1958-01-09

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
the Prime Minister how soon the government expects to introduce the bill to provide for the special grants to the Atlantic provinces, which he announced as part of the business of this session?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: At the earliest possible date. As
a matter of fact, if progress is made with that expedition we hope to see with regard to the current measures, it will be introduced just as soon as the estimates covering the departments that have been called have received the attention of the house, and one or two other matters that have to be dealt with have received the acceptance of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary
question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended to have these grants made available for the present fiscal year, or whether they will only be available for the fiscal year 1958-59? This is a matter that is, of course, of the greatest possible interest to all provincial treasurers.


John George Diefenbaker: When the legislation is
introduced the terms will be revealed.



REPORTED PURCHASE OF 1,500,000 BUSHELS BY AUSTRALIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I ask it in view of the uncertainty he expressed with regard to possible sales of wheat to Australia. I have in my hand the Australian Daily News, an official publication of the Australian government in North America, dated December 13, in which this official statement was made:
Minister for trade John McEwen said today Australia would import 1,500,000 bushels (60 lb. per bushel) of high-protein Canadian wheat for making certain types of bread in Sydney.
He also added:
If it became necessary, more Canadian wheat would be imported-
In view of that official statement of December 13, and the fact that there has been so much confusion on the part of the minister and in other quarters of the house, I wonder whether he has seen this statement before.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I do not think there is any confusion on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to this matter. The confusion has existed in the minds of my hon. friends.


Major James William Coldwell: First of all the minister said he had not heard of such a suggestion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not recall having made such a statement whatsoever. I said I was fully aware of the situation in Australia with regard to their crop failure and the necessity they might have to import wheat if they wished to maintain their export markets. I also stated that there was no actual shortage of wheat in Australia to sustain their own population.
That would be borne out by the figures which you would find in the Wheat Review. I have the November issue in front of me, and the Australian supply position, as mentioned on page 29, indicates that they had total estimated supplies of 218 million bushels, with total exports of wheat and wheat flour of 92.6 million bushels, leaving a balance on November 3 for export and for carryover of 49.1 million bushels, a sufficient amount of wheat to sustain their population.
The problem facing Australia is to maintain its export position. As I understand the situation, they consider it perhaps advisable to import some Canadian wheat so they could export their Australian wheat to countries with which they have been dealing over the years. On the point as to whether or not it is essential for us to press upon the Australians the fact that we have wheat available for export, may I say that I pointed out yesterday that Australia has been in the wheat business for many years and is one of the four leading exporters of wheat, and that the Australian people in the wheat business are just as familiar with our situation as we are with theirs, because they get constant reports on the availability of supplies. We are prepared to do business with Australia; and the wheat board, I presume,

Inquiries of the Ministry has been in constant consultation with Australian officials. I do not see the difficulty which arises in the mind of my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Does he not think in view of this statement that it would have been wise for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to have followed this up, or is he reverting to the policy of a former minister who said it was not the business of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to sell wheat?
I refer, of course, to Mr. Malcolm.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have been spending a great deal of my time on the problem of how to advance the sale of Canadian wheat, and we are having considerable success in doing so. I am very much interested in the prospect for the sale of wheat to Australia, but I am naturally dependent upon information I receive from the wheat board. The wheat board meets daily, as my hon. friend knows, to consider possible sales, and they are not overlooking any opportunity to make sales of Canadian wheat.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the decision of the government of the United States to curtail to the extent of 15 per cent its imports of oil from Canada, and in view of the story contained in this morning's Globe and Mail about possible action with regard to lead and zinc, if he is in a position to say whether or not the story of last Friday, that he proposed to take steps this week to see the President of the United States, is true. Is he in a position to tell us what additional protests the government of Canada is making?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to comment on any newspaper story that I have not read or seen. I can simply say this, that we intend to place this question before the United States administration very definitely and very clearly, and we have already taken steps in that direction, pointing out that in the interest of our common defence, if nothing else, action such as this should be carefully considered with all its implications.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the assurance given by the Minister of Finance last Friday or Saturday, I forget which day, has a formal note of protest been sent as yet by the government?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer that question. I do not think the hon. gentleman was in the house yesterday when the same question was asked and answered by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry, but I was not here. Was the answer no?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer was that the note was in course of preparation and will be presented as soon as it is completed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister, who I presume is Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, if, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance indicated a few moments ago that the note protesting the action taken by the United States with regard to the curtailment of oil imports had not yet been sent, and in view of the fact that that question was put to the Minister of Finance a week ago tomorrow, does the Prime Minister not think somebody has been dilatory somewhere in taking more than a week to draft a formal protest expressing the views of the people in this case?


Mr. Green:: I thought you were leaving external affairs to the hon. member for Algoma East.


John George Diefenbaker: Having regard to some recent events, Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend has a high regard for epistles, Paul's latest epistle. I also recall that on a number of occasions when my hon. friend was a member of the government-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do so in order to suggest to Your Honour that the Prime Minister relate what he is now saying to the question before the house.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Instead of giving a frivolous reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Contempt of parliament.


Mr. Sinclair:: It is not St. Paul but St. John the Baptist preaching.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently I have aroused my hon. friends. Apparently they have guilty consciences.


James Sinclair: We like our sermons on
Sunday.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the house allow the
Prime Minister to give his answer? I think the house will appreciate that, in view of the character of the question, perhaps what the Prime Minister is saying is related to it.


John George Diefenbaker: I was simply pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that in the past there have been delays. In this case, however, there has been no delay because representations have been made personally and directly, and they are continuing. The formal note of protest will go ahead-if it has not already gone-to Washington at the earliest possible moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I noted the very helpful observations made by my hon. friend the Prime Minister. He has said that protests have already gone; that is true. But my question was this. In view of the statement of the Minister of Finance that a note would be sent, and in view of the fact that that statement was made last Friday, will the Prime Minister explain why there has been this long delay in preparing this formal note with regard to a matter of this great importance?


John George Diefenbaker: There has been no delay, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, as I was trying to point out, on the basis of past experience with the government to which the hon. gentleman belonged, six weeks to two months' delay took place. But nothing like that is going to take place under this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We obtained some results from our protests.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I am sorry that I was not able to give him notice of it but I am sure that either of his two colleagues the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Trade and Commerce could assist him in answering. The question is with respect to the proposal of the United States government, or rather the tariff commission, that there should be an increase in the tariff on lead and zinc coming into the United States.
Does the minister feel that the speed-up of the defence program in the United States may have any effect on the thinking of congress or on the thinking of the President with regard to this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it keeps me very busy trying to judge the mind of the Canadian House of Commons without undertaking to judge the mind of the United States congress.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: May I ask a supplementary question? I wonder, then, if the minister has anything to report whatsoever with respect to the negotiations in this matter and how we are progressing in our representations?
96698-193j
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is nothing further to report, Mr. Speaker. I have kept the house fully informed on this subject, I think, ever since the session opened on October 14. The views of the Canadian government have been put before the United States administration in a way they fully understand. There is no question about their understanding the Canadian point of view with regard to this matter.



REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF HON. MEMBER FOR CALGARY SOUTH ON TELEVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I regret that I have not given him notice of this question, but it is a very simple one. Last night on a television program, in commenting on the recent 15 per cent reduction in imports of crude oil by the United States, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) is understood to have said that the United States had little or no regard for international co-operation. I would like to ask the minister whether the hon. member was expressing the views of the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member does not need to worry about whether or not I am given notice of questions, because I have not received much notice of questions that are asked of me here. I saw the excellent television performance of my hon. friend last night and I thought he gave a very creditable performance. He is an example of the type of young Conservative who will be carrying on the government of this country for a great many years.
He was not expressing any policy on the part of the government, but was reflecting in his remarks a great many criticisms that are being directed at the administration in the United States by United States citizens, as hon. members will see by reading Barron's Weekly and the last edition of the New York Times.



ALLEGED DUMPING OF SUPPLIES FROM VENEZUELA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roselown-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which he took notice yesterday. My question had to do with the dumping of oil from Venezuela, and he said that he would give an answer later.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I took notice of the question and I have passed it over to the proper department, which is the Department of National Revenue.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MISSION TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister bring the house up to date on the progress of the trade expedition to China, and indicate whether we are likely to sell any wheat to China in 1958?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there was no trade expedition to China-


Mr. Marler:: Flower gathering.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unofficial visit.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -in the ordinary meaning of "expedition". Our trade commissioner from Hong Kong visited China and did report that there might be some opportunity to sell a certain amount of wheat in that country, but nothing has been brought to my attention in that regard during the last few days.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister expect that we will be able to sell wheat to China prior to recognizing the fact that the government of China is on the mainland rather than in Formosa?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If wheat is sold to China the sales will be arranged through Chinese importers who will make contact with business firms in this country that are in the business of selling wheat.


Major James William Coldwell: Under the kind of economy they have there, are the importers not the government of China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think perhaps that is correct, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend may have more knowledge of the fact than I have, but my understanding is that the government of China operates through state-controlled agencies.


Major James William Coldwell: The only knowledge I have is the general knowledge, which is universal throughout the world, I think, at least knowledge by intelligent people.


Mr. Pearson:: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister feel that the Chinese communist government should expiate its crimes before we can do business with it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am called upon to answer that question.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: May I ask the
Prime Minister a question. What is his reply to the question put-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



UNITED STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the speeches that have been made by him, which have been well received in this country and in the United States, protesting about their wheat giveaway program interfering with our markets, and also in view of similar speeches of the Minister of Finance, and in view of the United States proposal to increase by 50 per cent the appropriation to take care of their farm surpluses and their give-away program, is it correct to say that the policies of the government have been properly stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who said he does not think any action is necessary on our part, or that the United States surplus program is likely to interfere with the sale of wheat to our cash customers? Are we no longer concerned with the interference with the selling of wheat on shortterm credit programs or anything like that? Is it the attitude of the government that we are no longer concerned about this matter in which the United States propose to increase their appropriation by 50 per cent?
Right Hen. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minisier): Mr. Speaker, if you can tell where the question began and the observations ended, I cannot.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may think he can shut me off in that way, but the country is interested in knowing whether it is the policy of the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to put the question that he wishes answered I shall give him the floor again.


Walter Adam Tucker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we are no longer concerned about this surplus food disposal giveaway program represents the policy of the government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation placed upon the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs being baseless, there is no question to be answered.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Adam Tucker: I was stating it in his words.	IMMIGRATION
Is the Prime Minister aware that on January
7, 1958, the minister for external affairs alfonze bardos-reported refusal to said:	grant citizenship
We are aware of the proposed action on the part of the United States. I do not think any action on our part is necessary.
Those words are found on page 2942 of Hansard of that date.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this is not the type of question which is ordinarily provided for by the rules. Hon. members presumably are aware of what is in Hansard and what has been said. If the hon. member has a question to direct to the Prime Minister I shall hear him, but not if it is that sort of question.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated that I was putting some interpretation on what the minister for external affairs said, and I wanted to point out to him-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter Adam Tucker: -what the Secretary of State for External Affairs had said and ask him if that represents the policy of the government. Surely the Prime Minister can give an answer to that simple question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, made by a minister of the government, naturally represents the views of the minister and the government, but the interpretation placed upon the words used by the minister bears little or no relationship to the misinterpretation of the hon. member for Rosthern.


Walter Adam Tucker: If it is of concern to the government, what action is the government taking on the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does not think this is the proper place to enter into a debate as to what these words mean. He has asked his question twice and he has been answered twice. I think the matter ought to be dropped there.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I ask a supplementary question. If I have misinterpreted this, what action is the government taking on this matter about which I understand they are concerned?


Mr. Fraser:: You made a misstatement at the outset.


George Carlyle Marler: No action and no answer.


Mr. Lesage:: No information; closure.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Fulton) and in his absence perhaps his parliamentary assistant would take it as notice on his behalf.
Has the minister's attention been drawn to a letter in this morning's Globe and Mail entitled "In Search of Citizenship". It is signed by a Mr. Alfonze Bardos who maintains that he has lived for 25 of his 29 years in Canada, and continuously since 1951. Twice he has applied for citizenship and he says twice he has been denied without explanation, even though he has met personally with the acting minister.
I would like to ask if the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would explain the situation, and why there has been a denial of citizenship in this case.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: In the absence of the acting minister I will take the question as notice and will bring it to his attention.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, and I am sorry I did not give him notice. If he would like to take this as notice and answer tomorrow that will be all right.
I do not want my question to be misunderstood. I am sure we are all pleased to know that the government is not permitting the increase in freight rates until the case of the provinces is heard. My question is, owing to the possible action of the railways in taking the matter to the courts, would the Prime Minister care to state what in his opinion are now the relative positions of his government, the provinces, the railways and the board of transport commissioners?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, under the law there are available, as I understand it, two courses. There can be an application to the governor in council on the part of the interested parties -and I refer of course to the provinces or to the railway companies-and that course provides for consideration on the part of the governor in council.
3056	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
The other course is an appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no inconsistency in the position; there is no way the governor in council could anticipate what the railway companies might do.
The railway companies have given notice that they intend to apply for leave to appeal to a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. The action taken by the government was that of suspension of the decision to increase the freight rates by approximately 4 per cent- 3.6 per cent to be exact. The railway companies not only intend to uphold the 3.6 per cent but will apparently contend that 10 per cent, as asked for, should have been granted.
I am not going to place myself in the position of giving legal advice; naturally that would be improper. But I see no inconsistency in the position, nor any beclouding of the issues, for both situations are provided for in the statutes.



STATEMENT ON PROGRESS OF FREIGHT EQUALIZATION INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me the following questions:
Could the minister inform the house as to when the board may be able to make another progress report representing another step forward? Second, is he able to ascertain what the board's target date is for completion of this very important inquiry?
Mr. Speaker, the board's program in the equalization of freight rates is such that it considers that another progress report could usefully be made before December, 1959, the board's target date for completion of its program of equalization. However, equalization of commodity rates, which are now being investigated, is subject to a variety of complicating factors, for many or most of them were established because of circumstances peculiar to each commodity and the territory in which they apply.
Hearings on due notice are also necessary in various cases in Canada in order to give affected parties an opportunity to be heard for, as was stated by the royal commission on transportation in 1951, many serious problems are involved; for example, the effects that equalization may have on railway revenues, on established industries, and on trade and market patterns, all of which are matters of the utmost importance.
The board can devote only a portion of its time to equalization, for its duty requires that it attend to a heavy volume of applications and complaints respecting matters other


than equalization. Factors beyond the control of the board may also make it impossible for the board to complete its program by the target date.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his statement on the progress of the equalization of freight rates. I wonder if the minister might not consider whether it would be advisable for the board to give a higher order of priority to hearings on the equalization of freight rates rather than apparently placing that matter at the bottom of the list of hearings of all sorts of applications such as applications to close railway stations, to change the schedules of passenger train runs, and so on.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, from the correspondence I have had dealing with that subject I have observed that the people applying to the board and everyone who does business with the board seem to feel that their particular matter has equal importance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister does not feel that for the Canadian nation the question of the equalization of freight rates should be given priority.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think it is being given very high priority, but it cannot completely occupy the time of the board. They are giving it a very great deal of time.


Hazen Robert Argue: And have been for six years.


George Harris Hees: And it seems they will be for another two years.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Minister of Transport could tell us whether, prior to the railway association making any application for an increase in freight rates, the president of the Canadian National has consultations with the minister.


George Harris Hees: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines stock has gone up over four points in the last two days, and that this has been attributed in the press to rumours that the company will receive permission to export gas to the United States?
Is the government making any announcement of policy in connection with this matter

in the course of the next few days? May I ask also whether in view of the huge private profits still being made out of this publicly financed project, consideration is being given to placing the line under public ownership?


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the latter part of the question is concerned, the answer is no. With regard to the earlier part of the question, any rumours which may have been circulating and which have brought about, according to the hon. gentleman, a rise in the stock-and I have no knowledge of that-are entirely without basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask a supplementary question with regard to the Prime Minister's answer to the latter part of my question. Is he forgetting the stand that he and his party took when they were on this side of the house with regard to this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman participated in a debate with regard to this matter over a month ago. I suggest, therefore, that he look back and read what took place at that time.


An hon. Member:: Anyway, he is consistent.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me the following question:
Has the minister ascertained whether it is correct that the DC-8's being built for Trans-Canada Air Lines are being built in such a way that there will not be room in the cockpit for a flight engineer? If this is the case will he consider having this change in construction delayed until a decision has been made on the issue itself?
Mr. Speaker, there will be room in the cockpits of the DC-8's being built for Trans-Canada Air Lines for a third crew member, and ample time remains to give consideration to whether a third member should in fact be carried before the aircraft are put into service.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska asked me the following question:
Inquiries of the Ministry
Has the Minister of Transport received a request from the city of Drummondville for a grant to improve the airport? If so. is the minister in a position to give a favourable answer to this request, which I strongly support and which is anxiously desired by the entire population of Drummondville?
Mr. Speaker, I have now received that communication and the matter is under serious consideration by the officials of my department.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. When did the minister receive the representation from Drummondville?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it was received after I returned to my office following the completion of orders of the day yesterday.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government any jurisdiction in fixing the price for natural gas in Montreal? If the answer is yes, does the government intend to take any steps in this connection?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am afraid I did not hear the first part of the question.


Gérard Loiselle: Has the government any jurisdiction in fixing the price of natural gas in Montreal?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, supplementary to the question asked him by the hon. member for St. Ann. In view of the stand taken by the Conservatives in 1956 that the board of transport commissioners should control the rates charged for gas, has the government taken any action along this line since it came into office?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the subject has been referred to a royal commission, and we will have its finding in due course.


George Carlyle Marler: In about two or three years.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources about the clearing of the Mackenzie highway and the

Inquiries of the Ministry use of local equipment and manpower. Is the minister in a position to answer the last part of that question today?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question of which I have given him short notice. Has the government taken any steps or does it consider it necessary to take action to assist small businesses and industries throughout Canada by the granting of long-term loans at low interest rates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the hon. member for his short notice of this question. The government, as such, has no power to do any of the things the question contemplates. Parliament has made provision for loans to assist industries in certain cases through the agency of the industrial development bank. Further action on the part of parliament, and the relationship of the government to it, would have to be a matter of government policy. I have already dealt with the subject in reply to similar questions asked frequently during this session, and I do not think I could usefully add anything in that respect to the answers I have already given.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. May we, at this session, expect the announcement of the appointment of a commission to inquire into the needs of small businessmen or, as an alternative to that, will the government introduce an amendment to the legislation covering the industrial development bank so as to supply small businesses with loans?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could usefully add anything to what I have already said in reply to similar questions on previous occasions.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and I regret not having given him notice of it. I wonder if any further discussions have been held between the officials of his department and Canadian Pacific Steamships in an attempt to provide service to those
[Mr, Hardie.l

communities on the coast of British Columbia that were left out of the arrangements made with the Canadian Pacific when they replaced Union Steamships?


George Harris Hees: The officials of Canadian Pacific are here today, and we will be having discussions of that sort.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, when he gave the negative answer yesterday to a question about the Newfoundland railway, he was aware that the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign that there would be a standard gauge railway if the Conservatives won the election.


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of any such statement by the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to send the report to the hon. gentleman. Another broken promise.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest George Hansell: May I ask the
Prime Minister a question. Have the government instructed or do they expect the Borden commission to submit an interim report within the next short while, we will say two or three months, on the oil and gas industry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful the Borden commission will make an interim report.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF RESUMPTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his implied contention of yesterday that the federal-provincial conference cannot be held while parliament is in session, can he say whether that conference will be called as soon as this session of parliament is concluded?


John George Diefenbaker: That will depend, of course, on the circumstances as they arise in this parliament and also on the degree to which the legislation before the house is expeditiously passed. I will come to the decision as to the actual date of the conference on the basis of the speed and the thoroughness, of course, of examination with which the legislation yet to be placed before this parliament receives the attention of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask a supplementary question. When the Prime Minister promised, during the course of the election campaign, to call a federal-provincial conference, did he attach to that promise any condition such as that which he is now enunciating?


John George Diefenbaker: There was nothing attached to the promise. The dominion-provincial conference was called and action was taken.


Jean Lesage: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Why is it not possible to hold this other federal-provincial conference while parliament is sitting, in view of the fact that the first part of the conference was held in November while parliament was sitting?


James Sinclair: Other conferences have been held while parliament was sitting.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend will be able to arrive at his own conclusions on the basis of what has already been said in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a related question. In view of the urgency which the Prime Minister attached to this question of fiscal adjustments with the provinces, is it intended that the fiscal adjustments which he promised will be available to the provinces for the current fiscal year? All the provincial treasurers want to know that.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend asked the same question a while ago. For that reason it requires no answer at this time.


James Sinclair: He received no answer at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that I asked an entirely different question on a different subject, and I


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When the hon. member begins his question by saying that he will draw somebody's attention to some fact, then
Inquiries of the Ministry he puts himself out of court and I am obliged to rise. If he has a question to ask, of course I will hear him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the Prime Minister a further supplementary question. Will the federal-provincial conference be called into session before or after the next general election?


John George Diefenbaker: As to when the next general election will take place would naturally depend on the conduct of my hon. friends opposite and the degree to which they follow the course of action they have followed in recent weeks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the house is wasting its time in trying to dip into the future. If there are any legitimate questions to be asked of course I will entertain them. But in endeavouring to ascertain things that perhaps are not ascertainable at the present time, it does not seem to me that we are furthering the interests of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his answer means that the government will not ask for dissolution unless it is defeated in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: No answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That's what he said.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am sorry I have not given him notice, and he may wish to take this question as notice. Has the Canadian government sent to the government of the United States a formal protest against the unilateral attempts of the United States tax department to revise the Canadian-United States tax convention by reaching its long arm into Canada to impose income tax upon a purely Canadian company? If such protest has been sent, has any reply been received from the United States government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that is a question, I think, for my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, and I shall be glad to bring it to his attention.
3060	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development POWER



ATLANTIC PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 8, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Ap-pelle)-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the government of Canada to enter into agreements with any of the Atlantic provinces to provide assistance in the generation of electric energy by thermal electric power projects and in the control and transmission of electric energy, and including provisions for the payment of a subvention on coal used in the production of electric energy.
Mr. Robichaud:: Before the adjournment of this committee at ten o'clock last evening I said that officials of the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation were in Ottawa during the week of December 15, and that discussions took place at that time with officials of the Department of Public Works in connection with the future mining operations and the proposed harbour development at Caron Point site near Bathurst.
As the additional power that will be required in northern New Brunswick in the next decade will depend largely upon the extraction of metals from the concentrate by electro-metallurgical methods, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or the Minister of Public Works should report to this committee on the results of the discussions which took place with officials of the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation. The people of Gloucester county and of New Brunswick have a right to know if the mineral discoveries and developments which have taken place in the northern section of the province during the last four years, and which will have a direct effect on the future requirements for electrical energy, are to be curtailed for an indefinite period. They also have a right to know what is contemplated by both federal and provincial authorities to assure that these developments will be carried on without delay to the best interest of the province and of the country in general.
In his statement when introducing this resolution the minister stated that for those Atlantic provinces which desire such aid, the dominion government would build and sell to the provinces such thermal plant and transmission facilities as may be agreed upon. Before this resolution is passed by the committee the minister should inform us as to the conditions and terms of such sales to the provinces concerned.
The minister stated that the amounts of money expended in the construction program will all be refunded with interest so that this phase of the program will be self-liquidating.


He should tell us what will be the depreciation on the thermal plants and on the transmission lines, and also if the interest charged is to be the same as mentioned for the Beech-wood project, that is, on the same basis as the long-term loans by the federal government.
With reference to the second phase of this resolution, we have a right to know what effect the estimated subvention of $1,700,000 per year will have on the cost of power as compared with present prices paid for coal purchased by the thermal plants now in operation in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The minister should also inform this committee how the cost of power or the price charged consumers after the coal subventions are applied will compare with power produced by thermal plants in central Canada, particularly in the province of Ontario.
The minister should also clarify the comments made by the premier of New Brunswick to the effect that the method of financing power development, as outlined in the secret memorandum which represented Conservative policy on power development and which has been refused to us, entailed rates of interest considerably in excess of anything proposed to date by the government of Canada to the government of New Brunswick. We also have a right to clarification of another comment by the premier of New Brunswick to the effect that the memorandum does not conform to the principles which have been discussed over the last six months by representatives of the government of Canada and of the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to which I referred in my remarks last evening.
In the case of generating plants, will the annual payment be based on the federal longterm rate of interest plus the sum required to amortize the plant in 30 years, and in the case of transmission lines will the annual payment be based on the same rate of interest plus the sum required to amortize the lines in 40 years?


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, before this resolution carries I would like to make one or two comments. The wording of the resolution makes it apply to the Atlantic provinces, and for that reason it has a regional application. The use of the word "thermal" in the third line makes this resolution discriminative against Newfoundland, which is one of the Atlantic provinces, because the accepted interpretation of a thermal electric power project is a power plant where electricity is generated from heat derived from the use of coal.
In Newfoundland k is impossible for us to benefit from this resolution because we do not have any local coal resources that may be utilized in this way. We have to depend on Nova Scotia for our coal, and the supply

from which we have been drawing in Nova Scotia has been getting shorter and more difficult to obtain as the years have gone by.
The use of this coal in the Atlantic provinces-Nova Scotia and other maritime provinces-for thermal plants would possibly have a harmful effect on our coal supplies in Newfoundland; the increased demand would make our coal either scarcer or higher in price.
On the other hand, we do have in Newfoundland, and particularly in my own riding, undeveloped sources of hydroelectric power which could very well come within the scope of this resolution if the word "thermal" were not included. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that though using the word "thermal" the resolution does not specify from what source the heat is to be derived. It could be derived from coal, but it could also be derived from thermonuclear energy. It is just a matter of the source of the heat.
For this reason we would prefer to see this resolution amended by having the word "thermal" at the end of line 3 deleted. If this were done we believe it would not do any harm to any other of the Atlantic provinces, but it would be bringing Newfoundland within the scope of this resolution. At the present time Newfoundland is excluded from any benefit under the proposal.


Mr. Batten:: Mr. Chairman, the terms of this resolution refer to the Atlantic provinces, and I think it is generally accepted that the Atlantic provinces include New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. So I think nobody could have any disagreement about providing more and cheaper electric power for the maritime provinces, and if this project is going to be undertaken I think it is reasonable to assume that in the development of this additional electric power the resources within a province, whatever they may be, will be used.
If we were to look through the figures with regard to electric power available from water sources as supplied by the minister's department, we should note that the power available from water sources in Newfoundland is four times as great as that available in the other three maritime provinces combined. In Newfoundland at the moment the turbine installation is capable of generating
329.000	horsepower, which is approximately
240.000	kilowatts, and this is almost equal to the total turbine installations of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island combined.
Now it may be true, and I think it is, that if the supply of electric power in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward 96698-1944
Atlantic Provinces Power Development Island is to be increased, there is a good deal to be said in favour of the source of energy being some type of thermal plant, because of the fact that there is not sufficient power from water available in those three provinces. We in Newfoundland are not in that position; and it appears to me that under the terms of this resolution as it is now drafted, if the word "thermal" is used we will be ruled out, in the sense that in increasing the electric supply in Newfoundland it would be better to use water power than to use energy supplied by heat. If we were to use energy supplied by heat we should need to import coal or oil into the province.
In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I propose to move an amendment to this resolution. My amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, and reads as follows:
That the word "thermal", the last word in line 3 of the resolution, be deleted from the resolution.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I have before me an exact copy of the amendment which was moved, but I understand that it deletes the word "thermal" in the third line of the resolution. May I point out that by doing that it obviously broadens the terms of the resolution and would in consequence impose an additional expenditure on the government of the day. An amendment of this kind could only be brought in by the government in the usual way in which amendments bringing about the expenditure of moneys is done, and obviously an amendment of this type is out of order when brought in by a private member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address myself to the point of order raised by the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as leader of the house. I quite agree with the general proposition that an amendment to a resolution preceding a money bill can only be made by the government after a message from the crown. That is the well accepted and very proper rule which I would certainly never question or challenge.
But if I may, sir, I am going to quote the words that were used by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his presentation of this resolution last evening, as recorded at page 3038 of Hansard, in an endeavour to convince you that this particular amendment does not in any way increase any charge upon the crown. The third full paragraph of the minister's remarks on that page reads as follows:
Perhaps I should make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation to be introduced under the terms of this resolution will not in itself appropriate or authorize the expenditure of any sums
3062	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development of money. The legislation is enabling legislation, to permit agreements to he entered into for the program I have outlined.
Those are all the words that are relevant. It therefore seems to me that since this amendment would not impose any charge on the government but would only empower it to extend this policy to plants that were not thermal plants, if the government saw fit to do so, the amendment should be accepted. It would not oblige the government to do it but it would do what the premier of Newfoundland asked the Prime Minister to do in the telegram read by the Prime Minister to the house yesterday.
I would hope the government might see fit to accept this amendment; or if the government would prefer it I am sure my friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's would be very glad to withdraw his amendment and allow a similar amendment to be moved by a member of the government. I would have thought the hon. member for St. John's West would be very happy indeed to show some interest in the province he represents by doing so.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I point out the great fallacy in the argument made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twilling-ate. He quoted the words used by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources last evening as recorded at page 3038 of Hansard, as follows:
Perhaps I should make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation to be introduced under the terms of this resolution will not in itself appropriate or authorize the expenditure of any sums of money.
The hon. member proceeded to argue that therefore this resolution does not involve the expenditure of any money and any private member is free to amend it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; the committee is free to do so.


Howard Charles Green: If that argument is correct, then it means that a private member can amend any bill unless that bill has in it that there can be the expenditure, say of $100 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is perfectly true.


Howard Charles Green: To reduce the rule to that position would mean that very many government bills-


James Sinclair: Resolutions.


Howard Charles Green: -which have to be introduced by resolutions could be amended by private members, and that argument is utterly fallacious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Only by the house, surely.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Northern
Affairs and National Resources was quite correct when he said that in itself the resolution does not appropriate any money. That is perfectly right. I think the majority of resolutions that are brought in do not provide for the actual appropriation of a specified sum of money. The very fact that this resolution itself could be brought in only after it had been placed before His Excellency and then had to be brought in in the form of a resolution indicates that the measure is one that can be amended only by the government.
The argument submitted by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate may be a very good one on which to hang a political argument, and I think that is all that was intended by the hon. member as demonstrated by his remarks-


James Sinclair: Do not impute motives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister's remarks are out of order.


Howard Charles Green: -but the rules provide that a resolution can be amended only by the government and not by a private member, and I submit that this amendment is entirely out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support of the amendment as being in order, but I must make it crystal clear at the outset that I do not start from the premise laid down by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as long as you arrive at the same destination.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think my hon. friend would have been well advised not to try to argue that this is not a money bill. I do not think there is any question but that it is a money bill and that the resolution preceding it is before us for that very reason.
However, Mr. Chairman, Beauchesne is quite clear on the point that amendments can be made to a resolution preceding a money bill provided they fall within the terms of the resolution. Perhaps I should not paraphrase but should read the actual citation on which I am basing my remarks, namely citation 440 in what is left of my copy of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution.
I hope you will follow me, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the Minister of Public Works

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
will follow me in this. Relying on that proposition, no less an authority on the procedure of this house than the present Minister of Justice moved an amendment very similar to this one on April 16, 1956. The matter before us at that time was a bill brought in by the then minister of public works, Mr. Winters, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act. I ask hon. members to follow this very closely. The purpose of that amendment was to provide certain additional payments to the provinces on terms set out by the government of that day in its bill. The present Minister of Justice, then the private member for Kamloops, moved an amendment to the effect that these words be added:
"the portion of the highway to which such increased payment is to apply to be designated by the province."
This reference can be found at page 2980 of Hansard of April 16, 1956. In other words, what the hon. member for Kamloops asked on that occasion was not an increase in the amount of money to be appropriated, but simply for the right of the province to have the say as to how the amount of money appropriated for each province would be spent. Is that not exactly what my friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's is asking today? I wish the Minister of Justice were here. I am sure, because of the consistency for which he is noted, that he would agree.


Mr. Brooks:: What happened to the
amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: thank my hon. friend for his question. The amendment was ruled in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: You fell into that bear trap very nicely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
good friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs amazes me. Does he think I would have cited this precedent if it had gone the other way? No. The amendment was moved by the then member for Kamloops and the deputy chairman at the time-that would be Mr. Apple-whaite-said, as reported at page 2980 of Hansard:
I might say that at the moment it does not appear to me that this proposed amendment would extend the financial commitment of the crown.
The then minister of public works, Mr. Winters, got into the argument and used exactly the same language that the Minister of Public Works used today-


James Sinclair: Perhaps he pressed a button and got the same speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -
that it would extend the financial commitment of the crown. As I say, Mr. Winters made that argument, as recorded at page 2984 of Hansard for April 16; but I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to note that the chairman of that day rejected the argument of the minister of public works of that day and said he was wrong. He said:
It does not appear to me that this proposed amendment would extend the financial commitment of the crown.
He went on to say that it only made a change within the terms of the resolution, which was in order. Mr. Applewhaite gave his initial opinion that it was in order, as recorded at page 2980 of Hansard. The argument was mixed up as between procedure and substance, but he was pressed later as to whether or not the amendment was in order and on page 2986 of Hansard he made the statement again that it did not increase the financial commitment of the crown and that the amendment was in order. At this point Hansard reads:
Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?
Amendment negatived, yeas, 38; nays, 74.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Humber-St. George's remembered this amendment when he drafted his amendment, but certainly he has an excellent case. I am glad the Minister of Justice is now in his seat. The member has a splendid authority for what he is now proposing, because it was the present Minister of Justice who moved an amendment very much like this in 1956. The two subjects are different. One had to do with trans-Canada highway and this has to do with assistance to power plants. The request of the Minister of Justice was that without increasing the financial commitment to the provinces, the provinces might have a say as to how this money would be spent on the highway within the provinces. My hon. friend asks for no increase in the amount of money the government is prepared to spend under this legislation, but he asks that the provinces have some say as to whether it should be limited to thermal electric power projects or whether it will be available for electric power projects of other types.
I have taken a few minutes to develop my argument, Mr. Chairman, because I thought you might interpret the argument advanced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as denying that this was a money bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never denied that.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
would be on much firmer ground in arguing that this amendment does not extend the financial commitment of the crown. Therefore, relying on the excellent precedent of 1956 and on the clear-cut statement of Beau-chesne that amendments are in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution, I submit that you, sir, should do as the chairman did in 1956 and reject the argument of the Minister of Public Works and permit the committee to vote on the substance of this amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I am very suspicious that this amendment was really drawn by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a question of privilege, I do not mind the Minister of Public Works having a little fun if he wishes to have it, but let it be made crystal clear that I had nothing to do with the drawing of this amendment. I did not know it was coming. I always have a few notes on procedure ready for the Minister of Public Works, because I know he likes to raise points of order when matters are proposed from the opposition side of the house.


Herman Maxwell Batten: On a question of privilege, I object very strongly to the statement made by the Minister of Public Works.


Howard Charles Green: In the first place, Mr. Chairman, the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is to the effect that this amendment would not extend the financial commitment of the crown. He uses the very devious argument that the provinces would have to request this expenditure, and that sort of thing, and therefore it would not impose any further financial commitment on the crown. Actually there is a fallacy in the argument advanced both in behalf of the Liberals and in behalf of the C.C.F. The removal of the word "thermal" from this resolution would very probably greatly expand the financial commitments involved in this resolution. No matter how hon. members try to argue around it, that is the actual fact and that is the purpose behind this very amendment. Were Your Honour to rule that a private member could amend a government resolution in this way, then the effect would be that any government resolution could be amended by a private member. The only authority the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been able to quote is not Beauchesne, Bourinot, or anyone of that kind-


Stanley Howard Knowles: lust the Minister of Justice.


Howard Charles Green: -but a ruling made by an assistant chairman of committees, not by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.


James Sinclair: That is a reflection on the Chair.


Howard Charles Green: Your Honour is not bound by a ruling made by a person of a lower rank.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do
not forget black Friday, December 13.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly any ruling made by Mr. Applewhaite is not binding on Your Honour. I suggest further that the ruling was made in an entirely different set of circumstances, and this argument is merely dragged in by the heels to substantiate a very weak submission in support of having this amendment ruled in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In reply to the Minister of Public Works I would like to make one brief observation. The minister is now contending that this amendment would have the effect of increasing the charge upon the crown. I find it very hard to reconcile what he says with what was said by the minister who introduced this resolution yesterday. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said, as reported at page 3038 of Hansard:
The funds required each year to carry out the program for that year will be sought from parliament in the normal fashion in the estimates.
There is no appropriation being made by the bill to be founded on this resolution. It seems to me, sir, that the statement of the minister who introduced this resolution causes the argument of the Minister of Public Works to fall completely to the ground.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the minister this question. If I were to offer him a dollar-


Howard Charles Green: I would take it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: were to offer him a dollar to buy a meal and he were to ask me for the privilege of spending that dollar on two meals instead of one, would that expand the amount of money that he would get out of me? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what this amendment seeks, and it is exactly what the Minister of Justice sought in 1956. It is not an increase in the total amount of money to be spent; it is merely the privilege of spending it on power but in other ways than the one spelled out in the resolution.
As to the argument that you should pay no attention to the ruling made by Mr. Applewhaite merely because he was the assistant or deputy chairman of committees, may I say that I am shocked at that argument coming from the representative of a party that has had a great deal to say about respect for the

Chair. It is a reflection on the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas who now occupies that same position. I am surprised that my hon. friend sits there and takes it.
I would point out that on Friday, December 13, in this very session, we were told we did have to pay some attention to the rulings that had been made previously, Mr. Chairman. Furthermore, the minister seems to overlook completely the fact that Mr. Apple-whaite made his ruling on the basis of arguments advanced by the present Minister of Justice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One thing is crystal clear and is completely overlooked by my hon. friends, and that is the fact that this a money resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: started by pointing that out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend is not the only one who has participated in the discussion. If this resolution were not of that nature, Mr. Chairman, we should not be discussing it at all. Objection should have been taken to the procedure at the outset and the government should have been told that they ought to have proceeded directly by the introduction of a bill. This is a money resolution, and it requires the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General. On the clearest authority such money resolutions are beyond the power of a private member to amend unless that amendment can meet two tests. The amendment must be able to survive both these tests.
First of all it must not increase any possible expenditure provided or contemplated by the resolution. Second, it must not change the fundamental character of the resolution. I submit to you, sir, that the amendment now before you does offend both these clear and well-established rules. My hon. friends do not overcome the fact that the amendment would involve an increase in the contemplated expenditure within the terms of the bill to be founded on the resolution simply by making the assertion that no increase will result. If this is a money resolution, as I have argued, then it certainly follows as the day the night that this amendment is of a nature that would increase the type of expenditure contemplated by the resolution.
In the second place, sir, this amendment does, in itself, change the fundamental character of the resolution. The citation which my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre read from Beauchesne was No. 440, and it reads as follows:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a committee of the
Atlantic Provinces Power Development whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution.
I say to you, sir, that this amendment, far from falling within the terms of the resolution, constitutes such an expansion of the terms of the resolution as to create a quite different scheme from that contemplated by the terms of the resolution now under discussion.


Chesley William Carter: I should like to comment on one argument the minister has just made, in which he states that the deletion of the word "thermal" would change the character of the resolution. The word "thermal", as I pointed out, only means a source of heat. It does not describe the source from which the heat is obtained. You could still retain this word "thermal" and have a thermonuclear plant produce the electricity. That would cost a great deal more money than is contemplated by the use of coal. The fact that you use the word "thermal" gives the resolution a very wide application, wide enough to include thermonuclear plants.


Harold Edward Winch: It is not my intention to become involved in what is a procedural matter but, sir, I could not sit here, after listening for the last few minutes to the arguments advanced, without making this statement, which I do very deliberately. Ye gods, how the attitude of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance has changed since the election in June.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I have great admiration for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I always listen very carefully to his arguments. This is one time, however, when he has gone completely off the rails. When he reads his argument he will find that it is contrary to the usual sound sort of thing we have been accustomed to from him in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am just giving you the argument of the Minister of Justice.


William Joseph Browne: No, it is an
entirely different argument. What the hon. member is putting forward today is quite unsound. He says that by removing the word "thermal" from the third line of the resolution as it reads now:
-in the generation of electric energy by thermal electric power projects-
-that does not take this out of the terms of the resolution. The hon. member was
3066	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development quoting from Beauchesne. In the second line of the resolution we have another adjective used. It reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the government of Canada to enter into agreements with any of the Atlantic provinces-
The argument used in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's could be used to the same effect to justify the removal of the word "Atlantic".


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
might be a good idea.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, it
might be a good idea, but it is not necessary, as it happens. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre agrees with me that his argument that it does not affect the resolution to take out the word "thermal" would be just as good if he favoured an amendment to take out the word "Atlantic".


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


William Joseph Browne: That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing a point of order as to whether or not the amendment does enlarge the terms of the resolution. We are not discussing the merits of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, we are discussing whether or not this amendment affects the resolution and places a greater burden upon the crown.
If the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had to deal with provinces other than the Atlantic provinces, who in this house would say that would not increase the burden on the crown? If the word "thermal" is taken out, to what does it apply? It applies, in the first place, to what the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has spoken about, thermonuclear energy. It would apply also to hydro, which is the purpose my honourable and gracious friend from Bonavista-Twillingate had in mind in trying to assist the premier of Newfoundland to get that change made.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gave us a very happy comparison. He asked of the Minister of Public Works, if I offered my friend a dollar to buy a meal, could he get two meals? I think that was the way he put it. If I offer my hon. friend some liquid refreshment I mean that he is to take a drink, not food and drink; that is the aptness of the comparison to the removal of the word "thermal". If you remove the word "thermal" the effect would be the same as if my hon. friend interpreted an invitation to partake of liquid refreshment as including


food and drink. There is no doubt about it; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has gone completely off the rails.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. minister from Newfoundland can have his fun if he likes, but may I point out that when the Minister of Justice sought the change he wanted by means of an amendment of the Trans-Canada Highway Act in 1956, the same argument might have been made that he was changing the terms of the resolution because he was asking that the money be paid in a slightly different way for different portions of the highway than the government intended. Yet he argued that that was within the terms of the resolution, and the chairman of that day agreed with him.
We are accepting this, I may say to the Minister of Finance, as a resolution preceding a money bill. We are accepting the fact that no private member can move an amendment that would increase the expenditure that has been committed. But we suggest, Mr. Chairman, that just as the Minister of Justice had the right to ask that money being spent on the highway be spent on portion A as well as on portion B, so my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's has a right to ask that money that is being spent on electric power plants in the Atlantic provinces be spent on type A as well as on type B. I submit that the proposed amendment is just as much in order as was the amendment of the hon. member for Kamloops in 1956. It is on that basis that I support the contention.


The Chairman:: Order. I think I am now in a position to deal with the amendment. May I call the attention of hon. members to May's fifteenth edition, page 678, where we find the following words:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand or recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
I particularly draw the attention of hon. members to the words:
-not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
The paragraph continues:
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications, expressed in the communication by which the crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
I read this in conjunction with the citation from Beauchesne's third edition to which my

attention was drawn by hon. members. I should like to repeat the latter part of citation 440 which reads as follows:
The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the committee of supply, and amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
In my opinion the amendment would include projects not contemplated by the terms of the resolution. In other words it enlarges the terms of the resolution and, in doing so, it would impose additional financial responsibilities upon the crown. I suggest that the amendment is an alternative proposition. Accordingly I must rule the amendment out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We, of course, on this side of the house accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, without the slightest question. It gives me great pleasure to do so, in contrast to the behaviour on the other side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That remark is out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would remind hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches of that sad Friday the 13th in December-


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a repetition of the sort of thing we have had from the hon. member previously. That remark is clearly out of order. It is the most patent kind of infringement of the privileges of this house for any hon. member to reflect upon the vote of any other hon. member of the house. In this case the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is reflecting upon the votes of a good many hon. members of this house on a recent occasion, and he is clearly out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no intention of continuing this line of argument, Mr. Chairman. I will leave the electors to do the reflecting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and they will do a good deal of reflecting on that advertisement about black Friday the next time. But what I rose to do was to appeal-and I recognize that perhaps I have not done it in the most appealing way-to the members on the treasury benches, and particularly to the hon. member for St. John's West, to reconsider the position the government has taken with respect to this resolution.


Harold Edward Winch: Why does not the hon. member appeal to the Chair?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because the Chair cannot do anything about it.


Harold Edward Winch: Oh, yes.
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman does not quite appreciate the point I am trying to make. I am appealing to the government, not about a point of order. I am appealing to the government to accept the request of the government of Newfoundland, made through the premier of Newfoundland and communicated to this house yesterday by the Prime Minister. That was a request to which the Prime Minister undertook that his colleagues would give consideration. It is a request which, if it is not met, will mean that this resolution will be of little or no advantage to the province of Newfoundland for the foreseeable future. I say, and I hope without offence, that if the hon. member for St. John's West, the minister without portfolio, had exercised upon his colleagues in the government the same persuasive power to get some consideration for the province of Newfoundland that he has exercised in trying to prevent us on this side of the house from getting that consideration, his constituents would probably have appreciated his efforts more.
It seems to me that if this is-and I am sure you will not say I am out of order in saying this, Mr. Chairman-part of a national policy, and the minister himself said it was that last night, it is surely extraordinary that there should be a deliberate refusal-because, that is what it appears to be-to include one of the Atlantic provinces which needs this help so much. A deliberate refusal of that kind is surely not the way in which to carry out a national policy. I am appealing to the government seriously and sincerely. This is a good resolution. I am in favour of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a good policy. With a few minor modifications, which I do not think are improvements, it is the policy enunciated by my friend Mr. Harris in his budget speech, explained to the house by my colleague the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and accepted by the premiers of both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick until certain other events intervened when those gentlemen, for reasons to which I am not going to ascribe any motives, decided the matter should be delayed. There is no doubt that if certain events had not taken place in the way in which they did take place, that policy would have been carried out probably a good deal more quickly by the former administration.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
But I say this is a good resolution, and I will support it whether or not the government amends it because it is a good sound thing to do. I am glad they are doing it. Any credit they can get for it, in addition to the credit coming to its authors, they are perfectly entitled to get. But I appeal to the government, and especially to the Prime Minister, to reconsider this matter. It would require an adjournment of this matter for a very short time in order to get the royal recommendation which the Minister of Finance says is necessary in order to make this amendment. I am appealing to the government to show this consideration for the newest province, the tenth province of Canada; to yield to the arguments of all members from Newfoundland on this side of the house and make this gesture of good will and national unity.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I make one or two comments on this matter. When the minister brought in the resolution I believe he was very serious in doing so. I commend him for bringing it in. I think if the resolution proceeds and is implemented in the maritime provinces it will bring to the maritime provinces many benefits.
It appears to me that if you are going to develop electric energy in any area, it is only sensible to use that source which is available. I do not happen to be an engineer, but I think it is fair to say that in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island there is not sufficient water power to supply all the electrical energy that is required by those three provinces. Therefore some other way must be found if the required energy is to be available.
The resolution the minister has brought in to provide in at least these three provinces for the development of electric energy is a very sound one. I can assure the minister right now that I am going to vote for it.
I agree with this; but surely we are not going to confine this resolution to developing electric power in three provinces where it could be produced cheaper by adopting the thermal method and then, for the fourth of the four provinces involved, use a method which to my mind is going to be far more expensive than the development of electric energy by the water power which is available in Newfoundland.
If we are going to abide by the word "thermal" I believe, and here I am in accord with the premier of Newfoundland, that it is going to exclude Newfoundland. When I made my amendment I was very serious in so doing, and I believe if we are going to stay with the word "thermal" then we are excluding

Newfoundland and we are therefore not carrying out the terms of this resolution which applies to the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: It is approaching one o'clock and I thought possibly, Mr. Chairman, I could help this matter along by answering some of the statements that have been made in order to make just a little bit clearer what we are trying to do.
I am going to start with the last question first and will answer the hon. member for Humber-St. George's and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I would just like to read again, if I may, the remarks I made last night as recorded at page 3038 of Hansard:
This program is a co-operative one with the provinces in the Atlantic area. Some hon. members may say that there is nothing in it for New' foundland or Prince Edward Island. That, Mr. Chairman, is not an accurate statement. True, it may be inappropriate for Newfoundland at this time to seek to build thermal plants.
I would like to emphasize that thermal means from all sources of heat; oil, gas, coal, nuclear and every form of heat.


Jean Lesage: Everybody knows that.


Mr. Stick:: We have not got it. We have no gas.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just a minute. I will repeat that statement.
True, it may be inappropriate for Newfoundland at this time to seek to build thermal plants. However, transmission lines and related facilities which are, as you know, often very costly-and indeed of great importance in the development of a power system-could be built by the federal government and sold to Newfoundland on the same basis as for Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. The same can be done for Prince Edward Island.
In all fairness, Mr. Chairman, I feel this resolution we have before us came about, as I described to the house last evening, at the request of two provinces, and we have received formal requests from neither of the other two provinces.


Jean Lesage: It did not come from two provinces. It was initiated by the former government.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just hold your horses a minute-


Jean Lesage: You had better be accurate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
get off yours.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would like to complete this statement.
At the request of the two provinces and in discussion with those two provinces we arrived at this solution to the problem, which was one of obtaining cheaper power. Beechwood was separated from this thermal proposition; and it may interest the house

to know that there are other hydro projects in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia about which there have been discussions and which do not come under this bill because in their discussions with this government these two provinces asked for them to be kept out.
In order to achieve our purpose of providing cheaper power for this area we set it up in this manner, but I would like to emphasize, that this was under discussion with these provinces. There was no effort made here to force any unilateral decision by this government on those two provinces. There was debate, there was discussion, and some of the ideas I proposed were not accepted while others were accepted.


Jean Lesage: It is always like that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And vice versa with the provinces; some of the ideas they proposed were accepted and others were turned down. I complimented the premiers of these two provinces last night for the manner in which they dealt with me in connection with this matter. We set our minds to the task of achieving cheaper power, and I think we arrived at the solution.


Chesley William Carter: Would the minister permit a question? When he says, as he has just quoted on page 3038 of Hansard, that a power system could be built by the federal government and sold to Newfoundland on the same basis as to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, does he mean that the federal government would do that for the use of thermal power when it could be done much cheaper by the use of hydro power? Is that what the minister's statement means?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman, the minister means that if the province of Newfoundland makes application to the federal government to build and then sell to them transmission lines in their province between hydro, hydro and thermal, thermal and thermal or any type of transmission, then we are prepared and are empowered under this legislation to make such an agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But you will not accede to the requests they do make.


Chesley William Carter: If they made a request for a transmission line from hydro power already developed; is that what the minister means?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: What is the use of that, when all the power is used and we need extra development of power before we can do it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not want to get into the details at this late stage. I was hoping the resolution would go through before lunch.
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister need not
worry.


Jean Lesage: No, he will be lucky if he gets it through by six o'clock tonight.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: However, in
answer to this one question in the matter of trying to achieve greater efficiency in reducing power costs, the interconnecting power plants, whether they be hydro and hydro, thermal and hydro or thermal and thermal, it is of great benefit to the management of the hydro power commission or whatever agency is handling it if they can move power from one area to another, from a surplus area into a deficit area. This is the great advantage of transmission lines. A lot of plants which have capacity beyond their needs can shift production from place to place, thus reducing capital costs over the whole area.


Chesley William Carter: I can understand that, but my point was of what use is that if there is nothing to transmit, if all the power that is developed has been used?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think we had better call it one o'clock.


James Sinclair: Yes; you had better get some advice on that.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Leonard T. Stick: Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment for lunch we were discussing resolution No. 14 on the order paper regarding thermo-electric power projects in the Atlantic provinces. I think it is fair to say that the government has acted in good faith in this, and I think the minister also is acting in good faith. My understanding of the resolution is that it is designed principally for the maritime provinces, but in the resolution the phrase "Atlantic provinces" is used which, of course, includes the whole of the province of Newfoundland.
It may be of some slight interest to the committee if I say that when we came under the terms of union, Newfoundland was often designated as one of the maritime provinces. We did not altogether, like that designation, and I coined the phrase "Atlantic provinces" in this house to distinguish between the maritimes and Newfoundland. In this resolution the phrase "Atlantic provinces" is used, which means that Newfoundland is included.
One can make some excuse for the minister because he is not familiar with the local problems which we have in the province of
3070	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development Newfoundland, but I think the intention was to include Newfoundland in this resolution. First, as has been pointed out by my colleagues from Humber-St. George's and Burin-Burgeo, this resolution as it now stands is of practically no value to Newfoundland.
It has some value, it is true. Just before the adjournment the minister told us we would benefit in connection with any transmission lines which might be built. Well, there are places in Newfoundland and in my riding which need electric power, and we should be very grateful if the government would give us an assurance that this resolution would include any transmission lines which the government may wish to build. But from the standpoint of thermal power this does not help us, because although we have some deposits of coal they are not of such economic value as to enable us to generate electricity.
On the other hand, we have an abundance of hydro power; a great abundance, not only on the island of Newfoundland itself but in that part of Labrador which belongs to my province. One of the greatest potential hydroelectric developments in the world is in the Grant Falls on the Hamilton river. A couple of years ago I went into this question while I was on the committee on research, and the potential was said to be at least six million horsepower, a capacity which could quite possibly be doubled in the course of time. The problem is, of course, to develop that sort of energy and to find a use for the power. We also have in Newfoundland itself undeveloped hydro power at Bay d'Espoir on the southwest coast and other places.
So if the words "hydroelectric power" are not included in the resolution, and if we are confined to thermo-electric power, the province of Newfoundland cannot participate fully in the intent of this resolution; and of course we should like our province to be able to do this. Although we will probably derive some minor advantages from the resolution I believe, as I indicated, that the government in drawing up this resolution and using the phrase "Atlantic provinces" fully intended that Newfoundland should participate fully. It is for that reason, I think, that the premier of Newfoundland sent his telegram to the minister pointing out the difficulty.
I have no desire to hinder the passing of the resolution, and no desire to do anything which would delay the benefits which may arise under this resolution for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. But I do say it is unfortunate that the minister, who evidently does not understand Newfoundland affairs as well as we would

like him to do-and I do not say that is his fault-has not made better provision for the interests of the province from which 1 come.
There is a way out. I could move an amendment but you, Mr. Chairman, would probably object. The Minister of Finance objected this morning to an amendment proposed by another hon. member on this side of the house on the ground that it would probably add to the expenditure of the government. Now I am going to say that I believe the government is sincere in its proposals embodied in this resolution, and I hope for that reason the minister will take into consideration the suggestion I am about to make. If he would add, after "thermal" the words "and hydroelectric power projects" I think that would solve our problem in Newfoundland and enlarge the scope of the resolution so we could participate fully in its intent. The relevant part of the resolution would then read, "... . Atlantic provinces to provide assistance in the generation of electric power by thermal and hydroelectric power projects."
I ask the minister to take this into consideration. I cannot move an amendment on these lines myself; that could only be done by a member of the government. So I ask the minister in all sincerity to take this suggestion into consideration and embody in the resolution the words I have suggested.
In my opinion this would end all the discussion we have had in this committee today, clarify the situation as far as Newfoundland is concerned and, I think, satisfy all who are connected with this problem. If the minister could at some time this afternoon or on another early occasion take action on the lines I have indicated I think it would be very acceptable to the house.


Mr. Macdonald (Kings):: Mr. Chairman, the resolution under discussion today to authorize the government of Canada to enter into agreements with any of the Atlantic provinces to provide assistance in the generation of electric energy by thermal electric power projects is of very considerable interest to the province of Prince Edward Island. The cost of electric power in our province is extremely high, probably higher than in any other province, and higher than the rates charged in many lands.
When one considers the topography of our island, the reasons are obvious. Our countryside is low and rolling, with little water potential and no natural basins or storage facilities of any size. We have no coal, and to date we have no oil resources. At the present time surveys and boring operations are in progress and we are hopeful that the

results may be good, but we cannot depend on anything in this line for the present, at least.
That leaves us with the alternative of either importing coal or oil as fuel or transporting electrical energy into the province. The latter proposal would entail combating the high energy loss sustained by underwater cable. The former proposition, that of importing coal, is possibly now a feasible project with the coal subventions which might be paid by this government.
In this regard I would draw the attention of the government to a plan discussed in our area not many years ago. The proposition was to transport coal from western Cape Breton or from the Pictou area by barge to the large port of Georgetown on the eastern coast of Prince Edward Island, where an electrical plant could be set up at waterside. The coal would be taken from pithead to barge by escalator, transported at a very cheap water rate and taken from the barge by escalator right into the plant. This is a suggestion worthy of consideration, and I strongly urge that all the possibilities of this plan be studied. This is especially pertinent in view of the assistance by way of coal subventions which I have just mentioned, and should also provide the coal industry in the Atlantic provinces with considerable assistance.
For years the people of our area have asked for arrangements by way of assistance in providing cheaper electrical power. As in the case of many of our other submissions, we could not get any degree of sympathy for the Atlantic provinces' problems from the previous government. It has been the pledge of our party for the past three elections that we would provide such assistance, and now it is being done. We are pleased and most appreciative that recognition of this and other problems peculiar to the Atlantic provinces has been accorded to us.
This has been another of the milestones achieved under the Diefenbaker government in the development of national policy, a recognition of the particular needs of some areas, a realization that if we are to have a strong and united country we must be fair and wise in the development of every part of it. We cannot leave that development to take place in a willy-nilly fashion to the benefit of the central areas and to the detriment of the outer areas such as has happened in the last two decades.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my remarks to those of hon. members who have spoken in favour of this resolution. Many of the remarks placed on the record with regard to the previous resolution under
Atlantic Provinces Power Development order No. 9 on the order paper might be pertinent to this one. Above all we do appreciate the new principle being put into effect with regard to the eastern provinces. Under this resolution the government has placed the opportunity before any of the Atlantic provinces. I do not know what the attitude of our local government will be toward entering into an agreement, but I hope it will give every consideration to the provisions of this resolution. If such an agreement would give our province relief from the high rates we now have to pay for electrical energy it would be most welcome, and I give my wholehearted support to this resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks I should like to make at this time, but before doing so I have one or two questions I wish to direct to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I would hope that he might be able to answer them immediately. I would like to know if the agreements that are contemplated by this resolution are in fact either in the process of being signed or have been signed, and whether under those agreements the provinces involved have agreed on completion of the power plants to buy them and, if so, over what period of time the provincial governments or their power commissions may pay for the plants or transmission lines?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, a part of this question was going to be answered today by myself in reply to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, but with your permission I will give my reply in direct answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia.
In answer to the first part of the question, the agreements are now in process of being discussed. When they have been discussed, finally agreed upon and signed I will be tabling them in the house, as I have already mentioned. I am very sorry that they are not ready at this time.


Jean Lesage: Are there still some differences on some points?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. We received a letter the other day from one of the premiers pointing out four difficulties he wanted straightened out, but they are minor in nature and I think will be straightened out in a reasonably short time.
Concerning the question of the agreements to buy the power plants and transmission lines, it is a prior commitment in the first part of the agreement that the provinces must agree to buy immediately on completion both the transmission lines and the plants.
3072	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development With regard to the time for payment, we accepted the traditional time worked out by the department over the last several years. For thermal plants it will be 30 years of annual capital payments with interest, and for transmission lines 40 years.


Jean Lesage: The rate of interest is to be 4| per cent as of the present time, the ordinary crown corporations rate?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. It is made clear, Mr. Chairman, in the agreements that the interest rate will be the rate given to crown corporations.


Jean Lesage: At the time of the sale?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate receiving that information from the minister, Mr. Chairman. As has already been indicated, we in this group are quite happy to support the resolution, believing that it is an important step forward and that it will help a deficit power area in the country.
It does seem to me, however, that the terms of the resolution would have been much more acceptable to the nation as a whole if they had been somewhat different. I am not able to understand the thinking of the government in confining this policy at this time to the Atlantic provinces. I fail to see why in the resolution as it now stands the word "Atlantic" should appear at all. The government has said, the minister has said and the Prime Minister has said that there is or will be an over-all power policy for Canada. If that is the case I can see no reason why this resolution should include the word "Atlantic", which will mean that if this type of policy is to be extended at some later date to other parts of the country new legislation will be required, a new motion, new approval by parliament.
I can think of no other hon. member of the cabinet who has taken more interest in power over the years than has the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. He has travelled across his own province pointing out the great need for power in that area, and it seems strange indeed that in introducing this legislation, the first brought in by this government to deal with power, the province of Saskatchewan from which the minister comes would have been omitted from the resolution.
No one can say that the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia do not require some assistance. I think it could be readily proven that these are depressed areas as far as power is concerned; but no matter what yardstick is used to determine whether those
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

provinces are depressed in regard to power I believe the same yardstick will show that other provinces in this country also have a good claim for this type of assistance from the government.
I hold in my hand statistics which were supplied by the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. They relate to power needs and power facilities in various provinces of this country. They point out that in Nova Scotia there are 27 power outlets per 100 of population; in New Brunswick, 26 per 100; in British Columbia, 31 per 100; and in Saskatchewan just 24 per 100. On the basis of those figures alone I suggest that a province like Saskatchewan should have as good a claim for the same consideration under this legislation as has the province of New Brunswick or the province of Nova Scotia.
I tell the minister that the terms of repayment he has outlined, namely 30 years for power plants and 40 years for transmission lines, are good terms. I think the length of time for repayment is reasonable. I do not think anyone can quarrel with those provisions; but I can tell him, and I think he is already aware of it, that these are precisely the same kind of terms and the same kind of conditions for the building of thermal plants as are required in the province from which he comes. A burden is now being placed on the treasury of that province for expansion in the field of power which makes it a question mark whether the province can meet the power needs of the people in that area in the future.
Therefore I am suggesting to the minister and the government that this legislation, precisely because it is good legislation, should not be confined to the Atlantic provinces. If the government has a national policy-and some of us are wondering whether it is a national policy at all or rather a catch as catch can policy, or a political policy which is geared to what appears to be the best interests of the government party at the moment-how in the world can it be called a national policy when you have legislation dealing with only one section of the country?
Over the years in this house I have not taken the attitude I have seen some other hon. members take, that because something does not provide any particular benefit at the moment for their area or for their province they vote against it. I think that is a narrowminded and parochial attitude. I do not think it accomplishes anything. I welcome this legislation without reservation, but because I think it is good legislation I suggest the government has made a very grave error in confining the terms of the resolution to the Atlantic provinces. As a matter of fact I could present other information to show

that in certain ways some other parts of Canada have a more difficult power problem than have the provinces to which this legislation applies.
I am informed that on the average it takes 5 miles of power line to service 100 customers in Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick it takes 6 miles of power line to service 100 customers. In British Columbia it takes 3 miles of power line to service 100 customers, but in Saskatchewan it takes 16 miles of power line to service 100 customers. It takes three times as much power line to service a given number of customers in Saskatchewan as it does in either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick; yet by the terms of this resolution Saskatchewan is excluded.
I should like the minister to disclose the government program for the other provinces. Saskatchewan finds that because of the scattered area of settlement, it has a very difficult power problem. Not only that, but it finds that its need for power is growing now at the rate of 20 per cent per year, so that the need for power facilities and power output doubles every four years in that province. Just last year Saskatchewan had to raise $60 million for power. It will soon have raised $150 million for the distribution of power.
I suggest to the minister, and I think he knows this very well, that Saskatchewan today faces a power crisis and has a claim on this government for the same kind of terms and the same type of policy as are provided to the other provinces. I can say that Saskatchewan would certainly welcome any program of the federal government under which this government would build thermal plants and then sell them to the province, amortized over a period of 30 years, with the payment for power lines over a period of 40 years.
I am informed that in Nova Scotia there are 10,000 miles of transmission and distribution lines; in New Brunswick, 9,000 miles of transmission and distribution lines; in British Columbia, 14,000 miles of transmission and distribution lines; but in Saskatchewan, 34,000 miles of power lines. In other words the province of Saskatchewan has more than three times as many miles of power lines as has Nova Scotia and almost four times as many as New Brunswick. It means that we have to take power to a widely scattered population over a tremendous area, which makes our cost of distribution very high per customer.
I have some other statistics to show the population of farming area per square mile. In Nova Scotia the population of farming area per square mile is 23; in New Brunswick it is 28, and in Saskatchewan it is
Atlantic Provinces Power Development only 4. Therefore our widely scattered population increases the problem of providing adequate power facilities to our people.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I ask
the hon. member a question? Does the very fact he has just mentioned not prove that we in the maritimes need special consideration?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I do not think it proves that at all. Obviously if the farms are two or three miles apart it is more difficult to provide power facilities to the people than if they are much closer together.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does it not prove that in order to increase our population we need special consideration along the same lines as the hon. member has advocated for wheat farmers, which consideration cannot possibly benefit the maritimes?


Hazen Robert Argue: Certainly we would like to see your population increase.
Saskatchewan, on the basis of the area of that province, is much more in need of whatever measures the hon. member may have had in mind designed to increase the population. Certainly if you have a dense population the difficulty of providing power facilities is much less than in sparsely settled areas. I have some other figures that relate to the population of the province and to the square mile of farm area. If you relate the population of Nova Scotia to the square mile of farm area you find the population is 160; New Brunswick is 119, and Saskatchewan only 9.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon. member if he knows the per capita horsepower for Saskatchewan as compared with New Brunswick?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I do not have those figures. I have not seen them.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does he know that in New Brunswick it is only about .26? The average for Canada is 1, and I think he will find the horsepower per capita in Saskatchewan is far greater.


Hazen Robert Argue: That may be.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That, of course, is the main point.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am no electrical engineer, but if I know anything about it I know that the more miles of line you have the higher your power production has to be in order to push the power over this tremendous area of transmission lines. We are developing power in southeastern Saskatchewan, in the coal fields, and transmitting it all the way up to Saskatoon, North Battleford and beyond. I suggest that because our coal fields are located
3074	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development in the extreme corner of the province and our transmission lines are very long it is necessary, even to accomplish the same consumption of power, to have greater facilities.
I believe I could best answer the minister by saying that I do not complain about what is being done for the Atlantic provinces. The Atlantic provinces have not obtained from confederation the same kind of economic standards and the same policies that have applied to other parts of this country. I believe the Atlantic provinces have a good claim for such legislation. All I am doing is submitting to the government that the province from which the minister and I come has a claim that is, at least in many respects, equal to the claim of the Atlantic provinces. I am saying that what is a good policy for the maritime provinces is a good policy for the prairie provinces. I see no reason why the government should have one policy today for the Atlantic provinces, and not be in a position to announce its policy for the other provinces in this country.
I should like to know from the minister what discussions are taking place toward arriving at this national policy to which he has referred. I want to know where a province like Saskatchewan is going to stand with the government in getting the same kind of offer, particularly when there is to be no immediate resumption of the federal-provincial conference and that avenue, at least, will not be open for such discussions. I do appeal to the minister and to the government to come forward with the national power policy they promised the people of this country, and not rest content with a policy that applies only to one part of this nation.


Mr. MacEachen:: I wish at the very beginning of my remarks to indicate my wholehearted support for this particular measure, which is likely to have very important consequences for the province of Nova Scotia. I believe the fact that this measure has come before the house reflects the widespread feeling, not only amongst members of the house but also in the country, that special measures are required in order to advance the economic welfare of the Atlantic region. I realize that one of the main objects of this resolution is to permit the more rapid industrial expansion of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
It should, however, be stated that access to power is only one of the factors in economic development. It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for economic development. It would be a mistake, in supporting this resolution, to put forward the idea to the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that this


is the final solution to the problems of that area. The cost of power is important in industrial development only in so far as it affects the cost of production. In certain industries the cost of power is a minor factor in production, but in other industries it is an overwhelming factor. However, this is a very important step forward and it has the support of the people of Nova Scotia.
We know, Mr. Chairman, that the problem of power has been raised in this house before, and its application to the Atlantic provinces. As a matter of fact, just about two years ago there was an amendment to a motion to go into supply upon which the problem of power was discussed for two days, with respect not only to the maritimes but to all parts of Canada. The views that were expressed on that occasion have some application to the diagnosis that has been given by the minister as to the crux of the power problem in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
On two occasions, last night and again today, the minister has stated that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were power short or power deficit areas. I should like the minister to elaborate further on this particular diagnosis of the problem, because it does not coincide fully with other views that were expressed in that debate on power to which I have referred. When the former member for Cape Breton South took part in that debate he had this to say:
The discussion would suggest that the development of Nova Scotia was retarded because of the lack of power. It is not true that there is lack of power. There is now developed in Nova Scotia power that could be used by any industry that may come in there.
I had occasion during the same debate to refer to an interim study that had been made by the power committee of the Atlantic provinces economic council of power problems in that area. I quoted the remarks made by Mr. Tweeddale, assistant chief engineer of the New Brunswick power commission. He said that basically there is an adequate supply of electrical power available in the maritime regions to meet present demands. The committee believes that electric power can be made available to any section of the region to meet future demands. This interpretation, of course, is somewhat at variance with the diagnosis of the minister. I must at the same time, however, concede that there is in Nova Scotia, and in New Brunswick as well, a feeling that these areas are power short.
I have here the report of an address given four years ago at St. Francis Xavier University by a businessman, Mr. Dyson Crowe, who spoke as follows:
I'm not alone in advocating government owned cheap electricity as the fundamental answer to our Nova Scotian and maritime problems. This is the

common and universal answer of all who have ever studied the question. Just a few nights ago at the fishermen's convention in Amherst, Dr. M. M. Coady, of your extension department, advocated this very thing as the fundamental answer to maritime disabilities.
Hence the minister is not alone in his view although, after having discussed the matter on occasion with the officials of the Nova Scotia power commission in particular, I believe the problem is not so much the difficulty of generating a supply of electricity, but that the difficulty is to generate a supply of electricity at a price comparable with costs in central Canada. This same power committee of the Atlantic provinces economic council stated that the power rates in the Atlantic region were comparable to the power rates on the eastern seaboard of the United States. I should be happy if the minister would assist my understanding and that of the public of the nature of the problem we are now attempting to solve by throwing further light on this particular matter, as to whether the real problem is a power deficit or the need to generate greater quantities of electricity at lower rates.
With that preliminary view, I certainly felt that the minister in introducing this resolution last night was in a very enviable position, because as his first task as a minister in this house he had the privilege of introducing a measure that has been long sought and is now a reality through this resolution. The satisfaction he felt, I am sure, was sincere, although I must confess that I felt that the remarks of the minister last night and today were tinged somewhat by selfdelusion; because he attempted to convey the impression, or at least let me say that he left the impression with me, that he had come to his task as Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and that no plans were in the files, no discussions had preceded his accession to office, and that he himself had decided from the very beginning to develop a power program for the maritime provinces.
When the former minister of northern affairs and national resources last night attempted to stake out a claim, which I thought was a modest one in the circumstances, for a share of the credit for these power proposals, his statement was met by explosions of disbelief on the part of members on the government side of the house. Because this is a good measure, I think I will attempt to set out today the Liberal contribution to this particular problem, or the Liberal stage of development and then, I hope, fairly assess what I consider to be the additional embellishments or improvements that have been made since June 10 or the accession of the new government.
Atlantic Provinces Power Development
The very inspiration for the thinking behind this proposal came from an extremely important report made in 1954 by Professor Christie of Johns Hopkins University. Professor Christie had been asked by the dominion coal board to investigate the problem of the generation of electricity from thermal sources in the maritime provinces, not only in order to meet the situation in respect to electricity but also to provide further markets for coal from that area. On previous occasions I have referred to this report which was submitted on September 20, 1954, to the dominion coal board, and which is entitled, "Thermal Power from, Canadian Coal: The Maritime Situation". As I listened to the minister last night expose the advantages of this plan I could not but recall the words which Professor Christie used in this report. He states:
To ultimately attain minimum electrical rates in the maritime provinces, it is proposed that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia be considered a single area for electrical generation and distribution.
That is the essence of the plan and on the following page, namely page 9, he lists I believe ten advantages that would accrue from this integration. Among these were the very advantages that were pointed out by the minister last night:
(a) The combined system would justify the installation of large steam turbine units built for the maximum fuel economy and which could serve with run of river plants as base load units.
And again:
(e) Such large units on an interconnected system would reduce the cost of reserves, which each utility in the system would otherwise have to maintain for emergency purposes.
And finally:
(g) The addition of low cost capacity to hydro storage plants would lessen the cost of serving peak loads.
In the plan elucidated by the minister last night there is nothing which was not first proposed in this report. I certainly do not think there is anything wrong with that, except that it should be pointed out that the dominion coal board, as an agency of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, had first provided the opportunity for a plan of this kind. I believe this particular work of the dominion coal board is one of the real contributions they have made to this country. It was not unusual that following the presentation of this report it was referred to and put forward as a basis for a plan in this House of Commons on a number of occasions.
I personally felt a great sense of satisfaction when Mr. Harris, in his budget address of last spring, brought together the ideas of Professor Christie and announced them as government policy. I felt that here had been
3076	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development a realization that the needs of the maritime provinces were legitimate needs, and that the government of the day, with the support of the House of Commons, was prepared to put forward a plan that would do the work that was required. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, may I quote one or two sentences from the budget address of Mr. Harris. He states, as reported at page 2,220 of Hansard:
Such interconnection would reduce the requirements for stand-by capacity and would permit the most advantageous location of thermal plants and the building of larger and more efficient thermal units.
Then again:
Under this proposal, the transmission lines would be rented on a non-profit basis and the power would be sold at cost to provincial electric systems. The purpose would be that the plants and other facilities built under this program can be acquired by the provinces at any time on payment of their amortized cost.
The next step in the elaboration of this power plan occurred on April 9, 1957, when the then minister of northern affairs and national resources, made a very important statement to the House of Commons telling us the state of the negotiations between the provinces and the federal government, and announcing to us that in principle the provinces had accepted the federal offer.
That was a very important step forward, but I want to refer in particular to one paragraph of this statement where the then minister pointed out that the Montreal Engineering Company had been retained by the Northern Canada Power Commission to undertake engineering studies, the purpose of such studies being to ascertain where these plants should be built and the effect which the development of larger thermal units and an interconnected system would have on the cost of electricity in the maritime provinces. In other words the broad plan had been laid before the House of Commons by Mr. Harris and the former minister, and the engineering and practical aspects were to be worked out by this Montreal Engineering Company.
At that time it was expected that the report of the Monteral Engineering Company would be available by August 1, and likely it was. That is why, Mr. Chairman, the present Prime Minister was able to say things about power which the former prime minister was not able to say; because he was able, as a result of these studies, to indicate to the house and to the country the extent to which power costs would be reduced by means of this particular innovation.
I am conscious of the fact that in Fredericton the prime minister of the day followed the only wise and responsible course in telling


the people there that he could not say by how much power costs would be reduced, pending completion of the reports; although with one exception the elements upon which the minister elaborated last night, which elements would reduce the power costs, were present in the plan as presented to this house last March and April.
I remember that earlier the Prime Minister, in referring in this house to the power plan, said that the Liberal party had served up a dish which was unpalatable and that the Tory government had served up a dish which would be palatable. Well, I suppose the best judges of the palatability of the dish would be the people of Nova Scotia, and when this initial plan was put forward by the Liberal government it had an immediate response from the people of that province. I have in my hand an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle Herald dated March 25 with the caption "Giant Project", with reference to the Liberal power plan, which says that the probable magnitude of the federal government's planned power development in the maritime provinces, as disclosed by the initial blueprints, is something much larger than most citizens of this area had anticipated.
Another editorial some weeks later entitled "Forging Ahead" says "The announcement by resources minister Jean Lesage of plans for immediate construction of the first of the new federally owned thermal plants in the maritimes is the result of the most heartening display of intergovernmental cooperation in a long time."
The Antigonish Casket said in an editorial entitled "Boosting Maritime Power": "This is wonderful news for the maritime provinces and the most promising development. It is definite proof of concern on the part of the federal authorities for the eastern provinces and their inability to keep in step with the industrial growth of the nation. It supports the point of view held by so many of our leaders that a key factor to industrial progress in our region is economic and sufficient power. It may well be-" decided the observer who, by the way, is one of the keenest students in Nova Scotia "-that this report of minister Lesage will trigger a resurgence of industrial activity in these maritime provinces."
May I now refer to further authorities. I have with me statements in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of March 16 under the headline "Province Welcomes Budget News".
"Anything which will lead to cheaper industrial power in this region is most welcome", Premier Stanfield said yesterday.

Later in the same story the united mine workers had this to say:
District 26 united mine workers of America welcomes a thermal power program set forth in the budget address of Hon. Walter Harris.
The public response in Nova Scotia to this program as outlined by Mr. Harris and Mr. Lesage in the House of Commons was warm, and may I conclude my recitation of authorities by referring to a one-page advertisement in the Halifax Chronicle Herald by the Conservative party in Nova Scotia. It states, "The question of federal thermal power proposals is not an issue". So they too, apparently, found this dish palatable, because they did not want to make it an issue in the election in the province of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Chairman, my reason for setting out this summary of evidence is simple and clear. The minister has left the impression that this plan before the house was developed ab initio by his government at the request of two provinces. This was an inherited plan. It has been added to in one important particular, a particular which was inherent in the plan which would have been the outcome of commitments which had been made by the previous government. I refer to the decision of the government to apply a subvention on the movement of coal to these maritime plants.
I believe there has been a great deal of confusion as to the stand of the previous government on this particular matter. Full guarantees were given that coal would be used in these plants. The new government has now added a further embellishment or improvement to the plan which was ready for them when they came into office.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the key to the whole proposition. Until that was done the other was impractical and the people of the mari-times knew it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would remind the hon. gentleman who has made this interjection that the premier of Nova Scotia introduced a bill which was given second reading, to approve the proposal which the minister now regards as impractical.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He also requested that the former government should estimate what the cost would be, and they were not able to tell him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The minister knows that these matters were at that time under study.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Your prime minister said he could give no report as to the cost.


Jean Lesage: We had not received the report of the Montreal Engineering Company when you took over.
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the point, and it is one which has obviously escaped the attention of many people. As the minister knows, this is another key point-the studies which were then being made by the Montreal Engineering Company.
A subvention on the movement of coal is assistance in the development of electric power. The word "subvention" has been used in the past to describe those payments which were made for the movement of maritime coal to meet the competition of United States coal in central Canada. This new application of the subvention is an ingenious one, but it is not precisely the same application and it does not fall within the usual definition of a subvention. It will add to the attractiveness of this power program for the maritime provinces, but I say it would be unusual if a new government of Canada, such as the one now holding office, could not find a way to make some additional improvements in a plan which was, in its entirety, so important and so useful to the economy of Nova Scotia. The response of the Liberal government to the needs and the power possibilities of the maritime provinces was a massive response. The response of the new Tory government is an agonizing reacceptance of the Liberal policy.


Thomas Miller Bell: The people did not think so.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this resolution I must say I am delighted that the government has recognized the needs of the Atlantic provinces, particularly since I understand that the Atlantic provinces have been in a period of depression, or recession, for some years past, due largely to capital Liberal policy, or the policy of former governments, though I do not wish to pursue the question of who is to blame for this state of affairs which has made this legislation necessary. That is not my purpose at this time. I just want to ask the minister one or two questions, and I will come to them shortly.
The resolution as it stands-and I will not read it in its entirety-provides for the government to assist in the generation of electric energy by thermal electric power projects and in the control and transmission of electric energy, including provisions for the payment of a subvention on coal used in the production of electric energy. It specifically mentions the Atlantic provinces. One of the hon. members who spoke earlier in the debate, and possibly others as well, wondered at the time why this was not declared to be a national policy. I, likewise, wonder why the word "Atlantic" was inserted in the
3078	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development resolution as it now stands, because certainly there are other parts of Canada which could well make use of this type of legislation, including the province of British Columbia. I know that we have great resources of water power available. However, the minister himself must be aware that the capital cost of providing equipment for the proper development of these power resources is becoming prohibitive, and that it is increasingly difficult to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary for such development, and to do this on an economic basis.
The minister did give me some hope, because he had this to say as recorded in Hansard on page 3038:
Given electric energy at a cost competitive with that available in other areas of Canada the people in the Atlantic region will be in a much better position to compete successfully with all comers in Canada or elsewhere.
And again on page 3039 he expresses himself in these terms:
The subvention on coal for power production based on such a differential and paid on performance should, firstly, give the Atlantic provinces an opportunity of competing more successfully with the rest of Canada from the viewpoint of power costs.
Those two quotations would in themselves indicate that the cost of power throughout the various provinces of Canada has been carefully studied, and that it has been found that the cost in the Atlantic provinces is high as compared with the cost in other provinces; to such an extent, indeed, as to make it necessary for the government to provide a subvention on coal used for the development of power in that region.
I would ask the minister, therefore, to indicate to the committee-I am not questioning his statement in any way, but I should just like to know

what the various provinces pay for power so that we can give this matter the thorough study which I think it deserves.
On page 3039 the minister continues:
Secondly, there will be an indirect support for the Atlantic seaboard coal to be used in this region.
I may say in respect of that that we have coal mines in my province which have been idle for some years and which might become productive again if we had the opportunity to develop power by means of a subvention, on the same basis as is provided in this resolution. An arrangement of this sort would enable us to have the power which we so badly require.
Lest any members of the committee be under the impression that there is unlimited hydro power to spare in British Columbia,
I would draw to their attention the fact


that we are building a thermal plant at loco at the cost of many millions of dollars-a hundred million dollars estimate-the purpose of which is to make electric power available on the lower mainland at a price which would compete with the supposedly cheap waterpower we are said to enjoy at this time. For this reason it seems to me that the minister should outline specifically any reasons why he should oppose the striking out of the word "Atlantic" in his resolution, so that it would read as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the government of Canada to enter into agreements with any of the provinces to provide assistance in the generation of electric energy by thermal electric power projects and in the control and transmission of electric energy, and including provisions for the payment of a subvention on coal used in the production of electric energy.
On this basis I feel it would be a more desirable and palatable resolution than as it now stands. Certainly I concede and I am satisfied that the people in my province and throughout Canada as a whole join me in welcoming the fact that the Atlantic region will receive the preference at this time because of its depressed condition but we would like to see legislation introduced that would make it possible to extend assistance of this kind to every province in Canada requiring it without the necessity of having to go to parliament to bring in an amendment to the act.
As I said earlier, the cost of electrical power throughout the nation should be studied. I believe we should know what we are talking about when we speak of cheaper power for the Atlantic provinces as compared with the other provinces so we can rest assured that the money we are being asked to expend today for this project will achieve the desired results.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Chairman, it is with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this resolution. The pride arises out of the fact that it is a Conservative government led by the great and illustrious Prime Minister, champion of the little man in Canada, which has introduced this legislation. At long last we in Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces have been discovered by Ottawa and it has taken a Conservative government to make this discovery. In line with this it has had the courage and imagination to do something of value for this part of Canada. Of course, I could say that we were "discovered" once again by the previous government, just prior to the last election as we had been on similar occasions for many years, but that was as far as it ever went. In fact, just before the

last election we were promised everything under the sun short of moving the national capital from Ottawa to Halifax.


An hon. Member:: By John Diefenbaker.


Robert Muir: We were deluged with cabinet ministers in their eleventh hour repentance; and after all the deadwood had been brought in they tried their luck with "smallwood" but alas the people of Nova Scotia were not going to be fooled again. As one prominent newspaper has stated:
The Conservative government is being true, not only to its election promises, but to its whole concept of national development, when it announces large-scale measures to promote production and distribution of cheap power in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
I feel that the announcement of this program is to be highly commended. It offers the type of assistance specifically directed toward industrial growth that will do the maritimes the most good. For generations we have lagged behind the rest of Canada in progress and prosperity. In 1956, for example, Nova Scotia's per capita income was $1,000 and New Brunswick's $923 against a national average of $1,350. It may be said that the Atlantic provinces are being specially favoured by this government. This is not so. We have not been asking for favours, only for our rights, and it has taken a Conservative government to recognize them. I think all hon. members must have heard at one time or another of maritime rights. This is the boldest step ever taken by any government since confederation to raise the economy of this area.
The rash of promises that were made by the former government in its dying throes prior to the last election made mention of the construction of thermal plants but there is a tremendous difference in the proposal made at that time and the excellent one we have before us now. By a strange coincidence that death-bed proposal was made on March 14 by some fellow by the name of Harris. Every one in the opposition is talking about that date. How interesting that it should have been made on March 14, 1957, and then came June 10, 1957. What a strange coincidence. I do not know what the connection is between these two dates but they are separated by only a short space of time.
I was pleased to note when the Prime Minister made his momentous announcement in this house on November 14 last concerning assistance to the Atlantic provinces, the Leader of the Opposition was quick to see the difference to which I have referred. In his remarks one of the chief differences he
Atlantic Provinces Power Development noted was that this government was prepared to pay subventions on coal used for power purposes. He indicated that this would probably have the double-barrelled effect of aiding the coal industry as well as providing more attractive power for industrial purposes. There is no probability about it: the payment of subventions will definitely assist the coal industry and this is of vital importance to us in my area because the coal industry is our bread and butter.
It was mentioned by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond that our proposition had improved a wee bit since the proposal of his government was made on March 14. That "wee bit of improvement" in which we are so interested amounts, I believe, to approximately $1,700,000 yearly in subventions. The minister could correct me if I am wrong in that figure. To my knowledge no mention was ever made to the payment of subventions until the proposal of the present government was outlined, as verified by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond also said that it did not become an election issue. It certainly was an election issue in my area because we were vitally interested in this question which was extremely important to us.
There is a tremendous difference, with a capital "D", in the pre-election plan offered at the last minute by the previous government, and the one we have before us today. This plan has been hailed, welcomed and acclaimed by provincial leaders, civic leaders and by newspapers, not only in the Atlantic provinces but throughout Canada, and also by the coal miners who are the group most vitally concerned and by the leaders of the miners' union and others. I do not have as much time as some other hon. members and my scissors are not very sharp so I did not have an opportunity to clip all the newspaper articles and editorial comment expressing support of this measure but many comments have appeared in the press since this announcement was made. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond read several press comments into the record and I could do the same thing. One article to which I have already referred is entitled, "Muscle for the Maritimes" and reads:
The Conservative government is being true, not only to its election promises, but to its whole concept of national development, when it announces large-scale measures to promote production and distribution of cheap power in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would my hon. friend tell me from what newspaper he is quoting.



Atlantic Provinces Power Development Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):
That is to be found in the Cape Breton Post a good paper and it is quoted from the Toronto Globe and Mail. I have another editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of November 16, 1957.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Muir: My hon. friends on the opposite side should not laugh and ridicule because that is one reason you are sitting over there.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Then you will soon be here.


Robert Muir: You know, I am one of those of whom a so-called great Liberal leader said they should be put in padded cells. I am a coal miner and that comment was made by a so-called great leader of the Liberal party.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To whom are you referring?


Robert Muir: I would dislike to disturb him today, he has since passed on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman should be fair enough to tell us to whom he attributes that remark.


Robert Muir: I have answered you, sir.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You should identify the person; I do not think the statement was ever made by any Liberal.


Robert Muir: If the plan of the previous administration was as good as the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond stated it was when a gentleman named Mr. Harris announced it, why did the people of Nova Scotia show their resentment toward the plan by returning ten Conservative members out of a possible 12 from Nova Scotia.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You explained that yourself by telling us about the Conservative promises made before the election.


Robert Muir: I should like to quote what Mr. John H. Delaney, international board member of the United mine workers of district 26, had to say shortly after the announcement:
We very much welcome the announcement by the federal government that thermal power plants will be erected in the maritimes. The plan is an excellent thing for Nova Scotia's coal industry. Anything that will expand the maritime market for coal is good for the industry. The government's plan as announced last week will not only provide cheap power for industry, but will very materially help the coal industry.
That is a very important point-helping the coal industry.

There has been some controversy within the last day or so as to what the Leader of the Opposition said at some meeting in Fredericton. I was quite interested. I had not followed it before; it had not appeared in our local papers, but I made it my business to look it up and I have it here as it appeared in the Daily Gleaner of Fredericton for May 24, 1957. I should like to take this opportunity to say that what the hon. member for Cape Breton South said yesterday was quite right. Absolutely right. I should like to quote part of the article. An editorial appeared in the paper some time previous to the meeting and it was in relation to that editorial that the Leader of the Opposition made his remarks at the meeting, and I should like to quote from the article:
After quoting the editorial, Mr. St. Laurent would not venture to say how much power would cost in New Brunswick. It was an engineering proposition that would have to be investigated. If it was found that power could not be produced at reasonable prices the Atlantic provinces would have to do without it.
However, the Prime Minister expressed confidence that power could be produced at "reasonable and competitive prices".
I am covering the article pretty well; I am not just picking out certain parts. I continue:
Purpose of the federal offer to construct thermal plants was to bring cheaper power to the maritimes; not primarily to aid coal mines in Nova Scotia.
Remember he said "not primarily" to aid coal mines in Nova Scotia.
Mr. St. Laurent believed that eventually-
This is the point that the hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned yesterday:
-coal would be too valuable a material for production of synthetic products to be used as a fuel. He did not want to see coal centres turned into "ghost towns", but he would not encourage any immediate substantial increase in coal production.
It would not be fair to future generations in the maritimes who would greatly benefit from the increased value of coal as an industrial raw material. If federal-developed thermal power aided Nova Scotia coal mines, that was "incidental and will be all for the good".
That is what the former prime minister said.
Incidental! That is more or less Liberal thinking, incidental as far as the maritimes are concerned.
Let us get back to the resolution. I should like to make a very important observation. Let me say that we have come a long way when we look back and recall the visit of the former minister of fisheries in the previous government to the maritimes. This has been mentioned in the house on another occasion, but I should like to refresh the memories of my friends opposite. At that time the hon. member for Coast-Capilano opened his mouth and put his foot in it with

his infamous statement that uneconomical coal mines must eventually close. Close them up! It does not make any difference. Close them all up, nothing can be done about them!
Don't even consider if anything can be done. It was a simple matter for the hon. member to make this rash statement, but it is not so simple for a miner to leave his home and everything he has accumulated through years of hard, dirty, miserable and dangerous work. And this is what he would have to do because we do not have any other industry to which he can turn. It is no wonder that the union officials of Princess local union of the united mineworkers of America at Sydney Mines, my home town, termed this statement brazen and a black eye to organized workers in the coal industry in my province. I can think of other words that may have been used. What a contrast, Mr. Chairman, what a picture! We have on the one hand a member of the Liberal government coming into our own back yard and with unmitigated gall kicking us in the teeth. This is a do-nothing-for-you, a take-you-no-where and a kick-you-after-he-gets-you-there policy.
As far as the maritimes are concerned, this has been the policy of the Liberal party in the past; it is their present policy and it shall continue to be their policy in the future. On the other hand, we have a government which is composed of men who are dedicated to the job of providing good legislation, and they have proven it in the short time that they have been in office, not only for the maritimes but for all of Canada.
When I began my remarks I mentioned that I was proud that this legislation had been introduced by a Conservative government. Let me reiterate that once more. I have to interrupt myself because I have something here that is very important, namely another statement from the office of the united mineworkers of America at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. This local represents roughly 10,000 men at the moment. I should like to quote the following paragraph:
It will take some time for the government program to be completed, but "we hope the proposal to pay subventions on coal used in power production will apply right away".
That is the thing we are interested in and that is the thing we were interested in during the campaign. Let me reiterate once more that I am doubly proud that we have as our leader the Prime Minister, a great man who will not only be noted in history as the man of the year 1957, but the man of the century in Canada.
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this resolution. Let me say at the outset, as some other members from the west have already said, that I am indeed pleased to know that New Brunswick is getting some assistance. It does not matter to me particularly what government they get it from so long as they get it. The Atlantic provinces are one part of Canada which has not received the same consideration that other parts of Canada have received, neither have the western provinces received the same assistance as have other parts of Canada. Therefore I am grateful that on this occasion at least the Atlantic provinces are getting some consideration.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, the time has long passed when we should have legislation in this country which discriminates against one part of the community as compared with another. Over the last few years we have had several examples of that discrimination. One example that comes to my mind is the freight rate structure of Canada. The Atlantic provinces and the western provinces have been discriminated against in the matter of freight rates ever since confederation. It is no wonder that some of the provinces are complaining bitterly at the present time about that discrimination and are asking that some assistance be given them in this respect.
As I say, I am glad to know that the Atlantic provinces are getting assistance. I do not want anything that I might say to be construed in any way as being opposed to assistance to the Atlantic provinces. In fact, Mr. Chairman, on many occasions in this house I have emphasized the importance and the necessity of giving assistance to the Atlantic provinces so that they might be brought on a par with the central provinces of Canada. I have also urged that the western provinces might be brought on a par with the central provinces because, in my opinion, it is not good economically, it is not good nationally that the two central provinces should be given assistance that will be of greater benefit to them than to the other parts of Canada.
I said a moment ago that I thought the .freight rate structure of this country was discriminatory against the Atlantic provinces and the western provinces, and I want to say that this bill is discriminatory also in its effect. I think, in that sense, it is bad. Certainly I know the Atlantic provinces need assistance in generating electrical power. I happened to be there a couple of years ago and I can say without hesitation that, in my judgment at least, the Atlantic provinces are

Atlantic Provinces Power Development 10 to 15 years behind the central provinces because ol the discrimination which has existed in the past. We in the west are fighting to the utmost extent of our ability in trying to make some progress against the obstacles which have been placed in our way by the central provinces.
Here we have a resolution which, in my judgment, is discriminatory against every part of Canada. I am not referring to the central provinces when I say that. The resolution before us, according to the minister, has two main purposes in mind. He says this, as reported at page 3037 of Hansard for January 8, 1958:
As announced in this house on November 14, 1957, by the Prime Minister, apart from the financing of Beechwood, which is being dealt with separately, the present proposed measure would do two things. For those Atlantic provinces who desire such aid the dominion government would build for and sell to the provinces such thermal plants and transmission facilities as may be agreed upon. The second part of the program would consist of granting a subvention on Atlantic provinces' coal consumed for the production of power in the Atlantic provinces. This subvention would be so calculated as to eliminate, so far as possible, the differential in price between coal used in the Atlantic area and coal used in Ontario for the production of power.
Thus not only is assistance to be given in this way, but he said that in the future there would undoubtedly be other programs submitted which would require to be considered by parliament. This is, therefore, a rather extensive program. We hope that the results of the resolution will be beneficial to the Atlantic provinces. We hope also that this element of discrimination is removed. It is quite obvious because the resolution itself says:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the government of Canada to enter into agreements with any of the Atlantic provinces to provide assistance in the generation of electric energy by thermal electric power projects and in the control and transmission of electric energy,-
This is important.
-and including provisions for the payment of a subvention on coal used in the production of electric energy.
Why does the government confine it to the Atlantic provinces? Why not say that the government will enter into agreements with any province to provide the same facilities as they are providing under this measure for the Atlantic provinces? I thought this Conservative government was going to do something about the development of Canada, but here we have a measure which, in its effect, is going to carry out the same policy of discrimination as was carried out by the other government. I was in hopes that this government would do something on a national

basis to help all those have-not provinces, instead of confirming this measure of aid to one section of the country.
I want to speak about this subvention on coal. We, in the province of Alberta, produce electric power by two means, by hydro and by this thermal process. It is difficult for some of the thermal units to compete with hydro. I believe that in the city of Edmonton they have switched to gas. They had no assistance when they were forced to use coal. Then, down in the Drumheller area we produce electric power from coal. We have had no assistance.
Now, substantial assistance is going to be given to the coal mining industry of New Brunswick and the other Atlantic provinces. I am glad to see them get it, because in the last few years they have been in very great difficulty. We in Alberta have been in the same position, so why discriminate against Alberta? I am not going to speak about coal at this time, but I did put these figures on Hansard just the other day, and I want to say that over the last four or five years the Alberta mines have been forced to close at the rate of 15 to 20 mines a year. Our production is continually falling.
The last speaker was referring to some of the promises made by the Prime Minister in the Atlantic areas, which he is now carrying out. What about the promises he made concerning the production of coal in our provinces? A number of mines closed again in the first eight months of last year, and production went down considerably.


Mr. Beech:: Why not change governments?


Charles Edward Johnston: God forbid that anything like that would happen.


Thomas Miller Bell: Don't be so serious.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is a serious problem. I am amazed at the attitude of the hon. member when he asks, why don't we change governments. Surely he recognizes that there is discrimination in this legislation. He should be the first one in this house to object to this type of legislation. Let him come out in the province of Alberta and he will see that the only reason we have been progressing is that we have not had either a Liberal or Conservative government.


An hon. Member:: What about oil?


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Oil has done a lot, but what have you fellows down here done to our oil industry? You have practically ruined the oil industry because of your trade policies with the United States.


Henri Courtemanche: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: These are the tactics used by this so-called progressive government; the Diefenbaker government.
Let us examine the extent to which this project is going to assist the coal mining industry of the Atlantic provinces. It is going to be a very substantial amount. Let me say that I am glad they are getting that assistance.


An hon. Member:: Then why do you object?


Charles Edward Johnston: Because of the unfair treatment that is given to the west in regard to coal.


An hon. Member:: Why not do that another year?


Charles Edward Johnston: Let us not wait for another bill. All you have to do is leave out that word "Atlantic" and put in the word "any". My friends might think this is a joke, but I am afraid that when it comes time for another election they will not see the joke. All we are trying to do now is make sure this thing will not be used as a political football.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does the hon. member consider the P.F.R.A. discriminatory? It applies particularly to his province and not to others.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would say that it is, but it does not apply particularly to Alberta. It applies to the western provinces. On many occasions I have objected to that very thing. I believe it should be made applicable all over Canada. Why does the hon. member not get up and say the same thing about this measure?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not consider it
discriminatory.


Charles Edward Johnston: When the measure applies only to the Atlantic provinces that must be, even in your limited knowledge of the word, discriminatory.


Mr. Broome:: It is too bad your knowledge is not limited to words.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think my stand is well taken.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a
question?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the hon. member consider the trans-Canada pipe line discriminatory, in the sense it does not extend to the maritime provinces?


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope, my dear sir, it gets right down to the Atlantic provinces.
3083
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


Thomas Miller Bell: You voted for it last year. It would have been there a long time ago if it had not been for you.


Henri Courtemanche: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: It would have been there a long time ago if it had not been for you and your party.


Henri Courtemanche: I would ask the hon. member to address the chair.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am just answering some of their questions, Mr. Chairman. I might add that they did their best to kill that measure entirely. But of course I do not intend to speak about the pipe line at this time. I want to refer to another part of the minister's remarks in this regard. At page 3039 of Hansard he states this about the subvention:
The rate of assistance per ton will vary with the quality of the coal used in the individual plants. For example, a plant using coal with a heat value of 13,325 B.T.U. per pound would qualify for $1.81 per ton at the rate of 6.78 cents per million B.T.U., while another plant using coal of 11,190 B.T.U. per pound would rate $1.62.
Just before that, as reported at page 3038 of Hansard, he points out:
The second phase of the government's program will consist of a subvention on the Atlantic provinces' coal used for the production of thermal electric energy in the Atlantic provinces. For the purpose of this resolution the annual cost of such a subvention is currently estimated to amount to $1.7 million.
I wonder whether the members of the Conservative party have given a thought to what amount of assistance that sum of money would give in restoring our coal industry in western Canada. We also could use this subvention on coal for the production of electric power. When we are talking about these subventions for this particular purpose, let us make the measure apply to all parts of Canada. Then if there were other parts of Canada that do not want to use it, that would be their affair. The measure would be there for them to use if they desire to do so. Then it cannot be said that it is cheaper to produce your power by hydro or that it is cheaper to use natural gas. If that is the case, then of course none of those provinces would apply for assistance and there should be then no objection to removing this restriction.
We in the province of Alberta are in a mighty bad position so far as our coal industry is concerned and such assistance as this, if it were applied to other parts of Canada, would be of great help. We have hundreds and hundreds of coal miners who are out of work, just as you had in the Atlantic provinces. You were seeking a way in which to be able to re-open some of these

Atlantic Provinces Power Development mines, to assist the mines and the people so employed, and you figure that this is one way in which to do it. I am sure that it will. But why deprive those of us in the rest of Canada from getting that same assistance? We have many miners out there in my constituency alone who are out of a job now and who have exhausted their unemployment insurance. There is no place else for them to go because they are coal miners. Yet we do not get any assistance like this.
Surely it is time that the government of Canada began to enact legislation which would be of equal benefit all over the country so that all parts of Canada would be able to expand industrially thus giving them the same standard of living as is enjoyed by the two central provinces. When you do anything that counteracts that high principle then I think you are on the wrong road and you should change the legislation or amend it so that things will be equal, wherever it is possible to do so.


Thomas Miller Bell: The attitude of some of the hon. members opposite in the debate is most amazing to me. While this measure and the previous measure on Beechwood are somewhat of an anticlimax to those of us who took part in debates on these subjects over the last four years, I feel that a comment should be made on some of the things that have been said.
First of all, I think that reference should be made to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and his amazing position during these last two days. He is the only former Liberal cabinet minister from the Atlantic provinces left after the debacle in the last election. He is also, I understand, the Liberal caucus chairman of the members of that party from the Atlantic provinces, and I would think he would be obliged to speak up for any measures that would benefit one of those provinces. Yet we see the example here today and yesterday of an attack on this legislation that would definitely benefit one of those provinces in which he is supposed to be interested.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair. As to the Beechwood matter which is not under debate now, I said that I would not oppose something that was good for New Brunswick merely because the government would not tell us how the principle would apply in other provinces. But I think I had a perfect right to inquire how it would apply in the province I represent. When I spoke about this measure today I said it was an excellent resolution, and I have nothing to take back.
[Mr. Johnston (Bow River).)


Thomas Miller Bell: I certainly
would think that a man with the hon. member's 20 years of experience in parliament could use the term "excellent" without taking two days to do it. However, the stand of some of the other members from the maritimes- and I am referring to them in this instance- is also amazing. The hon. member for Charlotte who has always opposed this Beechwood project-


Jean Lesage: He did not speak in this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I was severely restricted by Your Honour and other members from the chair yesterday in debating Beechwood. Surely you are not going to permit the hon. member to debate Beechwood on another resolution.


Henri Courtemanche: I think the hon. member was referring to the debate of yesterday and I would ask him to confine himself to the proposition that we now have before us.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is all right, Mr. Chairman, I am merely referring to the amazing position that has been taken by the maritime members. I think the fact is very noticeable that the hon. member for Westmorland has not had anything to say in the debate today and yesterday. Since this session began we have witnessed the asking of question after question before the orders of the day were called. Yet on this important measure that means so much he has not had a word to say. It may be that he is a shrewd politician, however, and realizes that it is smart politics not to oppose this measure in any form whatever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this the latest form of closure?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not think any of the maritime members who spoke on both resolutions have spoken against them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not one of them.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No one has opposed the measure.


Thomas Miller Bell: They may not oppose the measure by their votes, but that has become a common procedure around here. We know-and the Hansard record shows it- what has gone on in the past two days here.


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


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Does the hon. member recall that in January, 1954 there was a debate in this house on the National Housing Act in which 52 speeches were made by the opposition members criticizing the legislation and

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
that when the vote came there were 186 votes amend this measure so as to include the for and 2 against, including that of the hon. province of Newfoundland in this excellent member.	legislation?


Henri Courtemanche: Order. I hope hon. members will confine their remarks to the subject matter we are discussing.


Thomas Miller Bell: What I rose to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, was simply the fact that the narrow-mindedness that has been shown, particularly by some maritime Liberal members and by some other members opposite from other parts of the country, is confined to parliament only. The people outside the House of Commons appreciate this measure and, as a maritimer, I am proud to know that fact. I want to place on record two editorials that were written and published in our papers after the news was announced of the Beechwood and the thermal plant measures.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: On November 16, 1957, the Toronto Globe and Mail had this editorial.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That great maritime paper.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is from a section of the country that would perhaps not directly benefit from this measure and this is the attitude they take:
The Conservative government is being true not only to its election promises but to its whole concept of national development, when it announces large scale measures to promote production and distribution of cheap power in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
. . . What makes us think this is the new spirit of self-help evident in the maritimes since men like Premier Flemming and Premier Stanfield came into office. That these men are Conservatives matters little enough; what matters is their determination to write a new and more cheerful chapter in the maritimes' history. Such men can be counted upon to make the very most of the newly announced power program; using it as a means to build up industry which in turn will build up living standards, tax revenues, public services and all the rest.
Some will say that the maritimes are being specially favoured by Ottawa. Not at all. Whatever can be done to make these "have-not" provinces self-supporting relieves the "have" provinces (such as Ontario) which are now obliged to help carry them and which, because of the maritimes' low purchasing power, cannot do as much business there as they would like to. If per capita income in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can be raised, every person in every province will feel the benefit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he not think it is rather narrow minded-and I use his own phrase as I would not otherwise have used it -on the part of the government to refuse to 96698-195i


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is included.


Thomas Miller Bell: Newfoundland can benefit under this in the same way as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia for the particular reasons for which this measure is being brought down. In the Ottawa Journal, Mr. Chairman, there was a similar editorial-


Jean Lesage: Another great Liberal paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A great maritime paper too.


Thomas Miller Bell: -on the
same date as follows:
It would be perhaps foolish to expect that what Mr. Diefenbaker's government is doing will immediately raise the prosperity of the maritimes to the level of rich provinces like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia; geography and resources can't be just brushed aside. But if what is being done results in some measure of maritime betterment, some more equal division of the good things of our country, thus bringing more maritime content and consequently more of national unity, the thing, will surely be worth-while.


An hon. Member:: What date was that?


Thomas Miller Bell: That was in the Journal of November 16, 1957. I think that is all I have to say at this time and I merely wanted to put these on the record. I think a great deal of credit should be given to


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Harris.


Thomas Miller Bell: -the premiers of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to the new Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who is new to this parliament but certainly a long-time advocate of development policy and certainly very ready to catch on to many of the needs of the poorer sections of our country. I also think that the new Prime Minister deserves a tremendous amount of credit for going forward-


John Whitney Pickersgill: With Mr. Harris' proposals.


Thomas Miller Bell: -in pursuance to his election promises. We have an old saying down in the maritimes which may not be understood by some of the hon. members who are not from that proud and historical area but which was used in the provincial election a few years ago, and, on one occasion which I remember, by our present premier when referring to the Liberals and their past record. He was referring to their promises and what they had done and I think his words are appropriate at this time so I will end my brief remarks with them: They promised it. We did it.

3G8S
Atlantic Provinces Power Development


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a tew further comments on this important resolution. I want to assure my hon. friend from Saint John-Albert that in so far as the maritime Liberals are concerned we are 100 per cent behind this resolution.


Mr. Fulton:: Queer way you have of showing it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Because we claim parentage for the ideas and the imagination behind this proposal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are giving it a long labour.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps the Minister of Justice was not in his seat this afternoon but I think if he had listened when I outlined the historical background of this measure he would have agreed with what I said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was here and I do not agree.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a simple catalogue of facts and the hon. gentleman was not here.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I realize that the disagreement of various members on the government side has been expressed more by irresponsible statements of nonsense rather than by an analysis of history. I think if the Minister of Justice wishes to put his disagreement in concrete form he should do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would have thought it more important to get the resolution passed.


Jean Lesage: You want to get on with your estimates.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will get the resolution passed. I want at the very outset to refer to some very sensible remarks made by the hon. member for Kings with regard to the problem of the development in the province of Prince Edward Island. He pointed out that there is hardly any hydro possibility in that island and I think the only possible way of developing electrical energy there is through coal from the west coast of Cape Breton. That is a very appealing proposition to me because the west coast of Cape Breton island lies within the boundary of Inverness-Riehmond and contains very large coal deposits in the Port Hood area and Mabou area, in the Inverness area and in the Ste. Rose area. These are extensive deposits and the collieries and towns which have grown up around these coal deposits have suffered perhaps more than any other part of Nova Scotia during the difficulties in the coal industry.
I would suggest that the minister explore as fully as possible the proposition put forward by his colleague from Kings on the

idea of using greater amounts of coal from Inverness county in the thermal plant in that island.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You are glad we added Prince Edward Island.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 
Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask
what was the date of the report of Mr. Winters' remarks?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If my hon. friend from Inverness-Richmond will permit me, I happen to have been a member of the administration. Is the hon. gentleman suggesting for one moment that Mr. Winters' statement was untrue?


Thomas Miller Bell: No, I was
not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A deathbed repentance is
always the most sincere.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might add that that decision was made before the campaign even started, and my hon. friend from Montmagny-L'lslet reminds me that he announced it in the house.


Jean Lesage: On April 9.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, representing as I do a mining constituency and one which also contains a thermal power plant, may I say how greatly I and the people of my constituency appreciate both the thermal power program and the subvention on coal. Why are we so pleased? We are pleased because we are going to get two things: cheaper power, which will attract the industry we have for so long tried to attract in the past and, secondly, new markets for our coal. An example of just how badly we need markets for our coal can be gathered from a news report yesterday that Dosco informed the people of Springhill that they would be unable to reopen their No. 4 colliery because of a lack of markets for that coal. The reopening of this mine is very important both for the people of Cumberland county and the people of Nova Scotia, and it is my firm belief that with the subvention on coal and the building of these thermal power plants there is no doubt that the people in my constituency can look forward in the future to the reopening of this mine.
The people of Nova Scotia are well aware of the difference between Liberal promises and Conservative action. That has been well exemplified since June 10. Shortly before June 10 we saw in Nova Scotia more members of the Liberal cabinet than we had ever seen before, probably in the 90 years since confederation. And after we had seen this Liberal deadwood they followed up with Smallwood, but it did not do very much good, because instead of one Conservative member, today there are in Canada ten Nova Scotia constituencies which returned
3083	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development Conservative members. I think this is the best example of the feeling of the people of Nova Scotia toward the Liberal front benchers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister would care to inform the committee what the government has in mind by way of applying this welcome policy to other parts of Canada.
I should be glad if he would make some comments on the remarks I made earlier. I do not need to tell him that Saskatchewan is hoping the federal government can adopt the policy that will aid her with her very difficult power problems.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, am I correct in assuming that all other hon. members have finished their remarks on the resolution? I would prefer just to wind it up.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
this another form of closure?


Mr. Kucherepa:: Speak to the resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: We can speak after you do. I can appreciate the attitude of the minister in that he wishes to wait until all hon. members have had a chance to present him with their views on this resolution before he speaks but I do not think he can be serious when he said that he expects to be the last speaker in the debate or to wind it up because obviously there could be a great deal of discussion following his remarks. I would think that the best procedure to adopt in order to expedite this resolution would be for the minister to deal with the points that have been raised.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If that tends to expedite the matter perhaps I should follow that course. There has been a discussion over a wide range of subjects on this resolution and in all fairness to the minister I think some of these matters could better be answered in the committee stage. I am referring to precise figures, for instance. I will mention only a few of them at this time and if any hon. member is not satisfied and wishes a fuller answer at the committee stage I will be glad to co-operate with him.
I wish to deal first with the question raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia which was also raised by Alberta and British Columbia members regarding aid to these other provinces. I think the best way to reply would be to refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister on November 22, 1957, as recorded at page 1405 of Hansard, dealing with the hydro aspect, in reply to questions


asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The first question reads:
Are loans based on the principle applied to the Beechwood project to be available only for projects in the Atlantic provinces?
The Prime Minister said that the answer was no. The second question reads:
If not, will all provinces qualify?
The Prime Minister replied:
The answer is that any province that has a project for which there is an equally good case could qualify in respect of that project.
In regard to Saskatchewan the government of that province has placed before the government of Canada a tentative power proposal which more or less outlines the situation. I expect shortly they will be submitting some sort of case to the government and we are awaiting it. I cannot go beyond saying that we are willing to examine these cases on the basis of the merits of the case and along the lines of the idea I made very clear, that if there was need for it, as in the case of the maritimes area or in the case of high cost areas in any other part of Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question on this point. Does the government's attitude relate only to projects that might be comparable to the loans made for the Beech-wood project or does this offer, policy or proposal apply to arrangements similar to the thermal plants and transmission lines that might be developed under this policy? I think Saskatchewan would be more interested in the latter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I believe that would be true in any case where a province finds itself in difficulty in this regard and can make out a case on economic grounds. We are trying to get power costs down to encourage industry. I do not think it should be exactly limited to hydro. We are thinking in terms of hydro in the case of Saskatchewan because that is what their original proposition was, one dam at Coteau Creek and five downstream dams there. But as the hon. member for Assiniboia well knows, Saskatchewan with its rich coal deposits at Estevan is able to produce power at site cheaper than most hydro-electric installations. So far the provincial power corporation has been going along quite smoothly in getting loans for this purpose but like all other parts of Canada has been suffering under the burden of paying a high interest rate in the last two years and therefore there is a financial problem.
At this stage of the procedure I am supposed to be dealing with a resolution concerning thermal power in the four Atlantic

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
provinces as well as transmission lines but I think I have said enough to indicate what the general policy is and I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with these remarks.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I take it that whether or not an agreement could be reached the government would be prepared to give consideration to a proposal for assistance for thermal plants within Saskatchewan? This is the very great burden carried by the Saskatchewan power corporation and therefore indirectly by the provincial treasury in raising very large sums of money; $60,000,000 last year.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member has gone a little further in his interpretation than I actually went. I said that at the moment we had been considering only hydro in Saskatchewan because that is the only thing about which the government has made any proposition to the federal government. I also said in relation to thermal power that the Saskatchewan power corporation was producing very cheap thermal power at the present time at site at Estevan. At this time I can only go as far as to say that the government has indicated an attitude of willingness to consider any one of these propositions in the light of the circumstances.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Chairman, by way of clearing my mind on the point, do I understand from the minister that the Saskatchewan government has never asked for assistance similar to this in connection with the present Estevan development where it is spending some $40 million on the development of power from coal? Has the government never asked for assistance in that regard?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: To my knowledge, no.


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point, if the minister will check the record I believe he will find that Saskatchewan asked the previous administration and has renewed the same general request to this government but is waiting to see whether the government is going to fulfil its commitments so far as hydro development on the South Saskatchewan river dam is concerned and once that is decided Saskatchewan will then know the amount of money it would require from the federal government for thermal development. But if the minister wants to know the position of the Saskatchewan government, it would like the same kind of treatment with regard to all power development as is to be given to the Atlantic provinces.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had a pledge of being expedited
because I did not want to start here any form of discussion concerning the particular problems of Saskatchewan or any other part of Canada. I am trying to get through a resolution preceding a bill to bring into force an act that I think will assist in getting us started on the program. I believe that this is a reasonably honest effort by the government to meet a condition of high cost power in a certain area of this country where the costs of power are higher than in any other part of Canada.


Jean Lesage: How can you be "reasonably" honest?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not as
expert as the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet in dealing with dialectics and semantics.


Jean Lesage: Oh, I am not a professor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, there was a point raised, and I think a good one, by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception in relation to the province of Newfoundland when he spoke of the need in Newfoundland to have the word "hydro" included in there. In answer to that I think I might say that this did not enter into our minds because hydro in Newfoundland has been quite cheap compared to the cost of power in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. As I said, in this particular resolution we were attempting to meet a specific problem in the best way we could in co-operation with the government that requested the help.
The Hamilton river is the great source of future power for the province of Newfoundland. This has been turned over at the present time by the government of Newfoundland to a private corporation called British Newfoundland Corporation and is a little bit out of the range of help at the time because of the general idea we had expressed in regard to public and private power in these assistance bills. I would hope that in the future the province of Newfoundland some day could probably think in terms of coming into this wider field of the Atlantic provinces in handling power in that area. It is my firm conviction as an individual that until the Atlantic provinces visualize their economic needs, particularly from an industrial point of view, as one and combine their thinking in the production of power into an over-all grid, they will not be able to achieve the future development that is potentially possible for the Atlantic provinces.
In regard to Newfoundland particularly, we know and expect, from the ordinary logic of the situation that for the short-range plans in Newfoundland there may be need

Atlantic Provinces Power Development for transmission lines there that would help their economics and their power situation by switching surpluses to deficit areas at times of the day or in times of the year. The long-range hopes of this province I do not intend to deal with at any length but I should like to repeat what I said yesterday that when the province of Newfoundland and the other three provinces in the Atlantic area begin to work as I think they are beginning to work now under the Atlantic provinces economic council, they will be able to help themselves by co-operation in this Atlantic area. I think this government has demonstrated its willingness to help with any form of help where they help themselves.
Finally,-possibly I could ignore this point -there was the question of the Prime Minister's statement. I think we have either to accept the statement at its face value that it means what the government says, or we do not accept it. We cannot go beyond that fact, that the statement has been made. It is government policy and we will do our level best to carry it out as the propositions are put before the government.
I would like to say just a few words on some points that were raised yesterday. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond inquired whether I could tell him how much coal would be consumed in producing the 300 million kilowatt hours, basing myself on a 50-megawatt unit at Saint John. I am informed that the amount of coal will vary, of course, on the quality of that coal and that possibly between 135,000 and 150,000 tons of maritime coal might be required to produce 300 million kilowatt hours in the manner stated.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet also put forward a number of questions which I shall try to answer even though we may be anticipating some of the discussion on the second reading of the bill. We have been considering matters with the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the official and ministerial level and our talks have been fruitful. I know that the hon. member would like to bask in the comfort that this government's program is no different from that proposed by the former Liberal government. It might be of a little help to the hon. member in his present position and it is, I think, to the credit of the staff in the continuation of administration that we have in a democratic country with one government carrying on after the other that all the work of my hon. friend before June 10 has not been lost.


Jean Lesage: Surely not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is evident from this resolution.
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It would be misleading this house and the country to say that both programs are identical apart from financial assistance to the Beechwood project which the former Liberal government was not prepared to give. This government is prepared to give a subvention on Atlantic seaboard coal used for the production of Atlantic thermal power. It is our contribution coupled with the Beechwood which is the really effective contribution toward the lowering of power costs to the Atlantic provinces.


Jean Lesage: No.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A combination of the two. One alone is no good. The two have to be worked together. I have not mentioned all of the things I have here to indicate the difference between the policy of this government and the policy of the previous government. I was going to use this on second reading, and I think I will keep them for that time. I have given the committee just an example of the type of thing that I tried to say last night in my opening statement. It is a combination of the hydro and the thermal which makes possible that extra saving to produce the low-cost situation that we are trying to achieve. Furthermore, the former government proposed to make this aid available only to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I have already indicated that this government is prepared to make aid available to thermal plants and transmission facilities for the four Atlantic provinces.


Jean Lesage: May I ask the minister a question? Has he read Mr. Harris' budget speech?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Jean Lesage: Does he not know that the offer was made to the Atlantic provinces in Mr. Harris' speech on April 9?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have read both. As I was about to say, in the discussion with the two provinces which have asked specifically for assistance, in the proposed bill we have agreed that the period of depreciation for thermal plants will be 30 years and for steel towers 40 years.
My hon. friend asked whether the several recommendations contained in the Montreal Engineering report have been accepted and what action has been taken to implement those recommendations. Those recommendations could be summarized as follows: one, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia power requirements to be met in the main by large steam plants feeding into a grid; two, sites for steam plants on tidewater to be Saint John, New Brunswick, Halifax, Trenton and

Sydney; three, utilities to connect within and between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia by the end of 1959; four, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia utilities to work out agreements for adding plants and sharing costs of spare capacity; five, defer 50 megawatt plant at Saint John if Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can be interconnected in the near future; if not, instal the Saint John 50 megawatt unit immediately.
How the provinces use their power plants and facilities will be largely a matter for them to decide. It is clear, however, that such facilities as are provided by the federal government we shall require them to use. We shall be guided largely by these recommendations so far as this government is responsible for action. I have no doubt that the provinces will also act in a similar way.
I should like to point out to the hon. member and to all hon. members that one of the great differences between what we have just done on behalf of the Atlantic provinces and what was proposed and what was in the minds of the previous government is essentially the principle of the whole conduct of democratic government in this federal state. We have proposed to build and to sell to those provinces and to give them complete power to operate and run their own show and make their own decisions.


Jean Lesage: So have we.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And only deal with those matters in so far as they affect the federal interest. The previous government did not offer to build and sell; the previous government offered to build and operate by the Northern Canada Power Commission, those power plants and to build and to lease the transmission lines to those two provinces. The former government, centralizing in concept, centralizing in action, were going to run the development service in those two provinces. Knowing the maritime spirit, as I have seen it demonstrated in this house in the last few days, I can understand the maritime objection and why they say they want to run their own show. But it is a matter of great pride that we have gone in and trusted them to come into partnership and helped them to achieve their objective and still maintain the maximum amount of local government. I think I can state quite frankly that this is the feeling of this government. We believe that wherever possible local government should be given the power to govern and that is essentially the principle under which we will operate in the name of efficiency. We sometimes have to co-operate. Sometimes we have to do things at the federal level, but wherever 96698-196
Atlantic Provinces Power Development possible I think that most of us would support the idea that we should put the emphasis on local government and local control. That is what we have done.
Obviously, after the completion of the two units at Beechwood the power requirements of both provinces will be met in the main by large steam plants feeding into a grid. The first plants to be built, as I indicated yesterday in my statement, will be one 50-megawatt plant at Saint John and one 20-megawatt plant at Fredericton. It is now planned to interconnect the main utilities within themselves and between the provinces by the end of 1959-we are not just sure when they will be finished.


Jean Lesage: How do you reconcile that with the recommendations of Montreal Engineering?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is the second choice; either one or the other. The program I have just outlined indicates Mr. Chairman, what it is proposed to do in the immediate future to implement the recommendations of the Montreal Engineering report. If my hon. friend examines the matter carefully, as I am sure he will, I think he will realize that all the recommendations made by that company are in process of being implemented in so far as it may depend upon this government. We have given the maximum amount of control to the local power corporation of these two provinces.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet had one further question. He pointed out that on page 27 of the Montreal Engineering Company report the total cost per kilowatt hour, at a 50 per cent capacity of a 66 megawatt unit, is shown to be 10.45 mills. You will remember that I used 10.65.


Jean Lesage: And I used 10.85.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is a little bit confusing to other members of the house because the report gives examples for a 50 megawatt unit and for a 66. Originally I used the figure for the 50 megawatt and my friend used the figure for 66 megawatts, and now I am on that.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the minister answer a question? I have been asked what the hon. member means because some of the time he speaks of megawatts, sometimes he uses kilowatts, sometimes he uses watts and the term electricians use is k.v.a. I think it would help if the minister would explain.


Jean Lesage: A megawatt is 1,000 kilowatts.


Harold Edward Winch: Do not tell me, I know.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am assuming that the letter "k" is for kilowatt and small
3092	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development "m." is for 1,000, and if you want to make me use the large figures it will take longer.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not going to embarrass the minister, but I have been asked why he sometimes uses kilowatt and sometimes watt when our term is k.v.a.


Jean Lesage: The "v" is for volts.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These are the figures for which the hon. member asked. He said that the previous figure given for Beech-wood had been between 7 and 7.5 mills and it was based on an 85 per cent load factor.


Jean Lesage: For 300 million kilowatt hours.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is absolutely correct. He wondered how, for 300 million kilowatt hours, with money at 6 per cent, I could arrive at a figure of 8.93 mills for the replacement cost of thermal power, and he suggested to me that I look over the figures so that the record would be put straight. In answer to that question I am going to read very slowly because this is a matter of arithmetic. I will speak slowly so that any hon. member may take down these figures.
If one assumes for the total installed capacity of the two units at Beechwood 72 megawatts, and money at 6 per cent cost and a load factor of 50 per cent, the cost per kilowatt hour works out at 7.3 mills. Now, if one considers a 66 megawatt thermal unit of that installed capacity and one assumes money costing 6 per cent, coal at 42 cents per million b.t.u. and a 50 per cent load factor, the cost per kilowatt hour works out to be 9.83 mills which, less the calculated effect of the coal subvention, would work out at 8.93 mills per kilowatt hour.


Chesley William Carter: Would the minister say how this figure compares with the use of fuel oil instead of coal?


Jean Lesage: It is higher.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if the hon. member would leave that question until the committee stage. I could work it out, but not now. This is the figure I submitted initially, and that is how the figure was arrived at.
I want to point out that any person who looks casually at the Montreal Engineering Company report might misunderstand it. The Montreal Engineering Company figure is worked out on a private power development basis, with money at 7.5 per cent, a 25-year amortization period and coal at 47 cents per million b.t.u. This results in the cost figure of 10.45 mills or 10.65 mills, depending on which application you are making, which I gave to the house and which I compared with a cost of 9.83 mills before a coal subvention


was applied. After the coal subvention is applied the cost would be 8.93 mills, and that was my original figure.


Jean Lesage: May I ask one question of the minister? What was the amortization period used in both cases, first for Beechwood and secondly for the 66 megawatt coal-fired plant?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if the hon. member could hold that question over for the committee stage.


Jean Lesage: It is quite all right; it will be in Hansard. I believe the minister will realize that the amortization period used is a very important factor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes; they run from 45 to 50 to 60 or 66 years. I think I have that figure here, but I lost the page in the book.


Jean Lesage: That is quite all right. Has the minister finished his remarks?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Jean Lesage: There is one point I wish to raise in connection with the minister's remarks. First, a megawatt means 1,000 kilowatts and not 1,000 watts, as someone tells me I said.


Harold Edward Winch: You said 1,000 watts.


Jean Lesage: It is 1,000 kilowatts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
other words, it is a million watts.


An hon. Member:: So what?


Jean Lesage: During the course of the
minister's answer a few minutes ago he pointed to the fact that the agreement he is about to reach with the provinces is much more advantageous for the autonomy of the provinces than the proposal that had been advanced by the previous administration in that the present government would build the plants and transmission lines and, as he said yesterday, the provinces would have to purchase them immediately at cost and pay for them over a period of years. I might remind the minister that Mr. Harris, when he made the offer of the previous government in his budget speech of March 14 last, offered Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the opportunity of purchasing the plants and transmission lines at any time they wished. I quote from page 2220 of Hansard of March 14, 1957:
Under this proposal, the transmission lines would be rented on a non-profit basis and the power would be sold at cost to provincial electric systems. The purpose would be that the plants and other

facilities built under this program can be acquired by the provinces at any time on payment of their amortized cost.
The minister should not forget that when the present administration took over we were negotiating with the two provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and that no final agreement had been reached. He will agree that some principles had been put forward, principles which have been kept and rightly so by the present administration in the agreements they are trying to reach with the two provinces now and which are the object of this resolution. If the minister looks at the file-I have here Sessional Paper No. 117 tabled on Friday, January 3, 1958-he will see that correspondence was maintained between the premiers of the two provinces and myself until the end of April. Then, of course, I was rather busy for some time and the deputy minister of the department continued the correspondence, while the officials, according to this sessional paper, carried on negotiations at the official level on technical matters.
At that time, as will be recalled, we were waiting for the report of the Montreal Engineering Company, which was absolutely necessary before we could reach a final agreement with the two provinces concerned. This program, therefore, was initiated in March by the previous administration, was discussed and was evolved until there was a change of government on June 21.
On July 12, according to this correspondence, the premier of New Brunswick wrote to the then minister of northern affairs, now Minister of Agriculture, and the negotiations were continued up to the time that agreement could be reached. Agreement has been reached on certain principles but there are still some matters to be settled before agreements can be signed. I do not see how this present government could contend that the previous government had not done whatever was possible to try to reach agreement with the provinces, respecting their autonomy, in consultation with those two provinces; and what the government has done is just to continue the negotiations that had been started previously on the principles which were enunciated both by Mr. Harris and myself last spring.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Including
Beechwood.


Jean Lesage: Beechwood has nothing to do with this resolution. I discussed Beechwood yesterday and I made the position of the previous government very clear on Beechwood. This resolution deals with a program *for thermal installations and transmission 96698-196i
Atlantic Provinces Power Development lines in the Atlantic provinces. This program is completely different from the proposal presented yesterday dealing with a loan to New Brunswick for the Beechwood project. As I said last night, this measure is only a continuation, with modifications, after consultation with the province, of a project which had already started under the previous administration. It is only a continuation of the policy which was enunciated, which was evolved and which would have been put into practice by us in co-operation with the provinces had it not been for the event of June 10.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think we have to clear this matter up once and for all. I know that it has been ruled that I cannot speak on anything else but this thermal plant measure, but the whole thing would not have been even possible without getting the cost down. We could not get the cost down if we did not combine thermal and hydro. That was why I said "including Beechwood". The hon. member rode over that question and implied that this program we have announced is the same as that of the previous government. But I can say quite frankly that it is not so on that point, and that we could not have met this test without tying in with hydro.


Jean Lesage: I agree first that the test that we had in mind, as expressed in my intervention on April 9, on the subvention on coal is not the same as the one that is being proposed in this resolution. With that I agree. I agree that we were not ready at the time to make a loan on Beechwood; but I do not agree that that program was not to have an interconnection between Beechwood and the thermal plants. Of course it was the program, and the minister knows it very well.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The point I am trying to get through the member's head is that the cost of hydro power depends on the interest rate and that one fact does not seem to have sunk in here. If we are going to get the cost down on these thermal plants we have to get the cost down on the hydro. One of the members asked a question the other day along that line. I do not like to raise my voice in this connection,-


Jean Lesage: Do not do so.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
Jean Lesage: Surely.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Therefore the saving will be greater and we are helping the province much more if we use a load factor that is higher. In giving this figure today at an 85 per cent load factor I was giving the government's maximum position in helping the province.


Harold Edward Winch: The first thing you know you are going to get me into this thing.


Henri Courtemanche: May I take this opportunity to congratulate both hon. members for their endeavour to keep their remarks within the confines of the resolution which is before the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think that at the moment I was trying to make a correction.


Jean Lesage: May I at this point say a word as to what the minister replied to me regarding the cost of power at Beechwood, his answer to the question from the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond was that the cost of Beechwood power with an interest rate of 6 per cent, was between 7 and 7.5 mills. The load factor was not mentioned. But because the figure of 300 million kilowatt hours utilization was mentioned I felt it was an 85 per cent load factor that was used to come to that conclusion. But the minister in his answer a few moments ago told the committee that the cost in mills on a 50 per cent load factor was 7.3 mills for the two units at Beechwood, did he not?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No.


Harold Edward Winch: They are both wrong. It is not the load factor which governs: it is the power factor.


Jean Lesage: Would the minister look at the sheet he read slowly: 72 megawatts; money at 6 per cent; load factor, 50 per cent; cost 7.3 mills.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right.


Jean Lesage: That is what the minister read into the record. So how do we reconcile this explanation with the one he
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

gave to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. If the minister would rather reply on second reading, I do not mind.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not questioning this. The whole thing, Mr. Chairman, to my mind, makes it impossible for me, with the two sets of figures I have here, to come up with an answer that is to the point because on top of the detail that I have I must have time to work out these answers. I wish the whole matter had been left to the committee stage where I could have dealt with it with some help.


Harold Edward Winch: May I, in all seriousness, make a suggestion at this point of the resolution stage. May I suggest that those who want to discuss the matter-and I speak now as an electrician since 1924-of peak load, power load or power factor, which is entirely different, adjourn to the coffee shop with the rest of us and discuss the principle of the resolution that is now before us.


Chesley William Carter: When the minister began his reply a short time ago he said that this legislation was designed to meet a specific problem. That specific problem must be the shortage of electric power. That, I take it, is what the problem is.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: High rates.


Chesley William Carter: I beg the minister's pardon?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman,
I am just being very peaceful in my suggestion. The problem was that they could not bring industry into the area because the rates for industrial power were too high. So we went in in order to try to help them bring them down so that they could attract industry which would cause a greater demand for power and then your demand would start to rise.


Chesley William Carter: Are you saying that there is no shortage of power and that the only purpose is to create more power in order to bring down or lower the rate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What I am saying is that there was a need for low cost or cheap power in the maritimes.


Chesley William Carter: And more power. Is that not right?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes; because if you are going to produce cheap power, you are going to need more in order to meet the demand.


Chesley William Carter: Yes. We have the same specific problem in Newfoundland. There is in my own riding a * fluorspar mine closed down at this moment because one of the factors in the cost of their production is the cost of*

electricity. In my riding there is also a fish processing plant which is closed down at the present time because they cannot operate with a sufficiently low cost and one of the factors in their cost of production is the shortage of electricity in addition to the high cost of electricity. Both these factors are present.
How, then, does the government propose to meet that problem in Newfoundland under this legislation? The minister when speaking a little while ago mentioned the development of water power being assigned to Brinco, the British Newfoundland Corporation. That is only partially true. There are many sources of hydro power on a smaller scale which do not come under the jurisdiction of Brinco. Brinco is concerned with the huge development on Hamilton falls in Labrador and also with the watershed development in the Bay d'Espoir area, which has a possibility of producing 500 thousand horsepower.
There are, however, many other sources of hydroelectric power on a smaller scale but which do not come under Brinco at all and which are necessary for the development of Newfoundland island-particularly for the development in my own riding which is a "have-not" riding. Furthermore its only chance of survival is the utilization of the power resources which we have, and that is why we are so anxious to have this resolution made applicable to Newfoundland.
We are happy in what is being done for the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and we are supporting this legislation, but we have a similar problem and would like to see something done under this legislation particularly in view of the fact that it is part of a national plan. If it were only a special project for those two provinces and not part of a national plan then I do not think we would have a very strong case, but as part of a national plan and in view of our need surely we have some claim for consideration under this legislation.
I could not follow the minister very well in his reference to Newfoundland. He spoke of hoping that some day something would be done; that Newfoundland would on some way avail herself of the benefits under this legislation. He spoke of transmission lines but I could not really follow his thoughts when he was speaking and I do wish he would be more specific. I ask him now to tell us in more detail just what he envisages for Newfoundland in this legislation. Transmission lines are not distributing lines. If you are going to transmit something you must have something to transmit. It must be developed somewhere. Are you going to develop it in the maritimes by using coal? We
Atlantic Provinces Power Development could develop it much more cheaply in Newfoundland by using hydro power.
If we are going to use coal then we would have to pay a subvention on the coal, we would have to pay freight to get it over to Newfoundland and all the handling charges between the areas, which would double the price. The price of coal in Newfoundland is just about double what it is in North Sydney and if you are going to use North Sydney coal to run the thermal plants in Newfoundland the cost is going to be terrific. Why should a federal government tie its hands in this manner and bind itself to excessive costs when the same thing could be done much more cheaply and exactly the same problem could be met in a much better way by the development of electric power?
I would be most grateful to the minister if he would tell me exactly how this legislation is going to benefit Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies to my colleague from Burin-Burgeo I should like to join him in his plea and I also want to make one or two other observations. I should like at once to reassure you, Mr. Chairman, that I do not intend to go beyond the ground covered by the minister himself, and I assume that it will be permissible for me to touch upon any subject touched upon by the minister without my being called to order.
I tried without any kind of success to find out certain things from the Minister of Finance yesterday and I must say I congratulate the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on his attitude to the committee. Unlike the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is conciliatory and friendly and does try his best to give us what information he has. What I fear is that he is very seriously limited by the uncertainty in the government of which he is a member about what their policy is. I am afraid that is not his disability but it is the disability of the government.
I could not agree more completely with the excellent analysis of the situation in Newfoundland as given by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. It is true of course that the Hamilton river, with the Columbia river is, I suppose, the greatest undeveloped source of hydroelectric power in the western world, if not in the whole world. It is also true that it is in the province of Newfoundland but it is in that part of the province which is on the mainland of Canada, and a good deal of time is going to pass before very much of the power from the Hamilton river becomes available on the island of Newfoundland.

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
It is also true, as the hon. member said, that there are one or two large undeveloped sites in Newfoundland which are at the present time under the control of the British Newfoundland Corporation, but there are around the shores of Newfoundland some 1300 settlements in which a series of small sites could be developed, in most cases at no terribly great cost and which no doubt could be self-sufficient if they could be developed cheaply enough. But, as the minister so accurately said when he referred to his own province of Saskatchewan, one difficulty has been the rate of interest which either a private company or the government of Newfoundland would have had to pay for financing these developments. Another difficulty is the one which small projects of this sort have in getting organized and developing on an individual scale. That is, I happen to know, what prompted the premier of Newfoundland to make the request to the Prime Minister shortly after this motion was put on the order paper that its scope should be enlarged to include the development of hydro plants.
The premier did not have in mind, and I know this because I have discussed it with him, large developments like that on the Hamilton river. He had in mind the relatively small developments with which the minister will be familiar and which serve what I suppose we must call the rural communities of Newfoundland although the word rural has an agricultural connotation which is perhaps not entirely accurate. There is no part of Canada where this power development is more needed than Newfoundland in order to give anything like equality of opportunity or anything like a comparable standard of living-not even New Brunswick.
It seems to me that the government could have made this excellent measure very much better by accepting our suggestion. It is not as though they had not been asked to do it; they were asked to do it some time ago by the premier of Newfoundland. All he asked them to do was bring hydro development within the ambit of their legislation. It seems to me that was a most eminently reasonable suggestion, and it would not have committed the government to supporting any scheme which was not reasonable or proper; it would simply have made it possible for Newfoundland to have been included in this national policy about which the government boasted in the speech from the throne.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does he agree with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo that hydroelectric

development in Newfoundland would be much cheaper than thermal development-and that would apply either to Nova Scotia or to New Brunswick-and would not the cost of the transmission lines be the place where Newfoundland would be benefitted. Is not that where this resolution and the bill which will be brought in is intended to assist Newfoundland to equalize the cost of power in that province with that of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? The hon. member has just repeated-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member was
asking a question, not making a speech.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does he agree then with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo that hydro development in Newfoundland would be much cheaper than thermal development, either in Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and if it is his argument does not apply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very grateful to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who has an extraordinary faculty of reminding us of good points for our arguments that we sometimes forget.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have listened to so many bad arguments that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is, in a way which is quite characteristic of the government to which he belongs, offering another Indian gift.


An hon. Member:: You can talk about Indians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened politely to the hon. gentleman when he was interrupting me and perhaps he would not mind listening to me now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, answer my question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am, and very directly.
I am saying that transmission lines at the present time to connect the various power stations in Newfoundland would be of little or no value because of the great distances between the various units in that province. What is needed in that province is, as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo so accurately, said, the development of new small plants to overcome the difficulties caused by these long distances.
Unlike the hon. member for Vancouver East, I have no expertise in these matters, and do not pretend to have any. It is no doubt true that it is cheaper to develop hydro power, though that would depend a good deal on the site and on the situation, but I would remind the Minister of Veterans Affairs that if you have not the money to do anything at all, it is no easier to buy hamburger than it is to buy a first class steak,

and we in Newfoundland see no reason why we should be allowed to have hamburger when in the hon. gentleman's province they have filet mignon.


An hon. Member:: This is a baloney
sandwich.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all I am urging. I am urging the government once again, and urging the minister, to do something along the lines we are suggesting, because I believe the minister has a good deal more sympathy with our proposals than has the Minister of Finance, and perhaps that is understandable. I suspect that one reason why he should be sympathetic is that the hon. gentleman hopes to come to this house some day before a certain event happens, and ask us to vote considerable sums of money for a power development which was supposed to have started 30 days ago in his own province. He is going to find it more difficult than ever, when he comes to do that to justify his refusal, and the refusal of the government, to include the very modest demands which the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo, Humber-St. George's, Trinity-Conception and I are making to have the facilities provided under this resolution made available to Newfoundland.
Now the minister also said that we must take it on trust when the Prime Minister said that any scheme for which an equally good case could be made out would be considered on its merits, that any scheme for which an equally good case could be made out would come within the scope of the principles of the national development policy embodied in Beechwood.
It may be that it would be quite unnecessary to include hydro development in Newfoundland within the scope of this measure if the minister could give us an unqualified assurance that a loan at the rate of interest and on the same terms as Beechwood would be available for any reasonable project in the province of Newfoundland or in any other province. If the minister could give us an unqualified assurance to that effect, if he could outline precisely what the national policy is, we on this side would be far more satisfied than we are at present.
All we know, and all he has told us on the subject, is that that national scheme consists of two projects in New Brunswick and one in Nova Scotia, a project in Saskatchewan and a project in British Columbia-four provinces out of ten. Every one of these projects was well known before the present government took office. There has been no suggestion yet of anything new in this entire national policy. Our suggestion is that the
Atlantic Provinces Power Development national policy should be extended to the province of Newfoundland. The hon. member for Assiniboia suggested that it should be extended to the minister's own province; one or two hon. members from Alberta suggested its extension there, and the hon. member for New Westminster suggested its extension to British Columbia-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
the member for Winnipeg North Centre will be on his feet in a minute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just going to say, when the hon. member interrupted me, that I feel there is an obligation upon me to say a word on behalf of my hon. friend, the hon. -member for St. Boniface, who is not here today because he has to be at home because of the illness of his wife. I know that he also wishes to make an appeal on behalf of his province. The minister knows that the premier of Manitoba, in the course of the federal-provincial conference-I know the minister is aware of this because he was there at the time-made during the presentation of his brief a formal request to be included.
As nearly as I have been able to gather from the minister's remarks, and from everything that has been said, the government has no ideas of its own; it is waiting for requests from the provinces. Now they have had a formal request from the premier of Newfoundland which they have not been willing to accept up to now.
I am trying to make my language as moderate as possible in the hope of melting the minister's heart and in the hope that perhaps he will be able to persuade his colleagues to do the decent thing by Newfoundland. He may even get some assistance from my broadminded colleague on the other side of the house from Saint John-Albert. I hope that when the hon. gentleman is elevated to the cabinet with the other young men who are soon to take the place, we were told yesterday, or was it this morning, of the present incumbents of treasury benches, we from Newfoundland will get a little consideration.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, if I ever do get into the cabinet I am not sneaking in through the back door.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can compare his majority and his proportion of the vote with mine, and if he would like to come and contest my riding against me he is very welcome; I would not be at all worried. I may say, sir, and I say it with pride that there is no member in this house who has a greater right to speak here on behalf of his constituents, except my hon.
3098	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Provinces Power Development friend from Burin-Burgeo who was acclaimed. There is no other member of this house who has a greater right to claim he represents his constituents, because 87 out of every 100 who voted, voted for me, and when the hon. member for Saint John-Albert has the same kind of majority from his constituency he can talk about people getting into this house through the back door.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not say that the hon. member came into this House of Commons by the back door; I said he entered the cabinet by what is considered by many people to be the back door.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think
everyone knows that I had a position in the civil service which I am inclined to think, if the words of the present Minister of Public Works mean anything, would have been secure even after June 10 and it does not seem to me that anyone who suggests that to give up that kind of position to accept what do seem to be the hazards of public life and who I think most hon. members will admit has accepted them rather cheerfully, accurately describes the situation in referring to my entry into the cabinet as being by the back door.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member should sell tickets for this show.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps that on reflection the hon. member would agree that he is not correct in suggesting that that is entering by the back door.


Mr. Hodgson:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if and when the hon. gentleman arrives in the cabinet he will have to crawl in the coal hole.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will at least run in my own riding. I will not have to go out in the middle of the Atlantic ocean to get elected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hasten to withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman, because I have the highest regard for the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works and I know he would grace any position in the cabinet. As a matter of fact I can think of one or two members of the cabinet for whom I would cheerfully substitute him.
However, sir, I must confess that I think, myself, I am getting a little out of order, and I should like to return to my very serious plea. It does seem to me that it is time we were told what this national policy for power development really is, what it comprises, how a province qualifies, how a project qualifies, what the criteria are. It also seems to me that


if the minister had brought down real enabling legislation it would have laid down the qualification for all projects in all parts of Canada.


Mr. Small:: You played that record for us last night, why not change it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I would change it very quickly if the hon. gentleman is impatient about it.


An hon. Member:: If you must sing, why not put a little more music into it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be very easy for the government to silence me and to do so with my consent, if the government would answer these perfectly proper questions that are being put to it, if it would reveal what its national policy is, how it applies in the province I represent and how it applies in the other five provinces about which we have been told nothing until now.
I think this is an excellent measure. It was devised by the Liberal government and accepted by two Tory provincial governments before the election and all we have had since are some minor modifications. It is still a good measure and I am certainly going to support it, but I am doing my best to encourage the government to make it a better measure. I am also doing my best to get from the government some indication of how this policy applies across the country. I want to know how it applies to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and the other provinces. How do the provinces qualify? What projects qualify? What is an "equally good case"? What are the merits? Surely we are not being asked to accept this blindly.
I conclude by appealing again to the minister to adjourn this debate, to meet with his colleagues and see if he cannot persuade them to get a royal message so that this resolution could be slightly modified to carry out what we have been asking for all day.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If this is a policy of the former Liberal government how did you propose to make it apply to all of Canada? You have repeatedly said it was your policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I said, Mr. Chairman, was that the projects that are embodied in this resolution were proposed by Mr. Harris in his budget debate and amplified by my colleague, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet. I did not say that the previous administration had a national policy for power development and I never pretended it did because it did not. We never pretended we had. The difference is that hon. gentlemen opposite boasted about it, put the words in Her Majesty's mouth and now when we ask what those words mean we are told we have not the right to know, it is something that

Atlantic Provinces Power Development
will be revealed in due course. That is the favourite phrase of this government. Members of the government used to complain about the previous administration referring to the public interest. The expression of this government is, "You children on the other side will be told in due course if you are good boys. Do not talk too much. Do not ask too many questions".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government says, "Just listen to John, let him do all the talking; and then in his own good time, if he feels inclined, he may tell you a little about what these empty phrases"-and I am afraid that is all they are

"really mean."


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is all we got from the Liberal government for 22 years, talk and no action. Now you are getting action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the St. Lawrence seaway?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We are getting action on
that, too.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, with the exception of intervals of a few minutes on various occasions I have been here and have listened with keen interest to the entire debate on this resolution today. I hope that through you, sir, I can tell this government and future governments that perhaps we can learn a lesson from this debate. The government has introduced a measure which is without doubt of major importance. It embodies the principle of providing assistance to the Atlantic provinces in certain phases of power development and the transmission of power. Because of the way it is framed it has of necessity given rise to the question in the minds of hon. members from other parts of Canada as to whether or not the same principle will be applied in other provinces if requests are made by the governments of the provinces irrespective of their party affiliations. That is an important question which I believe all have the right to ask.
I did not rise at this time to bring up the question of British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Newfoundland and indeed I have been trying for quite a while to figure out a way to explain the point I wish to raise. I feel that consideration should be given in the future, and perhaps it ought to be given at this time, to referring this question to a committee for study because if you have followed all the discussion today, as I am certain you have, Mr. Chairman, you will be aware that a great deal of confusion and
complexity has arisen concerning the meaning of the principle of the resolution and the engineering aspects of the project envisaged by the resolution.
We have heard from the minister, and almost everyone who has spoken, questions on engineering aspects which underly the principle of this bill, and they were introduced by the minister himself.
I ask you quite honestly, sir, how many of us sitting here as members of the House of Commons can pass on a bill when a great deal of it is bound up in engineering facets and factors? How many of us are in a position to make a decision, especially when watts are thrown around? Watts of what? What is a kilowatt? What is a k.v.a.? What is horsepower? What is the term that has been used so often, which actually means one million watts? We have had such terms as peak load and power load but no reference to the most important of all from an engineering point of view, namely electrical or power factor. Let us not kid ourselves, the power factor could mean a lot more than a peak load or a power load, especially in electrical engineering.
Therefore, sir, I hope you understand the point I am trying to make. Here we have a resolution, the principle of which I think we all agree with. How far it goes we are not sure and we are trying to find out. Some of the major arguments which have been put forward by the minister who introduced the resolution were on the basis of electrical engineering facts and terminology which most of us do not understand. Perhaps a few of us do understand them.
The minister read from a script and I as an electrician can tell him that he was wrong in some of the terms he used. What he is after is a grid system in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia, which I hope will eventually be extended all across Canada, but a grid system was not mentioned. My hon. friend from Newfoundland-I can never remember his constituency-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Bonavista-Twillingate.


Harold Edward Winch: I cannot learn French because there are some English names I cannot remember.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the beginning of everything in Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member discussed Newfoundland. Of course, he is interested in Newfoundland and in its development but he does not know a darn thing about electrical engineering and electronics. I could tell that from his speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I admit it.

Supply-Justice


Harold Edward Winch: In electricity today is not yesterday. Today not only are we changing from copper to aluminum above ground but the same thing applies to undersea cables. In the past they were 77,000 volts and 220,000 volts but now they are 750,000 volts and this has changed the complete idea of the distribution of electricity. Therefore it might be better to produce electricity 750 miles away and distribute it. These are matters of engineering, electronics and electricity which have been thrown into the debate. I say, sir, although it happens to be my trade, I am not in a position to debate it either. I hope that as long as this debate continues we shall keep to the principle of the bill which indicates that the federal government is now going to take some action on a public basis to assist the expansion of power in two provinces. We hope we shall get an answer that it will apply to any other province which makes a request for assistance.
If we cannot do so with respect to this bill, I hope that in the future when a minister presents an argument that is based on his reading of engineering reports, the bill, after it passes the resolution stage, will be referred to a responsible and respected committee of the House of Commons before which engineers can be called to explain exactly what it means. I am certain that if that procedure had been followed in this resolution we would not have taken as long on it as we have done.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 244, to provide assistance in respect of electric power development in the Atlantic provinces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Casselman in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE A-Department-
172. Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, $543,155.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Winch: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for a number of months for an opportunity of asking the Minister of Justice 
his views and policies on certain matters. I had intended to discuss the matter of capital and corporal punishment under the minister's estimates, but in view of the fact I have a bill for the abolition of capital punishment up for second reading, and have given notice of a bill for the abolition of corporal punishment, I believe that according to parliamentary procedure I should not discuss these two subjects. It is not my intention this evening, therefore, to go into the matter of capital or corporal punishment because, as I have said, of the two bills I have, one on the order paper and the other of which I have given notice.
There are matters which come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice which are of the utmost importance and upon which I think, in this first session of a new parliament, an opportunity should be given to the minister to explain the government's policy. I believe we should, therefore, ask for a statement from him at this time.
First of all, sir, I should like to draw to your attention the fact that the government of Canada and the taxpayers of our country have in past years spent a great deal of money in making certain investigations and in bringing forward certain reports. I should like to draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that for a period of almost three years there was a joint committee of the other place and the House of Commons on the subject of capital and corporal punishment and lotteries. On July 31, 1956, this joint committee submitted its report. There are many matters in that report which are not only worthy of immediate consideration, but should have immediate consideration because the House of Commons and the other place saw fit to request that certain matters be investigated.
There is also a report from a committee appointed to inquire into the principles and procedure followed in the remission service of the Department of Justice. This report is now known and recognized throughout Canada as the Fauteux report, and it was filed on April 30, 1956. Under the preceding administration, the House of Commons was given to understand that upon the filing of these reports the government would proceed to send copies to the attorneys general of the provinces and call an immediate conference with a view to getting agreement, so far as possible, upon enacting the necessary legislation. I believe it was either in the latter part of November or the early part of December, 1956, that a meeting was held in Ottawa, not of the attorneys general but of the heads of the departments who were sent here by the attorneys general for the

purpose of discussing these reports. I am sorry to say that as a result of only a one-day meeting-I think I am correct in making that statement-it was the decision of all those present that more information would have to be obtained; that they would report to the provinces and then be in a position to come back to Ottawa with their attorneys general and reach a decision.
As I said before, I think I am correct in stating that that meeting was held in the latter part of November or early in December of 1956. No meeting whatever was held in 1957, either by the departmental heads or the attorneys general. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that a couple of days ago I asked the Minister of Justice a question on orders of the day as to whether any date had been set for a conference of the attorneys general or departmental heads on these reports. The minister said no. This was a great disappointment to me, not only because of the time spent by the members of the other place and this house, as well as departmental officials, on these reports, but because of the importance of these reports. I was disappointed when the minister said only two or three days ago that it has not yet been possible to set a definite date for collaboration and discussion with the provinces on the implementation of some of the recommendations in the report which were filed, so far as the joint committee on capital and corporal punishment is concerned, on July 31 and the Fauteux report on April 30, 1956.
As I said, because I have two bills, one for second reading and one under notice, I am not going to deal specifically with the joint committee report of the other place and the House of Commons. However, I should like to draw the attention of the house to what I consider to be a most important and valuable report, namely what is known as the Fauteux report.
It has been my privilege to be a member of this house for not quite five years but to have been in parliament here and in the British Columbia legislature for almost 25 years. I consider this to be one of the finest reports that has ever been made on the question of penology. I am of opinion that it is one of the finest analyses ever made. I believe its recommendations are of such a nature that they should not be left in abeyance. I admit that there are some 44 recommendations in the report. I am convinced that a number of them could have been put into effect immediately in this House of Commons because they come completely within the purview and the jurisdiction of the federal house. Because my time is limited, because I believe the report is of
Supply-J ustice
such great importance, and because I regret so much that the Minister of Justice has informed us this week that there is still no date set for meeting with the attorneys general of the provinces, I should like briefly just to go over the recommendations and, merely by reading them, to explain thereby the importance of speedy action. If we go to page 87 of the report we find recommendation 2 which reads as follows:
2. Some means should he found whereby the courts, at all levels, may be made more conscious that the true purpose of punishment is the correction of the offender and not mere retribution by society.
That is one of the finest statements ever made. I believe it costs us about $4.50 a day for every day we keep a man in jail. The answer given by the Fauteux report is correction of the offender. That is one reason why I regret that with this report having been filed on April 30, 1956, the minister just two days ago said that no date has yet been set for a conference with the attorneys general. Recommendation 4 reads as follows:
4. The parliament of Canada should give serious consideration to
(a)	the abolition of a number of the restrictions on the power of courts to suspend the passing of sentence: and
(b)	the enactment of legislation to authorize probation without conviction.
That is something that is completely, wholly and solely within the power of the Minister of Justice and the federal government, on recommendation to this House of Commons and the other place.
Recommendation 7 reads as follows:
7. In passing sentences the court should rely, to a much greater extent than they now do, upon pre-sentence reports.
That is something that I would have hoped would be in effect by now. I am going to be obliged to jump over a number of recommendations. I should like to deal with all 44 of them but I am not going to be able to do so. I am going to jump to No. 16 which reads as follows:
16. Appropriate legislative amendments should be made immediately to provide that no person under the age of sixteen years shall be committed to penal institutions where adult prisoners are conSned.
That is being done now and has been done inside the last six weeks on convictions under our Criminal Code. I do not need to add to that. I can see my friend the Minister of Justice nodding his head. That is something that should have been into effect before now, namely that nobody under the age of 16 could be sent to an institution where adult criminals
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Justice
are confined. I should like the minister to note recommendation 18 which reads:
18. Some means should be devised by which unjustified inequalities in the length of sentences of imprisonment, especially in the cases of cooffenders, can be remedied.
Perhaps it will be recalled that about six weeks ago, on the orders of the day, I asked the minister a question on that matter. Since that time I have acquired a great deal more evidence but I think it is important. We administer justice, but in the administration of justice it is important that those to whom we administer justice because they committed an offence should not feel that they have suffered an injustice. I have here reports from papers. I will give you one with regard to two men who committed the offence of breaking and entering on ten occasions, both together. One was given a suspended sentence on the ten charges of breaking and entering and the other one who was with him received a sentence of five years. I am not going to repeat what I said on the orders of the day with regard to matters of attempted rape and rape where under absolutely similar circumstances there have been terrific differences in the sentences. I believe the Fauteux report is very wise in making this recommendation which I have just quoted.
Mr. Chairman, I am trying to mention only the things which I feel are being too long delayed and which are still going to be delayed we do not know how long because of the answer of the minister that no date has been set for a conference between his department and the provinces. Because my time is as short as it is, I want to jump to recommendation 38 in the Fauteux report. It reads as follows:
38. Some means should be found to provide specialized after-care for particular types of parolees, such as sex offenders, drug addicts, alcoholics and psychopaths.
That brings me, in my remaining time, to a matter in which I have been interested for a great many years and I look forward to a statement from the minister upon it. I refer to the situation with regard to our drug addicts and the narcotic situation in Canada. I have been interested in this matter for a great many years. I am convinced that the governments of Canada should hang their heads in shame because we have never faced up to the situation and tried to do something of a constructive nature about it. I do want to say, however, that a start has been made in British Columbia and I hope the experiment is successful but on a national basis we have not done very much about the situation.
I hold in my hands the report of the United Nations commission on narcotic drugs. It is a summary of the annual reports and it gives

the situation across the world. May I refer the Minister of Justice to the part concerning Canada, according to the information given to this commission. It says this:
It is estimated that there are approximately
5.000	addicts who can he classified in the following groups:
(a)	Medical addicts consisting of individuals who, for medical reasons, have had narcotics prescribed in the course of treatment and who later on have not been able to forego completely this support, even though the medical condition was no longer a factor.
(b)	Professional people such as physicians, nurses, pharmacists, etc., with neurotic tendencies and easy access to narcotics, who have taken to narcotics as a "crutch".
(c)	Addicts obtaining drugs from illicit sources who become addicts through association with criminal elements or because of psychotic tendencies. These addicts usually do in fact obtain their drugs from illicit sources, although they occasionally prey upon physicians for drugs if illicit supplies become scarce.
Mr. Chairman, I want to read the final sentence in this United Nations report on Canada. It says:
No definite program of treatment for addicts has been formulated.
That is the report of Canada to this commission of the United Nations on narcotic drugs, that no definite program of treatment for addicts has been formulated although according to Canada's own report there are
5.000	admitted addicts in our own country.
I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the different picture in some other countries. Israel:	10 addicts were apprehended of whom 2 were physicians, etc. Norway: the number of drug addicts is estimated to be 300 to 400 practically all of whom are receiving drugs on a prescription. Poland: drug addiction is not a serious problem in that country; drug addicts are placed under the care of provincial mental health centres which direct them to psychiatric clinics for disintoxication treatment.
Then with respect to the United Kingdom, and I am still quoting from the United Nations report, the number of addicts receiving drugs from medical sources during the year was estimated to be 290. I believe our population in Canada is around 16 million and in the United Kingdom it is around 45 million. The United Kingdom says the number of addicts receiving drugs from medical sources is 290. There is no compulsory treatment for addicts and there are no state institutions specializing in the problems of addiction. There are, however, a number of public hospitals where treatment can be obtained and several private nursing homes dealing almost exclusively with alcoholics and drug addicts.

I could go from country to country but I will not do so because 1 am certain the Minister of Justice has an interest in this matter. I do want to say, however, that we in Canada are derelict in our responsibility in the handling of the narcotic problem. The way to start handling the narcotic problem is to take the profit away from those who make it by selling to the addicts.
The first way we can do that is to make sure that those who are addicts are treated as sick people and not as criminals. I am not a sentimentalist with respect to those who sell to addicts. They can be put in jail as far as I am concerned; put them in jail for life, but the addicts are sick people. If we on a national basis find some system- I do not say I know the answer-of treating addicts as sick people, enabling them to have treatment and to be registered, we can thereby take the profit out of the illicit trade in narcotics. That is the first step but I want to say more than that.
My late father and I have been most interested in this question and I could tell the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, of case after case about which I have personal knowledge. You will understand why I will not give names, but I know of case after case of drug addicts who eventually became criminals and who, time after time, went to Oakalla or to penitentiary because they had to steal in order to take care of their craving. I could also tell the minister of cases-plenty of them-where we finally got doctors, not only to take them under treatment but, because they had to have something all the time, to bring them down to a minimum and give them a dosage every day. Not one of them has ever gone back to jail since. I repeat, not one of them has gone back to jail since.
Is it not time that something was done? It is admitted that we have over 5,000 addicts in Canada. We in British Columbia are most concerned because according to all reports between one-half and one-third are in our province. Why I do not know but they are. Although a preliminary step has been taken in British Columbia by the provincial government and the committees which are now working in Vancouver and in the province with the government on a national basis, we should now admit how disgraceful it is that in the United Nations report we find the words I quoted a few moments ago.
There is no definite program of treatment for addicts; none has been formulated. Mr. Chairman, when the present Minister of Justice was on the other side of the house he was keenly interested in this matter. I remember that shortly before his election,
Supply-Justice
and shortly before he became the minister he said something was going to be done about this narcotic situation. So Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Minister of Justice through you if he will tell us why from July 31, 1956 to the present time there has been no meeting called to deal with this matter.
Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much what the hon. member for Vancouver East has said. I, too, am familiar with that report because I have been interested in this matter for a good many years, actively since 1908 and for ten years prior to that. I must say that since I came down here I have had great help from each of the ministers of justice. I remember well the first time when I placed a cash before the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. The big fellow just gave me a look: "Why do you want him out?" I said: "Because he is a human being and because I think he will make good." We got him out.
The reason I am on my feet now is because I want to say a word on behalf of those who are allowed out on parole or permit. I have had to deal with 107 cases. Today I have had one, through the kindness of Mr. MacLeod of the parole board, and out of all those cases there have been only three that went wrong. One was because of drink, another was because the man's wife was drinking and he did not have enough money to keep her going, and the other man, the son of a lord of Yorkshire, drank too. But the man who had a wife who was not worthy of him made good later; he went overseas and covered himself with honour.
Mr. Chairman, I can remember the first time I spoke to the present Leader of the Opposition with regard to criminals completing their sentences. He agreed that it was far better not to compel a prisoner to complete his sentence when it was not necessary, and I think the present Minister of Justice would be inclined to think that way, too. Why do these people go wrong? Most of them are young people. If you want to find a cure you must find the cause, and in my experience the worst cause is the liquor business. But many members of parliament, you know, are scared stiff of saying a word against the liquor business because there are so many votes involved. I pity the men who are in that position. I have never been in that position yet, and I never will. I believe that today no less than $965 millions are spent each year on liquor. The Minister of Justice should keep an eye on this business because it is the worse cause of crime we have in Canada today.
With regard to the present parole system, Mr. Chairman, one great need is that when

Supply-Justice
a young man, or any man for that matter, gets out he should find somebody ready to take an interest in him, because it is well known that so many of these men feel that nobody cares. "Who cares for me?" they ask. I am interested, now, in the case of a man at Fort William who has been in jail off and on for 15 years. I think he is improving because he has quit the drink. As I say, when these people get out on parole it is important they should find somebody who will take an interest in them, not for the sake of getting anything out of them but for the sake of helping them and enabling them to measure up and become good men and women.
We should line them up with some church -with whatever branch of the church they lean toward-and get the minister or priest, or somebody belonging to the church, interested in them and helping them to get back. This in my view is far better than leaving a man to his own devices on release. If a man feels that when he has served half his sentence someone will be interested in his case he has a great deal to look forward to and encourage him while he is in prison. Of course, it is not possible to get a man out until he has served half his sentence, at least that is my experience. It is only in special cases when something has gone wrong in the courts that there can be earlier release on parole. But when a man has served half his sentence, if someone is interested he can begin to have some hope. The real aim, in every case, is to help these men and women to measure up and become good Christians in practice.


Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words concerning judicial appointments. This is a matter of concern in British Columbia at the present time as we have vacancies in our hard working supreme court, which is the trial division, as well as on the court of appeal. In addition, notice has been given that this parliament will be asked to provide for two additional judges on the court of appeal of British Columbia. It is important if we are to have a strong, independent, imaginative judiciary that we attract the best people possible to this field of public service.
I begin by expressing the hope that the minister will not rule out candidates for the judiciary because they have taken part in party politics. Perhaps I should add that this is not a bid on my own part for a seat on the bench. I much prefer to take part in a fight rather than to preside over one. But politics is not a dirty word and should continue to attract in increasing measure
[Mr. Mclvor.l
many of those professional people who may later prove to be the best possible material for the judiciary. If their politics have been open, rather than of the back room strategy kind, so much more to their credit. The point is that the minister should draw upon all sources, regardless of what politics have been involved in the past, in order to get the best men. Just because we have a Conservative government should not mean that candidates for the judiciary must have had past Conservative leanings.
Then, too, judicial appointments should reflect the recommendations of the bar association of the province. Not that these recommendations should be considered binding, in my view, but the government should consult with these associations through their proper officers and give their recommendations most careful consideration. After all, working lawyers should have the best possible means of knowing who would and who would not make a good judge.
There is another point, however. While a judge may have had a political past it is important not only that he abandon politics on his elevation to the bench but that he should not have or seem to have a political future. Many of us regret the loss through resignation in the last few weeks of the services of the chief justice of British Columbia. Mr. Sloan made a noteworthy contribution as chief justice of the province. However, his services were bid for by the provincial government on a very handsome scale. The offer accepted was a ten-year contract with the provincial government at $50,000 a year for services which still remain rather vague.
We lose judges on occasion when they resign to go into private practice or into private business. That is one thing; but I deplore the action of a government in bidding for the services of prominent judges for work which, in this case, has inevitable political undertones. Indeed, it has even been suggested that the provincial government in this case was looking for a disinfectant for some of the political meat that has been allowed to rot in the attorney general's refrigerator. I therefore express the hope that this matter of bidding for the services of judges will not become a common practice because in a subtle but nonetheless marked manner it is bound to affect and undermine the strength and independence of the judiciary.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to continue with my previous remarks which will be of a brief nature and follow up what I had to say concerning the illicit narcotics situation in Canada. On occasion we read in the newspapers of the excellent work being done by

the undercover men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and by local law enforcement officers in running down drug addicts and peddlers but it does not appear to have any visible effect in decreasing the traffic in drugs or improving the situation. As a matter of fact I have discussed this matter on more than one occasion with the law enforcement officers of the city of Vancouver. I have told them that I have known of a certain location in Vancouver where drug peddling is taking place and they have confirmed that I was correct. 1 then asked, "Why do you not step in and stop it?" The answer has been, "Because at that spot we know where to pick up the men we want to apprehend." This is not a healthy situation in my view.
Some 18 months ago a committee of the other place investigated the illicit narcotics situation and made a report with which I do not agree. As a matter of fact I think it was a stupid report. To the best of my knowledge the report has never been considered or discussed. The point I wish to emphasize and again draw to the attention of the minister is that we can say what we like about what is called the English system but nevertheless the facts are conclusive that in the United Kingdom, Israel, the Scandinavian and other countries where they recognize drug addiction as a sickness and register and treat addicts, and in cases where they cannot be cured allow the addicts to have the minimum dosage legally according to a physician's prescription, there is no narcotics problem. I have only to refer you, Mr. Chairman, and hon. members of this committee and the minister to the report of the United Nations committee to verify what I have said.
Why can we not face up to the situation in Canada and do something about the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, ours is the only country with a population of 16 million that has 5,000 drug addicts. Speaking of countries on this side of the iron curtain, because I have no knowledge of the situation on the other side, the majority of countries handle the problem in a practical, medical and scientific manner.
I want to repeat my position with regard to this matter because I have been misquoted on previous occasions. So far as those who peddle drugs are concerned the harshest penalty is not too harsh in my view excluding sentence of death, but with regard to addicts let us approach the problem from the standpoint of health, treating them as sick people rather than as criminals. My own experience has proven that if addicts are treated in that manner they can be rehabilitated and become useful citizens.
Supply-Justice
I should like now to refer to the Fauteux report. I have long been interested in the question of penology. I agree completely with the statement made by the Fauteux commission that we have to place more emphasis on correction and less on punitive sentences. The longer we delay in taking this action the more it will cost the taxpayers in keeping criminals in jail and the longer we will withhold making socially useful members of society of those who were previously antisocial. I was most interested in those sections of the report that dealt with the young offender and was particularly interested in the recommendation to the effect that judges should have a pre-sentence report and that probation should be given a high priority even before a sentence to jail. I admit that this is a very complex question. I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice section 32 of the report which says:
If it is not possible to implement these recommendations, or most of them, within the next two or three years, amendments should be made immediately to the Ticket of Leave Act as suggested in chapter VII of this report.
The two years are not yet over, because the report is dated April 30, 1956. I would draw the minister's attention to section 32, which apparently the commissioner and his colleagues felt to be of such importance that they said:
If it is not possible to implement these recommendations, or most of them, within the next two or three years, amendments should be made immediately to the Ticket of Leave Act as suggested in chapter VII of this report.
That has to do with the question of ticket of leave and parole. I would ask that the minister give this his attention. I could go on. This is a subject that is dear to my heart because I believe a great deal of good work can be done; but I think I have said enough to indicate to the minister what I have in mind. Perhaps for the first time he can give us the policy outlook of himself and his government and some assurance as to when he contemplates some action of a combined federal-provincial nature and in particular, sir, action on those things that come completely within the purview of the federal government. I hope he will take action on a federal basis in the near future if he is here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to say how very much I am aware of and how very deeply I appreciate the fact that I am here tonight introducing the estimates of the Department of Justice for the first time as Minister of Justice. I want to take this occasion to express to my colleagues in the committee my appreciation of the very kind remarks they have made to me, both privately and publicly, on

Supply-Justice
the occasion of my appointment, and to tell them that I am fully aware of the fact that I follow a long line of most distinguished Canadians in what I regard as the finest appointment in the parliament of Canada.
In the office in the Justice building in which I carry on my work there hangs a photograph of the first minister of justice of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, and the long line of distinguished ministers carries on down through a list of names which are part of the warp and woof of Canadian history. Amongst them are members of both major parties, and not far from the end of the present line is the photograph of the honorary life president of the Canadian bar association, the Leader of the Opposition.
I know, sir, that I am not particularly called upon-and I am not capable of doing so if I were called upon-to say too much on this occasion but I find it appropriate, and I feel it appropriate, and I think my colleagues will feel it appropriate, if I pay tribute to a great lawyer and a great Canadian who retires shortly from his role as leader of his party and thus from the role of one who has contributed most actively and most splendidly to the public life of Canada.
It is in a consciousness of the tradition that I follow that I am grateful to my colleagues for the kind things they have said about me and the support they have given me in the role to which I have been summoned. I realize that there will come a time, there is bound to come a time, when controversy will, shall I say, displace the kind things that have been said but that is part of the life of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister would like it that way, no doubt.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But tonight I am introducing the estimates of the department and I should like to deal as best I can with the points which have been made by the speakers who have spoken in a general way on the first item. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver East will forgive me if I reply to him in rather general terms on the basis that we can have a detailed discussion on the particular items when we reach them.
His main concern was with two subjects, namely the implementation of the Fauteux report and the question of reforms in the realm of the enforcement of the narcotic laws. My hon. friend found it a matter of criticism-I do not in any way resent his criticism-that no meetings had been held between representatives of this department and the attorneys general of the provinces or their representatives since this government had taken office. It is true that there has been no formal meeting, but I can tell him

that there were informal discussions with most of the attorneys general at the meeting of the Canadian bar association in Banff in September of last year, at which time I outlined in general terms, as I have outlined to the house since then, the method of procedure which we felt should be followed in connection with the Fauteux report.
The hon. member did refer to the fact that a meeting had been held in Ottawa in November, 1956, between the senior officials of the federal and provincial governments. I do not wish to make any disparaging remarks, but perhaps I can best summarize the situation by saying that nothing much was done between that meeting in November and the election which took place in June last year. After all, I am sure he will realize that the attention of the ministers of the previous government was engaged for some months prior to the actual date of the election upon the election campaign, and in that atmosphere it is probable that meetings for this purpose were not very easy to arrange.
However that may be, we found that when we took office there was nothing very concrete at hand in the department by way of proposals for the implementation of the report. Therefore, we in the department were faced with the necessity of deciding upon our course of action with regard to the problems with which the report confronted us. It seemed to me that the best and most sensible method of approach would be for us to make an assessment of the physical and financial implications involved in the Fauteux committee's recommendations because they are many and they are far-reaching; and that, having made that assessment, I would then seek from my colleagues in the government approval in principle of a method of approach. Having obtained that approval, I would then meet with the attorneys general of the provinces, or with their representatives, and ask them for their views as to whether the outline which we had been able to work out was acceptable or whether they wanted to modify it, and, if so, in what particulars.
We have therefore, been working in the department. We have assigned an officer to work exclusively on the recommendations of the Fauteux committee. I expect within a matter of a week or so to be able to lay before my colleagues in cabinet a report with recommendations as to what it seems we should do, and what we can do, with regard to the implementation of the Fauteux report, both in fields which are at present exclusively federal responsibility and fields which are joint responsibility. Having, as I say, obtained that approval in principle, then we would meet with the attorneys general of the provinces.

This approach has been communicated to the provincial representatives and they have indicated to me that they are in general agreement that that will be a sound and sensible method of approaching the problem. In the meantime, however, I quite agree with the hon. member, and with others who have spoken to me and written to me, that there are certain areas in what is presently the field of exclusive federal responsibility in which the Fauteux commission makes recommendations and in which we may proceed to implement some of those recommendations. Although we have not yet had a meeting, I am able to assure my hon. friend and the house that we have taken action on an appreciable number of these subjects.
For instance, one recommendation of the committee is that there is a great need for the immediate expansion of the regional services of the remission service. I should say, incidentally, that this is a matter entirely within the responsibility of this government and this parliament. I am glad to be able to report that in line with this recommendation we opened regional offices in Winnipeg, Toronto and Moncton in April of last year. A further office was opened in Kingston in July. Offices had previously been established at Montreal and Vanouver.
Another recommendation was that as soon as possible a system of automatic parole review should be instituted for Canada. I may say that this was a recommendation to which my hon. friend attached considerable importance. It was recommended that this automatic parole review should be instituted thereby dispensing with the system for requiring applications for parole. A system of automatic parole review has been started in three out of the eight Canadian penitentiaries. The system of automatic parole procedure that has been developed in respect of the inmates at these three institutions will, as quickly as circumstances permit, be extended to the remaining penitentiaries.
Another recommendation was that the annual conference of after-care agencies and government services should be continued in the future. Arrangements are being made for the holding of such a conference on a regional basis early in 1958.
Another recommendation was that parliament should give serious consideration to the abolition of the power of the courts to suspend the passing of sentence and the enactment of legislation to authorize probation without conviction. This is another of the steps referred to by my friend.


Harold Edward Winch: You have not moved on that one?
Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall come to that in a
moment. Another recommendation was that the provisions of the criminal law that authorize imprisonment in default of payment of fines by persons who are unable to pay them should be repealed and that no distinction should be made in the law as far as time for payment of fines is concerned between indictable offences and summary conviction offences. My hon. friend went on to deal with a number of other recommendations of the commission involving changes in the system of administration of penitentiaries which would necessitate changes in the Criminal Code itself. The last recommendation to which I have just referred is one of those.
Again, while we have not had a meeting, we have been working on this matter in the department. I have before me now a number of specific recommendations for consideration involving, if they are approved, amendments to the criminal law, many of them arising out of the recommendations of the Fauteux commission. There are, I should think, some 15 or 20 of these recommendations which it has not been possible to deal with at this session, but which it is my hope we will be able to deal with or we will be able to incorporate into a bill to amend the Criminal Code which will be presented to parliament at its next session.
In these ways, Mr. Chairman, I can assure my hon. friend that although we have not had this meeting with the attorneys general of the provinces we expect to have it within the reasonably near future. In the other fields where we have exclusive responsibility we have been taking the necessary action and making the necessary study to be able to lay before parliament a comprehensive program with regard to the implementation of the Fauteux commission recommendation. We cannot do that at this session. These are a few specific things we can do, but action on many of the recommendations will have to wait probably until the next session.
My hon. friend referred to the question of narcotics and the problems of narcotic drugs. He referred to a report of the United Nations committee in which it is stated that there are some 5,000 addicts in Canada. No one can be happy that there are 5,000 addicts in Canada, whether or not those facts are accurate. The fact that we have this number of addicts, as compared with other countries with larger populations, is not a matter about which any person or any government or anybody in authority can be happy. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I have had some preliminary discussions already. There are a number of conflicting views. The hon. member for Vancouver East, has said that he does not agree

Supply-Justice
with the report of the Senate committee. There have been other reports on this matter and other parties disagree with those reports. It is going to take some considerable time to try to sift through and analyse the different opinions that have been expressed by experts in the field and arrive at the best course of action to deal with this very pressing problem.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you going to do something?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are working on it now. My hon. friend has expressed the view that one approach might be to proceed against the peddlers and treat the addicts. I must confess that on the face of it that makes common-sense to me as a basis of approach, to punish most severely those who make a profit out of distributing and selling drugs and try to do something to treat and rehabilitate those who have been victimized by those terrible people who are prepared to make a profit out of the depravity of their fellow Canadians. I can assure my hon. friend we are just as seized with the importance of the subject as he is. If I seem to make excuses it is not because I am trying to hide behind the difficulty but because I want to assure him and the committee that when we move on it we want to move on a sound basis. That is the only reason we have not yet moved, because we are trying to study this problem and arrive at the best method of procedure.
I was grateful indeed to the tribute paid by the hon. member for Fort William to the staff of the remission service. In the short time that I have been serving as minister of this department I have found that there is no department of government better served than the Department of Justice. I want to pay my tribute to that department, and through them to all the civil servants with whom I have had the privilege of coming in contact in my capacity as minister since my appointment on June 21.
I can assure the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway that we will bear in mind the principles which he has suggested we should follow in the matter of judicial appointments.


Frank Claus Christian: At this time, Mr. Chairman, I should like to extend my personal congratulations to the Minister of Justice upon his appointment, and his further appointment as Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way spoke in the house this evening and mentioned that the selection of judges should be on a non-partisan basis. With that statement of fact I should like to agree with him.
But I say that it was very unfair of the hon. member to mention that there was a

political undertone in so far as the appointment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Sloan as the forestry chief in the province of British Columbia is concerned. Many of us know that Mr. Justice Sloan was in politics a Liberal and that fact certainly negatives any idea that there was a political undertone to his appointment. I would say that the Social Credit government in British Columbia made an excellent choice in picking him for the position he now holds. The Hon. Mr. Justice Sloan is recognized as one of the ablest men in western Canada if not in the whole of Canada. As far as I am personally concerned, I feel that the choice was a most excellent one. The Social Credit government of British Columbia did not draw any political line whatsoever. It went out to get the best man to serve a specific need in the province of British Columbia and the choice was a good one.


An hon. Member:: What has that to do with the estimates of the Department of Justice?


Frank Claus Christian: It has a great deal to do with them. This issue was raised in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway brought this matter before the house and I am going to see that the statement is not unchallenged. I would also like to say this. I should like the Minister of Justice to give the following matter consideration. Many people say that the Hon. Mr. Justice Sloan is being paid $50,000 a year and that the amount is excessive. It is not the sum of $50,000 that is the important thing. The important thing is what the hon. gentleman takes home at the end of each and every month. Hon. members know what taxation is in this country today. They know that he takes home only a portion of that total amount.
In so far as our supreme court and county court judges in Canada today, are concerned, my understanding is that our supreme court judges are paid the sum of $16,900 a year and that our county court judges are paid $10,500. If we wish to have the finest legal brains in our country grace the bench and contribute their services to the public an inducement must be offered to attract those men to honourable positions in the country. I personally feel that our supreme court judges and our county court judges are not paid sufficient remuneration at the present time. It is my opinion that the amount they receive annually should be increased.
I read in the paper recently that the Hon. Mr. Justice Clyne, formerly of the supreme court of British Columbia has resigned in order to go into a field of business or economic activity. It could be the fact-although I am not saying that it is-that he will receive

greater financial reward elsewhere. I think as Canadians we should remember that our courts in this country are the last vestige of freedom. My opinion is that our judges should be paid a reasonable and proper amount. They are well worth it. I realize how hard these men work from day to day and the great responsibilities they assume.


Frank Howard: I should like to make a comment or two in support of some of the remarks that have already been made about some of the activities under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. They also have to do with drug addiction. I raise these matters, not in order to delay the progress of these estimates under this minister's department but in order to add a little bit of extra weight, if I can do so, to the comments already expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver East with respect to people who are addicted to drugs.
In my opinion the general public have a great misconception about people who are drug addicts. Until such time as we can overcome some of that misconception in the minds of the general public and probably in the minds of some of the members of this house I am convinced we shall have less chance of approaching the question of drug addiction in a sensible manner. There are probably five or six people who are at present members of the House of Commons who could be in possession of narcotics, and it would be perfectly all right. There is nothing illegal about that. They could not be convicted of possession as might many other individuals. I am referring to members of the legal profession.


Jean Lesage: You mean the medical
profession.


Frank Howard: I mean the medical profession. I have some thoughts about the members of the legal profession but I expect I should not express them. It is perfectly all right for doctors to be in possession of narcotics and in fact is all right for some of them to be addicts, if they so desire, and maybe some of them are. I do not know. Certainly statistics show that in England there are medical doctors who are addicted to morphine and some of the other drugs. Here in Canada they can be addicted also. Yet society does not look down on them and the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act does not say that, because they are addicts they should be hauled up in court charged with possession and, if found guilty, sentenced to so many years in the penitentiary.
A number of people also have the misconception that people who are drug addicts are depraved in some way, that their mental
Supply-Justice
faculties are affected to the point where they must go out and steal, and that they are not fully in control of their abilities and of their mental faculties. To people who have that thought I think we should attempt to point out that it is a misconception. While I have been in public affairs for only a short period of time, nevertheless I have also taken an interest in drug addiction and in other related questions. I used to work out of an office which was situated on the corner of Hastings and Carroll streets in Vancouver and which, as the Minister of Justice will know as will others from Vancouver, is very close to a central hang-out of drug addicts, people who peddle drugs and push them and other people in the underworld. It is only about a block from there.
I have visited a couple of penal institutions under the jurisdiction of the federal government and have come to know a few people who are drug addicts. I have come to know them, although not personally or intimately, and have spoken to them about their addiction to drugs. All of them have substantially the same opinion and the same attitude. These people are addicted to drugs just in the same way as others might be addicted to alcohol or to nicotine. It is an addiction. The craving which they have, of course, is more serious and more compelling with narcotics than it is with nicotine or with alcohol.
When these people enter a penal institution, whether it be a provincial jail such as that at Oakalla or whether it be a federal penitentiary, they are given absolutely no assistance, guidance or treatment except that they are removed from the drug itself; they are not able to obtain drugs. As soon as they get back out again they still have a desire for it because of some psychological quirk or some glandular deficiency or some other reason. There is disagreement as to why people become drug addicts. But because they have this desire inside them, back they go to find out if they can get hold of some drugs again and back they are to addiction. So they enter a life of crime again, They have to shoplift, steal, break and enter, hold up, break into doctors' cars and elsewhere in order to get either the money to buy drugs on the illegal market or get the drugs themselves from whatever source they can get them. This is where they run into difficulty in more cases than by being in actual possession of the drugs.
I do hope that-I take the minister at his word-the study that is being given will be a deliberate and conscious study which will attempt to show to some of the other places in the world-and there are relatively few of them with an enlightened attitude towards

Supply-Justice
drug addicts and some program of treatment for them-that we also have an enlightened approach. I also hope, as I suspect has been the case in past years with some of the law enforcement officers, that we will not be guided by the attitude of the officials in the United States with respect to drug addiction. I understand there is a pretty fierce, backward and cruel approach there to people who are addicted to drugs and that we are following along somewhat the same lines which so far has solved nothing.
I have one or two instances I would like to give to the minister but he will probably want to indicate that these might more easily be dealt with under specific items. One of them relates to the public relations, or I should say the lack of them, of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It appears that in many cases officers of the R.C.M.P., many of them who are very youthful and in fact I understand there are some under the age of 21-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member has invited my comment as to whether the subject to which he wishes to refer could be more properly dealt with elsewhere and I wonder if I could suggest to him that he wait until we reach item 396 under Royal Canadian Mounted Police on page 68 of the estimates.


Frank Howard: Yes, it is very kind of the minister to indicate that. I do not know whether he would suggest that I should bring up the other item under some other vote, but it deals with the attitude of the courts. This is of course, under provincial jurisdiction in some cases because it relates more to magistrates court than to any others, but I have reference to the attitude of the courts and the chances which a native Indian gets in court when he is charged with almost anything. I know, having lived in an area where there are many native Indians for quite a while now, that many of them are not too conversant with the English language. I am sure the minister is aware of this fact but if there is a question asked with which they are not too familiar or if that question entails something they do not understand, their general reaction is to say "yes". I think anyone who knows anything about native Indians will agree that if they do not understand you they will say yes anyway and it takes a terrific amount of questioning or even cross-examination before you get to the real facts of the case-even when it is a matter for the Indian affairs branch-and to sift through all these "yesses" thrown at you.


An hon. Member:: What do you suggest should be done?


Frank Howard: The solution would be to convince him to say, "no", I expect, or to plead not guilty to start with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
would probably say yes.


Frank Howard: Whether the solution is a simple one which could be given in a few sentences is problematical but since the matter has been pin-pointed perhaps the minister will say it could be more properly dealt with under the Indian affairs branch, so that provision could be made to give the native Indian some sort of legal advice through that branch to ensure that his rights under our laws are protected to the fullest extent and to see that he gets the fairest possible treatment from the courts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think in so far as this is a legal matter at all, it does fall under provincial jurisdiction and in so far as it is one dealing specifically with the administration of justice in the provinces, that should be dealt with in the same way. In so far as the question of the training of Indians and the protection of Indians when they get into courts is concerned it does to some extent fall under federal jurisdiction, but there it would come under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the estimates of which department I will be dealing with later.
I might just point out here that in capital cases the invariable practice is to provide Indians with legal assistance of the nature to which the hon. gentleman has referred.


Frank Howard: I might add, Mr. Chairman, that these problems arise more particularly in magistrates' courts which are-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which are provincial courts exclusively.


Frank Howard: No, I beg to differ-they are kangaroo courts.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. When a man who has slipped a bit has been confined, are you in favour of giving him consideration by cancelling part of his sentence if he shows signs of making good?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think about the only answer I can give the hon. member is that I am very impressed with the work of the remission service. The principle upon which that service operates is that wherever the facts of the case indicate a prisoner can be successfully rehabilitated if discharged they go to work on such a basis. I am in full accord with that principle. Sometimes it does seem to some of us that they could work a little faster. On the other hand there are a great

many factors to be considered and in general I believe they work on a pretty sound basis.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the minister discussing now the remission branch or does he wish us to wait until item 173?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it suits the convenience of hon. members to move to item 173 that is perfectly satisfactory to me.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid it does not suit my convenience just now unless the minister can tell me that I am not dealing with that part of the estimates where the question I have in mind could be asked. I am faced with another difficulty. I wish the minister would occupy some other dual position than that of Minister of Justice and that of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration because I have questions in mind which may deal with both of those positions.
First of all, I want to bring the minister back to a question I asked last November about one Per Holting, a Canadian citizen who boarded a S.A.S. aircraft in Greenland, having purchased a ticket from there through to Los Angeles and when the plane touched down in Winnipeg, got off the plane. I agree that according to the ticket Mr. Holting should have gone right through to Los Angeles and I suppose it was part of the contract between Mr. Holting and S.A.S. that he should do so.
Nevertheless this Canadian citizen, having got off the plane at Winnipeg, decided he would like to break his journey permanently at that point. In an answer the minister gave to me he said that the police of St. James, at the request of the captain of the aircraft, literally had Mr. Holting put back on that plane, and I suppose it would have been done -no matter how gently-nevertheless forcibly.
I would like to know if it is possible for a Canadian citizen to be deported from this country in such a way and, if so, under what law? This man was sent out of his country. Here again there is the question as to whether this should come under the Department of Justice or under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, but I think there is an element of law in this matter, and I would like to know what the Minister has to say about what I call the deportation of Mr. Holting, a word which I gathered was disagreed with previously. The fact remains that a Canadian citizen was deported, sent out of this country by police officers, acting, I have no doubt, honestly. Nevertheless he was sent out of this country (to another land
Supply-Justice
and had to find his way back. I should like to find out under what law this man was exiled from Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think that part of the hon. gentleman's question might better be asked on the estimates of the Department of Transport which is responsible for questions arising under these international air agreements, and under which the particular air line in question was prohibited from allowing a passenger to deplane in Winnipeg.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Or the Department of
External Affairs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I might almost say any department other than my own. I do assure the hon. gentleman that this department is not responsible in this matter at all. Mr. Holting was not arrested-perhaps I should say interfered with-by federal police; he was not interfered with by any officers of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Representations that were made to any authorities were made by the air line officials who were seeking to discharge the terms under which they were given the right to land in Winnipeg. The police involved in the case were, I believe, the St. James municipal police. Mr. Holting suffered himself to be led back to the plane, and went on to Los Angeles, and while I understand the apprehension and dissatisfaction felt by the hon. member I think that in the circumstances I must take the position, in dealing with the estimates of the Department of Justice, that there is nothing here for me to answer.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: But is this not a matter which should be the concern of the Minister of Justice. Is it possible that under our system of law in this country a Canadian can be deported from Canada? Is there not a principle here? A Canadian lands here and surely, if he decided to stay, it would be the duty of the S.A.S. to take action against him and to do it properly through the courts. Is there not a violation of law here? What does the Minister of Justice have to say about that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that if Mr. Holting feels that he was improperly treated a remedy would be open to him by way of whatever action he may see fit to take against those by whom he feels he was improperly treated. I do not think as Minister of Justice I should be drawn into expressing an opinion beyond the general statement I have made. The difficulty under which I labour is that as a private citizen I might be as much concerned about the situation as is the hon. member, but the moment I say something here as Minister

Supply-Justice
of Justice I might be taken as expressing an official opinion that Mr. Holting should or should not follow a certain course of action.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: should direct a question to the minister in his capacity as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will I get the same answer, or will I get a fuller answer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would depend entirely on the question which the hon. gentleman asks.


Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a question with regard to item 172. I notice that the increase in this item is approximately $9,000. Would the minister like to report on what progress has been made in Canada in so far as uniformity of legislation is concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The increase of $9,497 is for the entire departmental administration, whereas the amount voted to the Commissioners with respect to promoting uniformity of legislation is only $200, which is the amount actually expended this year. Their meeting took place in Calgary in September just prior to the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association.


Frank Claus Christian: What progress has been made in so far as uniformity of legislation is concerned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is a matter which is
largely of concern to the provinces. What is sought in these meetings is to bring legislation and legal practices in the various provinces into conformity as far as is possible. Our interest as I understand it, is more a watching interest than a direct interest because of course when we legislate we legislate for the whole dominion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question which, as he knows, has been directed to a number of his colleagues on the first item of their estimates. Is he making any reductions in the estimates of his department for this year, and has he found any examples of waste or extravagance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I propose to move three reductions in the estimates, one in the combines branch-and I assure the hon. member that it does not represent any diminution in the work of that branch- one in the penitentiaries and one in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In so far as the other part of the question is concerned, that is to waste and extravagance, I do not recall

that when I sat on that side of the house I ever made any allegations of waste and extravagance against this particular department.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether, if this government gets down to attempting to bring the labour laws of Canada into conformity, that will be done under the system for promoting conformity of legislation dealt with in item 172.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I imagine that the discussion of labour legislation could take place at the meetings to which reference has been made, but it would be more likely to take place at a conference of labour ministers or deputy labour ministers, and I understand that such conferences do take place from time to time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the uniformity referred to under this heading mean uniformity as to the substance of legislation or just uniformity as to the form?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not sure I heard the hon. member's question fully, but the sort of topic that would be discussed would be uniformity of highway legislation, uniformity with regard to bill of sale acts, mechanics liens acts and subjects of that nature. I am not sure whether that answers the hon. gentleman's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
part. If I may repeat my question, I asked whether what was sought was uniformity as to substance or uniformity as to form.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer would be both.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is it that limits the type of subjects that are considered? The field that has been mentioned is rather narrow.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I understand it there would be no limitations as to the type of subject. The subjects covered would be those suggested from time to time in correspondence between the various attorneys general. The hon. gentleman will recall that a couple of years ago we had extended discussions here on highways legislation; and it might be that as a result of such discussions it would be suggested to the committee that the highway codes of the various provinces should be discussed at the conference. There is I understand no limitation on the headings of legislation which might be discussed at the conference.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, on page 241 respecting the details of this particular item I notice that the bulk of the $9,497 increase

this year over last year results from an increase of salaries to the civil servants or to those responsible for administration. I note, too, that there are listed on that page an estimated 108 employees for 1957-58 as compared with 109 last year. I am not taking any exception to the increase in salaries, but I am wondering whether these 108 jobs are all filled at one time, or what percentage of them are ever filled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in this department we have a staff turnover problem just as any other department of government or indeed any business employing a comparable number of personnel would have. The desire of the department and the effort of the administrators of the department is directed toward keeping the positions filled in so far as it is possible to do so because the efficient functioning of the department depends upon keeping the positions manned to as full an extent as possible.


Frederick George Hahn: Just by way of example, Mr. Chairman, we are estimating this year that we shall have three deputy assistants to the Minister of Justice at a salary of $15,000. We provided for three last year and I am wondering if we have the three each year. Did we have three last year? When did we last have three?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is mainly that up until May of 1957 Mr. F. P. Varcoe, Q.C. was deputy minister of justice. He then retired and Mr. W. R. Jackett, Q.C. who sits in front of me here was appointed deputy minister. Prior to his appointment we had three assistant deputy ministers. We now have only two and I am informed that in next year's estimates we will only have establishment for two assistant deputy ministers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister one question of detail. Reference was made earlier this evening to the resignation from the bench of Mr. Justice Sloan. Can the minister say whether the pension which the governor in council may grant to a judge on retirement has been granted to Mr. Sloan for the period when he will be doing this other job at $50,000 a year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, no pension has as yet been granted to retired Chief Justice Sloan. The matter is by way of correspondence before me for consideration and I would not care to go further at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Justice
173.	Remission service, including $40,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by treasury board, $267,835.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, the minister has stated that he is going to move for reduction of a couple of items but he did not mention this one and I am very glad he did not. As a matter of fact, although it is now only a matter of a few months before the estimates run out I want to say something on behalf of the remission service and express the hope that the minister, if not now at least in the future, will greatly increase the budget of this service.
It has been my experience since I came to Ottawa as the result of the election in 1953 to have to take up a number of cases with the remission service. I would direct the attention of the hon. members to the amount of money allocated to this branch. Quite bluntly, I must say I do not think the remission service can possibly do the job it is supposed to do or would want to do on this budget. It is the responsibility of the service to make up all the necessary documents for submission to the Solicitor General for the report to the governor general in council with regard to any person who is sentenced to death for homicide and who appeals the sentence. That is automatic. I also understand that those who have their death sentence commuted to life imprisonment have their sentence reviewed by the service after 12 years. There is also an automatic review in the case of all those who are committed to penitentiaries as habitual criminals or psychopaths. I believe this is done every three years after a definite period. The remission service also has to deal, if not on an automatic basis at least on request, with the question of appeals for parole and ticket of leave of every person in Canada who has been given a sentence of two years or more.
I am sorry that I do not have the record here of the number of cases the remission service is supposed to review on a complete and honest basis and on which it must make recommendations as to whether or not a parole should be granted. I notice that in the present estimates from the administrative viewpoint there is a staff increase of only three. As I said I know that the estimates will have run out in about two months but as one who has had considerable experience with the remission service I want to say that I believe they would be the first to admit that they are completely overworked. They do not have adequate staff to handle cases to the extent they should. I sincerely hope that the minister will see to it that there is a substantial increase in the estimates for this service in line with the recommendation of the Fauteux report in order to place the

Supply-Justice
service on the basis outlined in that report and also, I believe, in line with the thinking of the Minister of Justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have the advice of the hon. member. The increase this year as against the year before is not three but nine or nearly 20 per cent over last year.


Harold Edward Winch: It is only three in the estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has increased from 46 to 55.


Harold Edward Winch: I am speaking about the administrative aspect. I am not including stenographers or others who are not involved in making decisions or doing research.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you confine it to the administrative staff I am sure the percentage increase is even greater. I am glad to be able to assure my hon. friend that I expect to have before me within the next two weeks recommendations from the department with regard to the institution of a parole board along the lines of the recommendation of the Fauteux commission report which, of course, is all bound up with this report of the remission service. The matter of staff and the function and position of the board will be considered at the same time that that other matter is being considered.


Harold Edward Winch: I sincerely hope that when the change is being made the director of the remission service will be allocated to the job of directing the service only and will not have to take on any additional responsibilities.


Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question with regard to item No. 173. I notice that the sum of $40,000 is mentioned in there as grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, an increase of $10,000 over last year. Then, if we turn to item No. 182 on page 36 the sum of $60,000 is mentioned for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies which has been increased from the sum of $50,000 allocated last year. I recognize the good work that these societies are doing but I would like an explanation as to the increase and as to why these two items are separated one under the heading "Penitentiaries" and one under "Department".


Edmund Davie Fulton: As to the increase in item No. 182 perhaps the hon. gentleman would permit me to wait until we reach that item under "Penitentiaries" before dealing with it. Under item No. 173, the hon. gentleman will appreciate that these prisoners' aid societies do a great deal of the supervisory and reporting work on the prisoners released on parole or ticket of leave. As I announced earlier, we have established additional regional offices and it is the increases arising from such

developments which account for the increased work which is being undertaken for the department by these prisoners' aid societies. The hon. member will also agree-I think I am correct in saying this-that this is in line with the recommendation of the Fauteux committee that we should make every use possible of recognized prisoners' aid societies.


Frederick George Hahn: Will the minister indicate why we have two items?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that the prisoners aid societies do work while the prisoner is in the penitentiary at which time provision is made by the penitentiaries branch and after he leaves the penitentiary at which time provision is made under this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
175. Administration, $108,760.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this item has to do with the administration of the Exchequer Court of Canada. Has the minister yet had time, with all the other responsibilities that are his since he is in charge of two departments, to give consideration to the idea that we have proposed in this house on a number of occasions, namely that the exchequer court might be asked to take on the handling of those divorces which are now being dealt with by parliament. Some of us are aware of the fact, although I was not personally involved, that 20 or 30 members of the House of Commons spent the greater part of this day hearing one divorce case. The information about that hearing that has been communicated to me makes me feel, as I am sure the minister does, that that is hardly the business for which members of parliament are elected. I am fully aware of the feelings that are aroused when one mentions this matter. I am aware of the arguments that are proposed against the suggestion that we have made. It does seem to me, however, that it is a way of getting divorces out of parliament and yet at the same time not establishing a divorce court in either of those provinces where it is not wanted.
As far as I am concerned, any alternative suggestion that would be better or more practicable would be equally welcomed. I wonder whether the minister, together with his officials, has given any consideration to this matter. If not, would he put it on his agenda?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I have to confess to the hon. gentleman that it will be more a case of putting it on the agenda than being able

to report much progress. It seems to me the problem is, to use the word in its broader sense, more a political one than an administrative one and therefore I hesitate somewhat to put any onus on the department. I can only report that I have had some preliminary discussion with the Speaker of the other place, but I am not able to report that we have made much progress. I am as uneasy about the situation as is my hon. friend and I shall continue to try to work something out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Knowing the readiness of my hon. friend to pursue matters about which he is uneasy, these words of his are very welcome.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Combines Investigation Act-
179. Restrictive trade practices commission, $79,465.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can
the minister make a statement to the committee on what has been happening under the Combines Investigation Act since the new government came into office? Can he tell us how many investigations have been made in the last number of months? Can he tell us how many reports have been made? Can he tell us how many prosecutions have been launched? Can he tell us whether the new government plans any changes in the administration or the policies with respect to the effort to avoid the development of monopolies in this country? Perhaps the minister might prefer to call it ten o'clock and start afresh tomorrow morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I might hope we could carry the item tonight if I make a brief statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think the subject calls for more than one minute. I remember once when it took several weeks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps we might call it ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the house what the business is for tomorrow and Saturday and I would also like to couple that with a request to him to tell us what the business will be on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week. The leader of the house knows that the Liberal convention to select a leader for our party will be held on those three days and it would be extremely useful 96698-197
Business of the House
for us to know at this time what the order of business will be on those three days.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member must not expect me to be a star gazer quite that far away. The business tomorrow will be the continuation of the estimates of justice and then fisheries and national revenue. On Saturday we shall continue with estimates. I am hoping that Monday will be a government day. There will be a notice of motion in Votes and Proceedings tomorrow dealing with Monday and I expect we shall have legislation on Monday and Tuesday but I cannot go any farther than that at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the house leader not able to say what will be taken up on Tuesday and Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: No, I cannot say that far ahead, Mr. Speaker. I will let the hon. member know just as soon as I can.


Solon Earl Low: I was just wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether I might make a suggestion to the house leader. Everybody knows how important to the Liberals the coming convention is. Some of us may not think it is too important. They are shy. I never saw such a shy bunch of fellows in my life. Otherwise, I think they would have made a request for time off. Since they are shy, I do not mind suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that it does not hurt to be a bit chivalrous sometimes. I would suggest to the house leader that he give consideration to adjourning the house during the Liberal convention. I should like to see how they carry on, and perhaps get a pointer or two. I would strongly suggest that the house leader give consideration to that suggestion. I might just assure him that my group would be quite prepared to support him if he will propose that the house adjourn for the duration of the convention. We should go down and see for ourselves what effect the first epistle to the Babylonians is going to have. I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the house leader give that careful consideration.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, these Liberals are not as shy as they seem tonight. There will be a motion on Votes and Proceedings tomorrow that will deal with the times during which we shall request the house to adjourn next week.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the leader tell us at this time what the contents of the motion will be?


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member will just possess himself in patience until tomorrow

Business of the House
morning I think he will see the times that are stated. I rather suspect that he knows already.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader whether, in considering the estimates of the Department of National Revenue, at the same time we will be considering the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I suggest to the house leader that since he has informed the house tonight of the terms of one motion that is to appear in tomorrow's Votes and Proceedings, namely the one that takes away the last Monday which would be a private members' day, he would not be violating the British North America Act or the laws of the Medes and Persians if he were to tell us the terms of the motion having to do with the days or nights we might not be sitting next week. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with great respect for my hon. friend, that he could tell us in advance a little more about what is coming than has been his practice thus far this session. In other words, may I suggest to the Minister of Public Works that he loosen up a little bit.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is unusually persuasive this evening. However, I believe that he, too, knows just as much about these hours as the hon. member for Laurier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister like the member for Laurier and me to tell him what the plans are?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: As a private member, may I say let us have them.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. C. E. Rea (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask leave of the house to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of presenting a report from the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Rea: I have the honour to present the eighth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.

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

Mr. Lesage: 1.	Have the 2 inch, 3 inch and 4 inch pipe lines in the Yukon been disposed of?
2.	If not, what progress has been made in the negotiations with the United States government on the subject?
3.	If so, how have they been disposed of and under what conditions?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	No.
Questions
2.	Progress is being made in the negotiations with the United States government and it is hoped that a satisfactory agreement for the transfer of title to these pipe lines from the United States to Canada will be reached shortly.
3.	Not applicable.


WHEAT STORAGE, WEST COAST TERMINALS
Mr. Smith (Baffle River-Camrose): 1.	How much space in terms of bushels of wheat was available in the Alberta wheat pools, Vancouver terminal, at the end of November, 1957, and at the end of December, 1957?
2.	How much space in terms of bushels of wheat was available in all other west coast terminals at the end of the above-mentioned months?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
Rated capacity	
Estimated working capacity (a)	
Available space on basic working capacity-
November 27, 1957	
December 31, 1957	
(a) Estimate of maximum capacity during efficiency.
(1)
Alberta wheat pool terminal
7.300.000	bushels
5.475.000	bushels
1.141.000	bushels
1.075.000	bushels operating season to
(2)
All Pacific coast terminals
23.900.000	bushels
17.900.000	bushels
5.035.000	bushels
3.723.000	bushels ensure full operating
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
A-D epartment-
172.	Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada. $543,155.
173.	Remission service, including $40,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by treasury board, $267,835.
174.	Administration, $203,440.
175.	Administration, $108,760.
Northwest Territories territorial court-
176.	Administration, including administration of justice-Northwest Territories, $93,800.
Yukon territorial court-
177.	Administration, including administration of justice-Yukon territory, $85,650.
Other courts-
178.	Payments of gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office,
96698-197i
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 10, 1958