1958-07-01

DOMINION DAY

[Stage Direction]
91st anniversary of confederation
Mr. Speaker:: If it be the wish of the house to recognize this, our Canadian national holiday, before entering upon routine business, may I suggest that we sing "God Save the Queen", a verse of "O Canada" in French and a verse of "O Canada" in English. For the benefit of hon. members who may not be equally good in both languages the words have been put on the desks of all members.
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God Save the Queen and
O Canada.



TELEVISION


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in keeping with the practice which has been developed under the order for motions if I were to make a very brief and very informal statement at this time. We are today celebrating the anniversary of the birthday of this country, the linking of the four older provinces which at that time were united in one bond of determination to maintain their identity and independence, and to prevent absorption by the country to the south.
At that time communications were very limited. There was a telegraph system and a railway, but to the west there were no communications unless by smoke signals or messengers who used canoes. Then British Columbia joined confederation, and telegraph lines, railway lines and finally telephones were established. We could communicate back and forth in a fraction of a moment, and we could travel across this continent in a short time.
Today it has been made possible for us to see each other from one end of this continent to the other. Those who are living on the far west coast, beyond the Rocky mountains, can look over those hills and see how the rest of us in Canada live. We in the east can watch the industrial development of the various provinces. All this has been
made possible by the inauguration of a national television system, which has been established and is now in operation, extending from Sydney in Nova Scotia to Victoria in British Columbia, and shortly to be extended to Newfoundland.
I thought it fitting that this should be put on the record at this moment. The national program started at 4.30, just as we opened this sitting of parliament. I want to pay tribute to the engineers whose scientific abilities made possible this achievement in so far as plans and development are concerned. I also want to pay tribute to the various telephone companies who have financed this undertaking. I also want to pay tribute to the officers and staff of the C.B.C. whose imagination and courage have made possible this national system which we inaugurated some 15 minutes ago.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of the house will have heard with great pleasure and satisfaction the announcement made by the minister. It is peculiarly appropriate on our national day that this extension of the microwave system, so important in bringing all parts of our country together and begun some three years ago, has been completed or almost completed on this July 1. I share with him the hope that the extension to Newfoundland, without which it will not be complete, will soon be celebrated also.


George Clyde Nowlan: Within a few months.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koofenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this group I wish to join with the remarks of the previous speakers, and again in connection with this day say that while we are socialists and have a very progressive approach to life as it exists today, we believe in preserving the best traditions of the past. We trust that in future this house will set an example by returning to those good traditions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would care to comment on a press report that

Inquiries of the Ministry Canada has informally expressed its misgivings to Great Britain and the United States about any intervention in the Lebanese crisis, even under the flag of the United Nations.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the members of the house know the Secretary General of the United Nations returned from the Middle East a few days ago and at the present time is engaged in consultations and discussions with heads of missions at the United Nations. It is expected that within a few days he will make a report to the security council on the situation in that area. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment now on the Lebanese situation.
However, I will answer specifically and pointedly the question which the Leader of the Opposition has addressed to me. I saw that press report, and I give to the house the assurance that there is no difference of opinion between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada with respect to the central role which the United Nations can play in solving the problem in Lebanon. We, with the United States and with the United Kingdom, are resolved to give every possible support to the secretary general and to the observation group to which we have contributed some officers.



CAMBODIA AND VIET NAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could comment on the report that Canada has refused to join with Poland and India, the other members of the international commission, regarding the border dispute between Cambodia and South Viet Nam?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, there has been an incident between South Viet Nam and Cambodia. Our representative, our acting commissioner on that supervisory commission, has taken the stand at a meeting of the commission that this particular dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the commission. The commission, our acting commissioner has pointed out, was established to supervise the cease-fire agreement between the communist Viet Minh and the army of the royal Cambodian government and not between Cambodia and South Viet Nam. Speaking for myself and for my department, we concur in the view he has put forward. That view has been taken on other occasions, and has been accepted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. My hon. friend will recall that I put a question to him two weeks ago with regard to the functioning of the commission in Cambodia and in South Viet Nam. Possibly this would be a good opportunity for the minister to indicate, if he feels this is an appropriate moment, the likely tenure of the commission in both Viet Nam and Cambodia.


Sidney Earle Smith: The hon. member for Essex East will recall that in reply to the question he addressed to me I indicated that I would like time to see what we could do with respect to the Laos situation. Those proceedings are progressing satisfactorily, and I promise the house that we will thereafter address ourselves to the question of the dissolution of the commission in Cambodia.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this being our national holiday, and an occasion upon which we remember the pioneers who built our nation, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what I consider to be a most appropriate question for this day.
Can the minister inform the house, in view of the anxiety of many of our civil service pioneers who still wait in hope, what progress is being made in the study of the problem surrounding increases in pensions for retired civil servants and retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and does the minister realize that this continuous procrastination with respect to a decision on this matter is causing the problem to be solved for an increasing number of pensioners by the effluxion of time?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the first part of the question is concerned, this matter is continuing to receive active study. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, my only comment is that it is not appropriate to this or any other occasion. I do not think it is the sort of question that my hon. friend expects to be taken seriously. There has been no procrastination in this matter; on the contrary, there has been very serious study of the problem, which may be more difficult to solve than the hon. member may realize.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Fisheries in a position to report to the house on the meetings which took place in Ottawa last week between representatives of the fishing industry and officials of the federal and provincial governments in order to study the problems of the salt fish industry in relation to problems of export, production and quality?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a series of meetings between those interested in the salt fish industry and the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Fisheries of this government. The parts of the conference having to do with matters which fall under the jurisdiction of my department are now receiving very careful attention, but as this series of meetings was called by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I would like to refer the main part of the question to that minister for reply.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce prepared to answer the question?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are giving very serious consideration to the problem of the fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces. We have had a series of five or six meetings with the minister of fisheries of Newfoundland, representatives of NAFEL, of the Newfoundland salt fish trade association, of the Newfoundland fishermen's federation and of the Nova Scotia salt fish exporters' association. All these people gave very comprehensive and reasoned statements of the position of the fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces. Officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and of the Department of Fisheries are giving close attention now to these submissions, and we hope some changes and improvements may result from the meetings we have had and from discussions which will subsequently be held.
There has been some disturbance in the minds of some people with regard to NAFEL, which enjoys a peculiar position in the Canadian economy inasmuch as it has an exclusive licence in connection with the sale of salt fish. That licence was originated by the government of Newfoundland before confederation and continued subsequently by the
Inquiries of the Ministry federal government. It will not be discontinued without action on the part of the government, and I should like to assure those connected with the Atlantic fishing industry, and particularly the people of Newfoundland, that a full year's notice will be given if and when the exclusive rights of NAFEL are brought to a conclusion.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to clarify that part of his statement having to do with the year's notice which he said NAFEL would receive. Would that notice date from any point in the year when the decision might be taken, or would it date only from that date on which NAFEL's contracts would normally be renewed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it would date from the time at which notice was given, but it would be in line with the normal commercial marketings of NAFEL. We do not want to interfere in any way with contracts that are being entered into now. It is that assurance I wish to make publicly, so that people interested in NAFEL's operations will know they can carry on their business at this present moment without suddenly being stopped. What they have been afraid of is that overnight this privilege of theirs might be discontinued. We have no such intention.



MIRAMICHI, N.B.    STATEMENT ON REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING CHANGE IN SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi asked me a question which I took as notice. He asked if representations had been made to me or to my department by the Miramichi salmon drifters' association seeking a change in the New Brunswick fishing regulations to eliminate the two-week lift period for Atlantic salmon net fishing. No such request has been received since the lift period was fixed under order in council P.C. 1958-441 of March 29 last.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, on June 25 the Leader of the Opposition asked me the following question:
-whether the Canadian government has made representations to the United States government

Inquiries of the Ministry concerning amendments to the United States atomic energy act, approved by the Senate in Washington on Monday, which would prevent Canada from obtaining United States nuclear weapons of any kind, and would make it illegal for the United States even to supply the information to enable Canada to design such weapons for use by our navy, army or air force?
I am bound to give a somewhat extended answer and I would ask you, sir, to blame the Leader of the Opposition for asking such a question rather than myself for the length of the answer.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we have followed closely the discussions in the United States congress of the amendments to the United States atomic energy act. The house will appreciate that certain restraint has had to be exercised in discussing the legislation of another country while it is under review by the legislature of that country. The United States government is being kept fully aware of possible Canadian military requirements, and we anticipate that we would experience little difficulty because of the amendments under consideration in making any future arrangements with the United States government in the military application of atomic energy which may be necessary for our joint defence.
However, the Leader of the Opposition's question concerned a situation last week in which the United States congress was considering amendments proposed by the two United States houses to amendments proposed by the United States executive to an act which is already amended from the form in which it was originally conceived. I am sure the house will understand, therefore, that it would be inadvisable for me to comment in any detail at this stage on what has been a very complicated amending process.
I would, however, like to add a further comment on the implication of the question which has been asked. There is a suggestion in the question, it seems to me, that the process of amending the United States atomic energy act which is going on has in some sense made more restrictive the provisions of that act. I can with assurance tell the house that this is the exact opposite of the intent of the United States administration, as indicated in the hearings which have taken place over some months. Late last October, following discussions with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the President of the United States indicated that he would request congress to amend the atomic energy act in order to permit close and fruitful collaboration in this field between the United States and other friendly countries. Again, in his message on the state of the union early this year, the President of the United States emphasized the necessity that congress enact

legislation to enable the United States to exchange appropriate scientific and technical information with friendly countries.
There have been a number of other statements by senior United States spokesmen which echo the view that the amendments were intended to liberalize existing United States atomic energy legislation. Many features of the act as it existed before the recent amending process remain unchanged. Even under the earlier provisions of the act it has been possible to meet Canadian requirements as they have developed.
At this stage it is impossible to be certain of all the implications of the amended act for Canada, or indeed for any other interested country. After the new act becomes effective there will follow a period when important interpretations have to be made of its terms in the light of specific requirements. Certainly the amendments would seem to provide somewhat more latitude for co-operation between the United States and friendly countries than was provided in the United States law preceding the amendments.
It is for this reason that the Canadian government anticipates that future Canadian defence needs, in so far as this area of cooperation with the United States is concerned, will be served just as in the past by the necessary degree of United States cooperation in this field that has been possible under existing United States legislation.
I have dealt with the general aspects of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. He has raised as well two particular points. So far as the first of these is concerned, it is not my understanding that the amendments to the United States atomic energy act in so far as they concern the supply of nuclear weapons to other countries affect in any way the provisions of the atomic energy act of 1954.
As to the final part of his question about supply and design information concerning atomic weapons, I should like to point out that the United States atomic energy act as amended will make provision for the supplying of United States restricted data necessary for the development of defence plans, the training of personnel in the employment of defence against atomic weapons, the evaluation of the capabilities of potential enemies in the employment of atomic weapons, and the development of compatible delivery systems for atomic weapons.
The implications of the revised United States atomic energy act for the Canadian defence program perhaps fall within the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of National Defence. I apologize for the length of the answer, but I could not possibly have done better.



REQUEST FOR INFORMAL ATTIRE OF EMPLOYEES IN HOT WEATHER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the extremely hot weather would the Acting Prime Minister give consideration to allowing the members of the staff of the House of Commons to remove their jackets, so they may perform their duties in more comfortable attire during this warm interval?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. member that this comes under your jurisdiction.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister advise whether negotiations have been reopened for the calling of tenders for the sale by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation of the old building in Sudbury, at the request of the city council?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to this question I wish to state that the officials of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation are presently studying the demands made by the city of Sudbury and certain difficulties that have arisen in the negotiations with the company that had made an offer and deposited a cheque.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister which I do, sir, with all due respect to the Acting Minister of Labour (Mrs. Fairclough). Can the Acting Prime Minister inform the house when the Minister of Labour is expected to return to the house after his lengthy absence, to accept the responsibilities he should assume as minister of his department in view of the continuing economic crisis caused by strikes, lockouts and unemployment?
1,	1958	1797
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that upon reflection the hon. member will realize that the statement he has just made is extremely unfair to the Minister of Labour. It is all right for the hon. member to drag in the question of strikes and lockouts, in which he seems to be very much interested-


Harold Edward Winch: I am.


Howard Charles Green: -though not necessarily always from the point of view of getting them settled. The government is very much interested in strikes and lockouts.


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Harold Edward Winch: -I have always been interested in getting strikes settled.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Labour has
been absent in Europe on very important business having to do with his department, and I am surprised that the hon. member for Vancouver East has not realized that fact.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there is more important business for the Minister of Labour than the situation now existing in Canada?


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Labour has
various duties, and I think most fair-minded members of the house will agree that since his appointment he has done an excellent job as minister.

The house resumed, from Monday, June 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Robichaud.



ALLEGED CHANGE IN GOVERNMENTAL

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind hon. members of the first part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gloucester, because I wish to address my remarks now particularly to that part of the amendment. It asks the house to regret "that the government has failed, despite the measure announced on Friday by the Prime Minister, to avert the five-week shut-down in the Nova Scotia coal mines." It is quite obvious, sir, that this measure has failed to avert a shut-down.
The measure announced by the Prime Minister, welcome though it was-and I hasten to say that any expedient that could be justified at all would be welcomed by us
1798	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines on this side of the house in order to keep these miners at work-is after all only an expedient, and it is very hard to see why it would not have been just as easy for the government to take this action two weeks earlier and avert a shut-down altogether. After all, as I understand the statement of the Prime Minister, all the government is proposing to do is to pay the carrying charges on the stockpile of coal over and above the normal stockpile. If that would be a good thing to do at the end of June, it is very hard to understand why it would not be an equally good thing to do at the beginning of June, and it is very hard to understand why the government left this matter to the very last moment, because as was pointed out last night, and I do not intend to repeat it, the government had plenty of warning of what was coming.
The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan), who made the only speech on the government side deserving of any serious consideration, is obviously a good lawyer. He is the kind of lawyer one would engage to defend one if one had been guilty of murder, because I never heard a better attempt to make black appear white than the effort made by the hon. gentleman last evening. He talked about Liberal neglect and betrayal of the coal industry. He talked about that in the face of the indubitable fact that never during the Liberal regime were
9,000	miners thrown out of work at any one time, as has happened since the Tories came into office. He talked with total disregard of the fact that subventions, which have been in operation since 1928, were a Liberal expedient. He told us a fairy tale about Angus Macdonald, when the fact, of course, is that Angus Macdonald was a member of the government at the time the royal commission was established which recommended mechanization, one of the most serious efforts yet made to make the coal industry efficient and economically sound.
He also said that the present government had started the policy of having coal used in government buildings. I assume he was ignorant of the truth which is, of course, that that policy was in operation under the previous government. He talked about the power program instituted by Mr. Harris and Mr. Lesage, as so many Tories do, as if it had been instituted by the present government. He talked about the efforts of the present government to get an overseas market, and completely ignored the fact that the only successful effort in this regard was that made by the previous administration in arranging exports to the United Kingdom. He also talked about the market being protected in


Ontario and Quebec, in the face of the fact that that market is being lost more and more every day.
Even this belated action of paying the carrying charges on the stockpile is nothing new. It is true that it is a new expedient applied to the coal mines, but it is precisely the same policy as was applied two years ago by the Liberal government under the leadership of Mr. C. D. Howe with respect to the carryover of wheat. We cannot help but be flattered that, in order to meet an emergency, the present government should once again have to follow a precedent instituted by a Liberal government.
Since this is only an expedient, since this paying of carrying charges to the end of the year is going to solve absolutely nothing, it does seem to me that when the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys rises to speak he should tell us what is going to happen at the end of December. What is going to happen to the coal industry in 1959? The problem is still going to be there. The Prime Minister did indicate in a vague sort of way that there was some prospect of selling about 4 million tons. I think the minister should be precise and tell us just what there is to this prospect. What markets are in sight?
He should also tell us if there is an agreement already in force with Dosco, and he should lay the agreement on the table so we can see what is in it. He should also tell us whether Dosco has given any assurance that in the period beyond the end of this year collieries will not be closed, because there is a strong suspicion that it is the intention of the company to close collieries.
Now, sir, we had at least three members on the government side of the house last night quoting the statement made by Mr. St. Laurent at Fredericton something over a year ago. What did Mr. St. Laurent say? He said that he would not advocate any substantial increase in coal production. He said also there should not be any ghost towns created in the coal fields. In other words, what he was saying was that the policy that was applied to the gold mines so successfully by the previous administration, and which is being continued by this administration, should be applied to the coal mines. I say that no public man with any sense of responsibility would have promised a substantial increase in coal production in 1957. Hon. gentlemen opposite, not expecting to win an election and blinded by a vision-the vision of office -were ready to promise anything.
Here is what they did with that statement by Mr. St. Laurent. I have here a full-page advertisement from the Halifax Mail-Star

which is headed, "The Coal Industry; Action Today or Regret Tomorrow." It reads in part:
If coal production is not increased the services of some 4,000 of the 11,000 mine workers presently employed in the Nova Scotia coal industry will not be required.
This is a quotation from the Gordon commission. Then there is the quotation from Mr. St. Laurent, to which I have referred, and a quotation from Mr. Stanfield, the premier of Nova Scotia:
The Prime Minister, as a matter of policy, has set his face against the expansion of the coal industry in Nova Scotia . . . And on no issue is there greater disagreement than our stand on coal policy and the position taken by the Liberal party.
Hon. gentlemen had better not applaud too quickly.
In these statements above, the people of Nova Scotia may read for themselves and judge for themselves who has the best interests of Nova Scotia at heart.
Your Progressive Conservative candidates are in favour of a coal policy that will increase coal production! Do a good turn for Nova Scotia-turn out and vote Conservative on June 10.
What has happened since? Coal production has declined by 10 per cent up to this time, and the mines are closing. Obviously production is going to decline a great deal more than 10 per cent in the next five weeks.


An hon. Member:: You hope so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Obviously production is going to decline, since there is going to be no production at all. The mines are going to be closed. What policy has the government for dealing with the coal industry, and for the future of the coal industry? The minister of northern affairs, speaking for the government, talked about a big steel mill some time in the future, some time within the next 40 years. The minister of northern affairs, with that long-range vision of his, was going to give us a steel mill in Nova Scotia.
But what do we really hear about the steel mill? We hear from Dosco that it is not in Nova Scotia they propose to build a steel mill. Dosco is proposing a steel mill in the greater Montreal area. What is the government going to do? Where is that policy of decentralization of the Tory resolutions drawn up at Moncton, on which they sold their policies a year ago? Where is the decentralization of industry? Apparently the decentralization of the steel industry is to be away from Cape Breton to Montreal.
There is no one on this side of the house who would not want to see a steel mill in Montreal. I do not believe there is any doubt that there will be a steel mill in Montreal. But it does seem extraordinary that this government, which got the votes of the
1, 1958	1799
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines people of Nova Scotia by telling them that the Conservatives were going to bring about decentralization of industry, are now sitting idly by while Dosco appears to be proposing to transfer its main operations from Cape Breton to the St. Lawrence.
It is not only in the coal industry, sir, that things have been happening in Nova Scotia. Mr. Henry Hicks gave a statement to the press on June 11, and this is what he said. This statement relates more particularly, of course, to the second part of our motion, which I will not take the time to read, the part referring to the government backing away from the decentralization of industry. This is what Mr. Hicks had to say:
In the past few months we have seen the closing down of several important and useful industries in Nova Scotia, most notably Consumers Cordage in Dartmouth, The Canadian Canners processing plant at Middleton, Moirs box mill at Bedford and the Wolfe Hat and Cap plant at Stewiacke. Even more recently, the announcement has been made of the probable closing of the Hamilton Biscuit Company at Pictou.
In addition to this, a disturbing number of business firms in Nova Scotia have gone bankrupt and made assignments in the past few months. The figures for 1957 were running three times as high as the figures for the previous two years. While the closing of these firms has come in for a good deal of public attention, I am suggesting that the public may not be fully aware of the lay-offs in other industries throughout the province. Some of them are known-the Halifax Shipyards Limited; Eastern Car plant at Trenton; Point Edward naval base-but there are others, lesser in numbers individually, but collectively involving many of our people.
While it is of course true that the Canadian economy is passing through a period of recession, there are definite signs to indicate that we in Nova Scotia are perhaps being affected more adversely than any other areas of Canada. For example, dominion bureau of statistics figures indicate that the housing industry in Canada is experiencing a substantial improvement for this year, but as was pointed out in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 4 in an article headlined "Home Building Booming, but not in Maritimes", we in this province are unfortunately not sharing in this improvement. Indeed all maritime provinces are substantially behind last year in home building figures.
Now, sir, in New Brunswick the decline in employment is evident in the collieries at Minto; in the closing down of the base metal mine in the Bathurst area; the closing of the textile mill at Milltown; the threat to the sugar refinery at Saint John, and if that goes the public has been told that Ganong's at St. Stephen may have to close.
Finally, sir, last night the minister of northern affairs gave us encouragement by telling us that the federally subsidized Beechwood power was being exported to the United States. This is happening at a time when the pleas of the government of Newfoundland for assistance in power development in that province are rebuffed by this
1800	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines government. Apparently Newfoundland does not come within the scope of the George Brown-John	Diefenbaker-Alvin	Hamilton
vision.
It does seem to me, sir, that already I have given enough evidence to show that whatever the government's intention may be the facts are-and it is the facts at which we have to look and the facts by which we have to judge -that in the past 12 months there has been a decline in economic activity in the maritime provinces even greater than the decline in other parts of Canada. There has not been any sign whatever of this policy of decentralization of industry about which so much was made before the June election, and even before the election of last March. As the vision fades before the harsh, clear light of reality, of another period of Tory hard times, the people of the maritimes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest hon. gentlemen just stop and listen-the people of the maritimes will regret the Tory discovery of the maritimes and their own discovery of the Tory party. I say that if things go on the way they are going at present in the maritime provinces, it will not be very long before people there are looking back to the golden age of Liberal neglect in the St. Laurent-Howe era, when the population increased; when income increased; when there was virtually full employment; when equalization multiplied by seven times the yield of direct taxes; when transfer payments from the federal government in Nova Scotia increased 9 times, in Prince Edward Island 11 times, and in New Brunswick 20 times, while they increased only 6 times in Ontario.


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


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as the
member of the government representing the province of Nova Scotia, I think perhaps I should intervene in this debate for a few moments. There is nothing much more to be said from this side of the house than was said yesterday in those four very able speeches that were delivered by the Nova Scotia members in opposition to this proposal which has been made. Despite the caterwauling and sarcasm of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, I will tell him that he has never heard finer speeches made by four freshman members of the house at any time in all the years he has been sitting here.
It also was particularly appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that two of those speeches should be made by men who worked in the pits. I refer to the hon. member for


Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir). The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria suffered an accident resulting in a broken back. I think this house and this country will take the judgment of these men on the coal industry of the province of Nova Scotia before they will take-no matter how respectable and how honourable the members may be-that pf an ex-fisheries inspector from Nova Scotia and an expatriate college professor from Winnipeg, particularly when the expatriate college professor has a schooner but has to get the William Carson to get him back to Newfoundland. If he is as much at a loss in navigating that schooner as he was in making that speech last night, he certainly needs a chart and compass to get him back on course again.
It was an amazing speech, Mr. Speaker. It had no beginning and it certainly had no end. It slithered something like a water snake, twisting and turning, without logic and without reason. When it ended there was nothing more said by it than there was at the beginning.
This is one of the great motions of want of confidence in the House of Commons, one of the six motions to go into supply when the substantial omissions of the government are brought to the attention of the house. If this is all the opposition could arraign this government on, then certainly the record of the government is very good indeed.
What are the facts of this matter? In the first place I should like to say this. I should like to pay tribute to the men who have been operating in the mines of Nova Scotia during these years, who have worked hard and have increased the daily production per man, which fact, together with mechanization, has resulted in the surplus which we have today. The men have gone for over four years without an increase in wages and without a new contract. They deserve full credit for the tremendous achievement which has been made in the development of coal in the Nova Scotia mines.
I should like to pay tribute to the leadership of the union, those leaders who came here and made their representations to the government. We heard the Prime Minister refer to them in the house the other afternoon. I am not going further except to say that it is a tribute to Canadian labour when you have men of that calibre representing a large union such as the U.M.W., which was referred to on this occasion.
It is true that there is overproduction at the moment. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about this matter. I heard it suggested over on the other side of

the house yesterday-I do not think this was intended seriously-that this stockpile itself could not be sold during the coming year, that there were not orders enough to make that possible. The truth of the matter is that the company is selling more coal than was sold before. The truth of the matter is that there are orders for over 4 million tons of coal. The truth of the matter is that with the help of this government and with the-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then why are they shutting down?


George Clyde Nowlan: Wait a moment and I will
tell you. As I was saying, with the leadership of the company and the aggressive management and the co-operation of this government in subventions, they have sold over 350,000 tons of coal to new customers within the last two months, customers that were never found before. My hon. friend spoke about markets being lost in Ontario. That is the greatest poppycock I have ever heard. Markets have been developed in Ontario. That is why we increased the subventions. They are being developed rapidly in the province of Ontario. During the winter months and during this spring a stockpile developed there. The stockpile now is probably about 1,400,000 tons of coal.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There was also an election.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, there was an election.
That is really the reason we have this motion today, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members opposite took the maritime provinces for granted so long that they thought the maritimers were helots, and that all they had to do was pull the string and they would vote Grit. But they finally woke up and had intelligence enough to vote Conservative, and hon. gentlemen opposite have not yet got over the shock. The maritimers ceased being taken for granted. That is a mistake the Liberals still make, in assuming that they will continue to vote for them.
As I was saying when I was interrupted, the stockpile is roughly 1,400,000 tons. There are orders for 4,600,000 tons of coal and orders are still coming in. Many of these orders are for green coal from the mine. You cannot translate the coal from the stockpile into the orders as they get them. Only a proportion can go. It is going to take months, perhaps into the winter, perhaps even into next spring before the whole stockpile is liquidated; and liquidated it will be, because the company will see to it that it moves out and, as I have said, the orders are recurring and multiplying.
What was the situation? We were told that we did not avert a lay-off of five weeks.
57071-3-114
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines We did not have an opportunity to avert a lay-off of five weeks. We were not consulted about a lay-off of five weeks. The company told us that a lay-off of five weeks was necessary for the efficient and economical management of the company's properties. We are not in a position to dictate to the company what it should do. The company went on to say that if that five-week lay-off, which was necessary, were not continuous but were spaced over the period of the next two or three months in various pits at different times, tied into the vacation period and so on, its impact-as serious as it is, of course- would be much less than if it were one that came with full force and was carried on consecutively through all the pits in the province. But the company did say that having inaugurated that lay-off of five weeks which they felt, from the standpoint of business efficiency and management, was necessary, it also would have to extend the lay-offs much further unless government assistance was forthcoming.
Assistance was discussed last week and the week before and various other weeks. The company proposed that one way in which it might be done would be to assist in the carrying charges of the surplus stockpile over and above the normal stockpile, of which of course they have had figures throughout the year. Those estimates were made. They were confirmed by the dominion coal board. We agreed and the government of Canada, in co-operation with the province of Nova Scotia, assumed the difference between the normal stockpile carry-over as estimated at the end of this year and the stockpile we estimate is going to be there. We take the interest, the stockpiling and the insurance and pay these expenses instead of having them paid by the company.
The company still has to raise the money. The company still is risking its capital. The company still has the coal to dispose of. These are the obligations of the company. It is a joint undertaking whereby the company advances the money and carries on the mine. We agreed to assume the cost of the additional burden over and above the normal to the end of this year. The province agrees to accept part of the cost.
Much has been said about this being paltry and about the way it has been done, but I want to say that the union officials who were here expressed tremendous satisfaction at the way in which this government had acted. There have been many quotations from the papers yesterday and today, most of them rumours and a dialectical display of a coup here and a coup there, but I want to refer to a statement appearing in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of yesterday,
1802	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines which quoted Mr. Delaney, the union deputy board member who was here on Friday, as saying that there would have been, of course, much greater loss if this government had not acted at the request of the union, and that the federal government action was the fastest taken by any government in his experience.
We are supposed to be too slow; we are supposed to have been too late, but here is the national board member of the U.M.W., with all his experience in dealing with governments throughout the years, saying that the action we took was the fastest that has ever been taken. Where is all the specious poppycock we heard yesterday from the other side of the house? This government deserves tremendous gratitude for having done what it did. It has the endorsation of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, one of Nova Scotia's large newspapers; it has the endorsation of the Cape Breton paper; it has the endorsation of other large daily papers in the province; it has the endorsation of 95 per cent of all the weekly press in the province; it has the endorsation of the provincial government and has the endorsation of the united mine workers of America. The only thing it lacks is the support of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon and the few for whom they were speaking. I will take the support we have for our position and for the action which this government has taken.
This is not the first thing we have done for the coal industry. We increased subventions last year. In particular we increased subventions last fall for the mine at Springhill in order to keep that mine operating until it was eventually closed, not for lack of financial support but because of the physical situation which developed when the mine was temporarily closed until the seams were brought back to parallel. We increased subventions to other mines so the coal could be brought to other territories, and we increased subventions three weeks ago in order to allow
150,000	or 200,000 tons of coal to be moved into the Belleville area in Ontario. Now we have again increased subventions. Mind you, this should be made clear. This money is not being paid out to the company as such; it will probably not all be paid out this year. This money will be paid out in the form of subventions as the coal moves from the pit stockpile, and it probably will not all be moved and therefore the subventions will not all have been paid out until some time next year.
There has been some talk of corporations. I have no particular brief for this corporation, but I think it has done reasonably well in maintaining employment and in paying out millions upon millions-more millions of


dollars than have been paid out before-in producing coal and continuing to carry the burden, as the corporation is still carrying the burden, and spending money to keep going. It has to pay out all this money itself. It is a lot to do, and it is something which has not been done before.
The hon. member must certainly have been hard put to find an analogy for what his government did for the coal industry when he compared this action with what Right Hon. C. D. Howe did for wheat three years ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the same thing.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that the best comparison of what his government had done for coal? It is true that the former Liberal government under Mackenzie King in the early days of the twenties brought in coal subventions, but they were inadequate. They were not sufficient to keep the industry going. It was under the government of R. B. Bennett, when Gordon Harrington was premier of Nova Scotia, that subventions were increased materially so the economy of the Nova Scotia mining communities was restored and the mines operated for another 20 years. After those subventions were established, costs and freight rates increased until we reached another stage and we were losing our markets. What did the former Liberal government do in order to assist the Nova Scotia coal industry in those days? What did that government do during the last few years?
Hon. members pointed out yesterday afternoon the difficulties of the various mines, that this mine had closed down and another mine was closing down, and that thousands of men would be out of work.
One mine definitely closed down just over a year ago, when the Liberal government in Halifax was being assisted by the Liberal government in Ottawa. We now have a Conservative government in Halifax and we have a Conservative government in Ottawa, and those governments are working in cooperation with each other and are accomplishing something for the coal industry.
I deprecate the pessimism which has been exhibited in this house. This afternoon my hon. friend went off the course. He did not have much to say about the coal industry, so he became Jeremiah and wrote the third book of Jeremiah when he talked about the closing of all the industries in Nova Scotia. Although I was sure he was sincerely sorry to have to enumerate the long list of shut downs, one could not but detect a slight gleam in his eye. He went on to speak of the Moirs woodworking company which had been closed down and he also mentioned several plants

which had been closed down, burned down, or had gone out of operation in the last ten years.
What was the Liberal coal policy? We have heard a great deal said about that and certainly the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) and the hon. member for In-verness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan), who spoke yesterday afternoon referred to it. I do not have to recap or recount the coal policy of the former government but perhaps, just to keep the record straight-having in mind that this was referred to by the hon. member who has just sat down-I should say that their so-called coal policy did not come anywhere near meeting our problems. The people of Nova Scotia refused to accept it and the Liberal government itself did not know just what it was. They talked about producing coal at cost and using it for producing power. As the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond said, "What is cost?" It could be anything.
This government, before the election of June 10, laid down its policy. We said if we were elected we would build thermal plants which would produce electricity cheaper than it was then being produced. That was our pledge, and that pledge has been kept. We have inaugurated a policy as a result of which we expect and believe that thermal power will be developed in Nova Scotia at a comparable cost to that of power in Ontario at the present time. This is really a major gain.
Our interests were twofold; (a) to promote the coal industry in Nova Scotia and (b) to promote the natural development of our province. We tried to do these two things together, using our coal industry and development of our power, and by means of subventions are bringing down the cost of the power produced in that area.
This is the program we have been carrying out and which we are carrying out today. There has been a great deal of complaint, and particularly complaint about some plant to be built in Saint John-whether it is going to use coal or whether it is not going to use coal. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the magnificent speech he made yesterday afternoon pointed out that no one could foresee the future for generations or even for years to come. But this can be said without any question whatsoever,-namely that any thermal plant receiving assistance from the federal government today, tomorrow or in the reasonably foreseeable future, is going to burn Nova Scotia or maritime coal or it will not get subventions. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate last night said he wanted a statement on that subject, and I hope this
57071-3-114J
L 1958	1803
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines is a specific answer to the questions he asked. I am speaking with the authority of the government when I make this statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? Would he state whether that stipulation will be put into the contract for the Saint John plant, as Mr. Stanfield said it would?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not discussing contracts at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; exactly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will you stop that "ah-hah". That is about all you know. Some of you are used to the kind of government which thinks everything has to be in black and white and that everything has to be written in a contract if commitments are not to be broken.


Mr. Bourque:: Tell us something about the truth.


George Clyde Nowlan: What did I hear you say?


Romuald Bourque: I said, tell us something about the truth of what has been going on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think there are too many speakers in this house.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am wondering if the hon member is insinuating that I am not telling the truth. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will withdraw that on your instructions I hope.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure of the words the hon. minister complains about.


George Clyde Nowlan: He said for me to tell the truth.


Romuald Bourque: I did not say that. I said tell us all about the truth.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, Hansard will have what he said on the record. I am not concerned about that any more.


An hon. Member:: Unless it is changed.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure it will not be changed any more.
The government's policy was that the power should be developed. The Liberals, then the government, in a last dying effort produced the so-called Winters scheme for the development of power, and the merit of that can be judged by the fact that last night the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate admitted that it was on June 6, in the dying days of a dying campaign of a dying government that the government made a commitment with respect to using coal in the Nova Scotia thermal power plants.
1804	HOUSE OF
Coal

Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines *


An hon. Member:: After they had kicked us in the teeth for years.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the merit of the so-called program advanced. We advanced our own program. It was accepted by the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in June; it was accepted again this March. It is being carried out, and it will be carried out; and, as I said a few moments ago, coal will be used in all plants which have received subventions or assistance from this government for the reasonably foreseeable future. Here again, look at the difference between the two schemes. These plants are going to be operated by the provincial governments, under provincial control.
One could go on and on, but I think I have said enough to suggest that the record of this government with respect to its coal policy, and the increased assistance which we have given to the industry during the short time we have been in office, have re-established the faith of the people with respect to putting the industry on a firm basis again and the people of Nova Scotia have no doubt as to where this government stands with respect to it. I say this because never before has any government gone so far as we have gone in co-operation with the provincial government in extending this subvention.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say, what about next year? I do not know about next year. Next year is another year. We are dealing with the present. We have made arrangements to provide full employment for the miners in the mine fields of Nova Scotia operated by the company subject to the 25-day lay-off which the company, as I explained before, said was inevitable and which they intended to carry out in any event.
It may be that next year again the -coal industry will face -difficulties. I do not know. If it does, I think this government has shown its interest in the coal industry in the province, so it would be prepared to give consideration to the problem if it should again arise. This action taken by the government the other day has both negative and positive implications. It is negative in that it prevented a lay-off. To that extent it is negative, although even this was very positive to the people who are not to be laid off. But it also has a positive implication, because the government would not have achieved this temporary result if they had thought that in a few months time the effort would be abortive and useless.
The government believe that the future of the Nova Scotia coal industry can be reestablished and is reasonably bright. We have seen an example within the last few


days, when the Ontario hydro commission chairman said that within a year or two he would be buying well over one million tons of coal and that within 10 years, even after making allowances for the St. Lawrence seaway and all the other developments of hydro electric power-he, or rather the hydro commission, would be buying over 10 million tons of coal according to the present expansion program for Ontario.
All it comes to, Mr. Speaker, is a redirection of this subvention, a little here and a little there. We have already broken into Ontario to a fairly substantial degree, and by increasing subventions, which might not necessitate an over-all increase at all, you could move Nova Scotia coal into this tremendous market which is so very near and capable of so much expansion, this market which is going to develop along the seaway. And with the development of the seaway both ways, United States coal may come down, but Nova Scotia coal can go up.
I remember when I was sitting on the other side of the house I quoted from dominion coal board figures which said that by 1965 the coal industry, not only of Nova Scotia but the -coal industry generally, would be on the upsurge again because of increasing costs of producing oil and other fuels. And I believed what I said when I said that the future of the industry is bright.
We have a new -company. It must be remembered that the company only took over last November; it has not -been there very long, but the management has been aggressive and intelligent in developing new sales policies; and with the collaboration of the governments and that management I believe that within a relatively short period, a year or two at the outset, we could develop a market for Nova Scotia coal, and develop the production of Nova Scotia coal.
One thing which I believe to be really bad about this lay-off is not the financial loss so much but the fact that the miners who have worked so hard might feel that if they had not worked quite so hard they would not be facing a lay-off. I hope the leaders of the industry will avoid that mistake being made, because we have to have continual production and continual effort, the co-operation of management and labour in the industry, and given those things we can solve this problem and we will do so.
In so far as this specific amendment is concerned, we are told first that the house regrets that the government has failed to avert a five-week shut-down. As I said a moment ago, it is true there is to be a five-week shut-down. But we did not fail to avert

it, because the company said it was inevitable in any event. When they came before us with this proposition they had already announced the five-week shut-down as something which they, or any company in a similar position, would be bound to institute.
Then the amendment expresses regret that the government has backed away from its commitment to promote the establishment of industry in the Atlantic provinces. That is absolutely fallacious and without any foundation in fact or fancy. The policy of this government is twofold. As I said, it is to help promote the coal mines, to develop cheaper power, and to develop industry. And in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island industry depends on power and transportation. We have taken the steps necessary to provide cheaper power and to avert an increase in freight rates not only in the maritimes but elsewhere in Canada, and we are going to take other steps with regard to transportation problems in the maritimes and in the rest of Canada. This government will, I am confident, have shown before very long that it is responsible for a tremendous development of industry in the maritimes as well as in Canada generally.
The last part of the amendment reads:
And particularly from its specific undertaking to ensure the use of coal in thermal plants assisted financially by the federal government.
That again is a sheer figment of the imagination. The government has not departed from the policy announced by the Prime Minister that we are going to insist that all thermal plants in the maritime provinces receiving federal assistance shall burn coal. That is our policy. It has been stated by the Prime Minister, and it is beyond challenge and contradiction.
I do not think there is any point in commenting further on the statements that have been made. As I said earlier, the speeches that were made by hon. members yesterday were speeches of which I was proud as a minister coming from Nova Scotia. They were speeches of which I am sure all hon. members of this side of the house and the people of Nova Scotia in general will be proud as well when they read reports of them in today's newspapers. The speeches were a credit to this house and to those who made them. Hon. members who entered into the debate come from coal constituencies in which they have a lifetime of personal knowledge and experience, and it was rewarding to see the keen interest they took in the matter.
Under the circumstances I suggest that the house cannot possibly accept the amendment
1, 1958	1805
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines which has been proposed and I urge that it be defeated when it is brought to a vote this evening.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the privilege of saying a few words on this amendment though I have to confess that perhaps in the eyes of the hon. minister who just sat down I am disqualified from doing so because I am an ex-professor.


George Clyde Nowlan: You might be an intelligent one, though.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not even an ex-inspector of fisheries. I recognize, of course, as all hon. members of the house must recognize, that anyone who has worked in the coal mines has a special claim to be heard in this house in respect of any coal question. There is no difference of opinion amongst us on that point. But, Mr. Speaker, this happens to be an important question of government policy, and perhaps even a lack of experience in the practical aspects of the coal industry may not disqualify me from saying something about it, especially in view of what has been said by my hon. friend who just took his seat and who, I must add, ended his speech on a much more realistic note than that on which he began.
I had hoped and I think all hon. members on this side of the house had hoped-and indeed the hope has already been expressed- that the minister more particularly concerned with government policy in this matter, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) would have given the house all the advantage of his knowledge of the problem, and would perhaps let us know some of the ideas the government has about the problem when these temporary measures which have been mentioned have ended. However, he has not as yet taken part in the debate, though perhaps he is just waiting for me to sit down so he can make his contribution.
I can readily understand the desire of the government to enter the Minister of National Revenue in the debate, not only because he comes from Nova Scotia, which is a good reason for his doing so, but also because he was able to throw a smokescreen of irony and intelligence around some of the facts of the issue. He did it, as I admit he nearly always does, with a certain amount of debating skill; but one fact glaringly remains, that he did not deal with the questions that were raised in this debate by my friend the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), who moved the amendment, and by my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who seconded it. The hon. gentleman dealt with a lot of other things but he did not deal with those questions.
1806	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines
I regret, too, that in his lively remarks the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources did not deal with those questions either. That hon. gentleman gave an interesting interpretation of the paternity

or the grand paternity, if you like-of the Canadian vision. The Prime Minister may be the father, but I am sure the house and the country were surprised to learn yesterday that that eminent Liberal father of confederation, George Brown, was its grandfather. I am sure, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said last evening, that news will be of particular interest to my hon. friends from Quebec, who must be aware of George Brown's interest in the establishment in this country in 1867 of a legislative rather than a federal union.
Not only did we learn some interesting history in the course of this debate but we were also treated once again, as we have been treated so often in this house, to a contradiction between words uttered last February and March and a year ago in May and June, and words uttered in this house after the election had taken place. Surely it should be unnecessary to repeat the specific and concrete assurances made by so many members of the government in the last election campaign and the one before that in respect of one particular aspect of this question which is mentioned specifically in the amendment, namely the use of coal from Nova Scotia in thermal power stations.
One thing the Minister of National Revenue accomplished this afternoon, in my opinion, was to add another contradiction to the series of contradictions in governmental statements on this matter; because, as I hope to show a little later, it is not going to be easy for him, as I understand what he said, to reconcile his remarks this afternoon with what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said yesterday in regard to this matter.
The Minister of National Revenue said a few moments ago-I shall repeat this because I do not want to misquote him, and he will tell me if I am wrong-that the government has accepted a specific commitment which will ensure that Nova Scotia coal will be used in thermal power stations in the maritime provinces. That is, I take it, a commitment which he has now given the house and the country.


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to clarify his statement by adding that I referred to thermal power stations receiving government support.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Those stations receiving
government support and subventions on coal.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would also substitute maritime coal for Nova Scotia coal because there may be New Brunswick coal involved.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very well, maritime coal rather than Nova Scotia coal. That is the statement that has now been put on the record by the Minister of National Revenue, which makes it necessary for me to relate that statement to what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said last night in regard to the particular policy of ensuring that maritime coal should be used in thermal power plants.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. member leave the development of that point until after the adjournment. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when we reached six o'clock I was attempting to deal with the remarks which have been made on the amendment before the house by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) and had suggested that those remarks would be found, in some respects at least, to be quite inconsistent with what was said by his colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) last evening. Before I proceed to point out that inconsistency I had better put on the record very briefly, because there is not much time available, Liberal policy in respect of the particular question which is dealt with in the amendment.
As hon. members must know, Liberal policy was to apply subventions to make coal competitive with oil in thermal power plants in the Atlantic provinces, which we thought and still think was the best way, not only to help the coal industry but to bring about the cheapest possible production of power in those areas where cheap power is certainly needed. Indeed, it was our intention to assist in the production of power so that it could be distributed at cost.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I must say I was very interested indeed in one remark made by the Minister of National Revenue on this particular point of distributing products at cost of production. I took down what the minister said and I am sure it will be of very great interest to his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when the time comes for him to explain to the

house what he means by the proposed amendment to the dumping duty legislation which would establish cost of production as the basis on which dumping duty should apply. I say that because this afternoon the Minister of National Revenue, speaking on a different matter but applying himself to the principle of cost production, had this to say: "What is cost of production? It might be anything".
That is a very useful observation to have on the record in regard to the deficiencies of and the difficulty of determining cost of production as a basis on which duty might be levelled.


Mr. Fulton:: That is why-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Did my hon. friend have something to say?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was just rather amused. That is all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our coal policy as enunciated during the last election campaign included four points, and perhaps it might be interesting if I put them on the record because one of the things we desire to do as the session progresses is to put on the record all the policies we put forward during the election campaign as this will be an indication to parliament and to the people that we stand by those policies and those promises.
This is what we had to say about coal. Our coal policy would include:	(1) An
intensive and comprehensive program of scientific and industrial research to find more uses for coal and help bring about expanded employment; (2) further measures to encourage greater production and marketing, including more flexible uses of subventions to move coal to markets within and without the maritimes area; (3) increase the scope of federal agencies such as the dominion coal board so that they would consider the social and human problems of the mining towns. No longer would they be restricted to considering economic matters alone but their policy would take the social and human affairs of the community under consideration as well. (4) A specific and immediate plan of co-operation with the provincial governments to promote industrial enterprises to diversify the economy and increase employment opportunities.
In contrast with that specific and definite statement of policy, Mr. Speaker, we are in more doubt now, I think, than we were before the Minister of National Revenue spoke as to what the policy of the government is in respect of this important matter. I think it is unnecessary for me at this time to repeat the assurances which were made and which
1, 1958	1807
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines were put on Hansard yesterday, assurances made during the last election campaign in very concrete and specific terms by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that the burning of coal in thermal power plants in the Atlantic provinces which received help from the government was a condition precedent to federal assistance.
The record in that regard was made quite clear by those on this side who spoke in the debate yesterday and I do not intend to repeat what they said. But because it is at the very core of our amendment it is important to reiterate what the premier of Nova Scotia said in the house of assembly of that province on March 4 when he assured the province of Nova Scotia that the Prime Minister of Canada had given him the assurance that the use of coal was a condition precedent to federal assistance and that such a condition-this is the important part in view of what my hon. friend said this afternoon-was covered by the master agreement. I am going to read the exchange on this point between the premier and the leader of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia as taken from the records of the Nova Scotia house of assembly. I am quoting from Hansard of yesterday because it was put on the record then but it bears repetition in view of what was said this afternoon. The premier said:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have just told my hon. friend through you, sir, that the instructions that I have received from the Prime Minister-
That is the Prime Minister of Canada.
-are just the burning of maritime coal is to be a condition precedent to federal assistance under the agreement.
The language may seem a little awkward but it is quite clear that just the burning of maritime coal is to be a condition precedent to federal assistance under the agreement. Then Mr. Hicks intervened:
Including the Saint John one?
The Premier: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how- what my hon. friend wants. I said that I had been instructed by the Prime Minister that the burning of coal is a condition precedent to federal assistance in the construction of any thermal power station under this agreement.


Mr.   Fielding@: Under the master agreement?
The Premier: Under the master agreement.
Nothing could be clearer than those words. The intention of those words is perfectly clear, that not only was the federal government to carry out the commitment which my hon. friend mentioned this afternoon that coal would be used in thermal power plants receiving help from the federal government but that commitment would be
1808	HOUSE OF
Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines included in the master agreement as a condition precedent to the granting of such help.
The speech of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources last evening, which I did not have the pleasure of hearing but which I have had the equal pleasure of reading in Hansard today, was in startling contrast to that specific commitment and to the commitments made by his colleagues in the election campaign. I am not sure how the Minister of National Revenue is going to reconcile his commitment this afternoon with what his colleague said last night because I gather from Hansard that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources was almost indignant last night at the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) insisting on the use of coal in these power plants. This is what he had to say as found at page 1758 of Hansard:
The suggestion that because this government did not put a clause in this general agreement insisting on the use of coal in every thermal plant in these four provinces is a suggestion that we should do something which is absolutely against the interests of the coal industries of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I want to make it very clear that the policy the hon. member advocates-
That policy was making the use of coal compulsory in these plants.
-would, in fact, destroy the future of this coal industry in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Then, again he said, having mentioned all these things, why then do I make this statement that to achieve what the hon. member for Gloucester has advocated means the destruction of the coal industry in the future? He answered his own question by saying that to insist on a general agreement-and this is what the Prime Minister said would happen during the election campaign-that only coal should be used would be suicidal and completely destructive of the long-range future of the coal industry in that area.
Again, I call the attention of the house to what the Minister of National Revenue said about that this afternoon. I remind the house also of what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said on this subject on May 21 in answer to a question by the hon. member for Gloucester, and this appears at page 313 of Hansard for that date:


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a supplementary question. Mr. Speaker. Can the minister now inform the house whether such agreements insisted that coal be used to generate power instead of oil?


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: To my knowledge there is no such term insisting that coal be used. In fact in one part of the working out of this agreement I understand it is fully understood between the two governments that on certain occasions oil will be used in one of the plants.
I suggest, therefore, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what was said this afternoon, that the words of the minister of northern affairs


serve only to strengthen the basis of our amendment asking the house to express its regret that the specific undertaking of the government on this matter has been broken. I can understand, and I think this has already been referred to in this debate, the feeling of the writer of the editorial in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of May 23 when he had this to say in referring to this withdrawal from the specific commitment.
Something happens to public confidence in governmental institutions when ministers lead citizens to believe one policy will be adopted and then to undertake, without satisfactory explanation, a different course.
Mr. Speaker, irrespective of the conflicting evidence of government spokesmen on this matter, irrespective of the fact that they have withdrawn from earlier commitments on this matter which are in specific terms, what are the implications of the situation? It is true that the government, through the Prime Minister, made a statement last Friday which will be helpful to the industry in this emergency, so far as it goes. But it is true also that these shut-downs mean economic loss to the province of Nova Scotia, and no one can take any satisfaction out of that. They mean also a planned reduction in coal production of 300,000 tons. They mean real hardship to the coal miners and their families. This afternoon the Minister of National Revenue paid a very eloquent, very moving and very deserved tribute to those coal miners and to other persons associated with the coal industry in Nova Scotia. I think we can all associate ourselves with that tribute.
He talked about the efforts they had made over recent years to increase the production of coal, and the success which had attended those efforts. But I would remind him, if he needs reminding and I do not think he does, that he did not make reference to the fact that increased production was largely the result of the mechanization changes which have been made in the coal industry.


George Clyde Nowlan: In part.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All right, in part; in large part.


George Clyde Nowlan: In large part.


Lester Bowles Pearson: According to the president of Dosco this mechanization was due to the fact that the Liberal government of those days, on which my hon. friends like to pour contempt on every possible opportunity, made available for that mechanization about $7.5 million by way of loans.


George Clyde Nowlan: We have an application for a bigger loan before us right now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the president of Dosco himself has said, without that financial assistance by the federal government this increased production would not have been possible.
What we are asking in this amendment is that the house express its regret that this present situation has not been prevented. We find some difficulty in understanding why any member of this house, especially a representative from a coal mining area, could vote against an amendment in those terms.
It is a little difficult to understand what some of the members who spoke in this debate last night had on their minds. Their speeches were a combination of attack on the previous government, and that is an easy gambit in debate, coupled with rather extravagant praise for the present government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And that is an easy one to do too.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is very easy for my hon. friend, I know. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that those speeches last night on which my hon. friend this afternoon poured such praise and no doubt from his point of view that praise was entirely justified, might have contained at least a note of urgency, a call to the government for action, a call that might have been made by independently minded members of the house, and some warning of the danger ahead. It was surprising that none of the members who spoke last night seemed to take that line.
We have at present a planned curtailment, and the minister admitted it this afternoon, of coal production to the amount of 300,000 tons. Most, if not all, of what we got last night from the Conservative members who spoke was praise for the Minister of National Revenue, and a great deal of what we got this afternoon from the Minister of National Revenue was praise for the members who spoke last night. They have constituted themselves into a provincial mutual admiration society.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: That is more than you can say for your side.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be the last person to try to interfere with that process-


An hon. Member:: Sit down, then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: of mutual admiration, especially before the process of disillusionment begins.


George Clyde Nowlan: I trust that mine was as
deserved as that of the other members.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I listened to the minister's remarks this afternoon with great interest and some pleasure. However, none of the 57071-3-115
1.	1958	1809
Coal

Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines government members who have spoken-and
1	said this before six o'clock-have addressed themselves to the measures which were announced by the Prime Minister on Friday or to the questions which we on this side have asked during the course of this debate. On the Prime Minister's own admission, the stockpile of coal at the end of this year will be 750,000 tons in excess of the normal carryover. The normal carryover, I am informed by people who know more about the details of this industry than I do, is about 650,000 tons. At the end of this year, then, the stockpile on that basis will still have 1,300,000 tons of coal. This afternoon the minister got a great deal of comfort from the fact that there were 4 million tons on the order books of the company.


George Clyde Nowlan: Over 4 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Over 4 million, then, but I do not know how he can get very much comfort out of that fact when the surplus stockpile at the end of the year will be
1,300,000	tons above the normal requirements. Surely there is a possibility of real danger in that situation. Surely some member of the government, perhaps the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), who is not in his seat at the moment, will even at this late hour in the debate tell us what is going to be done at the end of this year. Does the assistance which has been provided apply only to the remainder of this year? These are questions which have been asked, but I repeat them. What commitments, if any, has the company made in return for this assistance? Have they guaranteed no shut-downs, no colliery closures in 1959?
It was a little bit surprising to hear the minister say this afternoon that this request for assistance and the development of this emergency occurred so suddenly that the members of the government knew nothing about it until the approach was made just a few weeks ago. But in that approach did the coal company make any promise not to close the Florence colliery in Cape Breton, the Acadia Coal Company in Pictou and No.
2	mine at Springhill? I cannot answer that question but I venture to say-my hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong; maybe I shall tempt him into intervening on this point-that the government has received no promise from the company that it will keep these mines in continued operation. We therefore wish to remind the government and the house once again that no shut-down of this magnitude involving 9,000 miners and all the collieries of the Dominion Coal Company can be treated as anything but an extremely serious development indeed; and it is something that never occurred under any

Coal-Shutdown of Nova Scotia Mines Liberal government in the post-war period. If this is a matter of comparing Liberal neglect with Tory progress I think the 5,000 men in Cape Breton lining up today in front of the unemployment insurance office for benefits will prefer Liberal neglect.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am just going to make clear once again what this amendment is and what it does. It asks the house to express its regret that the government has repudiated, with respect to the use of coal in thermal power plants, promises which it made in specific terms and which it has not attempted in this debate to explain away. We also ask the house to express regret that it has failed to avoid the shut-down in the coal mines of Nova Scotia. Once again I find it difficult to understand how any member of this house, especially any independently minded member from Nova Scotia, can vote against an amendment of that kind. We on this side of the house have a duty to bring this matter, which is a serious one economically and in human terms of unemployment, to the attention of the house; and in this amendment we think we have discharged that duty.



FINANCE


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, under standing orders only one amendment is permitted to a supply motion, so it is not possible for our group to move an amendment on this occasion with regard to a problem or a grievance, and unfortunately it is not possible to tie in a subamendment which would be permissible under standing orders along with the amendment moved by the official opposition. However, as there is now a matter of an hour
McDonald
(Hamilton South) McGee McGrath McGregor McPhillips Mandziuk Martel Martineau Martini Matthews Monteith (Perth)
More
Morissette
Morton
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Muir (Lisgar)
Nasserden
Nielsen
Noble
Nowlan
O'Hurley
O'Leary
Ormiston
Parizeau
Pascoe
Paul
Payne
Pigeon
Rapp
Rea
Regnier
Ricard
Richard (Kamouraska) Rogers Rompre Rynard Skoreyko Small Smallwood Smith (Hastings-Frontenac)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Speakman
Spencer
Stanton
Starr
Stearns
Stinson
Thomas
Tremblay
Valade
Van Horne
Weichel
White
Winkler
Wratten-137.

and a quarter left before time runs out on this supply motion, we are afforded this opportunity of presenting a grievance which our group thinks is an important one and should be drawn to the attention of the house at this time.
In the 25 years that I have had the honour of being an elected member either of federal or provincial parliaments I believe I have earned the reputation of being an extemporaneous speaker. In 25 years I have never used comprehensive notes. However, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and with the forbearance of hon. members, I intend to do so this evening in order to try to put forward every aspect of an important grievance.
What we have in mind is a problem which afflicts very seriously an important sector of the Canadian economy, namely the small business group. May I first of all emphasize that we in the C.C.F. have always recognized the indispensable role which small business plays in the Canadian economy. I know I am safe in saying that without our service industries, without our retail and other distributed outlets, without our small production industries, our communities in Canada would find it almost impossible to produce and to distribute effectively the nation's commercial and industrial products. I am certain all hon. members will agree that our service industries, which, of necessity, include many small businesses, are, have been, and will be an integral part of our complex economic organization.
Our group has given a great deal of thought over many weeks and months to the position of small business in Canada, and we fail to understand, in view of the importance of small business and small industries to our economy, why there has as yet been no development policy brought forward, no adequate program which would meet the particular difficulty of small business and small industries, namely the problem of long term financing. I feel quite certain that many members of this house know that a great many small businesses in Canada have long been confronted with the difficulty of raising long term credit in order to finance their capital requirements, and it is on this particular phase of small business that we desire to speak at this time.
I think all hon. members will agree that if a small business is properly managed then it has access to the chartered banks but as a general rule small business can only obtain a short term loan from a chartered bank. That is understandable because it has been the traditional practice with only one or two special exceptions for the chartered banks to 57071-3-1154
Small Business-Long term Credit limit their lending to short term credit. Small and medium-sized businesses are dependent upon banks for short term credit and as a general rule these loans do not extend over a year. Indeed, in the majority of cases the loans are repaid inside of a year. On the other hand long term lending has generally been shunned by the banks in our country and that too is understandable because it is based on the nature of our banking system which is deposit banking. Since deposits in banks are withdrawable either on demand or on very short notice the banking institutions of this country have understandably maintained the policy of keeping their assets comparatively liquid. I think it is because of that need that they have not in the past extended long term loans to small business and to small industry. However, there is a great need for such loans to be extended to small business and industry.
I am certain that hon. members will remember that there were some bankers who were opposed to the National Housing Act of 1954 which allowed the banks to enter the long-term mortgage field. Experience since 1954, however, has clearly demonstrated that banks can allocate a certain amount of their bank credit in the form of long term mortgage loans without impairing to any appreciable degree what is termed the liquidity of the position of the banks. The logical course for a large firm that wants a long-term loan is to raise money either by floating a stock issue or, if it wants to raise non-equity capital, by selling a bond or debenture issue, but this is not possible for small industry or small business.
All hon. members, I am sure, will accept as axiomatic that a small firm or industry would have little hope of being able to raise the necessary capital funds by going to an investment house, a brokerage firm or an insurance company in an effort to raise money through the issuance of debentures. The position of the banks in the past, as I have said, is definitely understandable but I think we must also recognize that small industry and small business are on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot obtain long term loans from the banks and neither can they go through the medium available to large business to raise required capital.
If hon. members will only think back a little I feel certain they will remember that a gap in the financial structure of this country was filled in 1944 by the establishment of the industrial development bank. The primary purpose of this public corporation was to supply long term capital to small and medium-sized businesses which, for the reasons I have already mentioned, could not

Small Business-Long term Credit obtain such capital from the private financial institutions. The bank was empowered to lend money or guarantee loans made by private credit institutions or even to acquire common stock, bonds or debentures from the issuing corporation with which it had entered into an underwriting agreement. While the industrial development bank has helped to fill the gap its operations have been limited, as its name implies, to assisting industrial enterprises. Not even the changes in the act made in 1956 which somewhat broadened the field of eligible businesses have substantially changed the situation. Consequently there are still many small businesses which do not qualify under the lending terms of this bank. We feel that some action must be taken to assist small industry and business.
Several important questions come to mind when we consider a plan or policy to meet this situation but we in this group remind hon. members first of all of the principles underlying the industrial development bank and also of the changes that were made only a short time ago in the National Housing Act to permit for the first time the chartered banks of Canada to enter the long term lending mortgage field. I believe I am correct in saying that the banks have in no way retreated from their position of liquidity because of their entering this field. Presumably guarantees could be extended to the chartered banking system in the field of loans to qualifying small industry and business if the government would only set its mind to tackling this most important problem.
We say that experience in Canada has definitely proved that bank credit if used wisely can be employed up to a point in financing long term requirements. Because of the experience of the industrial development bank, the chartered banks and the wonderful facilities offered by the chartered banks with all their branches throughout Canada, we suggest to the house and the government a plan to aid small industry and small business to obtain the required capital on a reasonable long term basis.


Mr. Pallett:: Did you read the speech from the throne?


Harold Edward Winch: Our group recommends to the consideration of the house a five point program which I should like to enumerate at this time. We suggest the following program:
1. Broaden the class of loans under the industrial development bank to include a broad coverage of non-industrial enterprises such as the service industries, distributive trades, etc.

2.	Increase the capitalization of the industrial development bank to accommodate increased lending, investing and guaranteeing of loans.
3.	Amend the Bank Act to allow chartered banks to lend money or make advances to qualifying small business upon the security, mortgage or hypothecation of real or immovable property. May I say that this would be in addition to the special exceptions which have already been made in this respect under the National Housing Act, 1954, and the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
4.	Guarantee term loans by chartered banks to small business against losses up to 10 per cent of the total amount of such loans made by any bank. May I add there that the figure of 10 per cent was chosen by our group because the same percentage is operative under similar guarantees, for example, with respect to farm improvement loans.
5.	Enable chartered banks to sell mortgages securing such term loans to the industrial development bank in the same way in which the banks are enabled to sell housing mortgages to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Furthermore, ensure that banks can receive advances from the Bank of Canada using such mortgages as eligible security in the same way in which they can receive advances from the Bank of Canada using housing mortgages as security.
We in this group, Mr. Speaker, feel that not only is such a plan necessary in Canada at this time but that it is feasible, practical and will assist small business and industry. It will protect the banks making the loans because it puts them in the same position as they are at the present time with respect to long term advances for housing or farm loans. We propose this program with the object of opening up a new avenue by which the chartered banks, working in close-cooperation with a revised industrial development bank, could grant capital assistance in the form of term loans to qualifying small businesses. To some it may seem a novel approach but it is no more novel than the legislation passed by the house in 1954 which allowed the banks, for the first time in their history, to go into the mortgage lending field under the National Housing Act. In order to guarantee what is termed the liquidity of the banks and thus maintain the complete integrity of deposit banking the necessary safeguards have been provided in the five points I have outlined on behalf of this group.
We believe that the program we are proposing at this time will fill a gap in the financial structure of the country, a gap

which has long handicapped small business. We hope that it will receive the most serious consideration by members of the house and the most serious consideration of the government which would have to bring in the required legislation.


Mr. Ormislon:: Would the hon. member permit a question2


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, certainly.


James Norris Ormiston: I wonder whether the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) considers that government sponsored cooperatives compete with small business. What is his reaction to that policy?


Harold Edward Winch: Co-operatives only operate in Canada under laws of the federal and provincial parliaments. We are asking that small business be given the same assistance as any other business.


John Cameron Pallett: You would do away with them if you had the chance.


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words in connection with small business. I find, after listening to the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that he has enunciated more or less what has been Conservative policy over the years. But it is not C.C.F. policy.


An hon. Member:: Bring down a bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has only just read the speech from the throne.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suppose also that the remarks I am going to make tonight may again be the subject of vindictiveness on the part of the hon. twitching, squirming, jumping, jack-in-the-box from Twillingate. Instead of cluttering up the debates and highjacking-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is well recognized in this house, and I am sure the hon. member will agree, that reflections on any hon. member of a character that touch his person in that way are certainly not within the traditions of the house. I would ask the hon. member if he does not think he has gone away beyond the bounds of fair comment in that kind of observation.


Mr. Habel:: He took a whole month to think that up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On the point of order may I say that while any one of the epithets alone might have passed unnoticed I think that the combination of them is more than the house is likely to appreciate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am very pleased to withdraw those terms, twitching, squirming
L 1958	1813
Small Business-Long term Credit and jumping. Instead of cluttering up the debates of this house, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) would have probably been well advised to stay back on the squid jigging grounds, where he might have been of some help bailing out some fisherman's boat.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Is this your grievance?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, that is not my grievance. Perhaps I should also say that while I appreciate the invitation from some member of the C.C.F. to join his party I can tell them quite frankly that if there is one outfit I would not go near with a 14-foot barge pole, it is the C.C.F. I would much rather be an impatient Tory. My politics are for free enterprise and the help of governments, instead of regimentation by governments. I believe in private ownership, and this does not apply only to the C.B.C. I feel it is wrong for governments, such as the government of Saskatchewan, to compete with private enterprise, and I am not just thinking of Trans-Canada Air Lines. Governments are set up to assist and encourage private enterprise, and not compete with it, nor hamstring it by bureaucracy or fetter it by too much legislation. Today business spends a big percentage of its time in collecting money for governments at all levels. I feel we must regain that pioneer spirit which possessed our forefathers when they landed on these shores, and go forward and marshall the wealth and the resources of this country, thereby creating jobs, payrolls, security and opportunities for work. Free enterprise, aided by a sympathetic and noncompeting government, can do this. The C.C.F. just does not fit into the picture of a greater Canada, so I suggest they join us.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind the hon. member that the grievance, as I understood it, related to government guaranteed long term loans to small business. If the hon. gentleman does not want to talk on that subject, there is another hon. member who does. I suggest he address himself to that problem.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One of the great problems that exists in my riding affects small business in a singular way. While I may be restricted tonight to speaking only about capital assistance, I may say this: No government in the history of this country has taken seriously, nor has given the consideration to small business which it deserves. The industrial development bank, in so far as it affects a certain group of businesses connected with manufacturing or processing, does serve a useful purpose in a very restricted field. The regulations that govern loans make it very difficult for many businesses
1814	HOUSE OF
Small Business-Long term Credit that need loans to get them. Today the No. 1 problem with small business is certainly capital, yet our economic setup is so arranged as to provide financial capital for the larger corporations. There is no similar setup whereby a small business can become capitalized easily and effectively.
This problem is not peculiar to Canada alone; it applies equally to other countries with which we are familiar. I believe the reconstruction plan introduced into the United States by the late President Roosevelt in the early thirties did to some extent correspond with the subject matter which my hon. friend just mentioned. I can recall reading reports of that reconstruction corporation in which it was stated that a man was given a loan -of $2,000 in order to establish some sort of a stamp collecting business. Under that setup the loans were not confined to processing or manufacturing companies, as are the loans granted by the industrial development bank. In that singular respect, the industrial development bank does not respond to or meet the requirements of small business.
Another thing that probably strikes anyone who sees the difficulties under which small business operates is the lack of assistance in regard to markets. Last fall I happened to be in Paris, and this fact will probably answer to some extent the remarks made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) the other day when he twisted some remarks I made earlier. In my riding, as you know, we live by pulpwood. My riding has three pulpmills and two Canadian National Railways stations. Our whole economy is based on sticks of pulpwood. When we cannot sell paper or pulp we have conditions such as exist today where some 6,000 people are out of work, very many of whom are without enough stamps to entitle them to unemployment insurance benefits.
This is a most unfortunate situation. Someone may say that this is not a small business because I am talking about three pulpmills. I agree that three pulpmills do not constitute small business, but the hundreds of contractors who cut pulpwood or have pulpwood cut by the cord are operating small businesses. Possibly I can tell you why some of their difficulties exist, and perhaps I could make one or two suggestions to help overcome them.
While in Paris last fall at the NATO conference I took advantage of the opportunity to interview two of the largest pulpwood buyers in France. One was a Mr. Chassaigne, of the Compagnie d'Importation de Bois et Pate a Papier. I asked him how much pulpwood he generally bought and he said that up until recently he had been buying 300,000 cords a year, many of which came from


Canada. I would say that 300,000 cords of pulpwood is a lot of wood. I asked him where he was buying this wood now, and he said from Russia and Sweden. I asked him why. He said, in the first place we have nothing against your pulpwood; the quality may not be quite as good as the quality of the wood we get from Russia and Sweden, but the wood coming from Russia arrives on the delivery dates." In addition, he said that the present tight money policy-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's memory seems to be very short. I gave him the floor in preference to another member who wanted to speak on this subjeot. I think, in fairness, he should pursue the grievance that is before the house because we have only a limited time to deal with this matter.


Mr. Van  Horns@: Perhaps I am doing so indirectly, but I am coming to the problem of money in connection with the sale of this product. However, I will agree to alter the trend of my thoughts. The point is that these foreign buyers simply do not have the money or cannot get the money with which to purchase lumber or pulpwood or many other things from Canada because of the currency policies.
Possibly one of the things that prompts me to agree heartily with most of the recommendations made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, although the points he made seemed to be inconsistent with the policies of his party as I have come to know them over the years, is the fact that if small business in Canada today is faced with the problem of continued growth and the lack of capital to pursue it certainly the responsibility is not only on the federal government but also on the provincial governments.
In my own province the provincial government has established, and this only recently, an industrial loan board. I may say that here again the problem is far from being solved because of the scope of the loans that are made. They do not satisfy the requirements of small business. Of course, one of the big problems in providing capital for small industries is that you are dealing not only with real property and physical assets but you are dealing with the potential of sales; you are dealing with the stockpiling of materials and inventories and so on. If loans could be made up to 90 per cent of the value of the physical property owned by the small business, then I would say that a real start had been made and real help would have been given to small businesses.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are complementary to those of

the hon. member tor Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who raised this matter, and I am sure that practically all hon. members are pleased that he did so. Particularly pleased, I would imagine, are those countless small business concerns throughout the country which would be affected and assisted by such a proposal.
After listening to the hon. member who just sat down I might say that I appreciated greatly finally being able to listen in this house to someone who is a true Tory. Up until now I thought they did not exist. I would suggest that he study a little longer and in a little bit greater detail the approach of the C.C.F. party and that, contrary to what he believes, he will find that these ideas are not in one way inconsistent with the general attitude that we have.
I should like to mention a few figures and statistics in order to point out the necessity of instituting such a program as that proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East. This statistical information comes from the dominion bureau of statistics publication on commercial failures under the Bankruptcy and Winding-Up Acts. With reference to the number of business failures or insolvencies over the past few years we find there has been a gradual increase in the number. To compare last year with the year before, according to the statistics we find that there was an increase of some 12 per cent in the number of failures and an increase numerically from 1,967 to 2,198. I might add that of those 2,198 insolvencies last year, 1,320 of them involved wage earners and lost wages where people did not get their wages because the company had gone bankrupt. The others that did not involve loss of wages were wholly-owned or family-owned businesses. The amount of total liabilities over 1956 also increased by some 9 per cent.
But the most interesting point in the application of these statistics to the proposal made by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East is the average amount of liabilities incurred by the businesses which went insolvent. Last year the average amount was $31,900, which was certainly not a large amount of money compared with the indebtedness and liabilities that might be incurred if some of our multi-million dollar corporations in Canada went bankrupt. I might point out that 57 per cent of the entire number of insolvencies were ones having liabilities in the bracket between $5,000 and $25,000 while over 86 per cent were ones having liabilities of less than $50,000. This is in the field of being a small business in terms of liabilities and in terms of money.
If we had legislation that would allow businesses as those to which I have just referred the opportunity of participating in the
1, 1958
Small Business-Long term Credit financial field in the same way as can larger corporations, undoubtedly many of these bankruptcies would not have taken place and many of the wage earners who were affected by the insolvencies would not have been affected, would probably still be employed, would still be drawing their wages, would still be spending that money and contributing to the general economic welfare of the Canadian society.
While there are many more, some of the particular types of small business which are referred to in this statistical information are filling stations, clothing stores, furniture stores, radio and appliance shops, food stores, general merchants, drug stores and the like which are similar to the small corner grocery store type business. All of them, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver East, have great difficulty in getting any financial assistance when they need it. All for the lack of a few dollars they find themselves in difficulties. I am sure many of these businesses could have been saved, could have been put on their feet, could have been contributing to the economy of Canada and could have been employing a few more of the wage earners of the country.
As everyone knows, in our so-called free enterprise system-which as many know is not a free enterprise system at all-these small businesses particularly have a most difficult time in competing against the huge monopoly corporations that we have. They are just not in the same class at all. A review of the various inquiries made under the Combines Investigation Act will show that a small concern attempting to buck a large group of chain stores or a large monopoly corporation or semi-monopoly corporation has a most difficult time in doing so and can easily be wiped out of business if the large concern so desires and puts its mind to it. In fact that has happened in the past on many occasions.
If there is any thought of attempting to advance the philosophy of free enterprise as it was originally evolved and not as we have it at the present time, then we must enter into some relationship like this in order to protect the smaller concerns-these people who are in effect no nearer being a capitalist than I am-the businesses which are in effect merely in the working class group but which try to participate in society and try to find a means of expressing themselves through the type of business that they develop or start. If there is any thought at all in the minds of those on the government benches opposite of establishing some protection for these small business people against the effect that monopoly enterprise has on them at the present time, here is an opportunity to move in that direction and to establish such legislation so
1816	HOUSE OF
Small Business-Long term Credit that small businesses can take their proper place in society without tear of being wiped out of existence because of the mercenary attitude of the large multimillion dollar corporations. As a result of this grievance having been raised-and I am sure in my own mind that opposition will not be found in any part of this house-I hope that it will be instrumental in leading the government a little bit further along the line of giving assistance and guidance to the people in Canada.


Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, you have heard the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) say that he is a spontaneous speaker and that it is only on rare occasions that he needs notes. I am just the opposite on this point. I am not the competent and qualified debater that he is and on every occasion in this house to date on which I have spoken I have needed quite comprehensive notes. But because this matter has arisen in the house tonight and I have no notes with me except those which I have taken of his speech, you may rest assured that my remarks will be brief and direct.
The hon. member for Vancouver East tonight has raised a grievance which I am sure we all recognize is a true one. As far as Winnipeg North Centre and the city of Winnipeg are concerned, may I say that the problems and ills that befall small business are of great concern to all members from the city of Winnipeg.
However, I am just a little suspicious of the grievance brought forward tonight. Perhaps it is just a coincidence but it does seem that whenever there is a delegation from the Canadian Labour Congress in Ottawa there are great speeches from the group on my right made by them as "the friends of labour" and then whenever there are delegations from the farms in Ottawa we have speeches from those on my right to the effect that they are the great friends of the farmers. Now that we have speeches on small business I am just wondering if there is a delegation in Ottawa representing small business.
Be that as it may, I find myself in the position of agreeing with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. In the course of his speech he spoke of the problems of small business; that there is no adequate provision for long term financing and so on, and so far as I am concerned I think he is absolutely right. At the present time only short term credits are available for small business. He has said there is little hope for small business to raise capital except through the banks and here again I think the hon. member is quite correct.

He went on, however, to set out a five point platform on behalf of the C.C.F. group designed to broaden the class of loans under the industrial development bank, to increase the capitalization of the industrial development bank, to amend the Bank Act in order to allow them to make loans upon mortgages or hypothecations in addition to the provisions of the National Housing Act, to guarantee term loans made by banks to small businesses and to enable the chartered banks to sell mortgage securities.
I do not know when the hon. member for Vancouver East became a financial expert, and I certainly am not one. Perhaps this is the reason why he made such detailed notes for his speech. The hon. member and all the members of the C.C.F. group are quite well aware of the provisions in the throne speech which said that this government intended to set up a committee to study the problems of small business. Who are we as individuals or members of one group in this house to say what are these problems and what are the solutions to these problems? The hon. member for Vancouver East went into great detail about some of the problems of small businesses, of which I am well aware, and some of which apply to my own constituency, but our government has gone ahead and has made provision for the setting up of a committee to study these problems. There may be some merit in the suggestions made by the hon. member but all these things are going to be considered by the committee when it is set up by the government. The group on my right, as always, have perhaps gone off course-they are always so sure of themselves.
The C.C.F. group has brought forward a plan which they say will solve all the problems of small business and, as a matter of fact, they may have some solutions, but this plan does not provide a complete solution. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has submitted on behalf of the C.C.F. party an outline of their philosophy and I do not intend to get into a debate on this subject, although at some other time I will be glad to do so.


Frank Howard: Any time.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Thank you, but I do not now intend to take up any further time in the house apart from making this observation. I recognize the problems of small business and my constituents know that I recognize those problems as they also know that this government recognizes them and that those problems will be dealt with accordingly.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: The
subject matter raised by the hon. member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is most important. I wish we could have been given more notice so that we could have been better prepared for debate on this subject. There are, however, one or two things to which I would like to refer at this time.
I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. member refer to the industrial development bank legislation which was put on the statute books by the Liberal government. This was undoubtedly a far-sighted measure and has done a great deal to assist in the development of the economy of this country in the post-war years. The essence of his grievance, as I understood it, was that the provisions of the act should be extended to make it more readily available to small business. The other parts of his speech, so far as I could follow him, merely dealt with supplementary measures and providing ancil-liary legislation for the furtherance of that objective.
In this connection I feel I should place on record the fact that the 1958 election program of the Liberal party envisioned that very thing, and when the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was speaking he set out a list of the types of small businesses he had in mind. These could really be summed up by the words "retail businesses". I do not think, however, he intended to limit his remarks to retail businesses although nearly all of the types to which he made reference could be placed in that category. The program of the Liberal party, the literature of that party and the speeches delivered by Liberal candidates made a great deal of reference to this very point and it was a definite part of the program of my party that there would be easier credit for small business, including the extension of the Industrial Development Bank Act in order to make its benefits available to retailers.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Van Horne) made a speech, in which I must admit I do not very fully concur, which among other things dealt with the matter of export business. I could not help but recall as he was speaking that the export business of Canada has been materially helped to meet difficult conditions, mostly with respect to exchange restrictions in foreign countries, by the Export Credits Insurance Act. This again is Liberal legislation which has done a great deal to develop the economy of this country. While I do not suggest that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska intended to acknowledge any indebtedness to the Liberal party for that splendid bit of legislation, yet I think, as I have said, it is a fact that this legislation has done much to advance the development
Small Business-Long term Credit of Canada in postwar years. Liberal legislation has contributed greatly to the development of our economy. I have made reference to these two acts in particular because they have really constituted the subject matter of the remarks of the hon. members who have spoken during the last few minutes.
There was another logical extension of aid to small business which arose out of the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East, and that is the matter of corporation income tax. I would remind the house that the Liberal program in the last election campaign involved the proposition that there would be a reduction in the corporation income tax by cutting it in half, that is to say, by reducing it from 20 per cent to 10 per cent on the first $10,000 of corporation profits. This, I regret to say, will not come about because of the results of the election and, as I listened to the budget speech, I concluded that the very opposite will undoubtedly happen. I do not, however, want to branch off into the budget debate-
Mr. Pallet!: That is another incorrect conclusion to which you have come.


George James McIlraith: I did not hear the interjection of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) but if he will speak a little louder I will answer him.


John Cameron Pallett: I merely remarked to the hon. member that he has come to another wrong conclusion.


George James McIlraith: The conclusion is quite obvious to anyone who deals with the matter of small business. Small business will be damaged by the budget delivered on June 17, 1958; in fact, the whole treatment of the economy will be conducive to damage rather than assistance.


Howard Charles Green: This is not the budget debate.


George James McIlraith: That is precisely the point. The leader of the house reminds the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) that this is not the budget debate. I was merely contenting myself with answering the hon. member for Peel. The point remains that all the statements of the hon. members who have taken part in this presentation of grievance tonight have been in effect a recognition of the appropriate and effective legislation which was passed by the Liberal government in aid of the development of small business. All they are really asking is a continuance and an extension of that legislation as was set forth by the Liberals in the 1958 election campaign.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: am very pleased indeed to associate myself with the expression of the grievance raised

Small Business-Long term Credit this evening by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. MacLean) with regard to the proposals made by my colleague from Vancouver East. Though expressing a great deal of appreciation and understanding of the problems of small business, he seemed to feel that the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver East were possibly conceived in some haste. I should like at once to assure the hon. member that this problem of the small businessman has been considered at considerable length by the C.C.F. movement for a goodly number of years. We realize the seriousness of the problem and its far-reaching implications for the Canadian consumer, to an extent that we have had a continuing committee studying this matter for many years.
The hon. member seemed interested in knowing where the headquarters of small business are to be found in Canada. I know he comes from the city of Winnipeg. I have before me here a letterhead from, I assume, the secretariat of the retail merchants association of Canada, and I can tell the hon. member that the head office is in his city of Winnipeg. As for the idea proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East being, in the main, so unique or novel, may I offer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a suggestion that it is nothing of the kind.
I should like to read this submission of the retail merchants association of Canada as made in a letter to me dated April 13, 1957. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will then see a very close similarity to the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver East when he spoke on behalf of this group with regard to this grievance. The submission says, on page 2:
This association has made the suggestion that a Retail Business Capital Loans Act be set up for the purpose of enabling retailers to borrow money for rehabilitation and expansion. We have suggested that the mechanics of such an act be similar to those of the Homes Improvement Loans Act, i.e., that the individual loans be made through the chartered banks, with a government guarantee.
This could be done by authorizing the bank to advance 50 to 75 per cent of the cost of the proposed improvement or extension of buildings, equipment, parking facilities, etc. The loans would be repayable over a period of years. As we pointed out previously, such a plan would not introduce any new principle into Canadian finance. Similar assistance has already been extended to fishermen, farmers, manufacturers, home-owners and home repairs, food processors, etc.
So the idea has been given serious thought over a long period of years. With the assumption of office by this new government we had thought that some action would be forthcoming during this session. The Minister of

Justice (Mr. Fulton) indicated, after the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, that the hon. member had obviously not read the speech from the throne. I think the grievance remains a grievance despite anything I read in the speech from the throne. The speech from the throne is somewhat along the lines of the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in that it predicts that a committee or a branch of a department of government will be set up to study the problems of small business and to advise on measures necessary to meet them. We feel that the small businessmen of Canada were given an assurance that their problem had been considered and that the necessary action would be forthcoming. There is such a thing as chickens coming home to roost, and the various promises that have been made by the Conservative party are coming home to roost now with great and growing rapidity, and these chickens are rather blue. They are bluer than the Tory party, and they are coming thick and fast.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) endorse the activities of the industrial development bank and, as the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) pointed out, it stands to the credit of the Liberal party that this bank was established and has been so influential in assisting individual enterprises in Canada.
The C.C.F. party has always in this house been a strong supporter of the industrial development bank, and in effect all we are asking now is that its powers be broadened so as to enable it to render a service to the small businessman.
Some argument has arisen in debating this grievance as to what constitutes a small business. My interpretation of a small business in need of government interest and concern is a business not necessarily of a certain size or volume with regard to its assets, but a business in which there is some relationship between ownership and management. It may be a business consisting of $5,000 or $10,000 of assets; it may go as high as half a million dollars depending on the type of enterprise. I think our society has lost something by divorcing management from ownership, and that those engaged in business have a little less chance to be responsible members of our society now that this separation of ownership and management is taking place.
The record of our group in speaking on behalf of the individual in Canada is very clear indeed. The very reason for our being

in existence as a political force is that we feel that with the way things are going at the present time the rights of the individual are disappearing day by day in our society. The tendency of big business to consolidate and amalgamate robs the individual engaged as an employee in enterprise of a large share of his individualism. Eventually he finds he has become a mere cog in a machine. His position is different from that of a civil servant who renders a service to society as a whole. That is different and distinct from the relationship of the individual working in a huge enterprise who does little more than punch a machine or go through a certain routine. This party has always supported genuine free enterprise. In fact, the birth of this political party came about through the growing power of monopolistic corporations and their influence on the individuals in our nation.
I am assuming that the present grievance is that this government is not taking action to help small business in Canada. This was demonstrated when the government did not express any sympathy for the idea of placing a limitation on interest rates. Huge department stores through their financing methods are able to squeeze the small businessman to the wall. This applies particularly in the appliance field where these huge corporations do not care how much net profit they make on the sale of an article because they make their net earnings on the finance charges they are allowed to levy. If the Tory party believes in competition to the extent it professes it might very well reconsider its position with regard to placing a limitation on finance charges. This would be a valuable way of giving assistance to the small enterpriser and the small merchant in Canada.
Another device that might be used would be to make more effective the anti-combines legislation of this country. The practices of combines tend to gobble up free enterprise in one field after another on the Canadian scene.
Another cause of the hardship of the small businessman is that he is not able to buy on the same terms as is the large business enterpriser. I feel that an amendment to the combines legislation might serve an extremely useful purpose so that when a small corner store orders one case of Lifebuoy soap the owner will not be charged a higher price than is charged a huge chain store for the same product. In view of the huge overhead paid by large businesses and especially by chain stores I am convinced that small merchants would be able to compete very successfully with them if they were able to buy at the same price levels.
1, 1958	1819
Small Business-Long term Credit


Mr. Speakman:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Has the hon. gentleman not heard about the chains of independent grocers whose buying power approximates that of the large chain stores?


An hon. Member:: In Saskatchewan.


Erhart Regier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have heard of chains of independent merchants. When merchants co-operate for their mutual survival I believe that is as welcome a move as any other co-operative form of endeavour. However, I think the hon. member will agree with me that most private businessmen in Canada today do not have the advantage of such an association. Perhaps the hon. member will have a recommendation to make to that effect to the committee which I understand the government intends to set up.
We in this group are rather disappointed that the government apparently intends only to set up a branch or department of government which is going to study the problem and then advise as to possible measures that may be undertaken. Certainly in the light of the promises that have been made and the false hopes that have been built up this is little short of procrastination on the part of the government.
According to press reports concerning the visit of the Minister of Justice to the west coast some little while ago the minister while in western Canada placed a slightly different interpretation on the intentions of the government in this respect. According to a newspaper report, the minister explained that this proposed new branch or section of government would supply advice not on measures of legislation that might be implemented but would provide it to individual enterprises as to how they could more economically and efficiently operate their enterprises.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid the hon. gentleman has misunderstood as usual.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And you are speaking out of turn, as usual.


Erhart Regier: Perhaps the minister feels that the committee he will establish would be wiser than to adopt the recommendations of the retail merchants association. We in this group advocate the recommendations they have made after years of research. However, if he feels I am misconstruing the matter the hon. gentleman is free to make his own remarks in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Erhart Regier: The party in power frequently likes to refer to the United States as the

Supply-Departments Entered heart of free enterprise. May I remind the government that even the government of that country has set up nothing less than a cabinet committee to advise on ways and means of assisting small business in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
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:



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
78. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian commercial corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $7,232,086.

[Stage Direction]
130. Departmental administration, $371,750.

[Stage Direction]
193. Departmental Administration, $623,942.
Proceedings reported.

Mr. Chevrier:: May I ask the leader of the house what the business is for tomorrow and Thursday?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we plan to resume the budget debate and as it is the seventh day I believe that means a vote late in the afternoon. Then we shall conclude the budget debate on Thursday. I am not yet sure about the business for Friday but probably we will commence with the estimates of the Department of Public Works. Tomorrow on routine proceedings I plan to move that the estimates of the Department of Fisheries be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries and that the estimates of mines and technical surveys be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters.


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

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

Mr. Rouleau: 1.	Does the federal government make grants to the city of St. Laurent in lieu of taxes on the national film board office located within the limits of the said city?
2.	If so, since what date has the government paid such grant and in what annual amount?
3.	Does the federal government pay grants for other public buildings belonging to the federal government and located in the said city?
4.	If so, how many such buildings are there and what is the annual amount paid in respect of each one?
Question
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	Yes.
2.	Since January 1,	1956:	1956 grant,
$23,075; 1957 grant, $128,807.
3.	Yes.
4.	Old post office building: 1956 grant, $346; 1957 grant, $664.
The city of St. Laurent also receives grants in lieu of taxes on portions of Dorval airport and Cartierville airport, including a few crown-owned residences, sheds and barns.
Dorval airport: 1956 grant, $1,253; 1957 grant, $4,671.
Cartierville airport: 1956 grant, $2,215; 1957 grant, $8,257.

Wednesday, July 2, 1958