1958-06-30

MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West) presented the second report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement to the house at this time. In the past few days agreements under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act have been concluded with four additional provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. As was the case with that signed earlier this month with Newfoundland, the effective date of these agreements is July 1. In view of the fact that royal assent has now been obtained for the amendment to the related federal legislation, the dominion government will therefore be in the position as of tomorrow to begin payments towards the cost of hospital insurance plans in these five provinces.
In other words, our objective of getting the program under way in all provinces wishing to participate as of July 1 has now been achieved. I think it is highly fitting that an undertaking of such importance to the people of Canada should be launched on the nation's birthday.
I might say that the basic agreement entered into in each case is substantially the same. As hon. members may know there are, however, areas of the act in which the provinces are permitted leeway in developing their programs. Accordingly certain differences occur in provincial plans, and these are reflected in the schedules of the agreements which have been completed.
In all cases the basic inpatient services enumerated in the federal act are provided for. In this connection the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta propose to impose an authorized charge. An authorized
charge is a levy made on an individual at the time a service is provided, and as far as British Columbia is concerned this will amount to $1 per day for hospital care. In Alberta the authorized charge will be $1 per day for new-born infants and from $1.50 to $2 per day for others, depending on the size of the hospital. The other three provinces are not imposing such charges.
With regard to outpatient services, the Manitoba and Saskatchewan plans will make these available on an emergency basis. In addition, Saskatchewan will provide for the pathological examination of tissue. The agreements with Alberta and British Columbia do not contain provisions for outpatient services. British Columbia, however, will continue to supply an emergency service to outpatients and will levy a $2 authorized charge in this connection. As previously indicated, Newfoundland proposes to furnish a fairly wide range of out-patient services.
Hon. members will recall that four of the five provinces now entering into shared programs with the federal authority have been operating provincial hospital insurance plans of one kind or another for the past few years. It is hoped that the support now available through the contributions of the dominion government will enable them to extend and improve further the hospital and diagnostic services which are available to their residents under this program.
On behalf of the dominion government and officials of my department I should like to thank these provinces which tomorrow will join with the dominion government in initiating this nation-wide program of hospital insurance for the fine spirit of co-operation which they have shown in bringing these agreements to completion. To me the pattern of joint effort developed in this connection augurs well for the future of this major federal-provincial undertaking in the health field. I am sure hon. members will join with me in wishing these five provinces success in directing their plans to the benefit of all their people.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question. Will he tell me who signed the agreement on behalf of the province of Manitoba?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Hon. R. W. Bend.

R.C.M.P.-Drowning of Five Members



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on June 12 I made a statement to the house concerning the tragic accident on lake Simcoe on June 7 in which five members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police lost their lives. The statement appears at page 1064 of Hansard for that date.
Now that the inquest has been completed there are certain further observations I feel I should make to the house, particularly as there would seem to be some discrepancies between the facts contained in my previous statement and the evidence given at the inquest. That inquest was in form of an inquiry into the cause of the death of Corporal Smart, whose body was the only one recovered at that time, but it was in effect an inquiry into the cause and circumstances of this whole disaster.
In the first place I should like to read into the record the actual text of the finding of the coroner's jury:
We, the jury, find that Corporal Herbert Smart met his death by accidental drowning on lake Simcoe, off Georgina island, on the night of June the 7th, due to rough sea caused by storm, failure of motor, causing boat to swamp.
We, the jury, found by testimony and observation of test that boat on night in question was overloaded and also overcrowded, and at the same time, on our discussion, this plaque of Canadian Boating Federation Incorporated and Department of Transport is confusing of proper maximum weight.
With further regard, on observation of test made on Black river with two experienced swimmers, that we find the Department of Transport standard life jacket and approved Department of Transport life cushions to be unsatisfactory in case of emergency. Therefore, we, the jury, strongly recommend that a life jacket type vest is the most serviceable.
We, the jury, recommend that the plaque issued by the Canadian Boating Federation Incorporated, Department of Transport and boat manufacturers read that gross weight to include motor, passengers and all equipment and that greater consideration be given to calculation of gross weight.
We, the jury, recommend that a compass be added to all boats operating at night.
, We- the jury, recommend that the book called
Safety Afloat" be made readily available to the boating public.
We, the jury, strongly recommend that more common sense be used on the operation of boats with respect to all waters.
The information previously given to the house by me may now seem to have been inaccurate in respect to the load limit of the boat in question and the weight it was actually carrying on the night of the accident. If I seem to have misled the house in any degree this was done quite unintentionally, and resulted from misunderstanding or lack of information on three points, which I am now glad to clear up.

(a)	The R.C.M.P. had interpreted the load limit of the boat as being 975 pounds exclusive of the power unit.
(b)	The weight of the clothing and equipment worn by the men was estimated at 8 pounds per man, a figure usually taken for this purpose. It now seems that the total weight of personal clothing and equipment may have somewhat exceeded the 40 pounds calculated by the police-we cannot as yet be sure of the exact weight.
(c)	A tarpaulin weighing 14 pounds 12 ounces, an anchor, and an anchor rope, are now understood to have been carried in the boat. At the time I gave my earlier statement, it was not known that the boat was carrying these items, and they were therefore not included in the police weight calculations, although they were in the figures produced at the inquest.
The police calculations upon which my statement was based were therefore as follows: Weight of men, 860 pounds, and I should say here that is the actual weight as established from the personal records and as produced at the inquest; weight of clothing and personal equipment was 40 pounds, making a total of 900 pounds, and leaving a 75-pound margin to cover other items of equipment in the boat exclusive of the power unit.
The weight of the other equipment at that time known to have been carried in the boat, exclusive of the power unit, totalled 52 pounds 12 ounces, and it was on that basis I said that the weight carried was within the 975 pounds maximum weight authorized.
It now turns out also that we underestimated somewhat in using the standard estimate of 8 pounds per man for clothing, etc., worn or carried on the person. Such items as one overcoat, revolvers, and handcuffs had been overlooked.
The previous police estimate on which my statement was based should therefore have been increased by the following weights as established at the inquest:
Extra allowance for clothing and
personal equipment	 15 lbs.
Anchor and rope	 20 lbs.
Tarpaulin	 14 lbs. 12 oz.
Total	 49 lbs. 12 oz.
On this basis the total actually carried will be seen to have been somewhat over the presumed limit of 975 pounds.
If, however, we deduct the three items of equipment not previously known but now presumed to have been carried that night, namely tarpaulin, anchor and rope, the gross weight is again reduced to 967 pounds 12

ounces, or 7 pounds 4 ounces below the 975 pounds then understood to be the carrying capacity of the boat.
But the main cause of the discrepancy was, of course, the interpretation of the words used as to the maximum carrying capacity of the boat. The jury itself found that the wording on the plaque issued was confusing on this point, that is as to whether or not the 975 pounds load limit shown was inclusive or exclusive of the weight of the power unit. The R.C.M.P. had taken it that the weight of the power unit was not included in this figure and evidence to this effect was given by them at the inquest.
The wording on the plaque is as follows:
This boat is built to safely accommodate under normal operating conditions a gross load of MAXIMUM WEIGHT 975 LBS. and an outboard motor of not more than
HORSEPOWER (Mfrs. Rating) 35 hp.
I must point out that the police wrote to the Peterborough Canoe Company, makers of the boat, as late as February 10, 1958, inquiring as to the issuance of a plate stating the number of persons the boat could safely carry and the horsepower rating of the motor which should be used. The company replied under date of February 11 and said that the Department of Transport and the Canadian Boating Federation were in fact working together with the manufacturers to arrange for maximum load and horsepower ratings for various boats. The company went on to state as follows:
It is our understanding that the plaques are now in the possession of the Canadian Boating Federation and we hope to have our supply in the not too distant future and would be very pleased to supply you with the necessary plaques to attach to your boat but it would be necessary for us to have the serial numbers of the two boats in question, and if you could send these to us at your convenience we would, as soon as the plaques are received, make out two plaques for you and you could attach them to the boats.
The Royal of 1956 is not the same boat as the Royal of 1957 or 1958 and it is more to the specifications of our 1958 Nomad. The Venus for 1957 and 1958 are identical and the rating on this particular boat is 975 pounds gross load capacity and 35 horsepower for the motor.
The boat in question in this accident is the Venus referred to in the above quotation. The plaques were in due course received and, on the basis of the phraseology used thereon as well as the correspondence to which I have referred, the R.C.M.P. concluded, and I think not unreasonably, that the 975-pound limit was exclusive of the power unit.
I have gone to some length in explaining these facts, as I should like the house to understand that the figures previously given were honestly computed both in the light
R.C.M.P.-Drowning of Five Members of the facts as we had them then and of the best estimates we could make at that time.
Turning now to the finding of the jury that the boat was overloaded and also overcrowded, there are a number of points touching on this issue which I think might be borne in mind:
(a)	When the boat left the mainland on its fatal trip the weather was clear, there was a light wind blowing and the water was only slightly choppy.
(b)	There was no apparent reason for the boat to be more than five minutes run from land at any time.
(c)	Corporal Smart, the non-commissioned officer in charge was an experienced, selfreliant N.C.O. and he had some time previously turned back from the same stretch of water when he faced what he thought was an unacceptable risk.
(d)	Corporal Smart had eight men under his control on the night in question and he had a responsibility for using these men as circumstances seemed to dictate.
Earlier in the evening his party had made four arrests for drunkenness, and it was his plan and his duty to visit Georgina island and check on conditions there later that evening. Just what action he would take was to be dictated by circumstances and by such information as might come to him. It is a matter of record that aside from arrests for intoxication, four people in the area had been convicted for supplying liquor illegally between March 14 and June 2, 1958.
I might add that these people were not Indians. This was the general situation that Corporal Smart and his men had to deal with and which took them to the southern lake Simcoe area on June 7.
I point out these factors not by way of objection to the jury's findings but to emphasize that there will always be times when a police officer may be faced with situations in which he must exercise his judgment as to what must be done to discharge his duty, even though that may mean the acceptance of personal risk over and above the normal. I emphasize again that Corporal Smart was experienced in these matters and was a competent and reliable N.C.O. with 11 years' service.
I should like to comment on two other matters which have been the subject of criticism in the press or elsewhere in this connection. The first is that headlines and editorials in certain newspapers create the impression that there was an untrained novice at the helm of the boat on the night in question. This is unfortunate, since in fact the evidence actually
1744	HOUSE OF
R.C.M.P.-Drowning of Five Members given establishes that Constable Farough was a well-trained, competent and experienced helmsman who had been in charge of this boat in these waters as far back as August and September of 1957. His training included the use of compass, map reading and how to tell direction by stars at night. Evidence was also given that this boat had carried five men on similar patrols on lake Simcoe in 1957 without mishap.
Second, it has been said that the boat in question was too small for a large body of water such as lake Simcoe. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police in carrying out their duties have to move their patrols from lake to lake and from river to river, covering hundreds of bodies of water in Ontario and indeed elsewhere. In order to meet this situation they have secured patrol boats which are light enough to move by trailer but at the same time sturdy enough to cover most of the stretches of water they need to patrol.
It is admitted, of course, that small boats have a limit when used on large water surfaces, but we also know that they can be operated safely along a shore line, in coves, bays and the like. It becomes a matter of judgment, therefore, keeping in mind the urgency of the duty, as to how far patrols may be extended on open water with the type of equipment we have. I repeat here that, when this patrol left, the water was only slightly choppy, and having regard to the speed of the boat it did not need, so far as we can see, to be more than five minutes from shore at any particular time.
While I have made these general comments, I wish to make it clear that the verdict of the coroner's jury is accepted and will be used to the fullest extent as a guide for the future. In particular I would emphasize the following points:
(a)	The coroner's jury found that the phrasing used on the plaques fixing safe maximum load and power limits is confusing. My colleague the Minister of Transport informs me that steps are being taken to improve the wording on these plaques so as to remove any possibility of misunderstanding.
(b)	The coroner's jury also found that the life jackets and cushions as used in this boat are unsatisfactory in case of emergency. These were standard items of equipment approved by the Department of Transport, and the Minister of Transport informs me that this question is being studied in the light of the jury's finding and the evidence given and tests made at the inquest.
(c)	The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has set up a board of officers to review the situation in the light


of the evidence and verdict at the inquest, and to examine and report on what steps, if any, might be taken to reduce the risk that members of the force face in carrying out water patrols, and to ensure that safety rules consistent with the demands of police duties are always followed.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will welcome the statement by the minister, particularly in view of the fact that the findings of the coroner's jury were somewhat of a discrepancy with what the minister had announced earlier. I think, too, the house will join with me in deep regret that so many Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers should have lost their lives on this occasion. I believe this is the first time that so many of these valuable men have lost their lives on an occasion such as this.
It occurs to me that while the house will welcome the statement made by the minister, there is no doubt but that there has been a breach of the Department of Transport small boat regulations. I am wondering whether or not the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Transport will continue the investigation which I understand is being carried on under the Canada Shipping Act. I may have misunderstood the Minister of Transport when he answered a question in the house earlier but I was under the impression that an investigation, if not under the Canada Shipping Act then under some other authority in the department, was being proceeded with. The question which arises in my mind now is this. Notwithstanding the investigation which the superintendent of the R.C.M.P. is carrying on, will the Minister of Transport continue his own investigation, and what action will be taken in this case under the provisions of the small boats regulations?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since the report of the coroner's inquest was made available to us my department has been studying very carefully all the factors involved. As the Minister of Justice has said, we have taken careful note of what the jury found regarding the plaque and the life saving equipment, and I expect to make a statement regarding these factors tomorrow morning when my estimates are again under consideration by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Since the hon. member for Laurier is a member of that committee he will no doubt be present at that time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group appreciate the full and very frank statement by the Minister of Justice with regard to this very sad accident, and extend their sympathy to

the relatives of those who have lost their lives. I hope that as a result of this unfortunate accident the Department of Transport will commence some research into the production of a satisfactory life preserver for people in small boats. A good many of us have found from our own experience that the type of life preserver now in general use is totally unsuitable in cases of emergency, in view of the short time there is in which to put on these life preservers.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime
Minister) moved:
That on Tuesday, July 1 next, the house shall meet at 4.30 o'clock p.m., notwithstanding the provisions of standing order No. 2.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this matter the other day in the house, and I should like to pursue it a little further today. As this holiday which we celebrate on Dominion day is our only truly national holiday, I think we should give more consideration to the Canadian people than we are doing by delaying our sittings until 4.30 o'clock.
I mention the fact that members of parliament have other commitments. I notice the Prime Minister is not in his seat. I also notice that statements have been made on the radio and on television that he is participating in activities connected with July 1 in other parts of the country. As a matter of fact, every hon. member has been given an opportunity to do that, and we have had to refrain. Not enough consideration has been given to establishing July 1 as a truly national holiday for all the people.
Another important matter is the staff of the House of Commons. Every other department in the city of Ottawa is receiving a holiday on July 1, but those who work in the House of Commons and the people connected with the operation of the house have to be here. I think it is only fair and just to extend this holiday to a full day for members of parliament so they can play their part in the program that has been designed for our national celebration, and that the staff be given a complete holiday on that day.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming. Tomorrow is Canada's ninety-first birthday as a dominion, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow morning we hope there will be assembled in my riding 18,000 Burnaby citizens to pay tribute to the work 57071-3-111
Business of the House of those who have gone before us in establishing this wonderful Dominion of Canada as one national entity.
On March 31 many of us believed that we would see a new era in Canada under which some new respect would be paid to Canadian institutions. I regret very much that the motion now before us does not signify any new era by way of respect and pride in our institutions.


Mr. Lennard:: It certainly does.


Erhart Regier: The other day in the city of Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, we saw how the Conservative party celebrated its first birthday, signifying one year in office. Well, I have to agree that they had ample cause for rejoicing. I understand that they had quite a day at the Chateau Laurier. However, Mr. Speaker, the anniversary of our nation is much more important. I note that the Prime Minister was able to attend the Conservative victory; I also note with regret that our Prime Minister will not be' able to attend our national birthday celebration in Ottawa tomorrow, which will take place on the lawns of parliament hill.
This Machiavellianism is to be very much regretted. We had a premier in our province of British Columbia who for several years thought it was rather smart not to be attending to the business of government for which he was elected, but to be in other places. He and his cabinet were usually found all over the province making political hay at the expense of public services in the province.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: What has this to do with the motion?


Erhart Regier: I believe those people-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erhart Regier: This has direct reference to the motion. The Prime Minister and the government are elected to perform the functions of government of the country, and we find that the Prime Minister is setting public representatives a very poor example indeed in that he chooses to be absent from Ottawa on Canada's national birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that on reflection the hon. member would not consider that relevant to the motion, which has to do with the sittings of the house.


Mr. Murphy:: He would not know the difference.


Erhart Regier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I consider it a piece of impertinence for the Prime Minister to arrange for us to be here and at the same time arrange for himself not to set the example.

Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erhart Regier: He wants to go out celebrating, but he denies other hon. members of the House of Commons the opportunity to participate in similar situations all across this country.


Mr. McPhillips:: Your big holiday is May 1.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this motion in support of my colleagues, who I think have taken a very sound and very loyal position on this question.
I do wish the strong, silent and stoical member for Wentworth would keep quiet.


Frank Exton Lennard: Not when you are up.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was taught in school nearly 60 years ago that we should respect our national holiday, and look upon it as an occasion for the celebration of the birth of this nation. During my somewhat brief and not at all glamorous army experience

and I am certain the Minister of National Defence will also realize this-during the first world war all training was suspended and everything possible was done to get the troops to celebrate our national birthday. The deputy prime minister will remember that in our youth we celebrated July 1 together some 44 years ago in a certain community. In the small communities that day was looked upon as a community day to be taken advantage of by all, and respect paid to our national holiday.
In addition I support everything the hon. members have said to that effect. Any hon. members who have the opportunity to visit their communities on that day want to be there. In addition, it is up to the house to set an example to the nation with respect to our national holiday. Finally, I think there is a very good argument to be made on behalf of the staff of this house, who are just as entitled to celebrate our national holiday as any others in Canada.


Mr. Fraser:: Your leader is not present, and the leader of the Liberal party is not present.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be few. I notice that statement has received some applause from across the way.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: The hon. member has a right to speak in the house.


Frank Howard: There seems to be quite an undertone of conversation among some hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will proceed, perhaps we can get along.


Frank Howard: My remarks will be few. There is not much I would care to add to what my colleagues have said, except to say that it is our desire that the house should not meet on Dominion day, our national birthday.


Joseph Warner Murphy: What has the house been doing for the last 20 years?


Frank Howard: Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment to this motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), as follows:
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the next sitting of the house shall be on Wednesday, July 2 next, at 2.30 o'clock p.m., notwithstanding the provisions of standing order No. 2."


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


Lionel Chevrier: Does the hon. member for Vancouver East wish to say something?


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, all I wish to do is just to make one statement as the seconder of the motion. I have noted in the press in recent weeks a matter to which all of us should pay attention, and which should be called to the attention of the house. I refer to the expression of regret that we still have not built up in Canada an understanding that, irrespective of the land in which we were born, we are all Canadians. I feel that one of the strongest ways to drive that point home is to have Canada's national holiday accepted throughout the whole country.
To me and to our group it seems wrong that the one place that should give a demonstration of the meaning of the day is the one place where work will still carry on. I know the arguments that can be made. It is said that it is a good day for us to do our work; but by meeting at 4.30 tomorrow and sitting until 10 o'clock we will not expedite the work of the House of Commons a great deal. As seconder of the amendment I believe that one of the greatest indications we can give to all the people of Canada as to what our national holiday means is for the House of Commons not to sit on that day.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, while I find myself in agreement with some of the things that have been said by our friends to your immediate left, on the other hand I think perhaps the best way to give evidence of the fact that we

take our position as parliamentarians seriously is to sit on July 1 and also to adjourn, as has been suggested in the motion, in order to take part in the ceremonies that are to take place on parliament hill. Furthermore, I think it was made quite clear from this side of the house, by myself at least, to the leader of the house that we would consent to this motion because of the reasons which have been given.
There is also the question of those members of the house whose homes are in distant parts of the country, whose constituencies are far away. I am sure all of them will benefit not only from the fact that the house will sit for the greater part of the day but also from the fact that they could view part of the ceremonies that will take place tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise to speak to the amendment, because I think it is most unfortunate tha* a group of members in the house should seek to make political capital out of a question of this kind. They may say they have not done that, but the words they stress indicate that we are not showing respect for Canadian institutions and that we are not showing loyalty. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam went so far as to make a personal attack on the Prime Minister of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Howard Charles Green: -an attack which was entirely without justification, but which shows only too clearly the motive and intent of these hon. members in bringing forward an amendment of this kind on this occasion.
I would point out to them that one of these days they will learn that members of the House of Commons, no matter to what party they may belong, have an equal respect for Canadian institutions and an equal sense of loyalty. When a handful of members have the audacity to put themselves above all the remaining members of the House of Commons in this regard they are doing something which is utterly foolish-


Frank Howard: You are talking nonsense.


Howard Charles Green: -and which is hitting below the belt. What are the facts? This house has sat before on July 1.


An hon. Member:: On many occasions.


Howard Charles Green: The men who were leading the C.C.F. party in those days never stooped to raise objections of the kind that have been raised today. They were not that type of public men. I go back, for example, to 1956. In that year the holiday fell on July 2. Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who was acting as prime 57071-3-111J
Business of the House minister, referred to the day as Canada's anniversary and suggested that the house should sing "O Canada" and "God Save the Queen". This was done. No time was lost, and the house sat for the normal length of sitting.
In 1955 Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent did much the same thing. He made a brief and very fitting speech and then suggested that the members should sing "O Canada" and "God Save the Queen". The length of the sitting was not abbreviated in any way. In 1952 the house sat on July 1, and Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent did the same thing on that occasion although there was provision made in 1952 that there should be an intermission from four o'clock until eight o'clock rather than the ordinary intermission from six to eight.
These are only three examples of the house having sat on July 1. There are various others. I located one this morning, and the former leader of the C.C.F., Mr. Coldwell, spoke on that occasion. After all, we are here from all over Canada. The hon. members who have spoken know very well that they could not go back to British Columbia for a one-day celebration; and when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggests that it would be very nice if he could be back in his riding he is just talking a lot of nonsense, because he would not be going back in any event. This is just a red herring drawn across the trail. The hon. member for Kootenay West is in exactly the same position. He would not be going back to Kootenay West tomorrow. He would be sitting here on his hands doing nothing at all.


Mr. Pickersgill:: We would be going back if the minister had kept his promise about air travel.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the Acting Prime Minister permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: As a matter of fact, the government has gone much further this year than has been the case certainly since 1935. There have been no celebrations of July 1 on parliament hill in that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister is mistaken.


George James McIlraith: Quite mistaken.


Howard Charles Green: I may be wrong about that, but it is not necessary to go further to make my point. I do point out that the government has arranged that there will be a ceremony on parliament hill tomorrow, certainly for the first time in many years. There will be a trooping of the colour, to which all hon. members have been invited.
Some attempt is being made to focus attention on the great importance of Canada's national day. That is the reason we ask that

Motions for Papers
the house should not sit until 4.30 rather than commencing at 2.30, in order that members can take their full part in this celebration. It really is amazing now to find ourselves attacked for taking this step. I merely point out to the members of the house that this move by the C.C.F. is just a cheap, political trick-


Harold Edward Winch: How dirty can you get?


Howard Charles Green: -and I suggest it be dealt with accordingly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the Acting Prime
Minister permit a question? Would he tell the house what the policy was in connection with such a situation as this of the Conservative administrations under Mr. Borden and Mr. Bennett?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know what happened in those days. I am trying to live in the present.


George James McIlraith: Will the minister permit a question? It is simply this, and it is only asked for the purpose of clarifying the record. Does he recall the trooping of the colour on Dominion day under the previous administration?


Howard Charles Green: Really I am not sure whether or not that happened while the house was in session.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the main motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all correspondence since September 1, 1957, between the federal government and the province of Ontario respecting cost sharing of a roads to resources program.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I shall have to oppose the passing of this motion at this time. This matter is under negotiation between-


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is not debatable. It can, under standing orders, be removed to the category of notices of motions and be debatable at that time. I do not think the minister should do more than say he is opposed to it.


Mr. Benidickson:: I will consent to having it stand.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That will be satisfactory to me.
Motion stands.



TERRA NOVA NATIONAL PARK, NFLD. EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all communications received by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or any official of his department from any member or official of the government of Newfoundland with respect to employment in the Terra Nova national park since June 21, 1958, and any replies thereto.
['The government is very much concerned about this event in Cuba. Our ambassador in Havana, Mr. Allard, has confirmed press reports that the three Canadians, Harold Gisli Kristjanson of Winnipegosis, Manitoba, and Edward Cannon of Cornwall, employees of the Freeport Sulphur Company of New York, and Richard A. Sargent of Toronto, manager of a sugar mill, are being held by the rebels in company with a number of United States citizens and United States servicemen.\nMr. Allard has expressed the deep concern of the Canadian government to the Cuban government concerning the kidnapping of Canadian citizens, and has requested the co-operation of Cuban authorities in obtaining their release. Mr. Allard has been assured by the United States authorities in Cuba that their efforts to obtain the release of the United States citizens held by the rebels cover the Canadian captives as well. It would not be in the interests of the Canadian captives to reveal all the methods being used to effect their release. Officials of the Freeport Sulphur Company have been attempting to make direct contact with the rebels, but no information on the success of their efforts has been made available.']
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: With the
usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: With the usual reservations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or in his absence to the acting minister who may take the question as notice. Would the minister care to tell the house what action the government is taking to gain the release of the three Canadians reported to have been seized by the Cuban rebels?


Howard Charles Green: The government is very much concerned about this event in Cuba. Our ambassador in Havana, Mr. Allard, has confirmed press reports that the three Canadians, Harold Gisli Kristjanson of Winnipegosis, Manitoba, and Edward Cannon of Cornwall, employees of the Freeport Sulphur Company of New York, and Richard A. Sargent of Toronto, manager of a sugar mill, are being held by the rebels in company with a number of United States citizens and United States servicemen.
Mr. Allard has expressed the deep concern of the Canadian government to the Cuban government concerning the kidnapping of Canadian citizens, and has requested the co-operation of Cuban authorities in obtaining their release. Mr. Allard has been assured by the United States authorities in Cuba that their efforts to obtain the release of the United States citizens held by the rebels cover the Canadian captives as well. It would not be in the interests of the Canadian captives to reveal all the methods being used to effect their release. Officials of the Freeport Sulphur Company have been attempting to make direct contact with the rebels, but no information on the success of their efforts has been made available.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that unemployment insurance seasonal benefits ended on Saturday, June 28, will he inform the house what provision the government is making to take care of those who are still unemployed and who have lost entitlement to unemployment insurance?


Howard Charles Green: I really think this question was dealt with a few days ago by the Prime Minister. It is not the intention to extend these seasonal benefits any further.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Acting Minister of Labour a supplementary question. Could the hon. lady tell us how many persons were receiving seasonal benefits at the time they expired?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):: Since that was only two days ago, I do not have those figures at the moment. I shall be glad to procure them for the hon. gentleman.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question. I am afraid the Acting Prime Minister did not understand my question. I knew the seasonal benefits were not going to be extended. In view of the fact that they have expired, what provision is going to be made for the unemployed who are no longer covered by unemployment insurance but who are still unemployed?


Howard Charles Green: The reply to that question, I am afraid, would require a debate. The hon. member knows, just as well as other hon. members do, that this government has already taken very many steps to help create employment in Canada. I give him the one example of the housing policy, which has put perhaps over 100,000 Canadians to work. We are just as anxious as he is to help Canadians to get employment.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, but the Acting Prime Minister has not answered my question. We are not discussing what he has done about employment. The question is, in view of the fact that seasonal benefits have expired, is any provision being made for those who are still unemployed and no longer eligible for unemployment insurance?


Howard Charles Green: They, of course, benefit under the general policy adopted by the government.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS



SEVERANCE AND RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR OFFICERS OF FLEET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have given him notice. In view of the statement made in this house, I believe by himself and, if not, certainly well known, that the Canadian National Steamships vessels are up for sale, would the minister care to tell the house what severance and retirement pay arrangements will be made for the officers of the ships, and in particular those with long service?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. I am advised by the management of the Canadian National that the situation concerning the disposition of the officer personnel has been the subject of considerable investigation and is under careful examination at this moment. As a matter of fact a group of company officials already has been in Halifax to conduct interviews on an individual basis, and is returning to Halifax later this week to continue detailed discussions on other employment opportunities.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the refit of the C.G.S. Labrador completed? If so, when will this vessel go into service, in what work and when is it proposed that it is to return to Halifax?


George Harris Hees: The Labrador has successfully completed harbour trials and is now preparing to carry out sea trials. The ship will proceed to Montreal in order to take cargo for the R.C.M.P. post at Alexander fiord on Bache peninsula, and is expected to leave Montreal on July 10. After the Bache peninsula work has been completed the Labrador will go to Resolute to assist with the work being carried out there, and then will proceed to assist in the D.E.W. line resupply in Foxe basin. The Labrador will return to Halifax after the northern operations have been completed.

Inquiries of the Ministry ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY



STATEMENT ON LAY-OFFS FOLLOWING FLOODING OF CANALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I say that on Friday last the hon. member for Laurier referred to the inundation of the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals on and after July 1, and inquired how many employees would be affected and what is being done to place them elsewhere.
The exact number of operating employees who will be displaced is not known, because definite information is not yet available as to how many will accept transfer to other canal positions, but the number may be in the neighbourhood of 115. With regard to action taken to meet the problem of lay-off of employees, I would refer the hon. member to the answer I made on May 30 to a question he had placed on the order paper, the last part of which dealt with this matter at some length.



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, notice of which I sent to the Prime Minister's office this morning. Has the Acting Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a report on his visit to China made by Mr. James Muir, chairman and president of the Royal Bank of Canada, in which he says in part:
"It was galling to meet (In China) and to talk with the selling forces of other western powers, not only obviously getting business but enthusiastic about it, while our people seem to sit back and wait for a silver platter deal''.... The Canadian government should see to it that "if any Canadian enterprise should be induced by outside influence to deviate from its responsibility to the Canadian worker and the Canadian economy by declining legitimate and clean business, drastic and immediate steps should be taken to discipline it."
In view of the need for a great increase in exports to provide employment-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -will the Acting Prime Minister inform the house if consideration is being given to action along the lines suggested in Mr. Muir's report, in order to secure for Canada a fair share of this great potential market?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, with great deference may I suggest that this is an abuse of the


rules of the house. This is not a question. This is a reading into the record of the report of a speech made by Mr. Muir. I suggest that it is not proper for that reason, and that it does not need to be answered.


Harold Edward Winch: What has come over the minister this last little while?


Mr. Speaker:: It is clear what the rule is, but it is not always easy to apply it, at least not from the chair. Only enough fact can be given to lay the groundwork for the question. As I understood what the hon. member read, he first read something about trade with China and then something about an entirely unrelated matter. It seemed to me that it was a rather long basis for a question. I daresay that the question itself, as it was finally put, is one that can be asked.


Harold Edward Winch: The Acting Prime Minister does not want to answer it.


Frank Howard: I have a similar question, of which I have given notice to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and which I should like to put to him. The question is this. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the statements of Mr. James Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of June 28, 1958, to the effect that Canada is not taking advantage of the opportunities for good and legitimate trade with China-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is a repetition of the question which the hon. member for Kootenay West has already asked, in effect.


Frank Howard: I was trying to elicit an answer from somebody over there on the government side.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows thai he cannot insist upon an answer.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. I regret that I did not have an opportunity to advise him of it. Probably he will take the question as notice. Did the minister or his departmental officials receive representations from the Miramichi salmon drifters' association seeking a change in the season's dates, to eliminate the two weeks' lift period?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I do not at the moment have the answer to that question, but I shall be glad to take it as notice and answer it later.

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



STATEMENT ON SUGGESTED


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, in my absence on Friday last the hon. member for Kootenay West asked me the following question:
Has the minister's attention been drawn to a news item in the Gazette of June 17 entitled "Doctors Claim Poison Sold Across Counter", and the report of the committee on maternal welfare, presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Medical Association, which comments on the irregular sale of drugs and consequent poisoning by preparations containing oils of apiol? Can the minister inform the house why the sale of this drug across the counter has not been prohibited under the Food and Drugs Act?
In answer I would inform the hon. member that the newspaper article which he mentioned had previously been drawn to my attention, and I have had a preliminary investigation made of the matter by officials of my department. We have in fact no record that oil of apiol is sold as such in Canada. We do know, however, that there are two preparations on the market in which oil of apiol is combined with ergot. Sale of these preparations is prohibited under the Food and Drugs Act except on a prescription basis. I have instructed the food and drug directorate to look further into the matter of the alleged illegal sales of such preparations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to compliment the minister for his knowledge of the rules and thank him for his courtesy in answering my question.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of concern expressed by two provinces over alleged encroachment by the federal government in the control of pipe lines contained within provincial boundaries, would the government consider referring this question to the Supreme Court of Canada for a definition of jurisdictional authority?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question, which deals with the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners in connection with the regulation and construction of pipe lines. The question which he put will be given serious consideration.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the house whether or not any additional and special assistance will be given to the law enforcement officers of British Columbia in view of the recent reports of bomb explosions in a hotel in Kelowna, on an Okanagan ferry, and in the city of Vernon, a most serious situation? We would appreciate a statement from the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As
the hon. member knows, some three weeks ago I went out to Victoria and met with the premier and other provincial ministers and officials to discuss the Doukhobor situation.
I was accompanied by the deputy minister of justice and by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Certain proposals were put forward by the provincial government at that time, which I reported to my colleagues here. About a week ago we wrote to the premier of British Columbia advising him of the position of this government with regard to the requests that were made. We have not received a reply, or any indication of the attitude of the provincial government in response to our letter.
I say that by way of background to the present question.
In so far as these latest incidents are concerned I have had reports of them, but whether or not they are related to the outbursts of violence in the Kootenay area by the Doukhobors, and particularly by the sons of freedom sect, has not been definitely established according to my present information. However, I must say there is a strong presumption that they are. We have had no further requests as a result of these last three incidents. Therefore there is nothing before us to reply to in so far as the incidents are concerned. However, we remain ready to examine immediately and sympathetically any request we may at any time receive from the province for assistance in this matter.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that this is the last day of June, and that industrial
1752	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry inquiry commissioner Mr. Taylor has set tomorrow, July 1, as the deadline date for settlement of the strike on Canadian Pacific Steamships, can the minister advise the house what expectations there are for settling this strike by tomorrow?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, we are all, of course, deeply concerned over the strike not only because of the disruption of service and its effect upon the company and employees alike, but also because of its effect on the residents of the island. Although I saw the press report in which it was said that the commissioner had set July 1 as the deadline, I have no official word to that effect from the commissioner. I do know he has been working very hard in this matter. I know because I myself have been in constant touch with him over the week end. Unfortunately, however, up to the present I have no definite report to make. I know the commissioner himself still hopes that he will be able to effect a settlement between the disputing parties, as I do also.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I made a motion for the production of papers in the first few days of the session. It was passed, and I brought it to the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Courteman-che), who told me I would get the return. I have not received it yet, and I am most anxious to use it. I wonder if I might take this opportunity of drawing it to his attention once again.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Secretary of State I shall be glad to bring it to the minister's attention.



ELECTRIC POWER, NEWFOUNDLAND  FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Acting Secretary of State would ask the Prime Minister when there will be a production of the correspondence about which I asked the Prime Minister on Thursday, and which I was very anxious to have for use today?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would be very glad to look into it, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



ALLEGED CHANGE IN GOVERNMENTAL

Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the motion of the Minister of Finance that the house go into committee of supply, I want first to take notice of the announcement made before the adjournment of the house at six o'clock on Friday last by the Prime Minister. It is true that the federal government and the government of the province of Nova Scotia have moved in with financial help to ease further contemplated lay-offs affecting about
9,000	coal miners, but unfortunately the assistance for the Dominion Coal Company does nothing to avert the 25-day mine shutdowns in Nova Scotia. It will do very little to provide additional outlets for the record coal stockpiles accumulated in the face of declining demand, stockpiles which are increasing daily since the present government took office. In fact it was clearly stated- and I want to quote the Prime Minister's own words as reported at page 1737 of Hansard of Friday, June 27, 1958:
Even in the face of those reductions in working days, the company has estimated, and that estimate has been confirmed by the dominion coal board, that by the end of the year 1958 there would be in stockpile 750,000 tons of coal in excess of the normal average carryover.
It is evident, therefore, that despite the action taken by the government there will be at the end of the present year a stockpile which will reach close to 1,400,000 tons, which will be practically equal to the carryover which the company has on hand today.
In view of the vast expansion and growth which has taken place the federal government decided in 1955 to appoint a royal commission to study Canada's economic potential in order that the Canadian people could be more fully informed of the longterm economic prospects of our country. The commission was appointed to study our productive capacity, the growth and distribution of our population, the production and nature of our industrial and social capital.
This commission, having as its chairman Mr. Walter Gordon, was known as the Gordon commission. In its preliminary report made public in December of 1956 a special paragraph was devoted to the problems and difficulties in the four Atlantic provinces. In this preliminary report it was generally recognized and made clear by the commission that there is no single or simple solution to the problems of the Atlantic

region. Besides transportation and communications, special attention was given to the situation of the Nova Scotia coal industry. This question received special attention, not only because of its importance to the economy of one of the Atlantic provinces, but also because of the great number of people who are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon the industry for their livelihood. After all, it is perfectly obvious that in Nova Scotia alone a population of over
120,000	people, including 8,000 or 9,000 coal miners, would be affected. In New Brunswick it also affects the Minto area in York-Sunbury, where over 1,000 miners reside.
In addition, the 1946 royal commission on coal known as the Carroll commission had been assigned a complete and extensive study of this industry, including its mechanization, its productivity and management-labour relations. It recommended proper action by the federal government in order to improve, if possible, at all levels the operation of the industry including relations between management and the miners employed.
It is generally recognized that one of the main factors affecting this industry in earlier years, and in fact a problem which is also in existence today, is the competition from United States coal in consuming centres in the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Previous governments accepted the idea of a subvention policy to ensure the survival of the coal industry. This subsidy on the transportation of coal was followed by the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act, providing long-term loans to the coal companies for the modernization and mechanization of their plants.
In the past number of years it has been apparent that certain factors such as deteriorating market conditions caused by competition from other fuels were having unfavourable effects on the coal industry. It was then considered advisable to discontinue, for the time being at least, the mechanization program which had resulted in increasing the productivity in 1955 to a rate 47 per cent above the levels which had prevailed in 1945, output per man day of 2.33 tons as against 1.58 tons ten years earlier. This output per man day could increase to 3.79 tons by 1960, thus bringing our total production close to 7 million tons per year, with a present yearly market potential of 5 million to 5J million tons.
It was generally recognized that the main market for Atlantic coal must remain in the maritime provinces and that every effort should be made to retain and increase it, even to the point where this would necessitate
30, 1958	1753
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines the granting of assistance against oil where required. Mention was also made of the potential export market for at least 2 million tons a year to Europe, provided prices and quality could be agreed upon.
While the most logical market for Nova Scotia coal would seem to be the Atlantic region, as I have said, it is only logical that emphasis on present subsidy arrangements should be modified in order to give specific advantage to the greatest possible use of coal in the Atlantic region. It was clearly indicated in the Gordon commission recommendations that such subsidy arrangements should be designed to encourage the use of Nova Scotia coal in the generation of thermal power in the Atlantic region.
In the presentation of his budget on March 14, 1957, the minister of finance, Mr. Harris, clearly indicated that it was the government's intention to launch an immediate review of the maritime transportation system in general, and thereafter put forward proposals as soon as feasible. There then followed definite proposals on another matter affecting the Atlantic region, that is the relatively high cost of electric power as compared with most of the other parts of Canada. The government initiated the notion of the interconnection of the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick electrical systems. The minister of finance announced that the federal government would be prepared to provide the main interconnection facilities within and between those provinces, and to build and operate such large thermal plants as might be needed either to replace existing ones, should efficiency so indicate, or to meet the requirements of growth and industrial development.
These were the terms of the general proposal made by the previous governmenl through its minister of finance on March 14 1957. This proposal opened the way for immediate negotiations between the federal government and the provinces concerned for the implementation of this offer. This program for thermal power plants in the maritimes was initiated for the dual purpose of providing additional power at lower cost and, at the same time, assuring a much needed outlet for maritime coal.
During the political campaign before the June election of 1957, the guarantee of the use of coal in these proposed thermal plants became a common issue in the Atlantic provinces. I want to emphasize, however, that the then minister of public works, Hon. Robert Winters, stated several times in the course of that campaign that a subvention would be paid on coal for use in the power plants if such was necessary to make
1754	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines coal competitive with oil. Such statements from a member of the federal cabinet on the policy to be followed by a Liberal administration might eventually have been proven to be more valuable to the coal industry than the attitude presently being adopted by the present administration.
As I have just said, when the new federal government power development's plan for the maritime provinces was first announced last fall, it was definitely emphasized that the project was being undertaken to provide both low cost electricity to industry and new markets for the ailing coal industry. For this very reason this program involved the payment of subventions on coal used for power production at the newly constructed and at the existing generating stations. It was then said that such a policy would ensure that coal produced in the maritime provinces would be used for the growing power demand of those two provinces, and would not be replaced by oil brought in from foreign fields. On page 52 of Hansard for October 16, 1957, the Prime Minister said:
As an integral part oi the power development of the maritime provinces and also out of consideration for the situation prevalent in the coal producing areas of the maritimes, we believe the time has come to inaugurate a system of freight subventions for the removal of coal for power purposes within that area. That will serve two purposes: first, it will provide a steadily increasing demand for maritime coal and also do much to stabilize the coal industry, reduce the cost of power and in consequence render the climate clement for expanded industrialization and the raising of economic standards in the maritime provinces. That is of the essence, and that is also of the essence of this policy of national development.
Again, when suggestions were made by political opponents and officials of the united mine workers during the last federal election campaign that oil would be used in at least the proposed Saint John plant, the federal ministers and the government's candidates were quick with their denials. Speaker after speaker gave the reassurance that coal and coal alone would be used.
On Monday, May 19, I directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question asking whether power agreements under section 3 of Bill No. 244, an act to provide assistance in respect of electrical power development in the Atlantic provinces, had been signed with the governments of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. When the minister answered my question on Wednesday, May 21, I directed a supplementary question, as follows. The exchange will be found recorded on page 313 of Hansard of that date:


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister now inform the

house whether such agreements insisted that coal be used to generate power instead of oil?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: To my knowledge there is no such term insisting that coal be used. In fact, in one part of the working out of this agreement I understand it is fully understood between the two governments that on certain occasions oil will be used in one of the plants.
Now that the federal election campaign is a matter of the past we are informed by a representative of the federal cabinet that the policy which had been placed before the public during the political campaign was altogether different from the one presently adopted by the government. In other words, the promises of yesterday are today a thing of the past.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the
hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him if it is not true that during the proceedings of this house both here and in the committee it has been made very clear that since the reserves of coal have risen in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, we have made it very clear as a government that we have asked that coal be used in the Saint John East plant.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My only answer to the minister's remarks is the reply which I received and which is in the record of this house under the date of Wednesday, May 21, and which I read as follows:
To my knowledge there is no such term insisting that coal be used. In fact in one part of the working out of this agreement I understand it is fully understood between the two governments that on certain occasions oil will be used in one of the plants.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, because I believe a misstatement of fact has been made by the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who has the floor is willing to yield and offers no objection, it is all right; otherwise it can be deferred until he has finished his address.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I want to repeat that during the last election campaign Conservative speakers were most definite in assuring the electors of the Atlantic provinces that the thermal power units to be built with the assistance of federal money in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would use maritime coal. No more definite comments were made than those of the Minister of Transport when, speaking in New Glasgow on March 28 he said, and I quote from the Halifax Chronicle Herald of March 29:
Thermal power stations to be built in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will definitely be fired "by coal from the mines of Springhill, Pictou county, and Cape Breton."

I have here a series of other statements made by different members of the present cabinet during the last election campaign, including an extract from a speech made by Dr. Sidney E. Smith, Secretary of State for External Affairs, on March 1 at Port Hood, Inverness, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of Monday, March 3, 1958:
Dr. Smith answered charges he said he had heard made by Liberal speakers that the government has given no assurance proposed maritime thermal plants will be fired by coal by "offering my assurance that it is a condition of the agreement that coal will be used."
And from the speech made by the Minister of Labour on March 18 at Glace Bay, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of Wednesday, March 19, 1958:
Michael Starr, federal labour minister, said Tuesday night the thermal power agreement between the federal government and the maritime provinces was contingent on the use of coal.
I have also, Mr. Speaker, excerpts from the debates of the house of assembly of the province of Nova Scotia for March 4, 1958, pages 1131, 1132 and 1133, on which the following discussion took place:


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the premier. I should like to know whether any agreement has been entered into between the province and the government of Canada under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act?
The Premier: I think the answer to that is "yes," Mr. Speaker. I was inquiring about that before the house opened, and they say that the provincial secretary has executed such an agreement on behalf of the province. I believe the agreement is complete and when I am satisfied that it is, I will table it promptly, Mr. Speaker.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question directed to the premier; is there any provision in the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act which requires that coal be used as the fuel in the operation of power projects built with federal funds provided under that act?
The Premier: Mr. Speaker, I am now speaking from memory. I am not sure there is such an express provision. I may say that it is contemplated that each thermal power station would be the matter of a specific agreement between the province concerned and the government of Canada.
In other words, there is the master agreement, and the master agreement makes provision for a specific agreement regarding specific projects and I have been instructed by the Prime Minister that the burning of coal is a necessary condition of federal assistance in any such program.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have another question, Mr. Speaker, directed to the premier. I wonder if the premier could confirm or deny the rumour that the proposed thermal power plant to be built in Saint John, New Brunswick, is to burn oil and not coal?
The Premier:	Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only
repeat what I have just told my hon. friend through you, sir, that the instructions that I have received from the Prime Minister are just the burning of maritime coal is to be a condition precedent to federal assistance under the agreement.


Mr. Hicks:: Including the Saint John one?
The Premier: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how- what my hon. friend wants. I said that I had been
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines instructed by the Prime Minister that the burning of coal is a condition precedent to federal assistance in the construction of any thermal power station under this agreement.


Mr.   Fielding@: Under the master agreement?
The Premier: Under the master agreement.
I hold in my hand the master agreement, tabled on Monday, June 15, 1958, as sessional paper No. 110, and I have failed to find in this agreement where coal is a condition precedent to federal assistance in the construction of any thermal power station to be built under such agreement.
Let us hear what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) had to say in an interview with the press, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of June 13:
At the present time, Nova Scotia has a surplus coal supply but to meet the needs of a tremendously expanded steel industry in the future, it might possibly be considered a deficit area.
Farther on he said:
For the present, we have asked the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to use coal in thermal power plants as long as there are stockpiles.
Listen to this:
But those plants should be geared to switch to other thermal fuel, perhaps even to nuclear power, if the coal stocks ever prove insufficient to keep them going.
This is the same minister who, as I have just mentioned, in answering my question in the House of Commons a few days earlier, stated that:
In working out an agreement with one of the provinces, it was fully understood between the two governments that on certain occasions oil will be used in one of the plants.
What did the Prime Minister have to say on the matter of thermal stations in the maritimes? The Halifax Chronicle Herald of March 25, 1958, reports as follows:
On the matter of thermal power stations in the maritimes. Mr. Diefenbaker said he wished to "underline.. .that we are asking, we are demanding that coal be utilized." He was answering Liberal statements that there was no assurance that coal would be used.
As I stated earlier, the main power agreements have been signed with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and they were tabled by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on June 16. Nothing in these agreements specified or insists that coal should be used to generate power in thermal plants built under this act.
These documents show an estimate of $537,000 for 1957-58 and $2,750,000 for 195859 to be spent on the east Saint John thermal plant in New Brunswick. The minister must tell the house why no payments have been made from the 1957-58 item, and also why on the last day of June, 1958 no specific
1756	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines agreement has been signed with the province of New Brunswick for the erection of this particular plant. Where is that emergency and urgent need for additional power which was so urgent before the June 10 election of 1957, and more so before the election of March 31? The Prime Minister knows of this emergency, as was so clearly expressed by the premier of New Brunswick in comments addressed to him on October 11, 1957. I wish here to quote just the last paragraph of those comments:
The whole matter is one of great urgency in view of the fact that a letter of intent has been issued by the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission covering the turbo-generator on the assumption that this would be taken over by the Northern Canada Power Commission, which has been discussed at a series of inter-governmental meetings.
The present situation of our coal industry we know is serious and disturbing. The coal mining problems have been laid squarely at the feet of the federal government, and the piecemeal solution offered by the Prime Minister and the government on Friday last will do nothing else but take care for the time being only of an emergency situation. As I said earlier, this move by the government has not prevented the layoffs now taking place in the coal mines of Cape Breton and New Brunswick.
When I brought this matter to the attention of the house six weeks ago, on Friday, May 16, the representative of the province of Nova Scotia in the federal cabinet, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), clearly stated, and I quote his own words, that he had no knowledge that A. V. Roe was contemplating suspending operations for a period of 25 days or for any other period.
Knowing that such suspension of operations was contemplated, I directed a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, and I received the following reply, as reported at page 139 of Hansard for Friday, May 16: I asked the minister the following question:
Is the dominion coal board taking any steps to assist in the disposal of coal now being stockpiled in the Cape Breton area?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I am not up to the moment on that matter but I know consideration is being given by the dominion coal board at the present time to disposal of the surplus of coal that is available under the circumstances referred to by the hon. gentleman.
How different, Mr. Speaker, is this reply of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) from the answer given by the Minister of National Revenue. Finally, only after the contemplated lay-off of miners had become an accomplished fact, on Friday, June 20, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) directed a question to
[Mr. Robichaud.l

the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) and we were then at last told that the matter was receiving the attention of the government. I should like to quote here the question put by the hon. member and the reply of the minister as reported on page 1460 of Hansard for Friday, June 20. The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria said:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I understand that the Dominion Steel and Coal Company has announced a five-week shutdown of its coal mines in Cape Breton and on the mainland of Nova Scotia due to lack of markets. In view of the hardship this step will cause to the 8,000 or 9,000 miners involved, can the minister assure the house that he and the dominion coal board will render every assistance towards reaching a solution to this very serious situation.
The minister answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. This situation has been under study by the government and the dominion coal board for several weeks and is under continuous study and consultation with the company, but due to many factors we are not too hopeful that we can prevent the idle time which has been planned by the company.
The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria clearly stated that this lay-off would cause hardship to the 8,000 or 9,000 miners involved and pleaded with the minister so that the dominion coal board would render every assistance toward reaching a solution to this very serious situation.
Again, Mr. Speaker, on June 23 I asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he could confirm a Canadian Press report to the effect that the A. V. Roe Company was contemplating a lay-off of 47 days instead of 25 days as originally intended. I further asked what the company was asking by way of financial aid. This was the reply I received, and I quote the minister's own words as found on page 1508 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no; we have not made any proposal on that.
It is rather difficult for members of the house to reconcile the minister's reply with his own statement of Friday, June 20, when I asked the same minister the following question as found on page 1460 of Hansard:
A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise the house if any definite action has been taken by the government on the request of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company for financial assistance?
The minister replied:
I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to that question today, but I am most hopeful of making a statement in this regard within a short time.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the matter was under consideration. The house expects the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys

to explain today before the closing of the present debate his negative answer to a problem which, according to the Prime Minister and according to his own statement made three days earlier, was under consideration by the government and by the dominion coal board. The minister must also explain the statement he made a few weeks ago to the effect that the stockpile of coal in the Nova Scotia coal mines was sold and waiting for transportation to destination points.
How can the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) justify and explain his statement made during the last political campaign at a public meeting at Wallace, Nova Scotia, and reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of March 22, 1958? I quote a part of the report:
He referred to the thermal power plan which he said would result in the establishment in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick of ten thermal power plants by 19G7. These plants, he said, would use coal, backbone of Nova Scotia's economy, which would result in the production of power in these provinces as cheap as in other parts of Canada.
Now that the election is over, and now that the members of the government and their supporters are comfortably sitting to your right with the overflow to our left, the preelection promises seem to be a thing of the past. No wonder that we hear so much of the vision of the Prime Minister, of the philosophic dreams of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, of the big bamboozle of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), of the blue tinted red budget and of the momentous monument of double talk of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and nothing about new industries for the Atlantic provinces. On the contrary, industries are closing down or are moving out to establish in the central provinces. Our New Brunswick base metal mines have ceased operating and the Nova Scotia coal mines are curtailing their production. How different, Mr. Speaker, are the present conditions from the policy advocated by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) during the last election campaign. I have here an excerpt from the Fredericton Gleaner of March 29, 1958 which is headed, "In N.B. Power Stations; Says Diefenbaker Promised Minto Coal Will Be Used", and reads as follows:
Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker already has given assurance that under his government's thermal power plant assistance policy to the maritimes Minto coal will be used in New Brunswick power stations, J. Chester MacRae told a Progressive Conservative meeting at Minto Friday night.
With a thousand miners of the Minto area without work, with mines already closed down, the situation has certainly changed. The Dominion Steel and Coal Company is planning to build near Montreal a steel
30, 1958	1757
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines fabricating plant at an initial cost of $20 million, which could eventually develop into a $200 million project. Why should this plant not be built in the Atlantic provinces, in the heart of the coal empire? What action, if any, is being taken by the present government to encourage such new enterprises to settle where they are most needed?
The temporary measure taken by the government on Friday will not satisfy the 8,000 or 9,000 miners of the Nova Scotia coal mines and the 1,000 coal miners of New Brunswick. In fact, no action whatsoever is being taken to relieve the unemployed coal miners of the Minto area of New Brunswick. The present government's policy gives no assurance whatsoever to the coal mines of the Atlantic provinces that at the end of the present year the excess carryover and stockpile accumulated will not force a further layoff which could be much more serious than the shutdown now taking place.
I have here a report of a statement made in Saint John, New Brunswick by the president of Acadia-Atlantic Sugar Refineries Limited as found in the Saint John Telegraph of June 27. Mr. Alex Hill of Toronto, the president, was reported as having said:
He told the luncheon meeting: "Given a fighting chance to meet competition in the upper Canadian market which is our life's blood, we should be able to continue our expansion and improvement program for the refinery here-indeed, we might be able to reopen the long dormant Halifax refinery." However, he warned that without such a chance the company would be forced to start construction of a refinery in Ontario which would eventually reduce the Saint John operation "to a faint shadow of what it is now."
If the government continues its present policies, Mr. Speaker, we are afraid that such a move will take place.
It is now my intention to move an amendment which, by its nature, I am convinced will receive the support of every maritime member in this house, and particularly of those members who have at heart the future of the coal industry and those who feel that this government must insist that coal and coal alone be used in all thermal power plants operated under Bill No. 244 by which assistance is provided in respect of electrical power development in the Atlantic provinces. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill):
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor: This house regrets that the government has failed, despite the measure announced on Friday by the Prime Minister, to avert the five week shutdown in the Nova Scotia coal mines:
That this house regrets further that the government has backed away from its commitment to promote the development of industry in the Atlantic provinces;
1758	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines
And particularly from its specific undertaking to ensure the use of coal in thermal plants assisted financially by the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) had a point of objection which perhaps he could make now if he wishes, unless he wishes to speak now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I should like to extend my remarks beyond just correcting the errors in the statement made by the hon. member who just sat down. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) made a specific attack on the agreement between the federal government and the province of New Brunswick concerning the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, and particularly the use of coal in one of the thermal plants. During his remarks I asked him if he would not admit the truth of the statement that this government had made clear to the province of New Brunswick that during the present period of surplus coal in that province coal should be used in the east Saint John plant. His answer was that all he had to deal with, and all that he could put on the record of this house was the answer to the question which he had asked and the terms of this general agreement. Then, he went on to quote some passages containing questions and answers from the reports of the New Brunswick legislature.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nova Scotia.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I stand corrected, of the Nova Scotia legislature. These passages, I believe, clearly indicated the answer I was going to give. The answer to this problem is very simple. The Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act was simply enabling legislation by means of which the federal government could make agreements with any one of those four provinces in connection with transmission lines in that area or thermal power plants. This general agreement is, as was stated by the premier of Nova Scotia, simply a master agreement which enables both parties to enter into an agreement on a specific proposal for thermal power plant, transmission lines or terminal facilities. This agreement has to come before the governor in council for approval, and there has to be a specific agreement made for each project. Naturally, when each project comes before this government the principles which motivated this government will be brought into being.
The suggestion that because this government did not put a clause in this general agreement insisting on the use of coal in every thermal plant in these four provinces is a suggestion that we should do something
[Mr. Robichaud.l

which is absolutely against the interests of the coal industries of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I want to make it very clear that the policy the hon. member advocates would, in fact, destroy the future of this coal industry in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. It is on this point that he intends to make political capital, but he is not looking at the needs for future growth and expansion of these four provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, sir, surely it is against the rules of this house to impute motives to an hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is drawing a rather fine line when he objects to the implication of political motives; that is done every day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not suggest political motives, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Should I say, partisan
motives?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I stated that by doing what the hon. member proposed he would do inestimable harm to the long-range future of that same coal industry which every member of parliament from the Atlantic provinces, and which every party surely must support. If one looks at the history of the Atlantic provinces one finds that since confederation there has been a gradual decline because they joined with the central provinces in an east-west movement, and this was not in accordance with the natural geography of the area. They made this great sacrifice in the interest of building, on the north half of this continent, a nation in which we could have our own way of life.
When this party was elected in June last one of the pledges we made was to lift up those regions and those groups in Canada which had fallen behind the national standard of living. There was no question in the minds of the people of this country, because by our spoken word on many occasions we specifically mentioned the fact that the maritime provinces and the prairie provinces, through no fault of their own, had fallen behind the national level. One of the first things this government did, therefore, was to fulfil that pledge in so far as the maritime provinces were concerned by introducing the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. The fundamental purpose of this act was to provide cheaper industrial power to the Atlantic provinces. Cheaper industrial power is not obtained by any single device. It is obtained by using every device known to engineers and economists to reduce the costs. The question of interest, particularly in hydro plants, and the question of the type of fuel as applied to thermal plants, the question of

building transmission lines interconnecting the various power grids, are all matters one might mention in this connection.
It is a matter of great pride that today in the province of New Brunswick they are planning to transmit power to Nova Scotia, and they are planning to receive power back from Nova Scotia. They are also selling power to the state of Maine, and doing very well from it. They would like, in the future, to see power coming from Quebec. This power from Newfoundland will come into their area and they, too, will be shipping power back to Newfoundland. It is by means of this interconnection that you achieve these great savings. Savings are also achieved by the technique of "peaking", whereby you get your lowest costs by using hydro and thermal in the correct sequence to give you the lowest cost to industry. We are trying to do all these things under this Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. I, as a member of a political party, am quite aware of the things that were said before the election of June 10 in this regard. I do know that the then minister of public works, Mr. Winters, made a deathbed repentance and promised to look into this matter of subventions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement is not correct.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know that the first decision to pay subventions was made by this government. If any person has worked any harder than some of the members of this administration in trying to equalize the cost of power or at least the cost of coal in the manufacture of power in the Atlantic provinces, I should like to know who they are. We did achieve that on a temporary basis. We have agreed to examine all this periodically so that any plant manufacturing electric power from thermal fuel will have the same advantage in any Atlantic province as currently exists in the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Having mentioned all these things, why then do I make this statement that to achieve what the hon. member for Gloucester has advocated means the destruction of the coal industry in the future. This is a very serious question and must be given serious attention. The reasoning I put forward is very simple. Our philosophy behind reducing power costs in the Atlantic provinces was to provide inducements to industry to use that capacity. It was on that one single point that the whole future development of the Atlantic provinces depends. If industry will come in, providing opportunity to work in the factories, there will be more demand for power. That has been the experience all across this country. Never in this country's history or, to my
30, 1958	1759
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines knowledge, in any other country's history, has cheap power been provided at any location that industry has not moved in to take advantage of that very valuable advantage of a modern industrial state. That was our thinking in the case of the maritime provinces. Certainly we use coal because with the supply there it does provide a very fine thermal fuel.
But my department has the responsibility of looking ahead not just for two or three years but for 30 years or 40 years to see the future of this country and to make plans for the multiple use of our resources efficiently. As the minister responsible I naturally must look ahead those years in the Atlantic provinces. The agreement calls for a 30-year agreement on thermal plant units and a 40-year agreement on the transmission lines. Who can tell at this moment that the demand for power will not be so great in the Atlantic provinces that all the coal available at present levels of production and beyond it will be used and that the demand for power will be so great that all forms of thermal energy will have to be used?
It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that this government through the department which I head is aggressively seeking for ways and means to get a large supply of energy available in the Atlantic provinces in order to make possible a tremendously expanded iron and steel industry in this country. That is more important to the Atlantic provinces than any other single thing that I know of. It is important to the Dominion of Canada that we have a series of iron and steel industries across this country to take advantage of the opportunity which the present situation in the world makes very clear is ours. I refer to the fact that there are only two places in the world where there are vast unused quantities of iron ore. With supplies in the United States running thin, this obviously is our opportunity to make plans that will make use of this iron for processing here in Canada so that this country will become one of the greatest suppliers of iron and finished steel goods in the world. This is our objective and the maritime provinces are vital in that plan.
I point this out to the hon. member foi very sound reasons. If he insists and if we insist that only coal be used in thermal plants for all time-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Were not those exact words used by the Prime Minister during the political campaign: Not only are we asking but we are insisting that coal be used.

Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I happen to have a copy of the statement referred to and the words used are "asking and demanding" that coal be used in thermal plants. But what I am pointing out is this. We are asking and we are demanding that coal be used in thermal plants in the maritime provinces because we have full awareness of the needs of the coal industry in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick. But what I am saying is this. To insist in a general agreement that only coal should be used would be suicidal and completely destructive of the long-range future of the coal industry in that area. The reasons I am trying to advance are simple. If the demand for coal is as great as mentioned, we shall have full use of all the coal we know of in the Atlantic provinces area, and in addition we shall be bringing in, I hope, with the co-operation of Newfoundland and Quebec, hydro power over long distances; and maybe in the lifetime of many of us here-in fact, I would say in 10, 15 or 20 years-you will see large nuclear plants in operation in the provinces to provide us with the energy we need.
I think I have said enough to make it clear that as responsible people we are asking and demanding from the government of New Brunswick that coal be used in this present emergency because it would be wrong for us to be helping the coal industry on the one hand and to be slapping them down with the other. But to insist, in a term of a general agreement going over 30 years or 40 years, that only one type of fuel would be used would be to put that power commission or any other power commission in the hands of one supplier or the other.
I could point out many technical advantages to show that any plant can use both facilities side by side. There is a plant in my home city of Saskatoon which has three sources of thermal power which they make use of one after the other or simultaneously, namely coal, gas and oil. I point out that if you go down to the province of Nova Scotia you will find that the Dominion Steel Company, which is a producer of coal and which is trying to get rid of its surplus, has standby oil equipment for logical technical reasons, namely to reduce their cost and to make their plant more efficient to carry the power to the people that need it. Any person that examines all the facts will recognize the injustice, the complete crucification you would bring on an industry by insisting that for a 30 year or 40 year period one fuel should always be used when these other things are developed.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, having dealt with this matter of coal, oil and nuclear
[Mr. Robichaud.l
power and hydro power in the province of New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces generally, I should just like to make a few remarks in answer to what the hon. gentleman said at the end of his remarks. He spoke in terms of derision of the future that the Prime Minister envisaged, and he was kind enough to use my own name, and the hope of all Canadians for the future of this country. I think the term that has been used is "vision". I would just like to quote a remark or two on this matter. I have in my possession the speech delivered by my predecessor in this department, the Hon. Mr. Lesage, in which he lays down the policy of the previous government on this question of development in general. This speech was made in Toronto on December 13, 1956 and I should like to quote from it as follows:
To go beyond that, however, to try to impose an over-all blueprint, a "National Policy", as some understand it, for resource management-to do that is to depart from the facts of our national situation. I have suggested already why such a "master plan" must fail of its purpose. In a country as vast as Canada, with widely different conditions and with different problems in different areas, there cannot be a single and unified policy for the management of resources.
The fact that the British North America Act places resources under the control of the provinces is not a matter of accident or coincidence, it is rather a reflection of the basic facts of our national existence. Resource problems are generally regional problems or local problems and must be handled on a regional or local basis. Thus it is that the facts dictate, and our constitution requires, that our resource management be in the hands of the provinces. This is the framework and background in which we must see the problems of resource management and development in Canada. Accordingly, to advocate a "national policy" on a national basis as a responsibility of the national government is to misread the facts of our economy and the spirit and letter of our constitution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman agree with those views?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Those are the words of my predecessor in office and I am merely using them as an example of a policy that is diametrically opposed to the policy I advocate. I believe that statement by the responsible minister in the previous government lays down a philosophy which is foreign to the whole history of this country. We believe that the resources of Canada belong to the provinces and that we operate in the territories to the north of those provinces only in the sense that we hold them in trust for the people who will live there in the future. We also believe, as the very act which sets up my department instructs me to do, that it is the responsibility of the department to do planning for the most efficient co-ordination and use of those resources for all the people of Canada. That explains why this

government on many fronts is offering cooperative plans of resource development with each of the provinces in order that they may best be able to develop their own resources and best look after themselves. There is no question whatever of infringement on constitutional responsibilities. In fact, we lean over backwards in an effort not to force our will in any way at all even to the choice of roads or any other project on which we are co-operating.
I mentioned this speech as symptomatic of the thinking of the previous administration and I am now going to take the liberty of offering some advice to my hon. friends in the Liberal party. I am going to ask those hon. gentlemen to go back in their own history and read the speeches of men like George Brown and particularly the one by him published in the Toronto Globe one hundred years ago, in which he laid down a philosophy of agricultural expansionism and resource expansionism identical to that of this government. How unlike the narrow views expressed here today it is! As the years rolled on the Liberal party drifted away from that broad point of view. I invite hon. members to look at the record of the speeches of Mackenzie and see how cautious he was about approaching these problems. I urge hon. members to then look at the record of pessimistic statements made by Blake. I suggest to hon. members that they go back to their beginnings and read the words of men like Brown in which they will find an expression of the faith that made the Liberal party worthy of its great traditions. Or, if hon. gentlemen prefer a more recent example, I suggest that they look at the statements of Laurier and the record of his achievements in the opening of western Canada under the immigration policy he advocated. These things are in tune with the thinking of the Canadian people today. I ask hon. members of the Liberal party to forget the petty politics of the last 30 years of the Liberal administration in this country and to see Canada as I see it, and as I think all Canadians see it, as a nation which is manifestly moving towards a vast expansion and a potential population of 50 million, 75 million or 100 million with all groups and regions in the nation enjoying some measure of equality of opportunity within the general framework of the economic standards of the whole country.
I think if hon. gentlemen were to do that- remember their beginnings and forget the political events of the last 100 years-they would see the needs of this country as the ordinary people see them. They would not quarrel with this attempt to help the Atlantic provinces on a broad front and they would not bring in this petty little criticism in an
30, 1958	1761
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines effort to embarrass the government for the immediate advantage of any one group or another. If hon. members were to adopt this perspective they would find themselves in harmony with the thinking of the Canadian people of all political faiths and would perhaps ensure their return to this side of the house much sooner. But as long as hon. gentlemen opposite adopt the igloo to igloo attitude, the attitude that says the people of the maritimes do not count or the people of the prairies do not count, and that the ordinary people in all parts of Canada who look forward and try to see greater opportunities for their children do not count, then there is no future for the Liberal party.
I for one, and I believe most people who sit with me here, have grasped something of the challenge that confronts Canada today. Our quarrel with the previous administration is that it did nothing about it. On the contrary, hon. gentlemen of that party have expressed themselves in speeches in important places as being opposed to the whole idea of a national development policy and have repudiated the idea of a blueprint under which our resources can be developed on a national, co-ordinated basis without exploitation or waste.
I think the house will recognize that I have spoken without too much notice but when this question is raised and when the government is attacked on the ground that its national development policy is phony-I believe that was the word used to describe this measure to help the Atlantic provinces-then I am brought to my feet in defence of something that many of us hold very dear.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gloucester, (Mr. Robichaud), I shall try to confine my remarks to those problems which to my mind are of immediate interest to the coal mining industry, the miners and the people of the maritime provinces. These problems can be classified under three different categories. First, the shutdowns and curtailment of operations to take place during the next two months in all the mines owned and operated by the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation in the Cape Breton area and on the mainland; second, the threatened closure of further collieries; and, third, a problem of immediate interest which has been most adequately covered by the hon. member for Gloucester, that of the increased use of oil rather than coal in some of the thermal plants in the maritimes.
This is the first time in the post-war period that the miners and people of Cape Breton, Pictou and Cumberland counties in
1762	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines Nova Scotia have been faced with the shutdown and closure of mines as was proposed by the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation on June 17 and which in fact have been put into effect as of June 23. The news confirming rumours of shutdowns and curtailment of operations in the coal mines must have come as a surprise to the coal miners and the people of Nova Scotia because it is not so very long ago that such rumours were denied. In fact, during the months of February and March and even as late as the month of May this year the people of Nova Scotia were told that the industry was in good shape, that there would be no lay-offs in the coal mines of that province and that a new era had come to the maritimes.
At a press conference in Halifax which took place on February 17, and as reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald on the following day under the title, "No Cut Backs in Coal Production", Mr. Allan C. MacDonald, chairman of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation's management committee and executive vice-president of A. V. Roe Canada Limited, is reported as having said that the company was banking on an "expected upturn in the general climate" and the "success of an aggressive sales campaign to capture a greater share of the Canadian market now supplied by United States coal mines".
Mr. MacDonald is reported as having said:
"The company will continue stock piling coal to maintain a high level of employment and is appealing to its mining force to continue its high production." He added: "The bank of coal on the surface now warrants shutting down of some operations, but we are not going to do it. We want the miners to keep on with their good job and will do everything we can to sell the production."
To Mr. Tom MacLachlan, president of district 26, of the united mine workers union, this statement was heartening. As reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of February 18, following the above mentioned statement of Mr. MacDonald Mr. MacLachlan had this to say and I quote:
We are certainly heartened by the report and the assurances of continued high employment in the foreseeable future. The co-operation of the miners and the operators . . . will continue and we are all looking forward to a growing of the coal industry in Nova Scotia. The policy of the company . . . eliminates a costly process of unemployment in the industry. It calls upon governments to take stock of the co-operation between the miners and the operators and to lend whatever assistance possible to see that the banks of coal will be shifted and eliminate possibility of slack times.
Commenting on the statement of Mr. MacDonald, the provincial minister of mines, the Hon. E. A. Manson, had this to say, and I quote:

The announcement was cheering and welcome to the miners, the government and the people of Nova Scotia. The approach to the coal problem by the company showed courage and optimism . . . for which it is to be congratulated.
You will notice also, Mr. Speaker, that this announcement by the company came at a most opportune time from the point of view of the electoral chances of the Progressive Conservative party in Nova Scotia. The announcement was given wide currency. There is little point now in saying it was wrong, and that cutbacks have taken place. Also, in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of February 18, in an insert in the "no cutbacks in coal production" article, and I quote:
Toward the end of his 90-minute speech in the legislature last night, Premier Stanfield referred to the DOSCO announcement regarding continued full employment in the province's coal mines.
He said it was a magnificent and appropriate stand for the firm to take, and the government would co-operate with DOSCO in every respect to the full exploitation of new markets for coal.
We are justified, Mr. Speaker, in asking this question now:	where are the new
markets? We also ask whether Mr. Stanfield may not feel he was hasty in lending his own weight to assurances given last February that no cutbacks would take place.
In a Canadian Press dispatch from Glace Bay which appeared in the Calgary Herald of February 25, 1958, Mr. Harold Gordon, vice president of Dominion Coal Company and general manager of all DOSCO operations, in an interview which took place in his office at Sidney, is reported as having said this regarding the industry, and I quote:
Mr. Gordon said the industry's position now is better than it has been for a good many years.
"We had daily outputs last year which were the highest since 1940. Last year we sold every pound of more than five million tons we produced."
Mr. Gordon also explained that the proposed $30 million maritime thermal power system promised a new market for coal. "It will be a considerable help to the coal industry when everything proposed goes into effect", said Mr. Gordon, "and we will put ourselves into a position to supply all the coal needed."
As late as May 23, the company denied the rumours of lay-offs and cutbacks. In an article of that date under the title "Plan no Cut Backs" the Halifax Chronicle Herald had this to say, and I quote:
Although a 800,000 ton coal stock pile in Sydney continues to pose a serious problem no working force of operational lay-offs are planned in DOSCO coal mines, A. C. MacDonald, chairman of the corporation's management committee told executive officers of district 26 united mine workers at a conference in Sydney, Thursday.
Mr. MacDonald told the united mine workers delegation there would be no slackening of operations at the present time but did not minimize the urgency of obtaining new coal markets. Indications are that new Ottawa assistance in coal marketing

will be sought and union district president, Tom MacLachlan, Glace Bay, contended that additional federal government subventions could add more new markets in Ontario and dispose of the mountain of more than 800,000 tons of coal banked here.
Mine union officers questioned Mr. MacDonald, who was accompanied by DOSCO coal chief H. C. M. Gordon, and manager of public relations Arnold Paterson, about a question asked in the House of Commons Friday concerning possibility of 25 days idleness in Cape Breton Mines.
Mr. MacDonald said there has been no change in the company policy announced in Halifax February 17 when he said "there would be no colliery shutdowns" in the foreseeable future, and every effort would be made to gain new markets.
The DOSCO management committee chairman, assured the union executive that if it is necessary to increase their coal carrying fleet of eight ships, this would be done immediately if market conditions warranted it.
I ask you to take note, Mr. Speaker, that this was on May 23, 1958. The predictions of the officials of the company as to the position of the industry, the denials of possible shutdowns by the authorities and the forecasting of a new era in the coal mining industry of the maritimes by the Conservative politicians did not turn out to be very accurate.
On May 31, the Financial Post reported that the federal cabinet had already under consideration a request from the Dominion Coal Company for government backing for a loan to cover the 1958 operations. It was stated that DOSCO was in urgent need of funds to help maintain its planned rate of operations until it could collect payments for this year's delivery.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) and I have several times during the present session- there is nothing personal about this-drawn attention to hon. members reading speeches-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On what side of the house?


Edmund Leverett Morris: From this side of the house we have drawn attention to hon. members reading speeches. Allow me to speak on a point of order, if you will. Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms, fourth edition, citation 144, which says:
It is a rule In both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that, "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people-
We, of course, think that this is true.
-and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention."
Specifically, we believe that these speeches are not only being read, but they are being
30, 1958	1763
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines written by a person who is not in the house and who has had a good opportunity to assist the coal industry. My point is that the former member for Inverness-Richmond has been replaced. My point of order is that the reading of speeches is against the rules of order.


Armand Dumas: On the point of order raised by the hon. member, I must say to him I have some notes with me and I am following those notes.
On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no right to say that I did not prepare my speech. I was here on Saturday and Sunday and all day today, and I have plenty of time in which to prepare my speeches and I must tell him that I can prepare my own speeches. The hon. member has no right to say that I did not prepare my own speech.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to say something in connection with the remarks by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris). He mentioned my speech. My speech was prepared by myself on Saturday and Sunday. This is the second time this has happened in this house. It might be better if the hon. member looked at both sides of the house and then he would know what to say.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if an hon. member wishes to speak in this house he should speak from his own seat.


Mr. Caron:: This question has been raised a few times by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) and the hon. member who spoke a while ago, that some members are reading their speeches. I admit it is a fact that we should not read our speeches. If hon. members wish to insist on it, I say that they should not read speeches from their side and even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will not read his speech next year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: First of all, I must bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that they are not permitted to raise a point of order on a point of order. I must furthermore remind hon. members that they cannot accuse other hon. members of reading speeches which have been prepared by other people. This cannot be done unless definite proof is actually available.
Further, on this question of reading of speeches this matter has been brought to the attention of the house quite frequently during recent weeks. The quotation which the hon. member read from Beauchesne is quite right, that speeches must not be read. However, a certain discretion is always given in the reading of speeches because obviously
1764	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines in some instances it would be impossible for some hon. members to make a speech unless they extensively consulted the notes in hand. The fact remains that, as has been said previously, hon. members are permitted more from a general acceptance than from anything else to consult their notes, but this practice of reading speeches in their entirety must stop at one point, and I believe this point has really arrived, and it will be my unpleasant duty to call to order members on both sides of the house from now on who read their speeches in their entirety.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Speaker, just before the hon. member raised the point of order I was saying that on May 31 the Financial Post reported that the federal cabinet had already under consideration a request from the Dominion Coal Company, and I was starting to say that at that time it was reported that the stockpile of 1.4 million tons was somewhat larger than usual but that it was sold or at least covered by firm orders. It was further stated that the company had a very satisfactory fleet of ships and that it was moving the coal as rapidly as possible to Quebec river ports. The need of funds was only to cover this lag in payments.
Then, in another Canadian Press dispatch, as it appeared in the Ottawa Journal of May 24 last, the Cape Breton Post was reported as having said that a decision with far-reaching effects on the maritime coal industry was to be made by the federal cabinet within the next 10 days. The Cape Breton Post, in anticipating such a decision from the cabinet, is reported as having stated:
"A. V. Roe (Canada) Limited, which now controls the Dominion Coal Company through the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, has proposed a 20-day layoff in all collieries in addition to the five-week production cuts already announced", the newspaper says. "Roe also proposed permanent closure of two mainland mines and one in Cape Breton.
To avert these moves the government was asked to grant the company a loan of major proportions designed to carry the industry through the next two years," the Post says.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, rumours were to the effect that the company needed help only for the balance of the current year; that a request was before the government for consideration, and that such help was considered sufficient to maintain operations as they were planned and, also, what is more important, at that time there was no mention whatsoever of any kind of lay-offs. Three weeks later shutdowns and curtailments were ordered and put into effect. Now that the shutdowns and curtailments are in fact a reality we are told that the company will need


government backing for two years unless additional lay-offs are made and permanent closure of three mines takes place.
If what I have just said is factual, there are a few questions which need to be answered. Why was the public not informed about what was happening? Why were the miners given to understand last February, and then again in May, that no idle time was contemplated? What happened during those three weeks between May 31, when the first rumours came out that Dosco might be in need of help from the government, and June 23 when lay-offs started to take place? During that period did the company really put its problem before the government? Was it made clear to the government that unless some help was forthcoming there would be immediate lay-offs at the mines? Was the company turned down because it was felt that those demands were exaggerated?
We were told by the Prime Minister on Friday that a suitable arrangement had been made between the government of Canada, the provincial government and the company whereby assistance would be provided in order to avert additional lay-offs and permanent closure of three mines, as previously announced by the company.
The statement of policy as outlined in the House of Commons at six o'clock on Friday by the Prime Minister reads as follows, and I quote from page 1738 of Hansard:
After full consideration and on the recommendation of the minister of mines the government has decided that in order to help maintain employment the subvention policy now in existence will be extended so as to include among the cost audit items to be determined by the controller of the treasury the amount of the insurance stockpile and interest charges of the excess coal stockpiled this year and the government of Nova Scotia has agreed to share in these additional costs with the federal government. I am glad to report that this action will result in the company being enabled to maintain at a high level employment in the coal mines it operates.
Earlier in his statement the Prime Minister said, as found on page 1737:
Even in the face of those reductions in working days-
The Prime Minister was talking about the immediate 25-day lay-off in addition to the period of regular holidays with pay.
-the company has estimated, and that estimate has been confirmed by the dominion coal board, that by the end of the year 1958 there would be in stockpile 750,000 tons of coal in excess of the normal average carryover.
The Prime Minister also stated:
-company officials undertook that at the end of the 25-day lay-off already announced the company would continue its normal operations providing it

is compensated for the additional cost to which it would be put to maintain the excess over and above the normal stockpile.
The newspapers of Saturday, following the statement made by the Prime Minister, reported that an unofficial estimate of the total cost of the measure announced by him would be $500,000 and that four-fifths of the cost would be borne by the federal government and one-fifth by the provincial government. It was also reported in the same Canadian Press dispatch that the scheme parallels the assistance given to the Britannia mine in British Columbia. If this is so, I hope that the end results in the coal mines of Nova Scotia will not parallel those of the Britannia mine.
The announcement by the Prime Minister on Friday presumably will have the effect of avoiding lay-offs after the period of the 5-week shutdown until the end of December, 1958. All that the Prime Minister did was to look after the company's charges on the stockpile in order to prevent shutdowns in the period from the middle of September to the end of December. For this the coal miners of Nova Scotia and the people generally are certainly grateful but, we wonder what will happen after December 31, 1958. Are we to understand that the government will extend assistance after December 31, 1958? We were led to believe that the company really needed assistance for two years in order to be able to keep production going and to avoid lay-offs.
We realize the importance of the coal mining industry. Possibly the hon. member who interrupted me a few minutes ago was not aware that I am interested in the mining industry, whether it be coal mining, gold mining, copper mining or zinc mining. I am also as much interested in the people of his own province because after all they are Canadians. Let me tell the hon. member that in my home town of Malartic there are many people who came from Nova Scotia in 1929 and 1930 to work in our mines. All of them are my best friends. They were called Nova Scotians but they were good miners and they were welcome in my constituency. They were welcomed to Malartic. They were strong, hard working men and they are still living in the province of Quebec. They have been there for the last 20 or 25 years and we are glad to have them with us.
Therefore if I take the opportunity today to talk about coal mines it is because I am interested and also because I know something about them. I know very well that if the government does not do something very soon the coal mines of Nova Scotia as well as the coal mines of the west will have further trouble.
30, 1958	1765
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines
The minister who preceded me wanted us to forget the political events of 100 years ago and then in the same breath he said that we should go back to Laurier. He did not want us to go back 100 years. He wanted us to be realistic. Let me tell him that the previous government was realistic and did a lot to help the coal mines. The dominion coal board was organized. Subventions were paid to the coal mines for the transportation of coal. Different research branches were organized.
It is true that the present government increased the subventions but now that they are in power it is their duty to do more for the coal mines. They told us in the past that we did not do enough. Now it is up to them. It is their duty and they promised the people of the maritime provinces that they would do something. We leave it up to them now and we hope that they will do something not only for the coal mines of the maritime provinces but for all the Canadian coal mines spread across the country.


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak on the amendment. First, may I say to the hon. member who has just sat down that I welcome his interest in the Nova Scotia coal mining industry as I am sure all members from Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Canada do. Furthermore, may 1 say that I welcome the new look of the Liberal party toward the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia, the fact that they now realize that there is a coal industry in Nova Scotia and have some suggestions to make about it. Such an attitude was certainly lacking during 22 years they were in power and the economy of Nova Scotia is certainly the worse off for it.
The hon. member made some mention of some of the things that his party had to say about the Nova Scotia coal mining industry when the Liberals were in power. I should like to put certain remarks on Hansard as to what his party did feel about the industry. I should like to quote first from an editorial published in the Fredericton Gleaner of January 23, 1958. This is part of the then prime minister's (Mr. St. Laurent) statement regarding the coal industry and has reference to some of the facts that were put to him leading up to his answer in that regard. This is what Urwick Currie Limited had to say about Nova Scotia industry as found in the report of the Gordon commission on Canada's economic prospects:
The principal producers of coal in Nova Scotia are carrying out an extensive program of mechanization. It is expected that this program will be completed in 1960. It is estimated that the mechanization of the mines will result in a substantial increase in output per man-hour. This means according to estimates contained in our study

Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines on the Nova Scotia coal industry that if there were no reduction in employment, an additional two million tons would be produced each year. On the other hand, if production is not increased the services of some 4,000 out of the 11,000 mineworkers presently employed will not be required.
What was the answer of the former prime minister to that? Let us examine his answer in the light of that situation. Mr. St. Laurent, in his Fredericton speech, was referring to the proposal pulled out of a hat by Mr. Winters just before the June 10 election campaign with relation to assistance to the economy of the maritimes by thermal power. Mr. St. Laurent said:
Now, will maritime coal continue to be the cheapest fuel for the production of power for all time? I do not think it will. I think that coal is going to become more valuable for chemical and synthetical processes than it will be as a fuel. In the meantime, of course, we want these coal mines kept in operation because we do not want the coal mining towns to become ghost towns. But so far as I am concerned, so far as my opinions may carry weight in the decisions that are taken, we are not going to encourage substantial increase in the production of coal because I do not think that that would be fair to future generations of Canadians.
May I ask there, I wonder how fair it would be to the 120,000 people in Nova Scotia who are dependent on the coal industry.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What is the present government doing?


Robert Carman Coates: I will tell you what the
present government is doing my friend. If you gentlemen had done what you should have done when you were setting over here, you would not be over there now. We would not have shut you out in Nova Scotia because you never did anything for us.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is a poor reply.


Robert Carman Coates: I go back to the quotation
from Mr. St. Laurent:
But so far as I am concerned, so far as my opinion may carry weight in the decisions that are taken, we are not going to encourage a substantial increase in the production of coal because I do not think that that would be fair to future generations of Canadians. I do not think it is fair to future generations of Canadians who will know they did not benefit from the greater value.
In other words, as the editor says, the coal should be left in the ground.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what Mr. St. Laurent said.


Robert Carman Coates: I did not say that is what
Mr. St. Laurent said, but that is the conclusion reached by this editor and, so far as I am concerned, I join him in that conclusion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon.
member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) would permit a purely factual question?


Robert Carman Coates: I should like to finish my
speech. Since I have been in this house I know that the hon. member has been on his feet more than he has been in his seat, and when you sift what he has said you find that it all adds up to nothing. I do not feel I want to be disturbed.
I should like to make reference to another former minister in the government, the Hon. Mr. Sinclair. In Nova Scotia, he made a statement that the uneconomical coal mines should be closed and the people should be shifted to Ontario. That is a different story from the one the hon. gentlemen in opposition are now telling. What is the reason? The reason is that the people in Nova Scotia have shown the members of the opposition what they thought of their policies in the past. May I add a further remark at this time? The maritimes have indicated very clearly to the rest of Canada that they want the Progressive Conservative party in power because the Conservatives are going to see that maritime children can remain at home and have the same opportunities as any others in this great country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly, the coal miners can stay at home for the next five weeks.


Robert Carman Coates: I am not referring to Newfoundland because I consider Newfoundland has not been a part of Canada long enough to realize the difference between Liberal promises and Liberal action. As soon as they find out, they will get rid of the Liberals.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: They have no place to go for work now.


Robert Carman Coates: These hon. gentlemen across the way have said that we never did anything or we have not done enough or we have not done this or that. Let me say this. This long sheet of paper contains all the things the Conservative party has done for the Nova Scotia coal industry. Let me say further, that the people of Nova Scotia did not forget that. They showed they remembered on March 31, and they will show it a great many more times in the years ahead.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Phony promises.


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member can talk about phony promises. I grew up in an area about which the Liberals made many phony promises. Let me quote something from the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. This will give a little


better idea of the differences between Liberal promises and Liberal action. On page 403 of that report, I find:
However, as shown by chart 19.1, average incomes in this region-
They are talking about the Atlantic provinces and the north.
-have remained below the averages for the rest of Canada. In 1926, for example, the average income per capita in the three maritime provinces was 38 per cent below the average for the other six provinces; in 1939 the corresponding percentage was 32 per cent; in 1946-
Which is after the war and the prosperity that we had in this country for five years.
-it was 24 per cent.
In 1955, after all those great years about which they told the people of Canada under a Liberal administration, where did we go? We went to 33 per cent. We went backwards again. The people in the Atlantic area saw we were going backwards. If you take the Atlantic area, we are back to 37 per cent below the average. If you read still further in this report, you find this:
In 1955, average family incomes of people living in metropolitan centres in the three maritime provinces were only about 15 per cent below those of average family incomes of city dwellers in the rest of Canada.
Where was the rural population of Nova Scotia? It was certainly a long way behind other rural areas, and after all those great years of Liberal reign in Canada.
Now, what have we done for the Nova Scotia coal industry? I am very proud of this, and I am very proud to be a member of a government that did this for the town of Springhill. The government said that the No. 2 colliery in Springhill would not close down. This government took one small town in this great Dominion of Canada and said, "We will help you; you need help. You have proven it in the past. You have the guts and stamina which is part of this great Canadian nation. We are going to see you get the help you need." This help was extended first on August 22, 1957 and was extended last April. The government said they still needed help; that is the kind of government to have in this country.
On February 18, 1958, the cabinet issued a directive to government departments that Canadian coal be used in all government coal-burning installations where the laid-down cost of such coal does not exceed the competitive cost of other coals by more than 20 per cent. On August 22, 1957, approval was given by order in council under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act to the grant of a loan for the purpose of colliery mechanization to one of the smaller
30, 1958	1767
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines coal producers in Nova Scotia. On November 18, 1957, approval was given also by order in council under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act to the grant of a loan for the purpose of colliery mechanization to one of the larger coal producers in New Brunswick.
On April 14, 1958, as reported in the Halifax Herald of April 15, 1958, we have these changes: Raised the amount of government assistance for the transportation of coal to Ontario and western Quebec from the present 45 per cent of freight rates to 60 per cent; extended subvention on Springhill coal until March 31, 1959.
Those were some of the things. Then we had the Prime Minister on Friday rise in this house and give still further aid to the Nova Scotia coal industry. I regret, as does the government, that there still is going to be a 25-day lay-off of the men in the mines in Nova Scotia. We regret that fact. But we provide the aid to see that in the future they are going to have full employment. I think that the people of Nova Scotia will appreciate what has been done, will understand what this government was faced with and will understand that this government, in co-operation with another Conservative government in Nova Scotia, will work together to the end that they will see to it that the Nova Scotia coal industry, and thereby the economy of Nova Scotia, which is directly dependent upon this industry, will have a future ahead. Furthermore, might I say that we in the east look to this northern development program so well explained by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) as the vision, and which hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the house-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Illusion.


Robert Carman Coates: -refer to in so many different ways.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Illusion.


Robert Carman Coates: We see there the beginning of a new economy in the Atlantic area. Why? Because we are not faced with some problems that are faced in western Canada with regard to roads to resources. We have many ports in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland by means of which to get at the iron ore in Baffin island. We have the thermal power program in the Atlantic area to provide cheaper power. We have coal in Nova Scotia. With those three and with the future potential of the power resources in the Hamilton river area, we could easily become one of the great steel producers in Canada and maybe in the world. We have the ports and we have the people with the ability and the initiative to see that this program is started
1768	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines and that it leads us into a new era in which, as I said before, our children do not have to worry about going to the central area or about getting a one-way ticket purchased for them by any government in this country. They will have their opportunities at home and they will be able to enjoy them.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: They will have no place to go, as they have now.


An hon. Member:: That is cheerful.


Robert Carman Coates: We are looking forward to this era, not as a joke but as a dream that is going to become a reality. This is the government that is going to make it a reality.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) will give all hon. members an opportunity to express the regret which I am sure we all feel that, in spite of the measures announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) last Friday, there will still be a shutdown in the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia for five weeks. The Prime Minister's statement was greeted with warm applause, but I believe that applause was given spontaneously before hon. members realized that the measure did nothing more than postpone this problem to some future date. Certainly all the measure announced was that the cost of adding to the stockpile, together with the extra charges for carrying that stockpile, would be met and that, as a result of this provision, there would be no further shutdown beyond the five weeks as already announced and which will continue in spite of the measures.
If these measures could have been announced a little earlier there is no reason why this five weeks' close-down should have taken place. In replying to the hon. member for Gloucester the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) dealt with one point only. He concentrated on the fact that it might not be wise to write into an agreement a clause which would make it binding to use coal for a period of 30 years or 40 years in the future. However, he did nothing to explain the charges made by the hon. member for Gloucester that assurances had been given by company officials and by the premier of Nova Scotia and other members of the legislature that this shutdown would not take place. Neither did he explain the statement made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) some time ago that this stockpile of coal had been sold and was only awaiting transportation.
If the miners received cold comfort from what the Prime Minister said on Friday last, they must get even less comfort from the

words of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in that he asked them just to be patient and just to think of the great vision in 30 years' or 40 years' time, that we are going to get a great steel industry up in the north and that will make up for all the trouble and suffering which they are going to undergo at the present time.
This stockpile or this overproduction represents a reflection of the decline in our economy. If we are going to find a solution to that decline, surely the solution must be three-fold. In the first place, an effort must be made to stimulate our present business firms which are suffering from a decline and to get them expanding again. In the second place, new industries must be developed. In the third place, efforts must be made to increase our markets for coal. The blueprint for this industrial expansion has been drawn up by different bodies. It was laid down by the premiers of the Atlantic provinces in a conference which they held in Charlottetown last September. Prior to that, I think in last March before the election, the Conservative candidates for the Atlantic provinces met in a conference in Moncton and produced what I suppose they regarded as a new Atlantic charter. That charter was referred to in the July, 1957 issue of the Atlantic Advocate as consisting of seven resolutions which for the convenience of hon. members I should like to put on the record. They are headed "The Atlantic Resolutions" and they read as follows:
1.	A national development program of federal assistance for developing the resources of the Atlantic provinces, having regard to their differing needs and varying financial capabilities.
2.	Industrial decentralization, by placing a more equitable share of defence contract expenditures within the Atlantic provinces; by the establishment of crown corporations; and by encouraging private enterprises to locate in the area and to encourage the processing here of our natural resources as a result of special fiscal considerations.
3.	Atlantic provinces power development by means of financial assistance for the development of low-cost electric power which would fully preserve the rights of the provinces to build and operate both thermal and hydro installations and transmission lines and by immediate subvention on coal produced in the region and used for generating electric power therein.
4.	Adjustment of freight rates and provision of transportation facilities to allow our producers reasonable access to the markets of Canada.
5.	Capital projects program to provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
6.	Special adjustment grants for all provinces with a per capita income substantially below the national average. The claims of Newfoundland to better financial terms should receive recognition.
7.	The establishment of a Canadian coast guard.
I submit that this is a very fine blueprint for the development of the Atlantic provinces

but a year has now elapsed since this government took office and we have yet to see anything done for the maritime provinces beyond the special grants which were made at the last session. As indicated in these resolutions the federal government can do a great deal to assist in the development of the Atlantic region. Reference was made in the throne speech to the setting up of a small branch in a government department for advice to small businessmen. I believe this would be a very good move but when and if it is done I would suggest it would require much more than just a small office with two or three advisers. If that organization is going to be of any effect it should be organized on a regional basis in very much the same way as the national employment service is now organized.
There are some things which the Atlantic resolutions did not refer to and better communications is one of them. This is something that is absolutely essential if we are to develop our maritime industries. Transportation has been referred to and that is perhaps our greatest handicap particularly in Newfoundland. In spite of subsidies and special freight rates, transportation costs are a millstone around the necks of all small industries in the Atlantic provinces.
Something should also be done to encourage investment and that would require special tax concessions and depreciation allowances. More can be done than is being done at the present time to encourage the local industries we already have. We have many fine small industries in the maritimes which produce products of an excellent quality which could be utilized by the government in its construction programs. I have referred to some of these on other occasions. In Newfoundland we produce first class cement, fibre board and birch veneer, all of which is of a high standard. In the maritimes we produce excellent brick, aluminum windows and doors and other products which could be given special consideration by this government when it has purchases to make in its own building programs.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Did the old government do it?


Chesley William Carter: The Department of Defence Production could also do much more than it is doing to encourage the existing industries in the maritimes. If the government intends to tackle this problem in earnest then defence production contracts should be awarded on the basis of factory prices. There are many items which we can produce at a lower market price than can be produced elsewhere in Canada but when transportation charges are added, particularly on the cost of products 57071-3-112
30# 1958	1769
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines from Newfoundland, then our costs are higher and of course we cannot compete for the contracts. By this simple device of awarding contracts on the basis of factory prices assistance could be given to the many excellent small companies we have in the maritimes.
I remember that tenders were called for shoes for the army a couple of years ago. We have an excellent shoe factory in Newfoundland which can produce an article perhaps as good as any produced elsewhere in the world. The company tendered on that contract. The factory price was lower than that of the firm which was awarded the contract but because our transportation costs had to be added to the factory price to comply with the terms of the contract that order from the Department of Defence Production was lost to our province.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Would the
hon. gentleman permit a question. If this occurred two years ago why did not the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) do something about it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did, and they got the next order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Why did you
not do something for the factories in New Brunswick, then?


Chesley William Carter: One of the prime requirements for industrial development in the maritimes, of course, is the production of cheap industrial power. In this connection our government should take into consideration the inequality which now obtains as between public versus private distributors. It is true that if electricity is developed and distributed by a public body they have tax concessions which private enterprises do not have and which they must pay. Public bodies have an advantage in that way which I think should be permitted no longer. This could be done very well by granting tax concessions to private enterprises which are engaged in the production and distribution of power. Unless that is done the subsidies which are handed out by this government with one hand are taken away with the other hand in the form of income tax.
A third thing which could be undertaken is the expansion of markets. Of course this is a responsibility shared not only by the provincial and federal governments but also by the industry itself. This government has a responsibility because the coal which we are discussing today is a resource which is the property of the provinces. That resource should be converted into wealth while there is time to do it. The time will come perhaps sooner than we think when nuclear power
1770	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines
will produce electricity cheaper than it can be produced from coal. Probably many hon. members will have seen the article which appeared in the local press a few days ago which said that before long this power could be produced at the rate of 6 mills. Once that happens the coal we have in our provinces underground will lose much of its value because its use as a fuel will go out of existence and other uses will have to be found in the production of dies, synthetics and chemicals.
When that day comes it will perhaps be a good thing for the coal industry, but we should be looking forward to that stage now and research should certainly be going on as fast as possible in order to find other uses for our coal. The time is running out when we can depend on it to sell as a fuel. Governments can help by using more coal to heat government buildings, and in thermal plants, as long as Canada is over supplied. The industry itself shares this responsibility with the government and I am not satisfied that in the past it has done all in its power to find new markets for coal or to expand existing markets.
As far as the Nova Scotia coal industry is concerned, it has had a first rate market on its doorsteps in the province of Newfoundland. We have been dependent on Nova Scotian coal for ages but the policy of the coal company was to take this market for granted. They did very little to expand this market and as a result, in spite of our increased population, the consumption of coal in Newfoundland has declined drastically over the last few years, although, at the same time, the consumption of oil has just about doubled. In 1953, the total receipts of coal in Newfoundland amounted to 275,000 tons, but in 1957, despite the increase in the population, it had declined to 258,000 tons, the latter figure including imports from the United States. On the other hand, 509,000 barrels of kerosene and stove oil were consumed in Newfoundland in 1953, a figure which had risen to 971,000 barrels in 1957, just about double. A lot of that imported oil could have been displaced by coal if our people had been treated fairly and if the company had done all it might have done to ensure a supply of coal of good quality at a fair price. But I have myself seen fishermen buying coal which was nothing but dust, much of which blew away when they took it out of their boats and still more blew away while they were waiting to get it into their houses. And for that they had to pay the highest price, between $25 and $35 a ton. A market cannot be developed when this kind

of service is given and I think the coal company must accept a good deal of the blame in this respect.
Speaking in this house on July 25 I suggested that coal depots should be established along the south coast of Newfoundland, because it would have been in the interest of the coal company to have found some means of distributing this coal at a fair price. What was happening at that time was this: our ships were going to Sydney and being tied up in Sydney harbour for up to two or three weeks, with all the extra costs of demurrage, waiting to get loaded. This demurrage cost was added to the cost of transportation. The answer to this problem would be to find some means of carrying the coal in a special ship whose cargo could be quickly unloaded, stockpiled at various points on the coast of Newfoundland, and distributed from the central points to the smaller harbours. This system, if it had been adopted, would have reduced the cost of coal considerably and instead of purchasing only one ton or a ton and a half- all they could afford-the fishermen might have been able to buy three, four or five tons at a time. The answer, if this government intends to do anything to maintain what bit of the market the industry still has, is to pay subventions on freight between Sydney and Newfoundland with regard to water-borne transportation. The former member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) raised this question in the house on January 14, 1958 as reported in Hansard on page 3317.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was referring to the opportunities of expanding the coal market in Newfoundland, and I had said that in order to do this it would be necessary to pay some subvention or subsidy on the water freight between North Sydney and our province. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself is aware of this need, as he is reported in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of May 3, 1957, as stating at Amherst, Nova Scotia, on May 2, 1957, as follows:
"What we want", he asserted, "is coal subventions within the province."

And again at Minto, New Brunswick, on June 1, 1957, as reported in the Montreal Star by the Canadian Press on June 3, 1957:
The Conservative chieftain speaking to party supporters in the coal mining community of Minto, New Brunswick, said "there should be and must be a subvention on coal transported within these provinces for power purposes."
Cheaper power for the maritimes and assistance for the maritime coal industry could be obtained, he said, if subsidies were provided for intermaritime coal shipments.
During discussion of the federal government's decision to join in the financing of coal-fired thermal power plants in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Mr. Diefenbaker said the Conservative party's policy "is to give provinces a type of cooperation they have not had in the past."
Not only must subventions be paid on coal for power purposes but also for consumption in homes in Newfoundland if coal is to be made competitive with oil, which is being used to an ever-increasing degree, as I pointed out earlier this afternoon.
In my own riding there is an opportunity for expansion on the Burin peninsula where we have a considerable shortage of power at the present time. Not only are there large communities like Marystown, Garnish, Cres-ton, which do not yet have any electric power at all, but the fish plants and the mining operations at St. Lawrence are very greatly handicapped on account of the lack of cheap power. The St. Lawrence mines, like the Sydney coal mines, have been closed down. In fact, one of the fluorspar mines at St. Lawrence has been closed down now for over a year with 200 people out of work.
Then, again, there is the proposed development of the free port at Mortier bay. If this dream ever comes true a great deal of electrical power will be required, and that power is not easily obtainable in that particular neighbourhood at the present time. It may be possible to develop Hydro power at bay a'Espoir and transmit it to Mortier bay; but an economic survey might prove that' this power could just as cheaply be delivered on the spot by use of thermal units. Here again is a prospective opportunity at least for an expansion of the coal market in Newfoundland. It would therefore be to the advantage of both of our provinces if the federal government got behind this proposal for the development of a free port at Mortier bay.
As I said before, if the coal is to be used at all, some subvention must be paid on the waterborne transportation. When I was interrupted at six o'clock I was putting on the record a passage from Hansard which was an exchange between Mr. Lesage and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) about this
57071-3-112J
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines question. The exchange is to be found at page 3317 of Hansard of January 14, 1958, and I quote:


Mr. Lesage:: I see. If Newfoundland should sign an agreement for thermal plants would the cost of water transportation be taken into account?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The question is hypothetical but well thought out.
Further down, after other exchanges the minister said:
Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that the same principles of fair play and justice will be applied to Newfoundland as to either of the other two
provinces.


Jean Lesage: That is very vague, of course. I would like to know whether Newfoundland will benefit to the same extent as the other Atlantic provinces?
I quoted this extract from Hansard, because in spite of the statements of the Prime Minister, which I mentioned earlier, when the question was brought up during the thermal power debate in this house last session the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) was very vague as to what extent this freight subsidy, if any, would be applied to water freight charges on Nova Scotia coal going to Newfoundland.
This afternoon the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources again treated us to this great vision of a great steel industry in Canada, utilizing the power of Hamilton falls which would take place in perhaps 30 or 40 years time. Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that; we all subscribe to that; we know it will come some day and it will come regardless of which party is in power. It will come when our population has expanded to the point where our domestic market can support such an industry; it will come then and not before. We must not allow ourselves to be blinded by visions of this kind; we must do as the Acting Prime Minister pointed out this afternoon; we must try to live in the present and the realities of the present day are that the coal industry in Nova Scotia is in a depressed condition at the present time and miners are out of work and will be out of work for five weeks in spite of the measures which have been taken on their behalf.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources admitted that this economic decline in the maritimes has been going on since confederation, and he referred to it as the sacrifice which the maritime provinces have paid and will be paying to make Canada a nation. What we want in the martimes is for governments to face up to those realities and not wait 30 or 40 years to have this vision come true to end all our troubles in the coal industry. There is no reason why the Atlantic provinces should become a permanent poor house. There is

Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines no necessity for it. We have a great deal of undeveloped resources and a little cooperation from all concerned along the lines I have suggested will bring this development about.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion my remarks will be brief. As a member of the united mine workers from Glace Bay representing miners who today find themselves on the street more or less because of their own efforts in producing coal, I feel justified in making a few remarks. I am grateful for this opportunity for two reasons. First of all, I am grateful that the government has seen fit on two occasions to alleviate the problem by increasing the subventions and has at this time met the request of the A. V. Roe Company in order to prevent further lay-offs. Second,
I am grateful, and I emphasize this reason, because of the fact that there has been a change from the situation that existed under the previous administration.
I say that because their attitude towards the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia was very well brought out by the former prime minister in Fredericton, New Brunswick, when he said that coal was too valuable a product to burn and should be left for future generations to be used in the manufacture of synthetic articles. In addition, there was the attitude of the former minister of fisheries who said in effect in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, that he did not believe in subventions for the sole purpose of alleviating unemployment.
I will have to check the records to find out whether opposition members who spoke today made the same remarks about the coal industry a few short years ago when there were also cutbacks. I know that in my own colliery I had three weeks of idleness because of cutbacks and at that time nothing whatsoever was done by the former administration. Therefore I am surprised at their attitude today which has been one of great concern for the coal miners. I must agree with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) that they are concerned about the coal miners only because they wish to take advantage of the situation to further their own political aims. That was brought out by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) who had much to say about the problems of Newfoundland while speaking on the coal situation in Cape Breton. I give him full marks for the fact that he did touch on the question of markets and transportation. That is the only contribution towards this debate that has come from the opposition side of the house today. He at times made reference 
to the coal markets in Newfoundland and the transportation problem.
The attitude of the C.C.F. towards this situation was brought out very clearly on Friday when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) made his announcement concerning the aid to be given to the coal industry. One of the C.C.F. members immediately jumped to his feet to ask the Prime Minister about the possibility of extending the same assistance to coal miners in another part of the country. In my opinion this is not the way to help the coal miners of Nova Scotia.
I could go into the history of the coal mining industry in Cape Breton very thoroughly tonight but I do not think it would serve any great purpose. I could go back to the time of the Sir Andrew Rae Duncan reports of 1926 and 1932 which indicated that the coal mines and coal miners of Nova Scotia contributed much to other industries. The commission report brought out the fact that the coal miners were subsidizing other portions of the corporation, and at that time the miners stood pat on their wage demands simply to help out these other subsidiaries. It was in recent years before the new company took over that the policy was changed and put the miners at a disadvantage. The policy was adopted that the company would place the coal mining operations in a category of their own and that those operations would have to show their own profits, but considering the fact that in previous years the miners had subsidized these other industries I think the miners were placed in a very unfair position.
I would ask hon. members to compare the Sir Andrew Rae Duncan commission report which said that the miners should be given a raise and that they were earning it with the recent Gordon commission report. As has been pointed out by members on this side several times, the only solution put forward by the Gordon commission to alleviate the situation in the mines of Nova Scotia was to practically tell them to get out of the province.
This question has come up in the house several times in the last few weeks and great concern or supposed concern has been shown on the part of many members of the house. I should like to correct any misapprehension about representations from the united mine workers of America. I have spoken to the president and other representatives of the union here in Ottawa within the last couple of days and they brought it clearly to my attention that never on any occasion have they sent a telegram to any member of the house. I should like to point that out so that hon. members will not be misled by somebody getting up and waving telegrams and

saying they have received them from the united mine workers of America. That is not so.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member deserves correction because a telegram was received by a member of this house.


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. member saw fit to stand in his place one day within the past few weeks and say that he had received representations from the united mine workers of America. I do not know whether or not I am in order but if that is so I should like to see that telegram tabled. I do not know whether or not it is in order to ask for it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I said at the time that I had in my hand a telegram which was sent to a member of the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: You used the words "united mine workers".


Hédard-J. Robichaud: From the united mine workers.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would again bring it to your attention that I was informed by the president and the international representative of that organization that at no time was a telegram sent from the united mine workers office in Glace Bay. Not having the experience that the hon. member has, I may not be too familiar with the rules, but if I am correct I should like to see that telegram tabled.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Again I wish to state that I had a telegram which was sent to a member of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Table it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I know you do not like it.


Some hon. Members:: Table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The rules and practice of the house require a member to accept the statement of another member made in his place. They also entitle a member to have a document tabled which is quoted but, of course, that should be asked for at the time the document is used.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I was not too sure whether I was in order in requesting that the telegram be tabled. Since I am not in order, I am quite willing to let the matter ride on the basis of the information I have received.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not mean to say that the hon. member could not ask the hon. member for Gloucester to table the telegram. I would think it is up to him now whether or not he
30. 1958	1773
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines does so, but that point should have been made at the time the telegram was used.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to continue much longer with my remarks. As I said, I could go into the history of the situation regarding coal miners in Nova Scotia these last few years. I might point out that throughout the last few general agreements drawn up, the selling point of the company-I repeat that the company has changed hands since-was the fact that mechanization was going to cure all the ills from which the industry suffered. As soon as this mechanization reached its potential, the coal industry would be in a much better situation. However, it appears that the efforts made by the miners to stand pat on their contract and do their utmost to increase production per man has resulted in the miners working themselves out of a job for the time being.
I would say that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo did have a point when he referred to the marketing problem for coal and the transportation of it. This has always been one of the big problems and has yet to be corrected. 1 feel that the situation today is one which company policy could do much to alleviate. I am not at this time in a position to dispute company figures, but I would say that, without a doubt, there is an excess amount of coal at the present time. Although the company is in receipt of orders far in excess of the total volume of this bank of coal, still production more than takes care of market demands at present.
The one question which occurs to me in discussing this subject at the moment is one about which I have had representations from Cape Breton during this last week. I refer to the question of unemployment insurance. I would ask this government to give sympathetic consideration to amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide that in the event of mass lay-offs such as those which have taken place in Cape Breton recently the five-day waiting period be waived. I do not mean at this time to confine that request to Cape Breton only, so possibly the government will give serious consideration to waiving the five-day waiting period in the event of mass lay-offs.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, this government has now been in office for just over a year. We have had two openings of parliament and two speeches from the throne. We have had a baby budget and a full-grown version. Many measures have been passed by parliament, and some of them have been handled to the credit of the government, while others have not. It does appear to me that to date there has
1774	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines been very little indication of a sound government policy emerging. It does appear to me that there is a statement made here and a contradiction made there. The country's business is being conducted on a day to day basis.
I would think there is no greater example of conducting the country's business on a day to day basis than this action which has been taken to temporarily relieve the problem that exists in the coal mines of Nova Scotia. I am sure that the people all across this country will appreciate what the government has done as a temporary measure. On the other hand, they will regret that something more could not have been done in order to avoid this five-week lay-off. Questions will arise in people's minds as to what will happen at the end of this year. Are we going to arrive at the same situation next year? It appears to me that some solution must be found without delay. After all, there are 9,000 miners affected and the total number of people affected runs to close to 121,000 people. Somewhere, somehow, if these mines are to be kept open, markets must be found for this coal. As the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) has said, there is a market next door to Nova Scotia, a market that could have been used to greater advantage in the past. I hope that when markets are being sought for Nova Scotia coal this will be one consideration.
We have heard a good deal lately about the policy of this government to divert 15 per cent of trade from the United States to the United Kingdom. The province of Ontario imports every year more coal than Nova Scotia produces. I would suggest, therefore, that if the government is serious about this 15 per cent switch in trade, they should switch some of the trade now given to the United States by diverting it to Nova Scotia. I recognize that there will have to be a subvention paid on some of this coal, but that has been done for quite a number of years.
This afternoon hon. members questioned what had been done by the previous administration. I am sure that anyone who wishes to turn to page 23 of the seventh annual report of the dominion coal board will find there the amount of subventions paid to coal mines over the years since 1928. This amounts to $80 million. I would suggest also to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) that he might check the statement he made this afternoon that these subventions were started under his party. In addition to these subventions which have been used we have also had money lent to the coal mines of Nova Scotia for the purpose of mechanization. This policy


was adopted as a result of the report of the royal commission in 1946. Up to date the money for this purpose has amounted to something over $5 million. I am sure that anybody would admit these figures hardly indicate nothing has been done for the coal mines of Nova Scotia.
However, we would agree that more has to be done if markets for the coal are to be found. Today the coal miners of Nova Scotia are facing the prospect of a five-week lay-off. No such lay-off has ever happened in the postwar period under a Liberal government, and I believe that if careful thought had been given to this problem last week a solution could have been found.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made reference to the fact that no such lay-offs occurred in the post-war period. I have just pointed out that within the last three years miners in my own mine have been unemployed for a three-week period because of a similar cutback. I am speaking from personal experience.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I suggest to the hon. membei that in the post-war period there has never been experienced in the history of Nova Scotia-


Mr. Nowlan:: Who told you?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Would you care to know?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, I would.


Herman Maxwell Batten: There has never been a case in the post-war period in which 9,000 men were facing a five-week lay-off. There has been a great deal done for the coal mines in Nova Scotia, but perhaps the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) does not want to admit it. I am sure that it is irrelevant who told me about the coal mines, but these mines have become very important to those of us who have been living next door to them for so many years.
The second part of this resolution deals with the fact that the government has backed away from its commitments to promote the development of industry in the Atlantic provinces. It does appear to me there would be something wrong in expecting any federal government to formally enter into business. However, I think three things can be expected of the government if they are going to be serious about the promotion of industry in the Atlantic provinces.
There are three things that I think could be done. First, I think the federal government should provide those facilities which

are within the authority of the federal government and which cannot be provided by the industry or the people concerned. Second, the government can create that atmosphere which is conducive to the development of industries. Third, it can increase, both at home and abroad, the markets that are required to sell the produce from these industries.
I am going to take a few examples from my own province in general and from my own riding in particular. I should like first to talk about the fishing industry which is the oldest industry in Newfoundland and which, up to a few years ago, was the most important one. It is not the most important one today but it is still an extremely important industry in the economy of this province. It is particularly important today because of the number of men who have been unable to find employment anywhere else and who now have returned to the fishing industry. If these men are going to be able to carry out their duties as fishermen they will need the assistance which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) is able to give. In order to develop this industry fully I would suggest that the Minister of Public Works increase or speed up the assistance which he is now giving to the fishing industry in Newfoundland in providing harbour facilities. This year, as far my riding is concerned, I am extremely grateful for what the minister has done but I believe that it could be speeded up in the hope of taking care of the large numbers of fishermen who have gone back to this industry.
The industry also requires the services of the science divisions of the Department of Fisheries. It is urgently in need of an expanded and more efficient bait service. This bait service, which we now have in Newfoundland and which was initiated by the commission government late in the 1930's, is one that has been able to assist the fishermen in getting to work earlier in the year and to stay at work later in the fall of the year and has increased immeasurably the production from this industry. Today, with the larger number of men engaged in the industry, the service as it exists is no longer able to give to all those who require it the service which they deserve. Here is another way in which the Department of Fisheries could increase the effectiveness of this industry.
Above all, this industry in Newfoundland today demands the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). There is in Newfoundland much disquietude concerning the markets in the United States, the markets in the Caribbean and the fish
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines markets in Italy. It may be, however, that there are those who feel that the fishing industry in the maritimes is not particularly important. Many of us remember when in 1957 the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) came back from the conference in London and was reported in a press conference on July 8, 1957 as follows:
Discussing Britain's participation in the proposed European free market, Mr. Diefenbaker said Canada would take a "benevolent" view of this so long as commonwealth farm products were not included.
He added that Britain also is inclined this way- though some of the continental countries are not- and that the U.K. realizes such inclusion would be serious not only for Canada but also for Australia and New Zealand.
Then a reporter said this:
He was asked whether he would include fish in the commodities that should be excluded.
"I don't think that's a very serious matter," he said.
May I now pass on, Mr. Speaker, to other ways in which the industry could be improved in the province of Newfoundland. The Minister of Public Works is very proud of the assistance which he has been able to give the industry of homebuilding, and I think rightly so. But while Canada has had a boom in home building, there has been no boom in home building in the maritime provinces. In my own province of Newfoundland there has been no regular boom. However, I agree with him when he says that the building of homes in Canada has a great effect on industry not only because of the amount of labour involved in building these homes but also because of the amount of labour required to provide all the things that are needed to build a home and to furnish it for those who are going to live in it. We in Newfoundland are able to supply fibre board, gypsum board of the highest quality, and a good quality of cement; and if orders were given to these small industries in Newfoundland to provide materials for the home building industry they themselves would be able to carry on to a far better degree than they are now able to do.
It is true that Canada is experiencing a recession but it appears to me that the Atlantic provinces are feeling a greater impact than is any other part of Canada. I might go on further, Mr. Speaker, and refer to my own home town. Here there is a paper industry which, before extensions were made to Powell river a year or so ago, was the largest integrated pulp and paper mill in the world. Here is an industry which pays out monthly in wages $2 million. Here is a port 30 miles from the sea which over the years has developed into one of considerable size and is comparable, for example, with Baie

Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines Comeau or a port that has a total amount of shipping equal to the total of the bay of Chaleur. In order to show the growth of this port over the years I have here a table showing the tonnages from 1943 to 1956 inclusive. May I have the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, to include this table in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: What is the source of the table which the hon. member submits?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The figures have been supplied to me by the paper company at Comer Brook.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave of the house to incorporate this table in his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The table is as follows:



NET REGISTERED TONNAGE OF SHIPPING USING PORT OF CORNER BROOK

[Stage Direction]
Year	Vessels Net tonnage
1943	
112	129,3291944	
115	136,7091945	
129	166,8091946	
156	196,5761947	
189	257,2381948	
225	294,5881949	
403	321,0191950	
450	406,1301951	
581	602,8121952	
605	708,2191953	
728	906,9791954	
720	819,2651955	
675	795,3591956	
618	861,725
This port is one that over the years has become extremely important to the west coast of Newfoundland. During the last ten years only once has the port frozen over the extent where icebreaking service has been required and that was in the winter of 1957. When the port freezes over and icebreaking services are required the cost of the product produced at Corner Brook is increased by 124 per cent. I am sure that hon. members who know something about the competition in the paper market at this particular time will realize the real importance of what an increased cost of 124 per cent can mean to the producer. With regard to encouraging industry in the maritimes, here is another way in which help could be given by providing all-year round navigation through icebreaker assistance.
Of course we in Newfoundland have always had the problems of transportation and it has been an extremely serious one for all our people, and particularly for small industries scattered around the coast. May I speak for a moment concerning communications and transportation in the province of Newfoundland? Over the years since confederation the Canadian National Railways has spent a large

sum of money in improving the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland. Yet, although they have spent a large amount of money, they have not been able to keep up with the demand for transportation. It may be possible that at some time this railroad may be improved, as was referred to by the Prime Minister on April 5, 1957 when he spoke in St. John's Newfoundland and as reported by the Toronto Globe and Mail on April 16, 1957, when he said this:
Newfoundland's narrow-gauge railway should be converted to the standard gauge because the present line retards development, adds to the cost of transportation and therefore makes it more difficult for Newfoundland industries to compete in domestic mainland markets on the same basis as other provinces.
We have a tremendous communications problem in Newfoundland. The Canadian National Telegraphs has built an excellent communications system across Newfoundland connecting the larger centres. A good job has been done and I think they are to be commended for the service which they have rendered but it is now time to expand the service to other parts of Newfoundland so they can all enjoy the modern services of a communications system.
In mentioning this I might say just a brief word about television. Certainly television is important in the development of any part of the country. Tomorrow will be a great day for Canada and if there is one splendid way of celebrating the birthday of any country it is to present to the people of that nation something worth-while. Tomorrow, for example, there will be presented the St. Lawrence seaway and we shall also have a number of provinces entering into an agreement with the federal government concerning health insurance. These are great events for any country. Added to that there will be the opening of the microwave line that will bring television to many places across the country from North Sydney to Vancouver. In the year that has just past it is regrettable to me that an extra effort has not been made so that in opening this great television service Newfoundland could have been included. Newfoundland is the oldest part of Canada and it was here that the wheels of commerce and industry turned while the wind still whistled through the trees that stood on the site of every major city of this country.
I am going to turn now to the third part of this resolution dealing with coal being used in thermal plants in the maritime provinces. I remember very well the occasion last year when Bill No. 224 came before this house. One of the objections I placed before the house on that occasion was that the bill did not include provision for hydro power
[Stage Direction]
lor the province of Newfoundland. I argued at that time that if any improvement was to be made in the supply of electricity in any province it was necessary to employ and utilize the resources which the province had. I pointed out at that time that although it was a wonderful thing for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to be able to receive the benefit of added quantities of electricity at a cheaper rate provided by their natural resources as a whole because they did not have hydro power, Newfoundland, where we have no coal but do have sufficient water power, should have been included in the bill providing for hydro power. The reason given at that time for the building of thermal plants in the maritime provinces was that it would provide, not only more and cheaper electricity for those provinces but would also offer a market for maritime coal. These two aims are very commendable.
Recently, however, we heard that in one of the plants that is to be built some form of residual oil which has to be imported will be used instead of coal. I listened very carefully this afternoon to the remarks made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton). I can assure the house that he did not convince me with the arguments he used and I am quite sure he is not going to convince many of the maritime people with those arguments either. I was definitely under the impression, as were, I am sure, most of the people in the maritime provinces, that if thermal plants were to be built in that area they would use coal. I also recall that when members of the Progressive Conservative party were campaigning in the maritimes during the last election they, too, gave that impression. I have in my hand quotations from some of the speeches they made throughout the maritime region. The Halifax Chronicle Herald of Monday, March 3, 1958, reporting on a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) at Port Hood, Inverness county, on March 1, stated:
Dr. Smith answered charges he said he had heard made by Liberal speakers that the government has given no assurance proposed maritime thermal plants will be fired by coal by "offering my assurance that it is a condition of the agreement that coal will be used".
Commenting on a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on March 3 at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, the Halifax Chronicle Herald of Tuesday, March 4, 1958 said:
He reaffirmed statements he made Saturday night in a speech at Port Hood on Cape Breton island that it was a "condition" of the agreement between
57071-3-113
30/ 1958	1777
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines the federal and provincial governments that coal would be used in production of electric power through thermal plants.
The Halifax Chronicle Herald of Wednesday, March 19, 1958 reporting a speech made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) at Glace Bay on March 18, stated:
Michael Starr, federal labour minister, said Tuesday night the thermal power agreement between the federal government and the maritime provinces was contingent on the use of coal.
I could go on at greater length and cite quotations from speeches made by the Prime Minister and also by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). Surely there is no doubt in the minds of anyone from the maritimes that during the last election campaign the impression was left in that area that if thermal plants were used to develop electricity, coal would be employed in those plants and today we have learned that perhaps some plants will not use coal but will employ some kind of oil. In my view this is a reversal of policy which is not going to engender very much confidence in a government that sees fit to make one statement prior to an election and changes its mind without any satisfactory explanation following the election.
During the past month we have heard a great deal about the vision of Canada that is held by the Progressive Conservative party. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if this is the kind of thing that is going to take place the so-called vision of Canada will be exactly what the word implies, nothing more than a vision. It will be nothing more than a figment of the imagination. Indeed, it will be little other than a cloud seen away out at sea, gilt-edged by the rhetoric of the Prime Minister during the election campaign, but one which develops into nothingness as it approaches the shores of reality. If we are going to have a vision for this country there must be something real about it. When statements are made in extremely flowery language there must be something behind them other than empty words. In the development of this country there must be real and tangible events. Industry must develop on the basis of reality. It can only develop if the statements and promises made concerning it can be relied upon. It is only by making statements with all sincerity and a firm resolve in carrying them out that we will find a basis on which to produce the standard of achievement for this country that all of us long to see.
Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion some of the most interesting remarks made in the debate today were those made by the Minister of Northern
1778	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) when he said that the policy of the government in relation to Nova Scotia is to use the coal of that province for the benefit of Canada in order that this resource which we have so plentifully in the maritimes will make the contribution it should to the Canadian economy. When the minister spoke of a great steel plant to supply the steel required by the eastern seaboard of the United States and Canada perhaps he was speaking of the hidden potential conceived by a beneficent nature which placed abundant coal resources in the maritime provinces. In the maritimes we have some of the world's greatest supplies of iron ore and coal. By bringing together these two resources we could use both to make a vast contribution to this nation without subventions or assistance from anyone.
I also listened with interest and some astonishment to the debate introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). The biggest question I see in this debate is not whether coal will be used at Saint John but how the Liberal party after years of betrayal and neglect of the Atlantic region dares now to pose this question in this house when all Canada knows that such speeches from the Liberal party at this stage are nothing but crocodile tears.
I should like to take the house back for a few moments to a time not so long ago, to the spring of 1957 and the situation in the coal industry of Nova Scotia. As hon. members know, in Nova Scotia we produce about six million tons of coal a year. Of that production about 40 per cent is used in the Atlantic region, another 40 per cent finds a market in Quebec and southern Ontario, and the other 20 per cent is sold overseas. In the winter of 1956 and the spring of 1957 the outlook for our coal industry was very bleak indeed. We saw the St. Lawrence seaway coming to completion; we saw the natural gas pipe line bringing in gas from the prairies and the use of oil becoming more widespread across the nation. We saw threatened a market for two and a half million tons of coal that we had in the province of Quebec. The people of the coal producing regions of Nova Scotia were very worried. Certainly my constituency, which at one time had a flourishing coal industry and which still has five great undeveloped coal fields, was anxious about the situation.
But under the eyes of the last administration the coal industry was allowed to die; they acted as funeral directors and wept again their crocodile tears over the corpse of a once flourishing industry. We were facing a situation of a coal industry in dire trouble, of


pits being shut down not for 25 days, but for 25 years; a situation where no miners would be employed in Nova Scotia. We looked to the federal government of that time for some assistance to our coal industry, but not one word of help did we hear from them in terms of a subvention or something that would aid our recovery.
As it happens, a few years ago, at the instance of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Dr. Christie had made a survey of the industry and had, in 1954 or 1955, filed a report suggesting a thermal power program, a system which would link up the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in order to produce cheaper power in the maritime provinces. As a matter of fact, the thing is not new because for over 20 years the Liberal government had been promising cheaper power to the maritime provinces. But cheaper power always meant subventions on coal to be used in power plants, and while they talked about cheaper power they would never give us the subventions. For example, in 1945 the then premier of Nova Scotia pointed out that in the aftermath of the war our coal industry would be in worse trouble than before and that we would have to have some power sources in the maritimes to give us cheaper power. At that time the suggestion was turned down.
Also in the spring of 1957 representations were made by the Nova Scotia minister of mines and industry, and by the premier of Nova Scotia, asking for subventions on Nova Scotia coal to be used in the power plants. Our province of Nova Scotia was ready at that time to finance and build power plants in Nova Scotia provided the government would assist them by granting the coal subventions without which cheap power could not be produced.
Finally, after 25 years or so of promises, on the eve of the election in 1957 the Liberal administration came forth with the so-called power program. As far as we were concerned, we wanted two things from a power program; first, we wanted cheaper power and, second, we wanted a market for our coal. When we first heard of this power program it looked like a new opportunity, a new life for the Nova Scotia industry. But when we began to examine the power proposal of the former government we found it very empty indeed; we found it would provide neither cheaper power nor a market for our coal. The more we asked the federal government to define its intentions and tell us exactly what they were giving us under this power program, the less satisfaction they gave us. Someone in this house used the expression "gobbledygook" a couple of days ago. We never heard more gobbledygook than

the Liberals used when they introduced their power program in 1957. One of the main questions as far as we were concerned was whether or not coal would be used in these plants. Now as reported in volume 3 of Hansard of 1957 at page 3294 the former minister of northern affairs and national resources, the Hon. Jean Lesage, had this to say, and I quote:
With regard to the fuel to be used by the plants that will be established under the federal proposal, the basic objective of securing power at the lowest possible cost is, of course, to be kept constantly in mind. This consideration will frequently affect the location of the plants that are to be built. It is, of course, also the desire of the government to see maritime coal used to the greatest extent possible in the plants that may be established.
In other words, this government wished to pretend to the people of Nova Scotia that it wanted to see Nova Scotian coal used in these power plants. But the minister went on to say:
The sharp increase in the price of oil and in charges for ocean shipping over recent months have resulted in a situation in which, over virtually all the maritime provinces, it appears that it would be cheaper to use maritime coal for the production of power than to use oil.
In other words what the minister was saying was that coal would be used only if it were competitive with oil, only if it could compete with residual oil from Iraq and Iran after the kerosene and other more valuable products had been taken out; oil which would always be sold at a much lower price than Nova Scotian coal. He went on to say:
There is some reason to think that this increase in the price of oil may not be as temporary as has sometimes been hoped or suggested. In the circumstances, the economic advantage of the use of maritime coal shows every likelihood of continuing.
With this statement the minister and the government of the day attempted to deceive the people of Nova Scotia into thinking that it intended to use coal in these thermal power plants when it is obvious to everyone that coal could never compete with residual oil; it is clear to everyone that coal could only be used if subventions were provided to move it within the Atlantic region to the thermal power plants.
They did not offer us cheaper power; they offered us power at cost. But we already had power at cost; we had the Nova Scotia power commission producing power at a big deficit every year. The power they offered us would not be cheaper power, it could easily turn out to be more expensive than the power we had then. Nor would the administration say that there would be a market for our coal, the second thing we wanted. We were completely turned down 57071-3-1134
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines by the Liberal administration, whose representatives have been speaking on this question in the debate today.
Let me take a little further this question of subventions on coal without which the power program would be useless. On page 3296 of the same volume of Hansard is reported a question asked by the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. At that time he asked, and I quote:
Has the government given consideration to expanding the principle of subventions on the movement of coal within the maritime provinces to assist in the use of that coal in competition with oil, assuming that the temporary condition may not continue and the price of oil may drop?
And the answer, given by Mr. Lesage,
was:
If the hon. member will read my statement he will find that I said or implied we did not consider it was necessary to give a subvention on coal so it would be competitive with oil.
I was going to say a deliberate misstatement was made, but I would rather say that the minister knew so little about the comparative competitive price of oil in eastern Canada that he could make a statement of that kind. But the important thing is, there was a flat refusal on April 9, 1957, a little more than a year ago, to give us subventions which would enable us to burn coal and to have cheaper power in Nova Scotia. Along with that we have the statement of the former minister of fisheries, the Hon. Mr. Sinclair, who said on a platform in Antigonish that uneconomic Nova Scotia mines must be closed. At the same time hon. members will also recall the report of the Urwick-Currie commission, which was asked to report on the relative costs of moving coal to thermal power plants or moving power along transmission lines.
This commission reported that it would be much cheaper to move coal to thermal power plants. They went on to say that so far as they were concerned, as a result of their survey, the production of coal in Nova Scotia would have to be cut to 5 million tons a year, which they admitted would displace 4,000 coal miners in Nova Scotia, and would turn
30,000	people dependent on those men out on the streets to seek their living. Still, we waited in Nova Scotia for some more clarification of the power program. We finally got it, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), when the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, came to Fredericton and there a few days before the election sounded the death knell of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia, and perhaps in the maritime provinces, when he said that his government did not intend to
1780	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines encourage the production of coal in Nova Scotia. In other words, he adopted the Urwick-Currie report which would have left
30,000	people without a livelihood in the province of Nova Scotia.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is not what he said.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: They speak of a crisis in the coal industry. Yes, we have a crisis in the coal industry. We have had it as long as 1 can remember. Some people here have a longer memory than I, but I can remember all during my lifetime on Cape Breton island a crisis every two or three years in the coal industry. As I recall it, there was very little help which came forward from the administration then in power in Ottawa to assist men out of work and laid off in Nova Scotia coal mines.
What has this present government done? In 1957, a little over a year ago, our coal industry was on the rocks. We had been losing money, a lot of money, every year since shortly after the war. It was easy to be seen that before long our mines might have to close down without some help, and the 130,000 people of Nova Scotia who looked to that industry for a livelihood would have to look somewhere else, probably to the free tickets up to central Canada suggested by the Gordon commission.
This government, when it came into power in June 1957, immediately began a program that has saved our Nova Scotia coal industry. If it were not for that program we would not be worrying about this present crisis and a 25-day lay-off; we would be faced with the situation today where hardly a ton of coal was being mined or moved out of Nova Scotia. First of all this government made the power plant program a reality in terms of cheap power and in terms of a market for coal by providing subventions to move coal within the Atlantic region to those thermal plants. Without this subvention the power program would have been an empty gift.
Then, they gave us subventions to move coal into the Ontario market and above all to protect our market in the province of Quebec against cheaper transportation which United States coal would enjoy because of the St. Lawrence seaway, and against competition from that fuel in our natural markets. Further, they gave us something which the former government would never have thought of doing, namely the preference that Nova Scotia coal has in furnaces operated and owned by the federal government, to give us an additional market there. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe one of the greatest things that has been done, and something that


shows more than anything else the warmth of this government, of our leader and of his cabinet, and also their interest in our problems in the Atlantic region and also of their interest in the unemployment problem generally in Canada, was when we received the other day the announcement of the special help to the coal miners of Nova Scotia in general and of Cape Breton island in particular.
Hon. members know that we have 1,400,000 tons of coal piled up in Cape Breton. That is $14 million worth of coal. The Liberals insist that the 25-day layoff should have been covered by the government. The only possible way it could have been covered would be for the government to buy the $14 million worth of coal and try to sell it. They could not do it. No government could be expected to do that. They did the next best thing in an unprecedented move in Canadian history. Perhaps no other government on this continent or in any other place in the world would have given the co-operation and help to the Nova Scotia coal industry which was given recently in the announcement to pay the interest and carrying charges on that stockpile of coal, coal which can be sold in the normal course of events in the fall and winter of this year.
I think that all of the members from Nova Scotia in particular, and I am sure the people of Nova Scotia, give a great deal of credit to our minister, the Minister of National Revenue, (Mr. Nowlan), for guiding this tremendous provision through the cabinet, and for giving us help which by all the rules we could never have expected to receive. Then, we have speakers rise in their places who have the audacity to say, well, why was this not announced last week or the week before? I say that if they had come forward with a half decent program to assist the Nova Scotia coal industry five years ago we would not be in this crisis today. If the previous government was still in office, and if the same policies they advocated then were carried out, we would not have the thermal power program in the east today because we would not have had subventions on coal. We would not be running into the problem of whether oil or coal was to be burned in Saint John; it would not arise because we would not have the program. We would have thousands of men without work in Nova Scotia and nothing more.
Some reference was made to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) when he spoke at Port Hood in the recent election campaign. Port Hood is in my constituency and I was with him on the platform that night, What the

Secretary of State for External Affairs said was that it was the policy of the present government that federal funds would be used for those thermal power plants only if the provincial governments concerned agreed to burn coal. That was the policy of the government at that time, the guarantee to Nova Scotia, and I understand that it is still the guarantee of the government today. The guarantee is clear, but if in the thermal plant at Saint John oil is used, then that plant is to be built at the expense of the province of New Brunswick. If it will use coal, then it will be built at the expense of the government of Canada.
Much mention has been made of the fact that the agreement did not specifically tie the governments of the provinces down to using coal. The only way that coal could be used, and the only way to provide that coal could be used, was, as has been done by this government, to provide a subvention on coal so that coal is competitive with oil in thermal power plants.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say this. We in Nova Scotia feel that we have obtained from this government more in a year than we have obtained from other governments since confederation. They realized our problem; they met it boldly and with a forward program. I say further that in Nova Scotia we do not expect that 22 years of Liberal neglect and betrayal can be cured in one year. There are still many problems but I am confident that this government will meet those problems and that the position of our coal industry in Nova Scotia and the position of our thermal power program are an awful lot better than they were a little over a year ago. Thank you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express very briefly the support of this group for the spirit, the principle and the purpose of this amendment which are to urge the government to do something to provide more employment for coal miners in Nova Scotia. In saying that, it does not include support for all the procedures suggested, or support necessarily for the remarks made by various members with respect to the present situation or the future situation.
We are supporting the principle and purpose of this amendment. I think the debate we have had today clearly indicates the lack of planning with respect to the development of our natural resources and the need for planning and an over-all policy in this respect. I know there are a good number of members in the house tonight who have over a period of 13 years listened to the former member for Cape Breton
30, 1958	1781
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines South deal with the situation, particularly at times when there were depressions in the coal industry which appeared to be periodical and not quite as bad as at present, when he urged upon the government of the day the necessity of a national fuel policy. I well remember him dealing with this matter in detail session after session during appropriate opportunities on the estimates and also in support of private members' motions moved by himself.
Here we are after all that time still finding ourselves in the same predicament. I remember the former member for Cape Breton South dealing with the situation in detail one night in the house. At the time there apparently had been some temporary improvement in the situation owing to certain subventions and things of that sort. I remember quite well his saying that if the government of Canada did not develop a national fuel policy the situation would grow worse and worse from year to year and the solution would be increasingly difficult.
I think that indicates the situation we are facing tonight. I think the whole debate justifies the C.C.F. policy and approach to this type of situation, namely the necessity for planning for a national fuel policy related to the general development of our natural resources, related to a financial and industrial policy that takes cognizance of all the facts and provides a program and policy as a result of the application of the best brains we have to a given situation free from the influence of certain private interests who, when they get into difficulties like this, throw their casualties on the public exchequer to take care of and also refuse to continue to develop their natural resources.
This failure on the part of previous governments-and I am not taking sides in this issue so far as free enterprise supporting the government is concerned-has resulted in no action, then limited action, with still considerable unemployment, sufficient unemployment to concern those persons who moved the amendment this afternoon.
This is not an isolated case, Mr. Speaker. While we all sympathize with the unemployed coal miners in Nova Scotia and are in hearty support of what the members of that area wish to do to improve the situation, this is only one instance of a number of similar situations in the coal industry in Canada at the present time. To illustrate, without being out of order, the greater compass of this problem than is recognized by many members from Nova Scotia, I will mention the difficulties of a little town in Kootenay East
1782	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines called Fernie. The American Coal Company-operated a mine there for nearly 60 years. The company made very large profits until recent years. Because of that operation a city was built with all the facilities that go with a city. With less than a month's notice to the city council and to the union concerned the company closed down the mine. They took out the machinery. I am informed that the mine contains reserves of coal sufficient for 50 or 60 years. There was no sense of responsibility to the community, no sense of responsibility to the miners, no regard for the predicament in which these people were placed. They closed down the mine not because they were losing money but because by keeping open more efficient mines they could maintain their rate of profit.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member
has gone far enough by way of illustration in dealing with a situation which is entirely outside the scope of this amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was trying
to relate it to the situation in Nova Scotia by tenuous argument. Anyway, that situation exists there. My point is that these companies get control of great natural resources. They utilize Canadian human resources and when they get into a situation like this then in many cases, although not all, they accept no responsibility to the Canadian people as a whole. They say to the Canadian people, "You look after the casualties, you look after the unemployment and we will maintain ownership of the resources that are not being developed in case there is a possibility of making a profit in the future". That is what is being done across the country in many mining camps other than coal mining camps. That throws a responsibility upon the unemployed, the municipal authorities, hospital authorities, school boards and so on. It is an extra burden for which in many cases-I must say not all-these people completely fail to accept their responsibility.
In concluding my few brief remarks, because I know there are a number of members from the maritimes who are anxious to speak-I hope I speak with the consent of the Acting Prime Minister at this point and that he will not accuse me of political skulduggery or anything of that sort-I do think the situation brought to our attention today in this debate and illustrations of similar situations across Canada indicate, regardless of whether we call ourselves so-called free enterprisers or socialists, the need for national planning, for a national fuel policy, the need for us to get together regardless of party differences to formulate a policy and a plan that will do something constructive over the


long run to maintain employment for the worthy citizens of this country.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate may I say that it has certainly warmed the cockles of my heart, to use an old expression, to see the happy few on the other side so very much interested in the plight of the Nova Scotia miners. The crocodile tears that flowed around the opposition benches this afternoon were purely artificial. The people who have worked under the water dripping from the roofs of the mines are the ones who know what they are talking about. I have often wondered where these great defenders of the miners who came to the defence of the miners this afternoon have been over the past few years. Where were they? I have not heard of any great work they did on behalf of the miners. I know that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) and the former member for Cape Breton South, I admit, always brought the plight of the miners to the attention of the house but nothing was heard from these great men who stand up today in defence of the miners.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Did you read Hansard for the last few years?


Robert Muir: I come now to this great amendment-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You haven't, for sure.


Robert Muir: I am sure that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) rather blushed when he presented this amendment although maybe he was not the author of it. I do not know. However, the amendment reads:
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets that the government has failed, despite the measure announced on Friday by the Prime Minister, to avert the five-week shutdown in the Nova Scotia coal mines;
That this house regrets further-
The tears are really flowing at this point.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Who brought it to the attention of the house?


Robert Muir: I did about a week ago.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A month after I brought it to the attention of the minister.


An hon. Member:: They cannot take it.


Robert Muir: I should like to continue if you do not mind, sir. I would be very pleased if you would allow me to continue because the hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), that

great fisherman from down east, take up a great deal of the time of this house. It is very seldom that some of us on this side do any talking, especially myself. There are times when I feel like speaking in defence of my people, when I feel it is right, and surely then I can be allowed to carry on for a few moments. I know that a few things I shall say will hurt, but perhaps you will bear with me. I return to the amendment, and read:
That this house regrets further that the government has backed away from its commitment to promote the development of industry in the Atlantic provinces:
And particularly from its specific undertaking to ensure the use of coal in thermal plants assisted financially by the federal government.
Now, what gall, what unmitigated gall, especially in view of what has happened over the years. A little while ago the hon. member for Cape Breton South	(Mr. Maclnnes) was saying that he had a lot in mind and he could go into the facts very fully. I could, too. However, I do not have anyone to write my speeches for me. I did not have too much time to prepare this one as I just returned from home where I was discussing this problem with the united mineworkers.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I can tell the hon. member that I write my speeches.
Mr. Muir	(Cape Breton North	and
Victoria): I am sorry, but I did not say anything about that. I was not casting any reflection.
In any event, as I said before, what gall. One of the hon. members from Newfoundland, I do not know what his constituency is, said there were no cutbacks and no lay-offs during the post-war period. This is not correct. There were some years ago, and what did the previous government do at that time? What did hon. members who are rising to the defence of our boys now, do at that time? I would love to be sitting along the walls of the Princess mine or down in the other coal mines, and listening to some of the remarks of the boys. I should like to hear a few of the things they are saying at this point. Where was the assistance at that time granted by the previous government? There was none.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: How blind can you be?
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): We happen to use our eyes a little more. There are none so blind as those who will not see. What happened to No. IB during the Liberal regime when 900 miners were thrown out of work in Glace Bay? What was the government doing then? The
30. 1958	1783
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines hon. member was part of it, and what did he do? What about No. 24 in the Glace Bay area? What about No. 11 in the Glace Bay area? What about the Springhill area? What about Westville area all during the Liberal regime? What about the Franklin mine, my old alma mater, out of which I was carried one time? What about the Colonial mine during the Liberal regime? What was done then?
We see all this crying. We get a man who is talking about coal mines, and he ends up by talking about fish. Oh, I understand you are getting on the record and back home they think you are really doing something. If we have not done anything, if this government has not done anything, then why on April 16 after an election, mind you, does an editorial writer for the Halifax Chronicle-Herald write an article entiled "More Glad Tidings". It reads:
Glad tidings for the long-ailing Nova Scotia coal industry have been coming in an almost unprecedented flow in recent months.
In the wake of the announcement of the Ottawa plan for subsidizing coal-produced power in the maritimes and the decision of DOSCO to maintain its production levels-
And, I shall get to that point in a minute.
-despite a cutback in demand has come now the news that the federal government's subvention policy is to be amended to permit the sale of supplies from both Canada's eastern and western mines further afield.
I should like to emphasize that if nothing has been done, then why did this newspaper, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, carry this article? I am sure you all agree that it is a responsible newspaper. I continue:
The maximum assistance to be paid in the future on shipments from the maritimes to central Canada will be $5.25 instead of $4.75 for rail-and-water movements and GO per cent of freight rates instead of 45 for all-rail movements. This means, as the announcement by Prime Minister Diefenbaker pointed out, that our coal will be able to compete against U. S. imports in a broader area of Ontario than in the past. Along with this is an extension of the special subvention for Springhill coal, introduced last year as an emergency measure, for another full year and the offer to pay $4 per ton on the movement of coal to Europe when the demand on that continent for supplies from North America returns.
The additional aid is further evidence of Prime Minister Diefenbaker's special consideration to the problems of the Atlantic provinces and of his keeping faith with their peoples by fulfilling his election campaign promises for a better deal.
Now, I regret very much, as everyone does that there are lay offs and that there are cutbacks. I am sure that even the hon. members over there, really down in here, sort of feel for the boys. It is quite a show you are putting on, I can see that, but if you wanted to put on a show why did you not put it on some years ago? Definitely, the
1784	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines lay-offs are not good. Mr. MacDonald said that there would not be any lay-offs, but I would remind you that the government does not operate the coal mines.
Let us go back a little bit farther, and I shall take you back to 1947. We were on strike for a long period of time. Oh, there were great efforts, were there not at that time, by the federal government to help out in the strike? Yes, and along the same lines as there had been in previous years of the Liberal reign, there was nothing done.
If hon. members do not mind, I should like to quote another editorial from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, and it is entitled "Another Prop For Coal". Surely, the man who writes these editorials is a good, responsible citizen. Of course, if you gentlemen in the opposition wish to say that he is lying, or something of that nature, that is your privilege. He is quoting facts, things that have happened since this government came into power. I read:
For the second time in two months, the federal government has increased transportation assistance for the Nova Scotia coal industry to enable it to obtain new customers in central Canada where it faces stiff competition from American companies enjoying lower production costs.
The addition of 55 cents a ton to the subvention level to give a competitive advantage over U. S. coal in a market for approximately 175,000 tons at Belleville, Ontario, now raises the maximum rail-and-water subsidy to $5.80 per ton. Nova Scotia's representative in the cabinet, Hon. George Nowlan, has described this measure of extra aid as "a special case" involving sales to the C.N.R. and the Canada Cement Company at Belleville which are fairly large consumers. But there will be a natural desire to apply it to other shipments as there arises opportunities for sales with such additional help.
Now, our good little friend who used to sit over there somewhere, the hon. member for-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You can mention his name now.


Robert Muir: Oh, yes, we remember him now. This incident has been mentioned, but I should like to mention it again for the simple reason that you gentlemen sitting over there have been sipping from the same cup as this hon. member for so long that the dregs are still there; you cannot change.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I think it would be a good practice if the hon. member would speak to hon. gentlemen opposite through the chair.


Robert Muir: Thank you very much; I humbly apologize. At that time, Mr. Sinclair said, and this has been mentioned several times by other speakers, that there is no point in subsidizing an industry merely for the sake of providing employment. Why has there been such a sudden change? I am sure such a


point of view was discussed in the cabinet or somewhere by the previous administration. The mayor of Westville said Mr. Sinclair should have been chased out of the province for what he said about the coal industry. Mr. Sinclair repeated the statement in Vancouver.


Mr. Morton:: He was chased out.


Robert Muir: Yes, he was chased out of Vancouver.


An hon. Member:: He is very "chaste" now.


Robert Muir: Yes, but this is not a laughing matter. While I think of it, let us go back to the thirties, to 1938 and 1939-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about the early thirties?


Robert Muir: -and 1940, 1941 and the early forties under a Liberal government. How was the coal industry doing?
Men had to work on shifts down in the mine for a dollar a shift or for $3 a shift. They had to work for $3 a shift in those days under a Liberal government. Then some chap by the name of Hitler sort of made a little bit of prosperity. Of course in later years we found out that all the Hitlers were not over in Germany. As I said, if this government had not done anything, then how is it that only within the past few days, in reply to the statement that was made Friday, Mr. Thomas McLachlan, president of district 26, U.M.W. said this, and I quote from the Chronicle-Herald of June 28:
-Representations made by Premier Stanfield and ethers were on a very high level and it is felt by the U.M.W. representatives that timely intervention by the premier, and timely intervention by Prime Minister Diefenbaker and his cabinet are responsible for forestalling any further curtailment of employment in the mines for this year.
That is a statement of the president of the district. I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Cape Breton South with regard to the matter of the waiting period for unemployment insurance. This matter has been brought to my attention by a legitimate telegram from the district office of the United Mine Workers of America. I also have here in my hand one from the secretary of the Princess local, Sydney Mines, and it is along the same line, requesting that the five waiting days be waived in order to allow the idle miners to receive the recommended financial benefit. I certainly hope that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the department will give every consideration to this request.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that there are many aspects of this picture and many things that could be brought into

the debate. As I said before, I have not had time to get all the facts together. Sometimes it would be handy if one really had a ghost writer. It would be helpful especially when you have not too much time at your disposal. From what this government has done during its short period in power I am firmly convinced that it will continue seriously and sincerely to make every effort to stabilize the coal industry which was deliberately, shall I say-in any event, it appears that way, although I may be wrong-neglected or sold down the river for so many years under the Liberal administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this amendment which I had the honour of seconding I feel that I must begin by expressing surprise that, since the first part of the amendment is primarily directed at the administration of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), it should have been the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) and not that minister who was put up by the government to reply to the motion. This is all the more astonishing because of the nature of the reply made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I cannot think that, however feeble the reply the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys might have made, it could have been so insulting to the intelligence of the house as was the performance we listened to this afternoon from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. But what astonished me most about his speech was that the Tory party had found a new prophet in George Brown. I am sure that the 50 Conservative members from the province of Quebec must have been somewhat astonished to discover that the real author of the "vision" is George Brown, the man who wanted a legislative union instead of a federation in this country.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course the minister went on by quoting-and quoting only to disagree with him-the very proper statement by his predecessor in a speech in Toronto to the effect that the resources of this country within the provinces, were under the control of the provinces and that we should respect that jurisdiction. It is evident that we have another example of the many we have had since June 10 last year of the return to "Bennettism" pure and simple.


An hon. Member:: Where did you get that one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What astonished me even more was the effrontery of the minister in commending the Sifton immigration policy; he was the minister who, if my memory serves
30, 1958
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines me correctly, joined the government only after this government had virtually stopped immigration altogether, after it had been brought up to a point by the previous administration where it exceeded anything which had taken place in this country since 1913.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You certainly strained yourself there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to be led into any of the diversions which are very popular on the other side of the house. One thing that I notice, Mr. Speaker, is this. The last thing that any member of the government or any supporter of the government seems to want to talk about is what has happened in this country in the last 12 months. They are always eager to tell us about the preceding 22 years but they seem to want to obscure-and I do not blame them for it either-everything that has happened in the last 12 months, except the two elections.


An hon. Member:: What about the last
speaker?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The last speaker talked about the 30's. It seems to me that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) gave us a very good precept to follow when he suggested that we should deal with the present and not with the past or the future.


Robert Muir: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Robert Muir: Would the hon. member tell me when the Liberal government came into power in the thirties? I said the late thirties. I meant 1938, 1939 or the early 1940's.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that the hon. gentlemen seemed to be very anxious to talk about the thirties. I am more anxious to talk about the year 1958 because that is what the government in office today has to deal with. This is a serious problem, as the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) quite rightly said; and it is about the only thing he said with which I agree. This is a problem affecting human beings who are not having a very pleasant time at present. I think there is plenty to occupy the house with what is going on at the present time, and what is going to be done about it, without these essays into what somebody else might have done in some other situation in hypothetical circumstances. It seems to me that after a year in office it is about time this government came to the conclusion that its own policies were going to have some effects.


An hon. Member:: They are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well. An hon. member said "they are". Here is what I read from the D.B.S. Daily Bulletin for Thursday, June 26, 1958:

Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines
Coal Production Smaller
Production of coal In May declined 10.8 per cent to 827,000 tons from 927,300 a year earlier, making the January-May total 10.8 per cent smaller at 5,085,400 tons compared to 5,698,600 a year ago.
Yes, sir; they are. It is precisely because that sort of thing is going on and, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) so properly said, not merely in the coal industry but to a greater or lesser degree in nearly every industry in this country that hon. gentlemen opposite do not like to contemplate the last 12 months and spend all their time talking about something else.


Mr. Baskin:: Another tight money policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, you are getting another tight money policy and as you watch interest rates increase in the next few months; as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) indicated, you will find it gets tighter and tighter.


James William Baskin: That is what you hope.


An hon. Member:: Never mind looking in your crystal ball; tell us what to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish now to address myself to the third part of the motion which reads in part as follows:
-this house regrets further that the government has backed away from its commitment to promote the development of industry in the Atlantic provinces, and particularly from its specific undertaking to ensure the use of coal in thermal plants assisted financially by the federal government.
I am not going to take the time of the house by repeating what has been said by hon. gentlemen on this side of the chamber about remarks made by hon. gentlemen opposite during the election campaign including the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith).
The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan), who is a new member, made a very notable contribution to the debate in his really distinguished speech, although I did not agree with much of what he said. He reminded us again, in his remarks, that he was on the platform when the Secretary of State for External Affairs made the statement that it was a condition of the agreement with the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that coal would be used in these thermal plants.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources this afternoon said that Mr. Stanfield in the statement he made in the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia had reiterated the view taken by the minister himself. What Mr. Stanfield is reported to have said is this. According to the debates of the house of assembly of the province of Nova Scotia of March 4, 1958, when he was

asked by Mr. Hicks whether an express stipulation was in the agreement about the Saint John plant, the premier is reported to have replied:
Mr. Speaker, I don't know how-what my hon. friend wants. I said that I had been instructed-
I do not know why he would use that word. I continue:
-by the Prime Minister that the burning of coal is a condition precedent to federal assistance in the construction of any thermal power station under this agreement.


Mr.   Fielding@: Under the master agreement?
The Premier: Under the master agreement.
Here we have the premier of Nova Scotia saying formally in the legislature, after being questioned repeatedly so that there could be no doubt as to what he was talking about, that it was his understanding that this was to be a condition expressly contained in the master agreement. We have the master agreement that was brought down here in the house by the minister and there is no such provision in it. What is more, we have these expressions from the minister which, even after his repetition of them today, still leave us and leave the people in the Atlantic provinces in great doubt as to what fuel is in fact going to be used in this thermal plant at Saint John.
The minister gave us a long lecture this afternoon, first about what happened 100 years ago and then about what might happen 40 years from now, which is ten years longer than the period for the amortization of these agreements. But it seems to me that the one thing he was most anxious to avoid was dealing with the real point, and the point is this. Surely it would have been perfectly simple for the government to put into this agreement a stipulation that coal should be used, not necessarily forever, but for as long as coal was available and there was not an alternative market for it.
I want to be fair about this, and I agree that circumstances might arise such as were envisaged in that perfectly proper statement made by Mr. St. Laurent at Fredericton, which has been so distorted in this house by hon. gentlemen opposite, that coal will become more valuable as an industrial product than it will be as a fuel. If that situation arises nobody in the provincial or federal governments would be foolish enough to want to use coal as a fuel, but that situation has not arisen; and it would have been very simple to put in the master agreement, or any of the other agreements, a provision that as long as coal was available, and as long as there was not an alternative market for coal, coal should be used, but if there was a better alternative market for coal and some other fuel was cheaper it might be used. That would have been perfectly simple and everybody

would have understood it, but there is some nigger in this woodpile somewhere-
Mi. Baskin: You are in it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: [DOT]-and the minister is obviously very anxious to keep the nigger there. The plain fact is that if the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-I believe it is true of the people of New Brunswick as well, but certainly it would be true of the people of Nova Scotia-had thought there was any doubt about the statements that were being made to them by minister after minister before March 31 there would not have been the kind of result there was on the evening of March 31. This is the greatest and most obvious double-cross we have witnessed on the part of the present administration.
I do not believe that either the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or any of his colleagues on the treasury benches are prepared to rise in their places and tell us that as long as coal is available for this purpose, and there is no better market for it, it will be used in the Saint John plant and in every other plant that is assisted by the federal government. If any hon. gentleman on the treasury benches is willing to say that I am sure my good friend, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), will join with me in withdrawing the third part of the amendment at once. We cannot understand why this statement has not been made.
The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources spoke about the problem of using coal in thermal plants and suggested that in some extraordinary way it would not have been possible to use coal in the thermal plants which were proposed by Mr. Harris and Mr. Lesage because it would have been too expensive.
I noticed that the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, in an otherwise straightforward and candid speech, was very careful to leave out the most important and authoritative statement that was made on this subject and that was the one made by Mr. Winters last spring with the full authority of all his colleagues to the effect that it was the policy of the government to keep the cost down to the cost of the lowest priced fuel, and that if in order to keep coal down to the price of oil it was necessary to give a subvention to the coal, a subvention would be given. That was the policy of the Liberal government. It was our formal policy, formally enunciated by the minister from Nova Scotia and publicly stated.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question. Would he advise the house on what date the statement was made by the
30, 1958	1787
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines former minister of public works to which he has referred?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was made on June 6, 1957.


Robert Muir: The election was on June 10; it was an election promise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could read the hon. gentleman some statements that were read this afternoon about the same subject as late as March 25, 28 and 27. These statements were made by hon. gentlemen opposite who occupy the treasury benches. The reason that statement was made by Mr. Winters is perfectly clear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just like some others.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was because there was some question raised about the statement that was read by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond made by Mr. Lesage in this house.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It did not work, though.


James William Baskin: He was looking for votes, and you know it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The statement by Mr. Lesage says that, so far as he could then foresee, coal would be cheaper than oil and that he did not feel there was any necessity'-and I do not agree at all with the gloss or interpretation put on that statement by the hon. member-that he did not see any necessity for crossing the bridge before he reached it, because he believed that coal would remain cheaper than oil for some time to come.
But the question was posed during the debates that were going on in various parts of the maritime provinces at that time as to what the government would do if this eventuality arose. A formal decision was made by the government and announced by Mr. Winters on that subject, and that was our policy and it remains our policy and, as the hon. member for Gloucester said this afternoon, it would probably be a more effective policy in reducing the cost of power than the policy enunciated by the present administration. And I think that perhaps I should remind hon. members of this house who may, some of them, have forgotten it, that when Mr. Harris made his statement in the budget debate on March 14 about these thermal power plants, it was warmly received by the premiers of both provinces who came here to Ottawa and who accepted the whole proposal in principle.
What happened between that date and certain other events? I am not going to put an interpretation on the conduct of my political opponents, but something did happen which, judging from what has happened

Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines since, had nothing to do with the merits of the case.


An hon. Member:: It happened twice, did it not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it happened twice, and what has happened now? The great double-cross. Once the election is passed, once the voters can have no more say for several years, the real policy appears.
The other thing that is very puzzling to me is this: We were told when this legislation was before the house last June that it was a matter of the greatest urgency, a matter of extreme importance to the government of New Brunswick who needed to get this bill so that they could go right ahead with this power project in Saint John. What has happened? Half a million dollars, more or less, was put into the estimates last year for this purpose, yet none of it was spent. This year another appropriation has been made, yet no agreement has so far been signed. What has happened to the urgency? Why, last January, was it so urgent, and why, today, has nothing whatever happened? It does seem to me that before this debate closes some member of the government should tell us what is really going on about the Saint John plant. Of course, we do know that in the last 12 months there has been a marked decline in industrial activity, accompanied by a regrettable decline in the demand for electric power. We were told by the minister this afternoon in a burst of candour that this power plant at Beechwood, for which a large sum of the taxpayers' money is being pledged, is now exporting power to the United States. Perhaps this is one of the ways in which the government is seeking to redress its unfavourable trade balance of which we have heard so much.
But it does seem to me that we were not told last January, when this legislation was considered so urgent, that the taxpayers of Canada were having to put up money to complete a power plant to export power to the United States. We are told that now. That is another of the things that come out after an election, another of those things that would have changed the face of things a good deal.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You should read the maritime papers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman would like me to read the maritime papers, would he? I will oblige him. I have here the Halifax Chronicle Herald, which the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Muir) has told us is a most reputable newspaper. I have here an editorial, somewhat later in date than those he regaled us with,
and somewhat different in tone. It is entitled "The Plight of Coal" and it is dated June 19, 1958. The first paragraph begins:
Dosco authorities now have served what is being taken as an official warning of their intentions to cut back on coal production, "over the next several months" and, although the notice has been carefully phrased to ease the blow as much as possible, it still has hit as disheartening and disappointing news.
It was just four months ago today that we were moved to applaud in these columns an announcement from the company that, despite the decline in demand and growing stockpiles, there would be no layoffs or other forms of reduced operations.
I wonder, if that announcement had not been made, whether the results would have been quite the same on March 31. I continue the quotation:
This official statement, said Premier Stanfield as he read it to a cheering legislature, was "magnificent". It was issued by the same man who now conveys the sad tidings of this week, DOSCO management chairman Allan C. MacDonald. And it was less than a month ago-on May 22-that he repeated this assurance to U.M.W. officials in Cape Breton. The present intentions are, perhaps, understandable in the light of the existing market conditions for coal, but should such hopes have been held out to the miners and to the one-fifth of Nova Scotia's population which directly depends on the coal industry for livelihood? It has made many people here wonder if there is even worse news from Dosco ahead.
On top of this there was the disclosure of the previous day, when federal government documents concerning its program of assistance for providing cheaper power in the maritimes were tabled in the House of Commons, that there was no stipulation written into the agreements with the provincial governments that coal would or should be used in the new thermal power stations.
It is evident that the editor of this paper is not much impressed by the arguments put forward today by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader of the house would tell us what he hopes to do tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we continue with the supply motion and then, when we get into supply, we will take the items of government business which were listed on Friday, first the motion which provides for setting up a sessional committee to deal with government-owned railways and shipping, then the second reading of the act to incorporate the lakehead harbour commissioners, then the second reading of the act to amend the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, and following that the resolution concerning the Yukon and the Cape Breton Highlands national park.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order of the house passed this day.

[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. Argue: 1.	What were the total expenditures by the federal government for goods and services for the years 1951 and 1956?
Questions
2.	Of this amount what proportion would be estimated to have been spent in those years in each of the provinces?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	The government accounts are not maintained in such a manner so as to give an exact answer to this question. However, the following statement showing expenditures by standard objects of expenditure covers mainly expenditures on goods and services.
Civil salaries and wages	
Civilian allowances	
Pay and allowances, defence forces and R.C.M.P	
Professional and special services	
Travelling and removal expenses	
Freight, express and cartage	
Postage	
Telephones, telegrams and other communication services ... . Printing of departmental reports and other publications ....
Films, displays, broadcasting, advertising, etc	
Office stationery, supplies, equipment and furnishings	
Materials and supplies	
Buildings and works including land-
Acquisition and construction	
Repairs and upkeep	
Rentals	
Equipment-
Acquisition and construction	
Repairs ana upkeep	
Rentals	
Municipal and public utility services	
Interest on public debt, etc	
Movement of mail by land, air and water	
Thousands of dollars Fiscal year ended March 31 1952	1957
371,996
7,230
208,994
39,137
47,530
18,342
3,398
8,213
5,204
7,889
17,841
248,685
401.350
88.394 8,528
401.350
88.394 684
11,895
531,035
38,040
2,404,740
595,676
9,252
434,390
73,987
61,001
35,249
5,441
14,750
6,597
10,639
18,199
173,777
502,145
163.476 17,791
502,142
163.476 1,927
29,365
534,141
48,932
3,185,214
2.	Not available.


DORVAL AIRPORT FACILITIES
Mr. Macnaughlon: 1.	Has a final decision been reached to use satellite or aeroport parking spots instead of finger system parking for aircraft at Dorval airport?
2.	What is the maximum number of planes that can be handled at any given time at a satellite or aeroport?
3.	What is the estimated length of stay permitted each aircraft at the aeroport?
4.	Are these facilities sufficient to handle all present and estimated future domestic and international passengers, freight, and mail services?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	This depends entirely on the size of the aeroquay satellite but can run to ten or more.
3.	Plans call eventually for turn around times of 20 to 40 minutes depending upon type of aircraft and type of operation, e.g. domestic or overseas international.
4.	Within the foreseable future, yes.


AIR TERMINAL COST, DORVAL, QUE.
Mr. Macnaughton: 1.	What are the estimated figures of total cost for completion of the new air terminal at Dorval, Quebec?
2.	What was the original estimated cost?
3.	When is it expected to complete the said terminal?
4.	Is there a general contractor in charge? If so, what is the name?
5.	Are there any subcontractors? If so, what work are they performing, and what are their names?
6.	Were tenders called, and on what dates were contracts awarded?

Questions
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	$15,000,000 for main terminal building.
2.	Various cost estimates were made at various stages of the project but final accurate cost estimating was not possible until 1957 because final plans and specifications were not completed until that year. Earlier estimates varied from $10 million, when the
Pre-cast concrete slabs	
Pre-cast misc. concrete	
L. W. concrete fill	
Sprayed asbestos	
Asbestos siding	
Insulation and sound insulation cork
Misc. iron and ornamental	
Aluminum	
Roiling steel doors	
Pressed metal doors	
Pressed steel door frames	
Lavatory partitions	
Medicine cabinets	
Millwork	
Entrance doors	
Rubber doors	
Plastering	
Aluminum lattice work	
Roofing	
Acoustic tile	
Marble, tile and terr	
Glass and glazing	
Air conditioning	
Refrigeration	
Elevators	
Plumbing and heating	
Electrical	
6.	Yes, as below-
Item
Foundation work	
Structural steel	
Curtain walling	
Concrete slabs and flooring	
Supply and delivery of cut stone .... Supply and delivery of granite .... General contract	
project was first under study in 1954 and 1955, to $12.5 million in 1956, as plans and specifications were prepared, and to from $14 to $15 million dollars in 1957 as plans became final.
3.	Late 1959.
4.	Yes, the Foundation Company of Canada.
5.	Yes, as below-
Creaghan and Archibald Toronto Cast Stone Porete Co. (Canada) Ltd.
Atlas Asbestos Atlas Asbestos Armstrong
Ornamental Metal and Machine Unique
David C. Orrock
Burmac
Walker
Weststeel Products Canadian Pittsburgh Daigle and Paul Richards-Wilcox McGuire Cd.
Gerard and Gerard Williams and Williams Delphis Cote Ltee Dominion Sound Equipments Despirt Tile and Terr.
Consolidated
Comstock
Canadian Ice Machine Otis
J. Becker Meco Electric Inc.
Award Date August 16, 1955. September 14, 1955. September 12, 1956. June 24, 1957.
July 25, 1957.
July 25, 1957.
November 7, 1957.


RENOUS NAVAL DEPOT, N.B.-CASUAL EMPLOYMENT
Mr. McWilliam: What is the estimated number of man hours or man days and/or estimated amount of money that will be required for casual employment for 1958-59 at the Renous naval ammunition depot, Renous, New Brunswick?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):
It is estimated that there will be a requirement for a total of 1,200 man-days for casual employment in the fiscal year 1958-59 at the R.C.N. ammunition depot, Renous, New Brunswick.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What procedure is followed by the Department of Public Works in connection with inspection during construction of public buildings?
2.	By what method are inspectors selected?
3.	Are there basic requirements necessary for the appointment?
4.	Is veterans preference followed?
5.	Is preference given to local applicants?
6.	If the architects are responsible for inspection, how are public rights safeguarded?
7.	If under the architects' inspection, are inspectors engaged in full time service and required to be on the site at all times during actual construction?

Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	(a) Where plans and specifications are prepared by outside consulting architects, it is the general practice to also make them responsible for the supervision of construction; (b) where plans and specifications are prepared by the department's own staffs, the work is supervised either by the staff in the district architect's office, or by a clerk of works (inspector) who is appointed for that specific project.
2.	Clerks of works are appointed by the civil service commission following public competition.
3.	Yes. Demonstrated ability to interpret specifications and read blueprints; a number of years of experience in the duties of a foreman or contractor on building construction or maintenance work; familiarity with prices and qualities of building materials; elementary school education with additional credits for further academic training; ability to prepare field sketches and reports; satisfactory physical condition and personal suitability.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	The district architect, in whose territory and under whose jurisdiction the work is carried out, makes periodic visits to the project to assure that the intent of the plans and specifications is carried out and that the
Questions
work is proceeding as expeditiously as possible.
7.	(a) On projects exceeding $200,000 the outside architect is to provide constant supervision, and to that end he is also required to assign, at his own expense, a competent clerk of works who is to be on the work continually at all working hours during construction of the building; (b) on projects under $200,000 the outside architect is not required to assign a clerk of works, but he must give the project proper supervision during the life of the contract and particularly he, or a competent representative of his office, must be on the work at all times during the critical periods of construction, such as when excavation is being carried to its final levels; forms are being built, reinforcing placed; and concrete being poured.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government, through the Department of Defence Production, recently awarded contracts for the purchase of trucks from the Ford Motor Company of Canada and from Mercedes-Benz Limited?
2.	If so, how many from each company and what was the amount of the respective contracts?
Answer by: Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister
of Defence Production):
1.	Yes.
2.	Contracts awarded since January 1, 1958;
(a) Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited.
Jan. 21, 1 only 18,000 lbs. GVW cab and chassis	 $	4,455.63
Jan. 24, 120 only 3-ton dump	 384,197.30
Feb. 5, 4 only truck tractors for	15-ton semi-trailers ....	28,230.06Feb. 17, 20 only 27,500 lbs. GVW	dump	
124,377.40May 23, 17 only i-ton pick-up	
25,155.75June 2, 5 only standard cab and	chassis	
26,560.00167 only	$592,976.14
(b) Mercedes-Benz of Canada Limited.
Jan. 15, 13 only l j-ton cargo	 $ 51,425.22
Jan. 24, 8 only 3-ton dump	 35,313.20
Apr. 22, 5 only 3-ton dump	 22,083.25
May 21, 44 only 3-ton stake	 173,760.40
May 21, 18 only lj-ton	 81,235.56
88 only	$363,817.63



UNEMPLOYED, 45 YEARS AND OVER

Mr. Rouleau: 1.	How many persons being 45 years of age and over are at present looking for work in Canada?
2.	How many of them are female applicants?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):
1.	In the week ended May 24, 1958, the estimated number of persons without jobs and seeking work, 45 years of age and over, was 92,000.
2.	In the week ended May 24, 1958, the estimated number of females without jobs and seeking work, 45 years of age and over, was less than 10,000.

Questions



PILOT SUPERINTENDENT, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER SYSTEM

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is there a Department of Transport superintendent of pilots for the St. Lawrence river system between Montreal and Kingston?
2.	If so, what is his name?
3.	Has this official, since May 1, told pilots under his authority that they would have police protection from striking pilots at the port of Kingston?
4.	If so, what pilots and what dates?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. J. Melanson.
3.	When the great lakes sailing masters set up picket lines at Kingston, the superintendent informed the river pilots under his jurisdiction that in case of any threatened violence by the sailing masters against pilots desiring to pass through picket lines, police protection would be requested.
4.	No record kept.



SHIP ACCIDENT, SARNIA WHARF

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 116
Mr. Fisher:: 1.	Has there been an accident involving a ship and the government wharf at Sarnia?
2.	If so, what were the details in terms of time, damages, costs, and causes?
3.	Did the ship have a pilot? If so, what was his name, address and what were his qualifications?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	At about 10 a.m. on June 10 the Prins Willem V, of Rotterdam, operated by the Orange line, while moving from Empire Hanna coal dock to the government dock, crashed into the wooden platform west of the freight dock. Considerable damage was done to the platform which is being assessed by engineers of the Department of Public Works. No appreciable damage was done to the ship.
3.	It is understood that the ship had a sailing master on board but his name is not known.



SHIPPING STATISTICS, LAKE MICHIGAN

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 117
Douglas Mason Fisher: 1.	Has the government any statistical information on the percentage of Canadian shipping using lake Michigan in 1956 and 1957 in relation to the total shipping on that lake for those years?
2.	If so, what is the percentage?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1 and 2. No such information is available in the Department of Transport.

Tuesday, July 1, 1358