1958-07-07

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minisier):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members of the house would want me to direct their attention to the fact that in the diplomatic gallery there is a parliamentary delegation from the house of representatives of the Federation of Nigeria. The delegation composed of eight parliamentary members is under the leadership of Chief Oweh, parliamentary secretary to the minister of internal affairs. Their visit is one of a continuing series of visits first to the United Kingdom, now to Canada and later to the United States of America, and their purpose is the study of the parliamentary institutions in those countries.
I am sure I speak for all hon. members in welcoming them, and in expressing the hope that their stay in our midst will be profitable and enjoyable.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I should simply like to join the Prime Minister in the very fitting and warm welcome he has extended to the distinguished representatives of a sister country in our commonwealth.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate hon. members of this group with the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition in welcoming this very distinguished group of members of the house of representatives of Nigeria.
My colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and I had the privilege of having lunch with them, and we learned a great deal at lunch time about the workings of democracy in this new nation which is part of the commonwealth. We learned from them that they share some of our experience, in that they are looking forward to an election in that country within the next two years and, being a democracy, they are looking forward to that election with keen interest. It is a real pleasure for us to see Nigeria taking its place amongst the democratic nations of the world, and we wish these representatives and their nation the best in the years ahead.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, presented to the house on July 4, 1958, be now concurred in.


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


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that a correction be made according to my demand of the other day that it was not unanimous but on division.
Motion agreed to on division.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government, or any of its departments, and the government of British Columbia or any other organization or person, dealing with the use of the beam station road at the Terrace airport by the British Columbia provincial government or by any other person.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this motion with the hon. member and he has indicated that it will be satisfactory to him if the correspondence since July 1, 1957, is produced. Subject to this, and the usual reservation as to the consent of the province, I have no objection to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to, subject to the qualifications stated by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the President and the Secretary of State of the United States have indicated in some detail the nature of the visit they are making to Ottawa and the subjects that will be discussed, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister himself made a statement about this over the air last night, would he

Inquiries of the Ministry now inform the house as to the nature of the visit and perhaps in a general way the subjects that may be discussed?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, first may I say that Canadians as a whole are looking forward with anticipation to the visit of the President of the United States, renewing, as he will, the relationships which were so close during the days of war, and also on this occasion renewing the friendships that he made on previous occasions, first when he was here immediately after the war and then again in November, 1953, when he addressed members of parliament.
I think in general one might summarize those discussions as being informal, designed to achieve an exchange of views between our countries. There will be no set agenda, as I am sure my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition will realize, but of course consideration will be given to various matters which are of immediate interest and importance, both internationally and nationally.
In the international field I would expect an exchange of views regarding the present situation as between the free world and the U.S.S.R.; consideration of the question as to summit talks and the possibility of those talks being inaugurated; the general subject of disarmament with particular reference to our own country and collaboration existing between Canada and the United States, and the matter of Arctic inspection.
Then, too, in the economic field I would anticipate that there would be very considerable attention paid to the economic offensive of the U.S.S.R. everywhere in the world, the effect of which, unless there is a large degree of co-operation among the member nations of the free world, might be apt to be detrimental to that degree of unity so necessary today.
In so far as our relationship with the United States directly is concerned, trading problems will of necessity receive consideration. In that connection I would consider that some of those matters that have received the attention of members of the government, as well as those dealt with in recent speeches by the Leader of the Opposition, will be of foremost importance. The disposal of surplus wheat and other agricultural products by the United States is one matter, of course, that will again receive consideration. The marketing of Canadian oil in the United States is another. The question of the export of zinc and copper to the United States is another. I would also think that aluminum and nickel are two other commodities to which reference will be made and representations considered.

Personally I should like to see agreements arrived at whereby there would be a more continuous exchange of information on cabinet level than has been the case heretofore; in other words, that the joint United States-Canadian cabinet committee should meet more regularly. Indeed, I feel that once a year is insufficient to assure that full discussion and consideration which the economic problems between our countries deserve and demand. My hope is that consideration will be given to the setting up of an informal committee of members of parliament and members of the congress of the United States, to the end that in meeting together from time to time many of the problems which are difficult of solution will be accelerated toward solution by each of us realizing the problems of the other country.
In short, the purpose of this meeting as I envisage it is simply one of exchange of opinions and, above all, that each of us will do our respective part to resolve any difficulties that exist from time to time between our countries. I hope that agreements to be arrived at will be beneficial not only to our own countries but to the maintenance of freedom everywhere in the world.


STATEMENT ON TABLING OF PROCEEDINGS OF U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I should like to answer a question asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition on May 20. He said:
I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would consider tabling the hearings before the special committee of the United States Senate on Canadian-American relations, in view of the widespread interest which I am sure exists on the part of all hon. members in this matter?
At that time I replied that I did not have these papers in the department, and I did not know how I could then comply with the proposal. However, the proceedings of that particular session of the United States Senate committee on foreign affairs have now been published. They were published at the end of last week, but the final text was not available to the department before last Thursday.
Hon. members will recall the proceedings to which the Leader of the Opposition referred; that is, those held on May 16 at which the ambassador from the United States to Canada, Mr. Livingston Merchant, and Professor Percy E. Corbett, of the centre of international studies at Princeton University, testified.
I should like to inform the house that copies have been made available in the library of parliament. I consider that it would not be proper to table the official text in the house,

because it is stated in the printed proceedings that are now available to us that the text is printed "for the use of the committee on foreign relations."


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY AS TO COMPLETION OF ALL-CANADIAN ROUTE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister tell the house if the government intends to act soon on Premier Frost's suggestion that Canada should proceed as quickly as possible with the construction of the remaining parts of an all-Canadian route of the St. Lawrence seaway?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, not that I am objecting to it, but the hon. gentleman did not give me any notice of this question. I will take it as notice. It is rather too comprehensive for an off the cuff answer. I shall reply in due course.


VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct another question to the Prime Minister, of which I did not give him notice but I do not think he will require notice in this case. My question is based upon a press release emanating from his office in connection with the inundation ceremonies visit which he made to Cornwall on Friday. The press statement gives the reasons why the Prime Minister decided to go by motor car, and with those reasons I certainly am not one who will find fault. But the press statement contains this amazing declaration:
Mr. Nelson explained that Mr. Diefenbaker could not use a DC-3 for the flight to Cornwall because the Cornwall airport is not large enough to accommodate this twin-engined aircraft.
My question is this. In view of the fact that there is no airport at Cornwall, will the government give consideration to including in the further supplementary estimates an item to cover construction of an airport for this seaway city, which is now extremely important because of the fact that it finds itself in the centre of power and navigation facilities?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious error in that statement. The place of landing was not Cornwall and the difficulties of landing had no reference to Cornwall; I think it would have been necessary to land in another
Inquiries of the Ministry country. In reference to the warm request by my hon. friend for an airport in Cornwall, may I say this. I can appreciate the hon. gentleman's tremendous interest in this matter. I am just wondering why a similar interest was not shown in the past. Ever since 1954 the importance of Cornwall and the St. Lawrence waterway was apparent. I am just wondering once more why there should be the sudden interest additional to, of course, the difficulty that I would have experienced in landing in Cornwall where there is no airport.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the former administration included in the estimates an item for an airport at Cornwall, will the Prime Minister see that the government carries out that project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall look over those estimates of the former government, and they will receive the attention they deserve.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: On Friday last the Leader of the Opposition addressed this question to me:
In view of the pattern of three-power co-operation developed during world war II on atomic matters, could the minister inform the house whether Canada will be invited to join in the agreement signed, I think, the day before yesterday between the United Kingdom and the United States for co-operation on the use of atomic energy for defence purposes?
If I may quote the words of the Prime Minister, that request was too comprehensive for me at the time and I took it as notice. The simple answer to the question is that Canada, while kept informed of developments by both London and Washington, did not join in what according to my understanding is a bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. It is true that there was tripartite co-operation during the war on atomic energy matters, and I feel confident that such co-operation would be reactivated if and when necessary.
Since the war, however, co-operation with the United States in this field has for the most part assumed a bilateral form. As the Leader of the Opposition will undoubtedly recall, Canada and the United Kingdom have had bilateral agreements with the United States in the atomic energy field, both civil and military, for some years. My understanding is

Inquiries of the Ministry that the United Kingdom requirements, which are different from Canadian requirements, are such as to call for a new agreement at this time between those two countries.
The new agreement has been made possible by recent amendments to the atomic energy act authorizing congress to expand the areas in which United States information could be given to a friendly country which has made substantial progress in the development of atomic weapons. When and if Canadian requirements call for a supplementary agreement with the United States, the house can assume that a similar course will no doubt be followed. Canada at this time does not qualify for that type of agreement prescribed by the amendments to the atomic energy act of the United States congress.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the answer which my hon. friend has given, could he give the house the assurance that the bilateral arrangement to which he referred as between the United Kingdom and the United States will not interfere with the pattern of three-power co-operation in atomic matters which developed during the war and was continued after the war?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can give that full assurance, as I endeavoured to say in reply to a question relating to the amendments to the atomic energy control act last week. We are hopeful in Canada that the amendments will be liberally interpreted and that the co-operation between the United States and Canada in this field will be even greater.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour; I am sure he will not mind my not having given him notice. I wonder whether the minister could make a report, even if it is only an interim progress report, of the meetings which I understand were to be held today between representatives of Canadian Pacific Steamships and the seafarers international union with regard to the strike on the west coast?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, meetings have been held with the C.P.R. and the representatives of the S.I.U. They have been adjourned until 3.30 p.m., at which time we will again resume our talks.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As
he is the minister directly concerned with the welfare, morale and contentment of the civil service, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that Canadian military and civilian personnel work in the latest air-conditioned comfort in Canada's new $2,800,000 military joint staff building in Washington, D.C., would the minister inform the house if the government is giving consideration to the installation of the equipment required to provide similar working conditions for the Canadian civil service in Ottawa?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have asked that question while the estimates of the Department of Public Works were under consideration.



REPORTED NEGLECT BY PRIME MINISTER TO ANSWER COMMUNICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on a Canadian Press dispatch of July 5, according to which Mr. Fred White-house, president of the Civil Service Federation of Canada, made the statement that three letters and telegrams addressed to the Prime Minister relating to three proposals, including an increase in the salaries of civil servants, have not yet been acknowledged or replied to.
In view of the need to keep morale in the civil service as high as possible, can the Prime Minister say what consideration has been given to these requests?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): I received a telegram from Mr. Whitehouse, and I should like to contradict a statement attributed to him which is as follows: "Angry at what he described as the discourtesy of the Prime Minister." Mr. Whitehouse said in this telegram: "I emphatically deny making such a statement and offer an apology for any embarrassment such a report.. .may cause you."


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Prime Minister could say when a decision is likely to be made on this and the other questions, including collective bargaining?


John George Diefenbaker: I would not like to say. That is a decision that will be arrived at after full consideration of all the pertinent factors.



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of a Canadian Press dispatch in the Montreal Gazette of July 5 which stated that Canada is beginning a big push to build up trade with communist China, and that it had been learned that the minister might visit Peking in the fall. Can the minister say whether such a visit is planned by himself? Does he intend to take with him a substantial delegation, such as went to the United Kingdom, and would he consider strengthening the delegation with other senior members of the government in order that this big push might come off and trade with China be expanded?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am very much afraid I shall not take the hon. member for Assiniboia along with me on this projected tour which, as he knows, is based on press speculation, as I pointed out in a television broadcast that same evening. There is no question at all about the desire, and the will, and the activity of the government with regard to promoting trade all over the world, and if it is possible to increase our trade with China we will do that. Whether it can be best done by this method or by some other method is a matter for consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the somewhat hopeful final sentence used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in replying to the last question. Has the government of Canada given any reconsideration to the recognition of the government of China, as the first necessary step toward building up the trade so urgently needed by Canada at this time?


Sidney Earle Smith: That is a matter of government policy. If and when a decision is reached it will be duly announced.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no big push.



WAR SURPLUS EQUIPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister or the government received any protests from any associations in Canada
Inquiries of the Ministry regarding the importation of war surplus equipment, especially with regard to the case of two recent shiploads of such American equipment received in Canada by way of Japan. If so, what consideration has the government given to such representations?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a question which does not directly concern the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, since my question is not one for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I direct it to the Prime Minister and ask him to take it as notice.
Has the government received any protests from any associations in Canada regarding the importation of war surplus equipment, especially with regard to the case of two recent shiploads of such American equipment received in Canada via Japan? If so, what consideration has the government given to such representations?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: These matters come under my direction. There have been representations to the government, at least to the Department of National Revenue. I have received several telegrams and communications on this matter within the last few days. These questions are now receiving consideration by the government.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. I may say that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) is also greatly interested in this question. I am glad to see that he is fully recovered and that he has returned to this house.
When does the government propose to proceed with the old Welland canal clean-up, and rehabilitation of lands in the municipalities of Thorold, Merritton and St. Catharines?


George Harris Hees: Engineers are preparing plans for this operation, and tenders will be called in the course of the next few months.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to say a word of welcome to the hon. member for Lincoln
1958	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Mr. Smith) as one who comes from the Niagara district, and say how happy I am to see him back in his seat.
I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Would the minister care to advise the house whether the government intends to institute twice-daily delivery service in residential districts of Canadian communities?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Not in the next few weeks, at least.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON REVISION OF TERMS OF UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I regret not having given him notice, but it was only a few minutes before coming to this house that I read the article which appeared in one of the Newfoundland local papers on July 4 which prompted the question.
Will the Minister of Finance inform this house if the McNair commission report on term 29, which I understand is still in the hands of the printer, is expected to be tabled in this house in approximately two weeks?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have had no indication as to when the report is likely to be received.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question the Postmaster General. Would the minister care to comment upon reports that the mail carrier staff in the town of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, is to be reduced?


William McLean Hamilton: I have had no notice of this question. I will be glad to get this information and inform the hon. member.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the relative importance of the quahaug fishery in the Buctouche bay area, and in view of prevailing reports that this fishery henceforth will be closed due to the recent transplanting


of disease-resistant oyster stocks in that same area, could the minister inform the house what action, if any, is contemplated by the government relative to this issue?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I am happy to inform him that the reports to which he refers do not accurately reflect the situation. While it is true that the Department of Fisheries has closed quahaug fishing in the immediate areas where disease-resistant oysters have been transplanted, there is still a large part of Buctouche bay open to quahaug fishing.


Hervé J. Michaud: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to my question of a few minutes ago may I ask the following. The minister indicated that part of the Buctouche bay area is still open for quahaug fishing. I take it from his reply that it is still the intention of the department to keep that section open in the future.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. The only areas that will be closed to quahaug fishing will be those in the immediate vicinity of where disease-resistant oysters have been transplanted.



MIRAMICHI, N.B.  REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING CHANGE IN SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Roy McWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. On Tuesday last the minister stated in answer to a question that no request had been received seeking a change in the New Brunswick fishing regulations to eliminate the two-week lift period for Atlantic salmon net fishing. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received any representations since he gave that answer.


John Angus MacLean: I will check, and give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.



INQUIRY AS TO CONCLUSION OF AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Would the minister tell us whether a formal agreement has yet been concluded with Dosco with respect to assistance in carrying the company's coal stockpile-and, if so, could it be tabled in the house?

Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and
Technical Surveys): A formal agreement has not yet been reached; nothing official has been done. However, we expect to be in a position to inform the house with regard to this matter in a very short time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I ask the minister whether, in the course of negotiations or conversations with the company, any representations have been made urging the company to establish its additional steel making facilities at Sydney?


Mr. Comlois:: Not to my knowledge.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minisler of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question asked by the hon. member for Welland on July 2 concerning the reported protest of British Columbia in the signing of an agreement under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, I have received approval from the minister of health for that province for the tabling of the relevant correspondence. I will now table these communications, which I think the house will agree provide a satisfactory answer in this connection.
As for the second point raised by the hon. member for Welland, I would inform the house that none of the provinces voiced any specific protest in signing hospital insurance agreements. They had, however, made representations from time to time concerning certain aspects of the program, all of which have been discussed on a number of occasions in this house.
By way of comment, I can do no better than refer to the assurance I gave to the minister of health of British Columbia on June 13, contained in my letter tabled today, to the effect that the federal government will be at all times prepared to give consideration to any changes which require to be made in the light of experience, and particularly as they may involve a common measure of justice and equity for all the provinces.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, on July 3 I asked a question relevant to the Alberta-Montreal pipe line. On that occasion the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Green) told me that he would take the question as notice. Is an answer possible today?
National Development Policy


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell me when he will be able to answer that question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is also no.


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



NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this motion gives me an opportunity to raise a matter of very great importance, namely a national development policy, and at the conclusion of my remarks to move an amendment concerning it. I hope to deal with this matter myself in fairly general terms, and subsequently my colleagues who are participating in this debate will deal with somewhat more detailed matters arising out of the question.
In a young and rapidly growing country like Canada-and we are young and rapidly growing-it is essential to have a flexible national development policy adapted to the changing needs of our people. If indeed flexibility in this field is not preserved, if the aims and contents of our national development policy do not rest upon a systematic national assessment of our changing economic and social requirements, overexpansion may result in certain sectors and certain regions while others may suffer from stagnation and underdevelopment. In other words, unevenness of economic development is a major danger to our economy. Indeed, our history shows that it is also a danger to our unity.
It would be useful in opening this discussion, I think to review very briefly the historical evolution of our national development policy which, as I see it, has been marked by three distinct periods. The first, of course, is the Macdonald era, from 1867 to, I suppose, about 1895. It was characterized by the acquisition of Rupert's land and the Northwest Territories, by the construction of railways and canals and the implementation of the national policy in 1878. In spite of the unfavourable impact of that policy on our maritime provinces, the aims and contents of the policy in other respects were, I think, adapted to the economic circumstances of that period. Indeed, it was essential at that time to create an economic frontier and for that purpose to provide

National Development Policy transcontinental transportation facilities which were of vital importance not only economically but also politically.
Nevertheless, in spite of what I think we might fairly term Sir John A. Macdonald's dynamic-and, if you like, imaginative- policy, economic development throughout that period was very slow. It has been estimated that over one million Canadians emigrated to the United States from 1860 to 1890. Yet I think we must all recognize, wherever we may sit in the house and whatever our political views may be, that the basis for our future growth was laid during that period. The Canadian people, I am sure, will always admire and be grateful to Sir John A. for his great vision and his great achievements despite the unfavourable economic climate of that time.
Then from the end of that period, 1896, to the great depression of the 1930's we had, I think, another period in our national development, a period during which of course there was no uninterrupted succession of Liberal governments because we had the government of another great Canadian, Sir Robert Borden, during that time and we also had the first world war. I think, however, it is not unfair to characterize that second period as the Sir Wilfrid Laurier-Mackenzie King era.
That was a very great and active period in our history marked by the opening up and the settlement of the west. During that time wheat production became complementary to the manufacturing production of the east and indeed, I suppose, during those years it is not an exaggeration to say that wheat dominated the economic scene. It became of vital importance in our international balance of payments; and the wheat economy, the opening up of the west, became of very great importance also in providing a market for the manufactures of the east.
That period perhaps came to an end in 1930, with the transfer of natural resources to the provinces and the great depression of that decade. During that decade of the 1930's-we all remember those years-the country was preoccupied with getting out of the depression; and then came the second world war, when main emphasis of course had to be placed on defence and indeed on survival.
During those two earlier periods our national development policy was, I think, bold and imaginative; but we must not forget, especially in regard to the problems of the present and what we should do about them, that that policy often lacked proper balance and that occasionally it put the emphasis in the wrong direction, with the result that at times we were overextended 
or, if you like, overequipped in certain sectors and that we perhaps unnecessarily imposed some heavy overhead burdens on the Canadian economy.
The principal of Queen's, Dr. Mackintosh, for instance, has written about our railway policy in those years; that it had been fantastically optimistic and misdirected. It is generally recognized that some areas in the west which were developed during those periods should not have been devoted to wheat production. Our overexpansion in certain fields unduly increased our overhead costs generally in this country and also prevented us from promoting more desirable projects perhaps in other sectors or regions of the nation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to the third great period in our development, which coincided with the years after world war II. We still remembered then the achievements of the earlier years, but we also coupled with those achievements, as any government I think was bound to do, some of the miscalculations of the past. I maintain that our national development policy during those years after world war II was vigorous, constructive and successful, in spite of heavy public expenditures for defence, unprecedented in our history in peacetime, and in spite of very heavy expenditures for social security. But our development policy during those years was not only vigorous; it was, I think, somewhat better balanced and better planned than it had been before.
Perhaps the main new element in this third period of development was the greater impetus given during those years to the opening up of the northern economic frontier. New transportation facilities weTe made available for that purpose by the federal government, or with its assistance or permission. I am not going to detain the house, Mr. Speaker, by going into the detailed record of transportation developments during those years; it is there for all to see, and I know that hon. members are aware of it. There was not only road transportation and rail transportation to northern areas, but right across the country there was a vast program of airport construction carried on in the northern part of our territory.
Then we recall that in 1953 a new federal Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources was set up in recognition of the growing importance of our northern regions. Under able and energetic leadership that new department took a very active interest not only in economic development of that vast territory but also in the greater well-being of its population.

The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources also gave active consideration to the planning of long-term development in the north. This did not begin last year, Mr. Speaker; it began when this department was set up, and only two years after the creation of the department, at the end of 1955, the department presented, through the commissioners of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, two briefs to the Gordon commission outlining long-term plans for the next 25 years, the implementation of which had begun at that time. These are the two briefs which were presented to the Gordon commission at that time and which provided the basis for planning and development in the Arctic, planning and development which had indeed begun.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these two briefs also formed the basis of the famous vision that we heard so much about during the election campaign. However, during that time we did not hear any mention of the fact that this vision was merely an adapted version of a plan which had been drawn up a few years before and which was being implemented. After the election, however, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources did state-and not very long ago, a few days ago-that there was nothing new in the content of the vision except that the implementation of the Liberal plan on which it was based was speeded up.
I shall come back to that point later, Mr. Speaker. For the moment I just want to say that the Liberal party is proud of its post-war record in the north, both in terms of realization and in terms of planning for the future, but I would add-and this is important to get the matter in perspective-that our national development policy when we were in power was not merely centred on northern development. During the post-war period an impressive program was initiated in the field of transportation and communication generally which is vital to our development, and in the more settled areas of our country. We know what that has included. It has included the transcontinental television system, improved airports and facilities and construction of oil and gas pipe lines. However, the two great projects which perhaps were most characteristic of the bold action taken in this sector during that period were the trans-Canada highway and the St. Lawrence seaway, which is very much in our minds these days and to which the hon. member for Laurier made so great a contribution.
Our national development policy also provided special encouragement to the utilization and conservation of our resources. Extended geological surveys and the special three-year tax exemption period certainly 57071-3-124
National Development Policy contributed to increased mining operations in Canada. A most spectacular development in that field, one concerning which I have perhaps more knowledge than I have of some of the others, was the development of uranium mining brought about by carefully worked out policies between the producers, the federal government and the provincial governments concerned and also-this is most important- brought about because marketing arrangements were made, satisfactory to the producers, with the government of the United States, which was the only government at that time that could serve as a market for our uranium production. So successful, so spectacular, has that development been

and perhaps the most spectacular part of it is centred around the Elliot Lake-Blind River area-that if it were not for the increased exports of uranium to the United States in the current year our figures for exports to that country would not be nearly as high as they are today.
Then there was federal assistance to the provinces for forest inventories, reforestation and fire prevention, all of which led to a better knowledge of our forest resources and to more efficient measures for the conservation of those resources. Special legislation was introduced to make sure that water resources would be used in the best interests of Canada, and we know the increasing importance of that subject. A special program of assistance for the Atlantic provinces was inaugurated, which certainly comes within the field of national development. This involved coal subventions, mechanization programs, increased assistance under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, the construction of thermal power plants and interconnecting power lines, and the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to make recommendations on the integration and provision of transportation facilities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a new element altogether was added to our national development some years ago by assistance to housing and to municipalities. Under the National Housing Act and other legislation the former federal government participated in the construction of several hundreds of thousands of houses throughout Canada. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is an important phase of national development. Provision was also made under that legislation to pay 75 per cent of the cost of constructing low cost housing for rent, and there was federal participation in redevelopment projects and slum clearance programs.
This review-and it is a very cursory review omitting many things-shows that our post-war period of national development was vigorous and dynamic despite the special

National Development Policy circumstances of that period. Those special circumstances, which made the discharge of federal governmental responsibilities in national development not easy, were outlined by Mr. St. Laurent, prime minister at that time, in his opening remarks at the federal-provincial conference in October, 1955. Among other things he said:
In its own fields of responsibility the federal government has followed a vigorous policy of public investment since the end of the war, tempered, of course, by the overriding needs of defence in the past five years and also by the need for restraint because of the dangers of inflation and our desire to postpone what could reasonably be postponed so that it would not compete with a high level of private investment.
That was the situation which confronted us in those years when the government attempted to assist by public projects in national development, at a time when the great danger to the economy of the country was inflation, when it seemed undesirable for the government to interfere with private development except in so far as that interference was necessary to facilitate such private development.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that, or
what page?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was in October, 1955 and it is either on page 11 or page 12 of the proceedings of the federal-provincial conference of 1955. The national development policy of the new government was announced in the speech from the throne in October, 1957, but no indication was given then as to its general aims or content or the principles that underlie it. Specific references were made in that speech only to further assistance to power development in the Atlantic provinces, to the South Saskatchewan dam and to the negotiations initiated by the Liberal government with the United States on the question of Columbia river power development.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, nothing has been done as far as we know with respect to new thermal power developments in the Atlantic provinces apart from the signing of a master agreement. Certain Nova Scotia mines are temporarily, and we hope only temporarily, closed. No agreement has yet been reached on the South Saskatchewan dam, a project which we were led to hope would begin last autumn. No report has yet been made to the house on the negotiations with the United States respecting the Columbia river matter. Nor have we heard anything at all about the activities of the interdepartmental committee of officials on transportation in the Atlantic provinces which was set up by the previous government more than a year ago, and which we thought could do useful work

in those provinces in developing co-operation between the federal and provincial governments on transportation matters.
During the election campaign the Conservative party put particular emphasis on a so-called special public investment program to meet the recession, and we heard a good deal at that time about the vision of northern development. We contended at that time, and I think the Canadian people now realize, that the special public works program for unemployment relief amounting to over a billion dollars announced by the Prime Minister never in fact existed. In fact, government expenditures for this purpose in 1958-1959 will be roughly about the same level as they were in the previous years of so-called Liberal neglect and postponement. Of course new projects will be initiated in 1958-59, but there is nothing exceptional about this, especially if you take into account the fact that most of these projects were planned and prepared by the former government. Apart from the very limited action taken by the government in co-operation with the provinces with regard to access roads, we are left with vague pronouncements and a postelection works mirage.
Therefore it appears to us, Mr. Speaker, that the government record, especially viewed in the light of the perfervid words of the election campaign, has not yet been very impressive in this field. Certainly so far as the use of these methods for unemployment relief and for curing the recession is concerned the results have been very meagre indeed. But, Mr. Speaker, we are quite ready to wait and give the government a fair chance to show some creative imagination in the pursuit of this national policy. We are ready to help in this regard and make what we think are concrete, constructive and practical suggestions.


John George Diefenbaker: From igloo to igloo.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will come to that also.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You had better crawl out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not have to worry about that, and I will be able to convince my hon. friends without any difficulty.
Now, our only purpose in presenting today the amendment I am about to propose is to call the attention of the government to the need for a new development policy in line with the current economic and social requirements of the Canadian people. These current economic and social requirements have changed even over the last two years.
Up to now, Mr. Speaker, when we have attempted to make any constructive suggestions the government or a spokesman for the government, instead of discussing these

proposals on their own merits, usually has asked the question, sometimes jocularly and sometimes in a worse than jocular way, "Why did you not do it before?" Such a reaction, Mr. Speaker, is not very intelligent nor very serious. It will be more than usually unjustified during this debate because very important changes have occurred in the economic conditions governing the aims and content of our development policy in the last year or so.
These changes, which should be obvious to everyone, are the result of several factors, two of which I should like to mention. In the first place, Mr. St. Laurent asserted in the statement I quoted earlier that our post-war development of this country was tempered by our desire in those years to postpone what could be reasonably postponed so it would not compete with the high level of private investment, and we certainly had a high level of private investment during those years. That factor has disappeared since private investments, for the time being, are certainly declining. Government action now becomes necessary to fill the gap in a way which was not the case two, three or four years ago.
In the second place, some of the major projects in the public investment program initiated by the former government have been completed or will soon be completed. This is true, for instance, in the case of the construction of the seaway, the trans-Canada pipe line, the trans-Canada highway, and several airport and harbour improvements. Other major projects, therefore, must be planned and initiated if the level of public investment in Canada is to be maintained or increased. There is greater necessity for that at the present time than there has been at any time since world war II.
These factors, then, are changing the public investment picture in this country quite drastically at the present time. They call for a new orientation or a new emphasis in our national development policy if we want to maintain the kind of balance and dynamism which we have achieved in the past.
We on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, feel as we did in the past, that the development of the far north above the 60th parallel is directly the responsibility of the federal government and would continue to be one very important aspect of the national policy. Government assistance to the population in the north is not only desirable but it is necessary.
I do not for one minute, however, accept the contention of Conservative spokesmen in the last election campaign that this kind of program in the Arctic about which they
57071-3-124J
National Development Policy talked at that time, a road program, a transportation program, would have any considerable effect, if any effect at all, in the immediate emergency which confronted us, which was unemployment. It is one thing to put forward a program for national development in the Arctic, but it is another thing to put forward a program of that kind, especially when it is contained in estimates which have already been drawn up, as a cure for the unemployment emergency.
This kind of claim during an election campaign or subsequent to an election campaign, and even if it is made in this house this afternoon, does not make sense. A program of national development in the north to improve transportation and communication for national development purposes, carrying on the planning and development which has been going on for years, does make sense.
There are a good many reasons now, Mr. Speaker, why government action is necessary in this respect in the north to a greater degree than it has been in recent years. In the first place, there is the growing number of companies already located in that region, and their workers, who are entitled to government services. These companies have not come in within the last 12 months. They have been coming in during recent years.
Moreover the local population, the Indians and Eskimos, is now increasing and it is more difficult for these aboriginal people, these earliest inhabitants of our country, to adapt themselves to new conditions. They see their traditional methods of livelihood disappearing. They see new activities coming into their country. They see the basis of their previous existence changing. There is, therefore, a special obligation on the government to help them adapt themselves to the new conditions for which we are largely responsible. This means the government will have to assist the native population to learn new trades and create for them new employment opportunities.
There are also political as well as military reasons which justify a continued emphasis on the development of the north. We are claiming, and rightly, our sovereignty over that portion of our territory. Indeed, we have claimed sovereignty under what we call the sector theory over the prolongation north, right to their meeting at the north pole, of the east and west extensions of our boundary. If we are to make that claim stick, and it certainly is important we should make it stick, we have to do everything that is possible, everything that is practical, to develop those areas and reinforce whatever rights we may have in law with the right of occupation.

National Development Policy
Then, finally, such development is justified because we will, in time, need the vast resources found in this area for our future prosperity and expansion. The Canadian north is now fairly well known for its abundant and diversified natural resources. Some of them are already being exploited. It must be recognized that the world demand for minerals of all kinds is rising steadily. On the other hand, lest our enthusiasm for Arctic development run away with us, we should remember also that a good many of these metals, under present conditions, are in surplus supply. I know that in the long run we have no reason to be pessimistic about the future of base metal production in this country. The Paley report-and we always quote the Paley report when we discuss a question of this kind-has shown that the mineral reserves of the United States are becoming depleted. For these reasons, and because the Canadian north is one of the last economic frontiers in the world, long-term prospects for its development are very bright indeed.
However, there are also very good reasons why we as a nation should not proceed too fast with the opening up of the Canadian north, why we should not speed up its development in disregard of economic conditions. Indeed, I am reminded that the minister of northern affairs himself, and I think he was quite sound in this statement, said the other day that it would be unwise for instance to bring a road through for a commodity before there was a market for that commodity.
There is a common fallacy about the impact that accelerated northern development could have at this time on the Canadian economy. It is often urged that this impact would be similar to that which resulted from the opening up of the west. Surely we would be unwise to try to carry that parallel too far. We should remind ourselves that wheat production was supplementary at that time, in opening up the west, to the industrial activity of eastern Canada. Mineral production in the far north at the present time, in most cases and for the time being, will be merely a supplement or an addition to what we have already in relative abundance in the northern portions of our provinces.
For some time to come, therefore, the mineral production of the north will not be complementary to but will be competitive with similar production of other Canadian regions on world markets. A very good example of that, of course, is the uranium mining industry itself. We have perhaps the largest single uranium field in the free world, at least, in the Elliot Lake-Blind River area, and there is a good deal more uranium up
[Mr, Pearson.1
there that has not yet been brought under production. It is accessible to the consuming centres in the United States. Indeed, the only consuming centre in the United States is the government of the United States. Therefore to spend energy and money at this time in trying to open up new sources of uranium say in the far north, when we have so much closer to home and closer to markets, would not, I believe, be an economic or wise proposition.
In order to be competitive with other sources of supply on world markets at the same price, most of this increased mineral production in the north would have to be subsidized in one form or another because of its relative geographical remoteness from world markets. The basic problem raised for us by accelerated economic development in the north at this stage-and I am sure the minister will agree with me in this-can be defined very simply. Production and transportation costs in that region are much higher than they are in other areas of our country and in other parts of the world. Yet products originating in the north must be sold on world markets at competitive prices.
I was reading the reports of the meeting of the Royal society in Edmonton which was held a few weeks ago. One of the papers, given by Mr. Legget of the national research council, pointed out that it cost as much to transport building material from Edmonton to Aklavik as to purchase the building material in Edmonton. In view of these circumstances, therefore-high transportation costs, the situation with regard to world markets, the fact that in some cases we are producing in surplus supply some of these materials in other parts of Canada-it would seem to me unwise, without most careful consideration of the economic problems involved, to rush into the development of the north at this stage through subsidized transportation, especially when the resulting increased production might depress production in other parts of Canada and therefore might interfere with the production with the wellbeing of those other parts of Canada.
As I see it, what we should do is not slow down on the planning and development which have been going on in recent years but carry that forward wherever economic consideration would justify it, to take the necessary action but to be very careful indeed in present conditions that economic circumstances justify the action before that action is taken. We do not have to worry about these resources; they are there, and they will be of great value to the world in the years ahead. Surely the thing to do now is to plan and develop for those years ahead

carefully and soundly and with all the vigour which is required by any particular policy.
I believe that we should continue to emphasize the importance of the north and treat it as I have suggested it should be treated in regard to economic development, moving vigorously but moving carefully. I think also that a very important part of national development policy remains in those other areas and those other sectors of the Canadian economy which have been the subject of governmental help and intervention over the years.
For instance, an extremely important aspect of national development is research itself. In 1956-57 the government spent $106 million on research. I suggest that we can do better than that. I suggest-and this suggestion has already been made officially by our party-that there should be set up a national science commission to promote, sponsor and co-ordinate scientific development and research in Canada upon whatever government level it may be conducted. I suggest also that a very important aspect of national development is assistance by the federal government to the provinces so they may be in a position to develop their own resources to the maximum possible extent.
I am thinking particularly at the moment of communications and transportation. I am thinking of the proposal which our party has already made that the federal government should become responsible for 95 per cent of the cost of the remaining parts of the trans-Canada highway in the four Atlantic provinces. I am thinking of the assistance that we have proposed should be given to those provinces for trunk highways which would increase communication between the Atlantic provinces and other parts of Canada and the United States. I am also thinking of a railway to Great Slave lake which is now very much under consideration, I know, by the government. I am also thinking of the building with federal assistance of a second trans-Canada highway through Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, and the Peace river district to the Pacific.
I am also thinking-and perhaps there is no more important aspect of national development where the federal government can be more immediately helpful-of assistance to the municipalities in the problems that face them, which are a part of national development because national development is the sum of local development. What more important form could national development at this time take than federal assistance to the municipalities in slum clearance and
National Development Policy urban redevelopment projects? We therefore propose greater federal participation in such projects. Raising the proposed federal share to 50 per cent or 75 per cent of the cost of slum clearance projects would be justified on the grounds of national development.
I should like to put forward another proposal which is part of our party platform. I am very happy to mention these party proposals which we put forward in the election campaign, and to put them on Hansard as something we think should be done, not merely to be put forward for election purposes but put forward after the election is over as something that we think is constructive. For that purpose I suggest to the government they should consider the establishment at this time-and they are going to have a municipal-provincial-federal conference one of these days or one of these months or one of these years-of a municipal loan fund by which capital could be made available to the municipalities on a longterm basis for major municipal improvements, for the expansion of urgently needed municipal services.


John George Diefenbaker: Did my hon. friends not turn that down when they were in power?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think it was ever turned down when we were in power. But what difference does that make? Every time we make a proposal over here in the opposition somebody on the other side, instead of examining the proposal and seeing whether it fits the situation, immediately says, "You didn't do it in 1935" or "You didn't do it in 1945". I suggest to the Prime Minister that he look ahead occasionally and not keep looking back into the record of the past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If he will look ahead and consider these problems that the municipalities face-and we hear a good deal about them these days-perhaps he will find something worthy of support in the establishment of a municipal loan fund for the purposes I have indicated. The scope and administrative set-up of that fund would, of course, have to be settled in consultation with representatives of the provinces and municipalities, but it is something which my hon. friend might well take up with the provinces and municipalities when he next meets them. If they could work out something like that we, of course, would be glad to give him and his government all the credit for it.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Within limits.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Within limits, as my friend the hon. member for Essex East cautions.

National Development Policy


John George Diefenbaker: Repentance is good for the soul.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is one other proposal that I should like to make. This also is one that we have put forward more than once, one also that we were not in a position to implement over the years when we were in power, and it also has a very special relationship to the circumstances of today, which in this regard are much different from what they were five or ten years ago. That is the establishment of a national advisory board on economic development and automation for dealing with long term problems of production and employment. We suggest that such an advisory board be established, staffed by representatives from labour, industry, agriculture and the universities as well as government. One principal duty of such a board would be to study the long term measures required to ensure a high level of employment and to minimize for workers the consequences of automation by providing for re-training programs, better mobility of workers and other progressive measures.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Could he explain the difference between this proposed board and the Gordon commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This board, in the terms in which I am putting it forward was not, so far as my recollection goes, recommended by the Gordon commission at all. I do not think the Gordon commission report had anything to say with regard to it in terms of a recommendation to deal with it-


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member has misunderstood me. Will he explain the difference between the commission he is now recommending and the commission which his government set up known as the Gordon commission.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I find it easy to do that. The Gordon commission was a commission set up by the government to investigate and report, and as a result of its report on general economic conditions, as a result of its general economic survey of the country it was hoped that whatever government might be in power at the time the report was received would find recommendations which would be useful if embodied in the permanent machinery of government. I am suggesting that this proposal is very different indeed, that this commission should become an agency of the government to consider the problems I have mentioned and one or two which I should like to mention. The Gordon commission was a fact finding body set up to report to the government. We are suggesting to the government now


that they should set up a piece of government machinery which would, I think, be of a constructive and useful nature.
Among other things, the duty of this board would be to plan programs for long term development which would ensure the steady progress of the Canadian economy and help to sustain full employment.


John George Diefenbaker: How far would its powers go?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am making this recommendation to the government. The government will undoubtedly desire to look into it and consider how far its powers should extend. Its powers would have to be circumscribed in the legislation setting up the board. I do not think the Prime Minister would wish me to go further into the matter at this time, but I throw the suggestion out to him and to the government since they have to face not only the immediate problems of recession and unemployment but also the longer range problems of economic planning and development which in the long run may be even more important.
I think I have said enough to show that national development covers a great many subjects, and that while national development in the north is important, national development in other parts of Canada is equally important. There is much to be done, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that while it is of first and immediate importance to deal with the problems immediately before us, the recession and unemployment, it is of almost equal importance in the long run, if not even more important, to look ahead and plan to deal with the problems that will be facing us in the future. It is in that spirit that I put forward these suggestions. Because we on this side of the house do not feel that the government is tackling these problems of national development with the constructive energy and purpose which we think to be desirable in the present circumstances, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that, in present circumstances of declining private investment, a balanced policy of national development requires consideration by the government of active measures to meet the urgent needs of social capital especially in the form of transportation facilities, municipal improvements, and other facilities to stimulate economic development and to promote social wellbeing in the settled areas of Canada."


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I must say that we in this group have listened with the greatest interest and delight to the words uttered by the Leader

of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in the very good speech he has just made.
When we hear the leader of the Liberal opposition using such words as "economic planning and development" and stressing the need for social capital in the amendment he moves, and in the remarks he made during his speech; and when he suggests, as he obviously does, that in order to rescue this country from the deficiencies of private enterprise we should use the national credit, then I can only say that I have sent to my office for an application form to be sent to the Leader of the Opposition in order to give him the opportunity of joining the C.C.F.
As I say, we were delighted and amazed. Only time will tell whether these are just words, or whether they are words that will be followed by action. But we were delighted to hear this point of view put forward and we support many of the suggestions he made with respect to the need for a national development policy, the need for social capital and the need for economic planning. It pleases us very much to realize that this small group at this end of the house is so effective in its presentation of the policy and program of the C.C.F. that it has now succeeded, in the short time of slightly more than two months, in inoculating the hon. gentlemen on our physical left-whether they are on our ideological left will only be determined after the passage of time.
However that may be, Mr. Speaker, I must say that we have repeatedly in this house urged many of these things which have been advocated by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, and we shall continue to do so. We realize that if we are going to have a balanced national development we must have economic planning as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. We need, also, the social capital mentioned in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and we have always preached the necessity for the use of the national credit to this end.
A national development program from our point of view would require participation by the federal government, by the provincial governments and by the municipal governments. We think that a balanced national development program would include the building of large hydro projects. When such projects are mentioned we, in British Columbia, immediately think of the development of the Columbia river and its hydro resources.
We think of the necessity of a greatly expanded national highways program in this country, of the necessity of a second trans-Canada highway, of the need for a national conservation policy, the necessity of greatly extended assistance through some type of fund perhaps as suggested by the leader of
National Development Policy the official opposition to the municipalities and of the necessity for taking advantage of opportunities to put to work idle Canadians in the development of our national parks and recreational facilities. But in addition to these things we in the C.C.F. believe we should also utilize the national credit for the assistance of small business in Canada because we realize that small business is a very important part of the economy of this country.
Other hon. members in this group who will follow me as this debate proceeds today and tomorrow will deal with other aspects of this problem-the federal, provincial and municipal aspects-and will possibly deal with some of the details which I have previously skirted but it is my intention in the brief time I will detain the house to deal solely with the need for social capital being used in the development of small business or small free enterprise in Canada.
Quite recently, I believe, I mentioned that the philosophy of the policy and program of the C.C.F. recognizes the importance of the small business sector of our economy as part of a mixed economy. I judge from the smiles on the faces of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the leader of the official opposition that they are somewhat under the delusion that all our policies are becoming mixed during this debate but what I am suggesting today has been the policy of the C.C.F. for a considerable length of time. That is to say, we believe in the great opportunity for social planning and the use of national credit in public ownership in the federal, provincial and municipal fields in a mixed economy, and the great opportunity for the development of the co-operative movement in this country whether it is in the form of a service cooperative, a consumer co-operative or a credit co-operative. In addition to that we believe in the great opportunity for the expansion of what we term as legitimate free enterprise where the real and genuine element of competition enters for the protection of the Canadian consumer. There is a great opportunity for the development of free enterprise in small industry, in distribution, retail outlets, and things of that type and in certain transportation and services generally.
Small business, generally speaking, is usually a community enterprise. It is established in its initial stages by local capital and employs local labour. Consequently there is an interest on the part of these local citizens of the community and a sense of responsibility on the part of the small business to the local community in which it operates. It participates in community activities, development, affairs and administration and differs somewhat from foreign capital or large scale investment in a significant way. In most

National Development Policy cases the profits made by a small business or free enterprise undertaking remain in the local community and are normally re-invested there so there is no net loss in profits to the community by their being exported to a country other than Canada. With the development of our country grows the opportunity and the need for a greater expansion of what we in this group call the legitimate free enterprise sector of our economy and that is the point I intend to deal with briefly this afternoon.
The bugbear, shall I say, or the major problem of small business, particularly in recent years where rapid expansion occurs and requirements have to be met fairly rapidly in our modern industrial society, is that there is a lack of long term credit. As hon. members know bank credit is too short to frequently satisfactorily serve the long term needs of small business and small industry. In that respect I want to speak from my personal experience and when I say that I refer to observations I have made in the district in which I have had the good fortune to live for over 50 years. I realize from what I have seen there that over and over again the efforts of hardworking, capable people have been frustrated and there has been a great deal of effort lost and wasted because they lacked the advantage of long term low interest capital to carry on their small business or industry.
I refer particularly to two aspects of small industry for which there is a major place in the economy of the district in which I live and in the general economy of British Columbia, and that is the need for and the value of small industry in the logging, sawmill and lumber processing industries. Regardless of the efficiency of large companies and the capital they can accumulate there are certain types of timber, certain locations and certain areas that can only be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I take it he is leading up to a further amendment because his discourse is not on the subject that is now before the house?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with one aspect of the need for social capital.


Mr. Speaker:: I fail to see how this dissertation on long term credit for small business comes under the heading of social capital, in the words of the amendment:
-especially in the form of transportation facilities municipal improvements, and other facilities to stimulate economic development and to promote social well-being in the settled areas of Canada.
If the hon. member is leading up to an amendment I will not object, but if he is

speaking to the amendment now before the house, I consider him out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was leading up to an amendment and you pushed me right in the door. At this point I shall move my amendment so as to bring myself in order. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the amendment be further amended by inserting therein after the words "in the form of" the following words:
"long term loans to qualifying small businesses,"


Mr. Speaker:: I will put the motion when the hon. member completes his remarks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Having now regularized the proceedings and having once again received your beneficent glances, Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that the amendment as amended would now read:
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that, in present circumstances of declining private investment, a balanced policy of national development requires consideration by the government of active measures to meet the urgent needs of social capital especially in the form of long term loans to qualifying small businesses, transportation facilities, municipal improvements, and other facilities to stimulate economic development and to promote social well-being in the settled areas of Canada.
Before placing my amendment, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with my personal experience with respect to the need for long term low interest capital for small industry and small business. I was dealing particularly with the need for it in small logging and sawmill enterprises. I mentioned the importance and necessity of maintaining these small enterprises in the forest industry particularly because of their social value and significance and because there is no other form of organized economic activity-except where it is possible to utilize a small co-operative organization-that can harvest this timber under certain circumstances and manufacture it to the mutual advantage of the state and those operating the industry.
I have known a number of men who have had the ability, the necessary small mill, the available timber and the market and yet they have failed for one reason only and that was the lack of adequate long term low interest capital. In the circumstances in which they were able to borrow capital there was not sufficient time for them to continue to operate and reinvest any surplus they might make in the industry which they were operating. It is therefore necessary in these circumstances, particularly in the forest industry-and I am dealing with an industry of which I know a little-because capital has to be invested in roads, in decking logs in the winter and so on. Under certain

conditions logs cannot be towed or trucked out until spring, or lumber has to be piled up over a period of months in order for it to dry before it can be sold. Therefore, inevitably a relatively large amount of investment is required, over which the operator himself has little control. Therefore, he requires this long term low interest capital in order to satisfactorily function and have an opportunity to get on his feet.
As I said before, I use those two illustrations in particular because over a period of 50 years I have seen so many capable, hardworking men finally lose what they had invested over a long period of years because they had insufficient capital to carry on until a surplus could be accumulated. This problem affects the small businessman across Canada in whatever type of business he may be, and it affects the small farmer for the same reasons I have outlined.
This group has given considerable study to this problem as a result of its experience and its observations and as a result of consultation with people who have done a considerable amount of research on the problem along monetary lines and discussions with the people directly concerned. For years I have been of the opinion, as have other members of this group, that one of the things that is sadly required is an opportunity for long term low interest capital.
About a week ago the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) spoke on this problem, presented our proposals and gave some details in that respect. I am not going to deal with that aspect of the situation this afternoon. I simply outline our general approach to it, our firm belief that small business is an essential part of the mixed economy which we as democratic socialists believe is the next step in the economic evolution of our society. For that reason we are particularly pleased to support the proposals made in the amendment by the Leader of the Opposition, and in order to complete the picture, in order to provide what we would term a truly balanced economy, we have amended the amendment in the way I have just placed before the house. That is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, and as I said before other hon. members will deal with other aspects of this problem from our point of view during this debate.


Mr. Marlineau:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In the hon. member's
opinion, when does a qualifying small business, which he mentioned in his subamendment, become a big business and no longer qualify?
57071-3-125
National Development Policy


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the border line would be this. A large business is able to accumulate capital by the issuance of shares on the market and bonds and debentures, and things of that kind. The type of business that we speak of has no access to that capital in the same way because of its local and personal management and the lack of general knowledge by the public concerning the operation of the business in question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the amendment which he proposed, as well as to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who has moved a subamendment. I should like to tell him at once that I find myself in sympathy with the proposal he has made and I would also like to tell him that because of his solicitude for small business I think I will send him an application to join the Liberal party.
We on this side of the house have always felt that particular attention should be given to small business. We have advocated that-


Howard Charles Green: Since you got over there.


Lionel Chevrier: -down through the years and over the long term of years that we were in office-


William McLean Hamilton: You
did nothing about it.


Lionel Chevrier: -we paid particular attention to that sector of the economy. For that reason, I think we will have no difficulty in supporting the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West.
I now turn my attention to the amendment moved by my leader and in order not to read it I summarize it by saying that it seeks a balanced policy of national development, requiring active measures to meet present-day needs in the form of transportation facilities. While it goes much farther than that, it is to that aspect of the amendment that I should like to direct my attention, namely that part which has to do with transportation facilities. Such a policy of national development did exist when the former Liberal government was in office. Indeed my leader dealt with the three periods since confederation and paid particular attention to that period which followed the war. In the field of transportation alone the policy which was advocated by the previous administration was not only a dynamic one but it was a forwardlooking one.
All one has to do in order to come to that conclusion is to look at the measures that were placed on the statute books of parliament. As a matter of fact, in the short time
1970	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy that I was in the Department of Transport as its head there were a large number of such measures that were advocated, put into effect and now are in operation in this country. I think of the construction of the various railway branch lines across this country; I think of the branch lines from Terrace to Kitimat, from Sherridon to Lynn Lake, from Barraute to Kiask Falls in the province of Quebec, and later from Kiask Falls to Beatty-ville, and later from Beattyville to Chibou-gamau and now under construction, by virtue of legislation passed in those years, the line from Chibougamau to the lake St. John area. The Canso causeway was a project that took a considerable time to put into effect but, following surveys which were made, action was taken upon it and that causeway has now been completed. Then there is the Canadian National Railways hotel and the aviation building in Montreal; airport development from one end of this country to the other, from Gander, following the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, right out to the west coast; harbour improvements in the national harbours of this country; the Prince Edward Island car ferry; the studies into the construction of a causeway from the mainland to Prince Edward Island, which are being followed by the present government and which have been mentioned on more than one occasion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and others during the past few months.
There are also the new car ferry from North Sydney to Newfoundland, the terminal facilities at Port aux Basques and North Sydney, the construction of the Bluenose to operate a service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor, the construction of new icebreakers for service on the St. Lawrence and elsewhere in the gulf and studies leading to the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake.
Here I should like to reiterate a point made by the Leader of the Opposition. In a brief submitted to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects by R. G. Robertson, commissioner of the Northwest Territories and deputy minister of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, he advocates the following at page 24 thereof:
May I submit for the consideration of the commission three methods by which transportation facilities into the Northwest Territories might be improved. The first is the construction of a railroad to Great Slave lake. The second is construction of roads into promising resource development areas when and as indications suggest that these areas, given highway transportation, would be economic to develop. The third is the adoption of the policy of supplying the newly constructed defence stations in the Northwest Territories by commercial air services and the establishment of a network of scheduled commercial air lines in the Arctic.
[Mr. Chevrier.l

I compare this with a paragraph in the speech from the throne reading as follows:
In order to promote our national development on the frontier in the north you will be asked to authorize the construction of a railway to Great Slave lake. My ministers regard this as a major step in the establishment of productive industry on an economic basis in the Northwest Territories. You will also be asked to provide for the construction of important roads needed for development in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and in the provinces, with the co-operation of their governments.
The brief to the Gordon commission is dated November 27, 1955, and unquestionably was the basis for the action which the government now proposes to take as outlined in the speech from the throne read in the other place on May 12. There is no question, but that many of the projects which were outlined and begun under the former Liberal administration are being continued now. I can understand how it is that in the time our friends were in office following the election of June 10, 1957 there was not much time for planning. In fact, there has been little time for planning because we have either been in session or in the midst of an election campaign, and if one believes the statements made in the house and outside by members of the government that the last session of parliament was nothing more or less than preparation for the election which took place on March 31 it then becomes quite clear and logical that there was no time for planning. Therefore our friends on the other side of the house have had to have recourse to a number of projects which were in the course of preparation by the previous administration.
I could go on and talk about other projects such as the trans-Canada highway but I have reason to speak particularly today about a great project, about a project which to my mind represents the greatest project that has ever been undertaken by two nations. I refer to the great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway.


Mr. Marfin (Essex Easi):: No one has done more for that than you have.


Lionel Chevrier: It is the greatest international project ever launched by two nations.


Mr. Cardiff:: What did you leave it for?


Lionel Chevrier: I gave the reasons before why I left and I am not the slightest bit sorry that I left in view of the fact that many public servants, one after the other, are leaving the service of the government of Canada.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am glad you are not.


Lionel Chevrier: However, I rose to speak on the St. Lawrence seaway for two reasons. First, I wish to indicate that, in my opinion, no other project comparable to it has been brought forward by our friends on the other

side of the house, and I am sure there will not be one comparable to it for some time to come. The other reason I rose was to take issue with some of the statements that have been made recently by certain individuals in connection with it.
The St. Lawrence seaway is a power and navigation project. It consists of a 27-foot channel extending from the port of Montreal to lake Erie. It also consists of the joint development by Canada and the United States through their respective agencies of 2,200,000 horsepower of electrical energy in the international rapids section of the river. During four days of last week we witnessed the ceremonies which took place at Cornwall to mark the blowing up of the cofferdam and the creation of an artificial lake or pool above the dam indicating the beginning of gradual power development in that area. We witnessed the changeover of 14-foot navigation from the Canadian side to the United States side. Twenty-seven foot facilities will not be ready until the opening of navigation in 1959.
I should like to pause for a moment to pay tribute to certain individuals who had a great deal to do with the construction of the project. I should like to pay particular tribute to the officers and men of the hydroelectric power commission of the province of Ontario. I do not think any men contributed more towards the successful construction of the power aspect of this scheme than did the officials of Ontario hydro. They are, of course, extremely competent. In the Niagara peninsula area and on the Ottawa river they have built power projects of tremendous importance and I can do nothing else than to pay to these men who built the facilities in the international section in conjunction with the St. Lawrence seaway authority the tribute of competence and understanding.
I should like to single out the late Bob Saunders, a former president of Ontario hydro, who had a great deal to do with the negotiations leading to the agreement between the province of Ontario and Canada. I should also like to mention the name of Dr. Otto Holden, chief engineer of Ontario hydro, who in part designed many of the structures which went into this development. Last but not least there is that kind, understanding, able and competent project engineer stationed at Cornwall, Gordon Mitchell, who did a tremendous amount for the success of this enterprise.
I have nothing but commendation for the manner in which the officials of Ontario hydro built the plant. If I had a complaint it would be that it seems to me that Ontario 57071-3-1251
National Development Policy hydro should have given consideration to setting aside a block of power for development of industry in the eastern Ontario region. The New York state power authority on the United States side gave consideration to that aspect of the question and set aside blocks of power so that today there are two large industries located just east of Massena along the south shore of the St. Lawrence river opposite the city of Cornwall.
One is Reynolds Aluminum, a large industry, and another is an automobile manufacturing plant, both of which came there because of the inducement they had in regard to these blocks of power set aside by the New York state commission for that purpose. It seems to me that Ontario hydro, instead of feeding all of this power into the grid for the development of the metropolitan areas of Toronto and Hamilton and the southern Ontario peninsula, might well have given consideration to the setting aside of a block of power for the development of industry in eastern Ontario.
I would not like to leave the question of the construction of this project without recalling to the house the name of another great public servant who had a great deal to do with the St. Lawrence seaway and who, in my estimation, is probably the man who knows more about the project than anyone else in this country, a man who, I am sure, has contributed tremendously to the negotiations as well as the preparations for the navigation aspects of the project. I refer to Mr. R. A. C. Henry, a consulting engineer now in the city of Montreal. The government of Canada appointed him as head of the special projects branch of the Department of Transport. He was a man with a great deal of experience; a former deputy minister of railways and canals; a former deputy minister of the department of reconstruction. He was responsible, in large part, for the setting up of the department of reconstruction and supply, following the war years, and he became chairman of the air transport board. Few men, I say, are as well informed or as conversant as he is with all aspects of both power and navigation. I could not rise at this time without making some reference to the tremendous contribution made by Mr. R. A. C. Henry, not only to the economic development of Canada but to transportation development in Canada generally and more particularly to the St. Lawrence seaway project.
There are other aspects of this problem to which I should like to refer. In making these references, I should like to stress the magnitude of this enterprise. I said at the outset that I did not believe there was any

National Development Policy project that compared in magnitude. I said that because it is not only a great engineering project, but you have dams that were built across streams; you have power structures that were built on the bed of the river; you have islands that were excavated and dredged in order to make way for the navigation channel; and in some areas you have the level of the water being raised 50 feet above the present level. The seaway is not only a great engineering project, but it is a great social achievement. It is a great social achievement because whole communities were wiped out by the formation of this lake in the last few days, and in their stead modern communities have arisen on the new shoreline. Parks and parkways have been built for recreational purposes on both sides of the line.
The seaway is first and foremost however, a great international project. It is one thing for two governments to get together and decide upon the construction of an international project, but it is another thing for that project to be put into effect. There are groups on a lower level than that of government who must co-operate in order to bring about the successful accomplishment of a project such as this. In this case there were no less than four international bodies composed of Canadians and United States representatives who had to work hand in hand in solving the problems that confronted us. There is the St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers, which approved of the plans and specifications and which supervises the work during construction. There is the international St. Lawrence river board of control whose duties relate to the water levels and regulate what the discharge of water will be from lake Ontario and the flow of water through the international rapids section. There is the international lake Ontario board of engineers which recommended a plan of regulation for the water level in the international section, and which today the government accepts. Finally, there is the international joint commission on whom the obligation is laid by the governments of Canada and the United States for the approval of the project. This body gave approval to the project and it keeps today a watchful eye over it.
It goes without saying that the parliament of Canada and the congress of the United States are the supreme authorities on this international project. Their will has been expressed by the designation of an entity to construct the power phases of the seaway in the international section. By agreement with the province of Ontario-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I suggest to your honour that the line the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is now following has nothing to do with the amendment?


Lionel Chevrier: May I be heard on the point of order? The amendment, and I hesitate to read it because it is of some length, reads:
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
this house is of the opinion that, in present circumstances of declining private investment, a balanced policy of national development requires consideration by the government of active measures to meet the urgent needs of social capital especially in the form of transportation facilities-
I will not go on any farther. I stop there because I am now discussing one of the greatest transportation projects, the St. Lawrence seaway. I want to talk about some of its effects, and to take issue with some of the statements that were made recently in connection with it. I am now laying the foundation of that, and this certainly has to do with a national development program, namely the amendment which you have had an opportunity of reading.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out that the hon. member was not dealing with transportation, he was dealing with the development of power between Ontario and the state of New York. I suggest that has nothing whatever to do with the amendment.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: After reading carefully the amendment which is before me, I do not believe this amendment permits a discussion of one specific venture, and especially a venture which has already been partially realized. This amendment deals with measures which it is suggested the government should take to meet the urgent needs of social capital, especially in the form of transportation facilities, et cetera. I do not believe the hon. member for Laurier is actually covering the point in his comments about the St. Lawrence seaway. I would suggest he keep his remarks more in the form of suggestions to the government concerning action in the future.


Lionel Chevrier: What I was trying to do was to show the magnitude of this project which, I assure you, is far from completion. There is a tremendous amount yet to be done before it can be completed. In fact, it will not be completed until the opening of navigation in 1959 and I doubt whether the full facilities will be completed then. But if my hon. friend feels that I am not in order in dealing with the power facilities-although I think that I am in order because they are still not completed-then I will relate my remarks to the navigational aspects of the seaway.

Here I should like to draw your attention to some of the facts of this project from a navigational standpoint. The advantages that will derive from this project from a navigational standpoint are widely dispersed and will be felt in the whole of the Canadian economy. There will be great economies and savings of no less than $48 million per year in transportation costs. This has been estimated to mean a reduction of anywhere from three cents to five cents per bushel in the cost of transportation thereon. I believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), in announcing the tolls the other day, made some reference to that matter. This project will add not less than $100 million per year to the national income. It will increase total volume of traffic from 10 million to 35 million tons on the St. Lawrence. It will, it is estimated, bring down the St. Lawrence route no less than 200 million bushels of United States wheat. This is an advantage that had not been envisaged when the seaway was in the course of preparation. The statement which I have just made-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. The hon. member is completely ignoring the ruling made by Your Honour just a few moments ago. He is going on to discuss the St. Lawrence seaway project at great length. If it is in order for him to do that, it would be just as much in order for him to discuss the construction of the C.P.R. across Canada-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course it
would be.


Howard Charles Green: -or any other project that has been done in the past. I suggest that the hon. member must comply with Your Honour's ruling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I might be permitted to say a word on the point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the leader of the government, in his new role as an exponent of the restriction of debate, would still not go as far as to suggest that in order to urge, as the hon. member has been doing, that projects of great importance for the improvement of transportation are necessary for the future, he could not illustrate them even by reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway, much less something that is far from being completed and about which the hon. gentleman has indicated he has some suggestions to make.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind hon. members that the amendment reads as follows:
National Development Policy
-a balanced policy of national development requires consideration by the government of active measures to meet the urgent needs of social capital-
I must ask hon. members to restrict their remarks to constructive measures to be used by or suggested to the government. Having regard to this particular amendment, I believe it is really out of order to discuss or to outline at present what has been done unless it is in line with the terms of what should be done by the government in line with this amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I may do so I
should like to suggest to Your Honour, with great deference, that the terms of the resolution permit a wide latitude of discussion not envisaged in the restricted words which Your Honour has just used. I make that suggestion not in direct disagreement with what you have said but by way of seeking to bring Your Honour to a better understanding of the privileges of the house in respect of a resolution in these large and generous terms. In order to do that, I think one should read the full resolution, something which Your Honour did not do. The full resolution reads as follows:
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
this house is of the opinion that, in present circumstances of declining private investment, a balanced policy of national development requires consideration by the government or active measures to meet the urgent needs of social capital-
And these are the essential words which are at the basis of the right which we on this side of the house say the hon. gentleman has to discuss this matter.
-especially in the form of transportation facilities, municipal improvements, and other facilities-
I would ask you to note the words "other facilities".
-to stimulate economic development and to promote social well-being in the settled areas of Canada.
In other words, for the purpose of this argument the important word is "especially". There the word "especially" is intended simply to indicate or to suggest the character of the discussion but it is not by any means exclusive in any way. It is simply descriptive of the kind of measures that might be used in order to bring about the purposes which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had in mind when he proposed it.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) is discussing perhaps one of the most important projects ever conceived of by the government and the people of Canada. It is a scheme that is not complete, and one that

National Development Policy is still capable of meeting the urgent needs of social capital especially in the form of transportation facilities.
I would suggest that in taking the position which he has taken the leader of the house ought to bear in mind that the Speaker, for whom we have the greatest of respect and whose intentions we all recognize as being in the common interests of our deliberations, nevertheless is one who has not had the long experience of the Leader of the Opposition and others in this house in trying to ascertain the traditional freedom that is afforded to hon. members on a resolution of this kind. I think it is particularly true in the case of my friend the genial Leader of the Opposition-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The leader of the house.


Murdo William Martin: -or rather the leader of the house for whom we all have the greatest respect. I was thinking of my friend a few years from now when I referred to him as the leader of the opposition. My hon. friend objected the other day to the hon. member for Laurier discussing this very question on his own estimates. In the light of that fact and in the light of words of conciliation which I have used, I would hope that we will be allowed to go on unfettered in this discussion.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order may I say this, Mr. Speaker. As usual, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is very persuasive. However, may I point out to Your Honour that this is not a debate on the St. Lawrence seaway project. If the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is allowed to go on and make the kind of speech he has been making, then any other member of this house is entitled to get to his feet and answer him about the St. Lawrence seaway project.


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly he is. Why not?


Howard Charles Green: In fact, one hon. member has already asked me about rising to point out the mistakes that the hon. member for Laurier is making.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish he would do so.


Howard Charles Green: It only shows all too clearly how far out of order the hon. member is in trying to turn this debate into a debate on the St. Lawrence seaway project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The leader of the house is apparently afraid that this might degenerate into a debate.


Howard Charles Green: The debate must be confined to the wording of the amendment which was drawn up by my hon. friends opposite over


the week end. I do not doubt that they burned the midnight oil in working out this form of amendment.


Murdo William Martin: We always work.


Howard Charles Green: However, now that they have submitted it, they are bound by it and they must keep to the terms of the amendment itself. As a matter of fact, there is one portion of the amendment itself which is out of order, namely that portion which refers to municipal improvements.
I refer Your Honour to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) during the debate on the address, which reads:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the advisability of passing legislation at this session to relieve the very heavy financial burden now carried by the municipalities of this country.
That, of course, is another point of order. But I would repeat that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) had no right to turn this debate into a debate on the St. Lawrence seaway.


Hazen Robert Argue: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that since the amendment is couched in very general terms it is one which enables the house to engage in a very wide ranging debate. That, of course, is perfectly proper and it is not necessary for hon. members when they engage in the discussion to stick to the wording of the resolution; they can bring forward examples to emphasize why they think the terms of the resolution should be adopted. And from our experience in this house on previous occasions I should think that any amendment which is moved asking that active measures should be taken to make available social capital in connection with transportation and other facilities would cover discussion of the St. Lawrence seaway project. Should other hon. members wish to reply to the hon. member for Laurier, I think they would be perfectly in order. Should any hon. member wish to make a reference, say, to Trans-Canada Air Lines as another example of transportation facilities which should be extended and increased, I believe he would be in order, though I am not thinking of doing so myself. It would seem to me, however, that a detailed review of what has gone on in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway in the past is not covered by this-


Howard Charles Green: That is what he has been doing.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think, however, that the leader of the house raised this as his point. My understanding is that he went a good deal further and said the St. Lawrence seaway could not be discussed under this

item at all. I think the seaway can be discussed to the extent that it is an active project today and to the extent that it may be increased and expanded as an active project in the future. As to a historical review of the project in the past, however-


Mr, Green:: That is what we have been getting.


Hazen Robert Argue: -I think the leader of the house has a point. But surely projects such as the St. Lawrence seaway and the extension of the seaway, and the extension of other transportation facilities are precisely what this resolution is about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That makes quite a number of points of order to deal with at one time. The amendment itself clearly states this:
-a balanced policy of national development requires consideration by the government of active measures to meet the urgent needs of social capital especially in the form of transportation facilities, municipal improvements, and other facilities to stimulate economic development and to promote social well-being in the settled areas of Canada.
I believe transportation facilities may be discussed in relation to the urgent needs of social capital such as the amendment mentions, but I believe it is out of order at present to start a debate uniquely on the St. Lawrence seaway, and that it is out of order to review all that has happened in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway unless it is in relation to the suggestion relevant to the urgent needs of social capital mentioned.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, you made the point a moment ago that you thought I should not direct my remarks to what has been done but rather to what is being done, and that is what I am trying to do. I am trying to relate my remarks to what is being done; to relate them not so much to the past as to the present and to the future in relation to the urgent needs of social capital and in relation, also, to transportation needs. In that respect I was discussing the benefits that would derive from the seaway.
However, if you feel I should not dwell on that, I will pass to another part of my remarks which I think is pertinent to the amendment now before the house. The point I wanted to make is that although there has been a large amount of capital expenditure on the St. Lawrence seaway, because of what has happened from one end of it to the other there has now been more money spent for industrial development between the eastern end and the head of the great lakes than on the seaway itself. I am informed-and I relate this to the amendment-that the expenditure of large sums is being planned with respect to
National Development Policy capital development, and that large sums of money have already been, in a large part, spent for industrial development on the south shore in the Montreal area, in the Niagara peninsula and in other regions of the seaway from its eastern extremity to the head of the lakes.
The second purpose I had in rising was to take issue with a certain statement which was made recently on the subject by the premier of the province of Ontario.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house a report which appeared in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder of July 2, 1958, as follows:
Premier Leslie Frost has sounded a "battle cry" for an all-Canadian seaway.
Immediate indication is that he intends cashing in on Prime Minister Diefenbaker's "works program for Canada."
The premier of Ontario is reported as having said:
Ontario hydro has built the first part of an all Canadian seaway with construction of the $14,000,000 closure structure at the powerhouse.
The report continues:
Mr. Frost is actually picking up the reins from Hon. Lionel Chevrier, former member of parliament for Stormont and once president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, who fought for an all-Canadian seaway.
And then the premier is reported as saying that the time had come for the construction of an all-Canadian seaway, and that he supports that project. Now, I should like to say a word in connection with that, and to state that as far back as 1951-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. Here we come back to the same old subject. The hon. gentleman is going back to rake over the coals in connection with this St. Lawrence seaway project, and I suggest that is not in order in this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the leader of the house is carrying things to an extreme. What the hon. member for Laurier had begun to do was to talk about a new project, the creation of an all-Canadian seaway which is not part of the scheme at present under contemplation, and surely that comes completely within the purview of this resolution; and, surely, it is impossible to start with tomorrow. One has to give some background to a project of this kind, as hon. members will discover when they start planning.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that the hon. member for Laurier is just trying to carry on an argument with the premier of Ontario here in this house on the particular amendment that is now before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely it is against the rules to impute motives.
1976	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy


Lionel Chevrier: I was going on to say, if I may, that the premier in his statement in Cornwall advocated the construction of an all-Canadian seaway. What I wanted to bring to the attention of the house was that the previous government, as far back as 1951, had laid the foundation for the construction of an all-Canadian seaway; in fact, the cabinet approved the so-called all-Canadian seaway project in 1951, and at that time it was arranged that the then prime minister of Canada would discuss the project as it was then envisaged with the then president of the United States.
In the first place, when Canada saw that it was not possible to proceed with the 1941 agreement that had been signed by the two countries, another attitude was taken by this country, that of using the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Prior to making an application by both Canada and the United States for the development of power in the international section, Canada agreed to provide all of the navigational facilities on its side of the boundary line. It was then that the then prime minister went to discuss the matter with the president of the United States who agreed, that if congress did not give its approval to the 1941 agreement he would approve of the all-Canadian seaway as second best.
It was decided, however, that parliament should introduce legislation providing for the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and providing also, by agreement between Ontario and Canada, for the development of power. Later on, in 1954, congress passed what is known as the Wiley Dondero act. That act instructed a United States entity to build all of the facilities in the international section on the United States side of the line and so, at that time, we had two statutes. We had the Canadian statute authorizing construction wholly within Canada and in conjunction with a United States authority alternatively and a United States statute authorizing construction of a project on the United States side. Therefore it became important that the two governments meet which they did in July of 1954 when it was agreed that Canada would build the Canadian facilities at Iroquois and the United States would build in the international section opposite Barnhart island with the distinct understanding that as and when the volume of traffic warranted Canada would build the Canadian facilities.
The point I wish to make now is that perhaps the premier of the province of Ontario did not think of it at the time, but there is today the Iroquois canal which is built exclusively on Canadian territory. There
I Mr. Pickersgill.]

is also the structure of the dike built at a cost of $14 million and pursuant to the agreement between Canada and Ontario by Ontario hydro and which provides for 27-foot facilities in the future. There is also the construction of channel facilities leading up to two Canadian locks opposite the city of Cornwall. As the matter now stands approximately half of the all-Canadian seaway is completed. All that remains to be done is the construction of two locks, one opposite where lock 18 used to be in the old Cornwall canal and the other a short distance upstream. There will then remain only the excavation between the two locks the whole of which should cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 million.
The point I wish to make at this time is that I take issue with this statement which appears to ignore the fact that a large portion of the all-Canadian seaway is already in existence. I also wanted to take issue with it because of the fact it has been stated that Ontario hydro had built the closure in the dike at the cost of $14 million. It is true that Ontario hydro built the structure in the dike at that cost but it was done by virtue of an agreement with the federal government. By virtue of that agreement with the federal government Ontario hydro had to provide for 14-foot navigation on the Canadian side of the boundary line. When it was decided that the seaway would be built on the American side of the line in the international section, it therefore became unnecessary to provide for 14-foot navigation facilities and the agreement was amended in order that the structure be placed in the dike so that at any future time if it became necessary because of the volume of traffic the provisions would be there to complete the all-Canadian seaway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order and say that the other day in a similar debate when there had been a number of interruptions the Speaker allowed extra time. Because of the series of interruptions I wish to be allowed to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that his time had expired at twelve minutes past five o'clock. It is now approximately 18 minutes past five. However, if it is the pleasure of the house that I permit the hon. gentleman to carry on I shall be very pleased to do so. Does the house give unanimous consent to permitting the hon. member to proceed with his address?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
believe I can complete what I have to say quickly. I had some points which I shall have to leave because of the point of order which was raised but I shall complete the thought I was expressing. While a large portion of the all-Canadian seaway has been completed, what the house, the premier of Ontario and the government should be reminded of-and I remind them of it as respectfully as I can-is that what has been done thus far has been done in co-operation with the United States and I am sure the government would want that co-operation to continue. Certainly it would want it to continue in view of the agreement which was made originally, namely that if the circumstances were such, because traffic reached such a point, that parallel or duplicating facilities were required, these could be built on the Canadian side of the line after consultation with the United States. The former government made all the provisions necessary for this to be done. I did not want the premier of the province of Ontario to make the statement he did without, at least, there being a reply to what had been said.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, when I came to this house last session I had hoped, like many new members, to make my opening speech on a subject that is very dear to my heart and one in which I have taken a keen interest for many years. Until this moment I have never been given the opportunity of delivering my maiden speech, as it were, on this subject but now I must thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who, by means of his motion today, has made it possible for me to say something that I have dreamed of saying in the House of Commons for many years.
Before turning to an outline of the government's position with respect to a national development policy, there are a few comments which have been made by the Leader of the Opposition which should not pass unchallenged. The hon. gentleman referred to the Gordon commission and mentioned that two briefs were presented to that body, one by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories and the other by the commissioner of the Yukon. One of the later speakers read a paragraph from those submissions. By introducing that remark into this debate the barrenness of the position of the official opposition on the matter of national development has been exposed.
If you read the brief to the Gordon commission as submitted by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, and if you read the Gordon commission report, you will find a great absence of information in the report
National Development Policy about the impact of that brief on the members of that commission. If you look at the index of the Gordon commission report you will find that the members of that commission thought that the north and the maritime provinces were so unimportant that they put them in the last chapter and grouped the two together like taking kittens and putting them in a sack along with a rock and throwing them into the river. Read that chapter in the Gordon commission report on the north and the maritimes. I would be hesitant ever to mention the Gordon commission report and the north in the same breath.
This submission to the Gordon commission by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories did mention certain things. It did mention that we should proceed with the Pine Point railway. But what the Leader of the Opposition forgot to tell this house was that no decision was made by the previous government to go ahead with the Pine Point railway. My department got no encouragement to make such a proposal which was necessary to the opening up of such a vast area of our country. The facts tell the story. The Pine Point railway was never recommended by the government of this country and I do not think we would have got a recommendation as long as the previous administration stayed in office. I will come to that in a minute.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke also of the fact that these two submissions to the royal commission outlined a grid system of roads in the territories. That is precisely true, but once again the record is clear and plain. The men in the department, some of them with a generation of interest in work in the north, put their hearts, their knowledge and their courage into suggestions that would build this country but year after year they saw their suggestions filed away in the brief cases and in the filing cabinets of their department. They saw their work, sometimes done at great difficulty and danger to themselves, pushed aside in the interest of looking after the people who lived in what the previous government called Canada where there is somebody. What they meant by "there is somebody" are nothing else but plain voters, with no thought of the future of the children of those voters. It was an appeal to their prejudice and their selfishness in the hope of being re-elected over and over again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is an awful statement to make.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have the record here. In this submission to the royal commission there is a recommendation for roads.

National Development Policy


Murdo William Martin: It is a dreadful thing for the minister to make a statement like that.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You don't like it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I look at the record of expenditures. I look to the pledge that the former government made for the development of this road pattern in the north. I find that in 1954-55 the previous government, always interested in the north, spent the magnificent sum of $2,501 in the territories; in the year 1955-56 it spent the sum of $86,770 on roads in the north. Then, in 1956-57 the amount increased, and in 1957-58, thanks to the extra boost that we gave it last winter, the amount reached $3.8 million, and for 1958-59 it is still $3.8 million, but a big proportion of that vote is on planning and surveys to complete a grid system through the Northwest Territories, recommended by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, to extend until 1980 as a program for the government, but this government plans to do it in from five to seven years. That is the difference on emphasis on these northern roads.
I did not bother to bring the figures for the Yukon. Suffice it to say this, Mr. Speaker. In this year in the Yukon the expenditure on roads and bridges and similar construction, such as culverts and so on, is four times greater than it was last year and that pace will be kept up until in five years we have a road right through to the Arctic ocean, the first in Canada's history, laying claim to our country along that coast, which should have been done many years ago.
I might digress for a moment to point out that after all the years that those pioneer people have been in the north with very little radio and very little news of the rest of this country, a decision was made just recently to send Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's programs into the north with the building of a big transmitter at Vancouver and eventually one at Winnipeg and a series of 12 small transmitters, scattered through the north.


Murdo William Martin: Who were the pioneers of the C.B.C. in this country, not the hon. gentleman opposite?


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: The Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and you know that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Before this debate is over there will be many diversions thrown across our trail. If anyone thinks he can get me off this subject by mentioning the C.B.C. he is sadly mistaken.


Murdo William Martin: The minister mentioned the C.B.C.
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The pioneers to whom I am referring are the people living in the north who wanted to hear some news of this country. We have made a recommendation to the C.B.C. and have gone forward and brought this news and entertainment to them.
I want to go on and mention just a few more points and I shall move rapidly because there are certain things 1 want to get at that are positive and in the interests of this house. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Liberal record and he gave as an example of that record their work and interest in water resources. Let me inform the house, that the previous administration passed the Canada Water Conservation Act in 1953 to help local districts, to help provinces develop and conserve their water in the various drainage basins of Canada. How many projects have gone forward under that act? Not one. That is an example of the Liberal record. The Canada Water Conservation Act went on the statute books in 1953 and has never been used to this day.
I go on and discuss another point.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who controls the resources?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I listened to the hon. member he spoke with words of praise and mentioned the fact that the Liberals had always been in favour of northern development. He mentioned the need of establishing our sovereignty in the north. As I heard him speak what a conversion I heard. This is the same hon. gentleman who not so many months ago went up and down this country and referred to this program in the north as a program of building roads from igloo to igloo, building roads where there is nobody, and all the little echoes and all the little parts of Canada where all the little minds come from answered in tune. Here is one of those little echoes. This is a man who comes from the north, and he said: "Up there we knew it was pure baloney." That was a remark of the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie), who is a follower and supporter of the official opposition. Here is another remark from the north: "The good northern people may have mistaken this vision for just another example of the northern lights." This is a remark by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin).
Let us have a word or two about this question of our north in so far as sovereignty is concerned. This is a subject which must appeal to all Canadians, regardless of political conviction; this is a subject which must appeal to all those who believe in the future of this nation. Sovereignty is not painting a colour on a map that you publish and put in a history

book or geography book and let the children in the schools look at it and read it.
Sovereignty is the effective occupation of an area by a country which has command or control over it. It is no misstatement of fact that it is a matter of national chagrin to some of us that across this, our territory, which we paint in red in the geography books and show to our children as Canada, roads have been built without our permission and without our knowledge by people not bearing allegiance to this country. It is a matter of common knowledge that this whole northern area is an area of much interest to the world and it is a matter of chagrin to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that when I want information on the northern part of my country I have to read documents from other countries. Our friends to the south and our friends to the north have more knowledge about the northern region of our country than we who live in the country have.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question? Is he suggesting that the Russians have more knowledge of our Arctic than we have?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the Leader of the Opposition will follow carefully the words of the Arctic institute, a group supported by both the United States and ourselves, he will find this country condemned for knowing so little about the north when Russia knows so much.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Their own north, not our
north, surely.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is no secret that when we want to find out the depth of the water off our coast we go to Russian charts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose that is why you
decommissioned the Labrador.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I say that is a matter of national chagrin. I want to point out that at our present rate of progress in measuring the depth of the waters off our northern shores it will take us 250 years to know how deep those waters are. It is a matter of national chagrin that with the great need for this information we have not the facilities to get it fast enough. I simply point out that when any person starts to talk in the house about the question of sovereignty in the north this is a matter that appeals to all Canadians and there is no political division on this point. If we are to maintain our sovereignty in the north we must face up to the fact that we all have a duty and a responsibility to pay the price in order to get this information so that we will know something about our own country.
National Development Policy
The main point made by the Leader of the Opposition was that there was no hurry to develop the wealth of the north. He mentioned casually the Paley report and the Gordon commission and said that they indicated that there was going to be a deficiency in the United States in respect of certain strategic materials and energy fuels. Then he went on to say, "We will wait until the demand comes and then we will move."
If he would read the submission of the commissioner of the Northwest Territories to the Gordon commission he would find there the answer to that argument. In the north you must move five to ten years in advance before these great sources of wealth can be made available. He will also find that we have to have some consideration for the people who live in the north. If there is anything that has divided this country it is the frustration that pioneer people have felt at all times in our history towards those in government controlling their destinies because of their lack of consideration for the men who first went into these areas.
From the history of this country I could relate example after example. I could tell of how the people of western Ontario rose in revolt in 1833 and 1838 on that same issue of frustration and neglect of their needs. I could speak of the dissatisfaction of the people of western Canada in 1870 and 1885 at the neglect we suffered at the hands of those who had control over much of our destiny. In the same way it is true in the north that those who have pioneered there have a sense of frustration and neglect in that even after representations are made on their behalf by men who at least know something of their problems they are still overlooked.
It strikes me that the Leader of the Opposition is in this position. He is the leader of a party which is in the wilderness and as their Moses he must seek for a message to bring to the people. But I should like to suggest that in this case he is a Moses without a message. Never in the history of the nation has it been so imperative that we do not overlook the opportunities before us, not only the development of our national wealth but the mere basic fact of maintaining our sovereignty so that generations to follow will have the future to which they are entitled. These matters demand tremendous interest in the north and this interest is not divorced from the needs of the people in the settled areas of Canada and the largest cities. I hope to make that clear.
Before leaving the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, may I deal with what he had to say about an investment program. To listen to various members of the opposition one would think that the government has

National Development Policy given no thought to the matter of public and private investment and the interplay of forces between them. I hope that my remarks, and I will give some figures, will indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that a great deal of thought has been given to the question of public investment, its expansion and contraction and what it has to do with the over-all economics of the country in the present economic situation. I hope that as a result of my remarks some of these statements about the north will not be made in the future because they do harm to the interests of Canada.
The development of the north is not divorced from the needs of the people of every one of our towns and communities throughout settled Canada. I should like to discuss in detail some of the other observations he made but I think I will leave it at that.
I want to start now on the speech I have waited to make for a long time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope it will be more accurate than what has happened so far.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. gentleman is not going to start with George Brown.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will have a word about George Brown in a minute.


Howard Charles Green: It will not be with Pickersgill anyway.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Over the years some of us in the Conservative party have advocated a development policy for Canada. We played our part in the convention of 1948 and again in the convention of 1956. To many of us the election of 1957 was the vindication of a policy for which we had worked for a quarter of a century. We knew instinctively that the one thing that could distinguish this party and enable it to fulfil its destiny in the political history of Canada was for it to turn its attention to its great historic mission in Canada, the development of Canada and the building of a nation in the northern half of this continent truly patterned on our own way of life. The last parliament, which was short, was a period of getting ready. I would have liked, if there had been a second session of that parliament-


John Whitney Pickersgill: So would we.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -to introduce many of the proposals which have since been introduced. I should like to refer to a few of them as found in the opening campaign speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) made in Winnipeg on February 12. I want to list ten points taken from the report of the speech as found in a Canadian Press dispatch in the Edmonton Journal of February 13, 1958. Here are the ten points of the
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).1
development program as outlined at that time. It is the first time they have been placed on the records of the House of Commons and I am very proud to do so. They are:
1.	A $100 million roads program in the Yukon and Northwest Territories to open exploration of new oil and mineral areas.
2.	A joint federal-provincial plan to build access roads to the north, tying in with the Territories roads, costing $75 million and perhaps double that amount if all provinces join the program.
3.	Federal aid to "economically-sound" rail lines to resources, including the proposed Pine Point railway from northern Alberta to Great Slave lake.
4.	Exploration of the Arctic archipelago aimed at developing Arctic sea routes "with the prospect of developing atomic icebreakers in the future."
5.	A 10-year, $105 million scheme for thermal power plants in the Atlantic provinces, provided in legislation last session.
6.	A $75 million development at Frobisher Bay on Baffin island, in the Arctic.
Then, seventh, there is the possible second route for the trans-Canada highway in western Canada via Saskatoon and Edmonton; eighth, the federal sharing in Saskatchewan's power-irrigation development of the South Saskatchewan river; ninth, Canada would also press for hydro power development of British Columbia's Columbia river, now awaiting an agreement with the U.S. on the sharing of downstream power benefits; and, tenth, a national conference would be called later this year to map a national conservation policy. The principles of the prairie farm rehabilitation plan, begun in the 1930's in the west, would be extended to all parts of Canada. I have read the points-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are those items covered in the estimates for the present fiscal year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was going to deal with them in detail, and I would be answering the hon. member's question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think there are any of them in the estimates. Those are all part of the vision.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have read to the house the ten points mentioned at that time. Now I should like to give some of the reasons why those ten points are mentioned, and this is the point I want to drive home to every Canadian who hears or reads these remarks.
We have in Canada as a national task the necessity of delineating our resources. If any person knows the history of modern industrial states he will find that their whole success or failure rests upon the supply and regulation of energy sources. We have neither an inventory nor a continuing inventory or any form of usable data of our energy resources in Canada. We do have some knowledge of our resources, but it is

incomplete. We do have knowledge of potential gas reserves, but that is far from complete. We do have some knowledge of propane and butane, but very little information is available on these subjects. We do have some knowledge of our coal reserves; we do have some knowledge of our uranium and nuclear energy, but we have much to learn about other energy sources. It must have been clear to any person who was thinking-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. I am sure the leader on the other side will agree with me it is very difficult to relate the minister's remarks now to the motion before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the minister who presumably has some justification for his remarks.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member is being facetious, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all, sir, I was most serious.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Assuming the point of order was serious, Mr. Speaker, I say that anyone will realize that because the government has been elected on its basic development program it is in order for me to put on the record our reasons for embarking on such a national development program in order to make clear every one of those points I have raised.


Mr. Speaker:: The only hesitation I have about the minister's speech is that the amendment appears to be limited to the settled areas of Canada. The reference is that in northern Canada as well government measures to meet the urgent needs of social capital, especially in the form of transportation facilities, municipal improvements, and the field of small business has been added by the other amendment, and other facilities to stimulate the economic development and to promote social well-being in the settled areas of Canada. It seems fairly broad, and 1 doubt if it would be possible to limit discussion.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think if you had been present at the beginning you would have realized that the Leader of the Opposition in introducing his amendment spent most of his time on the question that we were foolish to do anything in the north at the present time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I never made any such
statement. I would not like that to go on the record. I said, and the minister must remember, that we would be foolish to go
National Development Policy ahead with projects in the north unless we gave them careful economic consideration, and I quoted the minister in approval of that approach.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We will leave it at that. I was discussing the reasons why we introduced this program. The first thing, and I will repeat this, was to delineate our resources in both the fields of energy and strategic materials. I should like to mention the Paley report. The significance to Canada of the Paley report, outlined in five volumes, is the fact that strategic materials and energy fields in the United States are getting into a precarious position. Various metals and various sources of energy will either run out or become limited at different times. Generally speaking, this is the position. The United States today, instead of being a resource surplus country is a resource deficit country, and the present percentage is given at nine per cent. In a few years from now, 1975 or 1980, it is expected the United States will be running 20 per cent behind their ordinary needs for resources.
Now this means that the people of the United States, both public and private investors, must seek different places in the world from which they can replenish those needs and maintain their industrial machine. Obviously the place to look is to the north and to the south, and they are doing just that. I point out that today Canada is one of the last great resource areas, still unexplored and undeveloped. The Leader of the Opposition would have us move cautiously before we find out anything about these resources in case we repeat the mistake made 60 years ago in the building of two railways across Canada at the time of the Laurier government.
The first purpose, Mr. Speaker, was to delineate these resources, and the reason for that is obvious. When we have the resources that the world needs, we should know where they are and of what they consist. This is the first purpose of the program of roads to resources. We have to know what we have. We have no inventory and we have no group of people fully qualified or able to look after them. When this government took office and met this house on October 14, 1957 the first thing it did was to set up a royal commission on energy called the Borden commission. This royal commission, and this national energy board are 10 years overdue. I have heard suggestions that we do not need a national energy board; that the federal power commission in Washington knows enough about these resources that we can take their advice. If this is the attitude of Canadians, if this is the attitude of the majority of members on this side of the
1982	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy house, they should not be here. I am sure they do not believe it. We want and we need a national energy board. The Gordon commission has recommended it, and it is 10 years overdue.
Any government that sat here from 1945 onwards without recognizing the need tor some form of national energy board was unaware of or completely indifferent to the suggestions that are made all across this country. This country today stands completely helpless in this respect. We have no body of opinion here in Canada qualified to say whether we should export or import energy, whether we should delineate more of our resources or whether we should hold it back. There is no such board or body available here in this country.
I now want to go on, Mr. Speaker, to some of the details of these roads to resources, in answering the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope that he takes these figures to heart. I am going to give him an example of public investment and private investment interrelated. This projected road from Flat creek in the Yukon, 30 miles this side of Dawson city, projecting north and northeastward to the Arctic coast some place in the neighbourhood of Fort McPherson,will be finished in the next four or five years. It will cost the people of this country between $5 million and $8 million in a five-year period. Is this house aware of the fact that already behind that road private investment has pledged in hard dollars and cents a minimum expenditure, I would estimate, of something about $150 million to $250 million? As the hon. member was speaking I sent over for the latest information. Let him read these facts. Let him tell the people of Canada that this is a road from igloo to igloo. Since September 23 when I notified the oil and gas industry of our change in regulations pending with respect to exploration for oil and gas in the territories, permits for the exploration of 36,452,214 acres of land have been taken out in the Northwest Territories, mostly along the route of this road.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman
not say that the road was in the Yukon?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Starting in the Yukon and going into the Northwest Territories. I might add some more figures. Before September 23 last land for which permits were taken out and reservations made amounted roughly to 20 million acres. If you add all these things together you get a figure much higher than the one I have just quoted. I have put these figures in the public record, Mr. Speaker because I think the mere restatement of them is sufficient to show the situation. If the taxpayer is asked to put up
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

$5 million or $8 million in public investment in this area, and if private investment from all over the world is willing to risk a sum extending up to $250 million, I would say as a minimum, it shows that that investment was timely, was well thought out and was made with due caution. I used the word "minimum". Of course information comes to me that is not available to the house.
I used that word advisedly. I am going to ask my fellow colleagues on this side of the house to remember this one little fact. During the election campaign to my knowledge, no member on the government side including the Prime Minister ever used a figure higher than $25 million to $50 million as the expected investment of private enterprise. That was my advice to the Prime Minister last February, namely that the expected amount of private investment for exploration in this area was $25 million to $50 million. But I now stand here in the middle of the summer of 1958 and inform this house that the bare minimum will be between $150 million and $250 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was announced in this house about three years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was announced by Mr. Howe three years ago as a possible estimate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am not finished yet. We have another project going into the north which is to tie up with the territorial program in the north, that of going to the provinces and asking them to join with us in providing roads leading into the north. At the time the Prime Minister spoke in Winnipeg he estimated that $75 million would be spent on this program over a five-year period. We had no way of knowing how willing the provinces would be in cooperating with the federal government in the opening of resource areas in their provinces where they, the provinces, owned the resources and had complete responsibility for their management. Since the Prime Minister spoke, it is now no secret that nine provinces have joined up in the scheme and not only have they asked for amounts which will send the total up to the maximum but they have asked for amounts that go beyond the maximum. I think the people of Canada in all the provinces will be proud to know that their provincial governments are co-operating with the federal government in this program of making resources available to the people of Canada for opportunity and development at this time.
Another one of these programs was the Pine Point railway. I hope the Leader of the

Opposition will listen to these figures. There has been no secret about the fact that that railway will cost between $60 million and $65 million. Obviously, as is traditional, the federal government will be asked to put up a subsidy. It is quite possible that subsidy can be measured-using millions of dollars-on the fingers of two hands. That will be our contribution as a people and as taxpayers. But there are facts that are not generally known, Mr. Speaker. The total of public and private investment on this Pine Point railway is not $65 million in the ties, the bridges and the steel rails; the total investment at the present time is reaching the figure of $400 million. This government has letters of intent from private business with respect to putting up private capital to the amounts roughly that I have just indicated. If at any time any government can spend a handful of millions of dollars and produce so many tens of millions of dollars of private investment, then I say that government is aware of the relationship between public investment and private investment.
I see that the clock shows that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had been discussing the reasons why we had to inaugurate in Canada a program of delineating our resources both with regard to energy and with regard to strategic metals. I mentioned how as the first step in this program we had inaugurated a program of building a big system of roads in the territories to help delineate both the oil and the metallic ores. I spoke next of the uselessness of building a great system of roads in the territories unless there were roads in the south to join them to the settled areas. I spoke, too, of the necessity for moving carefully with regard to these programs, and I gave some examples where the public taxpayer was asked to spend several millions of dollars which resulted in many millions of dollars being advanced by private enterprise to carry out their part of this joint public and private investment program.
The main point which, I think, the Leader of the Opposition made in the course of his remarks was that the question of timing was important. I believe it is fair to say that he was aware that every Canadian knew that in the northern areas we have
National Development Policy tremendous wealth, but that we should wait until the economics of the need for these materials are absolutely clear before any program is started to open them up. I countered by referring to the statement made by the commissioner for the Northwest Territories to the Gordon commission in 1955 in which he developed the argument that in the north when you needed resources you have to begin five or ten years before they could be made available to the economy of the country. I should like to emphasize this point by reminding the house that the preliminary report indicates that by 1975 or 1980 in the great republic to the south the shortage of certain raw materials will be quite urgent. The report specifically mentions certain strategic metals and it is believed that the great industrial machine in the United States will be facing severe difficulties in obtaining supplies.
We in the northern half of this continent have a responsibility to our people. We are sitting here on what is probably the greatest treasure house of the world; certainly, there is only one nation that can rival us in this respect, and that is the U.S.S.R. If we sit here and wait for prices to rise above their normal economic level to indicate to our mining people and to our oil people that it is time to move in and develop these areas, we should in my opinion be failing in our responsibility to this growing nation. I believe that if we are to have any control over the discovery and development of these resources it is in our interest that we find out and find out soon where they are, what they are and how much we have of each.


Mr. Hardie:: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question? How would he find out where these resources are?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There are several well known methods of finding out. If you are looking for oil and gas, you drill holes. If you are looking for minerals you do a certain amount of preliminary aerial reconnaissance using magnetometers and gravity meters, then you make a ground survey, and finally you have to drill holes, too.
In this delineation of resources there are three steps. The first is to discover where a deposit lies. That gives you the location, but it does not give you the extent; it gives you the type of metal you have, but it does not give you the potential or the probable reserve. Therefore, the first step in our program of opening up our resources is to build railroads, or to use water navigation or aerial navigation to find out information about an area which, by formula projection or by other devices used by survey engineers, can lead
1984	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy to an estimation of future tonnages or deposits in reserve. As a matter of fact, the province of Alberta has done a great deal of work in estimating not only its proven reserves in oil and gas but in trying to work out its potential and probable reserves. That is the only area in Canada where anything resembling an inventory has been carried out, and if we do not have an inventory we can have no policy with regard to handling these resources. That is the situation behind the national energy board set-up.
I wish to go on now to discuss further this question of research with reference to the Winnipeg speech. I do not think there is any hon. member in this house who could argue more strongly than myself in favour of the necessity for research. Here in Canada we need research not only into basic aspects of an exploration program but research into techniques concerning the handling of these minerals and energy sources.
On this question of research, I am amazed at the slow rate of progress we are making. If we keep up the present progress in Canada it will take 250 years of hydrographic survey before we find out the depths of water around the northern shores of this country. We have no gravity meter surveys of the northern islands; we have made no survey of 80 per cent of British Columbia; we have done almost nothing in the Yukon, yet this is the vital geophysical information we need in order to get some idea of the extent of our exploration program.
In the months of February, March and April, representatives of this country attended a meeting of the United Nations in Geneva on the international code of law for the sea, and at that meeting one of a series of resolutions passed, which was accepted by the majority of the nations present, dealt with the continental shelf.
The first of those three resolutions or conventions denied the right of any nation to attach reservations to them. I am very proud to report that this country, through its representatives there, played a very active part both in proposing the resolution and in establishing the fact that no nation could attach to that reservation. This grants to this country with land off its shores not only the right to develop and explore the territory but the right to exploit it to the degree one can with the improving techniques of this day and age. The advantage to our country of this natural resource area is hard to estimate. I have used the figure of 25 per cent although it may be 20 per cent or more than 25 per cent. But if the country acquired a territory of an additional 25 per cent by the ordinary means of acquiring land it would cause great headlines in our press. Quietly,


at this meeting of the United Nations, meeting for peaceful purposes, we added to our resources an area of tremendous acreage. I point this out because it emphasizes the need for research in this country by means of which we can measure the mineral and oil potential of these lands beneath the sea.
It may interest hon. members to know that the techniques of exploration beneath the sea are improving almost month by month. We think we have an answer to the question of conducting gravity meter surveys by vessels on the surface of the ocean. We also think we have an answer to the question of conducting gravity meter surveys by using helicopters. This will assist in overcoming the difficulties we presently encounter in working in a troublesome terrain. As I have said, I mention these things to emphasize the need for research in the north. As a younger Canadian I quite frankly admit I am somewhat ashamed that with all the effort and energy many of us expended on this question last year we were able to mount during the summer of 1958 a research program in the Arctic costing only approximately $50,000. That can be found in the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I should like to have seen a sum ten times that large but I hope and expect that if we can get the men and equipment mounted we will have ready for next year a program costing in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars for research in that area alone. Even with that amount being expended it will take us years to acquire the vital information we require on which we can base an extensive exploration program of the far northern islands.
Some of you here may wonder why it is that these far northern islands are of such interest to us. There are many reasons and I could possibly best illustrate my point by mentioning Frobisher Bay. Frobisher Bay is situated on the southern part of Baffin island. Baffin island is an island which in years to come will become as well known to Canadians as is the Mesabi range to the people of the United States. It was on the basis of the development of the Mesabi range in the United States that the great industrial economy of that nation was built. From the information that we have available-I admit it is sketchy-we expect that in the whole area of the eastern Arctic we will find anywhere from two to six times the amount of iron ore that was available to the people of the United States in the Mesabi range in the last 100 years. When you are dealing with resources like that you realize that there is no time for timidity or extra caution. Not only must there be boldness but imagination as well both in the broad sense and in

the technical sense of reaching in and finding out by research and hard work how to best use these resources.
Frobisher Bay came to our attention not through anything this government did but due to the fact that it was halfway between the western coast of the United States and Canada and the capital cities of Europe. It is the natural stopping place on a direct route from the orient to the west coast of Canada and the United States and the centres of population in Europe. Therefore it has developed spontaneously and economically as a base of refuelling for commercial aircraft. At the present time in the neighbourhood of 1,500 passengers a week stop over at Frobisher Bay. It lends itself to strategic defence in the northern areas of the eastern part of the continent. Therefore, from these two sources, civilian and military, comes a source of revenue to help us finance and build up this area which in future will become the centre of administration of the eastern Arctic. But let me point out this to hon. members. Baffin island is not forever going to be financed by defence and through servicing passengers on polar routes. The basic economy is going to be iron ore and other minerals that exist on the island. This great source of wealth is accessible to ourselves and the nations of the world through sea transport. I fully expect that before many years have passed Frobisher Bay and other communities in that area will be the centre of an extremely thriving extractive industry producing iron and other minerals for Canada.
The next point in our program deals with power. On this matter I can understand the confusion of hon. members opposite. When this government took office there were three requests for assistance or aid in the development of power in Canada. One of these was in the maritime provinces. The other was on the Saskatchewan river. The third was on the rivers that make up the Columbia system. Naturally, because these were the requests before the federal government, it was on these three power development projects that the government first took action. The requests had been placed before the previous Liberal administration and all hon. gentlemen know the record in that regard. The record of the previous government was fully debated in this house in the last session of parliament with respect to the project in the maritimes and I hope the record of the request concerning the Saskatchewan river project will be discussed in this house at a later date.
I wish to say a word or two concerning the Columbia river project. It was our hope on the basis of the information we had to move quickly in working out the economics as well as the engineering aspects of the
National Development Policy Columbia river system to make this vast source of power available to the areas of western Canada and the United States where power is scarce. We thought that with a little energy and some intelligence we could advance this program very rapidly. It was not long before we discovered that we lacked the necessary information to deal effectively with the question of the Columbia river project.
I recently watched a television program emanating from the United States during which the United States head of the international joint commission pointed out that the United States people had the figures on the Columbia river project for the last 25 years and that Canada did not have the figures. That, Mr. Speaker, is the answer. When you begin to deal with the resources of a great international river like the Columbia you do not enter a game of that sort playing with the cards of the fellow across the table. We had to get figures based on Canadian engineering and economics. We have put the energy and intelligence to work on this project. I can assure the house that at this time we are coming very close to knowing what figures we have and what the economics as well as the engineering facts are, and that we are moving toward a position where we can enter into any negotiation that may take place with all the facts at our command that we require to ensure that this great wealth and resource which is Canada's will be protected to the fullest extent in the national interest.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: How did you learn the facts?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My hon. friend asks me how I learned the facts. They were gleaned from engineering reports which were started about two years ago.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: By the former ministry.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is true. They were learned by the economic studies which we have undertaken and I recall last session when the then member for Montma-gny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) asked me in this house why I did not go down to the United States and have more powwows with them, I just thought of an old rhyme that we used to sing to ourselves during the days of the first world war:
Kaiser Bill went up the hill To take a look at France;
Kaiser Bill came down the hill With bullets in his pants.
That is what happened to the previous minister of northern affairs and national resources when he went to discuss without the facts and figures, and that would have happened to the present minister if he had gone there unprepared and without the arms-

National Development Policy


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: What new surveys or economic surveys has the minister started since June 23 of last year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member will find out the answer very shortly. One was started in the month of January, 1958, and that is the one I was referring to. I just mentioned this fact about the Columbia to show that here is another great resource where the Americans can speak on their national television hookups and boast that they have had the information for 25 years, and the Canadians have not. I am simply pointing out that we have not the facts in Canada as yet; we are still getting them.
The next point I would like to discuss in this over-all program is this. Our first purpose was to delineate those resources and discuss research and the necessity for it. I have used the example of Frobisher Bay. We are moving into the north and carefully, with great planning, to take advantage of the situation as it now is, but thinking forward to the day when the economics of the area, of mining, will support that whole community and other communities as well. I could have taken a good deal of time of the house to point out the efforts we have made in research to cut down the cost of heating homes, to cut down the cost of providing water for those homes, to cut down the cost of providing sewer services for those homes. I could tell the house, as I told the committee in another place, of the amount of savings that we think we have achieved already by simply applying the basic knowledges of engineering and economics to very simple mundane problems.
I know that this is not the end of our difficulties but it does show that we are going into this with great care and great planning. One of the final points is the question of conservation mentioned by the Prime Minister. I know hon. members will understand me when I say that it is only by the grace of the divine Deity Himself that we have been saved in this regard.
If one looks at the history of the economic development of the United States and realized the great importance of the contribution of the first Roosevelt to the handling of the resources of that great American republic, one will recognize the significance of the step that we are now prepared to take. Conservation of resources means the best and most efficient use of those resources. It means that all the facts of wild life, of power, of land, of water, of various minerals, of the forest industry, the health of our people, all these assets which make up our resources in this country are put together

and looked at and certain principles evolved, principles under which the federal government must operate; principles under which the provincial governments must operate; principles under which municipal governments must operate; principles under which regional conservation boards must operate; principles under which the research people of our universities must operate, and all those many public-spirited citizens who make up the great rank and file of our conservation groups in Canada. This country has never sat down and established over a wide range of resources a fundamental policy on the handling of those natural resources. After I spoke on this program last fall for the first time my mail came in from many sources, from the universities, from the people interested in wild life and in forests, from people interested in minerals and from people interested in the forest industry, and from people interested in land uses. They pointed out to me how pleased they were that at last somebody was giving direction to this program.
We have written the provinces on this matter; we have been in touch with other departments and I would like to say that this conservation conference will possibly be going forward this fall; but such has been the multitude of suggestions, and such has been the volume of old reports that we have stacked up, trying to study what has been done in the past, and such has been the tremendous complexity of this whole problem, that I have confessed publicly I doubt the wisdom of calling the conservation conference next fall. More likely it will be some time next spring or next summer when we can have the agenda boiled down and crystallized to the point where the people who can assemble there can take a worthwhile forward step. On this question of conservation, if this government comes forward with this program of calling the people of Canada together who are interested in the most efficient use of the resources, and does come out in the next three or four years with a series of principles that can guide all levels of government and private groups in the future, if it does nothing more, it would be well worth the confidence of the people of Canada for many years to come.
I have spoken at some length on this program, Mr. Speaker, because above all this is the one feature of this government that distinguishes it from the official opposition.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The only one.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If we are to
embark on a program of national development not only must we draw the first faint lines on a blueprint and carefully fill out

the lines that go step by step in natural sequence, but we must know where we are heading and where we are heading is in this direction. We think that some day we will have on the northern half of this continent a nation of from 50 million to 100 million people. If we are to have a nation of 100 million people in Canada, then it is about time we did some thinking about how this is going to come about. There is no use talking about all the oil resources under the continental plains reaching out into the Arctic and out under the Arctic ocean, and possibly under the lands beneath the sea in the Arctic; it is no use talking about our wonderful wealth of forests-and it is wonderful-it is no use talking about all the future mineral wealth; it is no use talking about the great character of our people unless we put these things side by side, with our people as one part of the equation and their energy sources another part of the equation, and those various other resources such as minerals and forests. We must put this energy to work.
If we act so that the energy, the natural resources and our people in this equation are opened up to private enterprise so that by the juxtaposition of those resources and this power and of those people and of this market there is an economic development possible in that area, I think we would be measuring up to the philosophy that this government holds concerning private enterprise and public expenditure. Or, to put it another way, we believe that the state, the government, has the duty and responsibility to provide that social capital mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in his amendment, in the form of roads, railways, power plants, airports and all those things that aid and benefit private enterprise to enter in and develop those resources for the good of the people of Canada. If we point out in this House of Commons where we spend money in public investment to yield much larger investments by private enterprise, I think we have demonstrated down to earth principles of good, sound government, following a philosophy which we see quite clearly. If we are to be measured in the future by the tests of history it will be by what extent we succeed or fail in building processing industries here in Canada.
There is iron in Labrador, iron in Baffin island, iron in Ungava, iron in the western Arctic. It is of no use to us if it all goes to feed the industrial plants of nations all over the world so that we in Canada can buy back the finished products. We will have to export tremendous millions of tons to all these countries because that is part of our responsibility in the world but we must make
National Development Policy sure that large supplies are available to be manufactured and processed here in Canada without increasing the cost. But on the contrary, because of the juxtaposition of energy and natural resource, produced here cheaper than in any other part of the world, in the decades ahead we will be the greatest supplier of iron and steel products in the world. I repeat that this must be done by careful planning and by creating situations whereby economics will result in the cheaper production that will give us an advantage on an economic basis without restraints or artificial subsidies of any kind.
I think I have made my point clear. We on this side of the house do have a national development policy. I was going to quote a question asked me last October by the former minister of northern affairs and national resources at which time he challenged me to produce this national development program right when I was busy trying to work out some of the details of it. I have sat here ever since waiting for an opportunity to give the house a few ideas of what the program is all about. You have got it now.
I am going to remind the Leader of the Opposition of a few facts about our history. The other night I mentioned casually the name of a man called Brown. This man lived roughly 100 years ago. I praised his contribution to Canadian political thought in connection with development and the opposition had great fun pointing out the fact that he also believed in legislative union. They could have pointed out a few more things about George Brown. He had other dogmatic convictions which I am going to leave unmentioned. I do not care what a man believes in every aspect of his thinking. However, I am going to put before the house just a few of his words because, wherever George Brown is now, I hope he will know that someone a century later appreciates these thoughts. I read from an editorial he wrote in the Globe roughly 100 years ago;
The non-occupation of the Northwest Territory is a blot upon our character for enterprise. We are content to play drone while others are working. We settle down quietly within the petty limits of an insignificant province while a great empire is offered to our ambition. ... If Canada acquires this territory it will rise in a few years from a position of a small and weak province to be the greatest colony any country has ever possessed, able to take its place among the empires of the earth. The wealth of 400,000 square miles of territory will flow through our waters and be gathered by our merchants, manufacturers, and agriculturists. Our sons will occupy the chief places of this vast territory, we will form its institutions, supply its rules, teach its schools, fill its stores, run its mills, navigate its streams. . . . We can beat the United States if we start at once. It is an empire we have in view and its whole export and import trade will be concentrated in the hands of Canadian merchants end manufacturers if we strike for it now.

National Development Policy
Those are the words of George Brown. He was a clear Grit. If hon. members opposite would go back to the fountainhead of the words of George Brown and forget all this division and diversion that has come along in the last 100 years they would put their party on a much sounder footing for the future and be much more in tune with the Canadian people than they are now.
It is significant, that in 1858, 100 years ago, a young man by the name of Alexander Tilloch Galt was invited to join the cabinet. He was invited to do so because he had a plan to bring confederation into being for the colonies on the northern half of this continent. It is significant that just 100 years ago in 1858 a young man from Toronto went to the west, up the Qu'Appelle river to the South Saskatchewan river and recommended that a dam be built. His name was Hind. Today, 100 years later, we may see a start on what he recommended. One hundred years ago men did have vision. They did have courage and some of them had the energy to go out and do something. It was Macdonald who led his government through those terrible 15 years of building the transcontinental railway known as the Canadian Pacific. If you read the speeches of the men in opposition at that time you see that they said, "Where does this road go? Who will ride on it? Indians and buffalo." I have seen a few "Indians" on those trains in recent years but very few buffalo.
Those were the words of caution by our Liberal friends 80 years ago. Everyone knows today that this railway through the bush and muskeg of northern Ontario has opened up a mineral industry that produces over a billion dollars of new wealth a year, that produces over a billion dollars of new forest wealth a year. That line ran through the west they talked about, through the prairies which they had defined as a desert. Now we have there one of the greatest bread baskets in the world.
Then, what horrible things they said about British Columbia. In the short time I have had since we adjourned at six o'clock I am sorry I was not able to dig up a few quotations of the things they said about British Columbia. They called it a most inhospitable land and said that people could not possibly exist there. Yet we have 22 members in the house today representing that province, and if Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba move a little faster they will soon have as many.
I mention these things to make clear the background of our thinking. As a party we felt that we should bring our party back to its traditional theme of developing and opening up the country. Naturally in starting this program we tended to think of the immediate

needs of the people of the maritimes and the prairies because they have fallen behind the national level of income. So we brought forward programs in those two parts of Canada because it was a part of our policy to bring about equality between groups and regions in Canada.
But I want now to emphasize the point that every time you spend a dollar to make power cheaper in the Atlantic provinces, bring industry there and make the people there prosperous, you help every other person in Canada. I say these things to the people in the Atlantic provinces and I say them here too. Every time you spend a dollar to bring some security of living to the people of central Saskatchewan it helps every part of Canada, not just the people of that part. As a Canadian I am very happy that much of the leadership for this type of thinking came from the city of Toronto. At times we do have some fun among ourselves referring to that city, but when the chips are down the people of Toronto have always measured up in the building of this nation. Just as George Brown said, all the benefit does get back there but I do not think we should quarrel about that because what helps one of us helps all of us.
Our program, therefore, is to build this nation by helping those regions which have fallen behind. We are doing this in the interests of Canada, but primarily to provide an opportunity for the people of this generation, our sons and daughters who are born here in the future, as well as the people who come to this great dominion. This is the fundamental social purpose behind what we are doing. I should like to recall, if I may, some of the words of men much greater than I. I have often heard a phrase by Edmund Burke quoted in this house, and that phrase is this:
If there is no vision the people perish-
I do believe, Mr. Speaker, this this government has a vision, a vision which the members of this government are determined to carry out. I am going to read the rest of the sentence I have just quoted.
If there is no vision the people perish, but if the vision is blurred, the people perish faster.
I am going to suggest that if the people of Canada follow the lead of the Leader of the Opposition and those who support him in this cautious, timid approach to the development of our resources, not only will there be no vision, but what little vision there is will be so blurred that this country will perish much faster.
I know the Leader of the Opposition is suffering from the great burdens of the traditions of the Liberal party in following this

course of timidity. Blake, their leader of 80 years ago, speaking about immigration into western Canada following the railway used these words:
They (the Conservatives) said the immigrants would pour in and were pouring in rapidly. I asked them, when did these people come in? If it is true that they did come in, where are they now? Did their bones whiten the prairies?
Is this the confidence, the boldness and the imagination that the people of Canada-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about Sifton?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is Blake at his most pessimistic. I should like to quote another one of the remarks of the Liberal leaders, Edward Blake. When he was speaking in 1886 he used these words:
I was speaking in 1874 of the bargain made by Sir John A. Macdonald to construct a railway within the limit of time; I was pointing out the difficulties tending its construction; and discussing B.C. from an engineering point of view, as a country through which the railway was to be pushed, I called it a sea of mountains. And now, after 11 years, I repeat the phrase and maintain its fitness.
That is what the Liberals thought of British Columbia back in 1886. I could go on and quote from their various spokesmen to demonstrate that the whole tradition of the Liberal party, with that one brief exception when Laurier accepted the Sifton policy on immigration, shows that they have forgotten those stirring words of George Brown. They are content to stir up division between the various groups in this country. They are content to play the selfish ends of one locality as opposed to the interests of the nation as a whole. After 22 years the people chose to follow the course of building a nation that would provide opportunities for their children and their children's children. Then, the Liberals wonder why the double defeat struck them.
I would suggest to them that any party in defeat must learn that humility which comes only from an examination of their own sins. I have suggested in all deference to them before that they would be well advised to re-examine their place in the history of this country. They would find that Canadian tradition has always been one of looking for new frontiers. We still have great frontiers to conquer in Canada. We have spent 80 years moving to the west to give this country dominion from sea to sea, and now we are going to give this country dominion over the area from the south to the Arctic ocean. This great northland of ours is not ours because it is coloured red on a map. It will only be ours by effective occupation. We feel it is our destiny, manifest by our geography, our history and the character of the we lose this vision,
National Development Policy blurred, this nation will perish. Without this vision, Canada is nothing.
The things I have outlined here today are just the first lines on a blueprint of our future. We will take great care to look after the economics, but we reject the historic timidity and caution of the Liberal party. We must not be deterred from a bold, imaginative policy for the development of Canada which would provide for the future of our children. We know that in the world picture we will always be a great partner of the nation to the south. We know that our resources will never do us any good unless we realize that they must also be used for the good of nations all over the world. Therefore, we must dedicate what we do not only to our own material gratification but to the good of mankind in all parts of the world.
I have been asked, why move now? I feel I have made it clear that we have no choice with all this wealth, all these resources, but to move now. Someone may ask me why private enterprise has followed in behind these roads and these railways to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, compared with the few millions we put in. The answer is that they have taken the Paley report, the Gordon commission report and all the other available information. They know that when these railways are completed, when these roads are completed there will be not only all these resources but we will be in a position to direct their use for better purposes than just serving to provide a hole in the ground without any processing here in Canada.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is delightful, Mr. Speaker, to have this history lesson. One point I should like to draw to the attention of the minister, as a former history teacher, is that Sir John A. Macdonald's great development program was not really successful until Sir John was dead. I hope that does not happen to the minister or to his administration. I hope that it is not the Liberals who finally come along and reap the benefits of the program, as happened in Laurier's time.
Before I move on to the subamendment, I should like to say, in connection with the vision of this development program, that tremendous changes have taken place in our society. The minister does not seem to have mentioned these changes at all. In so far as the previous transcontinental development was concerned, it was based on the desire of the people to have land and to develop farms. I would submit that that factor does not
operate so far as the north is concerned, and people. If that is why the development is going to be if our vision is ever of a different type. It is for this reason that
1990	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy the subamendment, dealing as it does with small business, should form part of the program.
The minister talked about the tremendous amount of private capital that is going to flow into the north as a result of this policy. I should like to point out that by the very nature of the development the capital will have to flow in tremendous amounts; and will have to be supplied by huge corporations.
I hope that these corporations see the vision.
I should like to point out that the same driving element is not present in connection with the northern development as it was 50 or 60 years ago. It does seem to me, therefore, that that is going to be one of the difficulties when it comes to getting people into the north.


An hon. Member:: What about George Brown?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Poor George Brown was murdered. I do not know why he was murdered. But in addition to the subamendment with reference to small businesses, on June 11 the Canadian Press carried a dispatch out of Ottawa stating this:
The government will shortly provide small busi-nesres with technical assistance but no direct loans, it was learned today.
The reluctance to provide federal credit may be a blow to retailers. They had urged the administration to set up some form of federal credit facility to help the corner store compete more effectively with the big chains and supermarkets for the customer's dollar.
Shortly after this date the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) was speaking on the west coast and from there there was a news release to the effect-or this is what I gathered from reading the news release; perhaps the Minister of Justice can correct me-that the main point of the government's program in relation to small business was that it was going to set up a technical advisory service especially to help small business in the field of research and other marketing problems. There is no use in belittling this step or program. I think it is very much worth while. As a matter of fact, I should like to go further. I note that according to tonight's newspaper it has been announced that an associate deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce has been appointed, namely Mr. James Roberts and it is speculated that he is to be the head of this branch. Whether or not he is the head of this branch, I know that in Mr. Roberts the government has a man of exceptional ability. He was a lieutenant colonel in the regiment in which I was a trooper; and as someone who had a parade of lieutenants colonels including the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) I can honestly say that Mr. Roberts as a lieutenant colonel was an exceptionally able one. If he


is going to be the man to head up this bureau I am sure he will be able to do something with it. But I would suggest that to restrict the bureau merely to technical advice and to research assistance is to limit it to too narrow a field.
I notice that the Canadian tourist association submitted a brief to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) a short time ago with regard to a tourist establishment improvement loan act, and that the very first paragraph of it states this:
The Canadian tourist association respectfully requests that the government of Canada submit to parliament legislation which will relieve Canada's tourist industry of a serious disability caused by lack of financial credit and so by such legislation make it possible for our tourist industry through expansion and modernization to compete effectively in the world tourist market.
Of course the tourist industry is only one facet of small business but obviously they feel that there is a need. One of the lessons the United States has learned and is learning about small business is that the very idea of support or aid by government for small business has a tremendous emotional appeal. I am not that partial to small business


Mr. Fulion:: You have not been very slow in learning that yourself.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am sorry but I did not catch that remark.


James Ross Fulton: I say that the hon. gentleman has not been very slow in learning that himself either.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is learning it too.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am going to be fair and
qualify.


An hon. Member:: Get aboard.


George Harris Hees: Everybody gets aboard in this debate.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The experience in the United States indicated that almost every year in congress, in the house of representatives or in the senate, some congressman or some senator will rush in with a bill to aid small business and usually the administration- that is the executive-manages to shift it to one side and keep it from going through both chambers until the legislative year is over. I think the reason for the appeal of small business goes back to the political position that it appeals to all. I think it might be Jeffersonian democracy in essence. It is the whole idea that the small man, working within his own scope and framework, trying to raise himself by his boot straps and to develop a small business, is perhaps the most worthy of all individuals in the whole economic framework.

In this particular matter I do not think we should allow emotion or sentiment to get in our way. The small business man has tremendous political power in both the United States and Canada. We often hear that huge corporations have great political power but the fact of the matter is that, as far as most members of parliament are concerned, they are much more easily approached by small businessmen and in their communities they hear much more about the problems of small business and the needs for help for small business.
I think one of the reasons that in Canada we have not had the pressure to help small business that has been experienced in the United States is that we are in a ten-year to fifteen-year lag behind the United States in the development of our general consciousness of what is happening in the economic framework. In the United States it has generally been discovered, as a result of a great deal of research into small business, that perhaps the fundamental weakness of small businesses is not credit or the failure or the inability to get money-although that matter ranks very high-but is just the question of lack of managerial ability or, if you want to use the favourite jargon of the businessman, lack of know-how. There is no doubt about it that some form of advisory bureau might be of some aid. As a matter of fact the government has published a very handy little manual of advice for the small businessman.
However, the factor of money is quite vital. In the United States the small business administration has been operating for five or six years. It now has a capitalization, I understand, of $230 million. The largest loan that a small businessman or a small manufacturer can obtain at the present time from this small business administration is $300,000, although efforts are being made to raise this amount to $500,000. One of the other points in connection with these loans is that no manufacturer or anyone else can get a loan from the small business administration unless he can produce proof that he has already been rejected by the banks at least twice or at least by two different banks, which means that the businessman has gone through some effort anyway to obtain his money from other sources. Usually the interest rate on these loans varies from 4| per cent to 6 per cent, depending on the kind of background or collateral that is available to the small businessman. In essence, when you compare the total value of the United States gross national product and their annual investment, the small business administration has not been a fantastic success. After all, $230 million is not a great deal in an economy such as that of the United States.
National Development Policy
But there are more and more indications that help for small businesses is necessary because of the fact that large corporations have such great advantages in financing, especially in debenture financing, over small business and because on the market side of their operations they have advertising budgets that can cover a whole national field. I think that point applies particularly in Canada. In Canada our small manufacturers tend to compete regionally and it is very difficult for a small manufacturer or even a small service organization to spread beyond its region because of this lack of advertising. In the manufacturing industry it is especially difficult for them to spread and develop further because of the lack of research facilities. Advertising and research are built into the operations of large corporations.
In the particular area from which I come, namely the lakehead, we have had a tremendous change in our business structure in the last 20 years; and if you take it over the last 30 years, the change has been even greater. Thirty or forty years ago the lake-head's primary industry was tied in with transportation and being an entrepot between the west and the east. Naturally we had these large organizations, the transcontinental railways and very large shipping lines. But in our indigenous industry we depended upon the bush and woods products. In most cases those organizations were fairly small.
But now that situation has changed drastically with the buildup of the tremendous capital formations that are necessary to support pulp and paper mills, and these very large corporations have developed through using crown leases of very large limits of land. One of the results has been that the role of the small timber operator has almost disappeared except as a jobber living from hand to mouth and from year to year, very much dependent on the good will he may have developed with the particular large company concerned, and in that particular field all these small jobbers and operators are up against a tremendous financial problem when it comes to buying equipment. The breakdown of one large cat or Drott loader can make the difference between a successful operation and being completely wiped off the books. One of the reasons for this is that they have to carry so much credit at a very high rate of interest to obtain these capital goods, or else they cannot obtain loans of sufficient size and at a decent rate of interest to enable them to keep their equipment up to a proper and economic level.
In addition, at the lakehead we have noticed another phenomenon which has happened all across the country, and that

National Development Policy is the disappearance of the family store, especially the family department store, and the moving into the area of the large chains. We now have Loblaws, and A. & P. and supermarts and all the rest, and from the reaction of the population to these stores I gather that they are popular; I do not believe anyone consciously wants to go back to the small establishments we had formerly. But this displacement of the small operator has pinpointed the difficulties of people in the retail trade who are not tied in with national organizations such as Simpsons-Sears or Eatons in competing and operating in our economy. It seems to me that at the present time we have to examine the situation and try to make up our minds whether these small businesses are worth helping, and I think the answer that most of us will arrive at is that they are. There is nothing wrong with a large organization just because it is large, but there is something wrong in Canada in the fact that so many large corporations are putting small business organizations out of business.


Mr. Woolliams:: I should like to ask the
hon. member for Port Arthur a question. I was just wondering whether the policy of the C.C.F. party has changed since they socialized that small business in Prince Albert, the box factory. That put a lot of lumbermen out of business.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That point has been brought up several times, but I do not want to deal with it now. I want to make a point that I come from Ontario and represent an Ontario riding in this house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Could I ask another
question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: You have not given the hon. member a chance to answer the first one yet.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We do not make a practice in this house of asking, say, Conservative members from Ontario to defend the policies of the provincial government with respect, for example, to the Northern Ontario Gas Company, and I hope the hon. member will extend the same courtesy to me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I asked whether the C.C.F. policy had changed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the C.C.F. has climbed on to the bandwagon. We have not seen much of a bandwagon as far as small business is concerned, but I am glad to recognize that there is some merit in this policy of help for small business.

One of the other problems which is very evident at the lakehead is that whenever a small manufacturer does develop his plant and his organization to the point where he can expand his market area he discovers that just at that time he is invaded, usually by a larger organization that comes in and seeks to buy him out. That happened to a rather efficient concrete block factory that was developed by local people and had reached a very promising stage of development. Just when they were ready for a further step in expansion they were approached by a much larger factory from the Winnipeg area which pushed into this market and finally tried to force them to sell out to them at a price which was of great disadvantage to them. They were very anxious to expand in order to meet this threat, but they ran into the standard difficulty of not being able to raise enough capital to expand their plant so that they could compete. Here was an excellent case for small loans being available under the scheme suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) in this house about ten days ago. If such a scheme had been in operation they would have been in a much better position to have carried out that particular expansion.
Another fact that will probably raise certain questions from certain hon. members in certain parts of the house and one which I think needs to be faced frankly is that small manufacturers as they are developing their organizations, just when they reach a stage where they are moving from a small operation to a medium-sized operation, have discovered that they have become attractive to a union or to a union organizer, and just at a time when capital difficulties are most severe they find they are faced with the problem of signing an agreement or a contract which would require them to spend money beyond what they had planned as far as normal operating expenditures are concerned. This happened in connection with a veneer plant in the Port Arthur constituency. Just at the time when it was ready to expand it was faced with negotiating a contract with a union that wanted to nail this very small operation down to the same standards as those of much larger units in the pulp and paper industry in that area. In this particular case it was possible, through a little discretion on the part of the union, to stave off almost immediate bankruptcy for the company, but the man in charge of the company made the point that his primary difficulty was not that he did not want to meet the conditions which the union presented but that he was operating on so much borrowed capital at such a high rate of interest that it just was not feasible or economic for him to do so. He

is one of the people who made the point that he very definitely needs some form of loan for small business backed by the government.
Now the hon. member for Vancouver East made the point quite clearly: in Canada we have a situation different from that in the United States in that we have a branch banking system. The point has also been made that we already have a semi-framework to work on in something that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) took a certain amount of credit for, that is, the Liberal institution of the industrial development bank. Since we have this situation there seems no reason why this example could not be pushed further, using the bank and setting up loans of a relatively short term- I suppose five to ten years would be the maximum on them-at relatively low rates of interest, I imagine somewhere between 6 and 8 per cent as a maximum, and that some sort of guarantee should be given by the government to the lending institutions.
The experience of the banks since moving into the mortgage lending field in connection with the national housing program has not been disastrous in any sense although a possible disaster was preached and forecast by some of the opponents of that legislation. As a matter of fact, the banks have successfully operated in this field although I know there are certain qualifications from the point of view that it does tend to tie down some of their money for longer terms than usual and in areas that are not quite as fluid as the banks perhaps might like.
All these examples tend to suggest that a good case could be made for setting up a small business administration scheme with a loan fund to be administered by the chartered banks and with the loans at least to a certain percentage guaranteed by the federal government. This might be of great advantage to the small businessmen in our community.
There are a number of other possible steps that might be taken to help small business that are not related to the establishment of a loan system. One that has been suggested is that the scale of income tax for small business be set at a less progressive rate than for larger corporations, on a graduated scale such as applies as far as personal income tax is concerned. The difficulty in that situation would be attempting to define what is a small business and probably in setting certain levels at which the tax would move upward, you would leave the door open for a certain amount of finagling on the part of the concern to keep below the level.
Another suggestion that has been made as a means of helping small business will probably be discussed very fully when the 57071-3-126
National Development Policy legislation concerning the estate tax comes before the house for discussion. There is no question but that when there is a death in a family which operates a family organization or manufacturing concern-be it the death of one of the partners or perhaps the sole owner-the death duties in many cases lead to the dissolution of the whole business. We had a very fine family department store in Fort William that suffered the loss of its family head a few years ago. It was amazing how quickly the whole thing went to pieces and the store is now in the hands of a national concern. There is nothing the matter with that but the fact remains that the children of this gentleman were simply not able to carry on the business and also meet the death duties. That is another phase of the problem of small business which should be examined by the government.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Certainly, providing it has nothing to do with Saskatchewan.


George Harris Hees: A little ashamed of Saskatchewan, are you?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Are you ashamed of Saskatchewan? It is obvious that the hon. member has done a lot of research into the topic he is now discussing. I was just wondering if he could tell the house the number of small businessmen his research indicates need assistance from the government and who, although they are good businessmen, cannot secure assistance from the banks?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have seen nothing in that respect concerning Canadian businessmen. One of the difficulties of doing any work in this particular field in Canada is that we are so far behind the United States in carrying out this kind of study. I have to be frank about it and I hasten to admit I found nothing. You can search very widely through the literature on Canadian business and economics and you can find no cold, hard statistics about the problems of small businessmen. I can only say that is why I chose to speak from the constituency point of view. I am aware that in my own constituency amongst tourist camp operators, retailers and timber operators and especially the small jobbers there is a very definite need.
Now, as to how necessary it is for the government to make some preliminary study of this is a question I leave to the judgment of the ministers concerned but the point that should be made in my opinion in this particular connection is that the United States experience-and our economy does parallel
1994	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy theirs-is that the small business administration has worked, that it has encouraged many businesses. If the government proposes setting up a technical bureau to give advice to small businessmen I must also in fairness say that the technical advice aspect of it and the research aspect of it have worked in that country. Also, the question of information for small businesses in the United States to help them in getting in on defence procurement programs has been extremely valuable. Perhaps again this is something that will be one aspect of what the government is going to introduce in this connection. But if the hon. member who asked me the question can provide me with any literature covering that phase of the question with respect to Canada I should certainly like to see it. Thus far I have not been able to locate any such material.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member yield to another question? I have two questions and perhaps the hon. member would prefer to answer one before dealing with the other. However, since the hon. gentleman has undertaken so much research in this field, could he give us his definition of what a small business and small industry might be?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not want to be accused of or credited with having done a great deal of research in this respect. I have read three or four books and approximately 15 or 20 magazine articles on the subject. If that is your idea of research, you may accept it for what it is worth but I do not class it that way.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The United States figure is for a business doing business totalling $5 million or less annually.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: By the way, the experience of the small business administration has got down as far as loans of from $6,000 to $10,000 for businesses that have assets of from $25,000 to $50,000. The point that has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. MacLean) certainly does require a certain amount of definition. The following question comes to mind: Are you going to make loans to small businesses that have already been established or are you going to make loans to young men who have a good idea, a certain amount of capital and who want to get their business underway? To my way of thinking that is a point that can be decided only at that time when the bureau or administration that is set up knows considerably more about the number of small businessmen or small


groups in Canada that are hoping to get such businesses established. But if you try to choose a feasible figure to determine what is a small business for the purposes of any Canadian scheme that may come into being, I would say one that has an annual production of less than $1 million.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. I think he has been extremely fair in attempting to answer the questions that have been put to him. Is my hon. friend supporting the small business with assets of any amount from $5 million down for loans from the government because they are the true representatives of free enterprise? Is that his object in supporting that particular point? What is his object?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, that is a question designed to lead me into certain philosophical definitions of what is free enterprise and what is not. The point I wish to make is that I think there is nothing in the socialist program that is antagonistic to what I would call true free enterprise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Do not let these hon. gentlemen mistake me, Mr. Speaker. Their definition of free enterprise is a very shifting one.


Mr. Ricard:: What is yours?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I said shifting, not shifty. Let me remind hon. gentlemen that the Conservative campaign in the last election in my constituency was fought on the basis of what I call socialism. What was the Conservative candidate selling? Perhaps this also happened in other constituencies. He was selling increased old age pensions.


An hon. Member:: Are you a socialist?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Of course, I am. But I should like to point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is allowing himself to be led off the subject.


Douglas Mason Fisher: With a certain amount of pleasure, Mr. Speaker. I always feel that when you engage in a discussion of a topic such as small business or small businessmen it gives a great opportunity for a discussion revolving around the whole question of free enterprise. The fact that one of the great trends of our society and our whole economy for the last-well, ever since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and his trust busters -has been to build up larger and larger enterprises that become safer and safer and have less and less risk involved and the narrowing of the opportunities for the small man really to get anywhere and to bite off any chunk of this massive economy that we

now have. Of course, if this Jeffersonian attitude-I call it that-of myself and the other members of the C. C. F. is free enterprise and if we be damned for that, well, let us be damned, but I do not think there is anything in it that is antithetical to socialism as I certainly know it. I notice that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has a most quizzical look on his face. I suggest to him that probably he has not been following the latest developments of the socialist program.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask a question? I know little about Jefferson but I should like to know whether the hon. member would call himself a Jeffersonian. It would be a great surprise to me if he did.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The particular views of Jefferson have a great deal that appeal to me, but not the view that every 20 years there should be a bloody revolution. Mind you, I think Jefferson is one exemplar for almost anyone interested in politics, because he does show the value of keeping things on a small scale wherever possible, and that whole idea can be taken into account on such questions as centralization of our constitution, or the provincialist approach. Of great importance as far as business is concerned is that Jefferson himself always was aware of the point that the larger the business grows, the farther away it gets from the roots in a certain community, the more difficult it is to control and the less appeal it has for the people whom it is serving. I certainly think that at the present time we are being served by far too many large corporations who through their advertising agencies are engineering our wants. I do not think we are being served nearly enough by small groups, small business and small manufacturing organizations who can be closer to and more intimate with us.
There is one other aspect of this whole program of small business. Not only have we ignored small business in recent decades, or not only has small business fallen by the wayside, but the whole idea of public business and public service has fallen by the wayside, and we are quite justified in including in the gross national product such things as the manufacture of a tremendous number of cars and a tremendous variety of cosmetics, great wealth in terms of alcohol or, as the Toronto Star would call it, booze; but we do not really feel that developments such as roads, better schools, better hospitals, things like these, are part of genuine production. We somehow feel that they are not quite as worth while, or as profitable. That is why I think that if I 57071-3-126i
National Development Policy return to the speech by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) I find there indications that he at least can see that there has to be almost a predating of the government expenditures on public services before we can get any worth-while development of the private services which, of course, is something that has quite a bit of historical justification. The whole question of whether the private services that we are going to get following this northern development program is still very much with us.
One of the phases of this program that the minister announced was a railway from Churchill to Moose Factory. Most of that railway would run through the constituency of Port Arthur. It would touch approximately 15 to 20 white men and maybe 600 Indians. I would just like to suggest that if that is a part of the vision I do not think it will do particularly well for our constituency. In this connection I would like to say that if we are to develop the northern parts of the constituency of Port Arthur it is not going to be done through the north; it is going to be done from the south and what we are going to have to do is to exploit very large stands of timber and very large supplies of low-grade iron ore and base metals. In order to do this we do need very definitely a development program but not one of the Northwest Territories. I would suggest that that part of the development program really needs to be looked at again; that is, the development within the northern parts of the provinces as they exist now. I do not want to diminish the effort in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon but certainly I think that the northern regions of the provinces are much more important than those areas in terms of immediate possibilities of settlement and of development of our economy.
In our constituency in the last year or so we have closed down several base metal operations that have been considered by geologists to be pretty good bets. They have been closed down because of the drop in prices on the base metal market. I know that another look needs to be taken at Pine Point. But why worry about railways to Pine Point when we have not roads or railways to base metal properties much closer to us? That, of course, may be taken as an attitude of gloom or small vision, but I know it certainly applies to the area from which I come. It is very hard for us to understand the genuine northern vision when we have a frontier that extends into the north and we see that practical development as a very slow movement forward, north and south development from the bases that we already have rather than any Arctic development.
1996	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy
Having touched, Mr. Speaker, on both the amendment and the subamendment, I-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much time of the house tonight. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) in a very able, in fact a brilliant speech, tonight outlined to the house and to the country what the government is doing to make the vision a reality. Today I think can be classified, because of the speeches we have heard from the opposition, as bandwagon day. The Liberals, at long last, after 22 years of neglect, are trying to climb aboard the national development bandwagon. They have found out that the people like the idea of their country being developed nationally and they are trying to clamber aboard. Then we see the C.C.F. climbing aboard the free enterprise bandwagon. Now they are grasping to their breasts small business as though they had always been brothers. They are trying to out-free-enterprise the free enterprisers. I guess one of these days we will see the formation-I understand there are feelers out on both sides now for a new party, the Liberal-Socialist party. They are trying to get together and in that way perhaps stop going down together. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources dealt very ably and brilliantly with what this government is doing in the way of national development.
I am simply going to mention a very few of the things which the government and the department are doing to provide transportation facilities to assist in the development of the country because, as anybody who has studied the history of Canada knows only too well, in a country of this size the provision of transportation facilities must precede development. A country of this magnitude must have roads, must have seaways, must have railways and so on before the country can be developed properly, and it is the job of the Department of Transport to provide these facilities.
First of all, in the Atlantic provinces we are carrying out a survey of transportation problems to find out how we can provide better transportation facilities in that region. We are examining the coastal service in Newfoundland to see if the service can be improved over and above what is and has been provided for some years past. We have already decided to provide three new coastal ships, with a possibility of a fourth. We are also planning the new terminal facilities which I mentioned in the house earlier this


year. When the William Carson resumes service from North Sydney to Port aux Basques we will examine the service to see if it fills the needs of Newfoundland for a service to the mainland. If it does not we will then examine into what further facilities might be needed for that service. In conjunction with Canadian National Railways we are studying to see if improvements can be made in the rail service generally throughout Newfoundland.
In Prince Edward Island we are studying to find out whether future requirements are for additional ferry services or if a causeway would provide a better connection to the island. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia we are studying, in conjunction with Canadian National Railways, to determine how rail services in these two provinces might be improved. We are also reviewing subsidy payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. With regard to rail line extensions


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
minister would permit a question before he goes on. Could he tell the house when this study of transportation in the Atlantic provinces was undertaken?


George Harris Hees: I would say shortly after we took office in June of 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it not true that it was undertaken by the previous administration immediately after the presentation of the preliminary Gordon report?


George Harris Hees: If it was, Mr. Speaker, it was done in such an insignificant way that it really did not start to have any effect until the Conservative government took over.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister's memory is failing.


George Harris Hees: As I was saying before I was interrupted, as far as rail line extensions are concerned, a survey was completed in March of this year and the work of construction has now started on a spur line running from Optic lake to Chisel lake in Manitoba, a distance of 52 miles. It will cost $8,500,000 and will link up properties of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company with the Hudson Bay Railway. As has been mentioned tonight by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, we are studying at this very moment the proposed new railway line in northern Alberta, a line which will be over 400 miles long and is estimated to cost well over $65 million exclusive of terminal facilities.
With regard to the seaway, in conjunction with various cities with harbours on the seaway we are studying what their needs will be as a consequence of the seaway and have

already entered into arrangements with such cities as Hamilton, Port Arthur and Fort William, Three Rivers and others to see what we can do to help them provide better facilities to be able to handle the traffic which it is confidently expected will develop with the completion of that inland waterway. Recently we sent a team to Kingston from the public works and transport departments to see about additional dredging there to make it possible for ships to pass easily into the excellent harbour of Kingston.
So far as airport construction is concerned, this year we are budgeting for an expenditure of $61 million compared with $35 million budgeted by the late Liberal government in their budget of March 31, 1957. This greatly expanded program, a program almost double that undertaken by the former Liberal government, will include new and enlarged air terminal buildings, additional runways and the lengthening and reinforcing of runways to handle the faster and heavier aircraft which will be appearing in our airways during the next few years. This will, of course, greatly assist exploration and the development of our resources. The new air fields we are building will in many instances be used by exploration companies which fly over otherwise inaccessible stretches of our northland examining areas where it is believed there are mineral resources, thereby making it possible for ground crews to make much more detailed inspections on the ground and actually locate the ores which we believe are there.
With regard to steamship construction, our program this year will cost $22 million compared with a mere $9 under the former government a year ago. This program includes the building of icebreakers and supply ships, all of which will make it possible for navigation to move more easily in icebound waters and will greatly assist the development of our northern areas by making it easier to bring in supplies, equipment and the many other things that are needed for development work in the northern part of our country.


Mr. Bourgei:: And all this prepared by the Liberal administration.


George Harris Hees: All of this was not prepared by the Liberal administration. I have quoted to you what the late lamented Liberal administration put in their last budget and I have told you what we have put in our budget. So far as airport construction is concerned, our program is nearly double and in steamship construction it is more than double. Our whole program is vastly increased over anything the Liberal government thought of or
National Development Policy contemplated and it has been thought out and put into operation by the Conservative government.


Maurice Bourget: Would the minister permit a question?


George Harris Hees: Certainly.


Maurice Bourget: Would the minister be kind enough to give a break-down listing the ships they are going to build during this fiscal year.


George Harris Hees: I would be very glad to answer on my estimates or the hon. member might like to have some of his Liberal colleagues on the transport committee ask this question. I would be very glad to answer. There is no secret. It is all there to be seen. In fact, we are very proud to talk about it. It is only the modesty of the Conservative government that makes us not bring these things out each time we stand up but if you want to know about them we will be glad to let you know in great and minute detail.
These are the only remarks I intended to make tonight. I did want to mention these things in view of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said this afternoon when he tried to create the impression that only under a Liberal government were development plans formulated and put into operation. As you will have decided I feel sure, having listened to the very able speech delivered by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, quite the reverse is true. National development was neglected for 22 years under the Liberal government, and under the Conservative government of today quite the reverse is taking place. A national development policy is being put into operation. It is going to develop this country in the manner it has been waiting to be developed for over a generation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the gross national
product is going down.


George Harris Hees: Just as the first great Conservative prime minister recognized only too well, and just as our present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) recognizes so clearly, you must provide transportation facilities in this country to make development possible. This government is going to provide those facilities.
Under the first great Conservative prime minister, the Canadian Pacific railway was built against the vitriolic attacks of the Liberal opposition of that day. The Liberals of that day looked upon development in somewhat the same light as the late Liberal government did. Today, fortunately, we have another great Conservative Prime Minister, who sees development as the most important facet of any government's policy. The policy

National Development Policy of this government, so far as providing transportation facilities is concerned, is simply this. We examine every possible need for the provision of additional transportation facilities. We will continue to do so. Whenever a need can be demonstrated and the fulfilment of that need can be shown to be economically feasible, additional transportation facilities will be provided by this government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the modest and resourceful Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) permit me to ask him a question?


George Harris Hees: With great pleasure.


Murdo William Martin: What would be his comment about this statement concerning Canada's development which appeared in a 1956 issue of Fortune magazine? They said:
Canada's progress during the past dozen years is one of the economic marvels of the age. Thanks to the extraordinarily high and well-distributed volume of investment, public and private, she has undergone an all-around development not matched even by that of the United States.
I would be very grateful to the minister if he would tell me whether or not he agrees with that statement.


George Harris Hees: I would simply say that that is evidence of the fact that one of Cockfield Brown's writers had an article accepted by that magazine.


Frank Howard: I should like to know if the minister would permit another question?


George Harris Hees: Yes, with great pleasure.


An hon. Member:: Is this fortune telling, too?


Frank Howard: No, this has nothing to do with fortune telling. I wonder when the minister is going to be just as generous, just as lavish with his grants for shipbuilding, his subventions for the assistance of shipping facilities on the west coast as he has just indicated he is on the east coast?


George Harris Hees: I believe one of the hallmarks of this government is that we are equally fair with all the ten provinces.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite sure that no Canadian, either of a previous or present generation, has ever really doubted the remarkable future that is in store for Canada. I do not believe that anyone who knows Canada or has lived here has ever underestimated the economic potential of our great country, with its vast, fertile lands, its industrious, ingenious and reasonable people, as well as the abundance of natural resources which providence has bestowed on our land. I feel quite sure that with all these things in Canada we will
[Mr. Hees.l

be able to realize the vision which Sir Wilfrid Laurier had in the early part of this century when he foresaw that the twentieth century would belong to Canada. I am safe in saying that no one will deny that the first half of the twentieth century has indeed belonged to Canada. We have every reason to expect that if the administration of this country remains sound, the second half of this century will equally belong to Canada.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This will happen under a Conservative government.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think this leads one to have a justifiable pride in our country. I believe it is significant also that a great number of nations in the world have looked with envy on our great land. They have not looked upon it with envy merely because of the beauty or fertility of our landscape, nor because of the abundance of our natural resources. They have looked upon our country with envy because we have been able to maintain a stable economy in the past. This afternoon I was very pleased to hear the members of parliament from Nigeria, who are now visiting Ottawa, tell me that they thought one of the best things they could say about Canada was that we were not taken in by our tremendous resources. We were able to administer our country wisely and seriously without going to any extremes. We have maintained our stable economy. This we have done in spite of the growing pains from which every young nation must suffer, and in spite of the very heavy war commitments as well as the difficult task of rehabilitating and expanding our industry. We have done this in spite of the increasing demand for social and national security; in spite of economic depressions and recessions, such as the one through which we are now going. The economic stability of our country has indeed been the envy of the world for the past 25 years.
There are reasons why we have been able to administer the country with stability in spite of the pressure that has been put on the government in the past, either from external sources in the field of national security or from internal sources from demands for increased national development. In the past it has been Canada's policy to make sure that she could walk before she tried to run; to make sure also that every step forward was not only desirable and justifiable under economic conditions prevailing, but also that she would not be obliged to take a step backward.
I agree with all members of this house and all Canadians that Canada's true economic potentiality is as yet undreamed of. But I also believe that that economic potentiality

is possible only on certain conditions. The first is that the people of Canada must continue to believe in the elementary and basic principles of the natural law which is that you do not get anything for nothing; you must earn it. Just as whatever accomplishments have been made in the past half century in Canada are due to the efforts and even to the sacrifices of the Canadian people, so are we now moulding the type of future that we are going to leave to future generations. We can either make that future great or we can spoil it. It is within the hands of the Canadian people to mould that future, and it is not easily done.
The second condition-and it is an important one

is that the administration of this country must be based on sound economic principles, with the country's interest as its only objective. There again, this is something which is not always easy of achievement nor is it something which is generally understood throughout the country. But I say that any administration that frames its policy in order to achieve political prestige or popularity alone can indeed jeopardize our whole economic potentiality.
A third condition, I would say, is that we as Canadians must not waste one particle of our national resources, no matter how fabulous or how widespread they may be. I maintain that we must exploit our natural resources systematically and to the fullest possible extent at all times, and that we must not act like spoiled children who, out of greed, take a bit out of several pieces of candy without having either the appetite or the capacity of finishing one. It seems to me that although we have a great economic potentiality we must earn it and that it can be achieved only through reasonable and sound administration.
No one man, or no one political party has the monopoly on the hopes and aspirations for and the faith in Canada's future. Although we all believe in this future, we in this house have differences of opinion as to how best we can achieve this worth-while aim. Recently we have heard a great deal about the largely publicized Conservative vision. It has been presented to Canadians as something completely new, something completely original. Yet it is a vision that has been held by Canadians ever since confederation. This Conservative vision is an indication that the Conservatives are only now discovering Canada and are seeing our country's future.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We discovered Canada a long time ago, much longer ago than you did.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Of course it is a good thing for the government to be forward looking, but it also has its dangers because, blinded
National Development Policy by the vision and blinded by the greatness of our great future-and I am speaking more particularly of the north-and with the inexperienced energy of the neophyte, this government may well try to run before it is sure it can walk on its own two feet without stumbling backwards. On first looking at this Conservative national development program and at these remarkable speeches on northern development at this particular time and under these particular circumstances I cannot help having a vision and it is a vision of a small child biting into huge pieces of new candy but without having finished or digested the several pieces that it already has in hand.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Is that what your leader meant this morning when he said "Look ahead"?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If you take a closer look at the development program brought out by the Conservative party you get the impression that the northern vision may indeed remain in the realm of future possibilities but that the northern development program itself is definitely an illusion.
Hon. members will recall that the national development program that we hear so much about now was introduced not during the last session, at a time when unemployment! was prevalent and at a time when the immediate expenditure of public money might have been indeed useful in checking this unemployment and this recession; oh, no, the development program was not introduced at that time. The government waited until parliament had been prorogued, and immediately afterwards they made this program known. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) kicked off the last election campaign with his national development program.
I am now embarking on a new subject, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder whether I might call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Fulton:: One minute to go.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I might ask the leader of the house what the government contemplates for tomorrow when the actual business under discussion is disposed of?


Howard Charles Green: After we get into supply we will take No. 14 on today's order paper, which is the motion to set up a sessional committee on government-owned railways and shipping; then item No. 5, an act to incorporate the lakehead harbour commissioners, which is to go to the standing committee on railways,

Business of the House
canals and telegraph lines; item No. 10, amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act, which legislation is to go to the standing committee on agriculture; and items Nos. 16 and 17, both of which are to go to the standing committee on veterans affairs; then the resolution dealing with the installation of a simultaneous translation system.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it contemplated that
these matters will be gone on with on Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: I am not in a position to say definitely, Mr. Speaker.


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

[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. Benidickson: To what specific projects in Ontario for winter employment related to (a) development of camp and picnic areas; (b) construction of forest access roads, has the federal government agreed to make a financial contribution?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
(a)	Improvements to or development of campgrounds and/or picnic areas at:
1.	Tecumseh park (4 miles east of Thames-ville).
2.	A roadside park located at the junctions of highways 401 and 59.
3.	Park development highway 2-115 and 28, Electoral Durham, Peterborough.
4.	Beaver lake park (1 mile south of Erinsville).
5.	Roadside parks in the Huntsville district.
6.	Park site on highway 11 at Ardie creek (5 miles north of Englehart).
7.	Roadside parks on highway 11 in the Cochrane district.
8.	Lake Despair park on secondary road No. 613 (29 miles north of Fort Frances).
9.	Aylmer-(a) Rondeau park, (b) Pinery park, (c) Ipperwash park.
10.	Parry Sound-(a) Grundy lake park, (b) Castler lake park, (c) Eagle lake park.
11.	Maple-(a) Sibbalds point park, (b) Bass lake park.
12.	Windy lake park (Sudbury).
13.	Lindsay-(a) Presqu'ile park, (b) Burnham park, (c) Serpent Mounds park, (d) Emily park.
14.	Swastika-(a) Kap-Kig-Iwon park, (b) Esker lakes park.
15.	North Bay-(a) Antoine park (Mat-tawa), (b) Martin River park, (c) Finlayson park.
16.	Inverhuron Park (Hespeler).
17.	Fort Frances-(a) French Lake park, (b) One Sided Lake park, (c) McCrosson park.
18.	Port Arthur-(a) Kakabeka Falls park, (b) Sibley park.
(b)	Construction of forest access roads at:
1.	Kenora-(a) Ingolf road-3| miles right of way cleared, (b) Minaki road-8| miles right of way cleared, (c) Gordon Lake road- 2 miles right of way cleared, (d) Sandford-Hutrie road-2\ miles right of way cleared,
(e)	Ghost Lake road-2f miles right of way cleared.
57071-3-127
Questions
2.	Geraldton-(a) Longlac Tower road-1 mile cleared, (b) Pagwachuan Lake road-4,800 ft. right of way, slashed and burned.
3.	Sault Ste. Marie-Ranger Lake road- 12,580 ft. road 50 ft. wide cleared and brush burned.
4.	Parry Sound-Lost Channel-Loring road -6-J miles 66 ft. road cleared, 34 miles stumps bulldozed.
5.	Pembroke-(a) White-Fitzgerald road- 4-5 mile right of way cleared and culverts constructed, (b) Cloy Lake to Crow river road-2-5 miles right of way cleared and culverts constructed, (c) Cameron Lake road- 2-2 miles right of way cleared and culverts constructed.
6.	Maple-(a) Uxbridge forest road, (b) Vivian forest road-Bulldozing of right of way, (c) Angus forest road-clearing right of way, burning brush, (d) Hendrie forest road, (e) Wildman forest road-clearing right of way, burning brush, (f) Drury forest road- clearing right of way, burning brush (g) Horseshoe Lake road-clearing right of way, (h) Swift road-clearing right of way.
7.	Chapleau-(a) Bisco Tower road-14 miles of 50 ft. road cut, (b) Gale Lake to camp Two Lake road-1J miles of 50 ft. wide road cut. Three bridges built, (c) Bisco Ramsay road-5J miles road cut. One bridge built, another under construction.
8.	Fort Frances-Flanders to Beaver House road-20,400 feet right of way cut and slash piled and burned.
9. Tweed-(a) Hungerford road-5,200 ft. right of way cleared, brush burned. Main road completed, (b) Green Lake road-243 chains right of way brushed and burned, (c) Red Horse Lake road-58 chains right of way brushed and burned, (d) Ashden Lake to Ashby road-material for portable huts, (e) Mays-Cashel road-bridge and portable camp completed. 80 chains right of way cut and burned.
10.	Sudbury-(a) Pioneer road to Trout lake-clearing and widening road, (b) Ministic Lake road-clearing and widening road.
11.	Kapuskasing-Fushimi and Rogers forest road-If miles new roadway cleared and burned. 6 miles roadway widened. 1 acre campsite cleared and burned.
12.	Cochrane-(a) Kennedy forest road-5 miles road cleared and stumped, (b) clearing at Kettle lake-5 miles survey completed, (c) Greenwater park road-14 miles cleared, brush burned, (d) Keefer Lake road-4 mile road cleared, brush burned.
13.	North Bay-(a) Lauder Tower road- clearing and burning, (b) Thorne to McLaren's bay road-3.3 miles road cleared, (c) Widdi-field Tower road-clearing and burning, (d) Silver Creek Tower road-clearing and burning, (e) Tomiko road-clearing and burning,

Questions
(f)	New Hatchery road-clearing and burning,
(g)	clearing at Trout lake-clearing and burning, (h) Mattawa M.U. road (Papineau)-198 chains right of way cleared and burned. Skidding and decking logs, (i) Jocko M.U. road (Bastedo)-122 chains right of way cleared and burned, (j) Nipissing M.U. road (Bastedo)- 103 chains right of way cleared.
14.	Gogama-Gogama-Timmins forest road -7J miles of 50 ft. right of way cut and burned. 15J miles of right of way bulldozed 20 ft. wide.
15.	Port Arthur-(a) Shebandowan road- 8J miles cleared and burned, (b) Upsala road -(Inwood)-3J miles cleared plus 3 miles gravelled and ditched, (c) Armstrong road (Gull bay)-4-J miles cleared and burned,
(d)	Ouimet road-1 mile cleared and stumped,
(e)	Round Lake road-6 miles 80 ft. road cleared and burned. Partly stumped and graded.
16.	Aylmer

Middlesex forest road

Banks tract-J mile road improved

J mile new road constructed.
17.	Sioux Lookout-(a) Lac Seul road- Approx. 28 miles right of way cleared, (b) Savant Lake road-Approx. 29 miles right of way cleared.
18.	Hespeler-(a) Grey forest road-clearing right of way, (b) Bruce forest roadclearing right of way, (c) Grand Valley forest road (Stratford Zone)-clearing right of way,
(d)	Halton forest road-clearing and grubbing,
(e)	Grand Valley forest road (Guelph zone)- clearing and grubbing, (f) Wentworth forest road, (g) Waterloo forest road-clearing right of way, (h) Oxford forest road-clearing right of way, (i) Brant forest road.
19.	Swastika-(a) Esker lake road-widening, surfacing and ditching road, (b) Roadhouse Tower road-widening, surfacing and ditching road.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Batten: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works cancelled any projects for which tenders were requested from June 10, 1957 to the 31st of December, 1957 inclusive?
2.	If so, what were these projects, and the amount involved in each case?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Glacier national park, B.C.-construction of five Pan-Abode dwellings to accommodate employees of trans-Canada highway division, Department of Public Works. The amount involved was $90,408.
(b) Montmagny, P.Q.-construction of protection works. The amount involved was $15,500.

Tuesday, July 8, 1958