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would defer his question until the orders of the day are called.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make one comment on the announcement made by the Prime Minister and then ask a question. I think the time has arrived when the government of Canada should make a real effort to have old age pensions, particularly, placed on such a basis that they could be taken out of politics, that is, they could be removed as far as possible from the position of a political football. I was wondering if that was in the Prime Minister's mind. Is it his purpose to try to get these pensions established on such a basis that they would be removed from the auction sale? I feel that has been one of the worst features of this whole business.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing in the nature of an auction sale in the announcement I made. Certainly the objective the hon. member has in mind is one that will appeal in general, I am sure. When the investigation has been conducted by Mr. Huson, then the matter will be brought before the house and such consideration given to it, either by submission to a committee or otherwise, as will be necessary in

order to bring about that type of general security plan, provided that is the decision arrived at, that will be best for our country.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Mr, Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-St. George):: May I put a question, then, to the Prime Minister in relation to old age security. When is it expected, in view of the fact that circumstances are changing quickly, that this report might be received?


John George Diefenbaker: Because circumstances do change quickly it would be impossible at the moment to say. What we want is to have it brought in at the earliest possible date.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister before he gets too enthusiastic about the United States plan. Does he realize that only 60 per cent of the people retiring are covered by the United States plan?


John George Diefenbaker: The number has been rising steadily. I have not the latest percentage. It is for that reason among other things that this full investigation is going to be undertaken.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that he is wrecking the Liberal convention by this announcement?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question put to the Prime Minister a moment ago by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Richardson) may I say that I made a considerable study of the United States social security system, and my information is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Marler:: Let the minister stick to transport.


George Harris Hees: -that at the present time at least 90 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to revert to motions?


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask my first question of the Prime Minister in connection with his statement about old age pensions. As I have had conversations with a number of United States citizens who wish they had a pension equal to ours, my question is this: does he not think that in every way our old
Inquiries of the Ministry age pension and security arrangements are superior to those in the United States?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend must have been speaking to these Americans since the increases were made by this government.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any of its departments, and the government of Saskatchewan, from July 17, 1956 to January 9, 1958, dealing with: (i) the building of power plants and electrical transmission lines within Saskatchewan; (ii) the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
John George Diefenbaker: This is acceptable, of course, subject to the usual qualifications.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the usual qualifications with respect to correspondence with other governments, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport arising out of the filing of notice of intention to increase tariffs covering freight rates on goods coming into Canada and moving between Canada and the United States, the increase to take effect on February 1 of from 1 per cent to 10 per cent. I am wondering whether the governor in council will postpone the coming into effect of this increase as it affects Canada until March 1, so that it can also be considered along with the consideration given to the 3.6 per cent increase.


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank my hon. friend for
giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The newspaper report in question appears to concern the action taken by the United States railroads to initiate selective increases in rates within the borders of the United States, and to include therein the joint international rates involving their railroads and the Canadian railways.
All these respective railroads jointly filed with the interstate commerce commission in Washington, D.C., and with the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada on December 23, 1957, to become effective February

Inquiries of the Ministry 1, 1958, a single tariff commonly known as tariff X-212 embodying all the changes in rates thus proposed.
This tariff is filed in both jurisdictions in accordance with the laws applicable. In the case of the filing in Ottawa the tariff will go into effect, provided it is permitted in Washington, on the same date as within the United States. The filing of the tariff as indicated is in accordance with section 333 of the Railway Act. Section 328 of the act empowers the board to disallow, suspend or postpone any tariff so filed either upon complaint or on the board's own motion.
No complaints have reached the board concerning the provisions of this tariff. The board's jurisdiction over international rates is a limited one. To exercise the powers of section 328 without comparable action within the United States could possibly result in the cancellation of the joint international rates and the substitution of much higher total charges for the joint transportation between the two countries by the necessity of paying rates to and from the international border.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question. From the minister's statement am I to take it that in this case the board of transport commissioners is the final court, or does the governor in council have the power under section 53 of the Railway Act to consider postponing the coming into effect of this increase?


George Harris Hees: As far as I know the board of transport commissioners is the final authority. However, any consideration of putting aside such an increased tariff by the United States railroads, as I have tried to explain in this statement, would in effect give the United States railroads the right to charge greatly increased rates for goods shipped from the Canadian border into the United States, and nothing would be gained by Canadian shippers or consumers.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is related to one which has already been asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Is it not a fact that under the Railway Act international freight rates are subject to appeal to the governor in council, in the same manner as are horizontal increases?


George Harris Hees: As I indicated, I have not been at this job quite as long as the former minister. This is a matter that came to my attention only today. However, my answer still holds good, namely that even if the governor in council decided to set aside this increase


put into effect by United States railroads, the United States railroads could simply add greatly increased charges on Canadian goods travelling from the border to points in the United States, which would add up to far more than any increased rate in Canada, so nothing would be gained.



OIL, LEAD AND ZINC-INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO PROTECT CANADIAN INTERESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government sent a formal note of protest to the United States government concerning their crude oil import restrictions; and is the government contemplating any further action to assist in the marketing of Canadian crude oil? If so, what action is being taken or contemplated?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the finishing touches are being put on the note now and it will probably be on its way within the next few hours. As to further representations, I had discussions on this subject and others with the United States ambassador last Thursday morning prior to his departure for Washington for consultations there.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may address a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. In view of the fact that the import committee of the United States will be sitting again to examine their import quotas for 1958, can the house assume that the Canadian government will have senior representation sitting in on those hearings?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the house can assume that the government will do everything in its power to see that the rights of Canada are protected in all respects.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On Thursday last when the minister met Ambassador Merchant to discuss the problem of oil imports into the United States, did the minister again vigorously protest to the ambassador against the proposed imposition of increased tariffs on lead and zinc entering the United States?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, that subject was touched on as well as a number of others.



ALLEGED DUMPING OF SUPPLIES FROM VENEZUELA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is he ready yet to answer the question I asked him last week regarding the importation of oil- dumping-from Venezuela to Canada.


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, there is no further answer, other than that which I gave the other day. As I said, crude oil imported into Canada for refining purposes comes in free of duty. If it can be proven that the oil is being dumped, duties automatically follow. The difficulty is to establish that such oil is being dumped.
Officials of my department are continuing investigations in this field at the moment. We have not received a report in respect to it because, as is obvious, it will take some considerable time to establish these matters. When the report has been received the government and the department will take such action as the facts indicate.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the minister not think that one of the means used for dumping is the reduced rates being charged by tankers transporting this oil?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is possibly one of the factors; but, as I pointed out, the definition of dumping is the domestic price of the product in the country of origin compared with the price here, and though the questions of cheap labour and transportation may enter into it, the department is bound to consider only the factor I have mentioned.



ACCEPTANCE OF RUPEES IN PAYMENT BY INDIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which has to do with wheat. There is a dispatch in the Times of India, printed in Bombay, which appeared just before Christmas, December 20 to be exact, which deals with an agreement in principle for $300 million in economic aid to India, some of it to be lent by various sources. The important thing, to my mind, is that part of the announcement which relates to the sale of surplus United States farm commodities to be paid for in rupees.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Irvin William Studer: The question is, since India is in the sterling bloc and is one of the commonwealth countries, is it the intention of the government to accept rupees in payment of wheat to accelerate our wheat sales, thereby meeting this competition?


Hazen Robert Argue: You were against that seven months ago.


An hon. Member:: You cannot prove that.


Irvin William Studer: May I ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: There can be no supplementary question at this stage.


Irvin William Studer: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put his question, and if the minister wishes to answer I will hear the minister.


Irvin William Studer: May I submit a question of privilege, another question?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has not asked for an answer to his question.


Irvin William Studer: I was asking if it was the intention of the government to meet this competition of the United States whereby that country is accepting rupees for surplus farm products. Is the Canadian government to meet that competition by also accepting rupees, which I may not have advocated previously but the present government has-


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member said something earlier about accelerating the sale of our wheat. The sale of wheat under this government has been accelerated out of all recognition in comparison with what was done by the previous administration.



AUSTRALIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and perhaps his closeness to the Minister of Finance will enable him to answer. Can the minister advise if the finishing touches have yet been put on any wheat deal with Australia?


Gordon Minto Churchill: My hon. friend has been greatly interested in Australia for several weeks. I have in my hand a report on the wheat situation, No. 12, published by the bureau of agricultural economics, Canberra, Australia, 1957. This will corroborate what

Inquiries of the Ministry I have said with regard to the Australian wheat situation. On page 4 you will find this paragraph:
The Australian wheat board, at its October meeting, agreed that, subject to the board receiving an assurance that it would not be required to meet the freight and other associated charges, the deficiencies in New South Wales and Queensland should be made up by imports from other states or overseas-preferably from Canada. A review of comparative landed costs would be made from time to time. Preliminary inquiries by the board regarding freight rates indicated that shipping costs from Vancouver to Sydney would be lower than those from Fremantle.
Then, on page 5 of that publication you will find this report by the Australian department of agricultural economics:
The failure of this year's crop to provide supplies for export in addition to home requirements poses a serious problem for Australia. In the first place the industry has been the second largest source of export earnings. Secondly, many of our export markets are highly competitive. The failure to meet them, even for one season, may enable competitors to make serious inroads, both in our traditional markets and in those in which we have only recently succeeded in gaining a firmer foothold.
I have pointed out to the hon. member on several occasions that Australia has sufficient wheat for her own local needs. Her trouble is with her export market. Australia herself has suggested that if wheat is to be bought to maintain her export markets it will be bought preferably from Canada. I am informed by the Canadian wheat board that they have been in communication with their corresponding numbers in Australia on several occasions during the last month.


Major James William Coldwell: What was the date of that report?



BARTER DEALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. There is a public statement by the United States department of agriculture to the effect that barter exchange trade would be allowed once again. Has this statement been drawn to the minister's attention? If so, in his opinion, does this stated half-way return to barter contravene any understanding that has been arrived at between the government of Canada and the government of the United States?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt if there has been any contravention yet of the agreement reached last fall. I have before me the newspaper article which the hon. member very kindly passed over to me. Although there appears to be an extension of United States barter deals permissible now, nevertheless I doubt

very much if this extension will infringe upon the cash customers with whom we do most of our business.
The hon. member might have noticed this paragraph in the press statement. There were two lists of countries with which barter deals might be made. One, I take it, was of countries that are not normal consumers of wheat and the other and shorter list of countries which on occasion take wheat. With regard to these it says:
For these countries, the trader must get a signed statement from a responsible government official in the receiving country saying the barter deal would bring in food and fibre in addition to normal purchases for dollars.
If that is applicable to the countries with which we do a cash business, and the barter deal takes wheat over and above our normal sales to that country, we would not be inclined to consider that at this stage a contravention of the agreement we reached last October. But we have the matter under notice and will watch carefully to see what transpires. At the moment I have no indication of any barter deals interfering with our normal cash customers.


Major James William Coldwell: Would not that interfere with any additional sales we might otherwise make to our normal cash customers, if the United States barter deals were in operation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is hypothetical. They might interfere.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it not a reason for protesting to the United States, that such a situation might be anticipated?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That might be considered.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity of answering a question put to me by the hon. member for Peace River on January 9, as reported at page 3059 of Hansard. At that particular time I was absent from Ottawa, but the question has been drawn to my attention. It is in these words:
Has the Canadian government sent to the government of the United States a formal protest against the unilateral attempts of the United States tax department to revise the Canadian-United States tax convention by reaching its long arm into Canada to impose income tax upon a purely Canadian company? If such protest has been sent, has any reply been received from the United States government?
Mr. Speaker, in the strict wording of that question, taking its literal language, the

answer is no, because the Canadian government cannot accept all the implications contained in the wording of that question. But if the question refers to what is generally known as the Premium Iron Ore case, as I assume it does, then the answer would be in the affirmative. The Canadian government has communicated through the proper channels with the United States government, expressing concern over the action taken by tax officials in this matter, and asking that this be communicated by the state department in Washington to the appropriate government agency which might be dealing with this matter.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER    AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to renegotiate the agreement of 1951 between the province of Ontario and the federal government with respect to the development of power in the international section of the St. Lawrence river? In view of the fact that several sections of the agreement are now inoperative, does the government propose to enter into negotiations with Ontario in order to reduce to writing a situation in the international section which has altered both physically and financially since 1954?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister has had notice of this question and has requested me to answer it. The first part of the question is as follows:
Has the agreement dated the 3rd day of December, 1951, between Canada and the government of the province of Ontario concerning the development of power in the international rapids section been renegotiated?
The answer to that is no. I will have to take the second part of the question as notice, because it involves discussions and the gathering of information from various departments.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement regarding increases in the pensions of retired civil servants, will the Prime Minister now
Inquiries of the Ministry assist the pensioners of former government-owned railways, as promised by him in Moncton on May 4?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that question is one which concerns government policy, to be made known in due course.



REGISTERED PENSION PLANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a delayed supplementary question, occasioned by the eagerness of many people, caused, I suppose, by the Liberal convention atmosphere. I must compliment the Prime Minister on his further movement in the direction of the old age pension plan which has been advocated by this group for many years.
Will the Prime Minister take the first practical step in that direction by having the regulations for registered pension plans revised so as to provide for vesting rights in industrial pensions?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman will realize that this question raises a great deal of involved procedure; therefore it is not one, as I see it, which should be answered on an occasion such as this on the orders of the day.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the derailment which took place on the C.N.R. in Newfoundland in the last few days, and in view of other similar occurrences which have taken place all too frequently recently, will the minister have a full investigation made into these derailments and report back to the house?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I will get in touch with the C.N.R. about this matter and let the hon. member know.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: May I
address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Some days ago, in his

Inquiries of the Ministry absence, I asked a question regarding fires on Indian reserves. I wonder if he is now in a position to answer.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentleman for not having given him an answer earlier. On January 7 he did ask me about a fire on the Musqueam reserve, and another on the Cowichan Indian reserve No. 1.
In the case of the fire at Musqueam, six children lost their lives. The house was located in an isolated area on the reserve and could not be reached from the nearest hydrant, even though 2,000 feet of hose was laid. In the opinion of the Vancouver fire chief the children were all dead when the equipment arrived at approximately 3.25 a.m. on December 24.
In the case of the fire on the Cowichan Indian reserve, five children were burned to death as the result of an overturned lamp. There are arrangements with the city of Duncan fire department to attend fires on a large portion of the reserve adjacent to the town, but unfortunately this particular house was a considerable distance from Duncan and beyond the reach of the fire department's equipment.
Departmental officials in British Columbia are presently continuing their consultation with provincial and municipal authorities to arrange for the extension of additional fire prevention services to reserves adjacent to urban centres.


Colin Cameron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister's department considering taking steps to improve the general conditions on these reserves to obviate some of these tragedies? I note, for instance, that in one case there is apparently no electric power on the reserve. Is the department considering any program of improvement for these reserves?


Mr. Fulfon:: Mr. Speaker, there is a plan to improve housing conditions on Indian reserves. Limitation of funds both at the disposal of the department and at the disposal of bands is the main factor in accounting for the fact that progress is not as rapid as would be desired, but it is a part of the current policy of Indian affairs to attempt to improve both the physical conditions and the safety conditions on Indian reserves. As a first measure I have given instructions that these consultations with provincial and municipal authorities are to be pressed to arrange to extend fire protection wherever it is feasible to do so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the declaration made by him on April 30, 1957, at which time he was leader of the opposition, at New Glasgow and on May 10, 1957 at Parry Sound, to the effect that if the majority of the 10 million tons of iron ore exported raw from Canada yearly were processed here it would help solve the problem of unemployment, my question is this. Is it true that the government has at last decided to fulfil that promise?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend looking back over the records, but that statement is one I never made at any time. Therefore I have no observations to make in that connection.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Very funny.



WINDSOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a reply from the province of Ontario to his letter of January 2, 1958, requesting his co-operation in providing access roads to Point Pelee national park and a bridge over Sturgeon creek leading to that park, and for the establishment of a metropolitan camping park in the county of Essex, according to a policy announced by the minister on January 7, 1958, the acceptance of which project would, of course, greatly relieve unemployment in the Windsor area?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make an announcement on the order for motions regarding the replies from all the provinces on the two co-operative proposals I put forward on January 2, but in view of the momentous announcement which preceded mine I thought I would put it off until tomorrow.
In answer to the hon. member for Essex West, we have received a reply from the province of Ontario with regard to the question of access roads, and we understand from the official level that a reply will be coming through with regard to camp sites. I will

look into the hon. member's specific request and see if I cannot find out the details of this as soon as possible.


Mr. T. S. Barneli (Comox-Alberni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand the minister to say that he would give us a statement on the reaction of the provincial governments to the proposals on camp sites? Has he a reply available today? Could he indicate which provinces have accepted?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had it ready for today, but I thought under the circumstances it was too detailed to be brought up at this stage of the procedure on orders of the day.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker,
1	should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position today to give us the latest figures of unplaced job applicants; and in that connection perhaps he can tell me whether or not it is correct, as reported this morning, that as of January 2 or January 3 there were 60,000 more unplaced applicants than there were on December 26, 1956, when the hon. gentleman reported a figure of 698,000?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have received the latest figures, which have not been published as yet; and since the hon. member has heard them on the radio I want to say that as of January
2	the national employment service registration-and I think that is the figure the hon. member refers to

is 754,640.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Shame.


Michael Starr: This compares with 698,153 for December 26. Compared with the previous week the present figure is an increase of 56,487. Without minimizing that figure whatsoever, it might be of interest to the house to learn that the rate of increase has levelled off for the first time since December 1, when the new seasonal benefit was put into effect.
The average weekly rate of increase since December 1 has been 65,900. This levelling off to 56,487 this week gives us reason to hope and indeed, Mr. Speaker, anticipate that the weekly rate of climb may be tapering off. I should also point out that the weekly increases this week are lower in Ontario, the prairie provinces and the Pacific region than the rate of increase in the same period of a year ago.
While I am on the subject, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the hon. member and
Inquiries of the Ministry of the house, I would like to clarify the national employment service figure. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the national employment service figures are operational figures compiled for the convenience of the officials of the national employment service. They do not purport to be a figure for the number of persons unemployed in Canada. The only such figure is the dominion bureau of statistics figure for persons out of work and seeking jobs.
The national employment service figure is compiled at the close of business every Thursday in national employment service offices across Canada. The local offices are instructed to exclude certain classes of applicants. These figures include such persons as those already employed but seeking other work. They include persons seeking only part-time work. They include persons who register for another job in advance of actually becoming unemployed. Nevertheless, it still remains impossible to exclude from the figure all categories except those actually unemployed and looking for work.
For example, you get such categories as married women who have worked for a period and now wish to stay home and take care of their families, in other words, to obtain unemployment insurance into which they have paid for many years, in some instances. They make application. Until they are disqualified for refusing to take a job when it is offered to them, they collect and are on the rolls as registrations at national employment service offices. Unfortunately the unemployment insurance officials have never differentiated in their job application figures between married and single women. There is no way of knowing how many of these there are, unless by a special survey.
Another category might be a retired person who is collecting unemployment insurance. He is not particularly interested in working, but he wishes to collect his benefits. He applies for work and for anywhere from one week to three weeks he may be on the rolls. In the first place he is on the rolls because he has registered at the office. In the second place he is on the rolls for at least one week during the waiting period. In the third place he continues on the rolls as long as he does not turn down a reasonable job offer.
In many areas employment is predominantly seasonal. You may have farmers, fishermen and other individuals whose work pattern over many years has been to work in the summer and live during the winter from what they made during the summer. Many such people will apply for unemployment insurance. In doing so they will become job applicants. They will then go on the rolls
3242	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry until they are found a job or until they are turned down for refusing to take a job.
In other cases an individual may apply for a job, may wait a couple of days or may even collect insurance for a week and then go out and find a job on his own. Yet unless he notifies the unemployment insurance commission, he is still listed as unemployed for as much as two weeks. These are some of the reasons why the unemployment insurance commission figure has never purported to be an unemployment figure. There is no doubt that the figure has been growing steadily. There is no doubt, too, that it is a useful indicator of unemployment, or at least of the labour situation in this country.
At this moment I might refer to a condition which I might term "administrative unemployment". It is a fact, and not a surprising one, that every time unemployment regulations are relaxed the national employment service registrations rise correspondingly. Last year the figures rose in January, as they always do when seasonal benefits come into force. This year seasonal benefits came into force on December 1. Therefore the rise was that much sooner. Since seasonal benefits have been extended to May 15 the rise can be expected to be maintained until that time. This year fishermen were eligible for seasonal benefits for the first time. Also, married women's regulations were revoked. All these contributed to swell the total registrations.
This is not to say that the national employment service figure does not indicate a great deal more activity in the field of persons looking for work, looking for claims and so on. It does. But these are some of the reasons why it cannot be considered an unemployment figure in the sense that the dominion bureau of statistics figure is an unemployment figure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour supplementary to the statement he has just made. Has he under his hand the most recent figure as to those out of work and seeking employment, and also the corresponding figure for one year earlier? I take it these figures would not be subject to the qualifications which he attached to the figure as to those applying for unemployment insurance benefits?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker. The figure, as issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, is expected to be made known some time between the 17 th and 20th of this month.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is it the policy of his department to hire men needed in Fundy national park, New Brunswick, through the unemployment insurance commission and, if not, on whose recommendation are they hired?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the employment of men under the winter work program, directions have gone forward to the park superintendent to hire men according to the usual policy that has been followed in the past.


Henry Joseph Murphy: What is the usual policy?


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a supplementary question. He referred to the hiring of men under the policy that had been followed in the past. Will he kindly tell me what the policy was that was followed in the past, so I may understand precisely what he means?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In answer to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar I should like to say very frankly that the custom followed in the park mentioned by the hon. member for Westmorland, who asked the question, is that the superintendent hires his prevailing rate employees by going into the local districts and asking advice from the local people as to whom he should employ.


Leonard T. Stick: The local member?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I understand it, the practice in the past has been that they consult with the people they think will have proper advice to give.


Major James William Coldwell: When the minister refers to these people who may have advice to give, does that statement mean political organizations supporting the government?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes, it does. That is precisely what it does mean. I know my hon. friends on this side of the house did much the same thing when they were in office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: I was hoping there would be a change.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources what these organizations are and where they are located, from which the superintendent of the park gets advice as to whom he should hire? In all my experience, and I am not trying to put this on a political basis at all-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Charles Edward Johnston: -I do not
know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the member is about to express an opinion, and that would not be in order. If he will leave his question where it is it will be all right.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to know if the minister can tell us exactly who they are.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In answer to the hon. member for Bow River may I say that if he will go to the national employment service in the city of Calgary he will find that the superintendent of the park at Banff is instructed to go there to get the number of men he needs. The superintendent of the park at Waterton goes to Lethbridge. It is actually handled under the direction of the Minister of Labour, who looks at the labour supply, and there is a liaison worked out with Ottawa. That is the arrangement under which they operate in the parks closest to the hon. member's constituency.


Major James William Coldwell: What about Fundy park? Are they not recommended by local people who may be politicians?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Does this mean that people who are not in the good books of the political organization will starve because of their political views?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, that was the implication of the hon. gentleman's question. Some people may do that, but we do not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless there is a
specific question of fact to be answered, this exchange is becoming rather like a debate, and perhaps it had better be dropped at this point.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. He announced that work in national parks would be stepped up to improve the unemployment situation. Does this mean that work is provided only for Conservatives and for no other group in Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think that is a question of privilege. I was asked a question by the hon. member for Bow River, and I told him that if he were to go into his riding he would find that the national employment service-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You did not say
that; I am speaking about Fundy park.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the hon. member for Charlotte reads my answer to the hon. member for Bow River he will find what I said. I said we are using these employment service offices which come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. When I made my announcements in the house, both the first announcement and the second announcement, I said I would be under the direction of the Minister of Labour in hiring these men. There has been some discussion about moving men from one area into another. These movements are always looked after by the national employment service office in the particular district that is most likely to have the type of men in relation to the type of work we want done. I have not anything to do with that. I simply provide the jobs and the Minister of Labour and his national employment service offices provide the men.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is not what you said about Fundy park.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingate):: I should like to direct a question
to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that recently there have been lay-offs on the Canadian National Railways in Prince Edward Island? In view of the state of the right of way there, does he not think it might be advisable for the Canadian National Railways to make some special arrangement for work during the winter months to improve the right of way?


George Harris Hees: The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mac-
Lean) brought that matter to my attention today, and I intend to take it up with the management of the Canadian National Railways to see what can be done.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
3244	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister now prepared to answer my question of January 4 as to the countries of origin of the 2,400 immigrants scheduled to arrive at Halifax during the present month, and also if employment has been assured for all those who are not sponsored by relatives?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
as for the second part of the hon. gentleman's question, I think the answer was given the day it was asked.
As to the first part, I undertook to ascertain just as soon as possible what were the countries of origin, but I am under the impression that that will not be possible until the ships land and the loading lists or passenger lists are available to us; at least, it would not be possible without a great deal of work to be done in advance of the actual landing. The hon. gentleman will appreciate that this was a press statement, not issued by the department; and the figure of 2,400 itself is one that I would not care to confirm at this time.



REPORTED SEEKING OF LAND IN RUSSIA BY SONS OF FREEDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Finance, whoever prefers to answer it, notice having been given to both. Is the government aware that four Doukhobor leaders left by air for Moscow last Saturday to seek land in the Soviet union for their sons of freedom sect? If so, would the government be prepared to assist them financially to leave the country when a suitable site is obtained?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the
hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question, but the first part seems to be related to the department of my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the second to the department of my colleague the Minister of Finance. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has undertaken to answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will take
the question on the first bounce.
Is the government aware that four Doukhobor leaders left by air for Moscow last Saturday to seek land in the Soviet union for their sons of freedom sect?

I can answer that all we know we have gleaned from newspaper reports. We have no more information than that. The hon. member then asked:
If so, would the government be prepared to assist them financially to leave the country when a suitable site is obtained?
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that matter has not arisen.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question-


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Bow River also asking a supplementary question?


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: My supplementary question is a little bit ahead of that of the hon. member for Kootenay West. I wanted to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Bow River will defer his question until we have dealt with the subject now before the house I will recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West now and the hon. member for Bow River immediately afterward.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question. Does he realize that the question asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary was incorrectly stated? They are not Doukhobors; they are sons of freedom who are asking permission to leave the country.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I accept that observation.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In his absence may I give notice to the Acting Minister of National Defence. In view of the urgency to build the international hockey hall of fame museum in Kingston, where hockey was first played, will the minister consider an arrangement between the Department of National Defence and the international hockey hall of fame committee whereby a tract of land owned by the Department of National Defence in the old Fort Henry area at Kingston may be made available for the construction of a hockey hall of fame museum?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and give an answer at the appropriate time.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. In taking notice of the question asked by the hon. member for Kingston, will he keep in mind the historical origin of hockey in the Halifax area?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.



GUNNAR, SASK.  REQUEST FOR POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, if I may, arising out of the decision the minister communicated to me with regard to the airport at Gunnar. I thank him for his diligence and courtesy. I wonder whether he would discuss this matter with his colleague the Postmaster General, to the end that these people in that very sizeable community might enjoy one of the amenities which most Canadians enjoy, namely a post office?


George Harris Hees: Yes. I shall be very glad to do that.



WINDSOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Ferguson Brown: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he now or will he soon be prepared to answer the question I put to him on November 22 last, as reported at page 1407 of Hansard, with respect to assistance in building an auditorium in Windsor to assist the unemployment situation?


John George Diefenbaker: I will look into the matter. That, of course, is not an isolated request. There are many such from all parts of Canada. Any decisions in that regard would have to be correlated one with the other in order to meet the current situation.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE    INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On November 19 last I asked the minister what progress was being made with regard to a national crop insurance plan. At that time he stated that
Inquiries of the Ministry the matter was being investigated by the economics division of his department but no report had yet been received. Has the minister now received such a report? If so, will it be made available to members of the house?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a report in regard to that matter. I have received what might be called intermediate advices in regard to the matter, but no report as yet.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder whether the recommendation of the Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life has been brought to the attention of the minister, in which the commission recommended that a crop insurance scheme be tried out on a mixed farm basis, a joint federal-provincial scheme?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; that has been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether it is receiving study, and whether any decision on the matter may be forthcoming at an early date?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as I said back in November, I think it was, this whole matter has been under very active study, and consideration is being given to all facets of the question.



GENERAL EXTENSION OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I refer to the letter that Premier Campbell of Manitoba wrote to the Prime Minister on December 18 with regard to the desirability of assistance to the Atlantic provinces being part of a general formula. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Is it his intention to address to the premier of Manitoba a further reply in addition to the brief acknowledgment which he wrote him on December 21?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall be obliged to look up the letters in question before I am in a position to answer.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister

Inquiries of the Ministry received a request from the great lakes pilots' association demanding compulsory pilotage for foreign flag vessels on the great lakes, and has any consideration been given by the minister, as the pilotage authority, to this matter of compulsory pilotage in general? Would the minister comment on the advisability or otherwise of acceding to this request in the first place and, if so, whether similar action would be extended to the St. Lawrence?


George Harris Hees: I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. However, I received it just upon entering the house. As to the first part of the question, I have not received such a request from the great lakes pilots' association. As to the second and third parts, this matter is under consideration by my department at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister inform the house of the results in due course?


George Harris Hees: When results are arrived at I will be glad to do so.



ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: In view of the requests over the years, and particularly the last few months, by farm organizations for a more equitable distribution of box cars, can the minister give assurance to the house that before the end of this session he will be able to announce that a program has been worked out whereby the farmer will be able to get box cars allocated and will be able to deliver grain to the elevator of his choice?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate the urgency attached to this question, and I appreciate the importance of it. However, it is a repetition of questions that have been asked about box cars during the last week, and I think my reply has been given already.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement on January 10 that an answer to the question I asked would be both apparent and complete within two days, could he now tell the house whether the Atlantic provinces' grants will be made in the current fiscal year, and how much they will be?

Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is full of anticipation. If he will wait until the measure is introduced he will then receive the information that he so anxiously desires.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Another broken promise. I have another question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I take it the reference was to a matter on the order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; there is no such item on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, the question has been answered.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Did the Miramichi salmon association make representations in connection with the spawning of early run Miramichi salmon? If representations were received, what action will the Department of Fisheries take?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I have no knowledge of representations of this nature being made directly to the department, but I would need to check on that. There is a possibility that such representations are now being channelled through the Atlantic salmon co-ordinating committee, on which the five eastern provinces are represented.



AUTHORIZATION OF LOAN OF $30 MILLION TO PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. 243, to authorize a loan to the government of New Brunswick in respect of the Beech wood power project.
He said: On January 8, Mr. Speaker, the house gave approval to the resolution which preceded the introduction of Bill No. 243. At that resolution stage a full statement was made reviewing this whole subject. I think no further statement is necessary now in explanation of the bill. The bill follows closely the terms of the resolution which the house approved on January 8.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance would explain to us at this stage, when he is asking us on second

reading to approve the principle of this bill, what, in the opinion of the government the principle of the bill really is. By a series of questions to which I was quite unable to get any answers at the committee stage preceding the bill I endeavoured to find out what was the principle on which this bill was based, in the opinion of the government. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in answer to a series of questions which I put on the order paper the Prime Minister gave certain replies on November 22 to be found in Hansard on page 1405. The first of these questions was:
Are loans based on the principle applied to the Beechwood project to be available only for projects in the Atlantic provinces?
The answer the Prime Minister gave to that question was: no. Therefore, I think we can reasonably assume that the principle of this bill is not simply the extension of a loan in an isolated case without relation to anything else anywhere in Canada, with the exception of this particular project. This is a policy which the Prime Minister said was not limited even to the Atlantic provinces. Then I asked a second question, and my second question was:
If not, will all provinces qualify?
The answer of the Prime Minister to this question was:
The answer is that any province that has a project for which there is an equally good case could qualify in respect of that project.
That would seem to suggest that loans of this character based on this principle could be applied to projects in any province in any part of Canada, and it does seem to me that it would be most helpful to the house and to all hon. members who have to answer for their votes here to their constituents should know what the phrase "equally good projects" really means.
And as I see the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) following my observations intently, I am going to repeat what I said on the resolution stage so that there may be no misunderstanding about this matter. I am quite convinced by what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has said- and I am not often convinced by what the Minister of Finance says-that it would be difficult for the government of the province of New Brunswick to refund-and I use the word "refund" in the ordinary dictionary sense-the moneys which that province has expended on this project which is now, we are told, almost complete, or which will be complete before the loan is taken out. As I say, I believe the minister is right when he says that it would be a difficult thing for the government of New Brunswick to do, and I do think in all the
Beechwood Power Project Loan circumstances, it is certainly in the national interest to maintain the credit of all the provinces of Canada. I believe it should be done at a time when there seems to be universal agreement everywhere in the house that much more needs to be done than has been done up to now to bring the economic level of the Atlantic provinces to a level comparable with the rest of the country.
I should not even for a moment consider opposing this loan in the circumstances, even if it were an isolated instance, but I would be much readier to support this bill if I knew exactly what I was supporting in addition to Beechwood and so, I think, would almost every other hon. member from any of the other nine provinces, except New Brunswick. The Prime Minister has told us that the principle of this legislation applies across the country, that it applies in every province which can make out an equally good case. I am sure the government could get almost universal and even, perhaps, enthusiastic support for this legislation if it would tell us what it really involves. What are the next stages?
The Minister of Finance, in answer to a question I asked at the resolution stage the other day-the question was: "is this Beechwood proposal the first stage of the national development program"-answered: yes. It was a categorical affirmative. In other words, we have been told that this project is a part of the national development program which Her Majesty referred to in the speech from the throne. We have also been told that if an equally good case can be made out the principle of this measure will be extended. But when we have sought to find out what the definition of an equally good case would be-and we spent a good deal of time trying to do this in committee the other day-we have been met with complete silence from the treasury benches.
Apparently we are not to be told. Apparently we are expected to vote blind. Apparently the government is ashamed of its national development program and does not want the public to know what it is. I say "apparently" because if the government thinks I am being unfair there is a very easy way of dealing with this argument, and that is to tell us what it is. We do know some things; a few things that we have been able to glean by persistent questioning. We do know that an equally good case cannot be made out by any private company producing electricity; in other words, if a private company wishes to refund an existing obligation or expand its production of electric power it may not do so under this policy, because

Beechwood Power Project Loan the Prime Minister said that specifically on November 22 in answer to another of my questions. We also know that a loan cannot be made available for refunding anywhere else in Canada except for this Beechwood project, and the Minister of Finance has some private definition of refunding which he refused to give to the committee the other day and which is said to exclude all other refunding operations.
In other words, although this project in New Brunswick is completed and will provide no new employment, and although it is, except in one respect, on all fours with a similar project in Nova Scotia which the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) referred to at the resolution stage, the province of Nova Scotia would be denied a loan at this favourable rate of interest because its project was completed approximately two years ago whereas this project has just been completed, or is in the process of being completed at the beginning of 1958.
It is very hard to understand why such a distinction should be made. I think we could understand it, particularly in view of the state of unemployment in this country which was referred to today by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), if the government said that for new projects-projects being started now-these special, favourable loans would be extended. There would be a principle there; there would be something we could understand. But here we are refunding in connection with something that is completed and which cannot provide any further jobs; and we are told at the same time that no other completed project in Canada can possibly qualify. That does not seem to be a reasonable attitude to take, except on the ground that New Brunswick really needs this assistance and that the other projects are already fully financed. That I can accept from the minister, and for that reason I am quite prepared to vote for the bill.
But I am not prepared to vote for the bill until I have made one more effort to discover how this principle can be applied to other projects elsewhere in Canada or even elsewhere in New Brunswick.
The minister may argue that so far as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are concerned and so far as Newfoundland is concerned, in pure theory, the bill to which his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) will ask us to give second reading later today if we complete this one, covers those three provinces, though not in practice, covers Newfoundland, and that so far as any new projects in those provinces are concerned

the government is by another measure making provision for them. That would have been an understandable argument if the government had been willing to accept the amendment moved the other day by my friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) and supported by all the Liberal members from the province of Newfoundland.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the hon. member is out of order in discussing a resolution concerning another matter that was before us the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may well be, Mr. Speaker, and I will desist from discussing it because it is quite obvious that the hon. member for St. John's West wishes in every way possible to impede any help to the province of Newfoundland in the matter of power.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), if he reconsiders the statement he just made, would like to modify it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to do that. The last thing I want to do is to be unfair to any hon. member of this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You do it every day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Every one in the house knows that I have the greatest possible sympathy for the hon. member for St. John's West. I feel that he has been ill used by his colleagues.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to what he really said, that I was trying in every possible way to impede any help to the province of Newfoundland. I do not think that remark should be allowed to remain on the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking to modify what I said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, that remark made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should be withdrawn. There is no occasion for him to go on and make another speech and in that way seek to avoid the ruling you have made.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member objects, I withdraw without hesitation and unreservedly the observation I have made. But I would say it would perhaps be rather difficult to understand why the hon. member for St. John's West should have

Beechwood Power Project Loan wished to impede me in making the argument policy was decided. I also assume that he I was attempting to make on behalf of knows what this policy is. Would he tell Newfoundland.	the committee-


William Joseph Browne: I objected because you were out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite happy to leave the decision on that point to the people of Newfoundland. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am the more puzzled about this whole question since the hon. member has injected himself into the debate because it is widely rumoured in the province of Newfoundland that when the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne) was in Newfoundland during the recent recess he advised his constituents that all they needed to do was to get a request from the provincial government and they could be assured of having a loan for the development of power.


Mr. Montgomery:: What has that to do with
Beechwood?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to be fair to the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The truth will out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and I can agree that we have both made slips of the tongue before and I do not think the hon. member for St. John's West would say that I have ever sought in any way to misrepresent him and I do not want to do so now.
What I said, and I put it very precisely, was that it has been widely rumoured that when the hon. gentleman was in Newfoundland recently he gave an assurance to his constituents that if the provincial government applied for a loan to the federal government for the purpose of developing power in St. Mary's bay that that loan would be forthcoming. If the hon. gentleman wishes to deny that statement I would be quite willing to interrupt my speech and allow him to do so.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, what I said is a repetition of the remarks which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made, that if the government of the province of Newfoundland could make out a case for a hydro electric development similar to the Beechwood project then the government of Canada would be prepared to give assistance in the same way it is giving assistance to New Brunswick.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have never been more grateful for any answer in the house than I am for the minister's answer. The minister is a member of the government and, as a member of the government, I assume ae attended the cabinet meetings when this


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is not the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the hon. member rises to speak in his turn will he tell the house what would be a similar project, what kind of project would qualify, how the government of Newfoundland could organize such a project so as to be sure it was not wasting the time of its officials and the money of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and how any project could qualify; because that is what we have been trying to find out.
I can tell the Minister of Finance through you, sir, that if he can get up and give an unqualified assurance that, if a satisfactory application comes from Newfoundland or any other province for the construction of a new hydro electric project, a loan on terms similar to the Beechwood loan will be made available, speaking for myself, and I think I could probably say for almost all members in the Liberal party if not for all of them in this house, we would conclude that nothing further need be said on the other bill which is coming up later today. Indeed, if the Minister of Finance could give us a clear exposition of the principles that are to be applied to future applications for loans similar to the Beechwood loan so that the house could understand what that policy is, I feel quite sure that the business now before the house, the second reading of this bill, could be disposed of very quickly indeed, provided always, of course, that those principles seemed to be fair and reasonable as between one project and another.
The only other thing we do know, at the present time, besides the fact that these loans are not available for a project unless it is government-owned or publicly-owned, that they cannot be made available for privately-owned projects or for refunding projects designed to reduce the cost of power already being produced, but must apparently be used only for new power projects-which is only an inference, too,-is that the government has no plans of its own and that the provincial government must ask for such assistance. When the Prime Minister made his original announcement of this policy last autumn I asked him if it was being applied in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island and his reply was that there had been no applications from those provinces. The view has been taken by both ministers who have spoken on this subject in the house, that unless a province made an application the government was not going to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon.
member to consider whether he is not going

Beechwood Power Project Loan beyond the scope of this bill which is a fairly simple and concise bill dealing only with a loan for a specific project in New Brunswick. There is another bill on the order paper which has a wider range but which we have not reached and on second reading, as he very well knows, we try to confine ourselves to the principles of the bill before the house.
I have let him make comparisons and endeavour to discover a general policy but I feel that I have allowed him to go far enough in that direction and perhaps now we should limit ourselves to the discussion of the bill in question.


Mr. Broome:: This is his leadership speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of this bill is that the government is asking for authority from the members of parliament representing ten provinces to make a loan for a particular project in one province, which principle we were told in committee when we asked about it was one that would be applied to provinces all across the country.
What I am endeavouring to do, sir, is to say that while I will support the bill-and here I speak only for myself-I will support it even if Beechwood is an isolated project and not a part of a national policy. It does seem to me that, since the government has introduced it as part of a national policy set out in declaratory form in the speech from the throne, it should be open to us to consider it as a part of that national policy and in its relation to what might be possible in other parts of the country and in other provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there I must disagree with the hon. member because the bill does not attempt to carry out anything more than a specific project. It does not deal with a national policy. While in general terms it is relevant to reconcile it or fit it into the broader policy, what we have to consider at the moment is the bill itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the bill itself, sir, I
would say, as I have said before, that I am quite prepared to support it for the narrow purposes set out in the bill. I am quite prepared to support it even though there is no other project that can qualify. It does seem to me, sir, that there is nothing in the bill that would give us any clue as to how the principle of the bill could be related to any other project. Therefore, sir, I say that in supporting the bill I support it on certain assumptions and I should like to make certain assumptions to justify to my constituents and to the house the support that I am giving to this bill.

The first of those assumptions is that from now on the government will give comparable treatment to equally good cases, as the Prime Minister has said, in other parts of Canada.
I assume that if the premier of Manitoba comes along with an application for the project he referred to at the recent federal-provincial conference, in the light of the Prime Minister's statement in reply to my question that application will receive similarly favourable treatment. I assume that if the premier of Newfoundland, following the advice given to his constituents by the hon. member for St. John's West, makes application with an equally good case for a project in Newfoundland, similar authority will be sought from parliament for that purpose.
I think, sir, if that is a correct assumption, it would have been very much easier to have received universal approval of this measure, and I say "universal approval". I think every member of the house would have been inclined to give approval-at least no one spoke against such a proposal-if we had been told that at the outset. It does seem to me, sir, that, the hon. members who represent the province of Ontario where, as I understand it-and I do not pretend to be an expert; I accept the information that was made available at an earlier stage in this same debate-the great hydro electric commission, which I believe has excellent credit, and whose projects have always been self-liquidating, has to pay over five per cent, would find it easier to justify their support of this bill if they could go back and tell their constituents that in its future projects, the Ontario hydro would be able to borrow money at the same rate as New Brunswick is able to borrow it to pay for this completed project at Beechwood. It seems to me, sir, there would be no difficulty in getting the support, and the enthusiastic support, of the members from the province of Newfoundland if we could have the assurance from the Minister of Finance that a similar request from Newfoundland would be similarly treated.
It has been represented-and I feel, sir, that I would be transgressing your ruling if I entered into this-that the next -bill to be considered covers the other Atlantic provinces; but it seems to me that hon. members from Quebec would find it much easier to support this bill, and to support it enthusiastically, if the minister had given an affirmative answer at the resolution stage to the question put to him by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) as to whether a similar loan would be applied to the development at Lachine, if the provincial government asked for it. It seems to me that the hon. member for Assiniboia

(Mr. Argue) would And it much easier to support this legislation, which I * am sure he is going to support anyway, it he had been given the assurance by the Minister of Finance that if the government of Saskatchewan had asked for a loan to develop a thermal plant that was a sound proposition in itself, as I think the government demonstrated Beechwood was a sound proposition, they would also get a loan.
I feel that hon. members from the other two provinces of Alberta and British Columbia would also find it much easier to give their enthusiastic support to this legislation if they could know that there was the same policy for every part of the country; if they could be assured that this was not just an attempt by the government and by the Prime Minister to look after the difficulties of a friendly provincial government; and they are difficulties, we all admit that.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: May I ask
the hon. member a question? Since he has referred to my province, I am interested in the point he is making. Is the hon. member aware that in today's Halifax Chronicle Herald Premier Matheson of Prince Edward Island is quoted as saying on his arrival in Ottawa that his group will seek a better deal for the maritimes from the federal Liberal party? I find this in quotation marks:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker is giving it to us, so why can't the Liberals?
That's why the Liberals were defeated last June. They didn't give the maritimes half a deal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Words of truth and wisdom.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I have your permission to break the rules, as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert has done by introducing a matter that is unrelated-


Ernest James Broome: You have broken enough rules to last for the rest of your life.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to the subject before the house, I should be delighted to reply and say very simply that not only do I think but I know that Mr. Matheson will be successful in his quest and that the Liberal program will far outshine this shabby performance that the present government is attempting to put across as a national development policy.
Since the hon. gentleman has interjected this note, what is this national development policy? It is Beechwood which is completed; it is those projects in the other bill which were initiated by the Liberal government; it is the South Saskatchewan dam and surely the Tories are not going to say that they originated the idea of the South Saskatchewan; and it is the Columbia project.
Beechwood Power Project Loan


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we discussing the South Saskatchewan irrigation dam; are we discussing the Columbia river project, or are we discussing Beechwood? I thought this bill was confined to Beechwood. I would ask that the debate be confined properly to the bill before us.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we all agree that the subject under discussion is the Beechwood project; but where there were references in general terms to broader policy I have given the hon. member a little latitude by reason of the extent of the question which was put to him under the guise of being a question relating to this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank you, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have given the hon. member his latitude and I would ask him to come back to the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I recognize your courtesy and your latitude, for which I am grateful, and I do not intend to abuse either.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have though.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me there is another point which does deserve some consideration before we complete consideration of this measure. It does seem to me that the government should, before they ask us to vote on the bill, give us a clear, definite, precise statement of how similar loans may be applied for either in New Brunswick or elsewhere for similar projects, and I appeal to the government to do that. It does seem to me that if that could be done this whole matter could be disposed of much more rapidly. I hope that when the government does that, that policy will be sufficiently comprehensive to be fair to all the provinces and that it will also be sufficiently comprehensive to make it possible in the province of Newfoundland to get on with hydro developments there that could not be covered by the other measure which is to be proposed by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and which are at least as badly needed in that province as Beechwood was in the province of New Brunswick. That, sir, concludes what I have to say on second reading.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in this group support the measure now before the house because we feel the province of New Brunswick deserves this type of assistance from the federal government. The reasons why New Brunswick has an excellent case have been presented on previous occasions. These special reasons are that the maritimes, including the province of New Brunswick, are a deficit area, that they have

Beechwood Power Project Loan difficulty financing their projects, that they are a relatively under-developed section oi our nation and that such a policy would help to give them the same kind of treatment and power facilities that are available in other parts of the country.
However, I do agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) when he says that the government in presenting a power program to parliament should present an over-all program, should present a national policy and should not continue to present a bits and pieces policy, a hit and miss policy, a catch as catch can policy which overlooks the very legitimate needs of many sections of our nation. I think other provinces have claims that require action by the government and I cannot understand why during all the discussion that has taken place on this bill and the resolution that preceded it we have not been able to get from the government a statement of their power policy and their intentions affecting other provinces.
I am not at all certain that the terms of the bill are as generous as they might be. It would seem to me that the repayment period of eight years may be rather burdensome for the province of New Brunswick. It may be that before the eight years elapse there will have to be an extension of the period of time for repayment. I think the period of up to 30 years in the other measure having to do with power plants is more appropriate and that the government should consider applying such a period to this particular proposal.
But I do want to say to the government that if people in other parts of Canada are to have their power needs met it is up to the government to give the same kind of study and consideration to legitimate requirements in other provinces. Last year the province from which I come spent $60 million in developing power plants. I am informed that the power corporation of that province has already borrowed to the maximum extent allowed the corporation by law, namely $150 million.
Saskatchewan may not require the same kind of policy as provided in the case of Beechwood to take care of things that have been done in the past but if Saskatchewan is to meet its power requirements in the future some assistance will have to be given to that province so that the burden of a further large expansion of power development can be met.
Reference has already been made to a statement made by Premier Matheson of Prince Edward Island and I should like to quote it again. In the Halifax Chronicle Herald of January 13 there is the following:


Premier Matheson of Prince Edward Island said on arrival in Ottawa on Sunday his group will seek a better deal for the maritimes from the Liberal party.
I imagine that better deal can be obtained much more readily now since it merely involves the passing of a resolution at a convention than it could have been obtained when the Liberals were in power and the attainment of it meant the provision of real sums of money. The article continues:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker is giving it to us, so why can't the Liberals? . . . That's why the Liberals were defeated last June. They didn't give the maritimes half a deal.
Yet when we are discussing the very project before the house this afternoon we are not able, so far as people on the prairies are concerned, to get from the government the half a deal to which Premier Matheson referred. I suggest that the government should learn from the misfortunes of the Liberal party last June and not commit in Saskatchewan and the prairie provinces generally precisely the same political mistake that the Liberals committed as far as the Atlantic provinces were concerned. I want to emphasize the statement in the paper that "Prime Minister Diefenbaker is giving it to us so why can't the Liberals".
I want to say I was pleased earlier today when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) announced, prior to the commencement of the deliberations of the Liberal convention, certain action that would be taken in the field of social security. I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and to his colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), that they should press on the government and the Prime Minister the need for the Prime Minister to make a statement in the house tomorrow, in advance of any other deliberations that may take place, that will give the people of Saskatchewan and western Canada at least the half a deal that is being provided by this bill for the people of New Brunswick.
When the question is put on the bill I do not think that a single member of the House of Commons will oppose the measure and in my opinion that is the way it should be.
I feel that when it comes to voting on measures which may not benefit the particular area from which a member comes, although there are some exceptions to this, hon. members should be guided by the belief that the government will make certain the good effects of this legislation are applied to other parts of Canada. We, of course, are delighted to support this measure. If the government should make the very serious mistake of failing to make this type of legislation available to other parts of Canada that will not change our opinion that this

legislation, in itself, is good. This fact will merely renew our determination to see that other parts of Canada are given the same treatment.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two things I should like to say in addition to what I said the other day. There seems to be an impression that this bill lays the foundation for a national policy. Perhaps it is not a mistaken impression, but this bill has nothing to do with a national policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


Gage Workman Montgomery: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was he in the house the other day when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) told us it was?


Gage Workman Montgomery: I may have been, but I did not hear that. If that is so, then all the better. This bill, however, deals with a specific project. It seems to me that members should vote on this $30 million loan on the grounds that the project is either sound or unsound, and that New Brunswick deserves it; not because she is broke, but because it is a good project which is in the national interest. If it is a project that will pay its own way, then why bring up a lot of other projects. This is the only one being dealt with in this measure.
The other day I picked up a newspaper which indicated just how valuable this project is. I wonder if hon. members realize it? This project is not finished yet; it has never been funded. We are now about to finance it if we get this money. I am going to read an article that appeared in a little paper called the Cataract Weekly, published at Grand Falls, New Brunswick. It says that the New Brunswick electric power commission's $30 million Beechwood hydro plant staved off a shutdown threat in three plants, two in New Brunswick and one in the state of Maine, between December 23 and the end of the month.
With one unit on a test run this plant has been averaging over 800,000 kilowatts per day since November 11, when it went on the test run. This was up until January 9. This 3,200,000 extra horse-power the plant was able to deliver to the Fraser company staved off a shutdown and avoided the necessity of putting 2,200 men out of work, thus maintaining a payroll of $150,000 during that period. In my opinion, hon. members might be interested in that information because they are going to be asked to vote in support of a loan for a project which with one unit out of the three planned was able to do that on a trial run. It is not even completed yet.
96698-206$
Beechwood Power Project Loan
This is a sound proposition. Although early in the debate one or two members did try to show that this was not a feasible project, I am glad to note that most members, including the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), have admitted that it is sound.
There was something else mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). Mind you, Mr. Speaker, these power projects are provincial matters. I believe the federal government should not come into the province and say, you have to do it this way or that or we will not help you. It is up to the provincial governments to come forward with sound projects which are in the national interest and which will pay their way, just as the Beechwood project will. If Saskatchewan comes forward with such a project-I believe I can speak for certain members from New Brunswick and even the maritimes-I believe you will find the members from the maritime provinces will support the measure.
The New Brunswick government apparently has been the first to come forward with a proposition. They have been after the federal government to do something for four years, and now we are getting some place. None of the other provinces has yet come forward with particular projects. Until they do so and the projects can be examined on their merits, these other projects should not be mentioned in connection with this measure. If the other provinces do come forward with sound propositions, similar to Beechwood, which will pay their way and return dividends to the federal treasury, we should support them. We must leave it in the hands of the provinces because it is a provincial matter.
There was another point brought out by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He criticized the length of time for the loan. Again this is a matter for the province. If New Brunswick only wishes eight years in which to pay this loan, why should we force them to take 10, 15 or 20 years? This matter is within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government is coming to the assistance of the province at the request of the province. If New Brunswick, with a forward-looking government, in the belief that better times are ahead, feels she can repay the loan in eight years, she should do that because she will pay less interest. I think it is a good business proposition. If there were any evidence that New Brunswick had requested 20 years and this government had refused to give it, I would be supporting the hon. member for Assiniboia in trying to get a longer term. There is no evidence that New Brunswick asked for more
3254	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development than eight years, so she must see her way clear to paying it back within that time. I do not feel, therefore, that part of this bill should be criticized.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now, by leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the second reading of Bill No. 244, to provide assistance in respect of electric power development in the Atlantic provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this short bill as stated is "to assist in making available in the Atlantic provinces electric power for industrial purposes in a suitable quantity and at a lower cost". This seems to set forth the purpose quite clearly and succinctly. The responsibility for the provision of electric energy is basically that of the provinces, municipalities and industry. There are areas, however, such as the Atlantic provinces, which do not enjoy the same benefits as other parts of Canada for the production of electric energy at low cost. In such a case it has been recognized by both sides of this house that some form of assistance is required. The purpose of this bill is to help the provinces of the Atlantic region to obtain more electric energy at a cheaper rate than has hitherto been possible. By this means, industry will be attracted, more jobs will be available for Canadians of the Atlantic region, and a higher standard of living should follow a general lowering of electric energy cost. The bill now before this house is a part only of the total program to assist the Atlantic region in achieving this desirable objective. I shall not speak here of the aid proposed for Beechwood which was discussed separately.
It is desirable at the outset, Mr. Speaker, to make it abundantly clear that this power development bill is intended to apply to the four provinces of the Atlantic region. The bill proposed is enabling legislation. It authorizes


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister is aware of the fact that the premier of Newfoundland communicated with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) as soon as the resolution was put on the order paper with a request that the scope of the legislation be extended to include hydro development precisely because this was the kind of development in which the province was interested.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair for me to ask that the hon. member should have listened to what I said just before I was interrupted. I will read it again for his special benefit, and I am going to do it very slowly. So far, the province has not approached the federal government for assistance with regard to this plant or for interconnections though it has been known since March 14, 1957, at least, that the federal government was prepared to offer something along these lines. A telegram was received asking us to include hydro in the general terms of this bill but the hon. member well knows that we do not change me terms of a bill in a vital respect at the last minute when provinces are waiting for this agreement to be signed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). He completely rewrote his bill.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no connection between the two subjects. In one case the minister welcomed the amendments in his opening remarks, and we hope we will always be able to do that sort of thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Apparently you can ignore a provincial premier.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no connection between the two bills. This is an entirely different matter, and I have no choice but to move on with the bill as it is. I made a point at the resolution stage of explaining why that should be so.
So, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some evidence that aid under this bill would be of value to Newfoundland, at least for the extension of one thermal plant for the generation of electricity. It has not been shown,

Atlantic Provinces Power Development however, that the installation of major transmission facilities in Newfoundland would not benefit the people of that island, and for these plants and facilities the government stands ready to aid all four Atlantic provinces.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the bill proposes to do two things. It enables the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements with the government of any Atlantic province so as to provide assistance to the province in the generation of electric energy by steam-driven generators and for the provision of transmission facilities. The second thing this bill sets out to do is to provide a subvention on Atlantic seaboard coal used in the production of electric energy in the Atlantic provinces.
The cost of the first part of the program so far as we can see at the present moment, would be about $12.7 million in the next two years and another $12 million to complete that part of the program. The amounts anticipated to be needed will be reflected in the estimates, and supplementary estimates when tabled. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that the amounts needed for such a program will all be provided without ultimate cost to the federal treasury.
The cost of the second part of the program will be at the presently calculated coal consumption rate of the Atlantic provinces, about $1.7 million per annum.
The present government's policy, therefore, is to offer a three-point program to the four Atlantic provinces: First, the federal government will finance Beechwood and produce lower cost hydro power for New Brunswick; second, the federal government will extend aid, as required, to all four provinces in the construction of thermal plants and main transmission facilities within and between the provinces, where feasible. This program, coupled with Beechwood, will lower the power costs in the maritime provinces and should be of value to all four provinces.
Third, the present federal government will provide a subvention on Atlantic seaboard coal used for the production of power in these Atlantic provinces so as to equalize the cost of that fuel to the cost of coal used for the same purposes in Ontario.
With one exception, Mr. Speaker, I should hope that these comments, coupled with my remarks on January 8 and 9, should be sufficient to introduce the debate on second reading.
The other matter I should like to touch upon is a delicate matter of paternity. In the course of the debate on the resolution we heard a great deal from the other side of the house about the alleged paternity of this

bill. The hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond (Mr. MacEachen) stated in this house on January 9, as reported in Hansard at page 3075:
The very inspiration for the thinking behind this proposal came from an extremely important report made in 1954 by Professor Christie of Johns Hopkins University . . . submitted on September 20, 1954 to the dominion coal board.
I may say in passing that I heard some mention of the year 1949, but in going through Hansard I could not find the reference. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) were also at pains to show that this program was announced on March 14 and enlarged upon on April 9, 1957, by the government of which they were members. Everyone knows, of course, that the programs of the two governments are not similar. They are basically different. The former government's program was to give aid only to thermal plants and transmission facilities in two maritime provinces.


Mr. Lesage:: That is not correct.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This government is prepared to give aid for these facilities to the four Atlantic provinces with no strings attached and, furthermore, this government's program has two other points of substance which the former government would not touch, namely Beechwood and a coal subvention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If it is a question for information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it is. Did I understand the hon. gentleman correctly to say that coal subventions was a subject which the previous government would not touch? I did not quite catch his words.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is totally incorrect; in fact, it is quite untrue.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I will let the people of the maritimes judge that statement.


An hon. Member:: They have already.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The only statement made by the previous government which could even be considered as relevant was made on June 6, four days before the election, by one or two cabinet ministers in the maritime area.
If I might go on with my statement, I was making the point that we offered to give aid

for these facilities to the four Atlantic provinces with no strings attached and, furthermore, that this government has two other points of substance which the former government would not touch, namely Beechwood and a coal subvention. One point only of the former government's program bears some similarity with one of the three points of this government's announced program, and, even on this one point there are marked differences.
But for the purposes of this part of the discussion let us agree that there are points of resemblance in one of the points of the two programs. Let us assume that the inspiration for this program can be found in Professor Christie's report of 1954 to the coal board. I think my hon. friends opposite would also agree that late in 1955 the premier of New Brunswick and his economic adviser approached the then government and asked for financial aid for their electrical energy program for the next ten years. And I think that they will agree that on January 27, 1956, Premier Flemming presented a formal brief for aid to either all the hydro development or for the thermal and hydro developments in that province.
My only conclusion as I read the record, Mr. Speaker, is that eighteen months elapsed before the former government would give a reply to New Brunswick's pleas for aid, and the reply that was given was given on the very eve of an election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour will recall that earlier this afternoon I was restricted in my argument on the Beechwood project. It seems to me that the minister is now discussing the Beechwood project which has been disposed of by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the point was correct, and would apply if the minister were going to discuss this matter at any length. I take it he will not, and that he will confine his remarks to the bill.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have glanced down through my notes, Mr. Speaker, and I do use the word "Beechwood" once more.


Jean Lesage: Better leave it out.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was saying that as we read the record, 18 months elapsed before the former government would give a reply to New Brunswick's pleas for aid, and the reply that was given was given on the very eve of the election. In contrast, what is the record of the present administration? Long before the election, members on this side stated in and out of season that the then government should assist the Beechwood project of New Brunswick.
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


John Whitney Pickersgill: There it is again, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is quite correct in raising the point of order. We have just passed the Beechwood bill and it is not in order to debate it again. I understood that the minister was relating this bill to the general policy and I had not thought of raising the point myself.


William Joseph Browne: I wonder if I may speak to the point of order. When we were dealing with the Beechwood project we were, I submit, dealing with a particular thing, but now, I think, we are dealing with something more general. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) would have been more in order if he had made reference to Beechwood now than he was in making reference to other projects when he was speaking on the Beechwood project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the government wishes to have an understanding to that effect it would be perfectly agreeable on our side. If we could speak about the national policy we would be happy to do so and I would withdraw any objections to the minister's reference to Beechwood.


Mr. Speaker:: All I would ask is that the house confine itself to a discussion of the bill before it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude these remarks on second reading by pointing out that we offered coal subventions as a means of lowering Atlantic power costs. We suggested and pleaded for financial aid to the Atlantic provinces in the lowering of power costs. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, scarcely six months after having been elected-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Seven months.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -and already this government has outlined its policy for aid to the Atlantic provinces for power, and on December 21, 1957, a money resolution was introduced as a preliminary to this bill. This record of action, I suggest, speaks for itself.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister. Have any agreements been signed as yet under this proposed legislation?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is no.


Jean Lesage: I would also point out what has been mentioned by the hon. member for
3258	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development Bonavista-Twillingate, that seven months have elapsed since the government took office.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question before some one takes the floor. Is not this agreement very much in line with the agreement that was submitted by the former government last spring?


Mr. Brooks:: The minister has been pointing out the differences all afternoon.


Jean Lesage: It is only a difference in colour.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This is acceptable and the other was not.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister must make up his own mind as to whether or not he wishes to answer that question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the question was directed to me, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I think it is clear in the agreements we are working out with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The principles I have outlined in this statement will be followed. The agreements have to be in detail. I have outlined the main principles of the agreements in my remarks. The bill I have been speaking about is enabling legislation. It is designed to enable the government to make the agreement. We are of course moving forward on the agreements as fast as the difficulties before the officials permit.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on second reading it is not my intention to repeat the arguments which were advanced at the resolution stage particularly in connection with the alleged paternity of this particular bill. I doubt whether there is any advantage to be had from discussing the problem in the house because no matter what points are scored they are not likely to convince either side.
For my own part, since coming into the house I have attempted to follow the developments in connection with maritime power aside from the particular problem of Beech-wood which was primarily a problem for members from the province of New Brunswick so I certainly cannot attempt to say anything to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) on that particular project. However, I believe that all the essential elements of the program which he has outlined and which was outlined earlier by the former minister of finance were contained in that very report to which the minister has made reference and to which I have made reference.
The minister has suggested that the program put forward by the former government did not contain Beechwood as part 

of the program for integrated development in the Atlantic provinces. Let me say that some of the undoubted advantages ascribed to this type of integration by Professor Christie were the economies among other things that would be derived from a unification of the hydro and thermal capacity of the maritime area. I am personally satisfied that the speed with which the minister was able to present his resolution and his bill depended largely upon the excellent preparation that had been made by the previous government and which he followed along and presented to this house.
I admit very candidly, as I did in the debate on the resolution, that there is a further improvement or addition in this program which is spelled out more fully than in the preceding program; that is, that the government is now prepared to pay a subvention on coal used in thermal plants in the Atlantic provinces at a rate marking the cost of generating heat equal to that for coal used in Ontario plants. That is an extremely ingenious method of applying the subvention principle and although I do not say this by way of criticism I would add that the subvention principle is carried beyond its normal use. As I pointed out the subvention has always been used to equalize the laid down cost of Nova Scotia coal with the laid down cost of United States coal in specified markets in central Canada. That is not the same thing and indeed, as I say, I am not critical of it but I think we should be aware that a new principle has been introduced in the application of the subvention.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if in the interests of accuracy I could ask the hon. member a question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Surely.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Am I correct in assuming that you just said that the old principle was to take United States coal at its laid down cost in central Ontario as the equalization basis?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, that is my understanding.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can add, at this stage, that that is exactly what we have done here.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With one exception, Mr. Speaker. These volumes of coal are not being sold in the same markets. In no case could either output of coal be sold in the same markets. Neither the United States or Nova Scotia coal could be sold in the same markets and so I think it is different in that sense.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
The minister has told us that parliament would be asked to provide an additional sum of $1,700,000 annually to provide this subvention for the use of coal in thermal plants. That is in addition to the sums that parliament has been asked to vote in previous years under the subvention program amounting last year, I believe, to something in the neighbourhood of $10 million and in the preceding years to something in the neighbourhood of $11 million. We are now adding further sums of the substantial moneys already voted by this parliament to stimulate coal production. The use of this subvention will certainly stabilize the coal markets in the Atlantic area which, according to the minister, amount to approximately
900,000	tons for the production of thermal electricity in the provinces specified. I just want to say to the minister that while I concede that the formula which he has devised is new I do not at all concede his suggestion that the former government did not commit itself to the use of a subvention for coal in these thermal plants.
It is true that the last time I spoke I quoted a statement made by the former minister of public works at Lunenburg, or at some other place, on June 6 to the effect that the government would subvent this coal if necessary and today the minister suggests that the case is weakened because the quotation was so close to the election day. I could give other quotations, extending back to April 29, of remarks by the same minister. I believe if the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will check Hansard of the debate last spring he will find that the former member for Cape Breton North and Victoria addressed a question to the minister of mines and technical surveys and in the answer the assurance was provided that coal was to be the fuel used in those plants. At that time, Mr. Speaker, the thinking was that coal would be subvented in relation to a competitive fuel such as oil and that if the price of oil fell below the price of coal in that area it would become the natural thing from which to generate electricity and then the government would subvent coal in order to to make it competitive with oil.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon. member a question? Can he quote any statement to that effect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have quoted.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member spoke about the former minister of public works making the remark but I did not hear him quote any statement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I quote the statement which I quoted the other day? I do not know
whether I have exactly the same quotation which I used the last day but at that time I quoted a statement from the Halifax Chronicle Herald of June 6, in which the former minister of public works is quoted- the statement was in full quotation marks- as saying that on his authority as a member of the government he was stating that a subvention would be paid on the use of coal in thermal plants if such was necessary to guarantee this market for coal.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was that information conveyed to the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, or was the statement made just previous to the election as an election speech?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. It was always my understanding in the house that this subvention would be paid. I could give other quotations from the same former minister of public works, extending as far back as April, and on his authority as a member of the government. There was never any doubt in my mind as to this being the policy of the government, and I think the former minister of public works made that clear on several occasions. I personally feel that the former minister of public works was the type of Canadian public servant who would not be apt to make erroneous statements on government policy even a few days before the election, and I think we must give him that credit. But I would say that this subvention assistance provided to coal will fluctuate with the price of United States coal.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the hon. member a question? Does he remember the statement he read into Hansard on January 9, as reported at page 3076, when he spoke about the proposal of the Liberal government? It reads as follows:
Under this proposal, the transmission lines would be rented on a non-profit basis and the power would be sold at cost to provincial electric systems.
The power commissions of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would not own those plants at all; they would be federal property.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understood they could have bought them.


William Joseph Browne: This is your own speech.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I must say in that speech I did not put on the record everything that I knew about thermal plants in the maritimes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am assisting considerably in enlightening both ministers.
3260	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I believe the house is anticipating the committee stage. I think it would be better if the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond continued with his speech.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think I have completed my remarks on the subject of the subvention. I just want to conclude by suggesting that there may be occasions when this particular formula may not be inclusive enough to provide the advantages that might be provided under the more flexible formula that had been suggested by the former minister of public works.
The principle of this bill is to provide assistance to the Atlantic provinces to provide power for industrial purposes. With that principle there can certainly be no objection on this side of the house and I know I reflect the opinion of all of my colleagues on this side of the house when I say that we enthusiastically welcome and support this particular principle. I think it should be said also that while this bill will have the effect of reducing power costs to industrial consumers, it will have no effect whatsoever in reducing power costs, in so far as I can ascertain, for commercial and domestic consumers in the Atlantic area. It will have no such effect because no such effect is anticipated in the resolution.
I stated the other day I thought that the minister had presented a misleading diagnosis of the problem when he suggested that the Atlantic area was a power-short area. I noticed that in later statements he qualified his remark to meet my objection that it was not a power-short area in the normal sense, but was an area that would enjoy benefits from the capacity to generate electricity at cheaper rates.
In his statement on the resolution stage and again today the minister suggested that the program as now forecast by his department extended over the period of the fiscal years 1957-58 and 1958-59 and that, in so far as Nova Scotia was concerned, for this particular period there would be an outlay of $3.4 million and for New Brunswick, $9.3 million. Later, he further elucidated the program for Nova Scotia and suggested that within the next two years a 20,000-kilowatt plant will be established at Trenton at a cost of $3.2 million, and that an extra million dollars will be provided for transmission lines and terminal facilities. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a modest program for the period under review. It involves an addition to the thermal power plant at Trenton of 20,000 kilowatts, an addition which I understand was under consideration by the


Nova Scotia power commission, which will undoubtedly welcome the type of assistance provided under this measure.
The program for Nova Scotia is modest in its terms, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it does not have the ambitious designs for that province that many of us were expected to believe it would have. I am confused, as well, Mr. Speaker, by the statements of the minister that the total program for those two years would cost in the vicinity of $25 million. It seemed to me that the minister suggested the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick themselves would have to bear the cost of $12 million. The minister shakes his head. I would like him to elucidate further on that particular point.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned to the minister my complete support for the ideas that were put forward by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Speaking as he did for the province of Prince Edward Island he suggested the development of thermal power plants on that island which would be driven by coal produced on the west coast of Cape Breton island. The west coast of Cape Breton island lies within my constituency and includes the coal mining areas of Port Hood, Inverness and St. Rose. Since speaking on this subject last week I have received a resolution from the Canadian Legion branch at Inverness, Nova Scotia, on the subject of power development in that area and while I am speaking on the power program for the next two years I want to exhort the minister to pay some attention and give some consideration to the views expressed in this resolution of the Canadian Legion.
As I pointed out the other day, there is a small power plant located in the town of Inverness which, when it operated at full capacity, provided an annual market for coal in the amount of 10,000 tons. Gradually the Nova Scotia power commission has been reducing the operational capacity of the plant and it is now suggested that the plant will be closed and power will be received from the seaboard plant in the constituency of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). We believe a thermal power plant should be erected in that area as part of this program, using coal from the five coal areas in that region, Chimney Corner, St. Rose, Inverness, Port Hood and Mabou. I would think that if the first effect of this thermal power program in Nova Scotia would be to close a power plant in a hard pressed mining region it would be an effect that would not be desired by the government or by any member of the house. I would again ask the minister to see what he can do, as

the minister responsible for negotiating with the province of Nova Scotia, to maintain and expand the power plant in that area.
That is all I wish to say on second reading except to reiterate our support for the bill, to congratulate the minister on carrying forward the ideas of the previous government and to express the hope that the reduction in power costs that will be made possible under this legislation will assist in the industrial development of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and whatever other provinces may be affected. We know that in that area our industrial development has not been as rapid as in other parts of Canada. We suffer from disabilities in the form of distance from markets, transportation costs and limited resources. Sometimes we have succeeded in gaining governmental recognition of these disabilities.
Now we are having a further recognition of our incapacity to provide power at cheap rates. We hope on this side that this measure will have the effect of reducing power costs for industrial purposes substantially and will act as a compensating factor to induce industries to settle in that area because our objective is not to seek special advantages or privileges for one of the oldest parts of Canada but to be given conditions and circumstances by which we can compete favourably and successfully with other parts of Canada in the economic expansion of the future.
The provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are other areas that are deserving of consideration under this measure. It must be little consolation to the province of Newfoundland to realize that this measure deals exclusively with thermal power plants while their need is exclusively for hydro power development. Certainly the demands of Newfoundland will not be met until a flexible program is developed that will permit them to develop their hydro resources in terms comparable to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Finally, I trust that Prince Edward Island will be speedy in presenting its claim for assistance for thermal power plants to be driven by coal from the west coast of Cape Breton.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, as the representative from Newfoundland in the cabinet I should like to make a few remarks at this stage, probably in anticipation of what my hon. friends representing constituencies in Newfoundland may have to say. I have had the benefit of their observations at a previous stage of the bill and I think I know something about conditions in Newfoundland. I believe I can share their first feelings when they read 96698-2074
Atlantic Provinces Power Development the resolution because I feel they did not thoroughly appreciate the advantages that Newfoundland will gain by this measure and did not sufficiently appreciate conditions as they exist at the present time.
Hon. members from Newfoundland will agree with me when I say that the power plants of Newfoundland are operated by private companies. We have the Newfoundland Light and Power Company in St. John's, and on the west coast; they have hydroelectric plants in several places. As the minister has stated, they have an oil-fired steam generated electricity plant in St. John's which he has told the house they are prepared to expand. We have the United Towns Electric Company.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not catch what the hon. gentleman said about the thermal plant at St. John's.


William Joseph Browne: There is a thermal plant which the privately owned company is prepared to expand. They are developing more power. We have the Wabana Light and Power Company on Bell Island. We have the Union Light and Power Company in Port Union in the constituency of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick). We have the new development that took place in the last two years in the constituency of Bonavista-Twillingate.


Leonard T. Stick: No, it is in my district.


William Joseph Browne: I discussed it with the hon. member for Trinity-Conception and he did not seem to think it was in his district.


Leonard T. Stick: I think a correction is necessary here. When I mentioned it I said that it was in my constituency and I also said that it supplied power to Bonavista-Twillingate. Let us get that straight.


William Joseph Browne: The plant is at Lockston, Trinity bay. On the west coast we have the newly formed Bowater's Electric Power Company which was formed last year and which is capable of great expansion. I believe there are two or three other plants, but all of them are privately owned and there is no power commission operating any plants in Newfoundland. There is, therefore, that distinction between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Hon. members on the other side of the house, particularly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who was a member of the previous government, know that the projects contemplated by the bill which are of prime concern to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have been under consideration for some years, that a report was made by the
3262	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development Montreal Engineering Company on these projects and that therefore the extension of the provisions of the bill to include Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island is something which the members of the previous government had not thought about at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He has suggested that Newfoundland was not considered in the bill. There was no bill.


William Joseph Browne: 
money. There is a tremendous advantage in part of my district being supplied that way. I speak of my district because I know it better than the others, but my hon. friends who represent other Newfoundland constituencies will agree that I am presenting a problem which must be similar to ones which they have.
There are settlements around St. Mary's Bay which have no electricity at all. What is necessary is to bring transmission lines from the United Towns Electric power lines going to Placenta from Whitbourne and bring it down to Colinet and then across to the more populous parts around St. Mary's bay. Although there may be 15 or 20 settlements around St. Mary's bay at the present time, hone of them has electric light.
The problem for the Newfoundland government or the Newfoundland power commission-I shall speak of that in a moment -is to weigh the cost of building power plants against the cost of extending transmission lines. If they do build the power plants they still have to build transmission lines. It seems to me, therefore, that the cheaper thing to do is to ask to have transmission lines built to carry the electricity from the high tension lines owned by United Towns Electric Company. In that way electric light could be delivered, as I said, up to Trepassey and into St. Mary's bay and into Placentia bay; that is so far as the riding I represent is concerned. The same thing could be done in the constituencies of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am sure they must recognize-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question on that point?


William Joseph Browne: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where does the minister think the power would be derived from, for example, in the northern part of Bonavista bay, from which company or which plant?


William Joseph Browne: I do not
know which plant could be used. There is a plant that was built at Lockston. I am not sure whether lines could be extended into the northern part of Bonavista bay. There are inlets all around that bay to which it would be difficult to extend lines. It may be necessary, in my hon. friend's constituency, to develop power. I am quite prepared to agree that if necessary that could be done, as I stated, by applying to the federal government under the principle which was decided here today, and which was stated by the Prime Minister on November 14, if the power commission can make out a case.

In 1954 when I was a member of the legislature in Newfoundland it gave me great pleasure to support a bill to establish the Newfoundland power commission. This power commission was set up with a commissioner but nothing was done. He had the power to investigate existing and potential developments for generating electrical power and energy from water power, coal, peat, gas, oil or any other source and for transmitting such power and energy with a view to supplying electrical energy and power wherever needed throughout the province and increasing where necessary the existing supply. Toward that end the commission has power to undertake research and investigations of any kind that may be necessary.
The lieutenant governor in council may, upon the report of the commission recommending the same, authorize the commission -this is an interesting point, Mr. Speaker, because the first thing which they have power to recommend is-"to contract with any person generating, transmitting or distributing elecrical power or energy, or proposing to do so, for the supply of electrical power or energy to any part of Newfoundland, and agree to pay to such person such part of the cost of the supply or such other subsidy or remuneration as the lieutenant governor in council may approve". The very first thing that is set out in the powers of the commission, after the commission has investigated the situation, is that the lieutenant governor in council may authorize the commission to purchase power and then distribute it. It seems to me that is the most essential thing they can do with a set-up such as ours.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate must be familiar with the recent history of government-owned businesses in Newfoundland. I am quite sure he will recognize there is a certain amount of risk in the provincial government going into business on its own. I am wondering if it would not be preferable for the government of Newfoundland to adopt a policy of purchasing the electricity from some private company, instead of the commission developing electricity by constructing plants of its own.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister would admit that is a matter for the government of Newfoundland to decide?


William Joseph Browne: Of course it is a matter for the government of Newfoundland to decide. That is what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) and other members of the government have said. It is a matter for the government. What do they want to do? We do not know until they tell us.
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister would not mind, I should like to ask one more question. Did not the government of Newfoundland ask the government of which he is a member to make a very small amendment to this enabling legislation so that they could make that choice and be assured of help, and did the government of which the hon. gentleman is a member not refuse to do that?


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, a copy of a message purporting to go from the premier of Newfoundland to the Prime Minister was sent to me by the premier of Newfoundland, in which it was requested that the word "hydro" be added to the bill. But it seems to me, knowing the situation in Newfoundland as well as I do, or as I think I do at any rate, the thing needed in Newfoundland at the present time is an extension of the power lines and that could be done most easily.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the most inoffensive way I can on a point of privilege.


William Joseph Browne: The hon.
gentleman is always inoffensive.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman. The hon. member used the word "purporting". Surely he is not suggesting that the message which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) tabled in this house from the premier of Newfoundland only purported to come from him?


William Joseph Browne: I did not see
that message which the Prime Minister tabled in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister did not bring it before the cabinet?


William Joseph Browne: I did not see
the message. I do not know if it went to the cabinet. I am referring to the one which I received. Perhaps the hon. member will appreciate that there are only six minutes left, and no doubt he intends to speak himself, so perhaps I might continue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


William Joseph Browne: The thing that is necessary above everything else in Newfoundland at the present time is just the very thing that this bill provides for Newfoundland, namely the right to apply to the federal government to finance the construction of transmission lines. By this means electricity can be brought in a short time to thousands of people. On the other hand, if the government is going to go into the business of supplying electricity,

Atlantic Provinces Power Development we shall have a much longer time to wait- probably years-before electricity will be developed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly that is so if this government stays in office.


William Joseph Browne: I admit that it is possible to develop small plants but the overhead in running a small plant is almost as great as the overhead in running a large plant, and few companies will be interested in operating small plants. It would take only a small plant to supply electricity to settlements such as the ones in areas to which I have referred in my riding; for example Trepassey, Portugal Cove on the southern shore and St. Mary's. The potential consumption of electricity in' these areas is not sufficient to justify the construction of any large sized plant. Offhand, it seems to me- I think it is a matter for the commission to study-that the government of Newfoundland could very easily take advantage of the provisions of this bill which enables them to get transmission lines and other facilities provided. In that way the electricity would be brought in very quickly. Even this year it could be brought to many of the people concerned.
The power commission to which I have referred has other powers, if they wish to avail themselves of them, under the Newfoundland power commission act. But up to the present time I am reliably informed that as to the chief commissioner, who is the only member of the commission who has been appointed up to the present time, all he has done is to advise the government when he has been asked for any advice. But as far as I am aware the government of Newfoundland has no concrete proposal for the development of any power project at the present time in Newfoundland. The great power of the Hamilton river has been given under option to the British-Newfoundland Corporation and I am quite sure that this influential corporation, representing as it does the great interests of the Rothschilds, the Harmsworths and the Bowaters, would be in a position to raise any funds it needs on the money market without coming to the government to look for assistance. But as to the extension of electricity to the small settlements that need it in Newfoundland, I believe this bill just does the trick and I trust that the government of Newfoundland will find itself able to take advantage of the provisions of the measure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the last statement by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), is the most astonishing statement that I have heard in this house since the present parliament began.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member has made a few astonishing statements himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for St. John's West seems to have his horizons limited to the Avalon peninsula, if one can judge by the kind of speech he has made today in which he suggests that transmission lines might be built into the provincial constituency of Bonavista North from the plant at Lockston. The plain fact is-the plainest evidence of it is the fact that the person who knew something about it, namely the head of the government of Newfoundland, himself asked for it-that what is needed in Newfoundland more than anything else is more power from small plants in these relatively isolated localities where the power could be developed relatively cheaply and where there would not, in fact-as the hon. gentleman quite correctly stated-be much incentive for a private operator to go in. But such a project, if money could be secured at a low rate of interest, or better still if they could come within the scope of this legislation, could be built and provided locally from local small streams, as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) indicated the other day in his excellent contribution to the debate on the resolution. The fact of the matter is that in the greater part of Newfoundland there is no possibility whatever of getting power from existing plants, no matter how cheap the transmission lines are, because the power is not there.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: When the hon. member speaks of the greater part of Newfoundland does he mean that the greater part of the population cannot be served by an electric plant or does he mean the area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have reference to the
area. I was attempting to make it clear that, as I understand it, what the government of Newfoundland is primarily concerned with in this legislation or in the other legislation is not a great development like the Hamilton river. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman about that matter. What it is interested in is what in another province would be called rural electrification, that is the extension to settlements along the coast of electric power, to the north side of the Bonavista area where the previous administration established this great salt fish experimental plant, and to all that region. There is no power site anywhere near there that has been developed. There is water power in that area. There are small streams that could be developed under this

legislation if the go vernment had been willing to accept the very reasonable suggestion made by the premier of Newfoundland to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the day the notice of this measure was put on the order paper.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the hon. member a question? I answered a good many from the hon. member. Does he not think that a great deal of preparation must go into the study of these projects before they can be brought forward?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course I do.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be permitted to answer that question very briefly. Of course I do, but this is only enabling legislation. Why does the government object to getting the authority to do this when the study has been made? May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for dinner recess I had just begun to make some observations about the quite extraordinary speech made immediately before mine by the hon. member for St. John's West. I think I will not continue that line for the moment for two reasons: the first is that the hon. gentleman is not yet here -no doubt he will be here shortly-and the second is that I should like to go back for a moment to consider what this bill really purports to do. I use the word "purports" deliberately, but not in the sense in which it appears to have been used by the hon. member for St. John's West.
The minister told us on the resolution stage before the bill was introduced that this measure was appropriating no money; that it was doing nothing except to give the government authority to make agreements with the provinces to do certain things. In other words, when this bill has been given third reading and passed the government will not be authorized to undertake a single project; parliament has to vote the money for each project separately in the estimates. So all this bill does is provide authority for the government to build thermal plants which can be sold to the government of the provinces concerned, and to build transmission lines which can also be sold to the governments of those provinces. Surely, therefore, the government is not committing itself to any
Atlantic Provinces Power Development particular project by accepting the suggestion which has come from hon. members from Newfoundland, and not from Newfoundland only.
I was very pleased to hear an hon. member from a coal mining constituency in Nova Scotia-needless to say, he was a Liberal- suggesting that because we do not have the coal available in Newfoundland the government should be broadminded and accept the suggestion that they take the necessary authority to do in Newfoundland the only thing which would be of real use there. I am sorry the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) is not here to hear this. It is quite difficult to understand why the government, having received a formal request from the premier of one of the provinces should have treated that request in the manner in which the Minister without Portfolio revealed it had been treated.
We know from what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in answer to a question put on the order paper by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) that the Prime Minister had received a telegram from the premier of Newfoundland and that he had transmitted that telegram to the minister of northern affairs for consideration on, I think, December 21. I have not looked up the date in the last minute or two-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-though the date is not material in any case. It was at the time the motion was first put on the order paper before the Christmas recess.
No doubt, ministers were tired, like the rest of us, and perhaps they did not spend every day in their offices during the recess, but there was time for the minister of northern affairs and some of his colleagues to have given consideration to this matter. What really shocked me, as someone who has had some experience in government, was to find that not only was this matter never discussed in the cabinet at all, as the hon. member for St. John's West revealed, but that the hon. member for St. John's West had never heard of the telegram except from the premier of Newfoundland. He admitted he got what he described as a purported copy of the telegram from the premier of Newfoundland. That does not surprise me because it is characteristic of the courtesy of the premier of Newfoundland. But apparently the hon. member for St. John's West is such an eminent member of the government and represents his province so well that the Prime Minister did not think it worth while to send him a copy of this telegram which was of such interest to the people of Newfoundland.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development I can tell hon. members that that kind of thing did not happen under the previous administration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It did not
happen under this one, either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for St., John's West put it on record himself. He said a telegram purporting to have been a copy came from the premier of Newfoundland. He would certainly not have said "purported" if he had got it from the Prime Minister. I find it very hard to understand why a matter of this importance involving this great national policy which occupied four paragraphs in Her Majesty's gracious speech should have been considered of so little moment that the cabinet did not have time to consider it and that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) should not, apparently, have given it any serious consideration, either.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I told the hon. member that no such thing happened; in effect, that the matter was considered. Any statement to the contrary is not the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that that is a question of privilege, but I do not want to quarrel with the minister. If the government did consider it, that makes the position much worse, because one could perhaps forgive the minister, over Christmas, with his many preoccupations-and I know he is working hard; we all recognize the fact that he is new in parliament as well as new in the government; and all of us are very anxious to give the greatest possible consideration to the minister because, as I stated the other day, and I say it again now, the minister is conscientiously trying to do a good job-if he perhaps failed to give this matter his immediate attention.
But I think the circumstances which I have just related make it clearer than ever that I was quite right the other day, when, speaking on the resolution, I said it was very apparent that the real disability under which the minister was suffering was that the government had no policy at all; it did not know where it was going, what it was doing or what principles underlay its policies. Therefore, the minister did not have any information with which to satisfy our curiosity.
The minister said something and the hon. member for St. John's West also said something which was really very extraordinary indeed. It was that they could not change this legislation-this very complicated legislation-because it was already planned and based on careful discussion with the premiers

of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I really do not think it is worthy of the minister to seek to insult the intelligence of the house in this way. There is nothing complicated about this bill; this is the simplest possible bill. The omission of three words would accomplish all that the premier of Newfoundland sought. It would commit the government to no specific project, but it would make it possible for the government to do in Newfoundland what it professes to want to do, that is, to help the Atlantic provinces to have cheaper power.


Mr. Cardiff:: Is the hon. member speaking to the House of Commons or to the gallery?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is speaking on behalf of his constituents, something I have yet to hear the hon. member for Huron do in all the years he has been in this house.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You have not been here very long yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing there are some people on this side of the house concentrating on Newfoundland, because it is perfectly obvious that no one on the other side of the house cares at all about Newfoundland.


Mr. Maclnnis:: It is obvious they were never concentrated upon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Cape Breton South who apparently believes in action rather than words, though he expends a great many words in the house, perhaps will make his own speech when I have finished mine.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It seems that in the last few days there have been several challenges flung in this house and all that has to be done is to check the pages of Hansard to ascertain from what side of the house these challenges have originated.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the hon. member's question of privilege?


Hazen Robert Argue: He is taking up the challenge.


Mr. Gour:: It is a guilty conscience, that is all.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) seems to insinuate that I follow a line of words rather than a line of action.


Pierre Gauthier: That is your privilege.


Joseph-Omer Gour: That is not a question of privilege, it is a speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I have said anything offensive to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) I sincerely apologize. I had no desire to offend him in any way.


Pierre Gauthier: Be careful, he is cross.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister made it very clear, and the hon. member for St. John's West underlined it in the most emphatic way, that they are not very well acquainted with the situation that obtains in Newfoundland. I am truly sorry that the hon. member for St. John's West, the Minister without Portfolio, is not in his place this evening and I think perhaps before I finish he will understand why many of my constituents said they could not understand why the hon. member for St. John's West had been made the minister for the outport-folio because his knowledge of the outports does not seem to be very exact.
The true nature of our problem in Newfoundland is exactly as it was stated on an early stage of this measure by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. It is not that we need transmission lines from the existing power plants because the capacity of the existing power plants is already being used in Newfoundland to the practical limit. I realize that in saying this I am contradicting what was said by the Minister without Portfolio in his speech. I am not saying this on my own authority or on my own responsibility. This is the best information I have been able to get about the situation, and I believe it to be exact and I think that one of the best evidences that it is exact is that the Minister without Portfolio himself said-


Mr. Baskin:: What did Joe say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I will come to that; I will satisfy the hon. gentleman's curiosity in that regard. The Minister without Portfolio said that the power company in St. John's was considering an extension of its thermal plant at the present time and he also implied-this is something about which I would like to ask the minister at the committee stage-that if the company were to extend that thermal plant it could get assistance under this legislation. I have not understood that the legislation was that extensive but it may be and I would be interested in having that matter explored a little further at the committee stage. The fact that the power company in St. John's considers it necessary to extend this thermal plant is surely the best evidence that there is no surplus power to be distributed in the rural parts of the hon. member's own constituency.
Atlantic Provinces Power Development
I do not know the rural parts of the hon. member's constituency very well, nor do I pretend to, but I have been told-I will tell the hon. gentleman by whom-by the provincial member for the provincial constituency of Ferryland that at Trepassey, a place in the hon. member's constituency which the hon. member mentioned, it would be better to develop hydro power on the spot on the Northwest river than it would be to transmit it via transmission line from the other parts of the southern shore even if there were power to transmit; that the present capacity of the existing plants is taxed almost to the full and if a transmission line were built in fact there would be no power available to transmit without taking power away from some other place where it is also needed.
In other words, even in the hon. member's constituency-I am told this by the provincial member for St. Mary's who also happens to be here on national business at the moment- that the same situation is true in St. Mary's bay. There are some other parts of Newfoundland with which I have no hesitation in saying I have a lot more experience than the hon. member for St. John's West appears to have. I was absolutely flabbergasted, if that is a parliamentary term-


James William Baskin: You flabbergast easily.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -when the hon. member for St. John's West suggested that you could build a transmission line from Lockston in Trinity bay to the north side of Bonavista bay to give power to that area.	It is
unbelievable that a Rhodes scholar, a minister of the crown, who has lived all his life in Newfoundland should know so little about the most important part of Newfoundland, namely Bonavista bay on the northeast coast, that he would not know how utterly ridiculous that proposition is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How long have you lived there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have kept my eyes open when I have been there.


Mr. Fraser:: And you have kept them closed while here.


Mr. Robinson:: You transient.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not keep my eyes closed too much either here or there. It seems to me that no worse example could be picked than that which was used. In the first place the power that is developed at Lockston is very badly needed in the immediate area.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member please permit a question.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development


John Whitney Pickersgill: Most certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate care to substantiate his claim that power can be produced by small hydro power development cheaper than it can be produced by transmission lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think that my technical knowledge on that subject would be just about as great as the hon. member's and I would say I would prefer to rely on competent engineers-


James William Baskin: And on Joe.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I am very glad the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raised this point because the hon. member for St. John's West, the Minister without Portfolio, speaking before the dinner recess referred to the Newfoundland power commission.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for St. John's East would like to make a speech and show a little interest on his own account in this matter when I have concluded my remarks.
The hon. member for St. John's West said that the Newfoundland power commission had developed no sites, that is was not an operating agency, that it had only one commissioner and he only gave advice to the government on such subjects as the government asked for advice upon. I checked that statement at dinner time with the premier of Newfoundland in order to satisfy the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Baskin)-


James William Baskin: Are you sure that this isn't a fairy tale from Fairyland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and what the hon. member for St. John's West said in this regard is perfectly correct; that it is the present function of the Newfoundland power commission to advise the government. It just so happens that the commission has advised the government on St. Mary's bay, on St. Anthony, on the north side of Bonavista bay, on the Springdale area, on the Port au Port area, on the Burin peninsula and on the Baie Verte peninsula, and in all cases it is quite technically feasible at a relatively reasonable cost with small plants to produce power for those areas.
At this point I am going to anticipate the question of the hon. member for St. John's East. I know that he wants to ask why it has not been done and I shall tell him why it has not been done. It has not been done because there was no money available to do

it. The Newfoundland government did not have it any more than New Brunswick had it for Beechwood and these are very small projects indeed compared with Beechwood.


James Aloysius McGrath: They wasted it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I said the other day, we do not object to providing juicy steaks for New Brunswick, but we are asking for a little hamburger for Newfoundland and the government refuses.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They have you; what more do they want?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members must realize that this is supposed to be a solo performance. It sounds more like a chorus. I would ask them to allow the hon. member to continue his speech uninterrupted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, though I am grateful for your intervention, that I would describe it as a chorus but rather as a series of discords.
Why is the government so insistent that the Newfoundland government should build transmission lines and not do what the Newfoundland government itself wants to do? The minister would be under no obligation of any kind to agree to any of those proposals without the most careful study. If the study proved they were not feasible, as the hon. member for St. John's East was inclined to imply they were not, I assume the government would turn them down as individual proposals, just as it would have the right to turn down thermal proposals; but why are they so reluctant, why do they not want to give themselves the necessary authority to do what the government of Newfoundland wants done? This is supposed to be a national policy. They say it is their national policy but they are so hesitant about telling us about it. They cannot tell us anything about it unless a provincial government asks for it. Here is something a provincial government has asked for in the most solemn fashion possible, but all they have received is a refusal and they have received that refusal without even the courtesy of any suggestion as to what reasons there are for not doing it.
In conclusion, sir, I do make an appeal-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest hon. gentlemen opposite possess their souls in patience because maybe I am not quite at the end yet. As I was about to say when the chorus intervened, I am appealing once more as I did at the resolution stage. I am appealing to the minister. I wish the hon. member for St. John's West were here so I could appeal to him also. I am appealing to the hon. member for St. John's East; I am appealing

to hon. members from the other Atlantic provinces, which provinces can benefit from this good Liberal legislation; I am appealing to all of them-


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a
question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to be broadminded, if I can use a favourite phrase of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who wishes to interrupt me and whose question I shall be delighted to answer as soon as I finish my sentence. As I say, I am appealing to the members of the government and to their supporters, particularly their supporters from the Atlantic provinces, to urge the Prime Minister to make this a policy for all the Atlantic provinces, not for just some of them and, when we get into committee, to move an amendment to strike out those words so that Newfoundland like the other Atlantic provinces can benefit from this good Liberal legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated at the resolution stage, and as my colleague the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) indicated when we were debating the previous measure, we support the bill that is now before the house. It is a measure which aims at improving the economy in four of the provinces of this country. We take the view that whatever is good for any section of Canada is good for the whole nation. We are happy to give our support to this bill.
However there are a few comments that I should like to make. I shall come in a moment to our contention, which we have made several times of late, that measures of this kind should be presented to parliament in terms of a policy applicable to the entire country. Before I develop, although briefly, what I intend to say on that point, may I make a passing reference to the pleasure which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) had this afternoon in pointing out that the resolution preceding this bill was first dealt with in the House of Commons on December 21, 1957. It gave him particular pleasure to boast of the fact that this measure was thus initiated in parliament exactly six months from the day the new government took office. May I say to my hon. friend that I do not wish to deprive him of the pleasure that he had in making that reference but I think he got his leader's promises mixed up. I have not been able to find that his leader, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), promised that this legislation would be before parliament within six months. Indeed that reference to six months has to do with something else that is perhaps closer to the heart of my hon. friend, coming
Atlantic Provinces Power Development as he does from the province of Saskatchewan. I hold in my hand a copy of an important blue book.


Jean Lesage: Have you the bible, too?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
is a sessional paper without a number.


Mr. Lambert:: A red one with a blue cover.


Stanley Howard Knowles: note that on March 25, 1957, in Prince Albert, as reported in the Prince Albert Herald of March 26:
Mr. Diefenbaker told a banquet in his honour that: "We will undertake the South Saskatchewan river dam within six months after we are returned to power".
As I say, I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had his promises mixed when he was boasting this afternoon of what had been done within six months of the date of the new government taking office. As has been indicated from this side of the house on a number of occasions, we are still waiting for the fulfilment of the promise to get the South Saskatchewan river dam under way within six months after the new government took office. However, Mr. Speaker, if I may refer to another page of this same valuable blue book which I hold in my hand-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What is the blue book?


An hon. Member:: What is the page?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Page 49.


Mr. Ellis:: Did you not get a copy?


Stanley Howard Knowles: may say that the present Prime Minister did make a promise that is germane to the legislation before us. That promise was recorded in the Toronto Star of June 3, 1957, reporting what the present Prime Minister said in an address at Minto, New Brunswick, on June 1, and also in a television appearance just before he made his speech at Minto. I ask that hon. members opposite note these words which were used by the Prime Minister on that occasion:
Earlier Mr. Diefenbaker told his television audience his party's watchword would be "co-operation ever, domination never" toward the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read Mr. Campbell's
letter.
3270	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


Stanley Howard Knowles: thank my hon. friends for applauding at that point and underlining the promise made by their Prime Minister. The report goes on:
A Conservative government would not lay cut and dried proposals before the provinces but would follow a policy of self-help.
I did not hear the applause that time, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Claude Ellis: Pretty weak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Forced draft.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let
us go on and see how the next sentence will be applauded.
Provinces like those in the maritimes could work out their own power and other development projects and submit them for approval to a sympathetic federal board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
hon. friends who are applauding are probably not aware of the fact that it has already been brought out this afternoon that the premier of Newfoundland requested a change in this legislation so that assistance in that one of the Atlantic provinces might be for other than thermal projects which are all that can come under the provisions of this legislation. What has happened, Mr. Speaker, to the promise that the policy of the government would be co-operation ever, domination never? What has happened to the promise that the maritimes could work out their own power and other development projects in view of the fact that precisely what the Prime Minister referred to as something he would not do has now been done in that a cut and dried proposal has been submitted to the Atlantic provinces. This is it. They must take it as it is. No changes can be made, not even the kind of changes in wording that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) was prepared to make in his famous bill regarding farm prices.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Notorious" would be a better adjective.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
hon. friend and others behind me object to my using the word "famous" and I readily accept the correction. This promise of the Prime Minister was made, as I say, at Minto, New Brunswick, in relation to the economic conditions in the maritimes; it was made in relation to the need for the development of power in the maritimes and in the Atlantic provinces generally, and it seems quite clear to me that if this promise meant anything surely the government should not now be presenting to the Atlantic provinces, to use


the Prime Minister's own words, "a cut and dried proposal" to which the government refuses to accept any amendment.
As I have already indicated, we are prepared to support the bill bearing in mind the help it does give to these four provinces down by the sea, but we feel the government could do a great deal better. Indeed, it is our view that a matter of this kind should be presented to parliament in terms of a general policy applicable to all parts of Canada.
In that connection I should like to remind the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources of the proposals that were made to the federal government on November 25 by Premier Campbell of Manitoba. This was the occasion of the open session of the federal-provincial conference. I have in mind what Mr. Campbell said as reported on pages R-6, R-7 and R-8 of the text of the proceedings of that conference contained in sessional paper No. 185-C. You will notice, of course, that this is a blue book like the other one from which I was quoting a moment ago although perhaps this one is a little more official. If I may quote in part, Mr. Campbell, in addressing the federal-provincial conference, said:
We suggest, Mr. Prime Minister, that a sound development policy in this field-
He is referring to the electrical power field, at page R-7 of sessional paper 185-C, tabled in the House of Commons on Wednesday, November 27, 1957, in English and in French.
-would be one in which your government would undertake to construct, in areas where they would become economic, long distance electric power transmission lines over which power could be transmitted on a toll basis-the toll to be set at a level which would cover interest and carrying charges once the line was being used at 75 per cent of capacity. In the meantime, during the period of demand build-up, the federal government would meet these charges. If such a proposal were implemented, it is possible to visualize a vast electric power grid which would eventually be inter-connected from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Mr. Campbell made this reference after having referred to the possibilities of developing power in northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta. Indeed, after referring to the economics involved in getting that power from the northern areas to the southern areas where it is needed he went on to make it clear that on the basis of studies that had been made by officials in Manitoba it was his view that with the assistance of federal government money made available in this way the economy of the country could be tremendously improved from coast to coast. There, Mr. Speaker, is a vision of a national development in this field in which we suggest the proposal now before parliament should have been cast.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
Lest you may think, Mr. Speaker, that my passing reference to developments of this kind in other parts of Canada is taking a little too long for a passing reference, may I point out that in the bill which the government has presented to parliament it is indicated to us that the interests of the federal government will be looked after by the northern Canada power commission and by the dominion coal board. We have heard a good deal in the house about the dominion coal board and I did not have to look that up to see what that was all about. But I confess that when I first saw the reference to the northern Canada power commission I wondered for a moment just where I had heard of it before, for it rang at least a little bell.
I began to look for it. I looked in the index to the Revised Statutes of Canada but I could not find "northern Canada power commission". I looked in the current year's estimates and in the index I did find a reference to the northern Canada power commission. That item in the index led me to page 87 of the current estimates where I found that the previous government brought in last year an estimate of $6,500,000 for the work of the northern Canada power commission under the provisions of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act.
Having seen that item in the estimates, I was convinced that there must be a Northern Canada Power Commission Act and I wondered why it was I could not find it in the index to the Revised Statutes of Canada. I started looking in a number of the annual volumes of the statutes of Canada and I still could not find in any index any reference to the Northern Canada Power Commission Act. I confess this intrigued me and I kept pursuing the matter. Finally, since I could not find it myself, I did what any intelligent member of parliament would do, I went to the library and asked our friends there if they knew where to find it.
It took our friends in the library a little while, but they found it. Just as the mounted police always get their man, the library staff always find what they are asked to obtain. In due course the riddle was solved. I was advised to look at chapter 42 of the statutes of 1956 in which, by virtue of section 1, the title of the former Northwest Territories Power Commission Act was changed to the Northern Canada Power Commission Act.
As I say, the riddle was solved. I found why it was not in the index. But I found also something else that greatly interested me. I found that there is already on the statute books legislation which might be even better than the legislation now being introduced by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Jean Lesage: That is what we said last spring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: found that, according to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, we had at that time the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act which set up the Northwest Territories power commission for the purpose of looking after power developments in Yukon and in the Northwest Territories but nowhere else. This fact led me to wonder how this northern Canada power commission, if its functions were limited to Yukon and the Northwest Territories, could take on this job in the Atlantic provinces. But I discovered by comparing chapter 196 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, with the amending act, namely chapter 42 of the statutes of 1956, that by virtue of that amendment the powers and functions of the former Northwest Territories power commission, when changed to the northern Canada power commission, were extended to give that commission power to look after electric power projects, not only in Yukon and the Northwest Territories but, subject to provincial law, in any province of Canada.
There it is, Mr. Speaker. We already have on the statute books legislation providing a public authority, the northern Canada power commission with the power to develop power projects in Yukon and in the Northwest Territories or, subject to the laws of a province, in any province of Canada. I was interested, however, in making further comparisons between the legislation that is now on the statute books and this bill that has been brought in by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In particular I discovered that in the original act, and in the amending act, it is clearly stated that power projects include electrical energy produced by hydraulic, electrical, steam or internal combustion engines or by gas, oil or any other process. It includes also thermal energy in the form of steam, hot water or hot air produced by any process for heating buildings or for domestic use or for any commercial or manufacturing enterprise or industrial process. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we already have on the statute books of Canada legislation setting up under the federal government a public authority which has power to develop power projects anywhere in Canada, provided that if it is within a province it has to be subject to the laws of the province.
The commission also has power to develop power either by thermal projects or by hydraulic projects or any other kind. In other words, hon. members will see that what we have on the statute books already in these two respects is broader than the legislation

Atlantic Provinces Power Development now being introduced by the minister. The legislation introduced by the minister is confined to the four Atlantic provinces. The legislation already on the statute books relates to the whole of Canada. The bill being brought in by the minister relates to thermal power projects only, plus a reference to transmission lines. The legislation already on the statute books relates to electrical power projects of any kind, hydraulic, thermal or otherwise. The only thing that this new bill may have that the present legislation does not have, and I am not sure it is not there in a catch-all section that is in chapter 42 of the statutes of 1956, is the specific right of the federal government to enter into financial agreements with the provincial governments.
I suggest, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that a better approach to this matter than the one which is before us now would have been for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to move an amendment to the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, as it is now called although it is not yet so listed in the index, writing into that statute provision for the federal government to enter into financial agreements with any of the provincial governments in pursuance of the power that is already there to develop power projects in any part of Canada, and to develop them in respect of power by means of thermal units, hydraulic plants or in any way shape or form, as is already spelled out in the legislation which we now have.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to support this legislation if it is the only kind of legislation under which this government will do something to help develop power in certain parts of the Atlantic provinces. We think that what is good for them is good for the whole of Canada. But we still feel, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been better to present this matter to parliament in terms of a nationwide policy. We think the basis of such a nation-wide policy in legislative form was already there in the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, which is on the statute books. We think if that act had been amended to provide for agreements with the provinces, it would have been possible then to do everything that can be done under this bill, and more. It would have provided for hydraulic projects as well as thermal projects, and it would also have permitted arrangements of this kind in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and other parts of Canada where these projects are sorely needed, and where their development would be good for Canada as a whole.

I ask the government to read again the submission on this point that was made to the federal government by Premier Campbell of Manitoba. I ask the government to consider further the submissions on this whole question that have been made by the government of Saskatchewan. I suggest that if the government across the way really means what it says when it talks about a national development policy that it has the opportunity of putting that policy into effect in this very field. Tremendous vistas of economic development do open up for Canada if we can develop electrical power. This is true for the mari-times, and that is why we are glad to see something being done. It is for this reason this bill has our vote to a man.
But, Mr. Speaker, what would be good for the maritimes would be good for Ontario and Quebec; it would be good for the whole of western Canada. We support Premier Campbell's suggestion of a vast power grid that might extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The provinces cannot do this alone, without federal assistance and federal initiative. But even the federal government cannot give assistance to all the provinces under this bill that is now before parliament. Under this bill the federal govern"-ment can do what is proposed only for the Atlantic provinces. Under this bill assistance in the field of hydraulic power cannot be given; assistance under this bill is limited to thermal projects.
After this bill passes we shall be left with two pieces of legislation in this field. We shall have the Northern Canada Power Commission Act which provides for the development of power anywhere in Canada and which provides for that development to be in respect of thermal units, hydraulic units or any other means. It lacks only one element, namely the right to enter into financial agreements with the provinces. On the other hand we shall have this limited piece of legislation relating to the Atlantic provinces which, as I say, provides for assistance only in respect of thermal projects and which is a denial of the Prime Minister's promise to the maritime provinces that he would not lay before them just cut and dried proposals.
So, Mr. Speaker, whatever happens to this bill,-that is, whether the government will consider broadening it and amending it in committee, and I think that could be done; and I hope that attention will be paid to any amendments that are made-we feel that the aim should be a federal policy in the field of power aiming at developing to the fullest extent our power resources right across Canada, whether it be on the basis of

thermal units, hydraulic units or other modern developments in the atomic and nuclear field that may yet come. We feel that this should be done with a view not just to assisting one part of the country but with a view to making possible the advantages of electric power in Canada as a whole.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we shall support this measure. It will do something for the Atlantic provinces and it has our vote. But we feel it is only a halting step in the direction of a tremendous program of power development which is possible, which we advocate, and which we hope we shall yet see in this great country of ours.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this very important bill. One characteristic of Prince Edward Islanders is a certain laconic brevity. I assure you that I will give an example of that characteristic tonight.
We welcome the new recognition that has come to the maritimes with this new government. One of the senior members of this house the other day remarked to me that for years he hardly ever heard of the maritimes but that now he hears of the maritimes every day. To paraphrase a certain expression that has become very popular here as it has in another country, may I say that what is good for the maritimes is good for the country. I therefore think that this is altogether a very healthy development. Indeed, so healthy has this development become that even certain members across the way have shown a tender solicitude for the condition and the lot of the maritimes and this they express every day. That is the kind of thing that we welcome. It was not always so obvious in years past, but it is all to the good at the present time.
Speaking of a national policy I think the minister responsible for this bill and the government of which he forms a part are now displaying their awareness and their vision of a truly national policy. In this country for so long one of the great economic drawbacks was the fact that the concentration of industry and commerce and, indeed of population, was in the centre of the country. Then during the years we were very happy to see the healthy economic development in other parts of the country, including the discovery of oil in Alberta, the rich resources in British Columbia, the steps towards diversification of the economy of Manitoba and even, despite certain political handicaps, the developments in Saskatchewan. All of these things are welcome. They are bringing about some equalization across the country so far as economic and commercial wealth is concerned. But in this picture
Atlantic Provinces Power Development throughout the years the maritimes has been the area which has lagged farthest behind in general economic welfare. Hence if the new government is concentrating on the amelioration of conditions in the maritimes it is showing, in my opinion, an awareness of the national needs of this country.
We in Prince Edward Island are much interested in this measure. We learned this afternoon that Newfoundland is interested, although they are not altogether in agreement as to what it means to them. However, we in Prince Edward Island are without those areas of disagreement. The premier of our province has communicated with the Prime Minister of Canada and he has said that he believes this offer could be extended to Prince Edward Island. He has stressed some of the needs of our province. I may say that the premier of my province has made other observations recently as quoted in the Halifax Chronicle Herald. With those observations I agree as wholeheartedly as I do with the arguments set forth in this letter to this government.
He recently said that the late government did not give the maritimes half a deal. I think that Premier Matheson is quite correct. In our little province our need is great. Our fair province is blessed in many ways but it has not flourished as has the rest of the country in these years of development in Canada. We have actually lost population. In the year 1891 our population was 109,000; then it fell to 88,000 and gradually, and only slowly, has there been a partial recovery and even yet our population has not climbed back to the original figure. The young people continue to leave the province of Prince Edward Island. At one time they went to New England and they provided the intellectual leaven and the commercial backbone of those states. Now they go to Toronto and Montreal. While we think that is a fine development for those two great cities, we do not think it is a very good thing for Prince Edward Island.
More and cheaper power as envisaged in this bill would help our province in many ways. I shall cite only a few. It might help and indeed it could help our small industries. We have a few such as our canneries, fertilizer plants, packing plants, cold storage plants and the rest. Such small industries as we have would be greatly benefited by the development of more and cheaper power. The lot of our farmers would certainly be improved by making more and cheaper electrical power available for them in their daily work. It might help and indeed I think it would help somewhat in arresting something that disturbs us greatly in Prince Edward
3274	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development Island, namely the continual move away from the farms. In the last generation there has been a 28 per cent decline in the number of farms occupied and in operation in our province which is almost purely an agricultural province. It would help to encourage new industry and thus by increasing the population of our province it would broaden the revenue base of our economy which is now perhaps more narrowly restricted than that of any other of the ten provinces in this country.
The details, of course, could be worked out in co-operation with the two governments; but it seems to me that we might in Prince Edward Island, as Premier Mathe-son mentioned, have certain thermal plants developed in our province. My colleague the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald) the other day mentioned the prospect of developing plants at such points as Georgetown, by moving coal by barge across from Nova Scotia. These plants could conceivably be developed in other parts of the coastal areas of Prince Edward Island. Possible also would be the building of transmission cables. Premier Matheson mentions that there may not be an immediate prospect of the building of a causeway. If it does not come immediately, I hope it will come soon. But meanwhile possibly a submarine cable could be constructed to bring to our province the power generated and developed in the mainland areas.
A careful study of this should be commenced immediately, as the distance across the Northumberland strait is very short. In any case, whatever plan is developed or if there should be a combination of both, I hope it goes forward and that Prince Edward Island participates to the full extent of its capacity, because we need more power and that power will be a great boon and blessing to our people.
I may say that we are thinking not only of what will help Prince Edward Island. We welcome the development of our neighbouring provinces. What benefits them is good for us; a large population in the maritime provinces means better and larger markets for us, and Prince Edward Island is, as all hon. members know, an area where the finest agricultural products obtainable are produced. An increase in the rate of development of industrial life in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would certainly benefit us by providing a greater purchasing market there.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I support this measure enthusiastically, with the conviction that this bill introduced by the minister marks a turn-


ing point in the history of my long-neglected province and of the whole Atlantic area.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, when we were at the resolution stage considering this measure I mentioned the program which had been announced by the previous government for the development of thermal power in the maritime provinces. I mentioned that that program had been announced by Mr. Harris, then minister of finance, on March 14, and I myself had given details of the program on April 9, 1957. I repeat that because of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I wish to refresh the hon. member's memory by reminding him that the program which had been announced by the previous administration was based on the provisions of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act. As a matter of fact, I wish to quote for the record what I said on that occasion on April 9, 1957, and I quote from page 3294 of Hansard for last session:
Hon. members will recall that at the last session of parliament an amendment to the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act was passed changing the name of the commission to the Northern Canada Power Commission and empowering it to acquire, operate and maintain power plants not only in the two territories but also in the provinces ''with the approval of the governor in council but subject to the laws of the province in which the powers . . . are exercised".
It had not been thought at that time that the operation of the commission would ever extend to any part of Canada other than the territories or the northern limits of certain of the provinces. However, the legal position is that the commission can, with the approval of the governor in council and subject to the laws of the province concerned, operate in any province. The representatives of both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but especially of the latter, raised considerations that gave urgency to the implementation of the federal proposal. In order to comply with the provincial desire that immediate action should be taken, the federal government has decided that the Northern Canada Power Commission should be designated as its agency to carry the proposals into effect.
I hope that in spite of what is in the bill- I do not want to refer to a particular clause *-that when the minister comes to close the debate-and I hope he will do so-he will tell the house what will be the exact role of the Northern Canada Power Commission in the implementation of the policies to be carried out under this bill which we are now studying.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter into what is called, I believe, a "who dunit" contest with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), but surely the thing is clear-does this red ribbon affect the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell)?

Atlantic Provinces Power Development


An hon. Member:: You know what a red Mr. Lesage: This is the policy outlined by rag does.	myself on April 9 last.


Jean Lesage: Yes, but I did not want to say that. The thing is clear, as I said. The principle of the legislation which is before us was outlined in the House of Commons on March 14 and on April 9 last by two members of the previous administration. The provisions of this program were such, I repeat, that they could be implemented without any special legislation because of the terms of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act. Now this government thinks it needs new legislation in order to apply a similar program. I understand that at least as far as the subventions for coal are concerned this new legislation is necessary. I realize that.
After we had outlined that program in the House of Commons and communicated with the premiers of the maritimes provinces, the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick entered into communication with us and we had discussions which continued until what might be called the great shakedown of June 10. During that period from March and April till June these discussions to try to reach agreement with the provinces were going oh, because we have always given a good example to the present government in our relations with the provinces; and we were ready to satisfy their desires.
As I say, we worked to that end until June. After June, of course, the new administration took over, but it has taken a long time for the new government to reach agreement with two Tory premiers. I should really have thought that this question would have been settled in two or three weeks after the receipt of the report of the Montreal Engineering Company on August 1, under the blue sky of the Tory heaven which we presently enjoy in Canada. But important parts of the agreement have yet to be settled, according to what the minister of northern affairs has said. He has even repeated this afternoon what he said the other day, namely that no final agreement has been reached or signed with either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, and I will ask him very respectfully-I am sorry that I have to bother him -if when he closes the debate he will outline to the house with which one of the provinces of New Brunswick or Nova Scotia he has not yet reached agreement; or is it with both? The house would certainly be interested to know, also, what are the points of difference which still have to be settled.
I intend, of course, to vote for this measure because it is Liberal policy implemented by Tories.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is so different that there is very little resemblance.


Jean Lesage: There is much less difference between the policy of the Liberals and the one which is represented in this bill than there is between the original bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and the one he finally presented on farm prices legislation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are demonstrating that you do not understand either bill.


Jean Lesage: I believe I have no lesson to receive from the Minister of Agriculture as to understanding any bill or any proposal of his if it is not muddled up by his explanations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You lack understanding, I hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Eighty-per cent Harkness.


Jean Lesage: I believe that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and I understand each other much better when we send nice notes to each other across the floor.
I want to be corrected if I am wrong but it seems to me that there is a new principle involved in the bill. Again, I do not want to refer to any given clause but according to this bill, as I understand it, the government is asking for power to make advances in the form of money to the provinces for the building of what are defined in the bill as power projects which includes thermal plants, transmission lines and other projects defined in the bill. I would like the minister to define in exact terms this new principle which I find in the bill and which, although I stand to be corrected, I do not believe he has mentioned at any time in his explanations either at the resolution stage or on second reading of the bill.
I repeat that I will vote for the principle of the bill which I favour. I hope it will accomplish the objective that we have always expected the implementation of this policy would accomplish, that of assistance to the maritimes and even the Atlantic provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You certainly tried hard to get oni the band wagon.


Jean Lesage: You are getting on my band wagon with this; you know that.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, before the debate concludes I would like to say a few words regarding this bill. I listened with interest to the speech made

Atlantic Provinces Power Development by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mac-quarrie) and it is perhaps fitting that I should follow him in this debate since my constituency is just across the Northumberland strait from his, we are close to one another, and next summer one of the fine ferries which were built in my constituency will ply between the two points, Wood island and Caribou, and also because many of the people of Prince Edward Island who have fine Scottish blood in their veins originally came from my constituency of Pictou as did the ancestors of the hon. member, I believe.
This bill will be of vast assistance to the coal industry whether the coal is taken to Prince Edward Island from the constituency of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen), or from my own county or from any part of the province of Nova Scotia and I will support any measure which will give Prince Edward Island the power which it requires.
In my own constituency there are a number of coal mines. The measure which has been introduced by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) will bring a welcome measure of relief to the coal industry and I commend him most highly on this fine piece of legislation. The coal mines in this area sell much of their coal for power purposes. The coal which is presently being mined there is not of the very best quality and much of it is sold to the local power commission in the constituency. There are three coal mines now in operation, the Drummond mine, a small operation, the Greenwood Coal Company operation and the MacBain mine which is run by the Acadia Coal Company, a subsidiary of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company.
In his statement of January 8, as recorded at page 2039 of Hansard, it was pointed out by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that one of the objects of this legislation was to give:
-an incentive to buy, produce and deliver coal of good quality for the production of the cheapest power possible in the Atlantic region.
In our area we have an untapped seam of coal of the very best kind which could be sold in any market and the development of it will certainly be helped out by this legislation. It is hoped this Black Diamond seam can be opened up and used, with the coal of the other mines I have mentioned, as a means of assisting the failing mining industry in the area.
As we all know, the principal object of the legislation is to provide low cost power to the Atlantic provinces. In this regard we

have in my constituency, if I may be permitted to refer to it once again, various types of industry. There is the local steel works where axles are made for railway cars and various other types of steel construction. There is the Eastern Car Company which makes rolling stock, freight cars for our railways and which has lately been taken over by Avro which took over control of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company operation. It is our hope that under the new crown company in Nova Scotia, Industrial Estates Limited, we will be able to induce new industries to come to the province and our own area. I submit that in view of the fact that the use of domestic coal is decreasing it must be used for industrial purposes in the maritime provinces.
The cost of power is an extremely important factor with regard to inducing new industries, especially in relation to thermal plants where the cost of fuel is a significant factor. With the subvention outlined in this bill I know we will be able to provide the low cost power necessary for industries.
We have a surplus of coal miners in our area many of whom have actually adopted different trades. It has been proven that they can turn their hand to any type of work. No industry need worry about coming into the area because we have excellent workers there.
I was not in the house when the resolution was introduced because I was absent attending to committee work but I read carefully in Hansard the discussion that took place at that time and I noted that there was a great deal of talk and argument about who was responsible for instituting this program. All I can do at this time is to cite the old Latin maxim, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. The question of who considered the proposal is not significant; who presented it is the most important thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage).


An hon. Member:: Be quiet, jumping jack.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I wish now to point out something else that was mentioned by the minister in his statement on January 8 as reported on page 3039 of Hansard:
I should add, Mr. Chairman, that the subvention will not be restricted to thermal plants operated by power utilities or commissions but would also be paid to industrial plants producing thermal power for their own use and for sale.
This is important in the province of Nova Scotia. One of the largest industrial plants is operated by a company known as the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company which is not actually a provincial power commission. In regard to that I should like to quote briefly

from a statement made by the president of the commission as reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of November 16, 1957. He is reported as saying:
The newly announced federal power development plan for the maritimes "will go a long way toward attracting large industrial users to the maritime area and should definitely help the economy of the whole Atlantic region," J. C. MacKeen, president of Nova Scotia Light and Power Company Limited, said Friday night.
Mr. MacKeen saw in the plan opportunities in expanded markets for Nova Scotia's coal mining industry. He pointed out that "great advantages can accrue from the plan to build new thermal generating stations and interconnect these over an interprovincial grid line.
I continue:
He recalled that Nova Scotia Light and Power directors, at their October meeting, had authorized construction of a 138,000-volt grid line from Halifax to Truro as the company's part of the interprovincial grid; also the building of a thermal generating station at Tufts Cove, the first unit of which would have a capacity of 100,000 to 120,000 kilowatts.
He said the new federal plan would make possible the installation of larger and more efficient units at the proposed Tufts Cove plant.
Finally, Mr. MacKeen said:
The federal plan will go a long way toward attracting large industrial users to the maritime area and should definitely help the economy of the whole Atlantic region. Always interested in the general economy of the province, the company is pleased to see-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should remind the hon. member that it is not usually considered regular to quote from newspapers commenting on what has been done or said in this house during this session, and I would ask him not to pursue that quotation any farther if he can avoid it.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Very good, Mr. Speaker. I shall just close my remarks by reminiscing back to a meeting in May, 1956, in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, attended by the present Prime Minister of Canada and the present premier of Nova Scotia, in the junior high school, which was filled to overflowing, a meeting in which the matter of a subvention on coal was brought up. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) of Canada said to the premier that he would see, and that it was his promise, that subventions were paid on coal for power purposes in the maritime provinces and that his promise would be carried out. I am sure the people of my constituency and of the Atlantic region will remember that as a promise which has been carried out, and I am pleased to be associated with it and to vote for this bill.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we can let this bill go through without making some comment from this corner of the house. We are not going to obstruct the bill in any way, but I do wish
Atlantic Provinces Power Development to point out one or two things which we think are discriminatory. I say that we are not going to vote against the bill or obstruct its passage because anything which may be done to help the prosperity of the maritime provinces is commendable. This group, of course, will support such a measure. We do wish, however, that the legislation had been framed in such a way that the maritime provinces could have taken advantage of the offer of loans for thermal power plants to generate electricity from coal, and at the same time offering the same advantage to any of the other provinces of Canada which cared to take advantage of it. That, we believe, would have been the best kind of legislation. It would not have been discriminatory, and it would be giving all of Canada the same chance as it is giving the maritime provinces.
We may look at this as a gesture of the government to help those areas of the maritimes which may be depressed; but might I say that a depressed area may not be confined particularly to a province. We may find depressed areas in municipalities. We may find depressed places in areas smaller than municipalities, all of which may be helped by some thermal power plant being placed within its borders, if such a plant were needed. I have particular reference to my own constituency, part of which is a very depressed area and refer to the Crows-nest area in southern Alberta. It is an area which produces coal in abundance. I do not always like to bring in politics and elections but in the last election in that part of the country both Liberal and Conservative candidates spoke of the need for thermal plants in the Crowsnest pass area. In fact, my Liberal opponent advertised that he had been able to get the then government to increase the subventions on coal, and I have the advertisement in my hand. It is in big letters and says:
This will mean a thermal power plant for the Crowsnest pass.
When this advertisement appeared in the papers I immediately got in touch with the government here, which was the previous government, and I discovered that no such action had been taken by that government to guarantee, promise or set the wheels in motion even for the establishment of thermal power plants in the Crowsnest pass. My Conservative candidate said, "Well, of course, that is in our program, too". I find no such indication in this measure.
I am interested in this because we find that according to this measure subventions are to be paid for coal used in thermal power plants in order to help the maritimes. I do not see why the coal which is used for the

Atlantic Provinces Power Development production of thermal power in the Atlantic provinces should necessarily have to come from those provinces. Even though this bill does not apply to other provinces, even though it is discriminatory to that extent, I do not see why it should go so far as to discriminate against the coal mining industry of one part of Canada as compared with the coal mining industry of another part of Canada. I see no reason why those thermal power plants could not be established in the maritimes and yet, through the process of subventions, use coal from another part of Canada which may be able to compete with the coal mining industry of the maritimes.
At the present time subventions are paid on coal mined in western Canada for shipment to eastern Canada. I do not know how the calculation would work out, but if the same subventions that may be authorized under this bill were added to the subvention now being paid for the transportation of western coal to eastern Canada the coal mining industry of western Canada might be in a position to compete with the coal mining industry of the maritime provinces in orders for coal for the generation of power in the maritimes.
I cannot on second reading, of course, discuss the various clauses in the bill but I do believe that the government should give consideration to making the necessary amendments so that this discrimination with respect to the production of coal can be eliminated. That can be very easily removed by simple amendments to the particular clauses of the bill that deal with the eastern coal producing areas. But more than that, of course, the bill is discriminatory, as I said before, in that it does not apply to all provinces. I cannot for the life of me see why the present government, with its desire to serve all of Canada, so they have led the people to believe, could not bring in a bill which would not be discriminatory, which would give the maritimes the same thing as this bill gives them but at the same time enable other provinces that wished to come under the measure to take advantage of the law as prescribed in such a bill. I am not saying the other provinces are going to use it because I do not know. I do not know particularly whether Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta necessarily believe they need thermal power plants.
I should like to get one in my constituency because south of the border there is the large city of Spokane and other large centres and the export of power could mean something to the coal mining industry of the Crowsnest pass. I do not know how many provinces or areas would be affected and would apply for such a loan. I do not know how many of the

western provincial governments would apply for loans. I am not even suggesting that they would apply. I am only suggesting that the legislation should be so designed as not to discriminate between one province and another. It could be so designed very easily so that the maritimes would have all the advantages they can get under the present bill and at the same time the same advantages would be offered to other provinces of Canada if they cared to take advantage of them.
I do not think I need to take any more time of the house. Perhaps there may be one or two other speakers and we may want to give the bill second reading tonight. However, I would urge the minister, who is the first Conservative minister ever to administer this department, to take a second look at the legislation and see if he cannot remove the discriminatory features from it without affecting the bill as it may prove of advantage to the maritimes.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated my support for this legislation at the resolution stage and I want to confirm my support again on second reading. While doing so, I wish to make it clear that the reason we support the bill is that it is a good thing for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and possibly Prince Edward Island. When the legislation was introduced in the house the minister made much of the fact that it was a part of a great national policy but for a bill that is part of a national policy it is a very strange one indeed because I think this is the first time a part of a national policy has been introduced in the house as discriminatory in so many ways as this bill is.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has just pointed out that the bill discriminates between the eastern part of Canada and the prairie provinces and other regions. It discriminates between eastern coal and Alberta coal. My colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), pointed out that it even discriminates between one Atlantic province and another because under the bill as it now reads there is no way in which Newfoundland can derive very much benefit from it.
We suggested that this discrimination against Newfoundland could be removed by enlarging the terms of the bill to include small hydroelectric projects or by removing the word "thermal" which restricts its application to thermal projects only. We asked the minister when he replied to our questions at the resolution stage to make it clear exactly how the bill would benefit Newfoundland. In his reply the minister made one or two statements which seemed to me to be

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
very vague and rather strange. As found on page 3089 of Hansard for January 9, the minister made this statement:
I would hope that in the future the province of Newfoundland some day could probably think in terms of coming into this wider field of the Atlantic provinces in handling power in that area.
I have pondered very deeply, Mr. Speaker, as to what that statement means. I listened very carefully when the minister was speaking this afternoon and I am sorry that he did not make any reference to it whatever. But I do hope that when he replies in winding up this debate he will tell us exactly what he had in his mind for Newfoundland when he made that statement. Farther down the same page the minister had this to say:
In regard to Newfoundland particularly, we know and expect, from the ordinary logic of the situation, that for the short-range plans in Newfoundland there may be need for transmission lines there that would help their economics and their power situation by switching surpluses to deficit areas at times of the day or in times of the year.
The minister did make some reference to this statement this afternoon when he opened the debate on the bill. He did tell us that possibly the bill could be used to grant benefits to the thermal power station at St. John's. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) went a great deal further. He enlarged on what the minister said and went so far as to say that this is exactly what Newfoundland needs. The hon. member for St. John's West listed a number of small power plants and suggested that all that was needed were transmission lines to link these plants so that they could shunt power from one station to another. If any of these stations that the hon. member for St. John's West listed today has any surplus power to transmit anywhere else in Newfoundland this is the first time we have heard anything about it.
I know that so far as my own district is concerned, the one section which is the most highly industrialized part of my riding, that is the Burin peninsula, is power hungry. The power for that area comes from the United Towns Electric Company, which was one of the companies mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's West today. The fish plants and the mines in that area are handicapped by the lack of power, not only high cost power but a lack of power. The people who live in that area are subjected to extremely high costs for the maintenance of their electrical appliances because there is not sufficient power to operate them properly.
I should like to point out still another aspect of this bill, Mr. Speaker, which I think has likely escaped the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton). Since he comes from the prairie
provinces I would not expect him to be aware of it at all, and it seems it has been overlooked also by his colleagues in the government who come from the Atlantic provinces. I refer to the impact that this bill will have on our fish processing industry. According to the title of this bill, it is a measure to provide assistance in respect of electric power development. The operative words in that title are "to provide assistance". Over and over again at the resolution stage and again today the minister emphasized that one of the ways in which the government was going to assist the two provinces concerned was to provide lower cost electricity.
In my own particular riding the main source of livelihood is the fishing industry. We have two phases of the fish industry. There is the fresh fish processing industry and the salt fish industry. Most of our salt fish has to be transported for processing to Nova Scotia. We in Newfoundland need to industrialize and process our salt fish in our own province because we need that as a source of employment. We need to retain in our province the wages of the employees which would result from processing our own salt fish. We are direct competitors in the salt fish industry with Nova Scotia, and we are already suffering very great handicaps as compared with the mainland provinces. The mainland salt fish processing plants are already fully amortized. Our own merchants in the fish business have made themselves liable for huge loans in setting up these plants. We are handicapped also by lack of transportation, and transportation costs on the mainland are far less than what they are in Newfoundland. These are two very great advantages which the maritime provinces enjoy over Newfoundland.
In addition to all this the federal government is stepping in and discriminating once more by giving the mainland people lower power costs. What this amounts to is that the federal government is interfering with private industry to such an extent that it is going to give an advantage to one businessman on the mainland as compared with another businessman in Newfoundland, both of whom are processing the same product. I do not believe the minister was aware of these facts. The result could be very serious. The obvious solution to the problem is to do the same for Newfoundland as you are doing for the maritime provinces. We are not asking for expensive plants. All we say is that if you are going to provide assistance to the maritime provinces to develop power on the mainland you should do the same for Newfoundland.
3280	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development
What we want is not transmission lines. We want power. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out, this is not an area into which private enterprise can go because it is not an economic field. It is one that involves huge costs, as the minister himself pointed out, because the transmission lines are perhaps more costly items than the plants. What we want, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out, is to utilize our small power resources and hook them up to industrialize small sections of Newfoundland, particularly those sections which have no power facilities whatever. This can be done, and if the government does not want to interfere with private enterprise and discriminate between one processor in Newfoundland and another processor on the mainland, then something like this will have to be done.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a few minutes, if I may, in support of the principle of this measure which we are considering, found in Bill No. 244 and also at pages 37 to 39 of the red handbook with which 1,500 visitors to Ottawa have been supplied so that they may find how to write a proper political program. During the debate there has been a mention of power costs, but I do not believe anyone has dealt with another point which I should like to consider very briefly, and that is the help this measure will provide to the coal mining communities, perhaps not to extend their markets but to at least hold the markets they now have.
In the riding of Halifax, on the eastern side of Halifax harbour, there is located a steam electric generating plant of the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company. It is one of the most modern plants in the world. Last year this plant used 110,857 tons of Nova Scotia slack coal, at a price somewhere around $12.50 per ton, without taking the freight rates into account. This meant an expenditure of about $1J million for Cape Breton coal. It will perhaps come as a surprise to hon. members to know that Nova Scotia coal has been fighting a losing battle for some time, and falling back upon its centre of production. Actually, coal from the United States has been able to encroach farther and farther into the markets that were traditional for the Nova Scotia coal mines.
A rather interesting facet of this bill we are considering today is the fact that slack coal from the United States had become competitive in price with Nova Scotia coal right in the capital of Nova Scotia, Halifax. I do not have the exact figures to show the cost


of slack coal from the United States, but I imagine an analogy can be drawn from the fact that ordinary coal for home furnaces from the United States was about $2.38 more per ton than domestic coal produced in the Sydney area. Another factor to be taken into consideration is the higher b.t.u. content of the United States coal.
I think perhaps the house can see the position. If this bill was not brought into effect at this time or if any agreement which this bill will bring into being did not come into effect very shortly, we may be faced with the possibility that United States coal will drive out Sydney coal from the Halifax market. With the subventions that will be brought into effect by this bill that, of course, is something that will not happen. I think that is an extremely important consideration.
I note that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) laid some stress upon the fact that other coal should be allowed into the thermal plants in the maritimes. With all the subventions in the world I do not think you would be able to bring Alberta coal into a Nova Scotia or New Brunswick thermal power plant except at prohibitive cost to the treasury. But with the subventions that we are in effect approving when we approve this bill, we shall at least be able to hold our own in Nova Scotia, using Nova Scotia coal in our electric generating plants.


Leonard T. Stick: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief because I should like to show the minister that I do not want to tie up this legislation. During the debate at the resolution stage of this measure we pointed out to the minister that we in Newfoundland wished to participate fully in the intent of the bill and the resolution. At that time I pointed out to the minister that we would not move an amendment but we asked the government to take into consideration adding just two words to the resolution so that we could participate fully in the measures designed in this bill to help the Atlantic provinces. I once more appeal to the minister and to the government that, when the bill is being considered clause by clause, the minister reconsider the situation and accede to the request from the province of Newfoundland that we be permitted to participate fully in the measures designed in the bill by adding the words "hydroelectric energy".
We have had this afternoon from the minister assurances that if the government of Newfoundland approaches the federal government for aid in building hydroelectric plants such requests will be considered on their merits. We have had those assurances previously, Mr. Speaker. May I point out to the

minister that When a bill something like this one was passed in this house and when the responsible parties who felt that they came under the provisions of a similar bill asked for the provisions to be carried out they found that excuses were made that the bill did not provide for what was said to be provided for. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and counsel who was arguing for the complainant cited the promise made by the former prime minister of Canada regarding the terms contained in the measure which was before the court. A judge of the supreme court promptly told the counsel for the complainant that he was not concerned about the promise of the prime minister or anybody else but that he was concerned with what was contained in the act and what was the law. Hence the case was lost. We now find ourselves in the same position. If we had it laid down in this act, in law, that we could participate fully in the benefits derived from this act, we should be extremely happy.
Without taking up any more time, I ask the minister and the government to reconsider their decision and to do as I asked them to do a few days ago, namely so to word this bill before it passes the house that we in Newfoundland who are desirous of participating fully in the benefits of this act may do so. I hope they will reconsider their decision. If they do that our argument will be over and we shall be very happy to participate fully in the measures provided in this bill.
Mi. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish to curtail its debate on this bill? It is not yet ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jean Lesage: Could the hon. member not finish?


Mr. Batten:: If you allow me five or six minutes, yes.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jean Lesage: If the hon. member could be given five minutes, he could finish.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Speaker, the comments which I would make on second reading of Bill No. 244 are similar to those which I made at the resolution stage. I will say again that I am going to support this legislation because 1 believe it is good legislation. Because I think it is good, I want my province to be able to partake of the benefits that will come to the Atlantic provinces because of this bill being passed by this parliament.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Jean Lesage: Why do you do that?


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be a certain pressure to call it ten o'clock, although my eyesight tells me that it is only one minute to ten. All right, the hon. member may call it ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Batten the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Mr. Green:: Tomorrow we shall commence with this measure which is No. 8 on today's order paper; then we shall take No. 5 on today's order paper, second reading of the bill to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities; then item No. 2, second reading of the bill to provide for annual vacations with pay; and item No. 4, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and Australia for the avoidance of double taxation.
Then on Wednesday, as requested by the hon. member on Saturday, we shall take the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, followed by the estimates of the Department of National Revenue which will be commenced, again in order to meet the wishes of hon. members, with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether the house leader would not give consideration to dealing with items 2, 4 and 5 tomorrow and leaving item No. 8, which is the matter under discussion now, until a later date. The reason is that some of the members are tied up at the convention tomorrow and they would like to take part in the discussion in committee. I remind the leader of the house of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in which he said in effect that he would be glad to give careful consideration to any request that would be made. In fact, he went farther than that when he made the motion. As reported at page 3187 of Hansard he said:
-I move this resolution, and say to my hon. friends opposite that if during the progress of the convention there are any matters on the agenda of parliament which they feel are of such a controversial nature that they ought not to be discussed in the absence of any of the members of the opposition, I shall do my part to comply with any requests I may receive. It is in that spirit that I move this motion.
3282	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
While I am grateful to the leader of the house for the consideration that has been shown with respect to the business for tomorrow, I think it would be extremely helpful to us if we could have the same consideration concerning item No. 8 on today's order paper for tomorrow because I am informed by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage), who has a distinct interest in this matter, that he is going to be tied up all day. That statement goes for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) also.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we have met all the wishes that were expressed by the official opposition last week. My hon. friend will have noticed, in quoting what the Prime Minister said, that the Prime Minister referred to contentious matters.
This is a measure which all the members of the official opposition have said they are supporting. I do not know why they should now ask that this should not be taken up tomorrow. We have made Wednesday's arrangements particularly to meet the wishes of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), and surely the convention can spare the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) for a short time tomorrow afternoon. I am sorry, but I cannot agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: The leader of the house refers to having met all our requests. May I draw to his attention that we made no request, as he knows, in connection with the convention as a whole. We were careful not to make any requests at all in that regard. But once it had been decided that the house would adjourn on Wednesday at six o'clock so that we would have all day Thursday free, there was a suggestion, which came from me, that we should take up the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on Wednesday. That was accepted, and I am grateful to the leader of

the house, but it would be a matter of great convenience to us if the other item could be left until a later date. I say that not because we want to retard the passage of this measure-in fact, we would be prepared to give it second reading now if that had the consent of the other groups so that in committee any hon. members who might wish to discuss this question would have that opportunity. So I think we are going more than half way in an attempt to assist the government to get its legislation through.


Howard Charles Green: If I were to accede to the hon. member's request, this legislation might not be able to go through until next week. I am very sorry, but I cannot do that. After all, this is legislation which everybody has approved, and I do not see that the Liberal convention is going to suffer irreparable damage if the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet is here for an hour or two tomorrow afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might point out that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet is by no means the only member who wishes to participate in the proceedings at the committee stage. I think every Liberal member from Newfoundland would like to do so. If this is the final word of the government, we have to accept it, but I think in view of what the Prime Minister said it will be viewed very badly by the public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder whether the leader of the house, in line with the best traditions of leaders of the house, can tell us what the business will be on Friday and Saturday of this week?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give that information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The sooner we get Walter Harris back here the better.


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

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