1958-06-03

STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Anderson	McBain
Argue	McMillan
Barrington	Michaud
Boivin	Milligan
Boulanger	Montgomery
Brunsden	Morissette
Cadieu	Muir (Lisgar)
Campbell (Lambton-	Nasserden
Kent)	Noble
Cooper	Peters
Doucett	Phillips
Dubois	Pugh
Dupuis	Racine
Fleming (Okanagan-	Rapp
Revelstoke)	Ricard
Forbes	Richard (Kamouraska)
Forgie	Richard (St. Maurice-
Godin	Lafleche)
Gour	Robinson
Grills	Rompre
Hardie	Rowe
Henderson	Smith (Lincoln)
Hicks	Speakman
Horner (Acadia)	Stanton
Howe	Thomas
Jorgenson	Thompson
Kennedy	Thrasher
Kindt	Tucker
Knowles	Villeneuve
Latour	Winkler
Leduc	Yacula-60.
Letourneau	
(Quorum-20)	
BANKING	AND COMMERCE
	Messrs.
Allard	Horner (The Battle-
Allmark	fords)
Asselin	Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Benidickson	Jones
Brassard (Chicoutimi) Jung	
Cardin	Keays
Cathers	Lockyer
Chevrier	MacLean (Winnipeg
Chown	North Centre)
Coates	Macnaughton
Creaghan	Macquarrie
Crestohl	MacRae
Deschambault	Martel
Drysdale	Martin (Essex East)
Dumas	Mcllraith
Flynn	More
Fraser	Morris
Gour	Morton
Southam
Tasse
Taylor
Thomas
Thrasher
Vivian
White
Winch-50.
(Quorum-15)
[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Paul Regnier
Richard (Ottawa East) Roberge Rompre Winch-12.
(Quorum-7)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Allard	Lennard
Anderson	MacEwan
Argue	MacLean (Winnipeg
Baldwin	North Centre)
Benidickson	Macnaughton
Best	McCleave
Bissonnette	Mcllraith
Bourget	McIntosh
Brassard (Lapointe)	McMillan
Broome	McQuillan
Bruchesi	Me William
Cardin	More
Carter	Murphy
Cathers	Nasserden
Chambers	Nielsen
Chown	Payne
Clancy	Pickersgill
Coates	Ricard
Danforth	Richard (Kamouraska)
Doucett	Rowe
Dumas	Small
Fisher	Smallwood
Garland	Smith (Calgary South)
Gillet	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Grafftey	Stanton
Hales	Stefanson
Hardie	Stewart
Hicks	Tasse
Howe	Thompson
Johnson	Vivian-60.
Jung (Quorum-20)	
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	
Aitken, Miss	Messrs. Herridge
Best	Jones
Brassard (Lapointe)	Jung
Cardin	Kucherepa
Crestohl	Lafreniere
Deschatelets	Lennard
Dorion	MacLellan
Eudes	Macnaughton
Fairfield	Macquarrie
Nugent
Pallett
Pascoe
Pickersgill
Regier
Robichaud
Rowe
Rynard
Campbell (Lambton-Kent)
Chevrier Doucett McPhillips Monteith (Verdun) Nixon
[Stage Direction]

Standing Committees
Mandziuk
Martin (Essex East)
McCleave
McFarlane
McGee
McGrath
Nugent
Paul
Pearson
Pratt
Richard (Ottawa-East)
Smith (Calgary South)
Stinson
Valade
Van Horne
Vivian
White-35.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Allmark
Beech
Benidickson Bourdages Brassard (Lapointe) Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
Caron
Cooper
Deschatelets
Drouin
English
Grafftey
Granger
Houck
Lafreniere
Lahaye
Loiselle
Maclnnis
MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre)
Mandziuk
Martini
McDonald (Hamilton South)
McWilliam
Mitchell
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria)
Noble
Peters
Pigeon
Ricard
Skoreyko
Small
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Spencer Stanton Weichel-35.
(Quorum-10)
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs.
Aitken, Miss
Argue
Best
Bourbonnais
Bourque
Brunsden
Campeau
Dorion
Eudes
Fairfield
Fisher
Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Forbes
Frechette
Grenier
Hanbidge
Houck
Kindt
Knowles
LaRue
Lennard
Lessard
Macquarrie
Martineau
Matthews
McFarlane
McGee
Mcllraith
Muir (Lisgar)
Nixon
Pigeon
Racine
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East)
Simpson
Skoreyko
Small
Smith (Lincoln)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Stinson
Tremblay
Tucker
Van Horne-44.
O'Leary
Phillips
Pickersgill
Richard (Kamouraska) Robichaud
Speakman Stefanson Stewart Tucker Webster-35.
(Quorum-10)
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs.
Aiken
Baskin
Bruchesi
Cadieu
Coates
Drouin
Dumas
Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) Frechette Garland Godin Granger Gundlock Korchinski Latour Leduc Legere MacRae
Martel
Martin (Timmins) Martineau McLennan Mitchell
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Murphy Nielsen Payne Pugh Roberge
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Robichaud Simpson Stearns Villeneuve Woolliams-35.
(Quorum-10)
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messrs.
Baldwin
Baskin
Batten
Beech
Bigg
Broome
Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
Campbell (Stormont) Carter Chown Danforth Forbes Forgie Garland Horner (The Battlefords)
Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Houck
Jorgenson
Kennedy
MacEwan
MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre) Macnaughton Mandziuk Martin (Timmins)
Matthews
McBain
McCleave
McFarlane
Mcllraith
McMillan
McPhillips
McWilliam
Milligan
Mitchell
Monteith (Verdun)
Montgomery
More
Morton
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Nixon Ormiston Pascoe Peters JRobinson Rogers Simpson
Smith (Simcoe North) Smith (Lincoln) Stefanson Wratten-50.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
MARINE AND FISHERIES	(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Messrs.	Messrs.
Anderson	Howard	Allard	ClancyBatten	Keays	Asselin	CooperBelzile	Legere	Badanai	CreaghanBourget	Macdonald (Kings)	Barrington	DeschambaultBrowne (Vancouver-	MacLellan	Batten	DuboisKingsway)	Matthews	Belzile	DupuisCarter	McGrath	Bissonnette	EnglishCrouse	McPhillips	Boivin	FaneDanforth	McQuillan	Bourdages	FlynnDrysdale	McWilliam	Bourque	GilletEnglish	Michaud	Brunsden	GodinGillet	Morris	Cadieu	GraffteyGranger	Noble	Campeau	Gundlock
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
Henderson	Michaud	Fraser	McPhillipsHoward	Morissette	Grills	MichaudJorgenson	O'Leary	Gundlock	Monteith (Verdun)Korchinski	Phillips	Hales	NielsenLahaye	Rapp	Hardie	NixonLessard	Ratelle	Horner (Jasper-Edson)	PascoeLetourneau	Rouleau	Horner (Acadia)	PayneLoiselle	Rynard	Howard	PhillipsMaclnnis	Skoreyko	Howe	RacineMacLellan	Southam	Johnson	RouleauMartin (Timmins)	Taylor	Keays	RynardMartini	Thrasher	Kennedy	SmallwoodMcLennan	Winkler	LaRue	Smith (Simcoe North)McWilliam	Yacula-54.	MacEwan	Smith (Calgary South)Maclnnis	TassePRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS	Martin (Essex East)	TaylorMartini	ThompsonMessrs.	McBain	TuckerAiken	Macquarrie	McDonald (Hamilton	WebsterBarrington	McBain	South)	Wratten-60.Beech	Mcllraith	McMillan	Benidickson	McLennan	(Quorum-20)	Carter	Meunier	Chambers	Ormiston	RESTAURANT	Deschambault	Paul	Flynn	Pickersgill	(Members to act on the part of the Commons)	Fraser	Richard (Ottawa East)	Mr. Speaker and Messrs.	Grills	Rogers	Bourque	McDonald (HamiltonHardie	Smallwood	Caron	South)Henderson	Tasse	Carter	McGregorHoward	Valade	Deschatelets	McQuillanJohnson	Woolliams-29.	Godin	Muir (Lisgar)Kucherepa	Gour	Parizeau(Quorum-10)	Halpenny	PrattKnowles	Smith (Calgary South)PUBLIC ACCOUNTS	Lafreniere	StearnsLegere	StinsonMessrs.	Letourneau	TaylorAllmark	MacRae	Martin (Timmins)	WeichelBadanai	Martel	Wratten-24.Bissonnette	McCleave	Boulanger	McGee	STANDING ORDERS	
Bourbonnais
Bourget
Campbell (Lambton-Kent)
Campbell (Stormont)
Campeau
Cathers
Coates
Crestohl
Denis
Drouin
Fraser
Granger
Grenier
Hales
Hanbidge
Hardie
Horner (Acadia) Houck Keays Lahaye
Macdonald (Kings)
McGregor
McMillan
Morissette
Morris
Morton
Murphy
Nasserden
Nugent
Pickersgill
Regier
Robichaud
Small
Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Spencer
Stewart
Valade
Villeneuve
Winch
Wratten
Yacula-50.
Messrs.
Aitken, Miss
Argue
Best
Bourdages
Brassard (Chicoutimi)
Campeau
Denis
Forgie
Frechette
Qarland
Horner (Jasper-Edson) Kucherepa Loiselle Martineau McGrath Meunier Milligan Mitchell Spencer Tremblay-20.
(Quorum-8)
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Allmark
Asselin
Badanai
Baldwin
Baskin
Batten
Bigg
Bourbonnais Brassard (Chicoutimi) Brassard (Lapointe) 57071-3-50
Bruchesi
Campbell (Stormont)
Chevrier
Chown
Creaghan
Crouse
Drysdale
Dupuis
English
Fisher

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Anderson	Macdonald (Kings)
Batten	MacEwan
Benidickson	MacRae
Bigg	McIntosh
Broome	McWilliam
Brunsden	Montgomery
Cardin	Ormiston
Carter	Parizeau
Clancy	Peters
Denis	Regnier
Dinsdale	Roberge
Fane	Robinson
Forgie	Rogers
Garland	Speakman
Herridge	Stearns
Houck	Stewart
Jung	Thomas
Kennedy	Webster
Lennard	Weichel
Lockyer	Winkler-40.
(Quorum-15)
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Cardiff moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on May 27 the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked whether the house could be given any report on the developments in France. At that time I indicated that in view of the situation then prevailing it might be well to postpone any statement.
In recent weeks Canadians have watched the French political scene with concern and sympathy. Considering how closely our history and traditions are interwoven with those of France, the deep interest taken by our people in recent events there is not surprising. We now welcome the solution of the parliamentary crisis in France and express the sincere hope that under the leadership of their wartime hero, General Charles de Gaulle, as prime minister, France will enjoy political stability and economic prosperity.
I know that I speak for all Canadians when I say I am confident that the warm and friendly relations which are inherent as between Canada and France, and which have been strengthened in two world wars and in recent years by our common membership in NATO, will continue as before.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, or alternatively in his absence to the Minister of Transport. My question is based upon a press statement in a Montreal newspaper of recent date entitled " Last Bid in Rail Dispute", and it points to the seriousness of the situation as it was then, only a few days ago. I read but one paragraph, which is as follows:

The odds are stacked heavily against averting a deadlock over union wage and welfare demands involving more than $100,000,000 a year for the railways. Collapse of the public conciliation proceedings is seen by labour observers who forecast another serious railway-union crisis close on the heels of the three-day strike of diesel firemen against the Canadian Pacific Railway earlier this month.
What is the government doing to avert a strike between non-operating employees of the railways and the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the government is taking the normal steps in the way of offering to provide a conciliator, and it is our hope that the normal procedures of collective bargaining between management and the unions will be able to work out a satisfactory solution to this problem.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not true that the conciliation proceedings have broken down?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, these matters have been directly handled by the Minister of Labour. I do not know the exact status of the negotiations at the present time but I will check on it and give an answer tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the last question asked by the hon. member for Laurier, I have just been advised by the Acting Minister of Labour that the hearings have been adjourned for three days this week and will be resumed on Thursday. There has been no breakdown.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the report in this morning's press that President Eisenhower has approved a message to Soviet Premier Khrushchev indicating his readiness to have Polish, Czech and other scientists included in proposed scientific talks on how to police a suspension of nuclear weapons tests?
Can the Prime Minister say whether Canada will be included in such scientific talks, and whether Canada has been consulted in this regard?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his question. As I said yesterday in my remarks about Mr. Khrushchev's letter to me, I

welcome the Soviet readiness to participate in a study of the technicalities of the controls required to accompany a suspension of nuclear tests.
In his letter of May 30 to President Eisenhower, Mr. Khrushchev was somewhat more specific about the arrangements for the meeting of experts and made a number of suggestions concerning the time, place and duration of the meeting, as well as about the participants. It is a matter of satisfaction to me that President Eisenhower has indicated that for his part he does not wish to allow questions of this kind to impede the early convening of a meeting of the experts.
Canada has for some time been in consultation with the United States, the United Kingdom and with others of the North Atlantic treaty alliance on this question. We had the opportunity of examining in advance and consulting upon the draft of the letter sent by the President on May 24, and we made our views known to the United States department of state. The particular statement which was reported in this morning's press was not the subject of specific consultations. However, we had in an earlier communication to Washington referred to the possibility that the Soviet union might wish to include representatives from other communist countries and we had made no obj ections.
With regard to Canadian participation in the talks, I would recall that President Eisenhower's letter of May 24 referred to the inclusion of scientists from the United Kingdom and France and "other countries having experts who are advanced in knowledge of how to detect nuclear tests". I think I can safely observe that not many countries are better equipped than Canada to make such a contribution, and in the event of Canada receiving a request to provide an expert or a team of experts, we will certainly agree to do so.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. After consultation with my conscience I decided that the original version transgressed the rules of the house, so I will now ask the decapitated edition.
In view of the government's announced policy to eliminate waste and extravagance, would the government give consideration to all engraving of Bank of Canada notes and government bonds, etc., being undertaken in future by the queen's printer, to eliminate any 57071-3-50$
Inquiries of the Ministry extravagance in present costs and recover some of the alleged waste of public funds attributed by the minister's colleagues to the apparently timeless building and rebuilding of the printing bureau?


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the hon. member has reduced his question, but before leaving the minister to deal with it, if he wishes to do so, may I say that the last statement seems to be surplus information given to the house rather than a request for information.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then would the minister mind answering my question as though I had not asked the last portion?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I should be very glad to reply to the hon. member's question as though he had not asked any part of it.
I do not understand that the queen's printer is equipped to print currency and those other issues which are supplied to the government or to the Bank of Canada from time to time by the two bank note companies. If he were equipped to print those types of engraved issues, I am still not at all sure that he would be able to do so at prices lower than those which are now being charged by the two companies which are doing the engraving. I can assure the hon. member that wherever there is any evidence of waste or extravagance, it is our intention to root it out.



DOMINION COAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Oiiawa West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. My question is, has the Dominion Coal Company asked the government for a loan to carry the company until it liquidates its stockpile of some 1.4 million tons of coal; and if such a request has been made, what action has been taken on it by the government?


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. In answer to the first part, I will say that such a request has been received; and, to the second part, that the matter is under consideration.



REPORTED DECREASE IN PRODUCTION IN APRIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gaie):: I wonder if I might direct a further question to the Minister of Mines and Tech-

Inquiries of the Ministry nical Surveys, also about coal. Is the minister aware that the production of coal in Canada decreased by more than 10 per cent in the month of April, and can he tell the house what the government is doing about this situation?


Paul Comtois: I do not know whether it is within my authority to give such information. All I can say is I am aware of such a decrease. I do not know what is the purpose of the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would ask the hon. member for Halifax.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the newspaper reports contained in today's issue of the Globe and Mail and the Montreal Gazette relative to the proposal of the Canadian Welfare Council that a royal commission be set up to study all aspects of Canada's social security program?
If so, could the minister inform the house if any consideration is being given by the government to this and other important recommendations of the Canadian Welfare Council?


Hon. J. W. Monieilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. My attention has been drawn to the newspaper reports. I am always glad to learn of the views of so important a body as the Canadian Welfare Council and I can assure the hon. member that I am awaiting with great interest any recommendations the council may wish to make on this subject. Such a recommendation would, of course, be given every consideration.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister care to comment on the situation surrounding the use of a statement by herself accompanied by a very charming photograph of the hon. lady in a full page advertisement by Time magazine in its cur-

rent issue? Does the minister feel that in the use of her photograph and statement care should have been taken to avoid any impression that she was publicly endorsing this particular publication?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that I was not aware there was any carelessness.


Lionel Chevrier: I liked the picture. IMMIGRATION



REPORTED DENIAL OF ENTRY TO CANADA OF DUTCH FAMILY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I wonder if I could ask the hon. lady if she is aware of the circumstances reported in the press concerning a Dutch family from Indonesia who arrived at Halifax and seems to have been denied entry by the hon. lady's department, and if she does not think this is a case for compassionate action on her part.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the circumstances have not been drawn to my attention. I will be glad to inquire into it.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a question. Can the minister advise the house whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has decided not to use the Don Messer show as a substitute for "Holiday Ranch"?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his question about three minutes ago, and I have just finished reading it. As I have said time and again in this house and outside of it, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is entirely independent as far as its programming is concerned. I have no knowledge of the change in program although, coming from the east, I have enjoyed the Don Messer show for many years. I shall be very glad to make inquiries

as to whether this is going to be a permanent loss to the people of Canada, and will advise the hon. member accordingly.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Acting Minister of Labour if the hon. lady is prepared to answer a question I asked yesterday as to who is the leader of the Canadian delegation at the current conference in Geneva of ILO, the international labour organization?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The Canadian delegation to ILO is headed by the deputy minister, Mr. A. H. Brown. The employer delegate is Mr. H. Sparks. The worker delegate is Mr. Claude Jodoin.


William Limburg Houck: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the acting minister advise how long the minister will be in attendance at this conference, and what is his position?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am not sure of the exact number of days; something between a week to ten days, I understand.


William Limburg Houck: A further supplementary ques-ton, Mr. Speaker. What is his position at that conference?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: His position, Mr. Speaker, is that of minister in attendance.


Mr. Pearson:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In attendance on whom?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is, attendance at what?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition indicated in general terms his intention to ask whether the charges that strategic air command bombers fly over Canada with nuclear weapons in the direction of the Soviet union are true.
First of all, I should state that the letter from Mr. Khrushchev is still being studied, and I would not wish to take a definitive position now upon any of its details. May I, however, draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to page 3123 of Hansard for January 10, when the matter was before the
Inquiries of the Ministry house, and also page 3188 of Hansard of January 11, where earlier remarks by the Minister of National Defence and myself are to be found. Those replies and the answer given by the Minister of National Defence on November 27, 1957, at page 1566 of Hansard provide much of the answer to the present question. I refer specifically now to the . latter question which appears at page 1566, where the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) asked this question:
May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of a reported statement made by the British foreign minister to the effect that United States bombers flying on routine flights over Britain carry live bombs in order to maintain a state of readiness at all times, can the minister state whether United States planes with such bombs are permitted to fly over Canada?
To which the Minister of National Defence replied as follows:
By agreement with the United States, only with prior permission from Canada.
In the passages to which I have referred the house was informed that United States-bomber aircraft carry nuclear weapons over Canada only with prior permission from Canada; that each flight is dealt with separately by specific application, and there is no blanket authority; that the weapons are inactivated in order to avoid the possibility of accidents; and that the procedures being followed are unchanged from those which had been instituted by the previous government.
The earlier questions were more concerned with the nature of the international arrangements and with safety precautions than with the fact that flights by the strategic air command might be taking place over Canada. Nevertheless, the answers to which I have referred did make it plain that such flights do take place. The Leader of the Opposition, I am sure, will at once recognize that it would not be in the public interest for me to give any indication of either the frequency of such flights or the numbers of aircraft involved. However, in order to provide information such as that to those who are of the privy council the government will at all times be prepared to give that information privately. However, 1 wish to make one thing perfectly clear, that none of those flights to which I have made reference has approached or been to the borders of Canada and the U.S.S.R.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his information. I quite agree that it would be inappropriate to ask for or to be given information about the details of a matter of this kind. But I think his answer to the question is important in that it should help clear the air over a story that has appeared in publications in the

Inquiries of the Ministry United States to the effect that this practice is conducted, that it is almost continuous, and that Canadian air space is used for flights of this kind. The Prime Minister's statement that no flights of this kind over Canadian territory take place without authorization in each individual case will, I think, be very helpful.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I can ask the Minister of Public Works if he has received representations from Sir Brian Dunfield about the proposed harbour development at St. John's, which I understand have just been made public. If so, what consideration is being given by the department to those representations?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether this is a question for the orders of the day. However, we have had representations from Sir Brian Dunfield. They have been very carefully considered, but I am afraid he does not think along the same lines as the officials of the department, or the great majority of the people of St. John's.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister ascertain from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation if they are giving consideration to the establishment of a television station in central Newfoundland?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, while I have not received notice of the question I think I can answer it generally. As the hon. member knows, the microwave system is being extended to Newfoundland. We trust that extension will be completed within the next few months, and as the system is completed consideration is being given to the establishment of stations in various places along the line.



FINAL PAYMENT ON 1956-57 CROP   DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would have anything further to report on when the final payment on the 1956-57 wheat crop will be announced. Is he prepared to say, at the same time, whether an announcement will be made as to whether or not a deficiency payment is to be made?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the two announcements would not be made simultaneously even if the two announcements were going to be made. An announcement regarding the final wheat payment will be made in due course.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question. A week ago Monday the minister used the phrase "within a few days". Is his statement now to be taken as meaning the announcement will be further delayed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, it is still within a few days, Mr. Speaker.

The house resumed, from Monday, June 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL FISCAL RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, when the unrelenting clock stopped my remarks last night, I was speaking about the unemployment situation. I should now like to quote the very figures given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who said that on April 30 there were more than 722,000 unemployed in Canada. It is an alarming situation considering that never, at any time, since the depression of 1930-1935, has the April unemployment figure been so large in this country. And any time unemployment is up for discussion, everybody tries to pass the buck.
Whatever might be the cause of unemployment, whatever the views of this or that man on the subject, and whatever the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) might have said about it during the recent elections or those of last June 10-whatever each man's private opinion may be in the matter- the incontrovertible fact stands out that the number of unemployed in this country has

never been higher. This is a danger, a hazard even for public peace because we must not forget, as Saint Thomas says, that: "To be virtuous, people must have a modicum of comfort". And if a considerable number of our labouring fellow-citizens are practically starving, there is always a danger that they will rise against the state, the municipalities or the provinces. Therefore it is time that our government give its full attention to extending a helpful hand to the unemployed.
I said, not more than a few days ago, that in the Hull area alone, 51.8 per cent of the unemployed are people willing to work but unable to do so because there is no work to be had. They want help because they are not getting unemployment insurance, have used up all their stamps and are no longer qualified for benefits. They are human beings in need of help and it is up to the municipality to do what it can to feed them. The welfare services are doing their share, but things are now so bad that people are even asking that their rent be taken care of, so as to avoid being turned into the streets. Something must be done without fail.
As I said a moment ago, whatever responsibility might rest elsewhere, this government must face its own responsibility. I am referring to the situation which prevailed in 1953-1954 when the provincial government was paying 50 per cent of public relief. That year, the city of Hull spent $90,000 out of a total of $180,000 on relief. In this year 1957-1958, when cities have only 25 per cent to pay as their share, so far the city of Hull has had to spend $115,000 which represents a total of more than $480,000 for public assistance. Can it continue to provide all that is required when the unemployment situation is not the responsibility of the municipalities? In fact, the responsibility lies with those governments which lacked foresight and, in my opinion, it lies mostly with the present government which allowed us to lose our markets at a time when Canada with a population of only 17 million is producing for a population of over 48 million people. Accordingly, those surpluses have to be marketed abroad, and when Canada loses those markets, it means unemployment, plant shutdowns and evictions.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the present government, because it is responsible for this problem, to give the municipalities a chance to undertake at once public works for the immediate relief of the unemployed.
Speaking of public works, may I mention that for years we have been asking for a bridge between Ottawa and Hull. While such a bridge is recognized as a necessity, succes-
3, 1958	783
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations sive governments have claimed that it should be paid for on a 33J per cent basis by each level of government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that situation is growing worse day by day. It might be necessary for the present government to build it entirely at its own expense. If anyone wishes to know how much it would cost, I would quote a figure mentioned by the Prime Minister when he was visiting Hull; he said at the time that the bridge would probably cost about $12 million. Well, if $12 million have to be spent in three years to relieve the serious unemployment problem, I think the present government should assume the entire cost, because I am convinced that if we wait for Quebec to pay its share of one third, we shall never have it, because that government is concerned not with the welfare of people but with petty politics only. And because the people of Hull elected a Liberal member to the provincial legislature, we can be sure of not getting any help, especially in the light of the statement made by the premier of Quebec in Shawinigan Falls, when he said: "You will have no bridge if you don't elect a member of the Union Nationale."
Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait indefinitely. I would therefore ask the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) to make an earnest study of that situation in order that the building of that bridge may begin in the very near future.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and refer to a lot of public works which are urgent in my riding; and perhaps I could also, under the circumstances, answer many statements which were made on both sides of the house. However, I conclude by asking the members of the Union Nationale wing in the Conservative party to make their stand very clear.
How do they stand in the matter of the sharing of tax rights as between the government of Ottawa and that of Quebec? I hope that they are not going to keep talking about confederation and all the rest of it, but that they will tell us intelligently and frankly what is going to be their attitude when the government they are supporting will simply continue the policy of the preceding governments. Then we might be able to believe in their sincerity if they agree that their slogan of the last election: "Canada gives to foreigners but the province gives to its own citizens", is not true.
We would also like to know their stand in the matter of our contributions to the Colombo plan. We also want to know, now that they sit in Ottawa, whether they have enlarged their horizon and intend to live like Canadians, or narrow-minded Quebecers who want to stay in their reserve for the rest of their lives.

Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations


Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer to the house, I had no intention of taking part in this debate. However, because of certain allegations made by some of our hon. friends opposite, and because of the rather light-hearted way in which they have been dealing with matters of principle, I did feel it would be proper that one voice at least from the province of Quebec be raised in rebuttal. In speaking then as a member for that province, I feel that I will be at the same time expressing feelings of a sound Canadianism.
In fact, it is from that rather general angle of Canadianism, that I propose to deal with one of the two problems referred to in the non confidence motion put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). The amendment comprises two distinct parts. The first deals with the recession and with the difficulties that it might involve for the municipalities and towns of this country. The second deals with the equalization principle and consequently touches upon one of the fundamental problems which are of interest to the people as a whole. It is with this second paragraph of the amendment put by the Leader of the Opposition that I should like to deal briefly today and to define exactly the views of the Conservative members from the province of Quebec, explaining also why the people of that province voted Conservative during the* last elections and expressed its confidence in the present Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more solid, nor indeed more indispensable, than the legal foundations on which any doctrine must rest whose general acceptance is necessary to the welfare of the provinces and of the country as a whole.
I shall take the liberty-and I apologize for mentioning certain things that will seem elementary to most of the hon. members in this house-but in support of my arguments, I shall take the liberty to bring up certain sections of the constitution which too often seemed to have been overlooked, certain sections of the constitution, which are treasured in the province of Quebec, because we feel that respect for such sections is one of the essential conditions for the survival of the racial group which the province of Quebec has the duty to protect and to safeguard.
Section 118 of the British North America Act provides in fact that subsidies will be granted by the federal government to the various provinces. As everybody knows, that section was amended in 1907, and the amendment was adopted not only by the federal government, but also by imperial statute as had been the case for the Act of 1867.
In other words, the procedure adopted clearly showed that a constitutional problem was involved since recourse was being had to the imperial authorities that in 1867 had sanctioned in substance the agreement between the provinces which had led to confederation. Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that by section 118 of the constitution, the principle of subsidies being paid to provinces was being recognized as a general rule? My answer is no. I remember reading a speech made in this house by the hon. member for Montmagny-l'Islet (Mr. Lesage) in which he seemed to recognize the ratification of the principle of subsidies to the provinces whereas, when referring to the debates, and in particular to those of the Quebec conference, we realize that members of the constituent assembly had refused to lay down as a principle this method of financing provinces. And it is so true-and I hope my learned friends in the opposition will not hold it against me if I quote one jurist who is active in their ranks-that Mr. Louis-Philippe Pigeon, who was legal adviser to the hon. Adelard Godbout about the years 1940 to 1945, dealing with this very problem, recalled that, according to Pope's Confederation Documents containing summaries of the debates of the various conferences that led to the confederation agreement, this principle had been rejected. Indeed here is, according to the Quebec Bar Association Review, volume 3, 1943, how Mr. Pigeon understood this rejection:
Now, is it known that the granting of subsidies to provinces was one of the listed powers of the federal government, in the draft submitted to the Quebec conference and that it was struck off in the course of the discussion?
In other words, the constituent provinces of 1867 did not wish, in creating the federal state, to become its vassals. That is why we cannot condone too frequent infringements on basic provincial rights. Moreover, that is what, on many occasions, led the province of Quebec to express its formal determination to stick to the constitution which governs us.
Mr. Speaker, I am not one to claim that the provinces have an exclusive power in the field of direct taxation. In the early days of this session, I heard the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) refer to those who claim for the provinces the exclusive right to direct taxation.
I have much respect and admiration for the hon. member for Laurier, and I presume that he must be in possession of accurate information on which to base his statement to the effect that such theories are accepted and advocated in the province of Quebec. As for me-and by the way I do not know any members from the province of Quebec

78S

who felt in coming here that their thoughts and ideas were regimented-I positively state that we came here freely and loyally because we truly believe that we belong to a party offering all possible guarantees that the spirit and the letter of our constitution will be kept inviolate.
I readily recognize that under the act by which we are governed since 1867, as far as direct taxation and direct contributions are concerned, there is concurrent jurisdiction. But this concurrence of rights and powers is not an ordinary one: it calls for certain precise details and distinctions.
I heard my good friend from Hull (Mr. Caron) pour forth his ideas in bulk. This is surely not the proper way to deal with a question as momentous as the subject matter of this debate.
To show those necessary distinctions and differences, with the permission of the house, we shall now have a look at the two sections dealing with the distribution of power between the federal and provincial governments, sections 92 and 91 of the constitution. What does section 92 say? Let us point out first of all that the preamble is just as important, just as essential as the section proper. Let us therefore read subsection 2 of section 92 with its preamble:
92. In each province, the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated:
And subsection 2 provides:
2.	Direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
In other words, section 92 reserves to the provinces an exclusive right of raising direct taxes, provided this right is exercized within the limits of provincial jurisdiction for specifically provincial purposes.
Against this let us now read what power the members of the constituent assembly conferred upon the federal government. This is found in section 91, subsection 1, paragraph 3 and, reading only paragraph 3, this is what we find:
3.	The raising of money by any mode or system of taxation.
This is a power belonging to the federal government. Of course, on the basis of those words lifted out of their context, it may be thought that an absolute power is granted the federal government. But that is not the way to interpret a text. Surely I could not tell my learned friends in the opposition, among whom there are brilliant lawyers, the rules of interpretation. To have its full
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations meaning, a text must necessarily be read within its context. What does section 91 contain when read according to this rule? First of all, here are the provisions of its preamble:
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
Now, as we have just seen, among the subjects assigned exclusively to the provinces by the lawmakers, is that of direct taxation for provincial purposes. Consequently any federal government which levies direct taxation for provincial purposes conforms neither to the letter nor to the spirit of the constitution. So true is this that it has been so determined by the privy council itself.
May I be allowed, at this juncture, to refer to a case often cited before the courts, i.e., "Bank of Toronto vs Lambe, 1887". In this instance, one of the Lords of Her Majesty's privy council-Lord Atkin,
I believe-expressed himself as follows: (Text):
This very conflict between the two sections was noticed by way of illustration in the case of Parsons.
(Translation):
This Parson case is very often cited in constitutional cases.
(Text):
"So 'the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation' is enumerated among the classes of subjects in sect. 91; but, though the description is sufficiently large and general to include 'direct taxation within the province, in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes,' assigned to the provincial legislatures by sect. 92, it obviously could not have been intended that, in this instance also, the general power should override the particular one." Their Lordships adhere to that view, and hold that, as regards direct taxation within the province to raise revenue for provincial purposes, that subject falls wholly within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.
(Translation):
I have no wish to bore you with quotations. However, there is another highly important and well known case which has been made law. The case was argued before the privy council under the Liberal administration under Mr. Mackenzie King. The point of issue was social legislation adopted by the Bennett government. I might be wrong, but I seem to remember that the federal government's case was put by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. Their lordships had declared at that time that certain social security laws were ultra vires. The judgment handed down reproduces almost verbatim the terms of the decision to which I
786	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations have just referred. In this connection, may I quote an opinion given by an eminent member of the Quebec bench, a gentleman who sat on the highest court in the land and who has, in fact, left a work of lasting merit, from which the province of Quebec and this country as a whole are much the gainers. Here is what Hon. Justice P. B. Migneault wrote in the Revue du Droit, 19371938, with regard to this highly important matter.
It must also be noted that there Is no justification for giving to federal powers mentioned in general terms an extension such that a similar provincial power, expressly mentioned, would remain devoid of useful application. Thus parliament can collect revenues by any method or system of taxation, and the provincial legislature is authorized to levy direct taxes within the limits of the province, as revenue for the discharge of provincial obligations. Obviously, the general terms of the federal power must be restricted to leave room for the provincial attribution.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is, in my opinion, the doctrine implemented by the constituent provinces, under articles 91 and 92; that is the doctrine which has always been recognized up to recently, the doctrine confirmed by a decision of the privy council, confirmed by the greatest jurist we ever had in French Canada, Hon. Justice Migneault, and also by none other than the legal adviser of the Hon. Adelard Godbout who, as far back as 1940, when he was prime minister of the province of Quebec, laid it aside.
What happened afterwards? Until 1917, that doctrine has remained unchallenged for the excellent reason that the federal government, in spite of its power under the constitution, in spite of the recognition of its right to collect taxes by any means of taxation, has scrupulously respected the equal rights of the provinces. And it needed that catas-trophy of war, which cost Canada its best blood for the protection of its rights and institutions, to muster as it were all its sources of revenues so as to bring to a successful conclusion the mission to which Canada had dedicated herself.
It was Sir Thomas White who, in 1917, first introduced personal income tax. It was>
the right of the federal government but such a right had never been exercised since confederation. Yet Sir Thomas White was careful to state that it would be for the duration of the difficult period which Canada was going through at the time.
Since that time, we have had a succession of governments. The first were Liberal governments but, instead of keeping the promise made, they preferred to cling to that tax which today remains in our statutes and which we are still paying.


I do not deny that in so doing the federal government is exercising a right, but I do point out that up to 1917 this right had been exercised only by the provinces which, for that matter, had made a moderate use of it. Consequently, when today provinces avail themselves of a right which, for the past 40 or 50 years the federal government had not exercised in spite of its power to do so, I say it is wrong to assert that this is promoting national disunity. The promoters of national disunity are those who refuse to recognize the rights and powers of the provinces.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question. I should like to ask it in English so as to be sure I ask it precisely, but I should be quite happy to receive an answer in French. I was following the hon. member very carefully. Could he tell the house how many provinces were exercising the right to impose income tax in the year 1917?
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: I do not think any province has exercised that right. I might check, but I think that is so. However, the existence of a right is one thing, and the exercise of that right is another. That right nevertheless remains, especially when it has been consecrated in the most formal, sacred way imaginable, by an imperial act which, if I may say so, has confirmed it I say that right exists, that it can be exercised at all times, and that no one can come along after 40, 50 or 60 years and say: "You no longer enjoy that right because you failed to exercise it." Provincial rights are imprescriptible, as are those of a nation. There is therefore no justification for adducing failure to exercise a right such as this as a convenient excuse for setting it aside.
It can be said that, up to 1937, the successive governments in this house respected provincial rights. Let me say here incidentally, that, if there is a problem which, in my opinion, should be free from political partisanship and which, so to speak, should raise everyone of us, whatever our party, above the heat of electoral campaigns, it is this very problem, since it partakes of the very essence of the Canadian nation.
In 1937, the Mackenzie King government decided to establish the Rowell-Sirois commission, so called after the names of those who, one after the other, were called upon to head the commission. One of the functions of that commission was precisely to study fiscal problems between the federal and provincial governments. Following its work

which, if I remember rightly, extended over a period of two to three years, the commission issued a report which caused a conference between the federal government and the provinces to be called in January of 1941. At the conference, some conclusions of the report were taken for granted, so that the door was closed, so to speak, to serious discussion. On this point, I should like to quote one of the friends of the hon. members of the opposition, Mr. Hepburn, who was then premier of Ontario:


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was a distinguished lawyer.
(Text):


Noël Dorion: You do not like it?
(Translation):


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was a distinguished lawyer.


Noël Dorion: Oh! thank you. Excuse me, I had not understood what you had said. Was he not also quite honoured as a political figure within your ranks?


Mr. Habel:: Yes, and sacked in the end.


Noël Dorion: 1 quote from page 90 of the federal-provincial conference proceedings of 1941:
If you want to prosecute the war on a basis of co-operation with the provinces we are prepared to co-operate; but if the prime minister insists that everything has to be predicated upon the principle of a report to which we object, then there is no alternative open to my colleagues and to myself but to withdraw and to leave these wreckers of confederation, under the guise of patriotism, to continue to carry on their nefarious work.
These words, Mr. Speaker, were not spoken by people from the province of Quebec, nor by a Quebec premier. They were the words of a premier of Ontario who, moreover, was being abetted by two other prime ministers, one from British Columbia and the other from Alberta. Was there any talk at the time of national disunity? Not at all. And for a very good reason: because those political leaders were speaking the feelings of the provinces, because they felt that they had every right to discuss these matters freely at the conference, even though it seemed that the door had been shut upon any further discussion. Nobody will claim that those leaders had turned into heralds of national disunity, whereas in actual fact, they were merely claiming what, to them, were the rights, the powers and the freedoms that belong to the provinces.
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations
Mr. Speaker, as early as April 1941, there had been reference to this report in the budget speech. In 1942 the province of Quebec ratified an agreement under which, for the duration of the war, it surrendered its powers of raising income taxes, corporation taxes and succession duties for the benefit of the federal government, receiving in return a mere pittance from the federal government.
The other day, or rather yesterday I heard my good friend from Hull (Mr. Caron) wax indignant at the losses suffered by Quebec by reason of the fact that it had not entered into any agreement with the federal government. If he is so easily dismayed, he will allow me to quote figures which might allow him to shudder in retrospect, since these figures refer to a time when his friend Mr. Godbout was premier of Quebec.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: That was in wartime.


Noël Dorion: The agreements remained in force from September 1, 1941 to September 1, 1947. During that period, in surrendering its sources of income, Quebec contributed $2,258,381,000 to the federal treasury, while on the other hand, because of its faithfulness toward that party we have dislodged in the last election, it received $102,930,272.80. I mention those 80 cents because of course, they have to be taken into consideration in such a pittance.
What I want to stress in all this is the fact that in entering into an agreement the federal government was recognizing the existence of the provincial taxation power. One does not enter into an agreement when one can grasp everything with impunity. A thief does not enter into any agreement with his victim. But in this case an agreement was entered into which, I repeat, expressly recognized the principle of provincial taxation power. But, Mr. Speaker, I have always understood- and this seems to me an elementary tenet of law-that an agreement implies the free and willing consent of the parties. An agreement entered into with a knife held to one's throat is no agreement. When a robber walks into a bank, brandishes a gun and tells the cashier: "Give me all the money you've got in the till", and is handed the money, this is surely no agreement. An agreement implies the free and willing consent of the parties, and if they are not at liberty to accept the terms, this is no agreement but oppression or dictatorship. Well, that is what was seen at some of the conferences held between the provinces and the federal government of the time.
I shall but briefly mention the conferences which took place at intervals until 1945, to come to the meeting that has been called the conference on re-establishment.
788	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations
The reports of the time make interesting reading. They indicate that the province which appeared to be going into isolation was not Quebec, but rather Ontario. Why was it acting this way? Simply-and with good reason-because it held this federal action to be contrary to the letter and the spirit of confederation.
In 1946 the 1945 conference was resumed. This time it was a Liberal premier, Mr. Macdonald, of Nova Scotia, who opposed that form of forced agreement and who denounced the intrusion of the federal government into fields outside its jurisdiction. I do not know that there were any among our eminent colleagues, now in opposition, who at that time raised an outcry against that particular provincial premier, who was forced to accept the conditions which the then federal minister of finance attempted to impose upon the provinces. Had this gentleman been premier of Quebec, would he have been greeted differently? There is one thing which is not generally known, and it is this: in the province of Quebec a system of purges was applied throughout the ranks of the Liberal party. I had heard of such things happening in other countries. We have been told, for instance, that in certain countries behind the iron curtain, whenever an active party member is so unfortunate as to deviate in fact and in conscience from the party line, he is purged forthwith. Such things occasionally happen in the province of Quebec. Certain Liberals are purged. Some members of the party have been cast into outer darkness, in spite of the fact that they had made an outstanding contribution to their group. Let there be no misgivings on this score. I am not referring to the Liberals who are sitting here, but rather to some of their Quebec friends. That is the kind of broad-mindedness of which, alas! we have had certain samples right here. The hon. members who provided the samples were surely not endeavouring to safeguard national unity; rather were they attempting to sow dissension among us, to the prejudice of that union which is characteristic of the Conservative party and is at the source of its greatness and appeal.
Mr. Speaker, those first agreements were followed by others. Save for Ontario and Quebec, who refrained on matters of principle, all the other provinces have had to sign. Newfoundland did likewise, when it, in turn, entered confederation. Newfoundland's union with Canada was a memorable event,


and even if its only benefit had been to bring among us the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), I would be very happy about it because I have the greatest respect and consideration for him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thank you.


Noël Dorion: As a matter of fact, we met under circumstances he certainly remembers. Those circumstances have shown to the both of us that differences of opinion do not prevent us from working, each in his own field, in the best interest of this nation.
In 1954, Quebec introduced a tax on personal income, which equalled 15 per cent of the federal income tax. The province was thus exercising a power which was constitutionally hers and I know of no one who could criticize her for it. After so dramatic an assertion of provincial rights, various public bodies-and I am not speaking of the Quebec government but of public bodies like the chamber of commerce and the board of trade of Montreal-showered Mr. Abbott, then minister of finance, with requests urging him to allow a personal income tax deduction equal to the amount which was to be collected by Quebec, in lawful exercise of its rights. These were flatly refused.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I
am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) will excuse me if I do not at this time follow him in the very able, judicial and legal argument which he has put before the house. I do hope, however, that he will not retire from the house, because when I come to that portion of my remarks having to do with dominion-provincial relations I should like to make some reference to what he has said.
Before proceeding further, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be well at this juncture for the house to permit me to put on record once again the amendment moved by my leader to the motion to go into supply which was proposed in this house by the Minister of Finance. It reads as follows:
this house regrets that the government has tailed to call a federal-provincial conference to discuss unemployment and other urgent problems of common concern to federal and provincial authorities; and that the government has failed to give assurance that it would maintain or improve the principle of equalization of direct tax revenues of the provinces embodied in the existing law.

There are several matters referred to in this amendment but, as I understand it, there are three points with which the Leader of the Opposition sought to deal in presenting this amendment to the house. The first was the calling of a dominion-provincial conference; the second was the matter of unemployment, and the third was the principle of equalization as established by the previous Liberal government and maintained by the present administration.
First I would like to say a word about unemployment. A great deal has been said in the house concerning it. I shall try to be as constructive as I can. All I want to say at this stage is that the problem of unemployment is serious. It is serious because there are no fewer than 516,000 unemployed in the country at this time, and that does not take into account the fact that in addition there were some 38,000 people who were laid off temporarily. The position, therefore, as I see it is a serious one. I submit to you, sir, that the government is not considering the problem of unemployment seriously, nor is it being taken seriously by the government.
My colleague who sits for the constituency of Essex East (Mr. Martin) yesterday asked a number of pertinent questions of the administration when he made his remarks on this amendment. One of the questions he asked was this: "Will the government name any project which has been initiated since the government has been in office and the number of men employed thereon?" The minister who followed him, the Minister without Portfolio who represents the constituency of St. John's East (Mr. Browne), had this to say as reported at page 758 of Hansard:
Well, he knows-
He was referring to the hon. member for Essex East. I continue:
-as well as I do that no great public works of a major character has been inaugurated since this house opened, nor could it have happened before this house opened.
A little further on he said:
I admit the validity of that question, and I cannot personally point to anything that has actually given great employment, but I do know of a number of works for which money will be voted in the estimates or in the supplementary estimates. The Minister of Finance has drawn attention to the vote of $4 million in the supplementary estimates tabled today.


Mr. Winch:: That is for all the year?


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Maybe, but you cannot start a $100 million program within a few minutes.
Well, that is exactly what we were saying during the campaign, that you could not start public works projects of this nature in two months. That was the argument of the Leader
3, 1958
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations of the Opposition; that was the argument of all of us who sit on this side of the house, when we maintained that public projects of the nature of those which had been suggested by the Prime Minister-and I will deal with that a little later-could not be started overnight. We maintained all along that projects of this nature took time to develop; that plans, specifications and the like had to be developed over weeks and months, and it would take a great deal of time before those projects could be brought to fruition. That is why we submitted and favoured a system of tax reduction.
Let me compare this position taken by the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. John's West, with the attitude of the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister opened his campaign in Winnipeg on February 12, this is what he said:
I know what unemployment is, ladies and gentlemen. To provide for the future development of Canada and to ensure jobs, we have launched a nation-wide works program for constructive works, for dividend-paying works, of $1,185 million, of which $270 million will be spent in the first three months of this year.
That means that the first part of that program was to have been put into effect and was to have been spent in the first three months of 1958. Contrast that with what the Minister without Portfolio said:
I admit the validity of that question, and I cannot personally point to anything that has actually given great employment.
Then a little further on:
Well, he knows as well as I do-
Referring to the hon. member for Essex East.
-that no great public works of a major character has been inaugurated since this house opened, nor could it have happened before this house opened.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a direct contradiction between the attitude taken by the Prime Minister and that taken by the Minister without Portfolio. We know what the position is with reference to this public works program envisioning the expenditure of $1,185 million. I hesitate to use this expression and say it was phony. I do not like to use that expression; none the less, let me say that the program which was referred to by the Prime Minister at that time, if it was not phony, was certainly grossly exaggerated because it was not a public works program at all. It was nothing more nor less than the estimates which had been deposited in large part by the former Liberal administration and continued by the present government when the estimates were tabled prior to the election of March 31.
I say without hesitation that, as the hon. member for Essex East has said, no major
790	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations project has been started by this administration within the three months, let alone within the five months since the year began.
What about the statement made by the Prime Minister at Winnipeg and elsewhere to the effect that no one would suffer because of unemployment? Well, I can point to a number of people in my constituency who are suffering. I can point to the speech by the hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Van Horne), who said the other night that there was more unemployment in his constituency than in any other constituency in Canada. I did not hear the Prime Minister or any other member gloat very strongly over the statement made by that hon. member. Still, I take it he knows whereof he speaks, since he was discussing a matter that concerns his own riding.


Mr. Brooks:: This is the first time you ever agreed with him.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that I agree with him, but I do know that my friends on the other side of the house were extremely embarrassed by the statements he made. They used to like the way he attacked the former government on this side of the house; they used to like those tremendous exaggerations of his; they used to applaud when he attacked my former colleague in the government. I noticed they did not applaud very much the other night. They were tremendously embarrassed by the statements he made and I am sure they will not encourage him to make many more speeches like the one he made the other evening.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or many more speeches, period.


Lionel Chevrier: There are other people
suffering in this country because of unemployment. I am thinking now of those who are employed in the great textile industry, particularly in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec but also in other parts of Canada. I was astounded the other day to hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) rise in his place and say that he was appointing 50 more appraisers-perhaps it was 40, I have forgotten, but I believe it was 50- who would go into the United States and other countries to ascertain to what extent there was a breach of the provisions of the Customs Act. Let me say to him that, there again, he is following, as the government has followed in many instances, the very policy of the former Liberal administration. His predecessor, the Hon. Mr. McCann, on more than one occasion did exactly the same thing, appointed appraisers to go into the United States to evaluate the prices in that country to ascertain whether or not there had been


breaches of the provisions of the Customs Act concerning dumping.
I hope the minister has a great deal more success than his predecessor had because if we are to believe the statements made not only by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) but also many other hon. members of this house, the moment the Conservatives took office they would end the difficulties in the textile industry. As I see the problems of the textile industry they are as serious today, if not more serious than they ever were because the number of those employed in that industry has been decreasing substantially since our friends on the other side of the house took office. I say, therefore, that the present government is not fulfilling its pledges made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign with reference to unemployment.
However, it is probably in the field of federal-provincial relations more than anywhere else that the Conservatives have broken their election pledges. In this field the Prime Minister made a series of pledges that it is well to recall. There are a number of them, but I propose to deal with only one. On more than one occasion he, and those associated with him, represented that a new dominion-provincial conference would be called immediately after the election in order to definitely solve the difficulties which existed between the federal government and the provinces, and that the federal government would not adopt a take it or leave it attitude. This promise has not been fulfilled. The Prime Minister has not called a conference to deal with fiscal matters. He has called a preliminary conference which dealt with unemployment assistance, which dealt with the hospitalization plan and which dealt with special grants to the Atlantic provinces. According to reports the fiscal problem was discussed in the in camera meetings, and then only at the end of the conference for about ten or fifteen minutes.
I have no hesitation in saying, therefore, that so far as the federal-provincial conference which was called in November of last year is concerned, it did not begin to deal with matters affecting fiscal relations with the provinces. Then we know what happened later. In the light of the forthcoming election, the government imposed its unilateral decision by telegram in January of this year. We recall also that this unilateral decision was made only for one year, and that the whole issue is now raised again. I ask this question, therefore, what is the position of the Conservative party in the field of federal-provincial relations? It is one of confusion and contradiction so far as the Prime Minister is

concerned, because when he decided to impose a temporary solution to this problem, he used exactly the same formula as had been developed by the previous Liberal administration.
In his subsequent statements he indicated he was in favour of equalization payments to the provinces, but always refused to state on what basis those payments would be made. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, therefore, we are left in complete confusion and vagueness. Last night several hon. members from this side of the house put on the record statements made by the Prime Minister with reference to equalization payments. When one considers the attitude of the present government, which is in no wise different from the formula established and put forward in this house by the former Liberal administration, he can come to no other conclusion but that, notwithstanding the speeches and notwithstanding the statements made during the campaign, the same policy in that field is being followed by this government.
I should like now, for a moment, to consider the attitude of one of the members of this government with reference to the fiscal position. I should like to deal with a statement made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), and the chief lieutenant of the Prime Minister in Quebec. The government of which he is a member, up to now at least, has merely followed the policy of the previous Liberal administration. Last fall the Solicitor General stated very clearly that he was against federal subsidies to the provinces, and incidentally equalization payments are subsidies. He went on to say that undoubtedly the government would develop a new formula on a very different basis.
I was not able to follow the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) in his very erudite statement which he made earlier. Let me pay to him the same compliment which he paid to me a moment ago, by saying that I have for him a great deal of respect, particularly when it comes to an erudite exposition of the law because I understand, and I believe, he is a highly regarded lawyer at the bar of his province. However, notwithstanding the legal and wise exposition he gave, he did not tell us whether or not he agreed with the attitude of the Solicitor General. Let me put on record what that attitude is. At page 129 of Hansard for October 18, 1957, Mr. Breton, the former member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Solicitor General a question?
When sitting in the opposition the hon. Solicitor General has, on various occasions, given expression to the well-known thought that federal subsidies
3, 1958	791
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations
are unconstitutional. The opinion which he voiced then was shared in every way by the government of the province of Quebec. In view of the proposed federal-provincial meeting on fiscal matters, could he tell us now if he will oppose the subsidies which his government seems to be preparing at this time?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. friend that I am still opposed to subsidies such as were proposed by the former government. As to his question, it seems to be a hypothetical one, but I am-


An hon. Member:: A political one-


Léon Balcer: And a political one, yes. I want to tell him that the proposals of the federal government are not yet known, but I am convinced that they will be made on a very different basis from those of the former government.
It is quite clear that they were not made on a different basis. They were made on exactly the same basis, but increased, and I do not know that the hon. gentleman intervened in this debate to point out what his position is. So that as we stand now, we have a complete contradiction between what the government has done and what one of its ministers has said.
With the permission of the house I should now like to take a look at the attitude of the premier of the province of Ontario. At a federal-provincial meeting held on March 9, 1956, Premier Frost is reported to have said that he was definitely against the present basis of equalization payments because it was unsatisfactory to the province of Ontario and too generous to the other provinces. He made the suggestion that the average per capita yield of the standard tax rates in the two highest yield provinces-which in effect is the present basis-should be changed and he proposed that the top four provinces or even the national average should be used to determine these payments. He is reported to have gone even a step further and to have stated that the present formula was too generous to the province of Quebec.
Here, in order that there may be no misunderstanding about what I say, I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 10, 1956, outlining the views of the premier of the province of Ontario at that time. 1 quote from the article as follows:
Mr. Frost said the unfairness to Ontario of the present formula can be demonstrated by comparisons with certain of the other provinces, notably Quebec and Alberta.
"I take our sister province of Quebec because with her we are most closely associated. Economically speaking, we are most alike and with her we have many things in common."
Like Ontario, the premier said. Quebec is rapidly growing and expanding and has large concentration of manufacturing industries and population. Under the federal formula Quebec will have the allowance of the standard rates which are proposed and an annual adjustment grant of more than $40 million.

Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations
Mr. Frost said he had no doubt Quebec needs this additional money and could put it to good use, but if this is the federal assessment of Quebec's need, how much greater it should be for Ontario in the light of this province's larger population and industrial structure and all of the costs which accompany industrial development?
I do not in the slightest blame the premier of Ontario for taking that attitude. After all, he is defending the interests of the taxpayers of his province. But just let us for a moment take a look at his thesis and compare it with that of the present government. According to Mr. Frost, Quebec and Ontario are competing against each other to attract new industries and that is a fact because there are in both provinces Large concentrations of industrial development. There are in both provinces tremendous amounts of water power, although those in the province of Quebec I believe are greater. Quebec would have an advantage over Ontario because the over-all level of wages is lower. On the other hand, Ontario at present would have an advantage over Quebec because taxes are lower there than they are in the province of Quebec. However, if the present basis of equalization is used, Quebec receives a high equalization payment of the order of $40 million or more per year. This payment, according to Mr. Frost, would place Quebec in a position of lowering its taxes, thus acquiring an additional advantage over Ontario as far as the location of new industries are concerned.
I hope I am not being misunderstood in what I say because I am sure no one would quarrel with the premier of the province of Ontario for approaching the problem from this angle. That is why he felt that, because of the formula that is advanced by the federal government, it was too generous to certain provinces, particularly the provinces of Quebec and Alberta, as I stated a moment ago. Thus, while the Prime Minister has consistently refused to state on what basis equalization payments would be made, we know that Mr. Frost is on record as being opposed to the present basis of payment.
I should now like to deal with the attitude of the premier of the province of Quebec. I hope that my friends who made so many noises down at the other end of the chamber last evening when some of my colleagues were speaking will feel that I am not dealing with this subject in any personal manner whatsoever. I regard the premier of the province of Quebec as a friend. I had many contacts with the premier of the province of Quebec during the time that I was president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and all of the relationships were on a high level; all of them were cordial. I should not like anything that I have to say here to be taken as a reflection upon the premier of Quebec.

But facts are facts. The facts are there. The record can be seen by any one. That is why I should like to deal for a moment with the attitude of the premier of the province of Quebec.
As we all know, Mr. Duplessis has never committed himself to any concrete proposal on the matter of fiscal arrangements. When he presented a bill in 1954 to levy a provincial income tax, he included in the bill a preamble stating that the provinces had a prior right to direct taxes over that of the federal government, as the hon. member for Bellechasse sought to establish a moment ago in his able discourse. But eventually Mr. Duplessis withdrew from that position and that statement contained in the preamble of the bill was dropped altogether. When he came to the conference in Ottawa held in October of 1955, he failed to make any concrete proposals.
Here are the conclusions that were listed in the brief presented by the province of Quebec and read by the premier of that province to the conference. The conclusions were three in number and I list them. They are to be found at page 40 of the report of the dominion-provincial conference, 1955:
1.	Clarification and delimitation of the powers of taxation of both the federal and provincial authorities, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Canadian constitution, that is to say having regard to the past, the present and the future.
2.	Simplification of public taxation in such a way as to reduce its cost and facilitate its collection.
3.	Moderation in the domain of taxation to be arrived at by the collaboration of all public powers, in such a way as to ease the burden of the taxpayer so far as possible.
I am sure that anybody in this house who has given any thought to the matter-and I hope that includes the hon. member for Bellechasse-will agree with me when I say that there is certainly no concrete proposal in those three conclusions but rather a great deal of vagueness and confusion. As hon. members will recall, between 1955 and 1957 the system of fiscal arrangements with the provinces was completely changed by the then Liberal federal administration. With regard to the changes made Mr. Duplessis has said that they were a step in the right direction.
However, two years later, in November of 1957, Mr. Duplessis came to Ottawa and presented to the conference-that is the one which was held last fall-the very same brief, word for word, that he had presented in 1955. I have both of them here in my hand. I invite hon. members of the house to read the briefs. I have gone over them carefully. I say here in the house that the brief presented by the premier of the province of

Quebec in 1955 and the one presented in 1957 are the same, word for word.
So that there may be no ambiguity about it, I now read from page 28 of the report of the federal-provincial conference proceedings of 1957. Here are the conclusions of the brief presented by the premier of the province of Quebec:
1.	Clarification and delimitation of the powers of taxation of both the federal and provincial authorities, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Canadian constitution, that is to say having regard to the past, the present and the future.
2.	Simplification of public taxation in such a way as to reduce its cost and facilitate its collection.
3.	Moderation in the domain of taxation to be arrived at by the collaboration of all public powers, in such a way as to ease the burden of the taxpayer so far as possible.
I could go on and read paragraph after paragraph to indicate to the house that the two briefs were exactly the same.
So here again, in so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, there is complete vagueness and confusion. As I asked earlier, what is the position of the government with reference to these equalization payments? Here are four different approaches to the problem of federal-provincial relations and I therefore ask the government and particularly the Quebec members to define their attitudes with respect to these four positions I have just described. Are they in favour of the government proposal? Are they in favour of Mr. Frost's formula? Do they want to see equalization payments lowered as was suggested by Mr. Frost? Surely not, because the premier of the province of Quebec would lose some very important revenues if that were the case. It would be interesting to know what they have to say on this. Are they in favour of equalization payments?
I had hoped that the hon. member for Bellechasse, who is an authority on this subject, would have told us during the course of his remarks whether or not he was in favour of these equalization payments. He seemed to me to argue against them and to indicate all along in the course of his remarks that in the federal field there was no right to levy taxes for provincial purposes. He went on to develop that thesis and I am sure with the principle of that argument there could not be a great deal of disagreement, but he did not say what his position was with reference to these equalization payments any more than he said what was his position in reference to the grants to the universities which were contained in the estimates.
On what basis do members want the payments distributed to the provinces? Do they want the government to follow the Frost formula or do they want the government to follow the formula established by the previous
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations Liberal administration. I ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), without any disrespect to him, what is his attitude with reference to this matter because I noticed last night that he did not take very kindly to the remarks of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), and in fact he interrupted him, as he had every right to do, during the course of that hon. member's statement. What is the attitude of the minister with respect to equalization payments? And what is the attitude of the Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche) with reference to those payments? What is the attitude of the Solicitor General? Does he maintain the position he adopted last year when he said he was against equalization payments?


Léon Balcer: I did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: He was against equalization.


Léon Balcer: I did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the attitude of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley), who last night rose on a point of order to take exception to what the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was saying. I think the country, the province of Quebec and this house are entitled to know what are the attitudes of these various gentlemen.
I referred earlier to two briefs presented by the premier of the province of Quebec in as kindly a fashion as I could. I quoted from them and I went on to say they were exactly the same in 1955 as they were in 1957. What I omitted to say was that probably it was the same in 1957 because the premier of that province did not have time to prepare a brief since he was too busy getting his friends elected in the province of Quebec.


Léon Balcer: A great service to this country.


Lionel Chevrier: As far as we on this side of the house are concerned, our attitude in this field is crystal clear. We have developed over the years, in co-operation with the provinces and after several meetings with them, a solution which may not be final or completely satisfactory to each party concerned, but we feel that until a better plan is produced ours is the one which should be applied because it respects the constitutional powers of both the federal and provincial legislatures; it leaves the provinces entirely free to levy their own direct taxes if they wish to do so and it includes equalization payments permitting the poorer provinces to better fulfil their constitutional responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the Prime Minister earlier that I hoped he would be in the house at this time. On three occasions the Prime Minister has taken the opportunity to

Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations say to this house that I am a frustrated member of parliament because I resigned my position as president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, and after the election found myself in the position of being on the defeated side of the house. I resent that statement on the part of the Prime Minister. I resent it because if I resigned my position I did so after careful consideration. When I was invited by the former prime minister to take the position of president of that authority I said to him that if I could serve the country in that capacity I was willing to do so.


An hon. Member:: And you were serving well.


Lionel Chevrier: And when he invited me to come back to the government-
Mr. Pallet!: A calculated risk that misfired.


Lionel Chevrier: When he invited me to come back to the government I said to him the same thing, that if he thought I could serve in the government I was willing to do so. But I will make an admission. Notwithstanding my careful consideration of the whole situation I believed, as most members on this side of the house believed, that we would be victorious. I was mistaken, I took a chance, but I do not think it behooves any one to take advantage of that fact and make the statement which the Prime Minister has made.
I considered the position not only in so far as I was personally concerned but in so far as my family was concerned, especially in so far as my six children were concerned because, after all, it was a decision which had serious consequences upon them, since no less than five of my children are of university age.
I do not think it becomes the Prime Minister of this country to deal with personal matters such as he has dealt with on more than one occasion and I say to him, with all respect, that I was not frustrated but I was disappointed. I am sorry he is not here because I told him I intended to do this and if he thinks I am frustrated-


Howard Charles Green: You did not tell him what you intended to say.


Lionel Chevrier: I told him what I was going to do and he said he would be here. I say to him that if he thinks I was frustrated I was not nearly as frustrated as he was when the vast majority of his Quebec delegates walked out of the convention held in Ottawa.


An hon. Member:: They walked in again.


Lionel Chevrier: Neither was I nearly as frustrated-


Mr. Speaker:: I am interrupting the hon. gentleman, not because of what he is saying, but because his time is up.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, having sat in this house for the short period of about five and a half years-very memorable years for that part of the country from which I come-I feel I should say something on this motion. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said in his opening remarks that the debate would give new members from Quebec, Ontario and other provinces an opportunity to speak on this problem, that is to say, the problem of federal-provincial relations. I should like to compliment the hon. Leader of the Opposition on having introducing the amendment he did, because I believe it is one of the best amendments which the opposition has put forward. It is a lot better than some which have preceded it, but I suppose they will improve as time goes by, and we should expect that.
I think this amendment has opened up an important debate, a debate which, by the time it is over, will result, I am satisfied, in hon. members of the opposition and the people in the country generally being a lot wiser than they were before it started. Unless the opposition can convince this house and the country that the arguments they are using are sound there can, however, be nothing constructive about the amendment which they have introduced. So far I have listened to all the arguments used, and some of them are good. For once, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who has just preceded me. I think I have listened to one of his finest speeches.
But I should like to deal first of all with the remarks made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. In introducing his amendment yesterday he stressed one point beyond all others, using all his efforts to try to lead this house and the country into believing that the Conservative party under our present Prime Minister and government had repudiated the principle of equalization. I could not help thinking while he was speaking that he was only building up a straw man in order to knock it down. I think the best way I can answer him would be by repeating the reply given to him last September when he stressed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) while in opposition had promised to call a dominion-provincial conference. Nobody has ever disputed that. But no government in the history of parliament had ever taken over such a mess as the present Prime Minister and his government did in June, 1957.
I should like to point out that it is impossible to organize a conference overnight, and in support of my statement I should like to refer to the conference which was arranged in October of 1955. How long did it take the

former government to organize a federal-provincial conference on that occasion? Over a year. These things cannot be done overnight. The Conservative government did call a conference and in his opening remarks at that conference the Prime Minister had these words to say:
I think at the very beginning you have a right and you are entitled to a statement as to the general attitude to be taken by the new government. We desire to achieve harmony in the operation of our governmental institutions in Canada. We respect the constitution and we fully recognize the constitutional responsibilities of the provinces.
The Prime Minister went on to say that while in opposition his party had criticized not the principle but the extent to which the federal treasury should contribute to the funds of provincial governments and, later, commenting on fiscal relations, he said there were special problems facing the Atlantic provinces. He refrained from saying anything about those problems in connection with Newfoundland because at that time a royal commission was sitting in compliance with the terms of federation, with a view to making recommendations as to what Newfoundland should receive. But the Prime Minister did refer to the maritime provinces, and he said-and this was apparently agreed to by all the provinces:
I believe we all recognize that the Atlantic provinces as a group are confronted with greater difficulties in public finance than the rest of the nation, if they are to maintain the sort of provincial and municipal services that Canadians generally expect. The taxable capacity of the Atlantic provinces, even in the best of times, is significantly lower than that of the other provinces.
It must be frankly admitted that to a degree this disparity has been overcome by the equalization payments under the tax sharing arrangements. The government of New Brunswick argued at the last conference that for the Atlantic provinces the disparity of taxable capacity is so great that this equalization in respect of the major direct tax fields is not enough.
The Prime Minister was referring, of course, to the three fields of taxation as defined under the principle of equalization as laid down by the former government, namely the fields of income tax, sales tax and succession duties. He concluded, and this is a summary of his remarks and I think the meaning is very plain:
We wish to review the tax sharing arrangements themselves. I believe that the dominion treasury should help to equalize and stabilize provincial revenues. Recognizing these principles, we are prepared to examine their application and to that end I invite the expression of your views.
There is the answer to the Leader of the Opposition, and it was given last November when that conference was held. It is there for all who have eyes to read or ears to hear.
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations
The Leader of the Opposition laboured very hard to try to convince hon. members of this house and, particularly, I imagine, the considerable number of new members, that this principle of equalization was something new, that it was a miracle, that it was something discovered by the Liberal party which was going to cure all the ills of Canada. And having listened to the speeches made in this debate I think there are even now hon. members on the opposition side of the house who still believe that equalization will cure all the country's ills.
I have heard speeches made both inside and outside of this house over the last four and one half or five years on the question of federal-provincial relations. I do not think any one party or any government can take credit for devising the principle of equalization. It is true that it was spoken of by the former prime minister. It was pointed out as desirable by the former premier of Nova Scotia and talked about by the present premier of that province. It was put forward in a different way by the premier of New Brunswick at various conventions and conferences. It was arrived at finally out of the whole consideration. I cannot understand how any hon. gentleman opposite could stand up in this house before we who have been here previously and who know the history of it and have the audacity to try to make us believe that the former government devised, found and discovered this miracle and wants to adhere to it. No one is condemning the principle of equalization which is good as far as it goes.
There is one thing about the present government which I admire. While it has adopted this principle it has not made it final. It still has an open mind and is ready to hear the provinces on the subject and if improvements can be made they will be made. That is a sound approach to the question.
I am going to refer to certain statements made at the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa on October 3, 1955 and then I shall attempt to draw comparisons between the former government and its actions in relation to its words, and the present government and its actions in relation to what it has said. At page 15 of the proceedings of that conference in the opening statement by Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, the then prime minister, we find this statement:
-the present government had no Intention of abandoning the objective of the tax rental agreements which is to make it financially possible for all the provinces, whatever their tax base, to perform their constitutional functions themselves and to provide a reasonable Canadian level of provincial services without an abnormal burden of taxation. That is the foundation of the policy of the federal government.
796	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations
On that occasion Mr. St. Laurent was restating words he had used in writing to the premiers of the provinces in January 1955. The hon. gentleman went on to say:
This is the principle of paying an element of fiscal need subsidies to provinces with lesser tax potential than others.
That was carried through but Premier Hicks of Nova Scotia as reported at page 43 of that report indicated how it fell short when he said:
It is now evident that the relative capacity of the different provinces to provide even a minimum standard of services cannot be determined by reference to population figures alone ... I suggest that any formula which might be devised should take into consideration not only the population of the province but also its tax potential.
That is the foundation on which the maritime provinces have based their case from the beginning up until they met with the provincial governments last November. Premier Flemming of New Brunswick, as reported at page 50 of the proceedings of the 1955 conference, said:
However, experience has indicated that the tax rental agreements do not go far enough to meet the needs of low income provinces . . . We are firmly convinced that these provinces should receive a national adjustment grant to compensate them for their lack of taxable capacity in respect of those sources of revenue remaining to them.
While I do not intend to read it into the record any hon. member who wishes to examine it can find on that page of the report authority for what I have said in a quotation taken from the Rowell-Sirois commission report, chapter V, book II.
What happened at the 1955 conference? I cannot speak for every premier who attended but I feel that I can speak for the premiers of the Atlantic provinces who according to the general reports carried in the press did not accept that formula of equalization as being sufficient in itself. They did not accept it because it did not give to the maritime provinces sufficient money to provide the services which they ordinarily ought to provide their people to place them on the same standard that obtains in the other provinces. In my own province, for instance, it costs one-third more than the national average per capita to provide young people with an education and I presume a similar ratio applies throughout the Atlantic provinces. We do not have sufficient taxable capacity to make up the difference between equalization payments based on the formula of Mr. Harris, the former minister of finance, and the national average that obtains across the country. That is what we asked for but our request was not recognized.
Early in March 1956 when the premiers met with the minister of finance of the former


government to finalize the result of the conference of October 1955, Mr. Harris said in effect that the proposals offered-meaning the equalization payments-"go just as far as we can go at this time" and if any province needed more revenue it should go into double taxation levying tolls beyond the federal deductions allowed. In effect he said, "We cannot at this time make any further material concessions that would adversely affect our revenues". That was the final statement from the last federal-provincial conference held by the former government.
We had a change of government between then and the federal-provincial conference of November 1957. The premiers of the Atlantic provinces attended the latter conference just as determined as they were when they attended previous ones. They laid their case before the new government. I have described what happened under the previous government. Hon. gentlemen opposite today adhere to the policy that was followed then and if they were in power that is the limit to which they would go. I am satisfied with that on the basis of the speeches I have heard today.
What did the present government do? They realized what the situation was like in the maritime provinces; they immediately took action. The premiers went home feeling much better than they did the year before. Not only that, but they took further action. They have made provision for $100 million to be distributed over the next four years among those four provinces as an adjustment grant to bring up the level to some extent and to meet the request in a temporary manner to some extent until it is finally settled what action should be taken on the requests of those premiers. It is an attitude of give and take; it is an attitude of tolerance which this government has shown and which the old government never was able to show or would not show to the maritimes, which has made our people down east feel that this government is sincere.
While the federal-provincial conference which was adjourned last fall has not been called together it is true that you do not hear any call for it from the premiers.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Oh!


Gage Workman Montgomery: You do not hear any call for it from the premiers. They are quite happy with the situation because they are satisfied that when the time comes and arrangements can be made the conference will be reconvened and a square deal will likely come out of it.


Murdo William Martin: Is the hon.
gentleman not aware that Premier Frost of

Ontario, the premier of Manitoba, the premier of British Columbia and the premier of Saskatchewan have all asked that the conference be reconvened?


Gage Workman Montgomery: No, I am not aware of it. There has been no demand; there has been nothing in the press. I will accept the hon. member's word but I am not aware of it. I know one thing, some of these requests are made with tongue in cheek, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It might be true of Mr. Frost.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Frost never asked for it.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I did not hear whav the hon. member said.


Mr. Fraser:: He is only muttering, anyway.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I am talking particularly about the maritime provinces, because we were the ones who were in the worst state previously to this government coming into power. Ordinarily we would be the ones who would be suffering most from unemployment and so on. There are some bad spots, yes. I agree with the hon. member who spoke yesterday and said that unemployment is serious. It is serious if there are two men unemployed, but in my opinion unemployment is not as bad as some people have said. I think all one has to do is to go back a few months when some people were going across the country, not necessarily the members who are sitting in this house but their supporters, shouting about what a terrible calamity it was because so many people were unemployed. The people were sitting back and laughing at them and the election results showed it. I do not mean to say that there is no unemployment and I do not mean to say that the government is ignoring it. They are not. I do not have to defend the government on the unemployment question; their actions speak for themselves. I am satisfied that their actions and what they have done compare favourably with anything that had been done by the former government under similar circumstances.


Mr. Nesbitt:: They just brought it on.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The former government did not do anything.


Gage Workman Montgomery: There is something else. From the standpoint of the maritimes it would be a wrong thing to call a federal-provincial conference before the royal commission on the revision of the terms of confederation with Newfoundland has made its report and a study is made of it. The premiers and the people of the maritime provinces
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations realize that you cannot settle this whole question in one conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he not aware that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself admitted that the royal commission on the revision of terms with Newfoundland had nothing whatever to do with general federal-provincial questions?


Gage Workman Montgomery: If I understand the hon. member rightly I certainly do not admit it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister did.


Gage Workman Montgomery: No, he did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is in the record.


Gage Workman Montgomery: It is not in the record. All that is in the record is that at the conference last year they said they would not discuss those problems until such time as the report had been made. But hon. members are asking-and this is why the hon. members have brought on this debate-for another conference to be reconvened to settle this whole question. Well, I say it is wise and sound not to have a conference to settle this question. As a matter of fact, I do not think that one conference can settle this question.
I would like to quote what the premier of Nova Scotia had to say on equalization grants in the conference held last November. This is what he said:
I must repeat what has been said here before, namely, that an equalization plan based upon the returns from income tax, corporation tax and succession duties, whatever standard rates may be adopted, completely disregards the fact that the tax returns from those sources, or the tax returns from those sources plus the equalizing amount, furnishes but a portion of the revenue required for each province.
Here he is referring particularly to the maritimes. That is not a final solution and yet the members on the opposition benches in this house are trying to put over the argument that all you need to do is to adopt the equalization and that finally settles it, cures all the ills. We do not condemn equalization, but we say it does not cure all the ills. We say that this thing has to be worked out over a period. We are satisfied in the maritimes to put our faith in this government, and I am satisfied that the same thing applies to some of the other provinces.
This will be worked out over the years. We are not going to jump to conclusions too quickly because that would not be sound. I would not expect the government to jump to conclusions quickly; I would not expect the provinces to jump to conclusions quickly. Judging from what the hon. member who spoke before me said I think the province of Quebec has shown great tolerance. That

Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations province is showing co-operation. I am satisfied the solution will be found. I do not know whether I would like to hear hon. members from Quebec injecting the note in this debate to indicate that Quebec has a different idea from anybody else about how to run the country.
I find in studying this question that every province has its chief point that it wants to put forward but I believe all the provinces have shown tolerance. I believe that over a period we are not going to have any difficulty in arriving at a solution. It will be a solution that will not be hard and fast, or take it or leave it, or whatever words one wishes to use, as was suggested by Mr. Harris. We will have a flexible solution which will meet the needs of the people of the provinces. I do not care what you call it but when any government meets the needs of the people and the people are satisfied and we commence to get a standard of living all over the country close to an equal basis the people will be happy.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the debate is really getting interesting, but I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery), became a little overwrought with the exuberance of his own verbosity when he made the statement in the last five minutes-


Gage Workman Montgomery: It was not like a lot of statements you make.


Harold Edward Winch: -that the premiers of provinces that have asked for consideration of problems at a new dominion-provincial conference did so with their tongues in their cheeks. I say that a member of this House of Commons who makes such a statement regarding the premiers of the provinces, irrespective of party, is doing a disservice to the people of Canada. Irrespective of the parties they may represent in their own provincial parliaments I am certain that, according to their understanding, they do not make application for a dominion-provincial conference unless they believe such a conference is necessary in the interests of the people of their province, and therefore of the people of Canada. I am ashamed that such a statement should have been made in this House of Commons. I will pay respect to the members of other parties, and the leaders of other parties, by believing they are sincere in their desire for the improvement of the welfare of the people of this country.
As a matter of fact, the remark by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton rather emphasized something which I had in mind when considering what contribution I had

to make to this debate. May I say that I intend to adhere as closely as possible to the subject matter under debate. We are now discussing a motion for committee of supply, and the amendment to that motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). In my estimation, the amendment is a good amendment. It is not only good, but it is necessary and because of those two factors it most certainly will receive my support.
However, if one has followed the majority of the discussion on the amendment, and if one adds that to the other discussions that have taken place since this house opened, I believe he is led to the conclusion that we have now reached the point where as members of this house we should give serious consideration to the purpose for which we are here. It may only be my own personal opinion, but I think it goes beyond my personal opinion that we have reached a time when we should give serious consideration to what we are doing. I could, of course, apply that to myself as a member of this group, but I want to apply it to the government members and the members of the official opposition. We have now reached a stage where I would not blame the people of Canada if they said, "A plague on both your houses." I know I cannot direct a question to you, Mr. Speaker, but through you I will ask the members of this house, do you realize that so far as government members and members of the official opposition are concerned, with all the vital issues that face this country, the problems that face municipalities and provinces and this country nationally, during the discussion of motions, bills and amendments, the government and official opposition members have spent the major part of the time living in the past by damning and condemning each other.
I know it is a very interesting study to sit in this house and listen to the government members, but I want to say that you are not going to solve the problems of the people of Canada by the deification of Diefenbaker. The mere fact that you were elected with a overwhelming majority does not mean that a mantle of omniscience has fallen over your shoulders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member encouraged me to believe when he began that he was going to discuss the motion. I hope he will return to it.


Harold Edward Winch: You are correct, sir. I was hoping that in so doing I might be permitted to tell the others that they had not been doing that. May I add one sentence, Mr. JUNE 3, 1958
Speaker? You do not, either, want to hear a Pickersgillian policy of profusion and confusion from the opposition.
This is an excellent amendment. It mentions in particular the need for a federal-provincial conference to discuss joint problems of common concern to the federal and provincial authorities. When you mention the provincial authorities it automatically follows that you take in the problems of local governments because local governments are the children of the provincial authorities. These local governments cannot deal directly with the federal government. This fact was admitted recently by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he informed this house it was his intention to hold an informal conference with the representatives of the municipalities sometime in September. There can be no conference on a dominion-provincial basis which does not bring in the problems of the municipalities.
I think that we all have to recognize that greatly changed times and conditions have brought to provincial governments new problems that were not visualized some 100 or more years ago when our local governmental system was formed. New needs have steadily arisen and the task of meeting those needs has, to a great extent, been shouldered by the local authorities. I am convinced that our provincial governments have recognized the requirements of the local governments but have not been in a position to take care of them because of neglect at the federal level. I believe that past and present governments, at the federal level have, thus far, failed to work out policies which would enable provincial and municipal governments to fully discharge their modern responsibilities.
Therefore in the view of our group it is absolutely imperative that a further and early conference be reconvened as soon as possible and that at this conference there shall be recognition on the part of the present government of the need to relate federal responsibilities to the development, protection, conservation and regeneration of the natural resources of this country.
Our friend the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton did not think that provincial premiers were greatly interested in such a matter. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that as recently as this year, in his presentation in the British Columbia legislature of the budget which he introduced as minister of finance, the premier of British Columbia made it clear that British Columbia was most anxious for a further dominion-provincial conference to deal with such problems as all-weather access roads; as well as basic communication or
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations transport means essential to the economic development of a province; the protection and regeneration of forests; irrigation and reclamation, diking, draining and clearing of agricultural lands; the expansion and development of fisheries and mining operations; and -something that is of importance at the present time-to ask for further federal assistance, in action and in finances, in connection with the applied and pure sciences in the fields of industry. That is something that is most necessary when, as a trading nation- particularly as far as British Columbia is concerned as a trading province-we are losing out on foreign markets.
1 know that as far as British Columbia is concerned, the government feels it is absolutely essential that as soon as possible there shall be an early reconvening of a dominion-provincial conference. Tied in with the items that I have already mentioned there is also necessity of the presentation by the provinces of representations relating to the need for low interest credit facilities both to the provincial and local governments where the growth of basic services and the essential need for them is a result of general economic development.
Just a little while ago I said that we spent too much time in going back into the past, and that it was wrong. But just on one item alone I should like to refer to the past. I do so because it is something which, in my estimation, should be the subject of early consideration at a dominion-provincial conference. I refer to the question of expansion of access roads and railroads. We have heard a great deal about the vision of the Prime Minister and the building of railroads to the north. In the past few years we have not only heard a great deal but we have voted a great deal of money in this House of Commons for the construction of railroads. However, British Columbia has been discriminated against or, shall I say, has been almost left out of the picture. Back on June 3 of 1955 there was introduced into this House of Commons by the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, a bill for the provision of a subsidy on a portion of the extension of Pacific Great Eastern Railway in British Columbia. Speaking on that bill the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green)-and I quote from page 4390 of Hansard, volume IV, 1955

had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be in the railway business overnight. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to the speech on this subject made by the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) at the time a subsidy was granted for the extension of the line from Quesnel to Prince George. If he has not done so, I would commend that speech to him.

Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations
If he agrees with it I think the government would grant a subsidy for the whole extension into the Peace river area.
That was the statement made by the present Minister of Public Works. It is something which I maintain is of vital interest, at least as far as the province of British Columbia is concerned, for presentation to an early dominion-provincial conference. You can understand the basis for that statement, Mr. Speaker, when I inform this house that since 1953 the province of British Columbia has spent $17J million constructing the P.G.E. from Quesnel to Prince George, $14 million from North Vancouver to Squamish and $54 million from Prince George to the Peace river area. The original cost from Squamish to Quesnel was $27 million. According to my information- and I understand it is factual-the grants made or promised by the federal government for this railway were $2,480,000 or 2.21 per cent of the capital cost of $112,200,000. Having made this expenditure, British Columbia is requesting a total of $19,762,500 or 17.61 per cent of the total original cost. In view of the statement made by one who is now a cabinet minister and in view of the fact that this government has not taken any action to increase the grants to the province of British Columbia with regard to railway construction, this is certainly a matter that we think requires early consideration and we believe it can perhaps be most effectively done at a dominion-provincial conference.
There is one other matter I wish to mention and it is something which is of vital concern, I think, to all municipalities. I refer to the matter of educational costs. It is not something that should be left to an informal conference between municipalities and the cabinet sometime in September. As I said before, the municipalities are the children of a provincial government. They receive grants from a provincial government. Basically and constitutionally I think it is obvious that if it is going to be a straight educational grant it will have to come from the federal government and go through the provincial authority. Therefore, because of the situation in all municipalities on this matter, an early meeting of a dominion-provincial conference is in order, even if it is to be only on the question of educational costs.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds further with the discussion of education as a subject for consideration at a possible dominion-provincial conference, 1 should like to remind him that it is also the subject of motions which are on the


order paper. For example, item No. 6, a motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), proposes that in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of taking steps to relieve the financial crisis in education. Had there been anything about education in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) I would have asked him to remove it as being in anticipation of matters which are to come before the house. It is my view, unless the hon. member can convince me to the contrary, that this is not a proper subject to pursue on this amendment.


Harold Edward Winch: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention whatever of going into detail on the question of educational costs. I was merely pointing out under the terms of the resolution

"urgent problems of common concern to federal and provincial authorities"- that this matter should and could be considered at such a conference and that it was something outlined by the Prime Minister in previous statements, particularly in this house and at the conference of last year. That is all I intended to say on the matter.
The last matter I wish to raise is one of great importance, and that is the problem of obtaining capital financing for the expansion of essential local services in the various cities, towns and municipalities of our country. I feel everyone will recognize there can be no question but that in this year as in past years there has been a demand for school building, hospital, sewer and watei installations, roads and streets, but that this year the demand has been such that it would never have been considered possible in previous years. The need is great; it is so great that not only can the local governments not meet the demands but neither can the provincial authorities as part of their own obligations and responsibilities assist on a full and proper basis in respect to the financial requirements of the municipalities. I personally believe that one of the greatest things which could be accomplished by an early dominion-provincial conference would be the facing up to this local problem. That means the making available of money at low interest rates to the local governments, and I feel quite certain that if the federal government was to take such a step it would meet with the acquiescence of the provincial governments and that they would guarantee bonds if that were made a basic requirement.
I have never been able to understand why the present government and the previous governments would be prepared-and rightly so-to make money available, as a result of

an act passed by this house, at just over the government's own borrowing rate for the purpose of constructing a certain type of housing and yet would not apply the same principle to the needs of the municipalities. We already have the precedent of the National Housing Act, the construction of housing for senior citizens, slum clearance and similar matters, and I feel it would be a good thing to expand such measures into the field of the financial needs of the municipalities. I am quite certain that this whole matter could be clarified speedily and easily by a meeting on the dominion-provincial-municipal level.
I have now mentioned a number of things which give me reason to believe that the early convening of a dominion-provincial conference is a necessary and a good thing, and that is why I feel the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is good, is necessary and will have my support.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment, I want to assure the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that I do not intend to talk about the past. I intend to talk about the present and I may have something rather gloomy prognostications about the future. I was really shocked, as I think most of us on both sides of the house were shocked, at the assurance with which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) informed us yesterday that the government did not wait for a conference to deal with the matter of unemployment but was already doing everything it was possible to do about that matter. I think that was one of the most staggering exaggerations we have yet witnessed from the greatest master of exaggeration I have seen in this parliament.
We all know there has only been one thing done about the unemployed since we met here some weeks ago, and nothing has been done about unemployment at all. A very small measure of relief has been given to a restricted class of the unemployed, those persons who could still qualify for seasonal benefits. That is all this parliament has yet done about the unemployment situation. No one, I think, could fairly accuse me, from the day I first appeared on the opposition side of this house, of attempting to exaggerate the unemployment problem. I have been careful not to do so.
I have never suggested, and I am not suggesting now, that the hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for the unemployment situation, but what I do want to suggest, and what the people of Canada feel-and about this I think I can speak with complete assurance-is that the hon. gentlemen 57071-3-51
3, 1958
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations opposite, having the mandate they have, are responsible for doing something more about it than just passing out a few seasonal benefits.


Mr. Chambers:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Egan Chambers: Does he not believe that additional money for housing will help unemployment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be that the additional money we voted for housing will help to keep up existing employment in housing, but there have been some recent changes in government lending policy which the minister has persistently refused to explain to us in this house which would make one wonder. I do not think it will increase employment very much.


An hon. Member:: It already has.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not agree with the bleak picture painted in this house by the friend of the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne). I think the hon. member exaggerated the unemployment situation. I think he made it appear more serious than it actually is, but that does not mean that it is not very serious indeed-it is! The situation is not good, and I was astonished to listen to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) telling us this afternoon that, in his opinion, the people of Canada laughed at unemployment. I do not think the people of Canada are laughing at unemployment.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: They laughed at you talking about it. The hon. member said they were laughing at you talking about it.


Lionel Chevrier: What about in 1955?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to draw attention to certain statistics which have been published recently by the government under the authority of the hon. gentlemen who now sit on the treasury benches in order to give the house an impression of what the situation really is at the present time, or as near to the present time as we have any accurate information about. First, I want to say a word about the situation in the country as a whole, and then I wish to deal more particularly with the situation in the Atlantic provinces.
In the country as a whole, in the month of August, 1957, when hon. gentlemen opposite took office, or shortly afterwards, unemployment reached what I think was a peak in this country for all time. Since then
802	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations it has been declining until the last month, when it increased a little. But during the period from August 1957 to February 1958,
643.000	jobs have disappeared in this country. I know that hon. gentlemen opposite will hasten to say that this is not a fair comparison, that every winter there is seasonal unemployment, but I venture to say that in no winter in the history of this country, and certainly in no winter since 1935, have 643,000 jobs disappeared between August and February, and that is what happened after the hon. gentlemen opposite took office.
I will make another comparison to which no similar exception can be taken. Between February 1957 and February 1958, the labour force increased by 184,000 but the number of jobs decreased by 48,000. That is not something to be very cheerful about. In April, it is true

and we were glad to see it-the number of jobs was up by 11,000, from a year ago, but the labour force was up by
221.000	and it is just not good enough for the ministry to say, as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) told us the other day, that if we had not had more people the employment situation would have been satisfactory. It is the duty of a government to pursue the kind of policies which will make it possible for the growing population to find employment, and if we have not got enough vision to do this, then there cannot be much vision.
Despite the optimism of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, the situation in the Atlantic provinces is very much worse than in the country as a whole. In April in the three maritime provinces the labour force was 440,000, while the number of persons in that labour force seeking work was 74,000, or almost 17 per cent, which is to say that more than one person out of every six in the three maritime provinces was out of work and actively looking for work late in the month of April. There has been nothing like that since the thirties.
In Newfoundland, I regret to say, the situation is even worse. The labour force in Newfoundland is, or was, in April, 108,000 and the number seeking work, 26,000, which is 24 per cent, or one in four. Those people who heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) say over and over again only two months ago that as long as he was Prime Minister no one would suffer from unemployment would like to see a little action by the Prime Minister, and action to provide work instead of just giving a few people who happen to have enough stamps unemployment insurance benefits and leaving the rest without any assistance whatever.


Mr. Palleii:: What about all the new housing starts?
[Mr. Pickersglll.l


John Whitney Pickersgill: The new housing starts are very encouraging, and everyone rejoices that there are still enough people in this country who have sufficient confidence in the future to buy houses, but unless the government does something to arrest this serious unemployment situation that may not continue too long. I hope it does, but it may not.
I was interested and rather disturbed to observe that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) when he spoke the other day did not take at all the line which he took last year. Last year when we still had a very high level of employment in the province of Newfoundland, though it was declining, he spoke much more extravagantly about unemployment than did anybody on this side of the house. Apparently the party whips have seen him, because this time he came here and painted a glowing picture of the wonderful things that have been done for Newfoundland by the Diefenbaker government. Not one word did we hear from him or from the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) about the fact that one person in every four of the working force in Newfoundland is looking for work at the present time, and that this had never been the case when the previous administration was in office.
Mr. Pallet!: No fishermen's benefits, either.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We brought them in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am simply staggered by the ignorance of the hon. member for Peel, and it is only modesty that makes me forbear from saying something more about unemployment insurance for fishermen. Happily, my constituents know the history of that measure.
Mr. Pallet!: And the extension of the fiishermen's unemployment benefits-


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is amazing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is
probably unaware of the fact that practically all of the fishermen have already used up all their stamps. In spite of the fact that the government he supports has extended the winter into June it is not much help to most of the fishermen.
If I may continue my own speech instead of that being made by the hon. member for Peel, I should like to ask some of the hon. gentlemen opposite who are so fond of talking about so-called Liberal neglect of the Atlantic provinces to consider one or two facts, because facts are very hard things to get round.
During those 22 years of so-called Liberal neglect of the Atlantic provinces, the population of the largest city there-the city of

Halifax and its metropolitan area-increased three times, and that was the first period of growth there had been in Halifax since the period of the first world war. The population of Moncton doubled; the population of Saint John doubled; the population of Fredericton doubled. The population of Newfoundland, from the time of confederation in 1949 until the Liberal government left office increased from 330,000 to 410,000, and all the people stayed home because they had jobs to do. That is just a little of the evidence of the so-called Liberal neglect.
Moreover, during all that period the income of the people in those provinces increased; not as much as we would have wished, it is true, but even so it did increase steadily year after year, and the standard of living went up. And in none of those years was one person out of six in the labour force looking for work in the three maritime provinces and in none was one out of every four looking for work in the province of Newfoundland.
These are some of the reasons why I am rising to support the amendment moved by my leader to the effect that there should be a conference, because it does seem to me that with a situation like that which now exists, action of this sort should be taken. I admit the conditions are not quite so bad in the other provinces, though I think they are pretty bad in the province of British Columbia. I believe, also, that there are many districts even in Ontario and Quebec where the situation is not only alarming at the present time but gives cause for grave concern for the future.
As the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) pointed out so well this afternoon, we have heard a lot in the speech from the throne, and we heard a lot more where one could perhaps expect even a little more expansiveness in earlier times, about this governments' great program of public works and their great program of national development. We had the whole bubble burst last night by the honest admission on the part of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), for which I give him credit, that the government had done absolutely nothing in either of these fields except talk. There has been lots of that.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: There certainly has.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Anybody who compares the estimates and the supplementaries that were tabled yesterday with the estimates of a year ago will see that the provision for public works and construction over the whole field is very little increased indeed, disappointingly little, considering the advance publicity. It is 57071-3-51J
3. 1958	803
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations true that we took the view during the election-and the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) reiterated it today, and in that view of course we have the support of no less an authority on government that the President of the United States-that these grandiose schemes are not an answer to the employment problem because the planning takes too long.
But there is another kind of public work alluded to, by the hon. member for Vancouver East for example, a few moments ago, of a character that requires no lengthy advance planning, and that could be got underway quickly. Many of these works were postponed when we were in office for a very good reason. I will give that reason. They were postponed because until recent months engineers, architects and skilled labour were fully employed in the great boom of private development which has now collapsed. These people could and should be used at the present time in a public development program to build up this social capital like roads and schools, most of which has to be provided by the provincial and local authorities. That by itself surely is a good enough reason for having this conference if there were no other reason.
I want also to say a word or two about the other part of the amendment containing a reference to equalization. It is true as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) pointed out yesterday that in one speech in the last election the Prime Minister did say he was in favour of equalization. The Winnipeg Free Press reported on February 13, 1958 -and these are the exact words from that newspaper-that on the previous night:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker gave a definite pledge that his government would preserve the equaliza- . tion principle in future federal-provincial tax rental agreements. He said he wanted to "make it very clear at this time"-
I want to warn hon. members to be very wary whenever the Prime Minister talks about making anything clear-
-that equalization would be continued.
The Prime Minister did not then define equalization and we have never been able to get a definition from the Minister of Finance or even the admission that he was in favour of it. Indeed, he has been so reticent on the subject that I believe the suspicions of my friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) are not in the least exaggerated.
I was also rather astonished that the Minister of Finance should have taken exception yesterday to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would have dared to come into this parliament and move an amendment after the people had spoken in the

Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations general election. Of course, it may be that the Minister of Finance is a little overcome by events in France. It may be that his government, having started to rule by decree on February 1 this year feels that, having won the majority it did, parliament should go home and we should not discuss the public business, but that was not the view hon. gentlemen used to express on this side of the house when they sat here.
Mr. Pallet!: Nor is it the view they have expressed on their own side of the house either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is important that in this session-not in this parliament but in this session-we should get a clear statement of the government's position about equalization. One reason it is important is because the present 3 per cent extension that was made by unilateral decree by telegraph last January is for one year only. If the government does not act to change the statute in this session, and if normal events follow we are going to be faced somewhere about next February or March with another urgent situation and we are going to have hon. gentlemen opposite saying another crisis has arisen because-and they will use words to this effect-"you talked so much we did not have time to have a federal-provincial conference" and we are going to be faced with another unilateral decree. That just is not good enough.
Surely this government has had time enough now to make up its mind what its policy is. Even if the Prime Minister could not keep the promise he made over and over again before last June to have a conference in September because he was too busy attending stampedes and engaging in other similar activities, and if he could only permit the provinces to meet here for two days in November and was unable to listen to them in January, surely a year after taking office he and the government which he heads have had time to make up their minds.


John Cameron Pallett: It is 22 times as fast as you are, in that case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We had no difficulty making up our minds. We had no difficulty admitting when improvement was suggested that it should be made and we made repeated improvements in fiscal relations with the provinces.
I want to cite very briefly why these equalization payments are so important. They are important to every province of course, except the province of Ontario which by the nature of things merely receives the value of the taxes; but in all the other provinces the equalization feature is of greater or less


importance depending on the taxable capacity of that province. As I happen to represent one of the provinces with the lowest taxable capacity, it is understandable that I would emphasize that importance perhaps more than some other hon. members in this chamber.
I would like to remind the house what the situation was before we had equalization payments in the Atlantic provinces, or rather in the maritime provinces because Newfoundland was not part of Canada at that time. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, at the end of the war, the wartime tax rental agreements were in existence. They were strictly tax rental agreements containing no element of equalization whatever. They simply represented what the provinces had been getting when they gave up temporarily their right to impose the taxes themselves. The three maritime provinces received $7f million. In 1956-57, the last year of the second round of tax rental agreements, the maritime provinces received $43 million. That did not include Newfoundland, of course. In 1957-58 under the equalization formula they received $52 million. Of that sum $32J million was in equalization. The compensation for the taxes was less than $20 million. That represents a sum very nearly twice these very welcome Atlantic provinces grants to those three provinces that were initiated at the instance of this government this year and for which I have always given the government full credit. But I would like to point out that this is precisely what the Minister of Finance said yesterday was zero. He said, "What did the Liberals do for the maritime provinces? Zero."
It was done by this parliament of course but I will explain what our Liberal policy accomplished. Incidentally, I might say to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton that if he can show me anywhere any suggestion of the present principle of equalization before it was announced in this house by Mr. St. Laurent I would be very interested in seeing it. But I do not want to be diverted from my point. What the Minister of Finance said yesterday was that this $32,750,000 to the three maritime provinces in equalization was zero.
If the Atlantic grants, which for those provinces amount to $17,500,000, are a good thing-and they are-surely $32,750,000 is a better thing, and it is. It is more important because it is more permanent; it is based on a definite formula and it is based on a notion which has been accepted by all the provinces as a matter of equity.
What about Newfoundland? In 1957-58 Newfoundland received $17,750,000, of which $12,750,000 is equalization. That is why it

does seem to me that, if anything, the Leader of the Opposition was not speaking quite strongly enough yesterday when he said that we needed, and we need now urgently, to be told what the government's policy really is about equalization, whether the government really intends to maintain the present equalization. It is just not good enough to have the Prime Minister go to Winnipeg and in a speech say he is in favour of equalization because, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday-I am not quoting his exact words but I think I am giving the correct sense-it is not only the principle that is important, it is the application of the principle that is important. We want to know, the country wants to know, and certainly those of us who represent the provinces that depend for the maintenance of their most essential services upon those equalization payments, want to know whether this government intends to maintain equalization on the basis of the two provinces with the highest taxable capacity, or whether they have some secret deal with the premier of Ontario that is going to be unveiled after the Manitoba election on June 16 but before July 1, about which we are to be told nothing in the meantime. I am not saying they have; I am rather inclined to think that they have, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) admitted nine months ago when I first asked him about this subject, no policy at all.


Howard Charles Green: I did not admit any such thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no time to look it up now but the hon. gentleman can look it up in Hansard. As a matter of fact, the best evidence that they have no policy at all is that they came in here on January 27 and made the announcement by unilateral decree that they would follow our principle for one year and asked us to provide a little more money precisely on that basis. They followed Liberal principles with one exception. Of course, that one exception itself is going to be pretty important, because that one exception is that there is no guarantee that any province will in fact get any more this year. I am not talking about the Atlantic provinces grants now; I am talking about the additional slice of equalization that was offered by the Minister of Finance on January 27. There is no guarantee that any province will get more than it did last year. It is probable that they will get some more. I am perfectly convinced that they will not get the $62 million that the Minister of Finance forecast last January because revenues have been falling. Everybody knows they have been falling. When I asked the minister yesterday whether he could tell me what was the amount of the
3, 1958	805
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations instalment he paid to the provincial governments in April, I did so because I thought I could multiply that by 12 and arrive at a pretty fair estimate as to how much the government thought they were going to have to dock from that $62 million. We do know it is going to be a substantial reduction.
It does seem to me there are many other reasons one could give why this motion should pass and why the government and its supporters should join with us in agreeing at once to call a federal-provincial conference and in agreeing at once to approve the present formula of equalization. I must say I do not expect them to do it, but I say there are very good reasons, simply because of the unemployment situation and because of the importance of reassuring the provincial governments, and especially those provinces with the smaller taxable capacity, about their future fiscal position. 1 could give many other reasons but it seems to me that those two alone fully justify this amendment and should commend it to every independent-minded member of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable that I call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about federal payments to the provinces under the federal-provincial tax-sharing agreement. I was interested in the formula that was utilized by the former government in arriving at the amounts to be paid to the provinces. I am interested also in seeing how this government has arrived at the division of the $62 million.
First of all, I must say I was a little surprised that some increase in the payments was not included in the budget for the year 1957-58, after all the criticism I heard before and during the election in June of last year. In any case, I was of the opinion that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) would introduce a budget that would include an increase in payments to the provinces for the fiscal year 1957-58 in order to be consistent with his previous statements in this house. Instead of that, he prepared a very unsatisfactory and partial statement of financial affairs at that time and introduced his so-called baby budget in December of last year.


Mr. McGee:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would appear, from this side of the house that the hon. member is reading his speech and I must draw your attention to citation 144 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.


Harold Edward Winch: May I suggest that the hon. member's citation is correct, but he would not say one word when we rose on a point of order when hon. members on that side of the house were reading their speeches, in particular, the hon. member who raised the question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would be appreciated if hon. members in this house from time to time studied their notes, but did not read their speeches in their entirety.


William Hector McMillan: I know that this government is negotiating with Saskatchewan. A day or two ago I read in one of our responsible financial newspapers that the talk about this project was economic nonsense. Now whether or not that is so I am unable to say, but I do know that the supplementary estimates which were tabled here yesterday contain an item of over $4 million for that project. If the project is a good one, we want to vote for it. In any event, I feel the whole plan should be laid before this house before any money is spent, and I think that applies equally to any project of the size of this South Saskatchewan dam.


Mr. Jones:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Carter:: His time is short.


Henry Frank Jones: Will the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: No.


William Hector McMillan: If this dam is to be built for political expediency or to fulfil a political promise, I think that is wrong. But if it is considered that it will help the people of Canada and will make a fair economic return to the people of Saskatchewan and to the people of Canada, then I can support it. But first of all, I think the government should bring that matter to this house and not have people across the country thinking that it is political or economic nonsense. If the project is sound and not too unrealistic from the economic standpoint, I would say that the taxpayers of Ontario and of all provinces would be glad to support it and
3, 1958	807
Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Relations the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) would have a monument to himself in his own native province; but if this project is otherwise, we would have a Diefenbaker dam forever damned by taxpayers yet unborn.
I see that my time is just about up and I must get along. Although I have not finished what I wanted to say about the South Saskatchewan dam, there is one other thing I want to say. Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), in making his speech,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 8.15 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (d) of standing order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.



TELEVISION


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Before we proceed to vote on the main motion, there is what might be considered a problem in my area which I should like to draw to the attention of the house. It is one of real importance to those who live in my constituency and, I am sure, it is also of importance to those who live in other out of the way or rural constituencies.

We have for some time been attempting to get a service of television into these more remote areas, but so far we have run against a blank wall, or encountered incomplete answers from those authorities who control television in Canada. I am thinking particularly of one area in my constituency, a well populated area along the coast where approximately 35,000 people live in three communities within a 100 mile radius. We understand that because of certain technological changes and advances which have been made in the field of electronics, and television there can be established at a relatively low cost something akin to a booster station or low frequency relay station, as is used for radio, which would make television in this area possible, but for some odd reason the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is unable or unwilling to take advantage of this development and use it in order to bring television programs to the less populated areas. The answer we have been given, if it is an answer, is that because neither the present government nor the government which preceded it have dealt adequately or publicly with the report of the Fowler commission, the C.B.C. finds itself up against a blank wall with regard to acquiring the necessary equipment for this purpose, or leasing it outright so that those of us who live in less populated parts of the nation may be provided the same sort of entertainment as others who live in the urban areas.
I hope that having raised the question publicly in this way the minister who has jurisdiction over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will undertake to apprise the corporation of the great need which exists for expansion in this direction.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the house for more than a moment, but I do wish to bring to the attention of the minister a problem arising in connection with the development of television in local areas where it is not provided at the present time by the C.B.C. In my constituency a number of community groups have got together and are prepared to operate a television service at their own cost on a non-profit basis, and yet under the present regulations these persons are denied a licence. I think this is most unwarranted, because in denying a licence to these people you are denying to the people of that area the opportunity to enjoy a certain amount of television that they are willing to provide at their own expense.
The second point I wish to mention is this: a licence is required for the installation of what is known as piped-in television in cities such as Nelson, and these licences are

apparently approved by the department of the federal government which issues them, but there does not seem to be any control over the charges made for installation or disconnection. I have received numerous complaints about over-charging in these respects, and I have taken them up with the appropriate department of the federal government, only to find that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the rates and charges made for connecting and disconnecting. At the same time, there is no control vested in the public utilities commission of British Columbia. I realize that this development has in recent years been of great magnitude, but I do suggest that this matter be given consideration in order that these charges may be controlled at either provincial or federal level.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, speaking to this grievance is something like flogging a dead horse. At least, last session we beat the horse rather hard. Reading a good many western newspapers, I have been delighted to note that a number of Conservative members elected to this parliament have also gone on record as being in favour of establishing C.B.C. television stations in remote areas of the hinterland.
As the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has pointed out the costs are not as great as were originally anticipated. One of the factors which in my opinion has not been made perfectly clear is that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made exhaustive engineering studies of the prospect. I believe they have on paper a provisional setup for relatively complete television coverage in the remote areas. It seems a pity, as was also pointed out by the hon. member for Skeena, that the delay on the part of the government in implementing the recommendations of the Fowler commission has kept them from going ahead and has contributed to the bitterness of the people in the hinterland over their failure to receive television.
One result caused by the slowness of the government in implementing those recommendations has been that a number of communities have engaged in costly experiments in installing their own aerials and receiving systems. For example, I could name two small communities in my own constituency which spent over $10,000 in developing antennae and which found after all that expense that television reception is still poor. One of the sad aspects of the particular cases in question is that these communities were not able to receive advice from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as to where stations are likely to be located. It was interesting to 57071-3-52
Television Coverage
note that last fall the only inkling we had as to where Canadian Broadcasting Corporation receiving stations would be located in northern Ontario leaked out through the Bell Telephone Company which was informed of the arrangements because of its microwave relay setup.
At the present time our hinterland communities are disappointed, not only in that they do not receive television reception, but also they are keenly disappointed about the radio reception they get from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In some instances they have no reception at all and in other places they have repeater stations which carry trans-Canada network programs. If any hon. gentlemen listen regularly to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation they will know that the diet carried on the trans-Canada network is pretty heavy in relation to the diet carried on the dominion network. During the election campaign I had the pleasure while motoring one Wednesday evening of hearing for half an hour the voice of a professor who was able to put me to sleep, lecture after lecture, while I was at university. For half an hour his readings went out over the airwaves into a community where I would doubt if poetry as such is read any day of the year by any one in the community.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So what?


Douglas Mason Fisher: We will make our own obeisances. High culture has its place in radio programming but it almost appears as if trans-Canada network programs are deliberately designed to arouse the hackles of people living in bush communities. They are not communities of people with the same cultural interests as are found perhaps in communities such as Eglinton, Forest Hill village, Carleton or places like that.


Mr. Benidickson:: They are just as good.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the principal type of entertainment that is given to them. One of the ironies of the situation is that in many cases dominion network programs are going out over wires side by side with the wires carrying trans-Canada programs. For very little cost-perhaps $1,800 installation and $2,000 wire charges-the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could provide our small communities trans-Canada and dominion network programs, giving the people in those areas a choice. That is one of the suggestions in connection with this general grievance of the lack of television and radio reception in bush communities that I hope the minister will accept, not only the matter of extending television and radio reception to those areas

Television Coverage
but in the field of radio, giving the people there a choice of program so that in a small community such as Nakina and White River the people would not have to listen to opera all Saturday afternoon but could switch to another program and enjoy the lighter entertainment that generally is carried on the dominion network.
I might also mention that of course it would also help us in our political campaigns. We would have two avenues of appeal to the people and I should remind hon. gentlemen opposite that the party in power would enjoy a high proportion of that radio time.
In closing my remarks on this subject I wish to remind the minister who answers for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of the indication he gave the house some time ago in answer to a question I asked him in which he said he recognized that television is a marvellous political medium. Perhaps by this means something could be done about enlightening northern and northwestern Ontario.


Mr. D. J. Walker (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join the C.C.F. group-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David James Walker: I want to join with them in objecting to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation not reaching those communities which they have described as being located in the hinterland and more particularly I direct my remarks to communities in those ridings from which most C.C.F. members come. As hon. members are aware, wherever Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television coverage reached the Canadian people, during the election campaign, where the voice of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was heard and his personality exerted its influence, members of opposition parties were cleaned out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A plea for a one-party state.


David James Walker: Had the voice of the Prime Minister been able to reach the people in the ridings from which hon. gentlemen in the C.C.F. come we would not have that group represented here this evening.


William Moore Benidickson: We would still like television as is available in Toronto.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief word or two to say on this subject. In spite of the very black picture that has been painted by the hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat and the grim prospect he depicted for the future, I appeal to the government to do its best to persuade the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to extend television facilities to central Newfoundland.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the subject of capital punishment was discussed in this chamber.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. members are not permitted to speak on subjects which are still outstanding on the order paper.
(Translation):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I support the views put forward by C.C.F. members. I would suggest to my hon. friend from Rosedale (Mr. Walker)-
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in this debate and state that my riding in the Ottawa area received the prolific television coverage on the C.B.C. that was undertaken by the Prime Minister and members of his party. The Prime Minister apparently had lots of money to spend on this medium and he appeared on programs carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation both day and night. Not only did the Prime Minister of Canada take part in sandwich programs but the premier of Ontario also appeared on our screens. However, I suspect that very few people watched the programs or, if they watched them, were influenced by them. In spite of the expenditure of vast sums of money by the Conservative party on publicity of this kind the people in the Ottawa area were not influenced. They did not need to be informed through the medium of television how to vote because they knew what had been accomplished by the Liberal party during the 22 years which it was in office and they voted accordingly.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where is the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith)? Hiding his head?


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the services rendered to the people of Canada by the C.B.C., I think it is fair to say that since the elections the name of Burnaby has not been heard in this house for some little while now. I hope that after the new member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) gets rolling this house will again become aware of the existence of the second most populated municipality in the province of British Columbia. Almost 100,000 people live in Burnaby. We have on either side of us, we might say, the village of Vancouver and the village of New Westminster. However, when it comes to radio and television services, we feel that we are being discriminated against.
It is several years now since the people of Burnaby applied for a licence to operate their

own radio station. I believe they completely satisfied the governing board of the C.B.C. that the organization, the Burnaby Broadcasting Company, has adequate financial resources. I believe they completely satisfied them that their proposed programming was adequate. The Burnaby Broadcasting Company received the unanimous support of all the commercial enterprises within the municipality, and I might say that some of them have assets in excess of $7 million invested in the municipality right now so that they are not small enterprises at all.
We feel that if a village such as North Vancouver can be granted its own radio station and advertise its name over the air waves, the business concerns and the people of Burnaby should be entitled to the same right. We believe there is discrimination in other matters as well as in radio and television. I might list those other instances; however, this is not the time to go into other fields.
I understand that the application has not yet been refused. Yet, we do find that on every occasion in the past when an applica-toin has been made for the allocation of certain frequencies, the older, the well established and very often the politically reinforced existing radio stations have been able to get the preference and our man has had to return home and report to the business and commercial concerns that over the years have actively supported him that once again he has been denied. I hope this situation will soon be changed and we shall not have to wait for the establishment of the new agency which is proposed in the speech from the throne.
Having spoken of radio I also wish to say a few words about television services. While the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) may not want to listen to opera, I for one do not want to be a captive audience of a so-called wrestling match, I believe it is. The only other programs I can see-and I can see a number of other programs-are United States programs, and those United States programs are in the main being paid for by Canadian advertising, or a goodly number of them. There is a television station only 16 miles south of the border and I would venture to say that about half of our people are watching the programs of this United States television station when they would much rather tune into a Canadian television station. I know that economics is involved.
However, for some time I have had the feeling that the day has long passed when we can continue to insist on only one television station in the major metropolitan areas of Canada. Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal should be given the right 57071-3-521
Radio Broadcasting-Northern Areas to have a second television station; be it municipally owned, privately owned or owned by the C.B.C., I do not care which. However, I do not like the idea that hundreds of thousands, and in our case over half a million, people either have to watch the particular C.B.C. wrestling matches or have to tune into a United States program. I hope that early attention will be given to this problem. I know the minister is giving it serious consideration. However, while the subject was under discussion I thought I ought to present our case.



BROADCASTING


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, while many millions of people in Canada are enjoying facilities provided by television at the present time, in the isolated territories of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon we not only do not have the facilities or have the opportunity to enjoy television, we have not proper radio coverage or radio reception. As a matter of fact, in a good many places in the north in order to hear radio the people have to tune into Moscow or other Russian stations, Moscow Molly or newscasts from Russia. As was stated by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories and also by the commissioner of the Yukon territories when they presented their brief to the Fowler commission some time ago, there is a danger of selling Russian ideologies to the people in the isolated areas of our northland.
I admit that the providing of radio reception to the Northwest Territories is a difficult and costly proposition. Atmospheric conditions in that part of the country are such, as I understand from engineers of the C.B.C., that a radio transmitter set up in Texas, or in some other place in the southern parts of the United States of America, would have a better chance of reaching us than radio stations in the populated parts of Canada. That is because of the atmospheric conditions in the northern hemisphere. But the Fowler commission did suggest in their report that aside from the expenditures of the C.B.C., the federal government should provide moneys to build transmitters in Winnipeg and in Vancouver to boom into both the eastern and western Arctic.
I would hope, that at this session or in this year's estimates the government would provide sums of money to begin the immediate construction of those transmitters in order to give the people of the northern regions some communications with the outside world.
812	HOUSE OF
Radio Broadcasting-Northern Areas


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread interest in this matter perhaps I should say a word or two before the motion is put. First, may I say to the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie), that if he has looked at his supplementary estimates, as I am sure he has, he will find there a substantial vote for the installation of this radio system about which he has been speaking. I quite realize that the Fowler commission recommended the installation of a shortwave service from Winnipeg and Vancouver to cover all of that area which the hon. gentleman represents, and a wider area as well.
Although we have not followed completely the recommendation of the Fowler commission in that respect, we have accepted the recommendation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and we have included in the supplementary estimates a substantial amount of money for the immediate installation of radio services for that area which, heretofore, has been served in part, and to the very best of their ability, by a number of smaller stations, most of which require new equipment and are not in a financial position to continue. I believe, therefore, in that respect at any rate, in so far as that grievance of the hon. member is concerned, I am happy to say that I think we are meeting it, perhaps not 100 per cent but at least to a degree which I am sure he will find satisfactory.
This installation is experimental in nature. As the hon. member points out, atmospheric difficulties are such that even with two transmitters at each station it is possible that atmospheric conditions will be such that reception will be impossible either from Winnipeg or from Vancouver with both transmitters operating. We are starting with one at the moment in an attempt to work out a solution and see what may be the answer in meeting the technical requirements. After the station has been set up for a year or two we may know more about the problem.
In so far as the general problem is concerned, there is no doubt that everyone in Canada wants better radio and television services. I have every sympathy and every appreciation for those who are living in areas which today are not too well served by the existing facilities. There has been some suggestion here that the C.B.C. has failed to do something, has neglected to do something or has refused to do something; that is simply arrant nonsense. The C.B.C. has not failed or refused to do anything. The C.B.C. has been spending the money which


this parliament has made available to it, and spending it to the very best effect possible.
In that connection I should like to point this out. This year, under the aegis of this government-I am not speaking politically now at all because other governments gave the C.B.C. financial support, too-


George James McIlraith: We did a good job with it.


George Clyde Nowlan: You did a good job with it; there is no question about that, but we are going to do a better one with it. As a matter of fact, without transgressing or getting involved in a political discussion, I should just point out that the former government provided enough money to operate the C.B.C. up until last October. I presume this was because the Fowler commission had been set up, because the government was awaiting the report of that commission and because the government expected, in the peace and serenity of their minds and souls which still dominated them even a year ago tonight, that they would have an opportunity to scan the Fowler commission report and bring in supplementary estimates last fall. In any event, when we came into office we faced a situation in which the C.B.C. would have ground to a full stop last October because their estimates were exhausted. As I have said, I presume that was because the former government expected the Fowler commission report to be brought in and they hoped, expected and assumed that they would be introducing an appropriation to enable the C.B.C. to continue. As we know, something happened. They had the peace, serenity and time to consider the report, but they did not have much to do with implementing it or bringing in a vote.
As a result, the first thing that had to be done last fall was the provision of a vote to enable the C.B.C. to carry on for the balance of the year. This, we did. We introduced a vote in this house, as recommended by the Fowler commission, for the first annual instalment. We provided half of it. I have not the figures in front of me for this year. Frankly, I did not expect this question would come up or I should have been prepared. I have not my documents here; they are all down in the other office. However, speaking in general terms, we have provided several million dollars more this year than has ever been provided before for the C.B.C. The service is being expanded as rapidly as possible. As some hon. members know who have been listening to the debate on the address, there has been criticism of the government for having made too much money available to the C.B.C. I do not subscribe to that criticism for one moment.

In that connection, too, it should be pointed out that the figures are somewhat misleading because at the suggestion-it was either of the preceding government, the Fowler commission or both, but it was a proper suggestion-the C.B.C. divested itself of many of the investments it had held up until last year. During the days of the 15 per cent excise tax, the revenue from which was credited to the C.B.C., the C.B.C. invested in certain securities. I believe the giving of this tax money to the C.B.C. was a mistake, because the revenue bore no relationship whatever to the needs of the C.B.C. When everybody was buying television sets, millions of dollars rolled into the C.B.C., whether or not they needed the money. When the people stopped buying television sets, the C.B.C. needed still more money which it could not get from the excise tax and therefore had to hope that the treasury of Canada, the consolidated revenue fund, would make up the difference.
In any event, during those lush days when the 15 per cent excise tax was piling up a surplus for the C.B.C., it did invest millions of dollars in Dominion of Canada bonds and other securities which last year it sold. When one looks at the parliamentary vote of a year ago and looks at the parliamentary vote today, therefore, I do not want any hon. member assuming we have made an additional $17 million or $18 million available. You have to deduct from our vote the surplus assets, the securities which were sold last year.
As I have said, I have every sympathy with those areas that require better service. There is no area in Canada which does not require or ask for better service, whether it is an isolated area or whether it is a centre of population. The C.B.C. is doing its best to meet these demands. I would point out to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who talked about the Fowler commission and what it recommended, that the Fowler commission did not recommend any instantaneous transformation of the situation which exists today. It would not follow, therefore, that one moment my friend would be lulled to sleep by the drowsy voice of that college professor who put him to sleep 10 or 15 or 20 years ago, and the next day we would have created new facilities entirely. The Fowler commission envisaged that this perhaps would be done over a period of five to ten years. It is impossible to do it earlier because the cost is tremendous. Today, over 80 per cent of the people of Canada are being served by television, and a somewhat larger percentage are being served by radio. Even the Fowler commission said that 10 per cent of the population could never be served, either by television or radio, because the cost
3, 1958	813
Radio Broadcasting-Northern Areas would be so great that no government could vote the money and expect public support.
I am not saying this is going to be the policy of this government, but when my friend talks about what the Fowler commission said, and what we should do, I think he should stick more closely to the text of the Fowler commission and perhaps not be lulled to sleep by the college professor when he was driving along the road.
There has been a great deal said about competition, and I think this should be put on the record for the benefit of the C.B.C. In the United States of America, that great nation to the south of us, 55 per cent of the area, not of the population but 55 per cent of the area of the United States, has available to it only one television station. In other words, these areas have no competing stations. This statement, of course, does not apply to Chicago, New York or Boston, but over 55 per cent of the entire area of the United States has available to it only one television station, if any.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: You are paying
tribute to the former Liberal government.


George Clyde Nowlan: That may be. I pay tribute
where tribute is due. I think that the Liberal government deserves a tribute once in a while for some of the things it did, at any rate. I want to point out this fact also. In the United States of America there are three television networks and according to the financial reports none of them, as networks, are making much money, if they are breaking even. The United States has a population of 165 million or 170 million people. We have a population of between 16,500,000 and 17 million. We have a national network for television and we also have a French network for television. In other words, we are maintaining two television networks with a population of 16J million whereas the United States of America is finding great difficulty in maintaining three networks with a population of roughly 170 million. I say therefore that on the whole we are not doing too badly in extending the services under the circumstances which exist today. I think it is generally recognized in so far as our radio is concerned or our radio programs, that the standard and quality of the C.B.C. will compare favourably with any radio network or any radio system in the world.
I would also call this point to the attention of my good friend the hon. member for Port Arthur, who was worrying a while ago about what the Fowler commission says about getting ahead and developing his area and who also wanted to see more light music, shall we say, on the dominion network as contrasted with the trans-Canada network.

Radio Broadcasting-Northern Areas
May I say that if we adopt the Fowler commission report in toto-it suggests that the dominion network could be abolished- and then he will only have the opera of the C.B.C. to listen to and not even the drowsy voice of the college professor.
Anyway, I want to assure the house, and the hon. gentleman who raised this matter in a way which I appreciate, that the government and the C.B.C. are conscious of the responsibility which rests upon them, the government to supply the money and the C.B.C. to supply the service. It is my belief and conviction that the C.B.C. will continue to develop this service and provide even a better one than it has previously. As I said to the hon. member for Mackenzie, we are going to extend in other more or less, shall I say, isolated areas, as rapidly as possible.
I think the service which will be given by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the people of Canada will be one of which all Canadians can be well and truly proud.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely. I am not certain
that I can answer it tonight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a very simple question. What I was going to ask the minister was this. In his reference to the 15 per cent excise tax, was he anticipating the budget?


George Clyde Nowlan: No. The 15 per cent excise tax applies to radio and television sets as it has for some years. As the hon. gentleman well knows, the receipts from the tax have fallen down markedly on television sets because fewer and fewer of them are being bought. Interestingly enough, they have increased substantially on radios because today you have a radio in the bathroom, one in the kitchen, one in the rumpus room and one in the car. The net result is that I think the figures will show that over the last year we have taken in from the excise tax on radios $2 million more than was estimated by the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member and that we have taken in roughly $2 million or something like that less than was estimated from the excise tax on television sets. When I was expressing my own opinion as to the fact that the preceding government had made an error in the crediting of the excise tax to the C.B.C. rather than to the consolidated revenue fund, I was not for one moment suggesting, intimating, or in fact presuming to know anything about what might be contained in the budget with respect to these matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the hon.
gentleman does not know whether or not he is going to perpetuate the error?
[Mr. Nowlan.3


George Clyde Nowlan: When the budget comes down the curiosity of the hon. gentleman will be satisfied.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $674,164.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
85. Departmental administration (including the former passport office administration), $5,533,081.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
220. To provide for the Canadian Forces, the Defence Research Board and other expenditures relating to defence, including costs incurred in the participation of the Canadian Forces in the United Nations Emergency Force and contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $130,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian Forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,158,845,866 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,350,597,670 will come due for payment in future years), $1,630,377,196.

[Stage Direction]
266. Departmental administration, $731,410.

[Stage Direction]
328. General administration, $8,536,892.

[Stage Direction]
473. Departmental administration, $2,438,212.
Proceedings reported.

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask leave of the house to revert to motions?


Lionel Chevrier: I think it is all right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming):
That items numbered 220 to 225, inclusive, and items numbered 504 and 505, as listed in the main estimates 1958-59; and item numbered 578, as listed in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, relating to the Department of National Defence, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on estimates, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming):
That items numbered 266 to 303, inclusive, and items numbered 506 to 508, inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1958-59; and items numbered 580 to 588, inclusive, and item numbered 659, as listed in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, relating to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Howard Charles Green: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming):
That items numbered 473 to 499, inclusive, and items numbered 517 to 520, inclusive, as listed in the main estimates of 1958-59; and items numbered 652 to 654, inclusive, as listed in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 30, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Monteith (Perth)-Mr. Sevigny in the chair:
Hospital Insurance Act
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to authorize contributions being made as of the first day of July, 1958, to a participating province which has a plan in operation; and to make certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, when my speech was interrupted last Friday at five o'clock for other business I was saying that when the Conservatives were in opposition they were loud in their condemnation of the policy of the Liberal government in not having allowed the hospitals a substantial amount for depreciation on the building and maintenance costs of hospitals. What has caused them to drop these items from the bill they are now presenting to this house? What has caused the Conservatives now that they are in power to change their minds? Why does the government now feel the Liberals were right in refusing to include these items in the act which they were presenting on the prior occasion? It is paying an indirect tribute to the Liberal government which introduced this legislation; it is an admission by the Conservative government that the Liberal government was fully justified in its refusal to bear the depreciation on the cost of building and maintenance.
It might be interesting to this house to learn from the Minister of National Health and Welfare what progress he has made with the provinces with respect to the hospital insurance act. Has the minister personally discussed this measure with the premiers of the different provinces since this government came to power? If only one province so far seems to be entirely in favour of the act and is ready to join with the federal government in its administration, this surely does not indicate that he has met with much success. The provinces appear to be more anxious to keep aloof than to join with the federal government to put this legislation into effect. The hon. minister told us the other day that five provinces were ready to sign the agreement. Why have they not signed? Why are they delaying if, as the minister says, they are in complete agreement?
Under the Liberal government tuberculosis and mental cases were not included under the act. The reason for this, it was contended, was that the provincial governments collected the taxes for this purpose and that they should therefore bear the cost of such cases. In other words, the then federal government did not feel it should subsidize any provincial government when taxes were collected for a specific purpose, as was the case in respect

Hospital Insurance Act to tuberculosis and mental cases. I understand this applies also in Great Britain where a health insurance plan is in operation. In this instance the Conservatives, who were then in opposition, argued that tuberculosis and mental cases should be covered by the act.
Is the Conservative government willing to admit that once again the Liberal government was right? I would like to call the attention of this house to the fact that they have left such cases out of the bill they are now presenting for approval-another tribute to the Liberal government which first brought the hospital insurance act into being.
Under the Liberal regime six provincial governments had agreed in principle to join the federal government in bringing this act into effect. What has happened to all these provinces? It would now appear that the only province which is in entire accord with the federal government is Ontario, which has no hospital insurance scheme in force and would therefore not be eligible to enter this scheme. It was expected that the legislation would be carried into effect on or about January 1, 1959, and it would appear that the only provinces eligible to take advantage of the act are the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, since they are the only provinces with hospital insurance schemes in effect at this time.
The minister stated that it was now the intention of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland to begin operations by July. He also stated that Nova Scotia was hoping to commence operations on January 1 next and that Ontario had signed the agreement. Why did the other provinces not sign?
I feel a tribute should be paid to those responsible for the introduction of the hospital insurance act, the then minister of national health and welfare and the then prime minister. I should also mention here the splendid co-operation and support they received from the Conservative premier of the province of Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Frost and, if I may do so, I will compliment the present Minister of Health and Welfare for having again brought this bill before the house. I have no doubt that this measure will ease the minds of many people who have for years lived in fear of sickness or ill health. It is a good step forward, and I hope it will prove a successful one. I believe this is a good measure instituted by the Liberal party, and that it will meet with the approval of all the elements of society-working men, white collar men, and wealthy men-the approval, in short, of every individual in Canada. We on this side of the house hope

that the government will give the most careful consideration to recommendations that may be made for improvements which the opposition may desire to have incorporated into this bill in order that the citizens of Canada may derive from it the greatest possible benefit.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks in this debate. The government of Newfoundland, in anticipation of decisions to be reached by this house earlier this year, formulated an extensive program designed to increase hospital accommodation in Newfoundland. Under the program as announced by Premier Smallwood in February of this year, a total of 1,200 beds would be added to hospital accommodation in Newfoundland.
The consideration of the governments concerned, aimed at providing a workable system of federal-provincial hospital insurance, is an example of modern, enlightened, social legislation. I cannot help mentioning that it originated with a previous Liberal government and that it was piloted by the hon. member for Essex East.
Mr. Chairman, I think I should like here to outline the Newfoundland provincial program. The program is to build seven new general hospitals, six new children's hospitals, and to enlarge seven of the existing institutions. The new general hospitals will be as follows: Corner Brook, with 75 beds; Grand Falls, 75 beds; Gander, 80 beds; Cla-renville, 50 beds; Bell Island, 50 beds; Baie Verte Peninsula 30 beds. The projected St. John's mental hospital will have 30 beds. The new children's hospitals will be as follows: Corner Brook, with 40 beds; Grand Falls, 50 beds; Gander, 30 beds; Bell Island, 25 beds; Clarenville, 25 beds; St. John's 200 beds.
The cottage hospitals to be enlarged are as follows: Placentia, Fogo, Brookfield, Bonne Bay, Stephenville Crossing, Bunin and Old Perlican cottage hospital where work has already started.
In addition to these new hospitals, and extensions to existing hospitals, residences will be built for medical doctors at Brookfield, Hermitage, and St. Joseph's. Doctor's residences will be renovated at Burin, St. George's and Stephenville Crossing. Additional medical doctors are to be stationed at Jeffrey's, St. Lawrence, Port Saunders, Old Perlican, Hampden, Stephenville Crossing and Brookfield.
Besides these new hospitals and extensions to hospitals, the government is constructing a new $2 million cancer wing for the general hospital in St. John's. Moreover, the government plans a new 300-bed residence for nursing students at St. John's.

The deliberations of this house regarding a federal-provincial hospital insurance plan will be watched with earnest interest by the many people who will derive real benefit from it and, I might add, a society which allows people to sicken and die for lack of medical treatment belongs to the barbarous past. I am glad the province of Newfoundland is one of the provinces in this co-operative undertaking to provide hospital care for all citizens.
At this time, I would again make another plea on behalf of federal support for the hospital at Gander. Gander is almost wholly a Department of Transport town. At the present time there are always a number of beds held vacant in case of an emergency. It seems to me, and indeed to many others, that the Gander hospital is largely a federal responsibility and I do hope that favourable consideration will be given to this suggestion.
May I ask, with due modesty and faith, that the breadth of the new vision include the much needed facilities for Gander.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in the past number of days, not only while the committee has been dealing with this resolution but while the house has been dealing with other matters, we have heard periodically, especially from government backbenchers, the theme that this is a government which keeps its promises. On every possible occasion where they can use that approach, it is used.
Those of us who come from British Columbia and who have some familiarity with the political picture there in the last five or six years can see that there is a definite parallel between this approach-the theme that this is a government which keeps its promises-and the government we have in British Columbia. Quite frankly, I think this is a smart psychological approach-to leave, or create the impression in the minds of the general public that this is a government which keeps faith with the people.
But in order to balance the scale it is necessary to show the other side of the coin, as it were, and point out instances where this government has not kept faith with the people, occasions when it has not kept its own promises. I refer not only to election promises, but to the sort of changes it wanted to make when it was sitting in opposition.
In attempting to strike this balance with regard to only one phase of the business of the committee, that is to say with regard to this resolution, I would merely remind hon. members opposite of three particular promises that were made by this government relating to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic
Hospital Insurance Act Services Act. One of them relates to patients in tuberculosis sanitaria, another to patients in mental hospitals and the third to reflecting the depreciation cost of hospitals. These matters were not only the subject of election campaign promises; they were the subject matter of speeches which were made by the gentlemen on your right, Mr. Chairman, when they were sitting in opposition. I believe that two of them were the subject matter of the amendment to the original bill which the Liberal government introduced, to the effect that the cost of keeping patients in tuberculosis sanataria and mental hospitals should be reflected in the grant. Thus, we have a three-fold promise, or a promise from three different angles made in speeches, amendments and then in a space of irresponsible election pledges with regard to these matters I have mentioned. We do not, of course, agree with the attitude of the official opposition which coincides at the present time with the attitude they took when they were in government.
I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) at least attempted to leave the impression that he wanted to live up to these promises by spending the provincial governments' money to carry them out because at the federal-provincial conference last fall, in a futile attempt to abandon part of the load of promises, he suggested that if the federal government were to include in the plan the cost of patients in tuberculosis sanatoria and mental hospitals the federal government would have to reduce the amount of general grants which are made to the provinces by the amount it would cost to provide that additional hospital care. It is easy to keep a promise if you are going to spend someone else's money in doing it. In addition to that we had what might be described as the sorry spectacle of the Minister of Finance yesterday saying that no such commitment was made by his government at the federal-provincial conference last November.
While I am sure no hon. member of this committee will vote against this resolution because the slight change it does provide is acceptable, nevertheless it is merely a feeble attempt to move toward what, should be a sensible and all-inclusive health plan for Canada. The people do not want participation by the federal government in hospital insurance coverage but rather they want something akin to the all-inclusive health plan envisaged by the Liberal party in that 40-year old manifesto adopted in 1919. Actually the measure before us is of relatively little value because it makes but a minor change in the operation of the existing act.
As you know, the party to which I belong has spent many years campaigning both

Hospital Insurance Act inside this house and outside of it for an allinclusive national health plan. We have ideas about the scope and institution of such a plan which differ from those conceptions held by the Liberal party and the Conservative government. We merely ask the government, if it will do nothing else, to at least keep faith with the people of this country to whom it made promises by bringing in changes in line with the ideas expressed by hon. members of the government less than a year ago. Naturally we would like to see the government go further. We would like to see the act amended in such a way as to lay the groundwork for an all-inclusive doctor-dental health plan on a national scale but designed in keeping with our constitutional provisions to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces in the field of health.
In a proper national health scheme such as we have advanced over the years there should be emphasis placed on prevention of illness and I will deal with that subject more fully in a moment. At this point I should give the government fair warning that we will continue in our efforts to persuade it to give leadership in instituting the kind of plan we envisage.
Although the numerical representation of the C.C.F. group in this house is not large we hope that in years to come we will be able to bring enough pressure to bear on the government so that it will, as was the case with the Liberal government on so many occasions in years past, come to realize that the ideas we express are necessary and will bring in legislation embodying the principles we advance.
In the operation of the act as it exists at this time there is a failure in that emphasis should first be placed on providing facilities for the determination and correction of illness in its early stages. The measure before us contemplates participating in an insurance program that pays for the individual part of the costs of treatment after he becomes ill enough to enter hospital. If we place the emphasis on prevention we will be taking a forward step in providing for the health and welfare of the Canadian population.
There are health plans in effect in a number of countries of the world. Unfortunately Canada lags far behind many other nations in providing health care, services and insurance coverage for the people who need it. We are not alone in that respect because our good neighbour to the south is in precisely the same position. Let me draw the attention of the committee to some fairly prominent countries that have adopted all-inclusive health plans which go further than the system envisaged in the resolution before us.


Probably the first country in the world to adopt an all-inclusive health scheme was Germany in 1883.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under Bismarck.


Frank Howard: I believe that is correct. I was not alive at that time so I have no personal recollection of it. However, I do recall reading that Bismarck was prominent in Germany at the time this was instituted. I am glad that my friend the hon. member for Essex East, the former minister of national health and welfare, substantiated what I said. It lends me assurance in the points I am attempting to make.
Austria, another European country, was probably the next to adopt a national health plan some five years later in 1888, followed by Hungary in 1891. New Zealand made progressive changes to their existing plan and in 1939 instituted an all-inclusive scheme. I am sure all hon. members are familiar with the plan that is in effect in the United Kingdom which received so much publicity at the time of and following its adoption in 1948. The plan having been adopted in recent years the memory of the newspaper publicity arising out of it is fresh in our minds. Other countries which have had plans in effect for a number of years include Denmark, Norway and The Netherlands. Actually there are 39 other foreign countries that provide for hospital care today for patients when in hospital.
Thirty-eight of those provide medicines. All but one, 38 again, provide for and pay for the services of a specialist. All but two provide for general practitioners' care and treatment of patients. These are countries smaller in area than Canada, some of them less wealthy and smaller in population than Canada or the United States to the south of us; yet many years ago they entered into this all-inclusive doctor-dental care national health schemes, not merely a hospital insurance coverage scheme.
I suppose the history not only of hospital insurance care in Canada but the development of other fields of legislation which were either entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces or where there was not an overlapping situation but similar jurisdiction in different fields such as in labour has shown that the attitude and the policies of the federal government and the gains of the government generally follow far behind the progress made in the provincial field. An example is the present question that we are discussing.
We have provinces in Canada that have had hospital insurance schemes in effect for a number of years. I do not recall the exact dates of all of them but my own province

has one and I believe it was introduced in 1949, some nine years ago, under a coalition government when incidentally, I should say, a provincial election was around the corner. At that time a provincial hospital insurance scheme was instituted. Before that Saskatchewan, and then Alberta, had a sort of plan. In recent years there has been more thought and more discussion and more ideas presented in other provinces. In addition to that we have been pressing the federal government to institute a national plan even though some of the provinces have their own provincial plans. We finally arrived at the point of following the lead of the provinces in hospital insurance coverage and in finally getting around to participating with them and providing for it.
In our opinion, even if the federal government before last June 10, and this government now, had been desirous-and apparently they were-of confining the federal government's participation to that of taking part in a hospital insurance coverage scheme, they should have taken the lead some years ago and placed the legislation on the statute books. They should have said to the provinces, we will participate with you in covering the costs of a socialized hospital scheme, if you wish to call it that, when you put the plan into effect. When you get it into operation we will show the lead; we will show that we are interested in getting a uniform scheme across Canada and we will participate uniformly in that scheme.
We should have taken that approach some years ago, just as we are now, instead of waiting 10, 12 or 15 years-I do not know how long-or something of that nature until a number of the provinces had entered into an all-inclusive health scheme to provide doctors' care and pay for doctors' bills or dental bills or other preventive measures. Instead of waiting for the provinces to take the lead to institute such plans on their own, instead of waiting until it had become generally popular to follow that lead and participate in those plans, this government should show some leadership in this field by amending the present legislation to share in the
Business of the House
costs of dental care, doctors' care, nursing care and other professional preventive care of ill people, and lay the ground work to participate-in it financially with the provinces to get the plan into effect. We should do that instead of waiting, as we have done in the past, until the provinces show the lead and get the scheme into operation, expand it and come along later and say, that is fine, you have got the schemes under way and we will participate with you in them.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the leader of the house what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall ask for interim supply and then have second reading of the bill to amend the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, which is item No. 2 on today's order paper; then the resolution which has just been under debate. Following that we shall take the resolution, item 4 on today's order paper, which deals with the Department of Transport Act; then item No. 7 on today's order paper, the resolution concerning the Cape Breton Highlands national park, and then the resolution concerning the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did the leader of the house say that this was to be the first item?


Howard Charles Green: No, the Agricultural Products Standards Act, after interim supply.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what the business will be for the remainder of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Thursday is private members' day. On Friday we had intended to take the resolution dealing with the NORAD agreement. Owing to the absence of some of the members who intended to take part in the discussion we shall probably take estimates, the estimates of public works.


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

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

Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	What Is the total strength of North American
air defence headquarters at Colorado Springs, United States of America?
2.	What is the Canadian strength at the headquarters in (a) officers: (b) other ranks?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):
1.	The release of strength figures other than Canadian is not the responsibility of the Canadian government.
2.	(a) eight; (b) seven.
In addition, there are two Canadian civilian scientists attached to the North American air defence headquarters.


POSTAL SERVICE, OTTAWA    COLLECTION OF OUTGOING MAIL
Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Is the collection of outgoing mail from postal collection boxes done in Ottawa by contractors or by post office employees?
2.	If by contractors, what are the names of all such contractors?
3.	What contracts have been awarded since June 21, 1957, when was each such contract awarded, and what is the basis of payment under the contract?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	By contractor.
2.	Rod Service (Ottawa) Ltd.
3.	(a) Ottawa and street letter boxes;
(b)	April 11, 1958;
(c)	$53,610 per annum (basic rate-
$2.50 per hour);
(a)	Ottawa-postal station and shuttle;
(b)	April 11, 1958;
(c)	$37,419.25 per annum (basic rate-
$2.75 per hour).

Wednesday, June 4, 1958