1958-01-14

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I promised the other day to give some information to the house concerning various work projects for this winter. In regard to forest access roads we have had information from eight provinces, namely Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
All the provinces mentioned have expressed a direct interest in forest access roads and want more information as to how the program can be carried out. Nova Scotia has under way a program which would appear to be eligible for assistance. A representative from New Brunswick was in Ottawa on January 9 to discuss details. As hon. members may have heard the announcement over the radio on January 10, Premier Frost of Ontario has expressed his concurrence in the proposed program for forest access roads.
As to costs of the forest access program, Nova Scotia has forecast that it might be able to spend $100,000 on forest access roads; Saskatchewan, $325,000, and Alberta, $180,000. British Columbia has indicated it would be prepared to participate in a large way. In a few days' time we hope to have some information from the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick and possibly Newfoundland. The federal share of these costs will be 50 per cent. I shall be pleased to keep the house informed of any further developments in this field.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the same sort of announcement concerning the campground-picnic area development announced at the beginning of the new year. Hon. members will be interested in hearing that letters have already been received from five provincial governments indicating an interest in the campground-picnic area program, and one other province has indicated that it will participate.
The province of British Columbia has indicated that it will spend an estimated 96698-208J
$360,000 between January 10 and March 31 and $400,000 in April and May, with half these amounts to be covered by federal contributions.
The province of Alberta has indicated that it expects to spend during the remainder of the present fiscal year an amount of $75,000, and a similar amount during the first two months of 1958-59. Half these amounts will be covered by federal contributions.
The premier of Saskatchewan has indicated his interest in the program and has asked his minister of travel and information and his minister of natural resources to study possible programs at once. The provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland have informed me that programs will be undertaken. In the case of New Brunswick discussions have already been held at the official level.
In addition to the written notification received from the five provinces mentioned, the premier of Ontario has publicly announced the interest of Ontario in participating in the program. Advice was kindly passed to my department at the official level before Premier Frost made his announcement.
I am sure hon. members will be pleased to hear of the excellent response already shown by provincial governments to the offer of federal assistance toward campground and picnic area programs.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: May I ask the minister whether, in respect of the government's participation in these programs, the contracts for works are awarded on a tender basis?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in some instances, as in the province of Saskatchewan where they use their own public services to provide those roads, I think we shall have to take into consideration their local problems. I would hope that in our urgency to get this work program started immediately the house would not insist that we go through all the procedural processes that have to be gone through in calling tenders. I assure the house that wherever possible I shall ask the provinces-and I imagine they will agree-that if it does not interfere with their normal processes, the tender system be used.


Jean Lesage: Does the minister not believe that the tender system should be used unless the work is done by the province's work force on a day basis?

Winter Employment Projects


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think I have to say much more than I have said, Mr. Speaker. I am primarily concerned with providing work immediately, and I know that in connection with the other part of my program in the parks we have had to use unorthodox methods in getting the work started. As a matter of fact it is starting and will be starting in most places tomorrow, and we have asked for tenders. Tenders have been asked for in an unorthodox manner, such as wiring as many people as we can. We have had to make some very quick decisions to get equipment ready for them, and I would hope that in the circumstances the house would consider the prior task that we are trying to complete of providing work immediately, and not hold me up too much by recourse to enforcement of the usual safety precautions.


Jean Lesage: I have only one thing to say, and that is I have taken note of the admission of the minister that he is using unorthodox methods.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the minister if he has been able to reach a decision with respect to whether the Flin Flon-Hanson lake-Prince Albert road, which passes through a forest area, is being included in the project.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All I have from the provinces is a statement of intention and of the rough amount they expect to spend. In the case of Saskatchewan we have not considered whether that road comes within their project. As a matter of fact I am not too much concerned, because as long as they provide something that meets the criteria we have laid down we will pay our half the costs if it provides the amount of work we are hoping to achieve through winter employment.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Would the minister assure the house that this is not a preview of the 20-cent a day labour camps for the unemployed in the early thirties?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether this is in order on motions, but I should like to say in answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -that we follow the recommendations of the Department of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The practice of the house when a statement has been made on motions is for only one speaker from each group to comment, and we have been around the circle now. Is there anything else under the heading of motions? Orders of the day.


On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of the statement he made earlier today with regard to the forest road program. My question deals with the figures he placed on the record, being those that were proposed by the provinces involving the share of money they are prepared to put up as their part of the program. Are the figures arrived at by the provinces contingent on limitations imposed upon them by the federal government with regard to the amount of money the government is prepared to spend on this project; and will agreements be signed in time for spring operations to be started?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer is that the estimates submitted by some of the provinces were based on the amount of work they thought they could complete by the date suggested in my letter to them of January 2.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Would the federal government be prepared to match any amount dollar for dollar?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have not set any precise limit, but it is certainly obvious from the fact that we are in the winter season that only a certain amount of work can be done. I do not know what the final amount will come to. We have estimated roughly $1 million, which I think will about cover the program, but the amount may be higher or lower.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON STEPS TO PROVIDE FULL EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, if I may. I wonder if the minister would indicate to the house what steps are being taken by the government to institute one of its major planks in the election campaign, namely full employment.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think this gives me an opportunity at this moment, in answer to a question of that nature, to say what this government has done to alleviate the unemployment situation with which we found ourselves confronted on June 21 when we were sworn in as the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I have grave doubts about the propriety of the question. It is not one which can be dealt with by a concise answer, as the house is about to discover and, with the consent of the minister, I will declare the question out of order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if I were to tell the house all the things this government has done to alleviate unemployment it would take me half an hour, but I am prepared to proceed with consent.


Mr. Ellis:: With what results?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I have ruled the question out of order I think the minister will not find it necessary to proceed with his answer, which would undoubtedly develop into the debate which I have already disallowed.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS TO WESTERN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the right hon. member for Melville. I will see the hon. member for Comox-Alberni presently.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question supplementary to one which was answered last week. I am not just certain whether it should be addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Finance. A question was asked with respect to whether deficiency payments were likely to be paid on grain from past crops. My understanding is that the answer given was that consideration was being given to the matter. Is consideration being given to the possibility of making such payments, if they are made, on seed grain as well as other grain used for milling purposes?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, representations were made to the Prime Minister and the members of the wheat committee of the cabinet yesterday by representatives of the western wheat pools with regard to deficiency payments. No decision was reached at that meeting as to what might be done and, as I recall, no mention was made of seed grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask if the minister will give consideration to deficiency payments on seed grain as well as the other grain?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the presentation made yesterday to the cabinet by the three western wheat pools, asking for deficiency payments to solve the price-cost squeeze which is crippling western grain growers. Can the minister say when an announcement about a deficiency payment may be made, so this method may be used to alleviate the serious agricultural depression on the prairies?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we already had a question on deficiency payments earlier this afternoon. However, if repetition is desirable, may I say that the hon. member is asking for a very quick decision when the representations were only made yesterday afternoon.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on that point I understood the question asked by the hon. member for Melville was whether the same decision would be made covering seed grain as had been mdde generally on wheat. I have a further question to ask the minister, if I may. Can he say whether or not a second meeting is scheduled with the three western pools on this very subject at a later date?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker. I had to leave the meeting yesterday a little early, and perhaps arrangements for a second meeting were made after I left. I have not heard of it.


Hazen Robert Argue: This question has been up many times. Can the minister say when an announcement on this question may be forthcoming? Will it be during this session?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, government policy will be announced in due course.



INQUIRY AS TO INTERIM PAYMENT ON

[Stage Direction]
1956-57 crop
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of his statement yesterday that under his guidance grain sales had been accelerated out of all proportion compared with sales under the previous administration. If that is the case, why was an interim payment on wheat not made to western farmers in December? Will one be made at some time in the future, and when?

Unemployment


Gordon Minto Churchill: An interim payment was not made on wheat to farmers in December 1956, under the late and unlamented administration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, before you recognized the hon. member for Melville I was on my feet to ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Regina City, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the alarming unemployment situation now facing this country, as revealed yesterday by the Minister of Labour, and the need for immediate action to provide employment and alleviate the distress being suffered by a growing number of unemployed Canadians and their families.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minisler of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, may I submit to Your Honour that this motion is out of order. Under the provisions of standing order 26, subsection 1, a motion to adjourn the house such as the one now put before Your Honour by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni must be made after the ordinary daily routine of business. We have already passed that stage-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Green:: -and are down to orders of the day. I submit that this motion is not in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I had not called orders of the day. I would be glad to hear the minister as to the urgency of the motion, as he appreciates that whether or not the house should interrupt its other work to discuss this matter depends on the urgency of debate. If he has anything to say on that subject I would be glad to hear him. Does any other hon. member wish to address himself to this matter before I decide whether or not this question should be submitted to the house?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisler of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not you have determined the point of order which was raised by the leader of the house, but I should like to submit to you, before you dismiss the point he has raised, if that is your intention, that this point has been before the house on other occasions. It has been determined by your predecessors that if an hon. member waits until the Speaker has called the orders of the day, then he is too late.


An hon. Member:: He was up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The point has been well established for years that an hon. member must make such a motion before members begin to ask their questions on orders of the day. The hon. member may have been on his feet at the time, but the floor was given to another hon. member and that other hon. member proceeded to ask a question on the orders of the day. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member may regret that you did not see him first or give him the floor first, the fact remains that under the decisions of your predecessors it is now too late for the hon. member to introduce his motion.
Now, as to whether or not the motion, had it been in order and on time, should be considered, may I draw to your attention the well established rule that what is of concern in such a motion is not the urgency of the particular matter but the urgency of debate. This subject is not new in the consideration of the house. At this session it has been discussed on not a few occasions. In so far as the opportunity for early debate is concerned, may I draw your attention to the fact that on Monday next, as has been indicated, it is the intention of the government to introduce a supply motion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: When was that indicated?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend is well aware of the fact that it was the intention of the government to introduce a supply motion next Monday. Mention was made of this in the house a few days ago. There is one supply motion left before the quota established by the rules for the present session is exhausted. I do not think my friend is going to convince anybody by feigning ignorance of the fact it was the intention of the government to introduce a supply motion next Monday. Whatever is in order amongst the matters any hon. member wishes to introduce can be introduced on that occasion, if not precluded by decisions made by the house at an earlier stage in the present session.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be argued seriously today that there is urgency of debate attached to this issue today. There will be ample opportunity, if the subject is in order for discussion at this session, for it to be introduced on Monday next.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May
I just say a word. In so far as rising at the right time is concerned, I point out to the minister, and I am sure Your Honour would understand this point, that when the right hon. member for Melville rose to speak I was under the impression, as I am sure every

member here was, that he was raising a question supplementary to the one that had been asked already of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. As a result of that some confusion arose, but Your Honour had not yet called orders of the day; consequently the question was regarded as supplementary to the other questions that had been asked.
In view of the statement made by the Minister of Labour yesterday indicating that nearly 700,000 people were seeking work, or that over 700,000 people were seeking work, so far as the urgency of debate is concerned who is there who would deny that there is some urgency of discussion in this regard?
As for the third point made by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, certainly I was quite unaware that any decision or any announcement had been made that there would be a supply motion next Monday. I had not heard about it. I do not think any member on this side of the house had been notified that such a debate was to arise on Monday next. Even if the announcement had been made-and I am quite sure it had not been made-there is no guarantee that such a debate would be held. Something else might intervene which would have set aside that debate or that opportunity.
Consequently I would say that on all counts the hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised this matter at the right time and in the right place, as far as we were able to gather from discussions which occurred; that there is urgency, and that we have no knowledge of a supply motion foreshadowed for next Monday or Tuesday.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the unfortunate features which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have come to the conclusion that this debate should not be allowed. Unless the hon. member wishes to address himself to something else I think perhaps he would not want to be heard again. Perhaps I do the minister an injustice; he may wish to change his mind and speak again.
The motion is made under standing order 26, which permits a motion for the adjournment of the house when made for the purpose of discussion of a definite matter of urgent public importance. I will not deal with the preliminary point of order because it is unnecessary to deal with it in the view I take of the motion itself.
However, I would say this without referring to the authorities or the practice in the past. Even when orders of the day are called by the Speaker, it seems to me that we have not yet entered upon the business of the
Unemployment
house until the first order is read. The house is still in the interval between routine proceedings and orders of the day. I do not see how it can be otherwise. It is in that period when questions are addressed to the ministry, which questions we shall have in a moment or two, and when motions of this kind are to be made. That is my view at this time but, as I say, I do not need to decide that point in order to deal with the matter before the house. I shall therefore leave that question open and look into it further.
That the motion itself raises a matter of great public urgency, there is no doubt. I am sure all members of the house appreciate the fact that there is little that is of greater importance to the house and to the country than unemployment and its incidence in the country. But it is a situation which develops slowly and, as far as I have been able to judge in the past, it is one that can be dealt with only deliberately and through the course of time.
Therefore if there is opportunity to discuss the matter in the house it does not seem to me that it is something which has to be dealt with today, and for which we should interrupt the regular routine of the business of the house. There has been a great deal of talk about the unemployment situation during this session, and I am sure there will be a great deal more, without allowing this additional debate which will interfere with the planned routine of the business of the house. Hence I do not consider it a debate which should be entered upon at this stage.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to discuss your ruling but rather on a point of order, in order to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance a statement which he made a moment ago, and which is entirely foreign to us on this side of the house, when he said that all of us were aware that on Monday we were to take up a motion to go into supply. Certainly I have received no notice of that intention and my friend the house leader will, I am sure, tell the minister so. It is perhaps some indication of the information which our house leader wishes to give us and has not given us thus far.
My only purpose in rising is to say that I do not want to sit here and have the Minister of Finance make that kind of statement when I know it is not correct. We have received no such notice, and until we do-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: That was one of the points with which I intended to deal before Your Honour made the very acceptable decision which you did make.

Unemployment
I had discussed informally with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the probability that there would be a supply motion next week. I had no discussion, however, to that effect with the hon. member for Laurier, because it was in the future; but these are the things which happen when we have to try to arrange the business among the representatives of the various parties. Nobody has been guilty of any bad faith; there was simply that discussion with the hon. member, and I do not doubt that he did not pass it on to the leader of his party. There was not intended to be any firm commitment as to what the actual business would be.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not suggesting for one moment that there was any bad faith on the part of anyone. The statement I was making was this, that if we could be informed from time to time in this house of what the business is going to be for two or three days or even for a week ahead, as was done under the previous administration, it would facilitate the business of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Nowlan:: You are further ahead than we ever were.


Lionel Chevrier: You should not be talking so loudly; keep your patience.


Howard Charles Green: I was in opposition for 22 years-


Jean Lesage: Yes, and you are going back very soon.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid you are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must ask hon. members not to engage in a debate as to what has happened in the past. Does the house leader wish to make any statement at this time about the proposed business for Monday, or shall we proceed to other matters?


Howard Charles Green: What I really wish to raise is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Allegations have been made from time to time that the official opposition is not being given as much notice as it should be given with respect to business. I would merely point out that it is being given far more notice this year than we were ever given while we were in opposition.


Lionel Chevrier: I think we have some indication, Mr. Speaker, of the co-operation we are getting when the house leader himself says that he discussed the business for Monday with one of the party leaders in the house, but that he said nothing to me. That is conclusive evidence of the manner in which we

on this side of the house are being treated. Last night the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like to raise a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope it is not the question of privilege which is now occupying the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, relates to the reference which was made to me by the Minister of Public Works. The difference between us as to what transpired is not great, but I think it should be made clear as to what actually transpired.
The minister said he had a discussion with me as to the probability or possibility of a supply motion next week. I think he will agree, and I have checked with one or two of my colleagues who overheard the discussion- because the minister sat over here when we had it-that what the minister made clear to me was that there would not be a supply motion this week and thus there would not be one earlier than next week, but at no time did he say that there would definitely be one next week. It was on that basis that I indicated to my colleagues that as yet we did not know for sure whether there would be a supply motion next week.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a bit mixed up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think the Minister of Finance has been confused by press rumours to that effect.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, once again I venture where some angels would fear to tread by asking a very simple question of our charming lady minister. Can the Secretary of State inform the house of the number of complaints she has received concerning the alleged irregular discharge of any permanent civil servants or permanent employees of various agencies of government, since the unfortunate severance aberration that occurred in her department?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is none.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning unemployment which calls for a very brief answer, and it is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the acute unemployment situation at Montmagny and vicinity, will the minister reconsider his decision not to proceed with the erection of protection walls at Montmagny, for which work tenders have been asked?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: That should
be put on the order paper.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad
to look into this matter, but if my memory is correct the hon. member wanted to build a protection wall for one of his friends.


Jean Lesage: I believe, Mr. Speaker, I
cannot allow that inference to go unanswered.


An hon. Member:: All right; it was for
two of your friends, then.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say before the
hon. member speaks that I do not feel the Minister of Public Works should leave an inference of that kind on the record, and I would ask him if he would not change the last part of his remarks so it would not read as an imputation of motives on the records of the house.


Howard Charles Green: I will put it this way, Mr. Speaker. If I remember correctly this wall was to be built for partisan supporters of the former government.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry
to have to say this, but the Minister of Public Works should know better than that. As a matter of fact the amount of money which was earmarked for this project was to be spent-


Mr. Harkness:: What is the question?


Jean Lesage: It is a question of privilege,
Mr. Speaker. I have been smeared.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the hon.
member for Montmagny-L'Islet on a question of privilege.


Jean Lesage: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The protection wall was going to be built on government property and also along the river in front of approximately 12 or 15 privately owned properties, and I am not sure that I had a majority of supporters among those 12 or 15 voters in the last election.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CHAMBLY-ROUVILLE, QUE.    REQUEST FOR ERECTION OF PROTECTION WALLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Yvon@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister be prepared to permit the construction of protection walls along the Richelieu river to relieve unemployment in the county of Chambly-Rouville?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware
whether or not there is provision in the estimates this year for walls in that particular part of the country, but I shall be glad to look into the situation.


Mr. L'Heureux:: I know that $13,000 was
voted in the budget last year for work to be done at St. Mathias.


Howard Charles Green: I will have to look into the
situation.



ILES-DE-LA-MADELEINE    REQUEST FOR REPAIR OF WHARF AT GRINDSTONE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: May I address a question to the Minister of Public Works. On January 7 last I drew the attention of the minister to damage to the wharf at Grindstone and the urgency of making repairs. I suggested that steel for the repairs should be ordered immediately. My question is, have instructions been given in his department for the steel to be ordered?


Howard Charles Green: I shall have to look into this question. I have not an answer as yet.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. I would like to ask her if the itinerary for the proposed visit of Princess Margaret to Canada has been arranged, and if the hon. lady will be sure to see to it that in that itinerary is included a visit to the showplace of the world, Niagara falls?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I have already made representations to the government hospitality committee on behalf of the hon. member, and I shall be very glad to do what I can to see that Her Royal Highness views Niagara falls if it is possible to include it in her itinerary.
3292

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR AID FOR DISPLACED PERSONS IN EUROPEAN CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sidney E. Smiih (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 7, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, as recorded at page 2937 of Hansard, addressed the following question to me:
In view of the Prime Minister's desire to give encouragement to those behind the iron curtain, can the minister tell the house what is being done, in a substantial way, by this government to help the tens of thousands of victims of communist persecution who are now in displaced persons' camps in Europe?
At that time the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar amplified the question. My answer is that the office of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees is the international agency mainly responsible for the care and protection of refugees. This office took over the work of the international refugee organization when that agency was disbanded early in the 1950's. Canada has consistently supported the work of the high commissioner, and when his special refugee fund, known as UNREF, was established by the United Nations general assembly in 1954, Canada pledged support for it. It was planned that UNREF would operate for four years, that is 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958, by which time it was hoped that permanent solutions would have been found for the refugee problem.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North asked what Canada has done "in a substantial way" to aid refugees in Europe. I can list the following. As far as money is concerned, Canada contributed $125,000 in 1955 to UNREF; $125,000 in 1956; $200,000 in 1957, and has pledged $200,000 in 1958. At the time of the crisis concerning Hungarian refugees, near the end of 1956, Canada contributed $1 million for their relief; out of this, $350,000 went to the Canadian Red Cross for its work in the refugee camps and $650,000 to the United Nations high commissioner for refugees.
As far as the admission of refugees to this country is concerned, while that is a matter for another department yet I might say that, as reported by the high commissioner for refugees, Canada admitted 2,395 refugees in 1955 and 1,896 during 1956. I have not the comparable figures for the year 1957. However, I can say with regard to the admission of Hungarian refugees that since the Hungarian crisis began in October, 1956, Canada has admitted just over 36,000 of them.
(Mrs. Fairclough.]



CEYLON-FURTHER STATEMENT ON ASSISTANCE GIVEN BY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet perhaps I could make a statement concerning flood relief for Ceylon, with your leave. In my statement to the house on January 3 I informed the house that the government was following closely the situation in Ceylon through our acting high commissioner in Colombo and through the representative of Ceylon in Ottawa. I said that when we had more information on the situation as it has developed since the recent serious floods the government would give sympathetic consideration to sending additional aid.
On January 8 my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he reviewed the government's proposals to seek authority from parliament to extend relief in the form of wheat and flour to Ceylon, India and Pakistan, mentioned that a part of the proposed $15 million grant would be used to meet an urgent request for assistance by the government of Ceylon. I am now in a position to inform the house that the Prime Minister has sent the following telegram to the Prime Minister of Ceylon, which I shall read:
My dear Prime Minister:
I should like to express to you and through you to the people of Ceylon the profound sympathy of the Canadian government and of Canadians in every walk of life in the suffering and the loss which the recent severe floods have brought to many in large areas of your country. We are deeply saddened that this disaster has caused so much distress and has created acute problems of reconstruction and rehabilitation for the people of Ceylon.
We, in Canada, are deeply impressed by the courage and determination which you, and the people of Ceylon, have shown in your readiness to take up this burden. In the sincere conviction that all Canadians want to give what help they can, we have decided to offer your country 38,000 tons of flour for delivery as soon as necessary.
And then the Prime Minister added his warm good wishes.	[DOT]
The government's decision, Mr. Speaker, to offer flour to assist the government and people of Ceylon in their task of rehabilitation is based on information received from our acting high commissioner in Ceylon who has reported, as a result of consultations with the authorities in Ceylon, that the provision of assistance in the form of flour would best meet Ceylon's requirements for rehabilitation.
To adopt a statistical note for the moment, Mr. Speaker, the figure of 38,000 tons of flour represents approximately 2 million bushels of

wheat. Its Canadian cash value is approximately $3 million. It is to be expected that this flour will be sold by the government of Ceylon, and the proceeds of the sale will be used by that government to finance rehabilitation and reconstruction.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Members in all parts of the house will welcome this important announcement. Can the minister say whether, in the opinion of the Canadian government, this will meet the situation so far as Canada is concerned, or is this perhaps a first instalment and may further assistance along the same line be forthcoming later on?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, from the information we have at the present time this is as much as we contemplate doing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs been able to consider my suggestion that the former high commissioner to Ceylon, who is so familiar with the work of the Colombo plan, be given the opportunity to make available to the Canadian people some of his information before he takes on his new post?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question by the hon. member I wrote him today and said we would do everything possible to further that end. There is some detail which I set forth in my letter and which he will appreciate, but I hope we shall be able to do something.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday last I asked a question of the Minister of National Revenue and he gave me an answer. Unfortunately, through some slip-up in the debates office, I understand because of a mechanical error, neither the question nor the answer appeared on the record. I understand the best way to clear it up is for me to ask the question again. Can the minister, as the ministerial voice of the C.B.C., tell us whether an appeal is planned of the Ontario Supreme Court decision regarding the application of the Lord's Day Act to the commission?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, when the hon.
member asked the question the other day 96698-209J
Inquiries of the Ministry I think the answer was that I would take the matter under consideration and supply an answer at a later date. I did not realize that it did not appear in Hansard.
I made inquiries, and I am now in a position to state that I am instructed by the officers of the C.B.C. that they have consulted with the law officers of the crown. They were advised that it would be advisable if not necessary to carry an appeal to a higher court so the very important matters involved in this case may be clarified, if not entirely settled. Therefore instructions have been issued for an appeal to be entered, and that has been done at this time.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I gave him notice yesterday. I believe this is also one that would come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have negotiations been completed between the Canadian and the United States entities building the St. Lawrence seaway with reference to pilotage in the international section of the St. Lawrence river? Will the pilotage here be voluntary or compulsory; and in view of the fact that the channel is in boundary waters, does the minister believe that compulsory pilotage in that area could be implemented without legislation?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. If my department cannot help me in answering it I shall refer it to the Department of Transport, but I take it as notice.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister aware of the press report in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that Nobel prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling has submitted to the United Nations a petition signed by 9,235 scientists, including 36 Nobel prize winners, calling for an international agreement to stop nuclear bomb tests now? Will the government give consideration to supporting this constructive and important proposal?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of the problem, and has always had this important matter under consideration.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on January 11 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked me this question:
I would draw the attention of the minister to the likeness to the black hole of Calcutta in Davidson, Saskatchewan, where in the summer employees of the post office have to work under conditions which must do harm to their general health.
The answer is that the Department of Public Works erected a new federal building for the use of the Post Office Department at Davidson, Saskatchewan, in 1957. The building was completed on August 8, 1957 and the Post Office Department took occupancy of this building on August 5, 1957. The new building is entirely satisfactory, and there is no record of any complaints having been received to date. The leased accommodation, formerly occupied by the Post Office Department, was closed effective August 31, 1957.


Major James William Coldwell: am very glad to have my impression corrected. I suppose it was because I was away in the summer that I was unaware that the post office had already been opened. May I say to the minister I am glad that has been done; but I did not receive an invitation to the opening of the building.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the hon. member is just four months out of date.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader of the government. In future when he wishes to make an arrangement of the business of the house, will he call together representatives of the four parties in the house and attempt to reach some agreement with them so they will know, and avoid a situation such as we had today?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have done my best to confer with representatives of the other parties. As the hon. member knows, I acted

as house leader of the official opposition for some years, and if I remember correctly last year there was not one occasion on which members of the four parties were called together. It sounds like a very good idea, but working it out is extremely difficult to do.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether I am out of order in asking the house leader now if we can get definitely the business for Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be a motion to go into supply.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of it now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you going to move an amendment?



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I sent notice earlier today. In his absence perhaps his parliamentary assistant will take it as notice. Are the plans of Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation to move certain installations from Bamfield, B.C., to Port Alberni, B.C. being proceeded with? If so, will the works in Port Alberni be constructed this winter to assist the local unemployment situation?


Mr. A. R. MacDonald (Parliameniary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as notice.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On December 20 I asked the minister if he could advise the house as to the cost of the Canadian buying mission to Great Britain. At that time he said:
No, Mr. Speaker, not at the present time. That will come later.
Is he in a position to answer that question now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the trade
mission has not completed its work. The members are being reassembled in Ottawa next week in order to discuss the final report

of the mission and the plans that are being made to continue the good work that was done in the United Kingdom. Perhaps by that time we will have information as to the cost of the mission.


William James Henderson: Surely the minister must have the cost to date of taking the 50 members of the mission to Britain and back.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is scarcely a supplementary question.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister able to tell us whether because of the trade mission to the United Kingdom there has been an amount of trade diverted from the United States to the United Kingdom, and if so what amount?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have no precise figures with regard to the diversion that may have taken place. Some has occurred, but there has been such interest created in the United Kingdom with regard to expanding their trade with Canada that I think we will see excellent results flowing from the work of the mission.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question to one I asked earlier of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will it be possible for him, at a later date, to give to the house in dollars and cents the amount of trade diverted from the United States to the United Kingdom?


Gordon Minto Churchill: From time to time reports will be made with regard to our trade situation. The project which we undertook, and which proved so successful-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -will naturally show greater benefits as time goes on. We cannot make a final judgment of the trade mission to the United Kingdom today or tomorrow or next week.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Because of the serious unemployment situation in northern Ontario, would the minister consider commencing the preliminary work on
Inquiries of the Ministry the crown corporation section of the trans-Canada pipe line running north from North Bay to link up with the work now proceeding east from the lakehead? Work on this project would assist the unemployment situation in that area.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, arrangements were made several months ago or certainly several weeks ago with the companies undertaking to work on the five spreads of the crown corporation line to have the clearing of the land done during the winter months. It meant the employment of about 600 men. I do not have a report today as to how much of that work has been done.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. As a result of the recent visit of the president of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation to the Port Arthur area, has the minister any information on the walkout on the pipe line there?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The president of the crown corporation was visiting the area near Port Arthur, but I have not seen him today to get a report.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister look into the matter of starting from North Bay and proceeding with that work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member is repeating his question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to make a correction with regard to the question asked me by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I thought he was asking me a question about the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation portion of the trans-Canada pipe line which runs from Port Arthur to Timiskaming, but if he is discussing North Bay that has nothing to do with the crown corporation.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Do public market regulations permit cattle, consigned to a commission firm for sale, to be bought by the same commission firm?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, a commission merchant
may negotiate a purchase of livestock consigned to his firm to fill a bona fide buying order. I presume that whether the type of order mentioned by the hon. member would

Inquiries of the Ministry or would not be a bona fide buying order would be determined by a court, if the matter were taken that far.


William Scottie Bryce: May I take half a minute? The man I refer to is the man to whom cattle are consigned, who then buys them and sells them for his own gain.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can perhaps add in connection with this matter that section 29, subsection (j), of the Livestock and Livestock Products Act presumes to prohibit a commission merchant from negotiating the purchase of livestock consigned to himself without the consent of the owner of the livestock or his agent.
In actual practice it has been impossible to enforce this regulation, since it is argued from a legal standpoint that the producer, having consigned the livestock to the commission firm, has in effect appointed the commission firm as his agent and is therefore presumed to accept the selling agent's decision. As I said, it is really a legal question as to what is the situation in the case of any particular sale.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has heard reports that members of the Russian embassy staff have been going to the national research council, distributing dictionaries of the Russian language and offering to teach our research workers and scientists the Russian language? If he has not, would he please investigate the matter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the hon. member for directing my attention to something of which I had no knowledge.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. According to the latest reports the unemployment insurance fund is being depleted very quickly. Would the government make a statement to the house on the actuarial soundness of the fund, and state whether or not it is the government's intention to raise the amounts of contributions made by the different parties to the fund?


Michael Starr: am not aware that the fund is being alarmingly depleted at all. So far as I know the

fund stands at around $884 million. Consequently, because of the soundness of the fund, there is no intention-


Jean Lesage: Under a Liberal administration.


Michael Starr: -to increase contributions by those who participate in the fund.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he now in a position to confirm the tentative answer which he gave on Saturday, as to whether all the provinces are now participating or have agreed to participate in the various pension increases passed at this session of parliament? Can he say also whether all ten provinces have agreed to pay up to the full amount of $55 now provided in the various statutes in question?


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minisler of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As to the first part, I can confirm the answer I gave to the hon. member on Saturday last to the effect that all provinces are now participating or have agreed to participate in the various pension increases passed at this session of parliament.
Since there is some interest in the second part of the question I might expand my answer a little, Mr. Speaker. New agreements effective November 1, 1957, amending the agreements previously completed have been made by the government of Canada with the following provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
In a number of these provinces payments at the increased rates were made for the month of November, 1957. It is the understanding of federal authorities that the remainder either increased their payments in December, 1957, or will increase them in January, 1958. The other three provinces have indicated their intention of completing new agreements as soon as possible, and we are in the process of completing these arrangements now.
Prince Edward Island has indicated that it intends to make its agreement effective from November 1, 1957, but the provincial law will have to be amended to give effect to these agreements. Newfoundland has notified federal authorities that it will sign new agreements to be effective January 1, 1958. No

agreements have as yet been received. Federal authorities have been informed also that Quebec will enter into new agreements with the government of Canada to give effect to the amendments to the federal acts. We are at present awaiting return of the agreements which were sent to the authorities of that province.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) for the second reading of Bill No. 244, to provide assistance in respect of electric power development in the Atlantic provinces.
Mr.  H. M. Bailen@Humber-St. George's: Mr. Speaker, last evening when the house adjourned I was expressing my agreement with Bill No. 244. I said then that I intended to vote for this legislation because I believed that it was good legislation. Since I believed it was good legislation I wanted to make sure that my province of Newfoundland would receive the same benefits under this legislation as would accrue to the other provinces in the Atlantic region.
I must say again, Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that if we are going to develop electric power in the Atlantic provinces, or in any other province in Canada, the only way to go about it is to use the resources of the provinces, whatever they happen to be. In so far as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are concerned, I will agree that perhaps the efficient method of developing electrical energy would be by building thermal plants because of the lack of sufficient water power.
In so far as Newfoundland is concerned, we have sufficient water power, I believe, to provide for the development of the electrical energy which Newfoundland would require for some time to come. I feel that this bill, which refers only to thermal plants, should be revised in one of two ways, either by deleting the word "thermal" or by adding the word "hydro". However, I am not going any further with that suggestion at the moment.
I should like, however, to make some comment on the remarks made last evening by the hon. member for Queens. I honestly agree with the remarks he made concerning the benefits which would accrue to Prince Edward Island if this bill were implemented. But if we look at a table on page 553 of the Canada Year Book, 1956, we notice that the available water power for the province of Prince Edward Island, on a 24-hour basis at
Atlantic Provinces Power Development 80 per cent efficiency is 500 horsepower as compared with 958,500 horsepower for Newfoundland.
I therefore contend that the hon. member for Queens was quite right in the statement he made concerning the province of Prince Edward Island, but we must recognize the fact that if Prince Edward Island is to get the power to do the things it wishes to do now, or to do the things it might want to do in the future, that power will have to come from thermal plants or some other source of electricity.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Halifax, and I must admit that he made out a fine case for the installation of thermal plants in the province of Nova Scotia. I agree with him. But let us look again at this table, and we will notice that for Nova Scotia the possible water power available is 25,500 horsepower, as compared with 958,500 horsepower for Newfoundland. If electric power is to be developed in the province of Nova Scotia to the extent that it is required by the various industries I think it will certainly have to be developed in some large part by the use of thermal plants or some other type of plant; but I do not believe that in the province of Nova Scotia there is sufficient water power to develop the amount of electricity they need even at the present time. I can therefore readily see the advantages which would come to Nova Scotia by developing thermal plants.
There are three things Nova Scotia will get from this bill, and I agree with each one of them. For example, they will get assistance in the installation of thermal plants. That is the first thing. The second thing they will get is the benefit of transmission lines. The third thing is that they will get a subvention on their coal. With regard to those three things I have no objection in the world. In fact I am pleased that this bill will bring these things to Nova Scotia, that it will help to provide energy for new industries and will help put some energy, if I may use that word, into their coal mines. My complete objection is that this bill does not provide for Newfoundland what it could provide.
In Newfoundland we have sufficient water power available to provide the electric power that will be required for some time to come. If electric power is going to be increased in Newfoundland I think it should be increased by the hydro method rather than by the building of thermal plants. In his statement yesterday my friend the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) made his comments with regard to the area around St. John's and that part of Newfoundland known as the Avalon peninsula.
3298	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development
As far as the Avalon peninsula is concerned I could quite agree with the hon. member for St. John's West. It is very probable that on the Avalon peninsula we have fairly well reached the peak of electric development by the use of hydro plants. In St. John's a steam plant has been developed, and I think the fact that this steam plant has been developed is sufficient proof that hydro is not available in quantities large enough to provide the electric power required. But that is not the situation in Newfoundland outside of the Avalon peninsula. As reported at page 3261 of Hansard of yesterday my hon. friend, in referring to the Newfoundland members on this side of the house, said:
-I feel they did not thoroughly appreciate the advantages that Newfoundland will gain by this measure and did not sufficiently appreciate conditions as they exist at the present time.
I would assure my friend the hon. member for St. John's West that I am quite conversant with the conditions as they exist on the west coast of Newfoundland. I am sure the people who live from the town of St. George's west to cape Ray will not appreciate the fact that under this bill they are being denied the benefits which might accrue to them by the development of further electric power.
The same might be said for the Port au Port peninsula, although somo effort is now being made there by the provincial government. I might go on and say the same thing for both sides of bay of Islands, where an area on the north side is being partially serviced at the moment. I could go on and say the same thing about the Bonne bay area and further down the St. Barbe peninsula, where there is no electrical service at all. If these areas are going to be provided with electric power it is my belief that they will have to be or ought to be provided with it by the building of hydro-electric plants, and that the necessary transmission lines will have to be built to transmit that electricity from its source to the consumers.
Here again I think the hon. member for St. John's West was rather confused in his understanding of what this bill would consider to be a transmission line and what otherwise would be considered to be a distribution line. At a later stage of this bill maybe we shall be able to get this matter clarified, but it appears to me that when the hon. member for St. John's West refers to the areas to which he is referring here, as reported in the second column on page 3262 of Hansard, he is referring to distribution lines and not necessarily to transmission lines. It appears to me that under this bill the only thing Newfoundland could expect to get


would be assistance in the building of transmission lines. What we need is the development of water power plants and the building of transmission lines to take the electric current from the point at which it is developed to the different points where it could be distributed to the consumers.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, my final suggestion in this matter is that I believe this bill ought to be rewritten and that either the word "thermal" should be deleted or the words "and hydro" should be added. I also believe that, if this is a program of national development by the government, instead of referring only to the Atlantic provinces these benefits should apply to all ten provinces of Canada.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this bill in general principle will receive support from all corners of the house. However, I feel that I must rise and take some exception to the very restricted nature of the bill. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has made some very useful observations in connection with the fact that the bill is not inclusive enough, that it relates only to dominion assistance in the building of thermal power units and transmission lines, in the Atlantic provinces and that in the case of Newfoundland they probably more properly could use assistance in the developing of hydro power.
It amazes me, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources probably played a large part in the drafting of this legislation. I just wonder when the time is going to come when we are going to develop the resources of this dominion with some eye to unity rather than the kind of bill we have before us this afternoon. I can only say that in the past I have sat in this chamber under former Liberal governments when we have had discriminatory legislation. I can recall in 1955, for example, when I and other members coming from the province of Saskatchewan took a great deal of exception to the fact that when we had flood damage amounting to some $70 million, we received assistance to the extent of only some $50,000.
We now have a new government, but it seems we are having the same tune played to us; in other words we still have discrimination. I think the minister will understand me when I say I really cannot understand that he should have had what I believe to be a large part in drafting this legislation, because he knows and I know that he sat in the Saskatchewan legislature as an observer for many years, and he is aware of the peculiar kind of economy in that province. His constituency

borders mine on the north, and of course he is one of the members who come from my province.
The minister, and I think all hon. members of this house, will realize that in 1944 we in Saskatchewan had the first socialist government in North America. From the very inception of that government we have had purposeful planning in order to utilize the national resources of our province, and we feel that we have to continue into the future with long-term planning. For this reason we must have conscious planning as to how we are going to develop our resources to the best interests of our province. Having that in mind we realize further that we must have national planning if we are going to reach this objective on the national level.
I listened many times to the former member for Cape Breton South when he made some excellent speeches pleading for a national fuel and energy authority in Canada so that our fuel and energy resources might be utilized to the fullest extent. While I think the national coal board has done a rather good job I still believe, especially when we receive a bill such as the one before us, that there is a great and urgent need in this country for a national fuel and energy authority.
I think there are some very good reasons why I should take exception to what I call this discriminatory legislation, and I now wish to make a case for my province. I welcome the legislation, as I think all hon. members do, having in mind our desire to develop our resources and to receive federal assistance. When one realizes that the dominion government takes about 71 per cent of all taxes collected in Canada, leaving only about 13 per cent for the 10 provinces combined and about 16 per cent of the gross taxes collected in Canada for all the municipal governments, it becomes very clear that we do need assistance from the federal government very urgently by way of plans such as this.
I think the province of Saskatchewan is probably far more deserving of this type of assistance than are even the Atlantic provinces. I believe I could challenge the minister with that assertion from the point of view of the income of our province. The people of Saskatchewan have a very static income, due to the fact that in 1944 we had almost 90 per cent of our people dependent either directly or indirectly on income from agriculture. I think all hon. members of this house know full well that the income of the prairie farmer has indeed fluctuated very considerably over the years.
I would like to point out that according to quite authoritative figures, farm income
Atlantic Provinces Power Development in December dropped from $1,090 in 1956 to a low of $550 in 1957. This per capita farm income in the province of Saskatchewan is one reason why I feel we have a right to ask that this kind of legislation be broadened to include all the provinces. I believe while income is not satisfactory in the Atlantic provinces it is more stable than in the province of Saskatchewan from whence I come.
Another reason I have in mind is that we have some extreme problems in our province. We have a very sparsely settled population over an extreme breadth of territory, people living in broad expanses of thinly populated areas. Consequently this necessitates long power lines to transmit power to people in all parts of our province. A further reason why I think we are entitled to this kind of assistance is the fact that our coal fields where we may get thermal power are in the extreme southern portion of our province, our hydro power is mainly in the northern portion, and our densely populated areas are concentrated more or less in the centre. It can readily be seen that this situation necessitates long power grids in order to supply our people with power.
I would next like to make a case for my constituency. I am proud to represent the constituency of Moose Mountain. I think I can say, not in a boastful way, that we have in my constituency the most potentially rich area in Canada with respect to natural resources. Our coal deposits alone are the largest single known deposits, I believe, in the world. Indeed, approximately 16 per cent to 20 per cent of all the coal mined in Canada comes from my constituency, and we have there a recoverable supply of coal of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 13 billion tons. We have sufficient resources of coal to supply the present power needs of our province for some 2,000 or 3,000 years at the present rate of utilization. We are thus able to supply the area from which I come with cheap power, and coal is also being shipped from the Bienfait coal mines in that area to other parts of our province and to Manitoba.
I do not want to make a case for Manitoba, but I understand that at this time Manitoba has pretty well utilized to the full extent her southern hydro power facilities, and that a plant is being built in Winnipeg and another in Brandon which will use a considerable amount of Bienfait lignite coal. That fact also is of tremendous importance to us. Furthermore, I believe Manitoba will be put to some disadvantage unless it is given assistance under a bill of this nature.
3300	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development
I think all hon. members will know that the supply of electric power in the province of Saskatchewan is completely under public ownership, that in 1944 the provincial government took over the existing private power lines. Since that date the provincial government has developed the supply of power for the people of the towns and cities under the system of public ownership. That, of course, would conform with the requirements of this bill. At this time I am happy to say we are building, also under public ownership, a $40 million thermal plant at Estevan. That plant is going to use a considerable amount of coal and by 1965 it will be producing approximately 75,000 kilowatts of electricity and using in the neighbourhood of one million tons of lignite coal a year. This whole matter is of tremendous importance to my constituents and to my province.
The production of electrical energy for thermal power is certainly competitive with hydro or any other type of power. It is felt in Saskatchewan that by 1965 when our plant is in full operation we will be producing electricity at the Estevan plant at a cost of about four-tenths of a cent per kilowatt.
The province of Saskatchewan is the hub of the provinces being centrally located and while it is true that today we do not have large concentrations of population the province has a great future. The fact that it is geographically situated in the centre of Canada warrants a forward look in respect to resource development and the establishment of secondary industries.
We are doubly blessed in my constituency with new oil developments. What is probably one of the largest potential oil fields on the North American continent is situated in my constituency and there are approximately 700 producing wells at the present time. If we had conscientious and purposeful planning, the kind of planning visualized by the C.C.F. movement, we would be able to look forward to the time when it might be possible to use right on the spot the resources we have in that area. Certainly we have both the potential power and the other natural resources. We are ideally suited for thermal power plants and for secondary industry. If we could get a federal government that would take into cognizance the fact that we should have national planning on an equitable basis it would be possible to attract secondary industry to the province of Saskatchewan to a greater extent than has been possible to date. The establishment of such industry there would complement our agricultural economy and would reduce our dependence


on the vagaries and whims of the weather which so greatly affects the agricultural industry.
I urge that the minister and government approach this whole question in a statesmanlike manner. It is not good to play one part of Canada against another in this age of technocracy and automation and to bring before this house measures which have the effect of playing one part of Canada against another as is the case in the bill before us. I support this bill because I want the Atlantic provinces to have all the assistance this government is able to give them but I also support the principle that it should be extended to include all the provinces. The terms of the agreements which are to be made with the various provinces should not be rigid and fixed contracts in respect to the interest rate. At the present time we are in a period when borrowing is difficult and interest rates are high. I hope there will be flexibility in these contracts so that when the provinces, all of which I hope will be included, enter into contracts with the federal government for the construction of these plants the interest rate set out in the contracts will be that which the federal government has to pay for the obtaining of this money. Further, the repayment period of these contracts with the dominion government should be based on a long term, preferably 50 years.
I believe that all the provinces of Canada are a family of provinces. I want to personally feel when I go from place to place that the measures I have supported in this house are those which will benefit my own and the rest of the provinces. I intend to support this bill although as I have already said I am extremely unhappy that the minister and the government have again seen fit to bring before us legislation which does not meet the complete needs of all of Canada but has proposed legislation which in my opinion is somewhat discriminatory.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this matter because I think it is more important that the bill get through than that there should be a long debate. I also feel that it is a subject matter which speaks for itself.
I have been quite interested in listening to the debate and the arguments which have been advanced by hon. members from various sections of the country. I have listened to debates on this same subject on quite a number of occasions in the past and I was impressed then as I am now with the general opinion of most hon. members from across Canada that this is good legislation deserving of their support.

I do not think this is, as some hon. members have suggested, a general case. This has been considered as a special case not only on this occasion but on many occasions in the past. The Atlantic provinces have made out both in this house and across the country a very special case. I do not intend to labour that point today. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned the per capita income of residents of the province of Saskatchewan. It has been generally known that the per capita income of people in the maritime provinces has been far below the average per capita income in other parts of the country. As a matter of fact, in 1926 the average per capita income of people in the Atlantic region was 38 per cent below the national average per capita income. In 1955, a considerable number of years later, it still had not improved very much and the average per capita income of the Atlantic region continued to lag behind the national average, remaining at 37 per cent.
The reasons given for this discrepancy were the fact that the maritimes lacked industry and that our transportation system worked to the detriment of the development of those provinces. Many reports have been made on this subject including the Duncan report and more recent ones which indicated two important reasons for the failure of the maritime provinces to keep abreast of the development in the other provinces. The first reason was the lack of cheap power to develop industries and the second was the high cost of transportation in the maritime provinces. In 1927 the Maritime Freight Rates Act was passed in an effort to relieve the situation as far as transportation was concerned but unfortunately with the increase in railway rates over the past 20 to 25 years the benefits of that act have been practically nullified in relation to the maritime provinces.
As far as power is concerned, we in the maritime provinces have had less development of power than any other part of Canada. In 1955, in my own province of New Brunswick, the average was about .26 horsepower per capita. The average for Canada was one horsepower per capita. Therefore, we were in the position of being just a little better than one-quarter the average for the whole of the country.
My hon. friends speak about discrimination. Other countries have recognized that certain sections of their countries were entitled to special consideration, and that was the idea back of this assistance to the Atlantic provinces. I have pointed out before in this house, as I point out now, Mr. Speaker, that we had good precedent for it. For instance, the southern states of the United States
Atlantic Provinces Power Development suffered for years from lack of industry. The authorities at Washington decided that it was necessary to assist the southern states so that they could have the advantages of industry that other parts of the country had. What did they do? They did the same thing as this bill is trying to do for the Atlantic provinces. They helped them to produce cheap electric power, and today the southern states of the United States are enjoying an economy practically equal to that of other parts of the country. The help applied not only to the southern states. The same thing is going on in North Dakota; it is going on in several areas of the United States where it is considered necessary.
But I can point not only to the United States; I can point to Great Britain. The Durham area of Great Britain was considered to be backward as far as industry was concerned and needed help. Something was done for that area by Great Britain. The same thing was done in Wales. I could mention other parts of that country. The same thing has happened in Russia in the great industries of the rural area of northern Siberia, and so on. They have all been developed because that part of the country needed the assistance and it was given it by the central government. That is the reason why this special attention is being given to the Atlantic provinces.
I remenber when the second world war was taking place. I asked the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who was then minister of defence production, why it was that we in the maritime provinces did not receive some war industries. I was told then the reason was that we had no cheap power. We did not have the power. We have asked the same question since the last war ended and we have been given the same answer.
My hon. friends speak about discrimination. I will deal first with discrimination as far as Newfoundland is concerned. I do not believe there is any discrimination as far as that province is concerned, and no discrimination is intended as far as this government is concerned. We have heard from the members from Newfoundland. Read the year book that one of the hon. members from Newfoundland quoted a short time ago. They have abundance of waterpower in Newfoundland. They can produce electric power much more cheaply in Newfoundland, with the exception of transmission lines, than it can be produced in either New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. If we could produce power as cheaply in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick as they can produce hydroelectric power in Newfoundland, aside from the transmission lines, we would not have this bill before us today; there would be no necessity for it.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development Where Newfoundland needs assistance is in the matter of transmission, and that is where this government is giving assistance to Newfoundland.
The other day the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) complained because Grand falls in New Brunswick was developing power for private concerns. I might point out to the house that in Newfoundland about 95 per cent of the power produced is produced by private companies. Those private companies are willing to develop electric power from the rivers, and so on. One thing they do object to is the building of transmission lines, and that is what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) provides for in this bill.
The hon. member who just spoke said that the bill is discriminatory as far as other provinces are concerned. Again I point out that assistance to the Atlantic provinces, on the basis of need, on the basis of endeavouring to bring them up so that they can be on a par with other parts of this dominion, has been discussed for years. Where is there any discrimination against the province of Quebec, for instance? They are not claiming it. Where is there any discrimination against the province of Ontario? There is no claim of discrimination there. Where is the discrimination against the province of Manitoba? I am told that the cheapest power we have in the Dominion of Canada is in the province of Manitoba. I come to Saskatchewan. I will deal with it last.
Take the province of Alberta. I was astonished to hear an hon. member from the province of Alberta say there was discrimination against his province. He spoke about an abundance of coal. Coal is not being used, or will not be used in the future, in Alberta. Why? Because they can produce power more cheaply with gas and oil. If we had the great abundance of gas and oil in the Atlantic provinces that they have in Alberta there would be no need to have a bill of this kind, Mr. Speaker.
What about British Columbia? British Columbia is not making any complaint. They can produce, and they are producing, cheap electric power in the province of British Columbia. With the tremendous development which must come in time on the Columbia river they will have more power than they will know what to do with. As a matter of fact, there is an international problem there now as to how much power British Columbia should have and how much power the United States should have. There is a controversy going on not only between British Columbia and the United States but between different interests in British Columbia as to how that


power should be distributed; but there is no discrimination across this country, Mr. Speaker, as far as other provinces are concerned.
I now take the province of Saskatchewan. If there is any province in Canada which would have a complaint it would be the province of Saskatchewan. But Saskatchewan is not in the same position as we are. They may be in a position that perhaps more nearly approaches our position than does any other part of Canada. But there is talk- and I hope it is not only talk; I can say to my hon. friends I am sure it is not only talk-that if the province of Saskatchewan and the Dominion of Canada come to an agreement Saskatchewan will have a development on the South Saskatchewan river and they are entitled to it. But do not let us draw a red herring across the trail as far as this bill is concerned. It is intended to help, and will help, the Atlantic provinces. It is intended to try to place them in the position which we have felt we should have been placed in many years ago, and that is on an equal footing with the rest of the Dominion of Canada.
I have been a little surprised at the length of this debate, because to my mind this bill speaks for itself. This bill is something which is presented in justice, and nothing but justice, to those provinces.
If there has been discrimination, and there has, it has been against these very provinces over a great number of years. This is a time when the parliament of Canada can do justice to a people who have been long suffering. I remember when the Duncan report was made. I remember being in London in 1945 and having dinner with Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, the father of the Duncan report on the maritime provinces. I told him I was from New Brunswick and he said to me, "Mr. Brooks, you people in the maritime provinces are the most long suffering people I have known." He said, "You have suffered for many, many years."
I think the time has come when we should not have to suffer any longer. I think the time has come, if I can judge the House of Commons, when the representatives of the people from all over Canada intend to see that the people of the Atlantic provinces get some of their just dues. I said a moment ago that we have been discriminated against. When I was a boy at school and looked at the map of Canada I saw the boundaries of the provinces. The maritime provinces were circumscribed by water. We could not extend our boundaries but the boundaries of other provinces of Canada have since been extended. Millions of dollars of resources in

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
the form of minerals, oil and other natural and new minister it should fall to my lot to
products have gone to the other provinces of Canada but nothing by way of compensation to the people of the maritime provinces.
Mind you in the days of confederation there were only four provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. This public domain belonged to Canada. I have gone back many years to see what the men representing the maritime provinces in the House of Commons had to say in those days. They pointed out that we were entitled to some compensation in view of the lands which were given to the other provinces but not one dollar of compensation has ever been given.
I do not wish to enlarge on this matter any further. In my mind the bill before us makes up in large measure for the neglect these provinces have suffered in the past. I want to thank hon. members for their support of this bill and at the same time I thank them for passing the Beechwood bill. I advocated that project time and time again and no one is more pleased than I am that measure was passed. I want to thank them also for what I know they intend to do, namely to pass the bill before us this afternoon.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker-


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


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will realize after the words of the veteran minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs how keenly-


Jean Lesage: He is not a veteran minister. He is the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will repeat myself. After hearing the words of the veteran minister who presides over the Department of Veteran Affairs, I think we can understand the feeling of the people of the Atlantic provinces who comprise one of the regions of Canada that have not received just treatment in the full measure of the word from the confederation under which we have lived since 1867. In my negotiations with the premiers of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia I felt the seriousness underlying their remarks and their expressions of earnest desire for various things, this seriousness went far beyond what is ordinary when ministers are representing the Queen in various capacities. When I spoke on the resolution stage I congratulated the two premiers because I was very proud indeed that as a new member of parliament
consummate something which had been in the minds of these people for several years.
I think the words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) this afternoon have made it very clear that we had no ulterior motive in limiting the bill to any section of the country. As a matter of fact, I thought it would draw general praise when we went beyond the two provinces which are primarily concerned with the terms of the bill and included two other provinces. In my remarks on the resolution I said very frankly that I did not know nor did my department have any express knowledge of what particular projects might be of interest to the province of Newfoundland beyond the general logical conclusion that there might be a place for transmission lines between their various power projects.
I mentioned on the resolution stage that there were several hydro propositions in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which might in the future come under the terms of the bill as far as plants and transmission lines were concerned but that if they wanted assistance from the government the matter would have to be brought before the federal government and dealt with on the basis of need as generally understood and under those principles underlying the two bills that have been presented to the house. I am not going to say any more than that at this time.
I should now like to say a word or two in answer to certain questions asked by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) which I think should be answered on second reading in order to make clear before the motion is put what does happen under the bill. One question asked was, what does the northern Canada power commission do under the agreement? I think that can be answered in two ways. First, it will advise the minister on the merits of the particular projects. Second, it will help to administer the program in co-operation with the provinces having regard to design, construction and the examination of expenditures that have been ratified by the minister and the governor in council as they occur.


Jean Lesage: Would the minister permit a question so that we can clear up that matter now? Under certain circumstances will the northern Canada power commission do the actual building or erection of plants and transmission lines, awarding of contracts, et cetera?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I can best describe their function in this way. Under the terms of these agreements we are
3304	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development going to agree on various projects, whether they be plants or transmission lines. Designs will then be prepared in co-operation with the New Brunswick electric power commission and the Nova Scotia power commission for each individual province. Those designs will, of course, be worked out in co-operation with the northern Canada power commission because obviously they are the only skilled group we have in the federal government that can judge theses things.
Then we will agree on the consulting agency which will represent both the federal government and the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia power commissions in presiding over the construction and carrying out of these plans. So far as tenders are concerned we will see to it under the projected agreements -I put it that way because the final agreements are not signed yet-that tenders are let in the ordinary and usual way, and whatever the project is the work will be supervised and carried out in the usual manner by the consulting firm working under the direction of the northern Canada power corporation and the power corporations of each individual province.


Jean Lesage: Who will pay the companies?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The second question that the hon. member asked was the meaning of the word "advances". It is a necessary part of the arrangements we are making under the general agreement that during the construction period the bills will be paid by the agent of the federal government, the northern Canada power commission. As the contract items are completed we will pay for them. Therefore, at this stage these payments are correctly called "advances". When the project is completed and is sold to the power corporation of a particular province, then these payments cease to be advances and the provinces will pay us back in annual instalments over 30 or 40 years as the case may be. The legal definition of the word "advances" is the one that has to be put into the bill.
The third question asked was, what are the points of difference between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the federal government in regard to signing the agreement. So far as I can ascertain from reading the correspondence no specific ones have been mentioned. The officials from both of these provinces will arrive here this week, and therefore I can only assume that these differences will be minor because the main points were agreed upon at the end of October. I do not believe, of course, that the policy agreements between the governments concerned will be changed.


I want to conclude by mentioning two points, one of which concerns the principle of the bill. I think it has been clear from the remarks of the various members of this government during discussion of the bill that provinces requesting aid for hydro power may make their requests under the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and under the conditions established by the precedent of Beechwood, which were financial. Then I believe it has become clear that we are looking forward in our thinking to provincial control, operation, and ownership of these projects. I feel it is clear also from the Prime Minister's remarks that the aid will be for publicly-owned systems. Obviously in so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, and the same may be true of other provinces, where there are privately-owned installations and grids there will be a certain association with private plants, but not directly from us in any financial way.
The economics concerned are the normal economics. Is it feasible from an engineering point of view? Does it fulfil a reasonable need? Does it provide cheaper power, by any method such as integration? These are the several factors that these two bills demonstrate. Another factor might be, what is the financial position of the province? An additional factor might be the over-all grid system. I believe these are criteria that were apparent in the discussion of these measures in the house both before Christmas and since. I believe it has been clearly established that projects will be considered separately, unless of course they are part of an over-all project.
The financing of the projects will, of course, vary with the circumstances. I believe it is significant, Mr. Speaker, that in this particular case we had a province asking for financial help in connection with hydro development for over eight years.
This brings me to the final point in my remarks. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did a great favour, I think, for this house and the whole of Canada when he pointed out the terms and characteristics of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, which has this important word "operate" in it. This act was originally put on the statute books for a very worthwhile purpose, to help the federal government in its program for opening up the north country. An amendment was made to include co-operative work in the provinces. I believe it was in the minds of the people who amended the legislation to do those things which would help in the opening up of the north country. I believe they had one province in mind in

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
connection with northern development. However, it did serve as a handy vehicle by which we could operate in these particular deals with these four provinces.
The point I wanted to make is that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre held out this act as one which would cover a vast dominion-wide centralized system of power grids and developments across this country. Then he spoofed the statement made by the Prime Minister in which he pledged that in these matters there would be "co-operation ever and domination never." I believe the house, and the whole of this country, will understand that we have demonstrated a point of view which I think has been clearly made before but now has been crystallized in a better way than could be done by any other person at any time. Here we have the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) suggesting that I, as a responsible minister of the crown of Canada, go into his area and help provide local power plants, thus taking over the function of the provincial government.
Then we have the type of operation as laid down in the previous government's approach to this problem of Atlantic power. The previous government was going to build and operate, in the provinces, these power plants and transmission lines. In one case there was to be a leasing system proposed and there was an option to buy agreement. Here you have the principle of the federal government coming into the provinces and duplicating the services of the provincial power commissions, thus demonstrating once more the essential similarity that has been developing over the years in so far as the two parties on the opposite side of the house are concerned. Both of them are centralizing in tendency and centralizing in action. This confirms the suggestions of many political observers that, in effect, during the last few years in Canada we have had a Liberal-socialist government.
I believe we have our own point of view here. We have a government which has an altogether different approach. We have a policy of co-operation with the provinces. We have pledged over and over again to extend local control to the greatest possible degree, whether it be at the provincial level or any other level. Wherever local people control their own affairs we feel that, in the long run, that control is in better hands. Then there is another principle that has been established, and that is the self-liquidating principle. Under this bill the provinces will pay back every cent we are advancing to them for the plants and transmission lines.
The final point I want to mention is the one made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Here was a case of justice to a region, a region which had cried out for justice for 25 or 30 years. The situation in the twenties grew worse in the thirties, developed into a crisis during the last war and has finally been met by a government pledged to give justice to regions and justice to groups. We were called together in what we considered an emergency session to provide justice to these groups and these regions which had fallen behind the ordinary level of prosperity in the last few years.
We do not apologize for the fact that our first thoughts, when we came into this house for this emergency session, were to give justice to our aged and disabled; justice to agriculture and justice to these regions in the Atlantic area and in the prairies, such as Saskatchewan which through no fault of their own have fallen behind the general national level. I believe this bill is a good bill. I feel it is one more step towards what we set out to attain when we asked the people to support us on June 10.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-short title
Jean Lesage: I have two or three questions I should like to ask the minister at this stage. Would he tell us what he understands by the term "transmission lines"? Does he distinguish between transmission lines and distribution lines? Does he understand by "transmission line" one that goes from the power plant to the distribution stations and substations or between distribution stations and distribution substations but does not include the lines going from those distribution stations or substations to the domestic or industrial users?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My understanding of "transmission line" is exactly the same as that of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet. It goes from one plant to another or from one plant to a substation and so on and does not include distribution lines.


Jean Lesage: My second question is about the plant to be erected at Saint John. Is the material or the unit that had been ordered in Britain, I believe by the hydro electric commission of New Brunswick, the one which will be installed at Saint John East? It was ordered before April 9, the date on which I made a statement in the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. The order has gone through. We have honoured the previous arrangement.
3306	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


Jean Lesage: The last question is this. Will the fees of the consulting engineers which the minister mentioned a few moments ago, the engineers which will be consulted jointly by the northern Canada power commission and the provincial authority involved-will the money which will have to be paid to them be added to the cost of erection of a plant or the transmission lines and form part of the total cost that will be paid by the federal government for the plant, to be reimbursed later by the province?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is correct. The thing I want to make absolutely clear is that the engineering and administration costs of the northern Canada power commission and the same costs of the various power commissions of each of the provinces in connection with the consulting firm are established in connection with each project and are assigned to those projects by mutual agreement. As the hon. member knows, under the Northern Canada Power Commission Act we have no right to add on any costs to the operation of the commission which can only reimburse itself by charges against users in northern Canada. They must all go into the capital charges that make up the cost of those plants in the provinces concerned.


Jean Lesage: Except the original opinion of Montreal Engineering. It is provided for in the supplementary estimates of the minister's department and will be paid for by the government of Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. There is a supplementary estimate for that matter.


Jean Lesage: Could the minister tell the committee when he expects the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick systems to be linked or interconnected by transmission lines? In order to refresh the memory of the minister I wish to draw his attention to the recommendations of the Montreal Engineering Company. This is the fourth recommendation:
(4) That the electric utilities endeavour to complete the interconnections between their power .systems by the end of 1959, the transmission lines to be single circuit and operated initially at 138 KV. As regards the new sections of line that will complete the link between Saint John and Halifax, serious consideration should be given to designing them so that they can eventually be operated at 230 KV.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Montreal Engineering report in this particular field gives an alternative.


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The attitude I have taken towards this matter is this. This engineering advice that we have received is put before the officials of the northern Canada power commission and, in this particular case,


the New Brunswick electric power commission. They apparently made the decision to continue the work in east Saint John and they will be completing the schedule of this transmission line in 1959, as the report recommended, as I understand this table of projects which they have recommended.


Jean Lesage: Then the two systems would be linked by the end of 1959?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I understand this table. But there is another column here. The estimated final cost has not been given to me. This is the construction period of 1958-59 and I assume it will be completed by that time. I can only go by the table that they have given to me of the project that they want permission to go ahead with and the estimated amount, but there is no final estimate of the cost in this particular recommendation that they have given us.


Jean Lesage: The importance of this question comes from the fact that, as the minister knows, Montreal Engineering in its report, gave the opinion that interconnection between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would by itself reduce to a certain extent the cost of power to the users in both provinces.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No comment from me is required.


Jean Lesage: That is quite correct is it not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a question I should like to put to the minister, based on the observations which I made when we were on second reading of the bill. Why did the government decide to deal with this matter by introducing a new bill, namely the one we now have before us, instead of by making what I think would have had to be only a minor amendment to the Northern Canada Power Commission Act?
May I say to the minister, before he answers that question, that he need not waste any further words over the argument as to whether one wants these power projects built within the provinces by the federal government as though the federal government were moving into a provincial area. When I spoke last night I made it clear that what we think would have met the situation better than this bill would be an amendment to the existing statute simply giving the federal government power to make agreements with the provinces along the lines of the agreements envisaged in Bill No. 244. The reason I suggest it would have been better to do it the other way instead of this way is that the existing legislation is definitely wider, on two counts, than is the bill now before us. These two counts

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
are well known to the minister. On the one hand, the existing legislation makes possible activities in this field in any province in Canada. The other count relates to the kind of electrical power project that can be developed; that is to say, under the other legislation it can be thermal, hydraulic or any other kind.
To recapitulate, Mr. Chairman, that is the main basis of the existing legislation, namely that power projects thereunder can be developed anywhere in Canada and that they can be any kind of power project. As against that situation the bill now before us is limited to thermal projects and is limited to four of the ten provinces. As I said last night, what this bill has which the existing statute lacks is the specific authority for the federal government to make financial agreements with the provinces in order to enable the provinces to build these power projects within their own borders. It seems to us that it would have been better to amend the existing statute in order to provide for the authority to make agreements. If that had been done the government, by way of agreement, could do for the Atlantic provinces everything that could be done under this bill and more.
Provision could have been made for assistance with respect to hydraulic projects. Similarly, if it had been done that way what is offered to the Atlantic provinces under this bill could have been made available to any of the provinces of Canada. I would appreciate a statement from the minister as to why the government chose this narrower way of dealing with the matter when the wider way was readily available.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is one of the fundamental features of this whole debate; that is to say, this makes absolutely clear what the government of Canada and the two other governments had in mind. In the first instance the provinces wanted it that way and I think they had two reasons. One was that they wanted to bring in this question of a coal subvention which was peculiarly a local situation; the second reason which I think could be advanced was that they wanted to separate thermal from hydro projects.
However, I believe the basic reason, the real reason-I can be corrected by the Minister of Veterans Affairs-is that in this matter we are dealing with a matter of pride. The province of New Brunswick is very proud of its efforts to go forward on its own to develop the hydro of the Saint John river and they wanted nothing from this government or any other government if they could do it themselves. However, the high interest rates of
the last few years forced them into the position where they needed financial help. They did not ask for help for 40, 50 or 60 years, or for the whole lifetime of the project. They only asked for the minimum amount of assistance which they would need to handle their bonds so that they could get a lower rate of interest and thereby keep the cost of the project down as much as possible.
I think this government has demonstrated its philosophy in listening to the wishes of the provinces and in providing what they wanted. It would have been much simpler for us to have had a doctrinaire outlook applying to all parts of Canada but we also kept in mind that this was a dramatic way of demonstrating to the people of the Atlantic provinces, and indeed to the whole of Canada, that this government was meeting the injustice which we felt existed in this area and to show that our interests were wider than those of two provinces. We wished however to work with the governments of these two provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island in this instance and I think the desire was sincerely indicated and sincerely met.


Jean Lesage: By the previous government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the aim of the government was to put forward sincere plans meeting the desires of the province of Prince Edward Island and the province of Newfoundland, and in view of the minister's statement that the desire of the government was to meet the wishes of the provincial governments, how does he square that with the refusal of the government to meet Premier Smallwood's request that this bill be amended to provide for assistance in the case of hydroelectric projects?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, there is a misunderstanding of the grossest magnitude here. The statement that we have refused Premier Smallwood's request in one sense is true, in so far as a change in this bill to add the word "hydro" is concerned, but it is certainly not true by any stretch of the imagination to claim that anything we have said or done could be understood to be a refusal of a request to help Newfoundland, either in respect of hydro plants or transmission lines and thermal plants under this particular bill. Because this is a matter of vital government policy expressing our point of view to the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland, a letter will be received soon by the provincial premier expressing our opinion on his wire.
3308	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do
I take it from that that the federal government is going to make an offer to Newfoundland to help that province with its hydro projects?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have received no specific request from Newfoundland. As I have mentioned, there was a request to alter the bill to which I have prepared an answer, and it will be submitted formally because this is a matter of wider government policy, in the form of a letter to the premier of that province expressing our point of view in this matter.
The situation therefore stands as follows: If they put forward a specific proposal either on hydro, transmission lines or thermal plants, it will be considered in the light of the criteria set forth in this bill and in respect of the Beech wood project.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if such a proposal is made-and I am not the one to judge whether such a proposal has not already been made by Premier Smallwood, although I understood this had been done-and if the government decides to agree to it, will it then have to amend this legislation? If so, why not amend it now and provide for the wider basis?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If it is a question of a transmission line or thermal plant it comes under this legislation. If it is a matter of a hydro project, a special bill will be brought in, or I imagine that is the way it would be handled. It could, of course, be handled under the existing provisions with respect to power in the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, but we would like to keep that particular legislation for the purpose for which it was originally intended, namely the development of the north. It just happens to be our opinion that the government should handle this peculiar problem in this way, working with the two provinces concerned, in designing and planning these projects and supervising the consulting firms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the government chooses to go about this matter in the clumsy way.


Edward George McCullough: When the hon. Minister
of Veterans Affairs spoke I listened very intently to his remarks and was certainly impressed with the rather impassioned speech he made. I think he meant every word he said and I can appreciate that quite fully because he and I both come from provinces which are quite justified in asking that they get a better deal from the Dominion of Canada. He was kind enough or generous


enough to admit that the province of Saskatchewan, of all the other provinces, was probably that which had comparable requirements and could indeed be sincere and justified in asking for some action on the part of the federal government.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Before the hon. member goes
on, Mr. Chairman, 1 did not say comparable. I think I said "approach the problems of the maritimes nearer than any other".


Edward George McCullough: I take the hon. minister's remarks as a correction if one be needed, but I think I pretty well indicated the sentiment which he expressed.
I would like to ask the chairman, in view of the remarks which I made previously when I tried to make a case for my province and in view of the remarks of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, would the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources now say whether or not any formal request has been made by the province of Saskatchewan in respect to thermal power development and, if so, what has been the nature of such requests?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the only request we have had so far from the province of Saskatchewan is an informal submission in the name of the premier of Saskatchewan which dealt with the general power situation in the province and I think that is going to be tabled in answer to a question on the order paper of the house from, I believe, the hon. member for Assin-iboia.


The Chairman:: It being five o'clock, I shall rise so that the house may discuss private and public bills.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. 25, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the second reading of this bill I might first say that I consider it a great privilege to foster and promote at this time this particular piece of legislation on behalf of a group of Canadians who are indeed the first citizens of Canada and who for many years have been deprived of the opportunity of participating in public affairs and have had relatively little voice in selecting hon. members to sit in this house.
In my opinion the purpose of the bill is outlined in the explanatory note fairly clearly. It is primarily to delete the restrictions now placed on Indians in their right to vote under the Canada Elections Act. The bill,

of course, must be read and considered by hon. members in conjunction with the bill immediately preceding this one on the order paper, the bill to amend the Indian Act because there is reference in the Indian Act to the Canada Elections Act. However, the gist of the matter is contained in the elections act itself.
I might say at the outset that from reading past debates of the House of Commons I know there are a number of hon. members sitting on the government side of the house at this time who have promoted, espoused and endorsed the principle of this proposed legislation. They know who they are and what they have said on this subject and I will refrain from mentioning it at the moment.
For the life of me I can see no justifiable reason for the existence of the present restrictions that are placed against our native Indian people in their right to vote in federal elections. After all, practically every one of the problems affecting native Indians are dealt with by the federal government in this chamber. There are certain reasons that have been advanced in the past as to why the Indian people should have restrictions placed against them but these reasons prove invalid upon intelligent examination.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the consent of hon. members of the house I should like to make reference to some material contained in some detail in the bill and I do it only because it is necessary in pointing out the anomalous situation that exists. I would point out that certain native Indians can vote in federal elections at the present time and particularly those who served in the armed forces during world war I, world war II or who served in the Canadian forces subsequent to September 9, 1950, or a native Indian who is the wife of such a person. These people are allowed to have their names entered on the rolls when registration takes place without having to sign any waiver form as provided in the elections act and the Indian Act and as is the case with all of us here and most other people in Canada they are permitted to cast their ballot on election day in federal elections.
I have discussed the situation with a great many native Indians who live in the riding of Skeena and they pointed out the following anomalies. What happens in the case of a native Indian who for some physical reason was not able to join the armed forces? Of course there are some who fall into that category. They desired to participate in the wars but either because of age or some physical defect were unable to serve and consequently are now unable to vote in a federal election. I merely raise that one small point
Canada Elections Act
to further illustrate the unreasonable situation that obtains under the legislation now in effect. As I mentioned earlier, elderly people might not have been able to join the armed forces because they were too old even though they might have been physically fit.
At the present time native Indians can vote in provincial elections in five provinces. In British Columbia they have been able to vote in provincial elections since 1949; in Manitoba, I understand, since 1954; in Ontario since 1953; and I understand that Nova Scotia has never placed restrictions against native Indians voting in provincial elections as is the case with Newfoundland ever since that province entered confederation.
When the native Indian people were first given the right to vote in provincial elections in British Columbia in 1949 there was at first a great reluctance on their part in participating in the so-called white man's government. They felt that by entering their names on voters' lists and by voting they would be depriving themselves of some of their hereditary or aboriginal rights which they have enjoyed over the years. That fear was overcome in a very short while and the election to the British Columbia legislature in 1949 of a full-blooded native Indian, Mr. Frank Calder, as a member of the C.C.F. party doubtless did much to dispel this fear. Following that the native Indian people found they had nothing to lose and nothing to fear through participating in elections and consequently in later elections they took a far more active part in the election of members of the provincial legislative assembly. I am sure that the same general feeling existed in the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario following the time when the Indian people were given the right to vote in provincial elections.
As a result of the vote being given to native Indians in provincial elections in British Columbia we have witnessed a vastly increased interest in native Indian affairs on the part of the provincial government. After all, these people can now participate in electing or defeating certain members of the legislative assembly and for political reasons if for no other more consideration must be and has been given to them following their being granted the right to vote.
Since the time that native Indians were given the vote in British Columbia in 1949 there has been a greater and more enlightened interest on the part of the general public in their affairs. I am sure the same situation would exist as far as the federal government is concerned. As I said earlier, practically all the problems of the Indian people come under the jurisdiction of the federal

Canada Elections Act
government. There are certain hon. members of the House of Commons today and certain others in the past who have drawn attention to these problems, expressed the grievances and indicated interest in the welfare of native Indians, but I rather suspect that in some cases it was done in a halfhearted fashion and that only half-hearted attention was paid by parliament to the problems of the native Indian population. If we desire the native Indian people to be brought up to the same level of existence, culturally and economically, as the rest of Canada, we can take the first step in that direction by granting them the universal right to vote in Canada, which every other citizen in the nation has.
I do not want to discuss this matter much more other than to point out, as I said earlier, that a number of members in the house, many of whom are now on the other side and in the cabinet, notably the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself, have promoted the principle of this bill over many years. Committees of the house have been set up and one in particular in 1951 recommended that native Indians be given the right to vote in federal elections.
I do not think I need to give any more reasons to convince hon. members that Indians should have the right to vote in federal elections, because I am sure that we are all of the same mind that this discrimination, this restriction, should not exist. It is the last remaining restriction placed against members of a race or of a national origin so far as voting in federal elections is concerned. I notice that in other bills and in other motions that have been before the house considerable discussion has taken place and it is right that it should. I do urge the government to indicate its desire to accept this particular bill and take the first step toward bringing our native Indian peoples in Canada up to a decent educational, cultural and economic standard.


Mr. John Charlton (Brani-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, having the honour and the privilege of representing the most highly populated Indian reservation in Canada I feel that I should make some rather short remarks on this bill. On many previous occasions I have spoken on this matter in the house and suggested that Indians should have a vote with no strings attached. As the first citizens of this land they, more than anyone else, should have that right and privilege. They have fought loyally in two world wars in the last century. Previous to that they were allies

of the crown and they have endeared themselves to their white brothers living anywhere near them and have, by their actions, earned the right to vote as anyone else would vote in this country.
Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, there are those on the Six Nations Indian reservation, and quite justifiably so, who are suspicious of their white brothers. They have good reason for being suspicious of some of the actions which have been taken in the past few years. I could go on for some time and relate some of the things that have happened to make those people suspicious of our actions toward them.
On the Six Nations Indian reservation there is what is known as the elected council and the hereditary council. It is more than unfortunate that when the elected council took over the government of the Indian reservation there it was actually brought about at gun point. That, Mr. Speaker, was enough to make those people suspicious of our actions. Many of them feel that by voting they would lose many of their rights as loyal citizens of the crown. Many of them believe that they are apart from Canada and are a separate colony under the British crown and therefore are not subject to the laws of Canada or of the province. I say that some of them feel that way, probably a minority, but enough of them have that feeling to make it difficult for others to exercise their franchise freely.
As I said before, a large percentage of the Indians fought in both the first and second world wars. Those Indian veterans had the right to vote previous to 1950 or 1951, I believe, and in that year their wives were also given the right to vote. Ordinarily, the vote is very small on that reservation. It is true that over 6,000 people are registered on the reservation but all of those 6,000 people do not live on the reservation. The total vote in the last several federal elections has been very small in view of the fact that they believe they would be jeopardizing their position as Indians by voting in either provincial or federal elections. Some of them will not even vote for their elected council. They do not agree with the elected council; therefore, they do not want to go out and vote.
The province of Ontario has given all Indians the right to vote, but the vote is very small in provincial elections. If those people could be assured that they would lose none of their rights they probably would take part in elections. In view of historic events it is not easy to assure them. But as generations pass and the younger generations come along we find they are not taking the same stand as their parents along some of these lines. They are taking more interest in

the council of the reservation. In fact, the Indians are relieved of only certain taxation. Many people say that Indians do not pay taxes at all. That is not true. It is only while they are working on the reservation that they are not subject to land taxes. When they work off the reservation they pay the same taxes as any other person does. They pay the gasoline tax; they pay income tax on money earned off the reservation. Many of them are very highly skilled workmen and make very good wages in the steel construction industry.
As I said on many previous occasions in the house, I have fought for the Indians to have the right to vote. I agree with that if we can only educate them to use their franchise. That can be brought about only if they are assured, and we keep on assuring them, that they will not lose any of their privileges in doing so.
I do not think any people in Canada are more entitled to vote than the Indians. There have been many difficulties but they are trying to do the best they can to become citizens of the country. Although they feel they have been wronged in many ways, they take a great share in the activities of the community about them. They have a very good agricultural society and fair, a wonderful fairgrounds and a very nice building which they use as a community hall. Certainly in most cases they live as we do, so I think it is perfectly justifiable that they should be given the franchise.
They maintain their arts and crafts. They have a school system on the reservation that is second to none in any municipality in Canada. They have a school bus system and the children there have advantages that many children throughout the rest of Canada do not enjoy. They attend high schools in the surrounding districts, either at Brantford or Hagersville. Many of these Indians are professional people, doctors, lawyers, dentists and so on. I have no hesitation in supporting the bill and I say again that in my opinion the Indians should be given the vote.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the discussion on the bill I am reminded of a number of facts which I think might be brought to the attention of the house. It has already been suggested by the first speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that certain Indians have the vote now in so far as federal elections are concerned and others in different provinces have the vote provincially.
The one matter that brings me to my feet at the moment is the fact that the last time
Canada Elections Act
I took part in a debate on this subject followed an occasion when my own election had been protested. I only had a majority of 28 when we got through making the count and involved in that 28 were the votes of the wives of Indians who had served overseas. At that time the wives of Indians who had served overseas did not have the right to vote, but I think a good number of them had been going to the polls right across the country and certainly in our area.
May I say before going further that all or part of at least six Indian reservations are within my constituency. They are found along the Qu'Appelle river and in other sections and one or two of them are divided into what might be called two or three reserves. We have a considerable number of them. On this particular occasion the wives of these returned men came to the polls along with their husbands and as no one at the booths thought it the proper thing to do to protest they all voted. It stands to reason that they did not all vote for me. They probably cast as many votes for one candidate as another or at least split their votes.
When it came to the matter of counting the votes in connection with the protest no party would raise that question. They simply said that the votes had been polled and they were not going to protest the right of these people to vote. As a result, on the first occasion that it became possible to do so I rose in the house and proposed that the wives of all returned men be given the right to vote in view of the fact that the officials at the polls, no matter who they were or to what party they belonged, would not protest their right to vote when they came to the polls with their husbands who had served overseas. I proposed that we should follow what had been the practice and make it the law and it was made the law at that time.
I want to follow what has been said by the previous speaker in referring to the well known reserve in his constituency from which many very well educated Canadians have come over a long period of time. I remember when I was a boy the head of the foresters' lodge used to go throughout the province of Ontario speaking and everyone who belonged to the Independent Order of Foresters was very proud of the fact that the head of their order, Oronhyatekha, was a full blooded Indian. He was one of the finest speakers in the province of Ontario in those days.
As I said, in my own constituency there are five or six reserves partly or wholly within the constituency. Public meetings

Canada Elections Act
have been held on those reserves at election time and I have addressed meetings there at such times. They are held for the purpose particularly of discussing the issues fully with those who have the vote, most of them being those who have served in the armed forces or their wives. What I want to say is that no matter what the nationality or background of the voters in the constituency generally may be, there is no section of the constituency where discussion of public questions concerning the people of this country is on a higher level. These people are well informed. They not only know the history of our different activities within the area but the background of the government of the country.
Last summer I was invited to the graduation ceremonies associated with the graduation of a group of Indians from one of the schools, a school similar to those referred to near the Brantford reserve. I have been at many graduation ceremonies of universities and collegiates throughout the country but I have never attended one where the dozen pupils graduating gave a better account of themselves than did these full blooded Indians. Not only did they meet all the requirements of examinations and everything of that kind but when it came to putting on a program associated with the occasion they put on one of the finest displays of choir singing by men and women that I have ever listened to.
It has been long known in our section of the country that from the very early days some of the best concert singers we have had have been Indian girls. I recall the last occasion when the former prime minister came to our province and was entertained in the Qu'Appelle valley. The singer who sung some of the very finest English songs was a full blooded Indian girl. I remember too that away back in 1904 or 1905 when I was attending normal school at Regina whenever a concert was held in any of the churches or anywhere else the chief singer was an Indian girl who dressed in kilts and sang Scotch songs.
We have always followed these activities on their part and I do want to say that I can never understand why it is we have not found a way to give them all the vote. If the bill before us does not provide for it then I think we should have a bill that does. We should no longer consider that they are any different from any of the rest of us. Given the same opportunities that we have they produce results that are on just as high a level as those produced by the people of any nationality we have within our country.
I want to say that so far as I am concerned, personally,-I do not know that I have any

authority to speak for the party to which I belong-I am in favour of this measure to provide the Indians with a vote. There have been some who have said that the Indians in the Brant district and those in the Qu'Appelle district are educated to a higher level than the Indians of other districts. I find that no matter where I go, even in the far north of Saskatchewan, I find among the Indians individuals who are just as highly developed as any of us, and just as capable of voting as any of us. I would say that, on the other hand, you can go into any community anywhere and see people who will make you wonder why the vote was given to them, especially when you compare them with some other people. I believe that these Indians are just as capable of holding the vote as the members of any other race. I should like to commend this measure to the support of this house, and I would say that if this measure is not sufficient to assure the vote for Indians, the government should come along with a measure that will.


Mr. Jack Wratten (Brantford):: Coming from the city of Brantford and the county of Brant, as I do, may I remind the house again that we have a large reservation there. Our city is named after one of the most famous chiefs of the Six Nations. Our city was born and developed on the site of the ford that Brant found across the Grand river when he first came to that area. We are very proud of the Indian people who live on the reservation adjacent to our city. There is located near Brantford the first Anglican church that was built in Ontario, and the communion service used in this church came over in Queen Anne's time.
We also have in Brantford, near the Grand river and near the Mohawk church, an institute which educates the children from the reserve. Mention has been made of the fact that Indians from the reserve have gone out into this fair country of ours and have become famous citizens. While one of the other hon. members was speaking on this subject, the name of Pauline Johnson came to my mind. She was a famous Indian poetess, whose home, Chiefswood, is still standing on the banks of the Grand river. I understand it is to be made an historic shrine in the very near future. I should like to call your attention to the fact that Magistrate Martin, who passed away a short time ago, was a full-blooded Indian who came from the reservation. He served during the first war and rose to be a magistrate in the city of Toronto where he was held in high esteem by everyone who met him.

Some time ago I had the privilege of attending a ceremony on the reservation when a plaque was raised in memory of that great athlete Tom Longboat. He was one of the outstanding distance runners of our time, and was also a full-blooded Indian. Mention has been made of the attainments of some of these men in the world today. I recall that when I was attending high school in Brantford many of the children came there from the reservation. One of my best friends at that time was an Indian from the reservation who attended the same class as I did. The Indian and white children mixed together and got along quite well.
There has been some mention of the different rulings that are in force on the reservations today. We have the elected council of the Six Nations reservation, and we also have the hereditary chiefs, who have their own council meeting in another part of the reservation other than Oshweken. I feel that some way should be found of bringing these two factions together so that the Indians will present a united front when consideration is given to their problems. I was quite surprised when I learned some time ago that these people were not entitled to vote in federal elections. There is no doubt that they are very well informed on matters pertaining to federal affairs. I feel it is only proper that since they have the right to vote in provincial elections they should have the right to vote in federal elections.
A large number of these Indians from the reservation work in the factories in the city of Brantford. They are good workers, and highly skilled. A short time ago some services were extended from the city of Brantford to the reservation, but they were greeted with some suspicion. As has been mentioned before, the Indians appear to look with some suspicion upon anything that the white man or the elected representatives try to inaugurate on the reservation. It is only by being very careful and by showing these people that we are trying to help them that we are going to overcome the obstacles that have been met in the past. Some two or three years ago the Indians on this reservation presented a well-planned play which they put on in order to preserve their customs from years gone by. I would recommend to anyone who is in the district that he see this cultural demonstration, as one might call it, because it is well worth while.
I have nothing more to say, Mr. Speaker, other than that during the time I was reeve of Brantford township and warden of the county of Brant I met many of the Indians on the reservation because it adjoined our township. Our two councils co-operated very
Canada Elections Act
well and we found the members of the Indian council very friendly. I feel that these people should have a vote in federal elections, the same as other people in this province do.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I
listened with interest to the reminiscences of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) about the days when he was a student at the normal school at Regina. I began to wonder whether or not he might have attended that august institution along with my mother. I realize that has not much to do with the bill before us, and I shall have to pursue that subject with the hon. member outside of the house.
I should like to say a few words in support of the bill that has been placed before us for consideration by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Reference has been made to the fact that certain Indians now have the right to vote under the present elections act, that is to say, those who have served in the armed forces. I have a very vivid recollection of a conversation I had in this connection with a young Indian man in one of the villages along the west coast of Vancouver island a few years ago while I was waiting for a plane or a boat. He was a veteran of world war II and was entitled to cast a vote in the federal election which was then shortly to be held. We got into quite a discussion. He was aware of the fact that I was a candidate for election in that particular campaign because I held a meeting in the village the night before. He raised the question with me that while he realized that he had the right to vote he was not going to exercise that right as long as his fellows of the same racial origin were denied that right. That little incident has, as I say, remained very vivid in my memory ever since then, and it is one of the reasons why I am happy to support the proposal that has been placed before the house by the hon. member for Skeena.
Another reason why I am happy to rise in support of the bill is that I know that, as far as the Indians of British Columbia are concerned, as they have expressed their views through the native brotherhood of British Columbia, they are desirous of seeing enacted into legislation the proposal that is put forward in this bill.
Reference has been made to the concern which has been expressed by Indian people at various times in various parts of the country with respect to the question of preserving some of the rights they have by virtue of having been the original inhabitants of this country. I have read the terms of the hon. member's bill rather carefully and certainly I am satisfied that it has written into

Canada Elections Act
it provisions which safeguard that right, in fact provisions which spell out that right in no uncertain terms. I think that is another reason why this measure should commend itself to the members of the house at this time. Those of us who live, as I do, in areas where there are quite a number of Indians have been able to observe the results of having the provincial franchise granted to the Indians of our areas. This change in our provincial elections act came into effect in 1949. Certainly as far as I am concerned, all of the results of that change in our provincial elections act have been very encouraging to those of us who are desirous of seeing our native Indian people take their full share of the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
It is quite true that there are some places, even within the boundaries of my own constituency, where there are small groups of Indians living in semi-isolation who have not as yet had a great deal of opportunity in the way of education and perhaps more particularly in the field of economic opportunity which would provide them with a standard of living that would enable them to progress. But I feel that an advantage would be the psychological atmosphere-if one were to consider nothing else-which would be created through the adoption of this provision which would make it clear to the Indian people that those of us who now in this country are in a great majority over the original inhabitants are prepared to welcome them as full brothers, that in putting forward this proposal in a sense perhaps we might say we were attempting to atone for the sins of our forefathers in having taken over the country in the manner in which it was taken over. There are, of course, those in British Columbia who assert that they still have not legally surrendered the right to a square inch of the territory of British Columbia to the white population. While that point of view is put forward from time to time from certain quarters, nevertheless I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of the Indian peoples of British Columbia would welcome the opportunity of being able to enter fully into Canadian citizenship.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to give qualified support to this motion. I certainly subscribe to its objective or its intent. Many members of this house have had experience-and pleasureful it is-in their association with Indians on the reserve or with those who have become integrated into our society. I have one or two doubts and in putting them forward I am simply reflecting the expression of opinion of the Indians of our province as registered through the Indian association which, after

all, speaks for them; and it would be remiss of me were I not to introduce these doubts of this important body into this discussion.
I naturally support those who have expressed enthusiasm and the desire for complete integration over a period of time of these first citizens. I have had more than casual experience with the young Indian who has been successful in becoming integrated into our society and assuming the responsibility attached thereto. It was, in fact my experience to serve with what I think represented the only complete Indian bomber crew in the R.A.F. who were Canadians, and they were regarded as some of the finest airmen which one of the largest squadrons serving overseas possessed. I do not think it is necessary to remind hon. members of this house that Indians in every walk of life have been successful. They have established themselves as top scientists, as economists and as men of great ability in the educational and engineering field. We take that as a matter of record. But what concerns many who have been associated with the treaty Indian in particular is to see that the treaty Indian enjoys a greater measure of internal self-government than he perhaps experiences today.
I am bound to comment on some of the remarks which were introduced at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association during which a resolution accepted by that important body suggested that one of the best ways by means of which our Canadian Indian would become fully integrated into our society would be by encouraging him to enjoy more active participation in his own affairs on his own reservation.
Many hon. members of this house have unquestionably observed their council meetings. Some may even have been privileged to be elevated to the rank of chieftain in a particular reserve. That is an experience which, if you have enjoyed it, I am sure you will never forget. You cannot help being impressed by the manner in which the Indians have conducted the business of these council meetings. But to my mind one of the unfortunate aspects is that very often, as has already been intimated in this house, an important percentage of the Indians in the reserves do not take part in the activities of this council. Thus I have a basic reason for some reservation with respect to the nature of this motion in that the Indian is suspicious.
He is concerned about being over-regulated and when we go to him and tell him we are going to give him a completely free franchise

he looks upon us with a somewhat jaundiced eye. In making reference to the bar association resolution it goes on to point out that the former government of Canada in the section of the Indian Act which allows for compulsory enfranchisement has made certain provisions which should be removed and that this would allow the Indian wishing to vote to retain his trust assets and treaty rights by merely waiving the right to freedom of taxation. In the preamble to the resolution they point out that the present system by which he may enjoy his franchise is a rather complicated one and which has caused a certain mistrust of those people who have administered the act.
I come now to the point I wish to make. The Indian association of the province of Alberta has, on more than one occasion, registered concern at the suggestion of a completely free franchise of those Indians who come under their jurisdiction of this responsible body. While they have been given assurance that there is going to be no loss of treaty rights and no suggestion that they will not be able to enjoy the status which they have enjoyed in the past, the Indians look back at such incidents-and I hesitate to introduce them at this point- such as the Hobbema incident. They very seriously question-and I am now referring to government of Canada-the intent of the administrators of this act.
Therefore, while I am supporting this suggestion I have this one reservation; that the intention must be made abundantly clear and that we have absolutely no strings attached in this legislation. It must be clear that we do not intend to remove any of the privileges they have. Here of course I cannot speak for future governments because public sentiment being as it is a future government may look upon this question in a different manner, but I believe it is essential in introducing, accepting or rejecting a bill of this nature that we do not lose sight of the fact that the Indians on the reserve and those who have been away from it, regardless of the legislation we introduce, have been suspicious of some of these measures. It is therefore necessary in explaining our purpose to make it clear that we do not intend by giving one freedom to take away another.
I, therefore, with that single qualification give support to this legislation, as one who has met many of these fine men in the hope that the day is not far away when, as has been suggested by the very nature of this bill, they will assume and assume gladly their full responsibilities and rights as Canadian citizens.
3315
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


John Hornby Harrison: In the two or three moments I have left before six o'clock I would like to join this happy band of warriors in discussion of this particular bill.
From what I have gathered from the members who have preceded me, there seems to be an impression that Indians cannot vote in the federal elections in this country and that is far from the case.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if on a point of privilege I might say that if the hon. member has gained that impression it is certainly not in accordance with our intention. I just wish to make that clear.


John Hornby Harrison: In at least 50 per cent of my constituency Indians are able to exercise their franchise if they so desire. I do not contend they all do. In fact, as the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) has said, they approach the matter with some diffidence. However, they have the right in my constituency and have had that right for years owing to the fact that Indians qualify for the federal franchise provided they are not living on a reserve. If you get far enough north there are no reserves and therefore they can vote.
I have had some experience with these people and in each election they do vote to a' larger extent, thus exercising their franchise. I feel they do so as well as people in other parts of this country and certainly they divide their allegiance between the various parties. I think this is a good bill and I feel it could very well be adopted by the government, or something similar to it, so as to give the franchise to Indians in all parts of Canada. Whether they live in the north of a riding or in the south of a riding should make no difference as to whether they vote or do not vote.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES-LEGISLATION RESPECTING THERMAL PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 244, to provide assistance in respect of electrical power development in the Atlantic provinces-Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
3316	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I just slipped through the doorway and reached my seat in time. Since second reading has been passed and we are in the committee stage I would ask the minister if he has given any consideration to what some of us described as a discriminatory element in the bill with respect to it not being all-embracing. When the minister made his comments diming the committee stage he did not cover that particular point.
I listened very attentively to what the Minister of Veterans Affairs had to say on this point this afternoon while the bill was being given second reading and I must confess that I do not think I have ever heard the hon. gentleman when he was in any better form than when he was speaking at that stage of this bill. However, I think perhaps he misinterpreted the element of discrimination that some of us have mentioned. The hon. member for Moose Mountain dealt with it this afternoon, I spoke along the same line yesterday and the hon. member for Bow River referred to it some days ago. We did not mean that it was discriminatory in the sense that while it helped the maritimes it would work to the disadvantage of the other provinces; we did not mean it was discriminatory in that sense at all. What we meant was that it is discriminatory in the sense that the same bill could have been made allembracing, giving to the maritimes all that the present bill gives but at the same time offering to the other provinces the opportunity of coming under the measure if they so desired.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs this afternoon used words to the effect that some of the other provinces perhaps do not need this sort of legislation and he referred to Alberta with its resources of oil, gas, hydroelectric power and the rivers and streams there. I might remind him of a point which he perhaps did not study sufficiently, that we have thermal power plants located right in the province of Alberta in spite of the fact that we have gas and oil, rivers and streams and hydroelectric power. We have a thermal plant at Forestburg which is considerable in size and which was built at a cost of over $5 million, I believe. This plant provides electricity for many miles around that community.
The reason I spoke on the discriminatory features of the bill is that in my constituency we have a vast coal mining area that is depressed. Coal would be available for thermal power if a power plant were built in that particular area. The province of Alberta may


not be depressed but its coal mining areas are and I believe that if it were geographically possible to put all the coal mining areas of Alberta in one place you could drop the province of New Brunswick into that area. In other words, the entire province of New Brunswick is smaller in physical area than would be the sum total of the coal mining areas of Alberta if grouped in one place. As far as depressed localities are concerned, the coal mining areas of the province of Alberta are just as depressed as is the province of New Brunswick.
Let me stress again that we do not wish to convey the impression that we are reluctant to see assistance offered to the province of New Brunswick. We are eager that this be done and we are in favour of the measure before us but we believe it would be far more palatable to the people of Canada, and the Conservative party would show a greater national spirit if the bill were made allembracing. I should like the minister to comment on that particular point if he will.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat what I said earlier in relation to any thermal proposition, hydro proposition or transmission lines in the province of Alberta. The only thing I could add to what the Prime Minister has already said is that they would have to show a need for cheaper power and demonstrate the inability of the province to obtain the funds, and meet the various other criteria I mentioned. That is the situation in a nutshell.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want the minister to misunderstand me. I do not think we want power or hydro in Alberta but if a thermal plant were established in the Crows-nest pass it could generate electricity for the purpose of exporting it to the United States where there are large cities. It is not that we need the power nor that we want more hydro power at this time. It is simply that there is a principle involved here. The province of Alberta and all the other provinces should be able to make application and come under the measure if the provinces desired to do so.


Jean Lesage: Subsidized power for export to the United States? I understand that under the provisions of the agreement to be signed the province would have to distribute the coal subventions to the operators including private operators. Could the minister tell the committee what will be the test or what will be the system of distributing these subventions to the operators of the power plants?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, for obvious reasons we asked the provinces to take charge of this very important matter.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
As I understand it there is an auditing system set up under which each company will have to demonstrate to the power commission of the province the amount of coal they have used in the production of power for industrial purposes on the basis of the b.t.u. content of the coal they have used. By applying this price which is a formula based on the amount of coal for every million b.t.u.'s, they will decide what the actual amount will be. Then I understand that these accounts are all accumulated and submitted to the dominion coal board which audits them in turn.


Jean Lesage: I understand that of course the cost of coal is not the same at various points in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia at the different power plants. Is it the intention of the government to see to it that under the agreements the provinces will have to equalize the cost of coal between the various plants in the Atlantic or maritime provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That was one of the subjects under discussion between the officials of both governments because the price of coal is different at each place in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. For the sake of administrative efficiency the final decision reached was that they would take the cost of the coal at each of the points in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and average it, then the subvention would be paid on the basis of the difference between the average in those two provinces and the cost of coal laid down in Toronto.


Jean Lesage: In Toronto?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


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


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The question is hypothetical but well thought out.


Jean Lesage: There is nobody here from Newfoundland.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I am here.


Jean Lesage: You never talk for Newfoundland, so we will forget you.


William Joseph Browne: I must rise on a question of privilege. I do not think the remark is called for.


Jean Lesage: I will withdraw my remarks.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 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.
96698-210J


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?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Quite frankly, as I said in my remarks on the resolution, in the beginning we had not looked at any particular project and had no particular project in mind for any other province besides New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Therefore, as regards Newfoundland, I have not looked into the cost of coal at any particular point in that province. The legislation was extended to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia only for the reason that I gave. In case any particular project should come up we could apply the criteria we have applied to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to that particular case.


Jean Lesage: In the case of transmission lines, do I understand that each province will be asked to purchase that part of the transmission line which will be in its own territory?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, in the case of a transmission line or lines between two provinces each province will bear the share of the cost chargeable to the line in its own territory.


Jean Lesage: What will be the arrangements between the provinces afterwards? Has that been settled?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The only thing I can say about the agreement between the two provinces on the building of the interconnecting line is that it is not completed. As far as financing is concerned, it is very clear that the cost will be apportioned to each provincial power commission and added to the capital cost of that project which is within their own territory. They will have to pay back the money for their share of the cost of that particular transmission line in 40 equal instalments.


Edward George McCullough: There does not seem to be much point in trying to belabour the fact that some of us do feel that this bill is discriminatory to some extent. Of course, in the province of Saskatchewan, up until 1944, with the exception of the Anderson government which took office in 1929 and which was a short-lived Conservative government, the Conservatives never hoped to have much chance of forming a government in our province. I cannot recall any time when they offered any assistance to give our people electricity in our province. It is certainly well known that the former minister of agriculture and his party, the Liberal party,
3318	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development did very little over the years to electrify our province. It has been only by imaginative planning and by sacrifice on the part of our people that we have been able to bring electricity and power to our province.
I believe, just as the people of the Atlantic provinces who come under this bill believe, that they do need and should get some assistance by way of grants of money set aside for the construction of thermal plants. Certainly, the same principle should apply to Saskatchewan. I cannot agree that we are in the position the hon. member for Macleod indicated. He said they should have it if they wanted it. In the province of Saskatchewan we do want it, as I indicated this afternoon; we do need it. When you take $40 million out of your public revenue in order to try to supply your province with power you find that it can only be done by so arranging the finances of your province that you do not spend as much money on other types of government expenditure as you would like to. When you have a central government, such as we have in Canada which, as I indicated this afternoon, is getting on the average 71 per cent of the total taxes collected and only 13 per cent going to the 10 provinces, which has to be divided among them, and only 10 per cent going to the municipal governments, you find that you do have a financial problem, which I think should be met by broad vision and statesmanship on the part of the federal government.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said earlier today that he thought an amendment to the act on the statute books would have been far more equitable and meaningful than what we have before us today. I can only say I regret that the federal government, in spite of what has been said, has not gone farther in this legislation. I appreciate the feeling of the people of the Atlantic provinces. I know they do need and will welcome this assistance. Some of the other provinces are in the same financial boat and should be entitled to assistance on the same basis.


Jean Lesage: What points will be linked by the first interconnecting transmission lines between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon. member clarify his question a little?


Jean Lesage: Will it be between Saint John and Halifax, for instance?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know that one of the first interconnection lines is between Saint John and Halifax.


Jean Lesage: I want to know whether it is going to be the first?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think it is. I think I must say no agreement has yet been completed between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They are working on that agreement now and I understand it concerns the building of a transmission line from Halifax to Saint John. According to the plan, I think that is the first line. When the hon. member mentioned points I wondered whether he wanted me to name all the towns. I could not have done that.


Jean Lesage: Will the line have a capacity of 138 kilovolts or 230?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the recommendation is that it will start out at 138 and then jump to the larger amount later on as the demand warrants it.


Jean Lesage: Is that the way in which the minister intends to proceed?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We are following the recommendations of Montreal Engineering firm; we have no reason not to.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I put a question to the minister regarding clause 2? As he knows, in discussing this legislation we have made the point that there are two limitations in it which we would like to see removed. I suppose we can hardly ask the minister to accept an amendment to subparagraph (a) to have "Atlantic provinces" amended so that the act would apply to all the provinces of Canada? Therefore, we will assume that so far as this particular bill is concerned we have lost that part of the battle. We accept that in good grace. As we said at the very beginning, what is good for the Atlantic Provinces is good for Canada as a whole and we are supporting the bill.
However, having accepted that, there still remains the other limitation which is spelled out in subparagraph (b) of clause 2 where we find these words:
"Power project" means all or any of the following, namely, facilities for the generation of electric energy by steam-driven generators-*
I say to the minister that it is not my purpose to move an amendment in this thinly populated house tonight but I wonder whether he would not consider having one of his colleagues move an amendment to delete the words "by steam-driven generators". The effect of that would be to keep this what the government wants it to be, an Atlantic provinces bill, and yet to make provision for hydro-electric power in any of the Atlantic provinces if a request of that nature were made to the government which the government was willing to meet.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
I was interested, and I am grateful to the minister for it, in the answer he gave me this afternoon that if there is a request from the province of Newfoundland couched in terms that appeal to the government as a proper request for assistance for a hydroelectric project, sympathetic consideration will be given thereto. When I asked the minister how the government would go about that if the bill is passed in its present form, he suggested that if it were necessary another bill would be introduced. I say to the minister that there are rumours and suggestions being made around the halls of this building -we get more information by way of rumour sometimes than we do by way of announcements that are made in due course-that one of the reasons the government has been so anxious to get this legislation, like the Beech-wood bill and this one, through was its desire to be sure it has this legislation on the statute books in advance of any possible dissolution if that should come unexpectedly. I am not asking at this moment as to the date of the election. If I wanted to ask that I would do so point blank.


Mr. Fraser:: You would get a blank answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member for Peterborough says that I would get a blank answer. Maybe we will have to answer the question ourselves one of these days. My question to the minister is this. Suppose it should happen that this parliament came to an end and we were in the midst of a general election during which time the government was anxious to meet a request such as is expected from Newfoundland; does the minister not realize that without legislation on the statute books the government would not be able to meet that request and the matter would have to wait until a new parliament reassembles under whatever government might be in power?
I ask the minister to consider how easy it is to meet that problem now simply by deleting the words "by steam-driven generators" from line 16 of this clause. He will probably point out to me that there is at least one other place in the bill where the same words would have to be deleted but I would say to him that so far as the appearance of those words in line 25 on page 2 is concerned they should stay there even under the terms that we are suggesting because in line 25 on page 2 they relate to possible subventions in respect of eastern coal used in the operation of certain facilities.
As I say, there might be one or two consequential amendments that might have to be made but I ask the minister if he will not consider once again, for the sake of the position in Newfoundland and the sake of the
government in case it wants to meet such a request in a situation that might develop, the desirability of deleting the words "by steam-driven generators"?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think my answer was made this afternoon in concluding the debate on second reading when I said that if we made such an amendment at this stage it would be breaking faith with the two premiers. I suggested this afternoon that there were several reasons why they wanted the bill this way. One was the matter of the separation of hydro and thermal for their own particular reasons but mainly coming down to the one aspect. I said, subject to correction by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that it struck me that the question of power in the maritimes was largely coloured by local pride. I said that it was a great step forward to get Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to co-operate to the extent that they did. It speaks well of the leadership of the two men who guided the negotiations for their provinces.
With regard to the question of mixing hydro and thermal power, they both agreed and advocated strongly that the two should not be put together, mainly on the ground that in New Brunswick the Beechwood project was a matter of provincial pride. All the talk of their government was based on their faith that they could complete that project themselves. As I said this afternoon, they asked for the minimum of help, just eight years to cover the period of floating their own bonds. I think it is to their credit that they want to be as independent as possible from federal help or help from any other source. To make such an amendment in the bill would break the pledge that we made in discussing the general points of agreement.
There is one more thing that I think should be mentioned with regard to the adding of the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. When the suggestion was first made to them it had not entered their minds seriously up to that time, and I think it speaks well of the broader outlook that is developing in the minds of the leading statesmen of the Atlantic provinces that they are beginning to see their area in terms of a region which has to work together to help itself by its own efforts.
I would feel that I would have to turn down the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. No matter how kindly his thoughts are as to the difficulties of the government and the difficulties that may lie ahead, I think there is a question of keeping faith and the pledge we have made has to be honoured.
3320	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would not want to suggest to the government that there be any breaking of faith but I fail to see how it is breaking faith with two of the premiers of Atlantic provinces if the bill is amended in such a way that it does not detract by one iota from what was promised them but merely extends something of equivalent value at least to one other of the four Atlantic provinces. I do not suggest that anything be taken away from what has been promised Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I do not suggest any detraction from the tribute the minister has paid to the premiers of those two provinces in connection with what they have done.
But I remind the minister that the title of the bill is not the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick power development act or the Conservative Atlantic provinces power development act; it is the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act and there are four Atlantic provinces. I suggest that if this is going to be a bill directed in its appeal to the pride of the people of the Atlantic provinces, and my background is such that I am fully aware of what that means, this amendment might well be made so that something will be offered to Newfoundland in terms of Newfoundland's situation, and possibly to Prince Edward Island, which is equivalent in value to what is being offered to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I am sorry that the minister finds it sq impossible to accede to this suggestion. I hope he does not find himself in the difficult position to which I referred a moment ago.
In fact, at this juncture 1 feel that perhaps I might ask the minister or the Minister of Finance-they seem to be the only two ministers present-no, the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland is also present -whether the government regards it as a government defeat that its course of action with regard to the progress of the Beechwood bill has been upset or delayed by a vote of the opposition over in the other place? The Minister of Finance looks at me with a quizzical eye. Does he realize that the suggestion that there be haste in connection with the bill in the other place has been set aside and that a motion to refer it to a committee was passed by the Liberal opposition against the wish of the government leader in the Senate? Is that a defeat of the government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should think that it was a procedural question in the other place, where the confidence in the government is not directly in issue. I am to appear before the committee of the other place tomorrow morning at the committee stage of the bill.


Mr. Thompson (Edmonion-Strathcona):: should like to say a few words suggesting that the words "by steam-driven generators" be removed for another reason in addition to those already submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the members from Newfoundland. It would appear to me that the removal of these words would enable the development of electrical energy by the most efficient type of unit to take place in the maritimes at any time. If these words are left in, it would seem to me that there might be a danger of this type of development taking place when, in actual fact, the development of a hydro unit would have been cheaper because the payment of coal subventions would be unnecessary. Would the minister state whether or not it would be possible for such a development to take place, which would require government assistance in the form of coal subventions, when such assistance would not have been required if a hydro development had been undertaken? This would be particularly true in Newfoundland.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I have made it clear once or twice before, but in so far as hydro plants in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are concerned-I am speaking of one in particular-it was at the insistence of the premiers of these provinces that these hydro projects were kept out of this bill. This matter was discussed between the two premiers and myself. Possibly I would have advanced the same argument as my hon. friend had it not been for the insistence of the two premiers.
As I said, the philosophy of this party is that we are trying to work in co-operation with the provinces. As long as federal interests and the federal purse are protected, then if the provinces want to do it this way, we will go along with them. That is what we have done.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 is the interpretation clause and outlines the definitions of the various terms that are used. This clause contains a definition of the word "coal". I am proposing to the minister that perhaps there should be a change in that connection because there could be some discrimination against other provinces in respect to the production of coal. Even although the minister will not make this bill all-embracing so that other provinces could come under it if they wished, I believe he could go so far as to have a provision written into the bill that would permit the coal mining areas in the rest of Canada to supply coal to the maritime provinces. I

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
believe that is where this bill is discriminatory, because the coal mining areas of the other provinces are in a very serious plight today.
I know that history will show that the Conservative party have advocated the development of our natural resources to the point where there should be a nation-wide coal and fuel policy. I do not know whether or not the Borden commission is supposed to come up with something that would save the coal mining industry; I hope so. Let me say that we have a new government now. The present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who is sponsoring this bill, is a new minister in this house. He is not new in the political arena, by any means. He is an able man. The party has a number of new members. Over the years the Conservative party have harped over and over again about the development of our natural resources, and have applied that argument to the coal mining industry of Canada.
I recall a few elections ago, when the present Prime Minister's predecessor was out in the province of Alberta. He came down into a coal mining area in which there were rich coal deposits, a type of coal that would be almost equivalent to anthracite. This coal could be obtained from the foothills of the Rocky mountains by the use of scoop shovels. It was not necessary to dig a pit. All you had to do was to build a spur line of railroad for about 20 miles and the coal would have been available through the use of drag line equipment. They call it strip mining. Further south, in the Crowsnest pass area we have all sorts of strip mines.
What did the then leader of the Conservative party say when he was in that area? He spent nearly all his time speaking about coal mining. He said if his party were elected they would see that these rich coal deposits were developed. Oh, yes, he said it with great vigour. I might say that the present Prime Minister was in the same community during the last election campaign although he did not use that theme for his speech. However, the Hon. Mr. Drew did not win that election and his party remained in opposition. I waited in this house to hear him recommend something in respect to the coal mining industry. I waited and I waited. Of course, he is not here now, but I am still waiting. During the first session of that new parliament I reminded him that I had taken cognizance of what he had said during the election campaign. I challenged him, during consideration of the estimates for coal subventions, to state what he would do about bringing into operation a national coal policy. He did not accept the challenge. I suppose he considered me to be a little two by four, sitting in the back
benches, although I was right over there occupying that front seat. So far as the Conservative party of that day was concerned, the whole matter was dropped.
Is the government interested in keeping the coal mining industry in operation in Canada? If they are, here is one tiny shade of help they can give. They can remove that coal mining discriminatory feature of this bill and permit coal to be sold for thermal power, even though it is in that distant province.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a recommendation to the minister. He said he was not going to move an amendment but he asked the minister to consider it. In replying the minister said that he appreciated the kindness of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a very kind man. I am afraid that I am not so kind. I sometimes think that I am a mean man. I think a simple amendment to a clause here would remedy the situation that I have mentioned, and I am going to be mean enough to move an amendment to clause (b). The amendment is:
That clause (b) be amended by striking out the words "eastern" and "Atlantic" and adding at the end of the clause the words "of Canada".
For the sake of clarification may I say that the clause would then read:
(b) "coal" means coal produced in any of the provinces of Canada.
I believe by that simple amendment we would put the coal mining industry of other provinces in the position where they could offer to sell their coal anywhere. I am not saying they would get that market, but they would not feel that they had been left out of the picture altogether. Since subventions are paid for the movement of coal from western Canada to eastern Canada, I believe if the same subventions that are advocated in this bill were added to them, it might- I do not know this; I have not calculated it-* put the rest of the coal mining industry in Canada in a competitive position.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is not very difficult to make up my mind on this amendment, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would destroy the whole purpose of what we are trying to do in the Atlantic provinces. We are in this bill trying to help this area of Canada which, through no fault of its own, has fallen behind in the economic prosperity of this country. What we are doing is a two edged sword. One edge of the sword is, by all the devices of bringing together hydro and thermal power, by getting the lowest international rates possible and by interconnections between plants and so on, to
3322	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development reduce the actual cost of the production of power. The other device is by a subvention on coal, and this subvention on coal is the main factor in reducing the cost of coal to the development of thermal power. On the other side of the sword is the fact that you will help the economic picture in the province of Nova Scotia particularly and, to a lesser degree, that of the province of New Brunswick by providing work for an area of the coal mining industry where the situation has been desperate for many years.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Macleod the tonnage at stake in this particular amendment. At the present time it is estimated that approximately
950,000	tons of coal are being used in the production of thermal power in those two provinces. It is hoped that the rising demand over the next few years will bring that consumption of coal up to 1,500,000 tons. It is such a small amount of coal for the large and wealthy province of Alberta to try to take away from the miners in Sydney, the miners at Minto and the other miners in this hard-pressed part of Canada by means of an amendment of this sort.
This would be a tragic mistake because it is a small enough help to these hard-pressed areas of Canada; but to try to divide one million tons of coal among all the great coal mining areas of Canada would defeat our purpose. The hon. member for Moose Mountain this afternoon mentioned that Saskatchewan had billions of tons of coal. It would mean just a few tons of coal to each area to help in the problem of making thermal power cheaper in the Atlantic provinces. I do not know what subventions would be required, but you would defeat the primary purpose of what we are doing in the Atlantic power development bill, namely to help the maritime region of Canada-in this particular case the Atlantic provinces-to raise their living standard to some degree. They can only be helped by (a) cheaper power for industry and (b) by subventions on coal and concentrating its benefits all in this one area of Canada. I think I have made the point sufficiently clear. I think the amendment was not put forward in a serious vein as a Canadian would think of proposing an improvement to the economy of Canada. This matter affects the province of Alberta not at all, it is such a small amount, but it is absolutely vital particularly to the province of Nova Scotia and, to a lesser degree, to the province of New Brunswick.


Jean Lesage: For once, Mr. Chairman, I agree completely with the principle enunciated by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I cannot believe that


the hon. member moved this amendment with any seriousness. Who could think of anything more uneconomic than for the federal government to pay a subvention for Alberta coal in order to land it at Sydney at the same price as that at which coal is landed at Toronto? I believe that is the answer.


An hon. Member:: Carrying coals to Newcastle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
has been already pointed out, Mr. Chairman, this is a new version of carrying coals to Newcastle. May I say a brief word on the reasons for the stand we shall take on this amendment if the hon. member is serious and if he brings it to a vote. Throughout the whole of this debate we have taken the position that this bill should be broadened to include all the provinces and to include all types of electric power projects. We have reached the point, however, where our requests in those two directions have been denied.
What we are now left with is a bill directed to helping the maritime or Atlantic provinces in connection with thermal projects. If it has reached the point where it is that kind of bill, it would certainly be contrary to its purpose if we were now to suggest that the coal to be used at Minto or at Sydney should be shipped from Estevan or Macleod, with a government subvention paid thereon. If we are going to deal now with a bill for the purpose of being of some assistance to the Atlantic provinces, both in terms of the development of power and in terms of assistance to the coal industry in the maritime provinces, I think we had better leave it at that, and perhaps the hon. member would not press his amendment. There are other ways in which he can seek assistance for the coal industry in western Canada and to which he would find us sympathetic.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to submit to you, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, that the amendment is not in order. The effect of the amendment would be to reduce a provision of the bill to meaninglessness. The definition in clause 2 (b) would be rendered meaningless by the amendment and I think a later provision in clause 3 of the bill would be meaningless. On that ground the amendment, in my submission, is out of order.
There is in addition another ground, that if the effect of the amendment is not that which I contend it is then inevitably the effect of the amendment would be to increase the charges on the crown. The definition in clause 2 (b) has reference to an expression that is to be found in a later clause, namely clause 3, subclause 2 (d) which

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
is the clause providing for subventions. It is perfectly clear that subventions for coal produced in the Atlantic provinces are one thing; subventions on coal produced in more distant provinces to be moved into the Atlantic provinces for consumption there present a different problem and obviously would be a much more costly matter. If the amendment has any meaning at all for the purposes of this bill, therefore, its effect is to increase the charges upon the crown and it is for that reason out of order when introduced by a private member.


Charles Edward Johnston: It seems to me that one of the main purposes which the member for Macleod had in moving his amendment was to do away with any discriminatory effect of the bill which might affect any province in Canada. The Minister of Finance was saying a moment ago that he did not think anything should be done which would permit a province in any other part of Canada to ship coal into the maritimes-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not advocating that at the moment. What I am saying is that if the minister really believes what he says and I am sure he does not-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say what you said I did.


Charles Edward Johnston: -because if he did he would not stand for legislation in this country such as is now on the statute books and which permits the very thing he is talking against. I say this because we have a subsidy in this country which does the very thing I mentioned and the subsidy I am speaking of is the preferential treatment which the railways are getting in shipping Ontario manufactured goods into other provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, a point of order has been raised with respect to this amendment. I have submitted to you, sir, that the amendment is not in order and, I submit, until that point of order is resolved it is not in order for my hon. friend to go on discussing what he considers to be the merits of the amendment. He is not discussing the point of order at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that you had disregarded the point of order and were willing to allow the discussion to go on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How absurd!


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):: Does the hon. member for Bow River wish to discuss anything further with respect to the amendment?


Charles Edward Johnston: I understood you to ask me previously, sir, if I was going to continue to talk on the amendment-I am not speaking on the point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I just say a brief word on the point of order. I do not think we need to take any time on it. I have already indicated that I do not agree with the amendment as to its substance, but I think the Minister of Finance is stretching a point in trying to say it is not in order. When he contends that if this amendment were passed it would be meaningless unless something else were done, all he is saying is that if this amendment were passed some other consequential amendment, would have to be dealt with later.
I think therefore, Mr. Chairman, you should allow the amendment and let the committee vote on it and get it over with.


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: I may speak on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the amendment would have any of the consequences stated by the Minister of Finance. If the word "Canada" is employed throughout the bill it will have a certain moral effect, shall we say, in that any Canadian coal could theoretically be used but as far as the subvention is concerned, from the understanding which I have, a subvention is something that is paid to bring Canadian coal into price competition with United States coal coming from south of the border. Obviously we do not include a subvention on Canadian coal coming from the west in competition with coal from the maritimes.
Therefore it seems to me that in both the amendment and in the point of order there would be no such effect on the government purse.


Charles Edward Rea: The
amendment as it is moved excludes the word "eastern" and also excludes the word "Atlantic". The chair feels that that would involve a financial commitment of the government and I therefore rule the amendment out of order.


Ernest George Hansell: I cannot of course come back to my amendment now because it does not exist, having been ruled out of order-


An hon. Member:: That was a mean thing to do.


Ernest George Hansell: -and after listening to the reply given to me by the minister I feel that I am meaner than I ever was before
3324	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development but not so mean that I feel like crawling out on my hands and knees and never being seen again.
The minister is not going to question my Canadianism; I am not so foolish as to want to take bread from the mouth of any person, no matter whether he lives in the extreme eastern part or the extreme western part of Canada. However, I represent a constituency that produces coal, a constituency where the coal miners are out of work and where the coal mining industry, having invested millions upon millions of dollars in past years, is now having to close up shop. Here is a bill which involves the use of coal and I am going to pull for the coal mining industry of my constituency if it is possible for me to do so.
I know it may sound a bit foolish for one or two members to jump up and say that to transport coal from Alberta to the maritimes is like taking coal to Newcastle and so on, but I would like to know something about the price of this coal. According to my information they are going to burn slack coal; according to my information there are certain parts of Alberta where they can produce slack coal from a strip mine at about 80 cents a ton.
I understand that the coal to be used in the maritimes is seven, eight or nine times that price. Now that is something to be considered when it comes to competition, and do not believe that I am not sincere in making this amendment. The only reason someone may have suggested I was not sincere is because he does not understand the coal mining industry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: did not say the member was not sincere; I said he could not be serious.


Ernest George Hansell: Serious; well I suppose there is a difference. I am serious, very serious, in presenting this amendment because I do know something of the coal mining industry. I have given it considerable study over the years and I have fought for that industry on the floor of this house for more than 20 years. Whether it has been the present government or their predecessors, they have never yet come up with a national coal policy. That is the thing we have been trying to get. Either the coal mining industry of the entire country has to be saved or it is going completely by the board and that is why I was interested in proposing this amendment. Believe me, I will go back to my constituency, do not think I am not serious-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You had better.


Ernest George Hansell: And they will welcome me back, too, and send me to Ottawa again.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Perhaps they will keep you there.


Ernest George Hansell: I will go back to my constituency and tell them that I put this amendment on the record. Surely I will. And I will let them judge as to whether or not I am serious and as to whether or not this is a plausible amendment. I will not say anything more on that point. Surely, however, the coal miners and the coal mine operators of this country are going to expect something different from the new government from what they got from the old one. The previous government gave the industry the run around year in and year out over the past 20 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you for the applause, but I am going on to say that it does not appear as if this government is going to act any differently and the coal mining industry will wake up to that fact very shortly.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Macleod a question. Residing as I do in Montreal, of course I do not have any coal mines in my constituency and I bow to the knowledge of the hon. member for Macleod with respect to the coal industry. May I ask him what would be the b.t.u. relative value in respect of the slack coal in Alberta and the slack coal in Cape Breton? How much does the hon. member know about what the transportation cost would be of a ton of slack coal from Alberta to, let us say, the pit head at Glace Bay?


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know that I can completely and accurately answer that technical point.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: You are a coal expert.


Ernest George Hansell: However, Mr. Chairman, I will say that as far as the b.t.u's are concerned I am given to understand that there is very little difference. I do not know how much, but there is a very little difference.


An hon. Member:: How many per pound?


Ernest George Hansell: When a coal mine bids for an order for coal all that sort of thing is gone into and when the purchasing agency buys coal it wants to know the test as to the b.t.u. All that is done in the negotiations but under this bill there is no possibility of any negotiations of that kind.


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: Mr. Chairman, it appears that figures are asked for and perhaps I can help a little. I do not think any one could be exact but the b.t.u. rating of the best bituminous coal is 14,000

per pound and the poor slack coal runs around 10,000. Sub-bituminous in some instances can be rated around over 12,000 but the coal to which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George referred would probably be nearer
10,000	and I would think that the Cape Breton slack coal would be well below 14,000 as well.


An hon. Member:: Thirteen thousand and fifty.


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: Mr. Chairman, it is an interesting fact that Alberta has another product, fuel oil, which has a b.t.u. rating of approximately twice that per pound of coal when the output factor is considered and in some instances if subventions were applied on it that fuel could be brought into account very actively. As a matter of fact, it is arriving on the Toronto market at a price very competitive with that of coal.
In the amendment today I do not believe there was the slightest intention of shipping coal from Alberta to the maritimes because there was another question asked relating to freight rates. I do not know what the freight rate would be to Montreal but the freight rate from Alberta to Toronto is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $11 per ton which certainly precludes getting it as far as New Brunswick. However, to add a few more figures to round out the picture I will mention some production figures.
It would seem that some hon. members do not understand what has happened to the coal industry of Alberta and why those who represent coal mining constituencies feel the matter is such an urgent one. The figures I am about to give may help illustrate the situation. The 1945 coal production in Nova Scotia was 5,112,615 tons and in 1956 it was 5,775,025 tons, an increase of over 600,000 tons. The 1945 coal production in New Brunswick was 361,184 tons and in 1956 it was 985,290 tons, almost a triple increase. The figures for a comparable period in Alberta are as follows. Coal production in 1945 was 7,800,151 tons and for 1956 it was 4,328,687 tons or almost a 50 per cent decrease. At the same time the over-all Canadian production for 1956 was 14,912,534 tons while imports from the United States into Canada-mainly into the Montreal area to which we were referring and to southern Ontario-were 22,613,374 tons or one and a half times the total coal production of Canada.
I do not believe for one moment that we are interested in stopping the maritimes going ahead and developing the coal industry there. However, we hope that hon. members from the maritimes will be thinking of the coal miners in Alberta if at some future date 96698-2111
Atlantic Provinces Power Development we find a way of using our coal. As hon. members know there has been a certain amount of subvention provided to us for the movement of coal into the export market for Japan. It would seem to me that very soon we may be asking for facilities to be provided at Vancouver for the loading of that coal and we hope we will receive the support and assistance of hon. members of this house when that time arrives.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Authority to enter into agreements.
Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if there is going to be a proviso in the agreement to the effect that if the current borrowing rate of the federal government goes below the rate of interest applicable at the time of the advances or the sale of the plants or transmission lines a corresponding decrease will benefit the province?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this is a technical point on the question of interest. My feeling at the moment, and I think it is an accurate one, is that the charges that will be made to a province for a particular project-the period of advance at the time we pay the amount to the date the province buys the project-cost will include the interest that we actually have to pay on the advances through the northern Canada power commission. Therefore the interest rate will vary as the interest rate varies to the northern Canada power commission. Have I made that clear?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I am not certain that the minister correctly understood my question. The term of reimbursement in the case of a thermal plant is 30 years and in the case of transmission lines 40 years. What I want to know is this: If during that term of reimbursement the current borrowing rate for the federal government goes below the borrowing rate in effect at the time the province or hydroelectric commission purchased the plant or transmission lines will the province benefit from the diminution of the current interest rate to the federal government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I understand this agreement, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how the provinces can benefit, because the amount that they are charged at the completion of the project is paid in 30 or 40 equal instalments, depending on whether it is a plant or a transmission line. Therefore, the capital charges, which will include all the administration cost, the engineering cost and the interest, are divided by 30 or 40, with the single exception that there is a pro
3328	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Atlantic Provinces Power Development rata arrangement for any partial year at the beginning of the agreement to get it started on a fiscal year. Therefore, I would think it would be a fair answer to say that in relation to any particular project it will have to be paid for at the rate at which we borrowed the money to make the advance to complete the project.


Jean Lesage: Yes, but the federal government seldom borrows money for 30 or 40 years, and it is quite possible that if the current borrowing rate during the period of 30 or 40 years goes below what it was at the time of the advance of the loan the federal government will be making a profit on the loan to the provinces.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, as I glance through the draft agreement I think I have described it accurately and the only thing I can say in relation to the unfairness to the provinces-


Jean Lesage: I did not say it was unfair.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Oh; I thought the hon. member did say that if there was a lower interest rate say 10 years from now we could come back-


Jean Lesage: I said the federal government would make a profit. I did not say it was unfair, because if there was an increase in the interest rate then the federal government would sustain a loss.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think the provinces will look at the question too seriously because whatever way the dice fall, then that party will have to suffer.


Jean Lesage: That is right. I want to make it clear.


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: Mr. Chairman, the minister said earlier that an integrated grid system is required throughout the maritimes for the proper development of power there. With this I fully agree. In fact, if the three maritime provinces were to combine with our new province of Newfoundland in a sound economic unit they might give the larger provinces of Quebec and Ontario with whom they have to compete quite a problem in the future in the development of the industrial potential of the various provinces. However, in the development of such a power project a lot of planning is necessary. We have been assured that considerable planning has been done because it seems that Mr. Harris proposed a scheme along much the same line in his last budget address. It would appear at the same time that this project comes under the authority of the Borden royal commission. As far as I am concerned, I say more power to the maritimes. It is
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
needed now; let them go ahead and develop it and let us not worry about the Borden commission.
At the same time, I think it is appropriate that we in our province should ask for assistance. As hon. members know, reference was made a moment or two ago to the fact that we are a wealthy province now and we do not need to worry about our coal industry. It can go to pot because we have gas and oil. However, as hon. members know, a very serious problem is developing in Alberta in both of these fields.
In the province of Alberta we have a conservation board which has been studying the gas question for a long time, and they have assured us that we can export gas and still have enough left to support our needs in Canada. In addition to that, a long time ago we had a pipe line debate in which gas was discussed at considerable length. The government has had at their disposal a very competent civil service, since they have come into power, to study the gas situation in which they were so interested at the time of the pipe line debate.


Arthur Smith: Mr. Chairman-


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: It
ties in with this project in the east. Every bit of gas which we either export to the United States or are able to bring down to the eastern market to replace United States coal improves the trading balance between ourselves and the United States.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I have been very lenient with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona in his wanderings. We are on clause 3 of the bill which has to do with authority to enter into agreements. I would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks more closely to the bill.


Ernest George Hansell: He is just introducing the subject; he is coming to it now.


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: certainly have not very far to go; it will only take a minute. This type of scheme requires money. The money comes from the taxpayers, and it can only come from a healthy industry. The corporations developing oil and subsidiary industries all pay income tax.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry; I must ask the hon. member not to continue if he is going to speak along that line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question regarding subclause 2 of subparagraph (a) of this clause? If I understood the minister when he spoke earlier in the debate, I thought

he made the point that the aim of this government was simply to assist provincial governments in those projects. I thought he made it clear that it was the provincial governments or their agencies that would build the plants with financial assistance from the federal government. I note, however, that this subclause suggests that the power projects will be constructed by Canada; in other words, constructed by the federal government and then transferred to the provinces. Did I misunderstand the minister when he spoke earlier? What is the situation? I will put my question in another form. Which agency does the actual constructing of the plants in question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, there will be co-operative construction of those plants and transmission lines. The procedure will be that the province in question and the government of Canada, represented by the northern Canada power commission, will agree on the design and then let the proposition out to tender and will agree on a consulting firm which represents both governments to supervise the building of this plant. Therefore, technically, I suppose, the plant is built by the government of Canada; but we are working in close co-operation with the government or the power commission of the province in question. Therefore, it is a co-operative building. Because we put up the money to pay the contractors it is considered that we, the federal government, are doing the building. When it is completed to the satisfaction of both we turn it over and they own it and operate it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the minister will have to square what he has now said with what he said earlier in the debate. I appreciate his attempt to make it clear that this is a co-operative arrangement and I have no doubt that it will be, but the legislation before us does not provide for the construction to be done on a co-operative basis; it provides for the construction to be done by the federal government. We suggested earlier that the other statute might have been used so that the northern Canada power commission might construct power plants in various parts of Canada and the minister complained that we were invading the provincial field. I suggest that the wording of this subclause envisages the very thing the minister did not like.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think there is any misunderstanding between the provinces and ourselves on this point. Technically we are building them but in practice, since the power commission in each of these
Atlantic Provinces Power Development provinces is going to operate these installations, it is to their interest to make sure that the plant is built well and that it suits their plans for future operation. We have no quarrel with them on that point at all. Technically we are building them ourselves but actually in practice we are building them in co-operation. I do not recall any statement I made earlier in the debate that would suggest anything other than what I have just said.


Jean Lesage: I draw the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to clause 3, subclause 2(b) and particularly to line 15 where we find the words "or provisions for advances by Canada to the province". That part of the clause was explained to me this afternoon by the minister, and I am sure the hon. member will realize that the construction or installation of the plants and transmission lines will not necessarily be made by Canada.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer specially to the word "Atlantic" in clause 3, subclause 1. Clause 2(d) defines "power project" in this way:
"Power project" means . . . facilities for the control and transmission of electric energy, the site of any such facilities, and land, water, rights to use water, buildings, works, machinery, installations, materials, transmission lines, furnishings, equipment, construction plant, stores, and supplies acquired, constructed or used or adapted for or in connection with any such facilities.
I am wondering now whether it is the purpose of the bill to restrict the application to the Atlantic provinces in order to stop the province of British Columbia from taking advantage of this legislation in the development of the Columbia river project.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the very outset it would be impossible for the province of British Columbia to make use of the legislation in any case; (a) because it is limited to the four provinces and (b) because it concerns subventions on coal for thermal projects in those provinces. I fail to see the implication of the hon. member's remarks. I was trying to catch up on the hon. member's reading of the section and did not quite follow what the hon. member said.


Frederick George Hahn: My thought is that the definition of power project may well include any development on a river because it includes transmission lines and so on which might well be those parts of a hydro development in which the government could assist the province of British Columbia in order to make it possible to obtain cheap power for the lower mainland of British Columbia. Clause 2, subclause (d), refers specifically to facilities for the control and transmission of electric
3328	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development energy, the site of any such facilities and so on. It could well be the land site of a dam. It refers to land, water, rights to use water, buildings, works, machinery, installations, materials, transmission lines and so on.
Having regard to the specific use of the word "Atlantic" in clause 3, subclause 1, and the fact that the bill refers only to the Atlantic provinces, I suggest that if it included all Canada it would make it possible for the province of British Columbia to apply for assistance in the development of the Columbia project and perhaps get someone else to build the dam. Anything else could well come under the legislation. However, because it mentions the Atlantic provinces specifically and prevents an application from any other province, I am wondering whether that is the purpose behind the bill. I am wondering whether the government does not recognize the earlier commitment by the former government that they would assist in the development of the Columbia river project much along the lines envisaged in this legislation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can assure the hon. member that there is no such thought in my mind or the mind of any other member of the government. I was going to read the appropriate passage from the speech from the throne but the hon. member knows the part I have in mind.


Jean Lesage: Yes, but you have done nothing about that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think that is the answer.


Jean Lesage: The government has done nothing about that.


Frederick George Hahn: If that is the answer may I ask the minister now whether, before the house adjourns, we can expect that similar legislation will be brought down to assist the province of British Columbia in the development of the Columbia river project?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask a question in relation to the question just asked. Do I understand that the hon. member for New Westminster is suggesting that when we come to the development of the Columbia river power project the only help we can expect from the federal government is assistance in the construction of transmission lines?


Frederick George Hahn: I realize full well that it is not part of this particular bill but I am well prepared to answer the hon. gentleman in these terms, that if and when the federal government is prepared to assist in all these other factors we can certainly find a private


enterprise that will go ahead and build the dam or, on the other hand, I am quite sure the provincial government can do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, this is the operative section of this particular measure and, of course, it covers practically all of what can be done under the bill when it becomes legislation. During the days that the matter has been before the house I have listened to most of the discussion and on certain occasions was tempted to say a word or two. I do not like to see the measure go through without having expressed a point of view which I think is important.
It has been pointed out by the hon. member who just took his seat that the development of power on the Columbia river is most important not only to the people of British Columbia but of all Canada. The development of power on the St. Lawrence river was also of great importance not only to the people of Quebec and Ontario but to the people of Canada. The development of power in the maritime provinces is most important to the people of those provinces and also important to the people of all Canada.
In the remarks that have been made from both sides of the house with regard to the consideration that has been given to these problems and their solution I think too little attention has been paid to the fact that they are all interlinked and one of them could not be fully decided without giving consideration to the others. It was said very forcefully this afternoon by one of the ministers who comes from the maritimes that the South Saskatchewan river project and everything associated with it is more akin to the needs of the maritimes than perhaps the needs of any other province in Canada, and I agree with that. But I think there is one thing that has not been given sufficient attention and that is the fact that none of these things could have been proceeded with at certain stages. For example, we discussed the St. Lawrence waterway project for 50 years before we got down to doing it.
Every government during those years was interested in this project and gave consideration to it. However, there were certain problems to be settled in so far as the development of our own resources were concerned. When the vast iron ore deposits were found on the borders of Labrador and Quebec, this discovery made it most necessary that the St. Lawrence river development should take place, necessary not only to the people of Canada but to the great steel plants of the United States that were running out of supplies of iron ore with which to develop those industries.

It became necessary, therefore, to get the iron ore moved from the northern areas over the cheapest route possible to the United States side of the border. There was agreement reached, therefore, as between the two countries that something should be done. Now when it was determined to do that something, it was decided very early that the federal government would have nothing to do with the development of power in relation to this project. This problem, it was decided, should be left to the state of New York, the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. Having reached that decision, this whole question of the development of power at other places in Canada was tied up. The dominion government had announced their policy that they would not proceed with the development of power on the St. Lawrence. As a result of this decision the dominion government would not proceed with the development of power in any of the other provinces.
This was the policy for a certain' period of time, and then these projects developed on the Columbia river and they also became a matter of consideration as between British Columbia and the United States government. Eventually the government of Canada took an interest in the problem. The same thing happened in the maritime provinces, where there was a possibility of power development on the Saint John river which has its source on the United States side of the border. We got into certain discussions there. The decision was actively taken that under no circumstances would we spend money on the development of power on the South Saskatchewan river project while these other things were still resting in the balance. All of these projects were linked together. Within the last 24 months it became possible to discuss power development in the maritime provinces because we were approaching the time when the development on the St. Lawrence river would be completed. It became possible as well to hold discussions with regard to the development of power on the Columbia river. It was felt, therefore, that we should give some consideration to these matters, and in the meantime rest on our oars in so far as the South Saskatchewan river project was concerned. We did that.
Within the last 12 months there was developed a plan under which power was going to be developed in the maritime provinces. A plan had not been decided upon in British Columbia, but that was under very full discussion. It was fully understood that the same principles which would be applied to the development of water, whether it was the storage of water or the development of power upon rivers, in the maritimes and in British Columbia would eventually be applied
Atlantic Provinces Power Development to the prairies. Right in the midst of the consideration of that question the government of Saskatchewan decided they were going to develop their power through the use of coal. They utilized a water development project at Estevan that had been entirely developed up to that point by P.F.R.A. under the federal Department of Agriculture. In so far as the engineering was concerned, this whole development had been laid out by the department, but the chief of the power commission of Saskatchewan thought that power could be developed in very much the same manner as they are suggesting power be developed in the maritime provinces, and he decided they could utilize the coal at Estevan.
When we talk about coal it is sometimes forgotten that there are 50 billion tons of coal in the southern part of Saskatchewan. The coal in the maritime provinces is of a higher quality, as is the coal in Alberta, but the quantity in the southern part of Saskatchewan bears comparison with the quantity elsewhere. There are 50 billion tons of it there. They are taking this cheap lignite coal out in the Estevan area and utilizing a water development project for cooling purposes. The two things together cost between $40 million and $60 million. This was a provincial undertaking. It is only natural when we go into the maritime provinces, whose problems the minister says are comparable to the problems of Saskatchewan, and give assistance in the development of power there that we are under an obligation to apply the same principles in Saskatchewan. I am going to say, in spite of the fact we think the Saskatchewan-


Mr. Kucherepa:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With deference to the right hon. gentleman, I direct your attention to rule 59(2) which says that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. Since we are not in the resolution stage at this time but are considering clause 3 of the bill, I think the hon. gentleman has gone far afield from the clause under consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, this clause 3 contains the whole operative portion of the bill. Clause 2 simply gives definitions or interpretations, and clause 3 contains the whole substance of the bill.
The next clause only withdraws some other legislation that will have to be dealt with as a result of the passage of this bill, so the whole substance of the measure is contained in clause 3.
As I was pointing out to the committee, Mr. Chairman, the situation is that you have

Atlantic Provinces Power Development projects being brought forward by provinces in Canada where the necessity for power development is just as great as it is anywhere in Canada, and where the needs of the people are just as great as they are anywhere else. Some of these provinces are proceeding with these projects themselves, without any assistance from the federal government. The province of Saskatchewan indicated to the government of Canada-if they have not done so since we went out they did so before we went out-when we made this proposition to the maritime provinces that we were under obligation to, apply the same principles to Saskatchewan. I would say, too-


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There was a point of order raised a few moments ago, and in support of that point of order I wish to point out that the amendment submitted on this point was ruled out of order by a former chairman.


Jean Lesage: Speaking to the point of order, I would say that the hon. member for Melville is certainly in order because he could end his remarks by moving an amendment to clause 3 that the word "Atlantic" in the fourth line of the clause be deleted. Then, this clause would apply to all the provinces.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Thus endeth the second lesson.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not very much more to say.


An hon. Member:: You have not said anything yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says that I have not said anything yet.


Henri Courtemanche: Order. I believe the hon. member should refrain from discussing matters which are not relevant to this clause. He could discuss those matters on clause 1 or on second reading, but not when we are considering a particular clause. I would ask the hon. member to direct his remarks to the item in front of him.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall keep my remarks strictly relevant to the relationship between this construction which is going on and one other construction which is taking place in another province in Canada. I am not going beyond that. The fact is that the principles behind the two are the same. In the one case the federal government is giving assistance, so I think they should give assistance in the other.
If they do, it will change the whole picture in connection with the South Saskatchewan river project. It will change it in this way. If the federal government is responsible for

power-there is always the possibility of changing policy in relation to matters of that kind to meet the situation which arises-and if they are in favour of federal development of power within one province, there is no reason in the world why the people of Saskatchewan should pay for the power development in connection with the South Saskatchewan river unless it is done on a basis similar to that which is applied to the development of power elsewhere.
Those are the things I wanted to say, and I have said them. I also want to say that I am in favour of the development of power in the maritime provinces and to repeat what has been said previously, namely that the whole policy laid out in connection with it was on the record before the last government went out of power. I congratulate our people here on at last getting around to doing what we had intended to do.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Jean Lesage: Next sitting.


Hazen Robert Argue: Next sitting.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hark-ness for the second reading of Bill No. 237, to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McCullough.
Mr. J. W. Baskin (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I had just about completed my remarks on this important bill when we arrived at the hour of ten o'clock on the evening of December 20. I should like to take a few moments at this time to remind hon. members of what I was saying on the evening of December 20. I mentioned that I was very much in support of this bill and that it provides a sound and flexible price support program for our farmers across Canada. I mentioned further that I thought it would give much-needed stability to the livestock and dairy production industry, also to fruits and vegetables and other basic products of our agricultural economy. I mentioned further that while I was supporting this bill 100 per cent, I also wanted to see consideration given in the future to the many farmers

-more so in Ontario and Quebec and the maritimes-who annually depend on a reasonable sale price for their agricultural crop of pulpwood.
Mr. Speaker, you asked me if pulpwood came under this bill. I said, "Yes, it does".


Mr. Speaker:: I recall that I raised the question when the hon. member was speaking previously. I assume that he brings pulpwood under agricultural products and I am not disposed to dispute that interpretation with him.


James William Baskin: It is not mentioned in the
named commodities in clause 2, subsection (1) (a) (i) which reads as follows:
2.	In this Act,
(a) "agricultural commodity" means
(i) any of the following commodities produced in Canada, namely, cattle, hogs and sheep; butter, cheese and eggs; and wheat, oats and barley not produced in the designated area as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act; hereinafter called "named commodity";
I submit that pulpwood will be included among the items covered in paragraph (ii) which reads as follows:
(ii) any other natural or processed product of agriculture designated by the governor in council as an agricultural commodity for the purposes of this act, hereinafter called "designated commodity";
The dominion bureau of statistics consider pulpwood to be a product of agriculture. I have here the Canada Year Book, 1956. At page 419, under the heading of "Agriculture" and the subheading "Cash income from the sale of farm products by source 1952-54", you will find the item "Forest products sold off farms". The Ontario department of lands and forests had something to say in one of my local papers, namely the Renfrew Advance of January 9, 1958, and I should like to put this on the record. The article is headed "Farm woodlots valuable resource" and reads as follows:
The familiar ring of the axe and whine of the power saw are sounds that can be heard these days in many of the farm woodlots throughout the district. These sounds tell us that once again farmers are busy harvesting their sylvan crops of sawlogs, pulpwood, poles, ties or fuelwood.
For many farmers this winter activity has become an established part of the farming enterprise and winter does not seem complete unless some cutting is done. Good woodlots that are well stocked with high quality trees give the farmer the opportunity to put his time and effort to good use during the winter months. They also provide the means of supplementing the farm income through the sale of material harvested from these areas.
Well managed woodlots have proven value to the individual farmer, to the community and to industry. They have a steadying effect on the economy of an agricultural community and represent a continuous and reliable source of raw material for our various wood-using industries.
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization
If our woodlots are to yield their crops of valuable material year after year, farmers must understand and apply some of the elementary principles of woodlot management.
There is an increasing interest and activity in the preservation and management of woodlots throughout Ontario.-Ontario Department Lands and Forests.
I mentioned previously that farmers, on whose behalf I speak, have supplied from their bush lots during the past year over 2 million cords of pulpwood at ridiculously low prices to the pulp industry. I want to repeat to our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) that a thorough investigation should be made by the Department of Agriculture to ascertain why our farmers should be forced to sell this valuable soil production at sometimes less than half the price that companies pay for wood coming from their own limits.
Many farm areas in Canada have, in the past quarter century, become depressed while at the same time there have been the so-called broad areas that have expanded. The marginal farmer, on whose behalf I speak, has heard nothing about this expansion, and I know that this bill is going to prove mighty good news to him.
On many of the farms in the riding that I represent the windows have been boarded up in recent years, and the people have been driven from their homes by the policies of the late government. Certainly the farmer was the forgotten man for many years. The party that I have the honour to represent appreciates the fact that the farmer is entitled to a fair return on his labour and investment. We also understand that the farmer is entitled to fair prices for his products, keeping in mind that he has had to pay more and more for the machinery and goods required to operate his farm. Rising labour costs have also proved to be a great problem to the farmer. In 1951 there were 3,575 occupied farms in two constituencies in Renfrew county. In 1956 this number had dropped to 3,200. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in 1951 there were 24,638 operating farms in eastern Ontario; in 1956 there were 22,798. In other words, 1,840 farmers were forced out of business in five years.
The estimated farm income in the year 1951 was $786,805,000 compared to $749,293, 000 in 1956, a drop of $37,512,000; eastern Ontario farm income in 1951 was $105 million and by 1956 it had dropped to $94 million.
The production of cheddar cheese in eastern Ontario in 1956 was 35,243,922 pounds and in 1946 it was 51,361,086 pounds. In the county of Renfrew the cheddar cheese output fell from 417,691 pounds in 1946 to 136,990 pounds in 1956. So, in Renfrew South and in other constituencies
3332	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization across Canada the main problem is the increase in cost of production faced by the farmer; the things the farmer has to buy and the increasing demands of modern living.
Farm costs for education continue to be burdensome. Drainage continues to be a problem in many eastern Ontario farming areas, and so, Mr. Speaker although I am a member representing a constituency in eastern Ontario I want to say that I am interested in this bill as it affects farmers from coast to coast. Our government does not intend to see farmers remain the forgotten men in Canada and that is why I take great pleasure in supporting this bill.


Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) has brought in a reprint of Bill No. 237 and I wish to suggest the following draft as the only language which adequately describes the intent of the government in this so-called price support bill:
I suggest the number of the bill should be "Oh Oh". It should be entitled "An Act Not Respecting Certain Election Promises" and its short title should be cited as "The Harkness Howler".
Clause 1: Any resemblance between this act and parity prices is too ridiculous for further comment.
Clause 2: The minister may, if he likes, place price supports under such agricultural products as:	mushrooms-in seasonavocados; jelly beans; tamales-hot and sweet-red	peppers-properly screenedand unfermented cactus juice.
Clause 3: The level of price supports shall be 80 per cent of 80 per cent of the poorest 10-year average price during the most depressed market period which the minister can dream up.
Clause 4: It shall be unlawful for anyone to read, quote, refer to or remind the Prime Minister of his numerous and colourful references to parity prices in previous sessions.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that we do not discuss clauses of the bill on second reading. I take it he is dealing with the principle of the bill.


An hon. Member:: He is referring to the lack of principle.


Louis Harrington Lewry: There is no principle in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe it is in order for a member to refer to clauses without discussing or itemizing them seriatim.


Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Speaker, there is just one more clause to which I would like to refer and that is No. 5.
Clause 5: This act shall come into effect only in the event of a general election being upon us and shall cease and expire as soon as the last ballot box has been emptied.
Ordered and decreed by the Hon. Douglas Harkness, N.P. standing for "no parity".
This bill to be known as the bill most likely to move more farmers off the farms in the shortest time in Canadian history. Mr. Speaker may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has a few minutes left at his disposal.


Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Speaker, I have just
returned from my home constituency and in the city council of the city of Moose Jaw in which I had the honour to serve for some years I noted that the council has passed a resolution in view of the bill which has been before us on one or two occasions, namely Bill No. 237. I would like to present to this house the articles as contained in the resolutions passed by the Moose Jaw city council as follows:
That in view of the continued drop in farm cash income in Saskatchewan in the years 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957, and continued upward trends in prices the farmer must pay for living and production costs,
Therefore be it resolved that, in an endeavour to solve the cost-price squeeze, this conference go on record as recommending deficiency payments be paid from the treasury of Canada on wheat, oats and barley delivered to the Canadian wheat board; payments to be based on at least 20 cents a bushel for wheat and an appropriate amount on oats and barley delivered in the crop year 1955-1956, the end of which marketing period was May, 1957;
And further, realizing the big drop in prairie income has been in the above grains, the deficiency payments apply also to the 1956-57 deliveries when that market period ends.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, that has absolutely nothing to do with this bill and I would request that the hon. member be required to stay within the provisions of the bill. Wheat, oats and barley in the wheat board area are not within the provisions of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I had my doubts as to whether deficiency payments were the subject matter of this bill and the hon. member raised the question of whether wheat, oats and barley are covered by the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take it from having read the bill and from the minister's own statement that

it is possible under this legislation to support the prices of any agricultural commodity. It is true that wheat, oats and barley on the prairies are not on the list of commodities on which mandatory support must be effective but it is within the power of the government, and the minister can say if I am wrong, to support any commodity whatsoever under this bill. I suggest on that basis that the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Lewry) is entirely in order.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the passing of this bill will repeal the Agricultural Prices Support Act and at the present time the Agricultural Prices Support Act does cover oats and barley. It therefore must be in order, surely to discuss the question of payments on oats and barley.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall take the question under consideration over the adjournment.


Jean Lesage: I believe the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre moved adjournment of the debate, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: It is unnecessary to move adjournment as the house rises automatically
Business of the House
without question put at ten o'clock. The hon. member has the floor when this matter is called again.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Jean Lesage: May I ask the house leader if there has been any change in the business for tomorrow from what he has announced last night?


Howard Charles Green: I understand this bill with respect to Atlantic power did not get third reading tonight. That would be first therefore and then the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, followed by those of the Department of National Revenue, with the C.B.C. items coming first. On Friday we will continue with the debate on the bill to provide for stabilization of agricultural prices.


Jean Lesage: Will it be Friday and
Saturday?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Friday and Saturday and if we have to go into estimates I cannot say at the moment which estimates it will be. It depends on what happens tomorrow.


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