1958-07-08

CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: On Wednesday last, Mr. Speaker, I informed the house of the recommendation conveyed to me by the commissioner of inquiry in the British Columbia coastal shipping strike to the effect that the disputes now at issue between Canadian Pacific Steamships and parties represented by the seafarers international union, the Canadian merchant seamen's guild and the national association of marine engineers be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Minister of Labour.
On Friday I was able to announce that the recommendation made by Mr. Eric Taylor had been accepted by the Canadian Pacific Railway, by the national association of marine engineers, and by the Canadian merchant seamen's guild. The proposal was rejected by the seafarers international union. Late Friday I therefore invited representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the seafarers international union to meet with me in my office in the labour department to discuss the situation and explore the possibility of finding some ground for mutual agreement.
Present for these talks were Mr. Duncan McNeill, vice president of personnel, and Mr. S. M. Gossage, assistant vice president of personnel for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and Mr. Hal C. Banks and a number of advisers representing the seafarers international union.
I wish to assure the house that all possible avenues of settlement were exhaustively discussed. Unfortunately, however, the parties were unable to agree on a formula for the settlement of the dispute. The government is now taking further steps to reconvene the parties in the dispute for a further meeting in my office within the next few days.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. May I ask him whether
57071-3-1274
he has yet arrived at a decision upon the new name for the bridge which crosses from Montreal to the south shore over Nuns'
island?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The bridge will be known as Champlain bridge.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the minister whose recent oratorical efflorescence has been the admiration of friend and foe alike, namely the Minister of National Revenue.
In view of the continued interest of thousands of industrial workers in the publication of the revised "Blue Book on Pension Plans", can the minister inform the house when the administrative tortoise, mentioned in his reply to my question on June 2 last, is likely to finish the course and the long awaited blue book be published?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the tortoice in this case, like all tortoises, is making reasonable progress toward the finish line. Of course there are many difficulties which it has to overcome, but it is making progress in that direction and I can assure the hon. member that the blue book will be produced in due course and without undue delay.



PREMIUM IRON ORES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning the Premium Iron Ore case. In view of the question asked in this house by the Minister of National Revenue last July 3 on what can be done in the Premium Iron Ore tax case, would the Prime Minister consider canvassing the situation with the distinguished United States visitors in order to determine why the strongly worded protests of this present and the preceding government have not brought a change in United States procedure?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, during the discussions between the President of the United States and myself which will begin this afternoon, various matters will be discussed. Whether this will be included in that group will depend upon the length of time available for the discussions, and also the relative importance of this matter as compared to that of other matters that are going to receive attention.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister care to inform the house, in view of reports that Camp Gagetown is two-thirds empty, what plans the government has to make full use of this military base?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the report that Camp Gagetown is two-thirds empty is quite incorrect. The troops who are normally in Camp Gagetown, permanently stationed there, are at present in another part of the camp area under canvas doing some special training. They will be moving back in about a month's time. Further than that, Camp Gagetown was designed to hold three major units. Three major units are now allocated to Camp Gagetown. In the event of hostilities, accommodation at Camp Gagetown could be doubled, thereby making provision for twice the number of men assigned to the camp today, but it is not the intention to crowd men during peacetime operations.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister tell the house what is the total number of men expected to train at Camp Gagetown at one time?


George Randolph Pearkes: There are about 5,500 men training at Gagetown today.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the disastrous fire which destroyed the maritime winter fair buildings in Amherst, Nova Scotia?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I learned of the fire this morning just after returning from the


west, and I was extremely sorry to hear that such an unfortunate event had taken place. I have asked officials of the department to make an investigation, in view of the fact that the department has put up funds to assist in the construction of the buildings there, to find out just what the situation is in that regard. As the maritime winter fair has been one of Canada's major agricultural exhibitions for the past 44 years, I know this loss will mean a serious blow to agriculture in the maritime provinces.
Last year I had the privilege of opening the fair and had an opportunity to see at first hand the tremendous amount of time and effort spent on this undertaking by representatives from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I would certainly hope that steps can be taken to restore the buildings so the fair can continue.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture based on the concern of farmers' union officials that increased cattle marketings forced by drought conditions may result in a collapse of cattle prices. Has the Manitoba farmers' union requested the minister to fix cattle prices at the level of June 1 in order to prevent a disastrous drop in these prices in Manitoba and other parts of Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, we received a telegram from Mr. James Patterson, president of the Manitoba farmers' union, a few days ago asking that cattle prices be frozen at the market level of June 1. That, of course, is the highest level at which they have been for some considerable length of time, in fact for several years. I replied stating that there was no power I knew of under any statute of the dominion government by which we could freeze cattle prices at that market level short of proclaiming the War Measures Act, which I think everybody agrees would not be possible, and that therefore this was not a practical or possible solution to the difficulties which the farmers' union was afraid might develop.
I might point out, however, that they also said that a serious weakening of the cattle market was becoming evident and various people have informed us by telegram that there had been a considerable fall in cattle prices. This is not borne out by the figures of cattle prices on the main markets in Canada during the past month. I have a compilation here which I will not read in

full. It indicates what the prices were for the weeks ending June 7, 14, 21, 28 and July 3. During that period good steers have fallen approximately 1 cent a pound at Toronto, from 24.09 cents to 23 cents. At Winnipeg they have fallen from $23.03 a hundred to $22, again approximately a cent a pound. At Calgary they have fallen from $22.40 to $21.60 a hundred or less than a cent a pound.
I might point out also that for the two weeks ending June 28 and July 3 the Chicago price for good steers has increased, the first upward movement there for several weeks prior to that time. Of course, essentially our cattle prices depend upon cattle prices in the United States.
There has been about the same kind of drop in the price of good feeder steers. As a matter of fact, at Winnipeg and Calgary there has been no appreciable drop. At Winnipeg the price was $22.09 on June 7 and it was $22.31 on July 3. Actually, therefore, the prices of feeder steers have gone up at Winnipeg. They are down about half a cent on the Calgary market, and there has been a drop of just under a cent in the price of good cows on all three markets.
This statement to the effect that already there has been a considerable drop in cattle prices as a result of the drought is not borne out by the prices being realized on these various markets. Furthermore yesterday, when I was in Calgary, I talked with a considerable number of cattlemen. They told me there was nothing in that whatever, and they did not anticipate there would be any serious drop in cattle prices.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister, as a result of his inquiries, assure the house that the packers are not following a policy of downgrading cattle as they come off the pastures, a policy which they frequently follow? My second question is, is it not possible under the agricultural prices stabilization act to set floors above the base price, and a floor at the level of June 1 if the government wished to do so? I think that is a different matter from freezing them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The request I had, Mr. Speaker, was to freeze those prices at these levels of June 1. So far as setting a support price considerably above the mandatory 80 per cent is concerned, that could be done. However, I do not believe any of the cattlemen in western Canada would approve of it being done. As a matter of fact they are anxious that it not be done, because it would immediately remove our best hope, and our only hope, of getting rid of the surplus cattle we will have. If we put in a support price at that level it would be impossible to export
Inquiries of the Ministry cattle to the United States. We would be cut off from that market. We would have surplus cattle here and would have no place to go with them. In other words we would be cutting our own throats.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister's statement now based on the opinions of the big cattle ranchers or the opinions of the farmers' union which represents the farmers of this country?


Douglas Scott Harkness: These opinions have been expressed to me several times over the past several months by representatives of the Canadian beef cattle association and the provincial associations who, I think, are the best representatives of the producers of beef cattle in this country.


Hazen Robert Argue: I disagree.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: I wonder if I could ask the house leader who would be the appropriate minister to whom to direct an inquiry about the industrial decentralization program of the government in the Atlantic provinces.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has just awakened from a long sleep.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, since the minister is not aware of the program of his party, I might ask the Prime Minister if any representations have been made by the government to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation with a view to inducing that company to establish their additional facilities at Sydney rather than on the St. Lawrence?


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the information furnished to the hon. gentleman is never considered sufficient, because the other day he asked that question of the minister of mines and received his answer. It is apparent that the observation made by the Minister of Public Works a few moments ago had some reasonable grounds.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the question I asked the minister yesterday was whether something had been done? The question I asked today was whether something was going to be done.


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say that when matters of government policy are determined they will be brought to the attention of the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry HARBOURS



MOOSONEE, ONT.    REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN ESTABLISHING ALL-WEATHER PORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the importance attached to northern development, and in view of the fact that the premier of Ontario today is in northern Ontario for the purpose of examining the situation at Moosonee with respect to installing there permanent all-weather docking facilities to make Moosonee on southern James bay an all-weather port, would the government give consideration to assisting the provincial government in this matter if it proved to be feasible?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Prime Minister might allow me to suggest that this question is fairly hypothetical and is dependent on a couple of "ifs" that might well be allowed to happen before the hon. member brings it forward.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that classified civil servants receive Monday, August 4, as a holiday, can arrangements be made to have prevailing rate employees receive this holiday with pay as well?


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter up with the authorities and let the hon. member know tomorrow.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I regret that I was unable to give him notice of it. The question arises out of a news report in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday. My question is this. In view of the announcement by the president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited that the northern Ontario section will be purchased "very soon" from the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and in view of the present scandals and investigations into various natural gas transactions, can the Prime Minister assure the house that this sale will be held up at least pending the results of investigations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, that is part of the contract, and as such the answer to my hon. friend's question is clear.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES CANADA COUNCIL  REQUEST FOR LABOUR REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether any decision has yet been made with respect to the request of the Canadian Labour Congress that labour representation be provided on the Canada Council?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, this party during the last year has consistently advocated that there should be representation on the council of the various parts of our economy. We have in fact advocated this course ever since the creation of the Canada Council. We have, of course, already given representation to labour on commissions which have been set up, and when we are in a position to make an announcement in this regard we will do so. I can say that there will be representation of labour and, I trust, of agriculture, on the Canada Council so that these two very important phases of our economy will have the representation to which many feel they are entitled.

The house resumed, from Monday, July 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Herridge.



NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I was saying I felt certain that the national development program of this government was indeed a political illusion. I recalled that the government did not use the opportunities offered under its national development program during the last session of parliament when immediate expenditures of public moneys would have been very helpful in allaying the serious unemployment problem. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister waited until parliament was prorogued and, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of February 13, 1958, he kicked off the election campaign with his national development program. In the Ottawa Journal of that date one reads: P.M. Kicks off Campaign
Plans Development Program to provide Jobs for Thousands

Prime Minister Diefenbaker started his election campaign last night with a speech outlining a proposed national development program which he said would make jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
And further down it says:
But the Conservative government had acted with a national program of public works "to provide for the future development of Canada and to assure jobs."
The works program would total $1,185 million of which $270 million would be spent in the first three months of this year.
Although I could use far stronger words than I will use, and I would be quite justified in doing so, I submit that cleverly worded half-truths were deliberately used in order to create the impression in this country that the $1 billion works program was indeed a new plan to put into effect new and economic development projects, and that the spending of the $270 million in the first three months of the year would mean the expenditure of additional money specifically aimed at solving the unemployment problem.
That is not so. The $1,185 million program is, of course, merely part of the ordinary yearly estimated governmental expenditure-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I must ask that members in all parts of the house moderate their conversation so we can hear the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: This amount of $1,185 million constitutes part of the ordinary yearly estimated amount which governments have spent over the years, and as a matter of fact it is only some $34 million more than was spent in the previous fiscal year. Furthermore, the $270 million which was supposed to have been spent in the first three months of the year is the normal amount of money which a government would spend in the first quarter of any fiscal year, and I certainly hope that no one is trying to explain or write off the $1 billion deficit by the existence of a new public works and national development program because, of course, there is no such new development program.
I respectfully submit that this practice of using half-truths and subterfuges in some of the official statements which are made is a very dangerous policy which undermines the very existence of our democratic system. The people of Canada cannot possibly be abreast of all the administrative details of government, and as a matter of fact they have no alternative but to have faith in the words of our political leaders. I say that it is not only an undemocratic but it is an intolerably iniquitous and dangerous practice for the government by a shrewd juggling of figures
National Development Policy and words to make the people of Canada believe something which is not in accordance with the facts.
The sum of $1,185 million for a national development program as tabled in the estimates and supplementary estimates for 195859 can be divided up in this way. For public works we find expenditures, including the erection and maintenance of public buildings such as post offices and other buildings, and construction and maintenance of wharves, docks, bridges and roads in national parks, amounting to some $145 million. Expenditures for the Department of Transport include such items as construction and maintenance of airports, some work for the Department of National Defence, the national harbours board and construction and maintenance of deep-sea piers, wharves and grain elevators at major ports and expenditures for the St. Lawrence seaway and Trans-Canada Airlines totalling $244 million.
Last night the Minister of Transport in an intervention, told the house that this government had spent more than twice the amount spent by the previous Liberal government; yet according to the estimates and the sup-plementaries the department plans to spend $260 million. Last year $220 million were spent by that department, which makes a difference of $40 million, which is a far cry from being more than double the amount spent by the previous government.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to correct the hon. member, as I am sure he would like to have the facts straight. What I said last night was that as far as steamship construction was concerned we were spending $22 million this year as against $9 million spent by the Liberal government as recorded in the estimates of last year, and that as far as airport construction is concerned our estimates this year are nearly double.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: I did not say that the Department of Transport over-all was spending twice what the department had spent a year ago.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no question of privilege in that-


George Harris Hees: The hon. member merely deliberately misquoted me; that is the only question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -nevertheless I am happy that the Minister of Transport saw fit to make that statement. I was eager to ensure that the impression was not created in the public mind that this department is spending twice as much this year as was spent last year under the Liberal administration.

National Development Policy


George Harris Hees: If the hon. gentleman would
listen and pay attention to what was being said he would not be under a misapprehension.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: To continue the discussion of the estimates, the expenditures for defence include expected construction and maintenance expenditures by the Department of National Defence itself and Defence Construction Limited totalling $80 million. The expenditures for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation include expected expenditures on construction and maintenance of public housing units including some buildings for the Department of National Defence and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans totalling $308 million. The items for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources include expected expenditures on projects in the farthest northern parts of Canada, including those of the northern Canada power commission, the development of thermal power units in the Atlantic provinces and construction in the national parks totalling $50 million. The items for crown corporations include expected expenditures connected with construction and maintenance by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the northern Ontario pipe line, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Canadian Arsenals and Polymer Corporation totalling $72 million. For the Canadian National Railways there are items covering expected expenditures on construction and maintenance during the calendar year 1958 totalling $140 million.
Federal financial support to other works projects include works projects carried out co-operatively with provincial and municipal governments which are not included under items of federal support such as the trans-Canada highway, hospital construction, railway grade crossings, technical schools and other expenditures totalling $100 million. Other departments and agencies include the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice, the federal district commission, the South Saskatchewan project and others totalling $46 million. The particular item for the South Saskatchewan project is shown as $8 million. That is about the only new project that is included in the estimates; of course we know it has not been started as yet and indeed there seem to be some difficulties which must be overcome before it can be commenced.
When the hon. member for Essex East asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources when he was explaining his northern projects how much had been included for them in the estimates, the minister did not immediately answer. It was only after a considerable length of time that

we learned that there was an amount of $3.8 million for surveys and an additional $50,000 for research included in the minister's departmental estimates of $50 million. This breakdown of the $1,185 million for new development projects differs greatly from the story that appeared in the Ottawa Journal on February 13, 1958. In that article we read:
Mr. Diefenbaker emphasized the north as he talked about Canadian development. He mentioned his hopes for a "self-governing north".
Under the development plan would come:
1.	Arctic research and exploration of the Arctic archipelago aimed at developing resources that Canadians little realized.
2.	A $100 million roads program in the Yukon and Northwest Territories to allow exploration of new mineral areas.
3.	A federal-provincial plan to build access roads to the north, tying in with roads in the Territories. It would cost $75 million and perhaps twice that if all provinces joined.
4.	Aid to economically sound railway projects, such as the proposed line from northern Alberta to Pine Point on Great Slave lake.
5.	A $75 million development at the northern community of Frobisher Bay on Baffin island.
The program would mean jobs for "hundreds of thousands of Canadians" and would open the way for investment "by Canadian and foreign investors of hundreds of millions of dollars".
Let me hasten to state that the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are still without work and who had hopes of being able to find employment in the north are doomed to bitter disappointment because, as a matter of fact, not one of those items is included in the estimates the government has brought forward this year. May I also point out that even if these huge sums had been included in the estimates an obvious question arises. Where is the economic logic of opening new resources in the north at this time when we cannot find sufficient outlets for similar resources that are at hand and which we have as yet hardly tapped? Why should the government spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the construction of roads leading to resources that are as yet undiscovered, when private enterprise and private investment capital are not as yet even exploiting the newly-found resources they have at hand?
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources yesterday bandied about hundreds of millions of dollars. He mentioned of course, that those were sums that private investors and private capital would invest. However, he did not give any authoritative source for the figures which he placed on the record. He did not say whether these represented binding commitments on the part of specific corporations. He mentioned vaguely letters of intent without, of course, referring to the date of these letters of intent. Need I point out that something that might have been economically sound three years ago may

not necessarily be economically sound at the present time under existing economic conditions.
To my mind the majority of the provinces are already overburdened with more pressing and more vital commitments at this time and simply cannot afford to engage capital in such long-range projects as proposed by the minister of northern affairs. There will come a time when economic and social conditions in Canada as well as in the provinces will not only warrant but will necessitate such expenditures, but to my way of thinking we have not yet arrived at that day; and any serious attempt to make the northern vision come true at this time would indeed be trying to run before we can walk.
There are too many lacunas in our economic and social set-up and too many urgent economic development projects of all types to be realized in the inhabited area of our country to embark on a huge building program in the uninhabited area for resources for which there seems to be no urgent need at this time, and which we might well leave to those generations of Canadians yet unborn who may have a far greater need for them than we have. Any attempt now to make the Prime Minister's vision of a self-governing north come true would be taking a bite out of a huge piece of responsibility without having half digested that very heavy responsibility which the government has to face at the present time.
There are hundreds of segments of our economy in the immediate area which are in urgent need of projects which come within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and which I claim might more easily provide work for the hundreds of thousands of people who are still unemployed in our country. There are bridges; there are tunnels, causeways, underpasses, railroads, airports, port facilities, which are urgently required from one end of our country to the other and which I am sure would contribute greatly to the economic growth and stabilization of our country.
There is, of course, another great economic problem that arises out of the relationship of the federal and the provincial governments, and more particularly the municipal governments. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not forgotten about the municipal problem. At page 29 of Hansard of January 9, 1957, the Prime Minister had this to say:
There are many things with which we agree. We agree-
He was speaking of Mr. Harris' budget.
-as to the need for assistance to the municipalities across this country.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the budget that has anything to do with the
National Development Policy municipalities. There is nothing either in the vision or in the government's national development program that may be construed as assistance to municipalities. There is a vague promise of holding a federal-provincial-municipal conference at an indeterminate time and also with an undetermined agenda. I submit that is not assistance; that is merely procrastination.
I certainly hope the conference will take place soon and that concrete solutions will be found to the inter-governmental fiscal policy; but surely, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, with all the experience he has had and with the innumerable briefs that have been submitted to him on this problem, is aware that apart from this very difficult fiscal problem the municipalities are confronted with a multitude of problems for which government assistance could and should have been provided under a national development program.
The government national development program might have given special attention to the construction of projects coming within its jurisdiction which would have been of particular economic value to the municipalities. I do not know all the projects that might be useful to municipalities, but I do know of one in my own riding, where the project would be not only of national value but of extreme help to the municipalities in one whole area. I am referring to Sorel, which is a port on the St. Lawrence seaway about 50 miles below Montreal, at the junction of the Richelieu river which, as hon. members know, is a direct water route to New York by way of lake Champlain.
Ever since before confederation this route has been used for trade by small boats, and we had always heard and read about the project for an internal waterway in that area. It was only in 1938 that the then member for Richelieu-Vercheres, the late Hon. Mr. Cardin, actually started the project by having the Richelieu river dredged to 12 feet in several of its areas, with a dam at St. Ours and Fryar island to enable ships with a draft of 12 to 14 feet to go through.
The war came along and the project had to be stopped. Since then the Richelieu river has become a forgotten waterway. Yet, in spite of very difficult conditions, where the river is only six feet in depth in certain sections, and in spite of the interminable dams and locks at St. Johns, this river has been used in the past for a considerable amount of trade. I would like to pay tribute here to what I believe to be one of the pioneers of this new water route, the Guy Tombs Company Limited, which under very serious difficulties has continued over the years to have a fleet of ships travelling along that particular waterway.

National Development Policy
The United States is equally interested in realizing this waterway, and recently when a delegation from my riding presented a brief to the Prime Minister concerning this project there were indications that representatives from the United States were willing to effect their part of the work on the Hudson river, to realize an international waterway of a depth of 12 feet. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that with the industrialization that has taken place below Sorel this would be an economically sound project.
I would also say this. Since Canada is now engaged with the United States in the joint defence of the North American continent, I submit that it would be extremely useful to have an inland water route to New York by way of the Richelieu river and the Hudson river. This project would not only bring more into the Canadian economy and national security than it would take out of it from a national point of view, but it would also, I believe, be of tremendous assistance to a countless number of municipalities along the Richelieu river.
This is but one example, Mr. Speaker, of a national development project which would be useful to the national economy and which would at the same time be of tremendous help to the municipalities. Another municipal problem, apart from the taxation problem and apart from their insufficient revenue potential, is that practically all municipalities have arrived at the point in their evolution when serious attention should be given to the elimination of blighted and substandard areas that exist, unfortunately, in most municipalities and which are not in keeping with the economic and social development that has taken place in recent years. It seems to me that before trying to conquer new fields, a national development program should be helping our municipalities to get rid of those dwellings that are not only veritable firetraps but are completely incompatible with the moral and physical health standards that we have a right to expect in a country like Canada.
A well balanced national development policy should include an urban redevelopment program such as the Liberal party and my leader advocated yesterday under which, because of the staggering costs of acquiring and clearing substandard areas, the federal government should bring in an amendment to the legislation which was introduced by the previous government so that the federal government would assume 75 per cent instead of 50 per cent of the cost of acquiring substandard areas, and also to furnish additional help to the municipalities by sharing the cost of water, sewers and other municipal services.

Apart from this program there is another serious and urgent problem facing municipalities, namely the problem of providing municipal facilities and community growth requirements which alone impose such financial burdens on the municipalities that they have to have recourse to means other than taxation to meet their obligations. They are forced to borrow money at rates which in most cases are prohibitive. The Prime Minister is well aware of this problem because on March 28, 1957-


Mr. Green:: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this question of municipal finances has already been debated and decided on a subamendment which was moved during the throne speech debate. Your Honour will find the subamendment at page 626 of Hansard, moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in these words:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to the advisability of presenting legislation at this session to relieve the very heavy financial burden now carried by the municipalities of this country.
May I submit with great deference, Your Honour, that discussion along the line now being followed by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is not in order, and that the amendment before the house is not in order in so far as it refers to municipal improvements. I am not raising the same objection to references to transportation and other facilities, but the amendment, in so far as it includes municipal improvements, is a repetition of the amendment moved by the members of the C.C.F. group on May 29.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, If I may I
should like to say a word on this point. The leader of the house seems to have declared himself on behalf of the government as the one who rises repeatedly to object to our participation in debate.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: He specialized in that
yesterday.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Laurier to address himself to the point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: I will, Mr. Speaker, but I was prefacing what I had to say with the statement that it seemed to me there had been too great an attempt on the part of the house leader and the government to stop members on this side of the house from speaking. The leader of the house has stated-


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member for Laurier that we are only dealing with the specific point of order which has been raised at this time. I think it is inappropriate to refer to previous points of order, though the hon. member may perhaps have a right to comment on a course of action.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe there were two points raised by the house leader. The latter one I will not deal with, namely that the amendment is out of order. The first one is that the hon. member was out of order in dealing with the subject he was discussing at the time he was interrupted. My point is that the amendment moved yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition is so broad and so wide because of the terms used such as "transportation facilities" and the reference to "social capital" as to include a discussion such as that which the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres has been carrying on. For that reason and with respect I submit to Your Honour that he should be allowed to continue his remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that while we have been debating the point of order the hon. member's time has expired, but I shall give him the time taken on the point of order. I think it would be inappropriate to deal with municipal finance on this amendment, but it is appropriate to discuss the amendment in so far as it deals with municipal improvements as a form of social capital. There is a distinction there. If it is a question of the fiscal relationships of municipalities, the house has taken a decision on that point, as has been pointed out, and I would ask the hon. member to keep to the material side of municipal social capital, that is works and improvements.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I had the impression that that was in fact what I was doing at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that the Clerk, who has kept the time taken by the point of order, indicates that the hon. member has four minutes more.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It might be interesting to read what the Prime Minister had to say on this problem as found at page 2777 of Hansard for March 28, 1957. He said:
Cities across the nation find themselves actually in a position where the costs of borrowing are making it impossible for them to carry on the ordinary and requisite expenditures to meet an ever-increasing population. What is the government going to do about it? What action does the government intend to take? It superintended the imposition of higher interest rates. It refuses to reduce its wasteful expenditure. It refuses, as I said a moment ago, to permit the setting up of either a commission or committees to recommend
National Development Policy
action. All of us agree with the objective, namely, that this situation must be met. The only difference between us is that we do not believe it can be met with a government that persists in spending and increasing its expenditures without regard to the effects of these increases.
I recall very well, Mr. Speaker, all the eloquence and finger shaking that accompanied the Prime Minister's words pronounced just a little over a year ago. But when we examine at length the billion dollar deficit, and when we realize that in spite of all the very fine oratory no mention was made of the municipalities' difficulties in borrowing money in the Prime Minister's national development program or elsewhere, we can very well wonder whether the Prime Minister is not placing much too much emphasis on oratory and not sufficient emphasis on logic.
The Prime Minister, of course, might have done a great deal worse than take the suggestion made by my leader yesterday of creating a municipal loan fund in order to make additional money available to municipalities at a reasonably low cost. This, I submit, would not only have provided money to permit municipalities to engage in necessary municipal projects, but also would have enabled them to provide work for the countless numbers of unemployed now plaguing each municipality. Certainly legislation along this line would not only have assisted municipalities in facing up to their increasing responsibilities but would have been an effective part of a practical, if not of a visionary, national development program.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed feelings. I am happy that I am given the opportunity to perhaps educate some of the hon. members opposite as to what is actually going on in parts of the northern territories of Canada. It rather made me a little sad while I was listening to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) to think that he thought we in the Yukon and Northwest Territories are something less than Canadians.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I never said that.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for
Richelieu-Vercheres stated in his remarks that these areas are uninhabited. I can assure him that they are inhabited, and I will have more to say about the remarks of some other hon. members of the Liberal party in that regard later. There are people there. These people are Canadians and they are proud of that fact. These people are pioneers. In some cases they have been there for 60 years waiting for someone with a little aggressiveness and gumption to come along and do something about developing the country.

National Development Policy All through the debate on the speech from the throne various hon. members opposite rose and ridiculed the vision we have been speaking about, not just in the weeks leading up to the last election but for years. They have ridiculed it as electioneering. They have reviled it out of jealousy that they did not have the foresight to plan it before this aggressive group did. They have scorned it as unimportant compared with other areas of Canada. They have scoffed at it so as to belittle its true importance to unity and to the necessity for national development. They have dismissed it as some sort of illusion or mirage. All these terms have been used.
But all along these same people who have used these terms have claimed the credit for the plans that are now being put into effect in the northern regions of Canada. They have claimed credit for these plans because they thought it was of some benefit to them to do so. Despite all this invective coming from the opposite benches they claim these plans as Liberal, as something good, so why do we have all the criticism? If the plans are good, and they must be good if they claim them as Liberal, then why do we have all the criticism?
I thought I might, for the benefit of some of the members, do a little take-off on the poems of Robert Service. I have four such compositions for which I should like to ask your forbearance. One of these I have composed concerns the lack of Liberal policy in the north, and it is a take-off on "Sam McGee", with apologies to Robert Service:
There was lots undone in the midnight sun By the government of old
The people up there had heard great tales- For twenty-two years they were told!
The northern lights have seen queer sights But the queerest they ever did see Was June the tenth-the reckonin' day Still no Liberal policy!
Now this great land for so many years Had heard these promises all And the trusting souls who lived up there Thought the Liberals on the ball But nary a plan was ever in sight Mapping northern development 'Til the P.C.'s came along one day And formed the government.
There are now things done in the midnight sun By the men who have the power Soon Arctic trails will tell their tales Of Yukon's finest hour.
For a national policy just can be We differ from Mr. Lesage And Lionel, there are others up there Excluding poor Sam on Lebarge.
Bold and fearless, sound and strong,
Must be our policy Impossible said Minister Lesage And Liberals all agreed.
Those in the north, they're just not there Said Mr. Chevrier too
But the biggest mistake that was made by far Was Mike's famed igloo.

Let me return to serious discussion for a moment and see what the policy was, or lack of policy, under the former administration. I refer to Hansard for February 12, 1957, page 1197-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Yesterday the leader of the house took exception to discussions of a retrospective character in this debate. He said that the motion dealt with the future and not with the past. It seems to me I shall have his full support in raising the question as to whether or not these discussions about the past have anything to do with the motion before the house.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is stretching my representations out of all recognition. What I objected to was the attempt by the hon. member for Laurier to make a speech on the St. Lawrence seaway project.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend wants me to raise the point of order before the house, I will do so now.


Mr. Speaker;: I seem to recall that the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition contained a reference to two or three stages of development in Canada, going back to confederation. I do not believe, therefore, we can rule out the past entirely if we are going to be consistent. With respect to the latest intervention by the hon. member for Yukon, perhaps we have different views about his poetic effort, and I appreciate there is some difficulty in working in such words as "the hon. member for Laurier" in any of Service's meters, nevertheless he should refrain from naming members by name. While perhaps I can look upon it as poetic licence, I hope he will not repeat the offence.


Erik Nielsen: My apologies to the hon. member for Laurier, if he did take offence at my poetic licence.


Lionel Chevrier: On the contrary, it was willingly accepted.


Erik Nielsen: The former minister,
Mr. Lesage, had this to say at page 1197 of Hansard for February 12, 1957:
Therefore, it is really since the post-war period that it has been possible to look forward to our northern development.
He further said that most of the development was made possible after the Liberal administration had been relieved of the pressures generated by the second world war. On page 1198 he went on to say:
Then there is the human problem of this population in the north. We cannot develop 40 per cent of Canada in five years-

No one has any quarrel with him there.
-I do not believe we can have people who are still living in the stone age transferred overnight to the atomic age.
Apparently this statement is along the same lines as the thinking of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. I should like to reiterate that we are not in the stone age in the Yukon. I am happy to see that the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) has just entered the chamber. I am sorry he was not here while the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was speaking, because I am sure he would have been disappointed to hear a member of his party advocate the position his party takes with respect to the north.
Then on page 1199 of Hansard, to which I have referred, Mr. Lesage said:
So the Leader of the Opposition wishes to have a national plan-an over-all master plan for the development and management of resources in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is up to the federal government to initiate, produce and administer such a national policy according to such a master plan.
We see here, clearly elucidated in the statement by the minister of northern affairs in the last administration, that a national development plan is impossible. Time after time the present Prime Minister has referred to the need for a national development policy. A brief sketch of the history of the proposals put forward from time to time when this party was in opposition is contained in a speech made by the present Prime Minister on February 11, 1957, commencing on page 1153 of Hansard. The Prime Minister went briefly over the history from the most recent representations back to June 16, 1952, when certain amendments were recorded containing statements connecting this party with definite policies.
At that time also the Gordon commission was discussed. The Prime Minister had this to say about it:
There has been a thunderous silence on the part of the government with respect to the action that it intends to take in this regard.
The reference is to the various proposals put forward by the Gordon commission with respect to national development and development of the north. It is only now that the Liberal party has come forward with anything concrete in the way of a national development policy, and that is in the form of this amendment. We have the former minister's statement that there can be no such national plan, yet we have the anomaly of this amendment which, incidentally, is being supported by the C.C.F. group and which is directly contrary to the policy expressed by the previous minister.
National Development Policy
I might say that that announcement of policy was made by the former minister during the throne speech debate during February of 1957, and the amendment was put forward by the present Prime Minister. This amendment, calling for a national development plan, was supported by the C.C.F. group. I realize that it is not proper to comment on the way in which any particular member of the house voted, but I may say here that at that time the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister was defeated by a vote of 121 to 67, the C.C.F. group voting as a whole with us.
We have also heard from the Leader of the Opposition and from the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres that the truth is, if the truth were known, that these plans concerning the north were not our plans at all but were the policies of the former government. I wonder whether they were the policies of the former government. Inasmuch as statements of the facts are not a monopoly of hon. members opposite, perhaps we might put some facts on the record as well.
I am now going to quote from a speech made by the hon. member who had the honour to represent the riding of Yukon in 1957 and who, as is obvious, was subsequently defeated. Perhaps this quotation which I am about to read will give an explanation why. I have spoken about the ridicule which has been heaped upon this idea of a vision of northern development. Let me read from the speech by Mr. Simmons on January 15, 1957, as reported at page 264 of Hansard of that date:
Just at this point I might say that the previous financial agreement between the federal government and the territorial government will expire on March 31 of this year. A new agreement will then come into effect. The agreement presently in force has most certainly failed to meet the present needs of this fast-developing territory because of the shortsighted, penny-pinching attitude of those people in the department who formulated the policy contained in the agreement when it was drawn up about five years ago. It is to be hoped that improved vision and better understanding will be displayed in connection with the drafting of the new fiscal arrangements.
That was a member of the Liberal party speaking about his own government of the day and their approach to northern development. He went on to say this with regard to the outlook for the north:
I have no doubt that the persistence which these oil explorers are known to possess, their skill and the money which they are willing to venture will lead to the discovery of further oil fields in this area.
Speaking about this risk capital, which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources spoke about yesterday and which the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres has

National Development Policy dismissed as figures which are being bandied about, may I remind hon. members opposite that the hon. member for Essex East has said that Right Hon. Mr. Howe, when he was in this house, said that this was a possible estimate as far back as three years ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Three years ago there was a boom.


Erik Nielsen: Hence when the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres makes statements to the effect that there are half truths and subterfuge, and when he perhaps accuses this party of creating misconceptions in the public mind, if I were that hon. member I would have regard to these facts.
Further as to this vision, and going back to Mr. Simmons, as reported at page 266 of Hansard, in speaking of the road program we find him saying this:
The road would be one of the most important projects that could be undertaken to promote the economic welfare and stability of .the northern Mackenzie river district,-
He is speaking of the self-same road that has received so much criticism, the one going through to the vicinity of Fort McPherson.
-as well as the northern Yukon areas. In fact it would be nothing less than culpable neglect on the part of the government to sidestep further this highly significant and very practical measure.
This is Mr. Simmons speaking, a member of the Liberal party.
If our north country is to be opened and developed in the way it should be, the federal government should assist the companies and individuals who are willing to risk capital in such ventures, especially in areas which are favourable to mineral development... .Development of its mineral resources has been retarded throughout the years by the lack of roads, the result of a lack of administrative vision__
The arrangement with the federal government on the Canol road-
About which I will have further remarks to make later.
-promised a maximum of $2,500 a year for maintenance, provided the company expended $2,500 a year. When it is considered that this sum was to provide for the maintenance of 150 miles of gravel road, including 21 timber bridges and 40 culverts,
it can be seen how niggardly this assistance is__
The indifference of those responsible for the maintenance of this asset is difficult to understand_
As far as is known, no maintenance has been provided by the federal or territorial governments during that time with the exception of the paltry sum I have previously mentioned.
Then at page 268 we find this:
Official thinking here in Ottawa has in the past fallen far short of meeting the real problem. There has not been the necessary vision on the part of officials to grasp the requirements of the situation.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the previous Liberal member for Yukon expounding what have

long been Conservative policies. Perhaps that is the reason for his acute criticism of the lack of action on the part of his colleagues who formed the last government.
As to national development and the national development policy itself may I say this. The Leader of the Opposition says that national development should not merely be centred on northern development. Again I would draw the hon. member's attention to the speech that was made by the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard of 1957, where over and over again he stressed the fact that a national development policy must have regard to a co-operative program of development entered into with the provinces and the territories. Hence it is wrong to create the illusion that this party is attempting to centre national development policy on Canada's north. Our policy is not centred on the northland. Certainly there is an emphasis which is being given to northern development, but there is not a centring there of all national development. One has only to look at such projects as the Beechwood project, the South Saskatchewan river dam and others that are in the making.
The Leader of the Opposition also stated that we should have a balanced policy. I do not mean to offer criticism of the Leader of the Opposition simply for the sake of criticism, but I say this. Even if it cannot be said, "Why didn't you do it", certainly one cannot stand idly by and hear a brand new policy being expounded by the Leader of the Opposition without drawing attention to the glaring fact that if this amendment which is now before the house constitutes a policy, it is the first time that any policy of national development has been expounded by anyone in the Liberal party.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I am sure the hon. member wiU want to be very fair in his observation. The Leader of the Opposition expounded a policy which was predicated in part upon the decline in public investment in Canada at the present time, which is quite a different situation.


Erik Nielsen: I was coming to that in a moment, and I was only making the point that the Leader of the Opposition did go so far as to say that there was now a change in the economic situation and that therefore we must have a flexible national development policy. That, indeed, is true, and I concede that much to the hon. member for Essex East; but I think he must agree with me that this is still the first time that any national development policy, as such, has been expounded by any member of the Liberal party.

The Leader of the Opposition gave a short review of what the policy had been in the past, and he spoke of the great advance in the development of the north immediately after the second world war. He spoke of housing and forest inventories, reforestation and fire prevention and all the grants therefor. Again I do not know whether a series of such accomplishments can be lumped together and called a policy. I do not believe so but I believe we can have a firm national development policy such as that expounded on February 12 by the present Prime Minister, and as recounted in the house yesterday by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources; firm but flexible. Indeed, I do believe that the program set forth by the minister is flexible enough to cope with any economic fluctuations which may occur in the national economy.
I only have to think of the possibility of the projected development at Coppermine, which I believe is what the Leader of the Opposition had in mind. When the economic situation develops to a point which would warrant such development a road will be extended to that area. That is the way the minister explained it; and when one speaks of a national development policy and national housing development I can only say that until this government came along there were, I believe, three units constructed under the National Housing Act in the whole of the Yukon territory. One can see how marvellously that legislation worked out in the Yukon. There are changes in sight which will enable low rental housing schemes to be put into effect, and in fact one such scheme has been authorized very recently by the present government and undoubtedly it will be implemented in the very near future.
The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres have both said that these plans are not new, and the hon. member for Mackenzie River interjected during the speech of the minister attributing certain advances in the north to the previous administration. At that time I wondered where was the Liberal plan for the Flat creek to Fort McPherson road; where was the plan of the previous administration for that road? Where was the plan for the construction of the bridge over the Yukon river at Carmacks? Where was the plan for the construction of the Pelly river bridge? Where was the plan for the construction of a bridge over the Stewart river, and where was the plan for the construction of the Flat creek road into Dawson by Rock Creek Bluffs? Where was the plan for the new schools which are going to be built in the
National Development Policy Yukon and where was the plan for the airport improvements which will be going forward up there? Where was the plan of the last administration for the improvement of the Elsa road and where was the plan for the improvement of the Dawson-Stewart road and the Tatchun creek bridge? The hon. member for Mackenzie River was holding up a map a moment ago; were these plans mere lines on a map?


Mr. Hardie:: I am looking at the report of the commissioner of the Yukon Territory to the Gordon commission.


Erik Nielsen: Where is this declared policy of the previous government? Where is the declared policy of the Liberal government to actively put these projects into effect? I defy any Liberal member to say that these projects had been planned actively by the past administration.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The Stewart-Cassiar road, did you say?


Erik Nielsen: No, I did not. I mentioned the Flat creek to Fort McPherson road, the bridge at Carmacks, the Pelly river bridge, the Stewart river bridge, the Flat creek road to Dawson, the schools, the airports, the improvement of the Elsa road, the Dawson-Stewart road and the Tatchun creek bridge. I might add that the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources have been increased by 400 per cent this year. These estimates have been increased by this government and not by the previous administration; and if these plans are Liberal plans, why did they not appear in the previous administration's estimates? Again I challenge any one of the Liberal members to show me the estimates where these projects are shown.
I would now like to read from Saturday Night of January 19, 1957, as follows: Northerners stress that the mineral resources of this vast hinterland should not be measured by the mines and prospects that have already been found, but by the geology of the region. Roughly a third of the Canadian shield, the area in which are located the Sudbury, Timmins and Noranda deposits, lies in the Territories-
And, northerners add, they are hampered by an outdated government policy. They charge government officials still are trying to make work the "rule of thumb" used 25 or 30 years ago.
"People on the outside look on the north as a romantic country developed by the government," said Norman Byrne, a mining consultant and veteran of 20 years in the north. "But what has the government done to develop the country? All the development here has been by private enterprise and not the government. Their policy seems to be 'You spend the money opening up the country, and then we'll think about helping you or paying you back'-just the opposite to the point of view the government should have."

National Development Policy And that point of view is held by this government.
Mr. Byrne charged the government seems to think mining is a promotion which doesn't always pay for itself. "The government seems to base its thinking-''
He is here speaking of the Liberal government of the day, of course.
"-on the premise that a mine must have a 10 or 20 year supply of ore in sight before it does anything to help the industry. The current thinking of leading mining men is that if a company has three or four years in sight, it is justified in bringing a property into production if production will pay for the gamble and provide a return on the money invested."
He stressed mining companies need help when they are struggling to get into production, when it is difficult to get the needed finances.
I would just like to make one comment while on this article in Saturday Night about the total lack of foresight and lack of policy on the part of the previous administration. During the war, a road and a pipe line were constructed up there, namely from Johnson's Crossing in Yukon Territory to Norman Wells. This road was constructed at a cost of roughly $500 million, and it was given to Canada at the end of the war. On this subject Saturday Night has this to say:
An example, now almost forgotten, is the construction of the Canol pipe line and road to carry Norman Wells oil to a refinery at Whitehorse, Yukon, during the second world war. Roughly half a billion dollars were poured into the mammoth task of pushing the line and road over the sawtooth Mackenzie mountains and across the muskeg and turbulent rivers.
When the war ended, the refinery was dismantled and shipped to Edmonton. Before the bridges were washed away and the roadbed crumbled, crews salvaged as much of the abandoned equipment and pipe as possible and disposed of it at distress prices. All that remains of this defence effort is an impassable road along which is strewn some obsolete and worthless equipment.
I am very happy to say that this road will be rehabilitated this year. In all fairness to the previous administration, they did plan to do this work and laid out about one-third of the money necessary for this purpose. They planned a visionary, active and aggressive three-year program for rehabilitation of this kind while there were ore beds in the territory awaiting development. It will be done in one year. This is a perfect example of the so-called planning that was conducted under the previous administration.
I promised the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that I would deal with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said yesterday. At page 1963 of yesterday's Hansard the Leader of the Opposition is reported as having said:
-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.
He went on to say:
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 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,-
That is stretching the truth of the program, in effect.
-but it is another thing to put forward a program of that kind especially when it is contained in estimates which already have been drawn up as a cure for the unemployment emergency.
I submit that this argument is fallacious. In attempting to explain away the reason why the Liberal party did not have a policy the Leader of the Opposition said that it was the desire of the Liberal administration- to quote the hon. gentleman's words:
-to postpone what could be reasonably postponed so it would not compete with the high level of private investment.
We can see how false that argument is because by not postponing the construction of the Flat Creek-Aklavik road we now have an investment of between $150 million and $250 million of private money being pumped into our economy.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he tell us when this sum of between $150 million and $200 million will be spent?


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member for Mackenzie River had been here throughout the entire course of the speech made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) yesterday, he would have the answer to his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no answer to that question.


Erik Nielsen: I might mention that I cannot understand the hon. member for Mackenzie River having the temerity to criticize this program, coming as he does from an area of Canada which is so very much in need of the type of development for which this program provides.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I asked you a question, my boy.


Erik Nielsen: I must also admit that I cannot understand either why hon. members of the C.C.F. group would support the motion they did during the throne speech debate on the last occasion on which the Liberal administration brought down a throne speech because in essence it was opposed to what they are supporting today.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


Erik Nielsen: It is on the record and you have only to read it. This political flexibility of the Liberal and C.C.F. parties has always amazed me. I sometimes like to refer to it not as a schizophrenic split personality but as a split morality.
The Leader of the Opposition also dealt with the national development program which was first expounded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on February 12, and as reported at page 1963 of yesterday's Hansard the Leader of the Opposition said:
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.
"A program of national development in the north," was not what was said by either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. They and other hon. members in this party have all along referred to a truly national development plan involving the co-operation of the provinces and the territories. Again I remind hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house and members of the public generally that the national development program of this government is not confined to the north.
One has only to look at the figures to realize how much development has been going on in years past. The expenditures by the previous administration in the construction of new Yukon roads in 1944-45 were $20,500; in 1955-56, $152,500; and in 1956-57, $75,000. The estimates for this year for the construction of roads in the Yukon territory total $452,000. The estimates of the previous administration for the last fiscal year for the construction of roads and bridges in the Yukon territory amounted to $480,941. The estimates for this year represent an expenditure of $3,138,600.
While time still permits I wish to refer to a pamphlet published by the national Liberal federation for use in the last election campaign entitled ''For Jobs, for Peace, Vote the Pearson Plan". I have read it from cover to cover and it contains this interesting statement:
Northern Development-A long-term program of northern development including prompt construction of a railroad to Great Slave lake.
This is the national development policy which was expounded afresh by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday? I thought perhaps hon. members opposite would eventually come to believe that the north represented an area worthwhile of development but on
National Development Policy the basis of the statements they have made I am disappointed. Perhaps I should not have been disappointed in view of an article which appeared in the London Free Press on February 18,	1958 under the headline,
"Charges 'Panic' of PC's Forced Winter Election." The article reports on a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on an occasion when he shared the platform with the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). The article reads in part as follows:
Joining him on the program was Lionel Chevrier, one-time transport minister and the federal Liberal party's top man in Quebec.
Mr. Chevrier suggested the party's election pledge of $400 million in tax cuts was a far better solution to unemployment problems than the Conservatives' national works program.
Unemployment was found in heavily-populated areas, such as Quebec. But the Conservatives were planning construction in far-off places, such as a $100 million highway in the Yukon vicinity "where there is nobody__and therefore no unemployment."
"Do the Conservatives intend to force the unemployed of our cities to leave for the far north of our country to find jobs?" he asked.
His remarks imply that the hon. member for Laurier does not feel that this is the way the people are thinking. We have already heard a great deal about the "igloo to igloo" statement.


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


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there was some time taken up in discussing a point of order while I was speaking and I wonder if I have been given credit for that time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Actually I was out of the chair so I cannot say. I am told that you already have had two minutes additional time. However, if you confine your remarks to a minimum and if it is the pleasure of the house to permit the hon. member to carry on I suppose this would be all right.


Erik Nielsen: I have just three or four minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to permit the hon. member for the Yukon to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you. I just have one word left concerning the demand for minerals, and I refer to an article in the U.S. News and World Report in support of the proposition of ours that as the demand is increasing, it is not wise to wait for the maximum development of that demand before this government starts to think about development roads. We have to keep ahead of the game. We cannot start building the roads when the demand is there; we have to anticipate the

National Development Policy demand. This is only prudent. This article in the U.S. News and World Report, a United States publication, describes the area of northern Canada and it goes on to say that:
United States planners heave a sigh of relief when they look at Canada's northwest.
In that great wilderness is a treasure trove of oil, nickel, copper, uranium and a host of other minerals that the United States needs in ever increasing quantities.
I quote this, Mr. Speaker, because we must look not only to the development of our resources for all Canadians in all parts of Canada but we must anticipate the demand and we must anticipate it in such a way that we shall maintain for Canadians now and in the future our economic sovereignty over the host of minerals that will be developed as a result of this program.
I close on this note, Mr. Speaker. We, in the Yukon at any rate, have long awaited the aggressiveness and the farsighted and visionary policies that this government is now putting forward and certainly the Yukon as well as the Northwest Territories, is just waiting to spill those riches into the lap of the waiting world. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, after having listened to the speeches of hon. members of the opposition so far in this debate, that we in the north can thank our lucky stars and the intelligent exercise of the franchise by the Canadian electorate on March 31 when they decided to accept the development policy of the present government, without which we would still be languishing, and I am sure in the future we would maintain, our position as a second-rate mineral producer. Thank you.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support the amendment proposed by my leader. In spite of expansion there seems to be a tendency to tighten and to restrict trade. This seems to be the appropriate time to get on with some of those works and needed facilities which could not be done during the golden age of Liberal prosperity because people we re busy doing other things; but I would like to speak particularly on transportation and specifically at the moment on the trans-Canada highway in the Atlantic provinces.
Even with the 50-50 formula, the building of the trans-Canada highway places very heavy burdens on the Atlantic provinces. The -90-10 support policy was not sufficient to relieve the pressure of this burden. My leader promised that if elected he would build 90 per cent of the mileage of the roads through the Atlantic provinces. I would like to request that if the government cannot see its way to carry out that policy, it at least consider giving additional help. In my own

province of Newfoundland I would suggest that perhaps if the government would take over a hundred miles of the trans-Canada highway, that is an additional 100 miles, it would give a great deal of aid which would be of great value in completing a very badly needed facility. It would aid in the speeding up of the building of the trans-Canada highway from coast to coast and would permit the provincial government to give more attention to roads leading to the smaller and more remote settlements where road transportation facilities are badly needed.
In addition to the trans-Canada highway as it is now, I would like to suggest that a road leading from Grand Falls up the great northern peninsula be built and considered as a part of the trans-Canada highway and that some means of transportation across the strait of Belle Isle might be considered. Perhaps the most feasible would be a ferry on the strait but the possibilities of a causeway, which has already been mentioned, or of tunnelling under the strait, should not be overlooked. I know that in . the future direct road communications between the island of Newfoundland and the mainland would be of great value.
In addition to roadbuilding in the island itself, there is strong reason to believe that a road built up the coast of Labrador would be very desirable. Perhaps for more immediate consideration we should think of air strips in Labrador. The forerunner of development is the float plane. After the float plane come the larger land planes which are required to bring in equipment needed to develop natural resources, and that indicates airstrips. Airstrips could very well be the forerunners of the roads to resources, the roads to development of the north, and I must admit I am particularly interested in the Labrador which, in a big way is my part of the north. It is also probably the oldest part of the north as far as our nation of Canada goes.
Then the matter of highways to supplement coastal services should be considered. This is not a new idea but I do hope that the idea, although it germinated during Liberal days, will not be overlooked. At the present time, at enormous cost, coastal steamers are built and operated, giving water transportation which has been traditional in Newfoundland for many years; but as roads begin to finger up the various and more remote parts of the island people are more and more desirous of having road communication. It is faster and more practical. Mail delivered by roads gets there faster than by boat, and I am not so sure that roads are more expensive than steamers. I would respectfully ask the government to consider the possibility of

using highroads to supplement at least in part coastal services by steamer.
Again, in connection with transportation, I would like to mention the harbour development in St. John's. My reason for mentioning this is that the schooner operators from White bay and Green bay are just as much interested in what happens in St. John's harbour as the people of St. John's themselves or anyone else.
Everyone seems to have a different opinion as to what should be done at St. John's and I suppose it requires a certain amount of temerity to mention the subject. But I am convinced that the plan prepared by the Department of Public Works is not only a good one but the correct one. There is only one possible criticism I can see, that it does not extend around the harbour far enough. But that is scarcely a criticism because if time and circumstance should make it desirable to extend it there is nothing to stop extension of work already done. Even the criticism that the wharf commonly called the Finger wharf, I believe, would restrict the room for schooners in the harbour at St. John's is not valid. Under this plan there would be room for schooners to berth instead of anchor and there would be the ideal harbour where every vessel could tie up and have access to the shore instead of anchoring in midstream. I hope the government will find it possible to go ahead without delay with the harbour work. It will not only facilitate trade but should mean lower handling costs and, finally, lower costs to consumers.
There is something else I should like to mention with regard to St. John's or, for that matter, any suitable port. That is the construction of a grain elevator with a flour mill. St. John's or any other suitable port in that general area would be ideally situated for the distribution of feed grains as well as flour. I would say that roughly a million people could be served by a flour mill in St. John's. Not only the maritimes but the West Indies and South America and Europe also could be supplied from the Newfoundland port during the winter when the St. Lawrence is closed to navigation.
Far from hurting Nova Scotia it should promote and improve trade between Halifax and St. John's because it would provide return trade. Two-way trade would bring down freight rates generally and should stimulate trade between the maritime provinces and Newfoundland. The result would be that all the Atlantic provinces would benefit. One point often overlooked particularly when looking at a flat map but which is easily understandable when looking at a globe is that the
8, 1958
National Development Policy port of St. John's is nearer to South America by several hundred miles, I believe, than is the port of New York.
I mentioned air strips a minute ago and I should like to come back to the matter of air services in Newfoundland. Air services in a province such as ours are much more important than in some of the other provinces of Canada. Quite frequently the only reasonably fast communication is by air. Eastern Provincial Airways, the local air line, has done a magnificent job in providing a triangular service in Newfoundland as well as service right down the whole coast of Labrador. The stories of their many mercy flights are legion. Suffice it to say that they have rendered a service unequalled and have brought much needed amenities to the people they serve which heretofore they had to do without. Their big handicap is that during the seasons of freeze-up and break-up it is impossible to operate on either floats or skis. Therefore their service is restricted with considerable discomfort to the public. What is indicated is either the building of air-strips or, what is probably more feasible, the provision of helicopter service during the periods I have mentioned.
Some of the projects I have named are of considerable magnitude and will be costly but I am sure that in a world which is actively considering colonizing the moon it is not too much to ask that development take place within our own realm.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened with great interest to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and also to the wording of the amendment. You know, it is strange what great changes come over one when he moves across the floor of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have noticed that.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose that works both ways.


An hon. Member:: It certainly does.


Howard Charles Green: But here we were yesterday listening to the leader of the Liberal party moving by way of an amendment what he described as a national development policy. My thoughts went back to the amendments we moved on several occasions when we were in opposition urging the government of that time to adopt a national policy. We thought we had a patent on national development policy. Therefore it is quite a shock to find the Liberals of all people now coming forward and making a great outcry in support of a national development policy.


Murdo William Martin: Our provocation is greater than yours was when you were on this side.

National Development Policy


Howard Charles Green: I am interested to see how the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) turns himself into a chameleon when he speaks on this amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, I have no intention.


Howard Charles Green: Our proposals for a national development policy, of course, were a great deal more-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nebulous.


Howard Charles Green: -Canadian, vigorous and beneficial to the country than this milk and water amendment brought in by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I have here a copy of a real national development policy amendment which we moved about a year and a half ago on February 11, 1957. It was in these words:
-that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources, and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
That amendment, Mr. Speaker, represented the thinking of the Conservative party when in opposition. It represents our thinking today and it emphasizes what we have been trying to do as a government during the last 12 months. It also points to the path that we shall be following in the years that lie ahead. We really do not need any amendment such as that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday to help us on the way. I refer members to this strange amendment which reads:
This house is of the opinion that, in present circumstances of declining private investment, a balanced policy of national development-
Just what he means by "a balanced policy" nobody knows, unless it was intended to appeal to different parts of the country in the way in which those different parts would prefer to interpret it.
-requires consideration by the government of active measures to meet the urgent needs of social capital-
We did not get a definition of that. I believe this is a favourite expression of Professor Lamontagne-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And also of the minister of northern affairs.


Howard Charles Green: -economic adviser to the
Liberal party at the present time. The use of these words makes me wonder whether or not he wrote the speech the Leader of the Opposition gave yesterday. Here we have:
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
-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.


Mr. Cardiff:: Perhaps it was Knowles who wrote the speech?


Howard Charles Green: I never thought of that. It is now suggested that perhaps Mr. Stanley Knowles wrote the speech. He may have had something to do with it, but I believe he would have written a much better one if he had had anything to do with the drafting. This reference to social capital had one strange effect which perhaps hon. members might have noticed. It was just like a great big piece of bait on a fish hook for the C.C.F. group and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) rose to the bait and swallowed it, hook, line and sinker, without batting an eyelash.


John Richard Garland: Will the minister permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if he would care to say how many times his own Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) referred to this term "social capital" in his budget address?


Howard Charles Green: I do not keep track of how many times my colleagues refer to social capital. They may have caught this bad idea from the other side of the house. In any event, it would be extremely helpful to have a definition of just what social capital means. If it means the same thing to the Leader of the Opposition as it means to the members of the C.C.F., then we are witnessing quite a change across the floor of the House of Commons. We may be witnessing the first exciting hours of a courtship between these two forlorn opposition parties.
However, I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition and his social capitalists that he had better be careful about getting too friendly with these people over in the corner.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what got you into office, was it not, under the leadership of Stanley Knowles?


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the Liberal party is never going to get into office on an amendment such as the one it moved yesterday. I have here a statement of just what this group in the corner stand for, and what they mean when they talk about social capital. The heading is "Capitalism still target of C.C.F.". The article is from the Vancouver Province of June 2, 1958. At that time, at their provincial meeting, they passed the following resolution:
The C.C.F. will not rest content until capitalism has been eradicated and the lull program of socialistic planning has been instituted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. The leader opposite has been very eloquent on subjects which are not germane to the amendment before the house, and certainly an academic discussion of socialism could, by no stretch of even the ingenious imagination of the leader opposite, be considered to be germane.


Howard Charles Green: I was commenting on the fact that these two opposition parties rushed into each other's arms so quickly yesterday when this amendment was put forward. I am simply trying to warn Liberals of the great danger of this courtship. In so far as the member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is concerned, he has said some peculiar things at times, Mr. Speaker. I have here a statement he made on April 15, 1956, which is headed "Liberals victory good for mankind, Pickersgill says":
Immigration Minister Pickersgill said Saturday-
Speaking to the Young Liberals in Toronto.
-"It is not merely for the well-being of Canadians but for the good of mankind in general that the present Liberal government should remain in office."
This illustrates the lack of judgment and what a false prophet the hon. member really is. Mankind seems to be doing much better now than it was two years ago under the government of which he was a member.


John Richard Garland: Whom do you think you are kidding?


Mr. Bourgei:: It has been good for 22 years.


Howard Charles Green: I have something that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said, too. Two years ago these ex-ministers were riding very high. Speaking to some Liberals in Vancouver-they are hard to find now, but at that time there were quite a few- the hon. member said:
The smiling minister told a rally in Mount Pleasant memorial hall the Conservative party is "already bankrupt". He foresaw little opposition to the Liberals in the next national election.
"There is no Conservative party today", he said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since the minister is in a good mood, I may tell him I was seeking to say that the Conservative party, under men like Borden and Bennett, had disappeared and the Conservative party, in its effort to get into power, had simply adopted Liberal policies and, I might say, quite cleverly Liberal tactics.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member, naturally, is very clever, but this alibi two years later does not ring true at all.
In any event, here we are considering this very pale imitation of a national development policy amendment. I do not believe that very many people across the country,
National Development Policy or even across the floor of this house, are going to take it very seriously. There has been a good deal of discussion about whether the government has done this or has done that to bring about the development of the country. Naturally, there are differences of opinion. We believe that a great deal has been done in the few months we have been in office. Certainly, no one ever tried harder to get things done, and I think that is true of the officials in the departments. I doubt if there has ever been a time in Canadian history when a more honest, genuine and sincere attempt has been made to further developments of every kind across the nation.
In spite of the weeping and wailing we hear from across the way, there has been quite a bit of comment. We have heard from various members of the opposition that all these works projects were a myth, that they will not be undertaken for months or perhaps for years and that there is nothing to be seen of them across the country and nobody is being put to work. I have here a dispatch of June 20 from the "Daily Commercial News and Building Record" dealing with the construction that is actually going on in Canada:
Canada's 51 builders' exchanges in the near future probably will be more active than ever due to a shot in the arm in the shape of current predictions that the nation's construction program for 1958 will total a record $7,136 million. The official prediction makes the 1958 total top last year's $7,048 million by 1.3 per cent.
Surely, in all fairness, Canada having a record year in the construction industry in 1958, the government is entitled to some credit for that result. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the actions of the government have played a large part in that result. Then in yesterday's Gazette, under the heading "Canadian Construction Record Set as 20 p.c. Gain Reported", we find the following:
Canada's construction industry is continuing to set records. The total cumulative dollar volume of contract awards for the first half of 1958 is the largest ever listed.
This is in a time when business is not as good as it had been, a time when we are in recession. Yet we find the construction industry this year doing more than it has ever done before in the history of Canada. The article continues:
Statistics compiled from Hugh C. MacLean Building Reports show that the 1958 six-month total of construction contract awards is $1,683,261,700, 20 per cent higher than it was at the end of this period last year, and four per cent higher than it was in 1956, the previous record year for the first six months' total.
So much for construction generally. We are very proud of those figures and I think we
2022	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy have good reason to be proud of them. We hope they will be even better as 1958 goes on.
Then I wish to say a few words about one branch of the construction industry, and incidentally I may say it is a branch in which there has been the greatest increase since this government took office. I refer to the house building branch. Here I suppose we have an example of social capital. I presume that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) would agree that money advanced by the government for purposes of house building would be included in this mysterious classification of social capital.
As hon. members know,-and I do not intend to repeat at any length today-the government decided last August to initiate a small home loan policy. That policy has been extremely successful. The figures for loans under this policy, up to the time when we practically ran out of money in May, are $255,009,800 for a total of 26,030 units. This money would not have been spent had the government not adopted the policy we did adopt for small home loans.


Maurice Bourget: You cannot say that.


Howard Charles Green: I can say that. Practically none of it would have been spent had it not been for the policy adopted by this government.


Maurice Bourget: You have not shown that.


Howard Charles Green: Moneys were being spent for other types of housing but this was a brand new policy devised by a brand new government which was a great improvement on the old government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Pearson:: The minister has unlimited time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was this policy not
embodied in the statute which the minister found on the statute books?


Howard Charles Green: This policy was embalmed by the former government in the statute books and that is exactly where it would have been if the former government had continued in office.
There are certain features about this small home loan plan which deserve comment before I go on to show what has happened since May. In comparing the average income of the person who benefitted under the small home loan plan with that of the home owner taking out an ordinary insured loan, we find that under the small home loan plan the average income is $4,986 whereas the income of the average person getting a loan


under the insured provision is $5,997, over $1,000 a year higher. The average cost of this small home is $12,905 compared with $15,337 for the person getting a loan under the ordinary N.H.A. provisions. These comparisons are for the first quarter of 1958. The average loan under the small home loan plan was $10,706 and under the N.H.A. ordinary provisions it was $11,609. The average down payment-and here is the greatest difference-under the small home loan plan in the first three months of this year was $2,199 and under the insured plan under the ordinary N.H.A. provision it was $3,728, a difference of over $1,500.
As hon. members know we came to the house in May, shortly after this session commenced, and asked for additional funds. We were given another $350 million. Since May 22, which was approximately when the funds first became available-and mind you, there was roughly $10 million remaining of the old fund-to July 4, which is a period of six weeks, money has been lent for cleaning up the small home plan as it formerly was- that is the money being lent out with the lending institutions and banks acting as agents-to an amount of $23,328,451 for a total of 1961 units. This is within the last six weeks.


John Richard Garland: Does that mean that only $13 million of the new $350 million that parliament approved has been used? The minister said $10 million was carried over.


Howard Charles Green: No, approximately $23,300,000 has been put out in order to wind up the old agency loan plan. In addition to that, $16,177,299 has been put out under our new residual plan which could really be divided into three parts: First, that part for cities and towns with populations of under 55,000, for which part the figure is $6,114,309; then for home owners in cities of over 55,000 population, the figure is $1,615,414; for builders both in cities of over 55,000 and centres under that figure-mind you, in the case of those builders the loans can only be made on small homes-the total is $8,447,576. That means a: total of residual loans under our revised plan since May 22 of $16,177,299.
There is a third category under the limited dividend corporation plan which, as hon. members know, provides rental accommodation for the lower income groups, under which $10,816,738 has been put out. Those figures, to provide for the winding up of the agency loan plan, the new residual plan and the limited dividend plan, give a total of $50,322,488 since May 22, 1958.


John Richard Garland: Is it correct, then, that $40 million was used out of this figure of $350 million?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. That amounts to something around $40 million already used of the $350 million voted by this house in May.
We have tried, as a result of the debate which took place in this house when we were getting this additional money, to make the new residual loans available to a far greater extent in the smaller centres. With that objective in mind officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have written to the mayor or the reeve of every centre of over 1,500 people in this country pointing out that this plan is available for the Canadians who live in those smaller centres, forwarding leaflets to them and offering to have officials visit those centres to speak to meetings or to advise city or town councils and render whatever assistance is possible. This, I believe, is having the desired effect, and it now looks as though we will be doing a great deal more lending in the small centres across the country.
In addition, steps have been taken to popularize the smaller home. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation participated in the construction of two sample cheaper homes, and we are hoping that there will be a move towards the building of such homes which will bring the benefit of our housing policy within the reach of a group of Canadians with much smaller incomes than those receiving loans at the present time.


John Richard Garland: Would the minister permit a question on this point. Is it the intention that these lower cost or lower quality homes will be made available throughout the country or only in rural areas?


Howard Charles Green: We are hoping they will be adopted in all parts of Canada, in the smaller centres as well as in the rural areas.


John Richard Garland: The minister will recognize that they will not always be acceptable.


Howard Charles Green: If they are not acceptable we cannot do much about it.


John Richard Garland: In many of the urban areas they will not meet the required standards.


Howard Charles Green: If they are not acceptable what we can do is very limited.
Another very encouraging sign is that in the Atlantic provinces there has been a great increase in the number of requests for loans. We were worried last year because these small home loans were not being taken up in the Atlantic provinces in as large proportions as in other parts of Canada. In the first 25 weeks of 1958, 880 applications for loans of all kinds were received from the Atlantic provinces, in which the National
National Development Policy Housing Act was involved, as compared with 357 applications last year. This is an increase of 146.5 per cent, and we are very much encouraged by this improvement.
Housing starts have shot up. You know, you would not think there was any recession within 10,000 miles of Canada when you consider the housing picture. Housing starts in urban centres during the first half of 1958 were 66 per cent higher than in the corresponding period in 1957. A similar increase is estimated for the rural areas and the prospect for the year as a whole is for starts in excess of 140,000 units.
We were worried as to whether these small homes would sell, and whether as a result of this policy we might find a lot of homes would be unsold across the country. Sales have been good despite a higher level of completions this year, and the inventory of unoccupied houses has declined. At the end of May there were 2,144 dwellings unoccupied for one month or more. A year ago in that category there were 2,662 dwellings.
This all goes to show that the policies of this government have been wise and that the country is not enveloped in a great black cloud as one would gather from listening to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues across the way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Look at the level of unemployment and you will see.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, I know the hon. member takes a great deal of pleasure from that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister takes a great deal of pleasure from ignoring it.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian construction
association, which is a non-partisan organization and a splendid one, has this to say:
1957 was a difficult year for the housebuilding section of the construction industry and demonstrated the very considerable way in which the level of residential construction is dependent upon government policy. Had it not been for the timely and vigorous approach to the problem of a shortage of private mortgage funds by the government in August, it is apparent that the volume of house building and employment would have been much lower during the fall and winter months. Like most years, 1957 was affected by a number of conflicting influences in the housing field; some good and some bad. On balance, the favourable factors had won out by the end of the year. Completions rose to over 117,000 compared with a predicted total of 100,000, and the large number of housing starts in the second half of the year and a predicted decrease in competing demands for investment funds gave promise of an increased housing program in 1958.
I forgot to mention that the ordinary loans under the National Housing Act have also been greatly increased this year. Ordinary

National Development Policy National Housing Act loans for the first twenty-seven weeks of last year numbered 13,002 and for the first twenty-seven weeks of this year they numbered 25,121, almost double last year's total.
I have outlined the attempts the government has made to implement a national development policy so far as construction is concerned and particularly housebuilding which is the biggest industry in Canada in these modern times. The government has taken the same approach in every other field of governmental activity including northern affairs, transport and defence production. The same approach was taken in all the activities that were undertaken by the government.
I plead with the Leader of the Opposition not to be so downhearted and pessimistic about Canada. It is terrible to see one with such a lighthearted, genial and cheery character trying to shed crocodile tears all over the House of Commons. It is not fitting. It is not in character at all for him to be acting like that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And it is not fitting for you to say that.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask him to take a look at the current issue of Time magazine. On the first page in the "Canadian Affairs" section there is a lovely picture of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) and an article entitled "Fading Recession" which appears in the column entitled "The Realm". The first sentence in that article reads:
Canada's spring recovery was surpassing the brightest forecasts of the experts.
Under the picture of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Mr. Burk the following words appear:
The nation was building its way out of the slump.
And today we have the current issue of the U.S. News and World Report dated July 11.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can you not quote a Canadian magazine?


Howard Charles Green: I thought perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might more readily believe a United States magazine than a Canadian. I have here the current issue of the U.S. News and World Report and I think even the Leader of the Opposition will admit that this is one of the most reliable magazines printed today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You certainly got your signals mixed on the 15 per cent.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, you would not know anything about this. Under the heading, "Business Around the World" the following article appears in that magazine:

To show you bow fast Canada is bouncing back . . .
More jobs opened up this spring than in any spring since 1952. Jobless total declined in May to 6 per cent of employables, is probably lower today.
Consumer spending is running higher than in 1957.
Housing starts shot up a sensational 84 per cent in first four months of 1958 over 1957. Housing expenditures in early 1958 were up 20 per cent.
Capital spending in 1958 will probably top $8.5 billion-only $200 million below the high level of 1957. Industrial outlays for plant and equipment are under the 1957 rate, but government spending is offsetting private cutbacks.
Canada's exports are running at the second-highest level on record.
And Canada's dollar is up-in excess of four cents over the United States dollar.
This gives you a glimpse of the record which Prime Minister Diefenbaker has available for President Eisenhower during his visit to Ottawa.
The turn in Canada, actually, came early this year, just when the outlook for U.S. business seemed bleakest. Canada's slump began about six months before the United States recession-
The government of Canada at that time was worse than the government in the United States, I presume. I continue:
-hit bottom in December, now is turning into
recovery.
Note this, though: From peak of boom to bottom of slump, industrial output in Canada dropped 7 per cent, but in the United States, 13 per cent. While housing has stayed up in the United States, it has zoomed in Canada. Then, while United States exports have dropped off sharply, Canada's have remained surprisingly high.
Ottawa's explanation for the Canadian pickup: The Canadian government has gone in vigorously for pump priming. This has spurred housing, kept consumer spending and farm incomes high, boosted capital expenditures as well.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question. Does the minister know whether that magazine is contemplating a Canadian edition?


Howard Charles Green: I would not know about that, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues across the way are much greater experts on the question of United States magazines than anybody over here.


John Richard Garland: Maybe your picture will be in the next issue.


Howard Charles Green: You know, instead of being faced with a vote of no confidence for our national development policy and instead of the phony imitation move made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in bringing in his amendment, the government should have had a vote of confidence from hon. members opposite.


Hazen Robert Argue: All Tories together.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but as I interpret standing order 31 the right of a minister to

speak for more than 40 minutes was exhausted by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) and therefore I am obliged to advise the Minister of Public Works that his time has expired.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had concluded my remarks, in any event.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was a good note on which to end.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, before launching my brief contribution to this debate I should like to make reference to a few points that were raised by hon. gentlemen opposite and particularly by those members of the cabinet who spoke. First of all I should like to make reference to something that was said yesterday by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton). The hon. gentleman was referring to remarks that had been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) and myself, and as reported at page 1978 of yesterday's Hansard the minister said:
-and all the little echoes and all the little parts of Canada where all the little minds come from answered in tune.
That is a classic example of the arrogance and insult that northern Ontario will not tolerate. That may be in large part the reason why no hon. members on the government side of the house represent ridings in northern Ontario. Northern Ontario may not have caught the vision expounded upon by the minister yesterday for a very valid reason. Perhaps the people in that part of the country have had a sorry experience in the past with visions similar to that outlined by the minister. They have seen a government open up a part of the country and turn it over to what government members like to describe as free enterprise. They have seen fortunes and resources cleared out of those areas leaving in their wake the wrecks of human lives which were employed and exploited in those areas and the fortunes and profits amassed there by so-called free enterprisers have gone to build up other parts of the country.
I recall the remarks of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the committee on mines, forests and waters when he pointed out the mistakes that had been made in the United States.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe the hon. member is entitled to discuss the evidence heard in a committee of this house until such time as the committee has completed its investigation and reported back to the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Sit down, junior.
57071-3-128
National Development Policy


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who has the floor is embarking on a discussion of matters before a committee of this house which has not yet reported he would not be in order.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, let us put it this way. The errors made in the United States in the last 50 years and the way in which they have squandered their natural resources are common knowledge. It is to be hoped that this program of northern development will not be a repetition of what has happened in the United States. Let us hope that this government will have the foresight and the vision, if you want to call it that, to ensure that the same thing does not happen in this country; that we do not squander our wonderful wealth of natural resources as the United States has done.
There is one other small aspect of this northern development which was drawn to my attention just last weekend. I was talking to a gentleman from the Timmins riding who is a silicosis pensioner, living on a pension of roughly $102 a month. He happens to live quite close to the crossroads where highway 11 branches off highway 101 going north through Cochrane and Kapuskasing and the trans-Canada highway. As a result of the position of his home his house is the first place hit by the unemployed from southern Ontario and other parts of Canada who, hoping and trusting in this vision, may think there is some employment for them in the northern part of the country. When they hitch-hike a ride to this crossroads they get off to look for further lifts up the highway and they generally stop in at this old gentleman's place to try to get a cup of coffee or something to eat. He took the trouble last weekend to count the people who stopped at his house asking for something to eat and the number totalled 47. With his pension he does not have too much to feed himself and his family but fortunately, contrary to the present decision of the government which has refused to extend any unemployment insurance benefits to the people whose benefits have run out, at least he never turned them away. He gave them a sandwich before they went on their way.


An hon. Member:: He must have been a Conservative.


Murdo William Martin: He happens to be a paid up member of the C.C.F. and has been for years.
We also had an interesting example yesterday of an interjection from the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) who seems to be carrying on a contest with the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) as to

National Development Policy which one of them can drag up the old chestnut of the box factory in Saskatchewan.
I must say that they make me a little bit homesick. . They remind me so much of my mother-in-law's parrot. He is 31 years of age and he knows only one question, but he repeats it very often, very loud and very clear. It is not interested in getting an answer, just in asking the question.
We also had an example last night of the amazement demonstrated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). I turn to page 1996 of Hansard, where I find the following:
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.
It is rather strange to see this amazement on the part of the minister because I know he was in the house at the very time that this matter was debated by Mr. Owen Jones, the former C.C.F. member for Okanagan Boundary, and also by Mr. Fred Zaplitny, the former member for Dauphin. If hon. members will take the trouble to look up page 3502 of Hansard of April 12, 1957, and page 3448 of April 11, 1957, they will see that members of this group very clearly expounded the case for the small businessman of this country.
I would also like to remind the minister that the amazement which he expressed yesterday was expressed better, I might say, by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), I think it was, as his contribution to the debate on that day. It seems so strange but hon. members know, or at least should know, that the very backbone of the C.C.F. party has been the small businessman across the country.
Then, of course, we had the reference by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) today. Like the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker), he took great glee in referring to some decision made by the C.C.F. party of British Columbia. I find it very strange that their memories do not go back to a recent decision made by the Progressive Conservative party of British Columbia which apparently did not sit too well with the rest of the Progressive Conservatives across the country.
I was very pleased to hear the minister speak of the tremendous improvement in housing in this country. I would like to suggest, that possibly the same treatment might be handed out to small business that was given to the housing industry in this country. If the government could see its way to extend the same assistance to the small businesses in this country that they have given to housing, then we might see the same beneficial results accruing therefrom.

Contrary to what hon. members may believe and certainly contrary to what they state across this country, the C.C.F. party has never been against free enterprise.


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


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The hon. member is asking for something, and as a matter of fact we had the question yesterday. What is the percentage of small business that requires the help the hon. member is speaking about? If the government does not know the percentage how can the help be given?


Hazen Robert Argue: The retail merchants association says almost all of them.


John (Jack) McIntosh: To what did the hon. member refer?


Hazen Robert Argue: The retail merchants association.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What authority has the hon. member for saying that?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will quote it to the house the next day the subject is discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; we cannot have a debate of this kind. The hon. member who has the floor may continue.


Murdo William Martin: I recall hon. members on the government side appearing to be quite interested in questioning each and every one of this group who rises in his place as to what is his particular definition of a certain thing. I would suggest they look up the debate of April 11 and 12 of last year, which I mentioned before, where I think they will find much of the information and data they are requesting at the present time. I could have put it on Hansard again but there are other members who wish to speak in this debate and I do not want to take up any more of the time of the house than is necessary. Certainly, today the small businessmen in the country are in a very serious condition. They are being squeezed out right and left by huge corporations which are sprawling across the country. The point might be made that these large corporations may be more efficient, and I will not deny it. But I do not believe that efficiency and efficiency only should be the sole yardstick in this matter. I think the personal service of the small storekeeper, the small shop, is something that we should make every effort to hang onto in this country.
As I mentioned before, contrary to what is preached about this group, we are not against free enterprise as free enterprise. We are, and always have been and will continue to be, against monopoly enterprise which chokes the very life out of free enterprise.

Apparently, hon. members on the government side are unable to differentiate between the two.
I could go into further detail on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I will merely refer to a chart prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics showing the percentage of increase or decrease in respect of independents and corporate chains in this country. For Canada as a whole I find that from 1951 to 1956 corporate chains increased from 35 per cent to 41 per cent and as a result independents decreased from 65 per cent to 59 per cent. I find that in my own province of Ontario the rate of change is even faster. In that same period from 1951 to 1956 corporate chains increased from 49 per cent to 56 per cent and as a result the independents were reduced from 51 per cent to 44 per cent.
I say it is high time that the government of the country should look into the matter and provide some form of assistance to the small businessman who really is the true, free enterpriser. The government should make sure that some effort is made to give small businessmen a hand before they become extinct.


Mr. Paul Marlineau (Poniiac-Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words to point out some of the contradictions and confusion that certainly exist in the minds of some of the members of the C.C.F. group. We have before the house an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). He wishes to add certain words to the motion of nonconfidence of the Liberal opposition, those words being "long term loans to qualifying small businesses".
When the hon. member for Kootenay West first got up he congratulated the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for his efforts, as he put it, to rescue this country from the deficiencies of private enterprise. He even went so far as to state that he would issue a membership ticket to the Leader of the Opposition. He had no sooner finished that statement than he started to expound how the amendment put forward by his party could save that same private enterprise about which he was talking.
There is also a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of the members of the C.C.F. party as to what may constitute a qualifying small business. The hon. member for Kootenay West stated that it was a business primarily interested in the local community. He also said it was a business that did not call on foreign or exterior capital and also was a business that would reinvest all its profits in the locality. In answer to a question at the end of his speech he said that a small business was a business that 57071-3-128J
National Development Policy could not issue shares or float loans by means of debentures or bonds.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am not an exponent or particular friend of big business but I do know that big business as it exists and is organized today is certainly most vitally interested in the community in which it engages in its activities. As everyone knows, when a business locates in a particular place it employs local labour. Every effort is always made to find among the local population all the help that the industry needs. It is also the employees of so-called big business, which in the minds of the C.C.F. members represents such a menace to this country who are most active in all social welfare activities. You see them as heads and directors of social clubs. You see them everywhere taking the interests of the community to heart. Certainly they are the first contributors to all public campaigns where contributions are necessary to help worthy causes in the particular area.
If so-called big business has had to call on foreign capital it is because such capital was not available where the resource was being developed, the mill was established or the plant or industry happened to be. It is because capital could not be found locally that they have applied for and in certain cases obtained capital from exterior sources. There is absolutely nothing wrong about such a procedure.
The hon. member went further and said that the profits of small businesses are reinvested locally. That may or may not be so. In many cases the owners of so-called small businesses do not even live where the profits are made. These businesses, although small, may be controlled from a distance and the profits that the owners make may certainly be reinvested elsewhere, even outside the country. Therefore that is not a true definition of what a qualifying small business may be.
Nor is the definition any more accurate when the hon. member states that it is a business that cannot issue shares or raise loans by debentures or bonds. As we know, many small businesses today are incorporated. The shares may belong wholly only to one, two or three persons. Yet these incorporated businesses can issue shares and raise money by bonds while at the same time remaining small businesses. That was one definition given to us as to what constitutes a small business.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) gave another definition in answer to a question. He said that in the United States a small business is one that has a turnover of less than $5 million. He went on to say that in Canada it might be only
2028	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy $1 million or a business that has assets valued at from $25,000 to $50,000. To my way of thinking, businesses that would be in the upper bracket of that category certainly would not be small businesses. Moreover, is it not logical to conclude that businesses with an annual production of close to $1 million or with assets worth from $25,000 to $50,000 can certainly negotiate at the banks any type of loan they may require? Therefore I suggest that before proposing any such subamendment the C.C.F. group should have got together on the basic tenets underlying it. It is indeed most surprising to see private enterprise being championed in the house by the C.C.F. group.
Again I cannot fail to note the rather startling contradiction in their thinking. They come before the house and tell us that small business needs assistance. Why does it need this assistance? It needs assistance to help it to grow. If it grows, then it becomes big business. If the C.C.F. party ever came to power, would they not then have to take measures to stop that so-called small business or industry from developing and becoming big business?
I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that the solicitude of the C.C.F. party for small business is of recent origin. I note that the hon. member for Kootenay West has declared that quite recently, and I emphasize those words "quite recently", the philosophy and program of the C.C.F. has recognized the importance of the small business sector of our economy as part of a mixed economy. He went on to say that some people might remark that he had become somewhat mixed in his thinking. I believe that is what has occurred. I feel that the particular consideration given by that group to small business has no other origin than the announced intention of the labour congress not long ago to form a new political party for which strength would be drawn from the labour, professional and farm groups and groups of small businessmen. I think that is the real interest. When such appeals are made in this house for support for small business, it is nothing less than a political move.
The party of which I am a member, and which presently forms the government, is really the party that has befriended private enterprise and small business for a great number of years. Surely, the members who sit on the government side are not business tycoons or business magnates. They are simply representatives of the spirit of small private enterprise which makes up the strength of this country. They do not need lessons from the C.C.F. group in order to support the interests of small business. The only remark I can make about this strange
[Mr. Martineau.l

marriage between the C.C.F. group and small business is that politics will often make strange bedfellows.
The speech from the throne contained an announcement that a sort of advisory council would be created for small business to study the needs of this section of our economy. I have no doubt whatever that amongst those needs which will be studied will be the need of small business for long term borrowings. I submit that before we adopt measures extending loans to small business we should form this small business section, which will be composed of specialists, to ascertain what are the real needs of small business in the way of an expansion of credit. Once these things have been made known, then the appropriate legislative measures can be taken.
Again I emphasize the fact that small businesses do need a lot of help and a lot of consideration from this government. I submit that they have been getting it and they will get it in a form which is traditional to our way of thinking. This help certainly should not smell of socialism or of state enterprise. I believe it is not the role of government to go into the business of lending money in the way the subamendment suggests. Government should rather create the means, provide the climate, in which small businesses may find the credit that they need.
Recently an excellent brief was presented by the Canadian tourist association in which they recommended the government should guarantee loans through chartered banks to the operators of small tourist industries. Now that is one possible solution and it could be extended to other sections of small business. It may not be a sound solution because the chartered banks are not always ready, because of the way they are made up and because of the necessity to maintain liquid assets, to extend long term loans.
Perhaps another solution to this problem of extending credit to small businesses would be for the government to guarantee the debentures or bonds which could be issued by small businesses, much in the same way that some governments guarantee bonds that are issued by municipal or school corporations. However, before we can adopt any of these means, a thorough study must be made of the part that small businesses must play in our growing country, a country which, by the very fact it is growing, has become more and more complex every year to administer. I do not feel we should condone the habit into which the C.C.F. has fallen of looking upon big business as some kind of giant juggernaut that is overrunning this country. If

we get down to the basic facts, if we get lists of the shareholders of the so-called big corporations, we find that in the great majority of cases the shareholders are made up of thousands of small investors and employees of these corporations across the country. Really, it is the people from every section that constitute the so-called big business.
I do not believe the need exists any longer, at least in this party, to condone any of the excesses of monopolies or of big businesses because our party has a record of rising in opposition at any time when big businesses overran the legitimate interests of other classes of our society. I believe the government is vigilant enough to stamp out abuses whenever they occur. I have said all I wish to say with respect to the subamendment.
I should like to say a word or two about the Liberal amendment. There is not very much that can be added after that most eloquent discourse given to us by the minister of northern affairs.
But the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is again indicative of the thinking of the Liberal party which was the primary reason why that great party has now descended-to use the words of one of their former leaders, namely Hon. Mr. King-into the valley of humiliation. That is also the reason why it will remain there for a long time to come.
When the Liberal proponents talk about declining conditions in public investment and about recession and when they say that the north is so much waste land, I think of a famous French writer and philosopher of the 18th century by the name of Voltaire who once stated in France: Why worry about Canada? All Canada is is a few acres of snow. From the way the Liberal party has been talking, you would think that our vast north land, which offers so much promise for the future, is nothing but a few acres of barren snow land. I think what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said this afternoon certainly shows that vital things are being done in our northland and that it is really not only a frontier but is already a great, prosperous and established portion of our country. It is right that, like the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), we should look towards the future, towards the day when the population of this country will be 50 million or perhaps 100 million. In planning today, we are planning for that great future which has certainly the assurance of the continued greatness and the destiny of our country. That does not mean that we must today neglect local development or neglect the settled portions of our country. We are not
National Development Policy doing that. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) as well as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) have enumerated to this house all the projects that have been initiated by this government since it took power. I think that is convincing proof that they are doing everything possible for the settled portion of our country but that at the same time they are maintaining that vision. I think that the word "vision" is one that we can very well use and that it should not be ridiculed by members of the opposition. We shall maintain that vision which will be the assurance that we can go on to greater and better things. I think the words of a great past leader of the Liberal party will some day become true and that this century will truly be the century of Canada.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard Moses, in the cloak of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), expound to us the ten commandments of the Conservatives' northern development policy; but like the Ten Commandments, they have not changed. On looking over the northern development policy of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources at the present time I would say that he has taken the former Liberal policy, with maybe a few extensions and projections, and has called it the new Tory policy.
Yesterday the minister stated that his government was taking the recommendations of the former government found in the briefs submitted by the commissioners of both the Yukon and Northwest Territories to the Gordon royal commission in November of 1955. Those proposals included a network of roads in both the territories and roads from the provinces linking the provinces with the network of roads recommended for the territories. These road proposals made by the commissioners projected the completion of these proposals over a period of 15 years to 25 years.
Let us take a look at the definite road proposals made at that time. I have here a map showing roads proposed at that time by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, the deputy minister of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In the Northwest Territories these roads included an extension to the Mackenzie highway system from Hay River, Fort Providence, Fort Rae to Yellowknife, a road, I may add, that was started three years ago by the former administration and which we hope will be completed some time in 1960. This same extension on this map shows the extension of that road to Great Bear lake. Then in addition to that, we have a road from

National Development Policy Yellowknife to Thompson Landing on the east arm of Great Slave lake; another connecting the Mackenzie highway with Pine Point, Fort Resolution, Rocher river and Snowdrift on the south shore of Great Slave lake; another connecting the Mackenzie highway with Fort Vermilion, Alberta, Fort Smith and Fort Resolution in the Northwest Territories; also a road from Uranium City to Ferguson lake and Eskimo Point on Hudson bay; and another connecting this road with Lynn Lake, Manitoba; another from Fort Nelson, B.C. to Fort Simpson in the Northwest Territories. In the Yukon, in their brief and on that map you will find similar roads. Included in these recommendations were roads from Stewart B.C. to Cassiar-


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Yes; I will permit a question.


Erik Nielsen: Is the hon. member saying
that the lines on this map which he has in his possession constitute the extent of the Liberal planning?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I say that the lines on this map, as stated by your minister yesterday, were proposals by the administrations of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to the Gordon royal commission in 1955 and were to be completed in a period of from 15 years to 25 years, just as the minister said. That is what I said.
In the Yukon I said these recommendations for roads included one from Stewart, B.C., to Cassiar; another from Teslin to the junction of the Pelly and Ross rivers at the settlement of Ross River, then following the north shore of the Ross river to the Yukon boundary. The program at that time also included a road from Flat Creek to Fort McPherson along with another road from Mayo or Keno to the Wind river area. There were other roads, all of which have been mentioned, if not here, in the committee on mines, forests and waters. I will not mention them all, but they were all included in the former government's submission to the Gordon economic commission.
In addition to these roads that were suggested by the former government to be built over a period of 15 years to 25 years, the Conservative party in the last election campaign claimed that they were going beyond this and build a road from Ross River to Norman Wells; one from the north shore of Great Slave lake to Prince Albert; another from Pine Point to Eskimo Point on Hudson bay; one from Uranium City to Prince Albert; there was one from Prince Albert to Flin Flon, Manitoba, and others too numerous to mention. There was also a road from Fort Churchill to Moose Factory, Ontario, which


has been referred to in this house by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) as "the railroad from wigwam to wigwam". You will note, however, that Prince Albert plays a very important part in the road program suggested during the election campaign.
These were the promises of the Conservative party during the election campaign and it is to all these promises that I have referred as being pure baloney. I still say they are baloney.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member
permit a question? If what you have just said is true, how do you explain that the projects are going ahead in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The former projects which I mentioned were in the first instance recommended to the Gordon commission and are those which are going ahead at the present time. Above and beyond that, the Conservative party during the election campaign- particularly in my part of the country-was promising to build roads as I have named them, and there is no use in going all over them again. They just drew lines on a map and extended them, and called that the Conservative road program.
In speaking yesterday of the development of our resources the minister stressed that we first needed an inventory of our resources and his suggestion was that we should build the roads and then find the mines. I agree with the minister that there is a definite need for an inventory of our mineral resources, but the first thing that needs to be done is to accelerate the pace of the geological surveys, the magnetometer and electromagnetic surveys and other scientific surveys to indicate to prospectors, mining companies and private investors the areas in which there is a possibility of finding commercial ore. We have an example just this week in the stock which has climbed from 18 cents, where it stood last week, to $7.25 yesterday, the New Hosco mine. How did they find that mine? There was only one small outcropping, as I understand it, on the whole property, no showing at all, but they found that mine by electromagnetic, magnetometer and other scientific surveys which showed there were anomalies present. The company went in, spotted some holes and started drilling. As a result of these surveys they hit ore. There is no road to Hosco.
I might say as far as geological surveys are concerned which are so important in finding these areas and pointing them out to private investors, that last year, this government cut back when the field parties in the Northwest Territories had completed 80 per cent of their

work. They pulled them out-and this is the important thing-they were pulled out before they had completed their job.


Erik Nielsen: A third of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is up in the north now.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am talking about what they did last year, and in my opinion if this is an indication of what this government thinks of geological surveys, then their program is a phony.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: The hon. member should get up to date.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: After first having indicated that there are anomalies and prospects of commercial ore, the next step in development to my mind is the building of airstrips in those areas so that private investors, mining companies and prospectors may go in and explore the ground, do the drilling and find the mines, block out the ore. The next step is to build roads to those mines.
On this subject I would like to quote from a press clipping entitled, "Airfields, not Roads Need in Far North". This clipping is dated April 8, 1958, and appeared in the Toronto Star and it quotes Mr. J. J. Byrne, the Chairman of Consolidated Discovery Yellowknife Mine and reads as follows:
We hear a great deal these days about plans for the Northwest Territories, principal of which is an extensive road-building program to open up these vast areas. Our organization has had a quarter of a century of experience in the area, and it is our opinion that rather than spend vast sums in road building, that a small part of this money be used in building a number of landing fields in strategic areas selected by geological survey of Canada as being the most promising for the finding of mines, then to build the roads to the mines when they are found. The present resources roads-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member permit me to interrupt him, it being six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at six o'clock I was quoting from a press clipping to substantiate what I had said previously to the effect that when embarking upon a road to resources program the first requirement was to undertake geological surveys, magnetometer surveys, electromagnetic surveys and other scientific surveys to indicate to private investors, prospectors and mining companies the areas in which there may be a possibility of developing mines. I wish to quote again from the clipping to which I have referred:
National Development Policy The present resources roads already planned are quite necessary, and should be completed, but this is the air age, and this means of transportation appeals to the prospector and developer alike. As an example, Consolidated Discovery does not yet have a road.
I might indicate at this point that this gold mine is located approximately 60 miles north of Yellowknife. It has been producing for the past five or six years and paying dividends to the shareholders. The article continues in these words:
In the past, supplies were hauled by tractor during winter months, but now all freight is being delivered at the mine by Bristol plane, at competitive rates.
This could be accomplished anywhere in the territories if landing strips were established, and these fields would also have considerable value for national defence.
I submit that my argument-


Mr. Baskin:: You have not got an argument.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: If I had as little to argue about as you have, my boy, I should keep quiet.


James William Baskin: Is that right? Thank you.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You are the hon. member for Baskinville, is that what they call it? His home town named a road after him the other day and now the hon. member feels he has to interject, to have something to talk about.
I submit that my argument is irrefutable. No hon. member could deny the logic of undertaking geological, magnetometer, electromagnetic and other scientific surveys first in planning a roads to resources program in order to indicate the areas in which the possibility exists of finding mines. The second step, of course, is to build airstrips in those areas so that prospectors, mining companies and investors can enter the area, commence drilling operations and discover commercial ore bodies. Once the commercial ore bodies are established then roads should be built to take out the ore and utilize it for the benefit of all Canadians.
In the speech he made some time ago in this house the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) referred to Okanagan Helicopters Limited, one of the largest companies of its kind in the world. It has undertaken many jobs for oil companies in locating deposits of gas and oil in certain areas of British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I feel sure that the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary will agree with me that in undertaking a roads^ to resources program we must first have airborne scientific surveys. The hon. gentleman will recall that in his speech to which I have already referred he recommended to this government that university students who are
2032	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy graduating today and who are going to the United States because of the lack of employment opportunities in Canada should be given an opportunity of employment in this country. I say to this government that if we accelerate geological surveys in Canada we will be able to employ every university student who is graduating today and who requires work. They could be put to work in surveys of this kind. I appeal to the government to take steps to accelerate, first and foremost, geological, magnetometer, electromagnetic and other scientific surveys so that we can pinpoint for private investors those areas that should be explored for ore deposits.
I wish now to refer to a report in the Edmonton Journal of May 28, 1958, commenting on what was said by Mr. C. L. Merrill, district administrator of the Northwest Territories, an employee of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, when he spoke before the Canadian association of geographers in Alberta.
The article reads in part as follows:
"In the most general terms we know we have a large area with much promise geologically/' he said. However, he added, "before we count our chicks, we must find our eggs."
Mr. Merrill said the search is already in progress. Large, well-established firms with capital available for long-term investment are engaged in extensive exploratory work in the Arctic and sub-Arctic, he said. Major exploration is being carried out in the Mackenzie region for oil, he said.
In speaking of exploration for oil he went on to say:
This summer, a major oil company, using six helicopters carrying geologists, will survey about 50,000 square miles in and east of the Mackenzie delta around Aklavik, he said.
Increasing exploration may reveal some deposits which can be worked economically today although large-scale measures are restricted to companies with long-term objectives, Mr. Merrill said.
Further on the article states:
Mineral production will start when known deposits become economically available, but this is a matter of demand and timing.
This is what was said by the administrator of the Northwest Territories, resident in Fort Smith, an employee of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In any event, as Mr. Byrne said, in the financial statement of the company which was reported in the Toronto Star, present resource roads already planned are quite necessary and should be completed. He was referring to the present resource roads, namely the roads which the former administration had started. He said they should be completed.
The road system connecting the Mackenzie highway with Yellowknife, Fort Rae and Rayrock mines and in the future possibly the Great Bear lake extension, should be completed. As I mentioned, this road was


started three years ago by the former administration and we hope it will be completed in 1960. I hope the minister will make a connection between this road and the Snare river hydro while he is at it. We have lots of friends over there; I think most of them would agree with me that they have a plan.


Mr.   Morion@: You have more friends over here than you have over there.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: To get back to the former administration's road policy-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Mr.   Morion@: Let us look ahead.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: That is what I am trying to do. Mr. Speaker, if those empty heads over there want to make a speech I would suggest that time be allotted for that purpose. I understand that there is no reason actually for a vote tonight because there will be 42 minutes left that we can use tomorrow on this debate. I think time should be allotted for some of those fellows to tell the house how they feel about this particular motion; but to go on, and deal with the Mackenzie highway system to which I just referred. In addition, a survey was initiated by the former administration of a road from Fort Smith with connections to the Mackenzie highway through Fort Vermilion. It was the intention of the government of those days to start construction of the road this year. In my particular riding those two roads would connect settled communities where there are known resources. This is different from building a road from Pine Point to Eskimo Point. As a matter of fact, the original proposal of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to build a road to Port Radium-I am speaking of the recommendation of the former administration to the Gordon commission, and here I have a map -was to connect the settled community of Port Radium where Eldorado Mining and Refining started in 1932 or 1933 to produce uranium ore, the first uranium mine in the world. It was suggested in 1955, as I said, to the Gordon commission that this road should go to Port Radium. I notice on the present minister's plan that the same road is going to Port Radium. I have read in the mining journals of this country that the Port Radium mine of Eldorado Mining and Refining have about three years' ore ahead of them and this mine will close in three years or very close to it. I point this out to show the house the need for careful planning before we go into a road-to-resources program.
I should also like to suggest to the house that before we go building the road from Pine Point in the Northwest Territories to Eskimo

Point on Hudson bay that we build a road connecting Hay River to Pine Point, Resolution, Rocher River and the east arm of Great Slave lake. I say this at this particular time because we understand that a railroad is going to be built to Pine Point, something we in the north have looked forward to for many years. By building the road that I have just suggested we will make it possible for known mineral areas and known deposits in the O'Connor lake and Snowdrift area to be shipped to Pine Point and thus give this proposed railroad a larger volume of backhaul, which I am sure the railroad companies are very interested in. At the same time, such a road would connect settled communities on the south shore of Great Slave lake.
Another road which I consider should be built in the immediate future-it was also proposed by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the Gordon commission in 1955-is the one connecting Yellowknife with the east arm of Great Slave lake where at the present time Taurcanis Mines Limited have sunk a shaft and are drifting into a known ore body. I feel, as many other people in the north feel, that this mine will come into production within the next few years.
I should also like to suggest, as the former administration suggested to the Gordon commission, the building of a road from Fort Nelson to connect with Fort Simpson, connecting Fort Nelson with Liard and Nahanni where there are great prospects of mineral development, and in the Fort Simpson area where there are prospects of oil development. Also, I might add, this road that I have suggested to the east arm of Great Slave lake where Taurcanis, we feel, will be producing in a few years could be extended to reach a deposit of lead and zinc worth $55 million. I would suggest that we go ahead with this road to the known resources before we start building a road, as I have said many times, from Pine Point to Eskimo Point.
We in the north, Mr. Speaker, have been looking forward for many years to the building of a railroad to the south shore of Great Slave lake and we did greet with enthusiasm the reference made to this project in the speech from the throne. In my opinion this railroad is important to the development of my particular part of the country and should be proceeded with immediately. I would hope that the scrap now developing between certain factions in northern Alberta and northern British Columbia as to the route the railroad should take will not delay the start of the project. With regard to this project I might point out to the house that under the former administration the Department of Northern 57071-3-129
National Development Policy Affairs and National Resources spent a great deal of time and energy on preliminary studies which it was hoped would bring about the building of the railroad. The railway companies and the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, which controls the huge lead-zinc resources at Pine Point were not much interested in the development of this property until a year and a half ago.
At that time the former administration asked the railroad companies to make an economic survey of routes for the railroad. I submit that the information gathered in this survey, which was, as I said, initiated by the former administration, is now the basis for the mention of the building of this railroad in the speech from the throne. Of course, the former government could not go ahead with the building of the railroad because they had not received the report. As a matter of fact the house has not had the report yet but apparently the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) has. We are all happy that he has and that the government is going to go ahead with the building of the railroad.
Many persons in the north and the minister himself have said that transportation is the key to northern development. Transportation is the key but at the same time it has to be cheap transportation. Over the past four or five years the former government did do something in this regard. Aids to navigation were improved tremendously. Airports were paved at Fort McMurray, Fort Smith and Yellowknife, and a new airport was built within the last two years at Aklavik in the Northwest Territories. These better facilities in the form of improved aids to navigation and paving of airports made it possible for the air lines to reduce their passenger and freight rates.
The crown-owned Northern Transportation Company and the Yellowknife Transport Company, which transport the bulk of the water freight by way of the Slave river, Great Slave lake and the Mackenzie river system, have reduced their rates in the past few years. Improved roads between the provinces and the settled communities of the north will enable the trucking companies to cut their rates. Further reductions in air and water rates are required to lower the cost of living and the cost of production in the north.
I submit that if rail rates can be subsidized in the maritimes and other areas in Canada there is every reason why subsidies should be paid to air line operators, charter aircraft operators and water transport carriers in the north to decrease the cost of production and the cost of living and to accelerate the
2034	HOUSE OF
National Development Policy development of our part of the country. As everyone knows, air transport has played a very important part in opening up the north and air transport will continue to play its part in the future development of our country. It is important, therefore, that the government should investigate ways and means of reducing air rates because, as I have said before, this would accelerate development.
To summarize at this point, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the government that it should go ahead with at least part of the plan of the former administration and build roads to known resources connecting settled communities. When I say "settled communities" I point out that our amendment suggests that we should do something by way of national development in the settled areas of Canada and these include, of course, the settled areas of the north.


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Go right ahead.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for
Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) intimated to the house during the course of his speech-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Are you making a speech or asking a question?


Erik Nielsen: Inasmuch as the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) was not here during the course of the speech of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, I was advising the hon. member of what he said before putting the question.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member made a speech and after using up his forty minutes he asked for extra time to conclude it. The house was unanimous in giving him that extra time. If the house wants me to answer questions for hon. members on the other side I will do so if they will allow me to continue until ten o'clock this evening.


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I did but you did not ask one.


Erik Nielsen: I was trying to, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. member for Mackenzie River agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The hon. member answered that question for me a moment ago because he said I was not in the house when the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres made his speech.


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit a supplementary question?


Mr. Habel:: Get another speech ready.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has now expired.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder whether the house will be good enough to do as was done in the case of the hon. member for the Yukon this afternoon and allow me extra time to finish my few, short remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. What happened this afternoon and yesterday was actually an exception. There was a debate at one point yesterday which lasted ten minutes and another this afternoon which lasted five minutes. Consequently additional time was granted but that cannot become a practice. I wish to ask hon. members to please adhere as much as possible to the time allotted to them for their speeches. However, in the present instance, if it is the wish of the house that the hon. member for Mackenzie River be permitted to continue his remarks-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Fraser:: There are only 12 more minutes left before the vote.


James William Baskin: Tell us something new. Go on.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: If one looks over the records of the house since the hon. member came here one will see that he has had very little to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must repeat the question. Is it the unanimous wish of the house?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I therefore regret to advise the hon. member-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the house unanimously accorded the hon. member for the Yukon an extra five minutes, I believe. I would suggest that, in view of the fact the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) represents a northern constituency, the house, on reflection, would want to accord to him the same opportunity.


Erik Nielsen: May I rise at this point-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that this afternoon when permission was granted to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to carry on with his remarks,

there was unanimous consent. In the present instance the unanimous consent of the house to permit the hon. member for Mackenzie River to carry on his speech is lacking. I must, therefore, give the floor to the next speaker.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: I had
hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member might be permitted to continue so that perhaps he might reach one or two conclusions. But I appreciate, of course, the rules of this house, and within the short space of time I have I shall endeavour myself to reach some conclusion. I should like to refer back to comments which were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in his most interesting dissertation when he moved his amendment. I shall quote but one paragraph, as reported on page 1964 of Hansard for July 7, 1958:
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.
The experience, in the development of resources is such that, sound as that policy may be, one cannot take any section of resources or development in any country of the world and say that it will be there in the years to come if we do nothing more than develop or exploit it to the point that it will be there when we require it. The fact of the matter is that in Alberta, as an example of one area which is developing its resources, we have learned by sad experience that unless you are in a position to make an assessment of what your resources are, unless you are able to determine the length and breadth of the resources, you are not able to introduce those conservation measures which are so essential. We find today, for example, that in Alberta we have mineable coal to the extent of 48 million tons; we are discovering oil at the rate of 300 million barrels per year; the remaining proven recoverable reserves of natural gas are estimated to be between 25 trillion and 27 trillion cubic feet.
Our experience has been this. Unless you are able to make an assessment of what you have, unless you can determine the area you have yet to develop, it is absolutely impossible to develop any conservation methods to apply to those areas, and I refer to the north in particular. Let us look and see what has happened since this government introduced certain measures to encourage the exploitation or development of our northern assets. I have not the current figures, but my information is sufficiently current to give an indication. We know that it is estimated that there are 750,000 acres available in the great preCambrian shield for geological research in 57071-3-129J
National Development Policy connection with oil reserves. We have added practically a new continent by encouraging people under the new oil and gas regulations, of the N. W. T. by making available new transportation facilities and by making available new access roads to these areas, to initiate probably the greatest drive for exploration of oil and development. It may yet even exceed the outstanding success of Alberta.
I suggest that this is already to the credit of this government. I am going to leave that section of policy which has been so ably presented to this house by the minister and the previous speaker. I should like to say a word about one of the instruments of government, the geological survey, to which the hon. member who has just taken his seat referred. I should like to refer also to the accompanying division of the mines and minerals branch. I regret that in past years this section of our government has been regarded as the poor relation. In spite of this it has carried out, in the interests of industry but not to the point of interference with the ordinary course of private enterprise, exhaustive surveys through the geological branch and analyses of the problems industry must face. There has been assistance and co-operation with industry and a vast fund of information made available which makes this country one of the leaders in research in respect to our mineral wealth. We spend slightly under $3 million a year for this department. I heard the hon. member who has just spoken pleading with the government to give consideration to providing some encouragement for youths who are leaving our educational institutions and looking for employment by taking them into this particular section, thus enabling them to find work and experience. This plan was introduced at the request of the Geological Association of Canada, and today the department has accepted their recommendation and is employing a third again as many over last year of young geologists coming from our schools. They are carrying out work under the geological survey of Canada.
I realize that in the time which is allotted to me I must arrive at a conclusion rather than make observations. We have had from our minister of northern affairs a statement with which I heartily concur to the effect that one of the principal assets of this government as compared with the former government is the policy of making some plans and taking some action in connection with the need for the development of our resources in Canada. As he stated, this is one of the great distinguishing features, the nature of the action that has been taken as compared with the lack of action. I suggest that when this government is in a position, through

National Development Policy planning first of all with the Borden commission, to assess our energy sources in so far as their export and domestic use is concerned, then we will be in a position to introduce legislation to establish an energy board and give the resources of Canada not only the co-operation which has not been given them in the past but the opportunity to develop and plan for the future, and we will, as a government, have made the greatest contribution to future generations yet to come. I realize that there are others who wish to exploit particular areas to a point beyond that of which is good for all of Canada. These people are not limited to any one province.
The advantages of an energy board would be, first of all, to assess the wealth that we have in Canada and then to introduce such regulations as would be commensurate with the interests of the provinces and provide long range oil, natural gas, coal and water power policies for the good of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Time, time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 8.42 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4(d) of standing order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment or amendments now before the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the result of the vote is accepted I wish to point out to Your Honour that it has been the practice in the house that no vote should be cast after the Speaker has called the vote. As the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette) came in after at least 50 per cent of the members had voted I would ask for a ruling in this case.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so small-time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is quite true that hon. members must be in their seats when the vote is taken. Consequently, since the hon. member for Quebec West was not in his seat I will ask the Clerk to strike his name from the division list for the last vote.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Aren't you proud of yourself?

President Eisenhower's Visit-Security Arrangements


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I declare the amendment lost.



ALLEGED ACTIVITIES OF U.S. SECRET SERVICE AGENTS

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise-


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the rule is that the motion must be put.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The debate should continue on the main motion. We are continuing with the main motion. The allowance of time for debate on this order is one day and forty-two minutes. Consequently, there are approximately 35 minutes left-


Howard Charles Green: I made a mistake, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The debate will now proceed on the main motion moved by Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) and seconded by Mr. Green that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a grievance based on very disturbing press reports involving matters about which this group is most concerned and also a good number of other people, namely, the infringement or reported infringement of Canadian rights by certain secret service agents of the government of the United States.


Mr. Grafftey:: It is just hearsay.


Mr. Pallell:: The hon. member's taste is all in his mouth. You can see that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to illustrate my grievance-


William Heward Grafftey: I wish you wouldn't.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -but before doing so I want to say that we in this group together with all Canadians welcome the visit of the President of the United States to this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -as the president of a friendly nation.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We recognize the great contribution that President Eisenhower has made in war and in peace. However, Mr. Speaker, we are genuinely disturbed by reliable press reports concerning certain incidents which indicate a lack of understanding on the part of these secret service agents of the United States, of Canadians, of their rights, of their ways, of their usages, and a complete lack


of confidence in the ability and capacity of our Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I refer first of all to newspaper reports of the search of the residence of the representative of Her Majesty in Canada by these secret service agents of the United States accompanied, according to the newspaper reports, by an inspector of the R.C.M.P. Second, I refer to newspaper reports of a search of the residence of our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) by the same United States agents accompanied, I understand, by an inspector of the R.C.M.P.
While I heard some interruptions when I rose to speak, Mr. Speaker, I said that we were definitely disturbed about these reports and that is why I am raising this grievance tonight on behalf of this group. I am quite certain that while some of the hon. gentlemen opposite may jeer at me they will later be amazed at the number of members of their own party in Canada who will take the same point of view as we do tonight on this question. We consider that if these reports are true-


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is more than the usual noise in the house tonight.


An hon. Member:: No wonder.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will hon. members kindly permit the hon. member for Kootenay West to continue his speech in silence, please.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If these reports are true we consider these actions as a grave indignity against the representative of Her Majesty in Canada. We consider the same actions a grave indignity to the Prime Minister of this country. While he supports another party we in this group respect the Prime Minister of Canada. We consider that these actions represent a complete misunderstanding and transgression of the rights of the Canadian people. In addition, Mr. Speaker, if these reports are true we consider that these actions indicate that the Prime Minister, in respect of the incidents reported, has failed to take the firm stand we might expect by reason of former pronouncements on his part with respect to the sovereign rights of Canada.
There is also the question of newspaper reports to the effect that these secret agents may enter these buildings tomorrow. I have a newspaper article here from today's Ottawa Citizen headed, "Will Guards Carry Arms Into House", written by Mr. Bruce Philips of the Southam news service. I want to quote briefly from that; we think it is rather disturbing:
There is no doubt the president's 20-man bodyguard will be armed when they escort him on the

public streets. Nor is there any doubt they will be spotted in the galleries when the president speaks. But whether they will be packing side arms in the house is something no one in authority seems prepared to disclose at the moment.
The Prime Minister's press secretary, Jim Nelson, asked whether the secret servicemen would be permitted to bring arms into the building, gave this surprising answer:
"X don't know. You'd better ask Jim Hagerty". Hagerty is the president's press secretary. Dutifully called, Mr. Hagerty didn't know either, although he promised to provide an answer later, which was more than any Canadian official promised.
We sincerely hope that these reports are incorrect, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you find out whether or not they are?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It just so happens the reports are written by very responsible correspondents, and I am sure in good faith. If these reports are correct-


William Heward Grafftey: Why don't you find out?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We suggest that if these reports are correct action be taken to make certain the rights of this parliament will be respected, and the usages and traditions of the Canadian people.
Now, in comparison with this, and before concluding, I want to bring to the attention of the members that when Her Majesty visited Canada, when the prime ministers of Great Britain visit Canada and when the heads of other states visit Canada, with the exception of one Scotland Yard inspector or some other security official, according to the best information I can obtain from reliable sources, they are quite willing to leave their security outside and inside these buildings to the capacity and efficiency of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In conclusion, I want to say this. I have raised this question on behalf of this group in this house at this time, and I am quite confident on behalf of a great number of Canadians who will welcome President Eisenhower to Canada but who are concerned about actions of this type undertaken by secret service agents of the government of the United States. Because of our concern for our Canadian traditions, our usages and rights which spring from Magna Carta and flow to this parliament, we trust this matter will be investigated, and if the reports are true the necessary action will be taken to protect those rights, traditions and usages.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Outrageous mischief.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
8, 1958	2039
Railways and Shipping Committee



DEPARTMENT OP LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
170. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates and the expenses of the international labour conferences (also includes the former Labour Gazette, women's bureau and manpower utilization votes), $1,067,166.

[Stage Direction]
304. Departmental administration, $1,886,095.

[Stage Direction]
112. Departmental administration, $2,369,041.
Proceedings reported.


George Harris Hees: That a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys: and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time and that, notwithstanding standing order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee to consist of Messrs. Bourbonnais, Brassard (Lapointe), Broome, Carter, Chevrier, Chown, Creaghan, Drys-dale, Fisher, Fraser, Grills, Gundlock, Hardie, Kennedy, Loiselle, Martini, Mitchell, Monteith (Verdun), Pascoe, Robichaud, Robinson, Rowe, Rynard, Smith (Calgary South), Smith (Simcoe North) and Tasse.
He said: This motion, Mr. Speaker, is to appoint, as has been the practice for many years, a sessional committee to consider the accounts of the Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines.
The house will have noted that the name of the committee has been changed to include air lines. In addition to examining the accounts of the Canadian National the committee has also gone into the affairs of Trans-Canada Air Lines since the incorporation of that company, and it seems only appropriate that the name should take cognizance of air lines, and thus be more descriptive of the duties of the committee.
If it is the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, it is my intention later today to ask leave to move that the Canadian National and Trans-Canada Air Lines' reports and the auditor's reports which have already been tabled be referred to the committee, together with the items of estimates that are usually dealt with by the committee.
2040	HOUSE OF
Railways and Shipping Committee
I might also advise the house that it is planned to have the sittings of the committee start on Monday, July 14, with the consideration of the Canadian National report as the first business.


Lionel Chevrier: This is the motion, Mr. Speaker, which I understand is annually submitted to the house by the responsible minister, in this case the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), to establish a committee in order to discuss the operations of three government-owned and controlled enterprises, namely the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National Steamships and the Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is the motion which affords an opportunity to members of the house to discuss the affairs of these three government-owned enterprises.
I say to the minister that I am somewhat disappointed in the fact he did not take the opportunity this evening to discuss some of the matters concerning these enterprises that are of importance to the house; some of the things that we have been interested in during this session and the last one. If my memory serves me rightly, we did not have the opportunity of discussing this matter during the last session.
When the minister was a member of the opposition he almost unfailingly took part in this debate on the motion to establish a special committee on railways, shipping and air lines and there were few occasions when he did not take advantage of the situation to take the then government to task and to criticize it rather severely for certain of its acts of omission or commission. Inside and outside the house he was critical of lay-offs in the Canadian National Railways. But I cannot help thinking that on this extremely important question of lay-offs in the Canadian National Railways, his outlook has changed since he has moved to the other side of the house.
When he was a member of the opposition lay-offs were deplorable; there was no excuse whatever for men being laid off by the Canadian National Railways in the various shops of that government enterprise from one end of the country to the other. The government was responsible. But now, since he has become the minister responsible for the Department of Transport and is the spokesman in this house for the Canadian National Railways he takes an entirely different view of the whole subject. On more than one occasion, in answer to questions in this house, he has given little information; he has said that it is a fact that lay-offs are deplorable, that they are regretted by the government but that they must take place from time to time. I want to draw to the attention of the 

house the fact that that is an entirely different tune from the one which was played by the minister when he sat on this side of the house.
Even the present Prime Minister was extremely critical of the lay-offs made by the Canadian National Railways. I recall what he said in 1956. His words can be found at page 1864 of Hansard of that year. He said this:
The morale of Canadian National Railways employees today in most cases is lower than it has been at any time in my experience because the employees feel they are not receiving the consideration they deserve.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the present Prime Minister in those days, just like the present Minister of Transport, regarded lay-offs in an entirely different light from that in which he regards them at the present time. Now it is the Canadian National Railways management that is responsible for lay-offs; members of the government have nothing whatsoever to do with this extremely important question.
This brings me to another subject that is dear to the heart of the present Prime Minister and I want again to quote his words which can be found in the debates of the session of 1956, volume II, at page 1864:
One of the things which would assist would be the removal of the present low level of the basic pension. It should be increased at least to $40 a month. That would not be very costly. I am speaking from memory but I believe that pensions today cost approximately 2.7 per cent of the total amount taken in by the Canadian National Railways. The increase in question would be infinitesimal having regard to the total amount of business done and would raise beyond words of description the morale of the employees of the railway company.
Of course it was not the first time that the hon. member for Prince Albert had spoken on this subject. As I said earlier, it is one that is dear to his heart. That fact no doubt explains why in the general election of 1957 we had a formal pledge as to C.N.R. pensions by the hon. member for Prince Albert, now the Prime Minister of Canada. He spoke on May 4 at Moncton and Campbellton in New Brunswick-and I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that when he spoke in those two cities his words certainly did not fall on deaf ears because there were a large number of employees of the Canadian National Railways who were particularly interested in what the Prime Minister would have to say concerning their problem. I therefore think it is safe to say that what he said fell on very sympathetic ears. I quote his words as reported by the Globe and Mail of May 6, 1957. Here they are:
How can the government ask other employers to give their men and women benefits when crown

corporations, for which the government is responsible, reward its faithful employees with pensions like this?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister at that time was referring to the basic pensions which amounted to $25 per month and less which he said were being received by more than 3,000 retired C.N.R. employees. He pledged a Conservative government to revise pension regulations for retired railway employees, to remove what he called existing inequities and anomalies, and to provide a fair and reasonable basic pension. Mr. Speaker, the present government has been in office now for over a year. Certainly we have a right to ask them what they have done and what they intend to do with reference to this pledge given by the Conservative party to the Canadian National Railways retired employees. We have a right to ask them that, particularly in view of his words which I quoted from Hansard and the statement which he made as quoted from the Globe and Mail.
I should now like to turn to another matter, one which I am sure will interest the house, namely the question of transportation facilities in the Atlantic regions. While I am not free to refer to a debate which took place yesterday, I could not help but read the speech which was made by the Minister of Transport when dealing with a certain transportation and recall that he did not seem to be aware of the fact that an investigation had been started by the former Liberal administration into transportation facilities generally in the Atlantic provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think the minister is listening at this point; he is preoccupied.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to bring to his attention, in case he was not aware of this fact,-he did not seem to be aware of it yesterday-a statement made by the former minister of finance, Hon. Mr. Harris, in a budget speech made on March 14, 1957, and which can be found in Hansard for that year, in the second volume thereof, at page 2219.
I quote:
In the view of the government we should now undertake a fresh and comprehensive examination of the entire transportation situation of the Atlantic provinces in order to determine what changes could contribute towards the economic welfare of the region.
Among other questions, we should consider how best to supplement or improve some of the present means of transport in order to improve the transportation system generally. In this way it might be possible for the Atlantic region to get more value from the present level of federal expenditures in this field and from any increased funds that might become available.
It is therefore the government's intention to launch an immediate review of the maritime transportation problem in general, and thereafter to put forward proposals as soon as feasible.
8, 1958	2041
Railways and Shipping Committee
It is quite clear from that statement that the former administration did in fact launch an investigation into the transportation facilities of the maritime provinces, and did ask the Canadian National Railways, in particular, to give attention to that very important problem. Everyone knows of the part played by Canadian National Railways with respect to transportation facilities in those provinces; we know of the existence of their rail system in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; we know of their facilities in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and we also recall that they provide and operate various services by sea along the Newfoundland coast, the ferry between the mainland and Prince Edward Island and the service between Bar Harbor and Yarmouth and so on. They were to tell the Department of Transport what changes in their opinion ought to be made in existing services so as to provide more adequate transportation facilities in the Atlantic provinces.
This motion which is being made to establish a committee on railways and shipping provides, it seems to me, an opportunity to ask the government, or more particularly to ask the minister, what has happened to this matter, and I would think that the minister should give to the house some information, firstly, as to what has happened with reference to the survey mentioned by the former minister the Hon. Mr. Harris and, secondly, what has been the result of the survey undertaken in the Atlantic provinces by the Canadian National Railways.
I would now like to deal with another matter which is of equal importance to the Atlantic provinces, namely the subsidies granted to those provinces under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Last year the Liberal government decided to increase from 20 to 30 per cent the subsidy on traffic movement out of what is known as the select territory into other parts of Canada. That increase was made because it was believed that by increasing the subsidy from 20 per cent to 30 per cent, in other words, making an increase of 50 per cent in the subvention on outbound traffic, that much would be accomplished towards meeting the changed conditions with respect to transportation which had come about since the subsidy was originally fixed, a good many years ago.
I know it is a fact that persons interested in transportation, particularly in the maritime provinces, expressed a good deal of satisfaction with the action taken by the previous administration. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) did not seem to think that that was enough, in fact, I believe I can quote words of his to indicate that even that increase from 20 to 30 per



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the government leader what the business will be tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with this motion. We had hoped then to take second reading of item No. 5, which is an act to incorporate the lake-head harbour commissioners. If the member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) is here we shall go ahead; otherwise we will be willing to defer discussion on this subject.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: And then item No. 16, a resolution concerning returned soldiers' insurance, and item No. 17, a resolution concerning veterans insurance. The intention is to refer both of those bills to the standing committee on veterans affairs. Then item No. 12, a resolution concerning the Yukon; item No. 6, concerning Cape Breton Highlands national park; then item No. 4, second reading of the act to amend the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it the intention of the government to go on with government business on Thursday?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but it will depend on how we get along tomorrow with these different items. We may take the budget resolutions.


[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. Bourget: Echourie
Wharf repairs	
Repairs to descent	
Protection works	
Repairs to protection works

Breakwater improvements	
11-	6-57
15-	7-57
23-	10-57 23-8-57 26-9-57 23-8-57
24-	10-57 3-9-57
12-	9-57
16-	9-57 5-12-57
5-10-57
19-9-57
25-10-57
28-10-57
146.71	iSmile B. Method	79.201,776.81	Percy Roberts	
272.803,573.24	J. Cyrille Bond	
469.202,556.50	D.P.W. Staff	
-582.39	Simon Lancup	
140.001,703.06	Paul Leiievre	
110.0061,390.20	Robert Lancup	
942.253,011.11	Georges Brousseau	
415.403,296.30	Gustave Brousseau	
234.801.468.62	D.P.W. Staff	
-401.26	Rodolphe Cote	
144.0015.00	Robert Joncas	
15.005,268.52	Maurice l'ltalien	
535.504.860.00	D.P.W. Staff	
-57,053.83	Leopold English	
645.9318,597.30	Oscar Laflamme	635.302,877.94	John Samuel	
223.20817.02	Adem Philibert	
111.601,520.91	John Samuel	
43.40Adem Philibert	
124.00545.60	Odilon Lemieux	
81.6067,939.25	Louis Sasseville	
334.402,356.40	D.P.W. Staff	
-8.822.63	Georges Lefrancois	714.00149.50	Gerard Marin	
44.00711.00	Gerard Marin	
56.10121.29	D.P.W. Staff	
-600.00	D.P.W. Staff	
-1,409.58	Willie Servant	
160.003.350.00	Jean Therrien	
52.80478.00	Edmond St. Laurent-	80.00602.11	Aime Therrien	
105.604,467.75	Romeo Perry	
89.10603.47	Pierre-Paul Savard....	88.002,982,78	Chs-Antoine Miville....	200.001,691,55	Ephrem Labrie	
264.283,369.36	Onias Element	
427.80298.59	Georges Dumaresq	74.4018,896.32	Gilles French	
198.402,973.48	Ludger Cot6	
259.852,334.68	Leopold Beaudoin	164.68


CANADIAN DELEGATES
Mr. Houck: Name and address
Mr. M. Soules, president, Soules Construction Limited,
Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. J. W. Stewart, manager of the Atlantic division, Canadian Manufacturers Association, Moncton, N. B.
Mr. Claude Jodoin, president,
Canadian Labour Congress, Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. A. A. Hutchinson, vice chairman, national legislative committee of the international railway brotherhoods and vice president, order of railroad telegraphers,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. K. Kaplansky, director, international affairs department,
Canadian Labour Congress,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. E. Larose, general representative for Quebec, united brotherhood of carpenters & joiners of America, Montreal, P. Q.
Mr. R. Mathieu, vice president,
La Confederation des Travailleurs Catholiques du Canada,
Montreal, P. Q.
Mr. J. C. Nicholson, director of district No. 5, united steelworkers of America, Sydney, N. S.
Mr. H. T. Pammett, international labour organization branch,
Department of Labour,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Miss N. Lishman, economics and research branch, Department of Labour, Ottawa, Ontario.
Status
Adviser to employer delegate
Adviser to employer delegate
Worker delegate
Adviser to worker delegate
Adviser to worker delegate
Adviser to worker delegate
Adviser to worker delegate
Adviser to worker delegate
Adviser and secretary to delegation
Assistant to the secretary
Dates of Attendance
June 4 to 26
June 4 to 26
June 4 to 26
June 4 to 26
June 4 to 26
June 4 to 26
June 4 to 26
June 4 to 26
June 4 to 26
June 4 to 26


R.C.M.P. DOSSIERS ON MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Howard: 1.	Does the R.C.M.P. maintain any files or dossiers on members of parliament?
2.	If so, upon which members of the present parliament are such files or dossiers maintained?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of
Justice):
All Royal Canadian Mounted Police tiles on individuals are confidential and many are secret. One of the primary duties of all those responsible for such tiles is to respect and preserve the confidential or secret nature of their contents.
It will be appreciated also that a large number of such files are started by reports, statements or knowledge of activities coming to the attention of responsible members of the police which they are bound to investigate in the course of their duties. The follow-up on such reports in many cases reveals no necessity for further action, yet there is still a file. This means that many files will be in existence under the names of individuals against whom there is nothing of a substantial, let alone a criminal, nature.
It will therefore be generally agreed that it would be grossly unfair to any such individual to have it revealed or even suspected
Questions
that there exists a police file under his name, yet there may be many ways in which such a suspicion could be raised. One of the surest ways of laying the foundation for the raising of suspicion would be to isolate a group of individuals, such as members of parliament, start answering questions as to whether there are any files on any of them and then refuse -as would have to be done-to go any further when questioned as to the existence or nonexistence of a file on a specific member or members of such group. But this is exactly the door which would be opened by an answer to this question.
Not only would this lead to the possibility of prejudice to an innocent individual, but if there were in fact with respect to any one or more members of such group a file or files which contained information serious enough to warrant further investigation, the success of the investigation and possibly the security of the state, might be seriously prejudiced by giving any information whatsoever.
It therefore follows that, both in order to protect innocent individuals on whom there may be files and to preserve the interests of the state, the answer must be that it is considered to be contrary to the public interest to give a specific answer to this question.

Wednesday, July 9, 1958