1959-02-09

[Stage Direction]
Kucherepa
Macquarrie
McBain
Mcllraith
Meunier
Nielsen
Ormiston
Paul
Piekersgill
Richard (Ottawa East)
Tasse
Valade
Webster-29.
(Quorum-10)
Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and I do so at the earliest possible opportunity. This matter of privilege concerns certain statements attributed to the Leader of the Opposition in the Ottawa Citizen of February 1 under the by-line of J. A. Hume, Citizen staff writer. If the Leader of the Opposition did say these words they constitute a frightful insult to members on this side of the house. These are the remarks attributed to him and which refer to members on this side:
-it is the cold gray dawn after their electoral debauch.
Mr. Speaker, I think even an ordinary knowledge of the English language is sufficient to indicate that the word "debauch" denotes moral turpitude of some kind, and usually gross moral turpitude. As I said before, this is a frightful insult to the members on this side of the house. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to remain in his seat, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that he should make an immediate and full apology.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the question of privilege I should like to assure the hon. gentleman at once that I did not have moral turpitude in mind. I had in mind only political turpitude.



STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallelt (Peel) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Aiken
Barrington
Beech
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (St. John-Albert)
Benidickson
Carter
Deschambault
Dinsdale
Flynn
Fraser
Grills
Hardie
Henderson
Howard
Johnson

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Allmark	Martin (Essex East)
Asselin	Martini
Badanai	McBain
Baldwin	McDonald (Hamilton
Batten	South)
Bigg	McMillan
Bourbonnais	McPhillips
Brassard (Lapointe)	Michaud
Brunsden	Monteith (Verdun)
Cadieu	Nielsen
Campbell (Stormont)	Nixon
Chevrier	Pascoe
Chown	Payne
Creaghan	Phillips
Crouse	Racine
Dupuis	Richard (Kamouraska)
Drysdale	Rouleau
Fisher	Rynard
Fraser	Small
Frechette	Smallwood
Grills	Smith (Calgary
Hardie	South)
Horner (Acadia)	Smith (Lincoln)
Horner (Jasper-	Smith (Simcoe
Edson)	North)
Howard	Tasse
Howe	Taylor
Johnson	Thompson
Keays	Tucker
Kennedy	Webster
LaRue	Wratten-60.
Maclnnis	
MacLean (Winnipeg	
North Centre)	
(Quorum-20)	
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS	
	Messrs.
Anderson	Knowles
Baldwin	Lambert
Batten	MacEwan
Beech	MacLean (Winnipeg
Bigg	North Centre)
Broome	Macnaughton
Campbell (Stormont)	Mandziuk
Carter	Martin (Timmins)
Chown	Matthews
Danforth	McBain
Fairfield	McCleave
Forbes	McDonald (Hamilton
Forgie	South)
Garland	McFarlane
Horner (The	Mcllraith
Battlefords)	McIntosh
Houck	McMillan
Kennedy	McPhillips
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
McWilliam
Milligan
Mitchell
Monteith (Verdun)
More
Morton
Nixon
Ormiston
Peters
Allmark
Asselin
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (St. John-Albert)
Benidickson
Brassard (Chicoutimi)
Cardin
Cathers
Chevrier
Coates
Creaghan
Crestohl
Deschambault
Drysdale
Dumas
Flynn
Fraser
Gour
Hanbidge
Horner (Acadia)
Jones
Jung
Lambert
MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre) MacLellan
Badanai
Bell (Carleton)
Benidickson
Bissonnette
Broome
Bourget
Bruchesi
Campbell
(Lambton-Kent) Campeau Charlton Chown Crestohl Denis Dorion Drysdale Fraser Godin Grenier Hales Hanbidge Johnson Keays Lahaye Lambert
Macdonald (Kings)
Robinson Rogers Simpson Smith (Lincoln)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Stefanson
Webster
Wratten-50.
Macnaughton
Maloney
Martin (Essex East)
Mcllraith
McIntosh
More
Morissette
Morton
Nugent
Pascoe
Pickersgill
Regier
Robichaud
Rowe
Rynard
Slogan
Southam
Stinson
Tasse
Taylor
Thomas
Thrasher
Walker
Winch
Woolliams-50.
Macnaughton
Martin (Essex East)
McGee
McGrath
McGregor
McMillan
Morissette
Morris
Morton
Murphy
Pickersgill
Pratt
Regier
Robichaud
Smith (Calgary South)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Spencer
Stefanson
Stewart
Valade
Villeneuve
Walker
Winch
Wratten-50.
Campbell
(Lambton-Kent)
Casselman, Mrs.
Charlton
Cooper
Doucett
Dubois
Dupuis
Fane
Fleming
(Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Forbes
Forgie
Godin
Gour
Grills
Gundlock
Hales
Hardie
Henderson
Hicks
Horner (Acadia)
Howe
Jorgenson
Kindt
Lahaye
Latour
Leduc
Letourneau
Aitken, Miss
Argue
Best
Bourdages
Brassard (Chicoutimi) Campeau Denis Forgie Frechette Garland Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Anderson
Batten
Bourget
Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
Carter
Crouse
Danforth
Drysdale
English
Gillet
Granger
Grenier
Howard
Keays
Legere
Macdonald (Kings) MacLellan
McBain
McIntosh
McMillan
Michaud
Milligan
Montgomery
Muir (Lisgar)
Nasserden
Noble
O'Leary
Pascoe
Peters
Phillips
Racine
Rapp
Regnier
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Robinson
Rompre
Rowe
Smith (Lincoln)
Southam
Speakman
Stanton
Thomas
Tucker
Villeneuve-60.
Kucherepa
Loiselle
Martineau
McGrath
Meunier
Milligan
Mitchell
Spencer
Tremblay-20.
Matthews
McGrath
McLennan
McPhillips
McQuillan
McWilliam
Michaud
Morris
Murphy
Noble
O'Leary
Phillips
Pickersgill
Robichaud
Speakman
Stefanson
Stewart
Tucker-35.
(Quorum-10)
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs.
Aiken Baskin Cadieu Coates
Doucett
Drouin
Dumas
Garland
(Quorum-15)
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messrs.
(Quorum-15) PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messrs.
(Quorum-20) STANDING ORDERS
Messrs.
(Quorum-8)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
(Quorum-15)
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION Messrs.
Argue	Boulanger
Barrington	Brunsden
Boivin	Cadieu
[Stage Direction]
Godin
Granger
Gundlock
Korchinski
Kindt
Latour
Leduc
Maclnnis
MacRae
Martel
Martin (Timmins)
Martineau
McFarlane
McGregor
McQuillan
Mitchell
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Murphy Nielsen Payne Roberge
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Robichaud Simpson Slogan Stearns Wcolliams-35.
(Quorum-10)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs.
Allmark
Bell (St. John-Albert) Benidickson Bourdages Brassard (Lapointe) Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
Caron
Deschatelets
Drouin
Grafftey
Granger
Houck
Lafreniere
Lahaye
Loiselle
Maclnnis
MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre) Mandziuk
Martini
McDonald (Hamilton South)
McWilliam
Mitchell
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Nasserden Noble Peters Pigeon Ricard Skoreyko Small
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Spencer Stanton Thrasher Weichel-35.
(Quorum-10)
[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Campbell (Lambton-Kent)
Chevrier
Dorion
Fortin
McPhillips
Monteith (Verdun)
Nixon
Paul
Regnier
Richard (Ottawa East)
Roberge
Winch-12.
Aitken, Miss
Allard
Argue
Cardin
Crestohl
Dinsdale
Dorion
Eudes
(Quorum-7)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs.
Macquarrie Mandziuk Martin (Essex East) McCleave McGee Montgomery Nesbitt
Standing Committees ESTIMATES
Messrs.
Anderson
Baldwin
Bell (Carleton)
Benidickson
Best
Bissonnette
Bourbonnais
Bourdages
Bourget
Broome
Bruchesi
Cardin
Carter
Cathers
Chambers
Clancy
Coates
Dumas
Fairfield
Fortin
Garland
Gillet
Grafftey
Hales
Hardie
Hellyer
Hicks
Howe
Korchinski
Lambert
Macnaughton
Macquarrie McDonald (Hamilton South)
McFarlane
McGrath
McGregor
Mcllraith
McMillan
McQuillan
McWilliam
More
Morris
Nesbitt
Nielsen
Payne
Peters
Pickersgill
Pugh
Ricard
Richard (Kamouraska)
Rowe
Small
Smallwood
Smith (Calgary South)
Stewart
Tasse
Thompson
Walker
Winch
Winkler-60.
(Quorum-20)
VETERANS AFFAIRS Messrs.
Badanai
Batten
Beech
Benidickson
Broome
Cardin
Carter
Clancy
Denis
Dinsdale
Fane
Forgie
Fortin
Garland
Herridge
Jung
Kennedy
Lennard
Macdonald (Kings) MacEwan
MacRae
Matthews
McIntosh
McWilliam
Montgomery
O'Leary
Ormiston
Parizeau
Peters
Pugh
Roberge
Robinson
Rogers
Speakman
Stearns
Stewart
Thomas
Webster
Weichel
Winkler-40.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Messrs.
Fairfield	Nugent	Allard	ClancyGarland	Pearson	Asselin	CooperHellyer	Pratt	Badanai	CreaghanHerridge	Richard (Ottawa	Barrington	DeschambaultJones	East)	Batten	DuboisJung	Smith (Calgary	Belzile	DupuisKucherepa	South)	Bissonnette	FaneLafreniere	Stinson	Boivin	FlynnLennard	Valade	Bourdages	GilletMacLellan	Vivian	Bourque	GodinMacnaughton	White-35.	Brunsden	Grafftey66968-9-51	(Quorum-10)	Cadieu Campeau	Gundlock Henderson
Standing
Howard
Jorgenson
Korchinski
Lahaye
Lessard
Letourneau
Loiselle
Maclnnis
MacLellan
Martin (Timmins)
Martini
McLennan
McWilliam
Michaud
Committees
Morissette
O'Leary
Phillips
Rapp
Ratelle
Richard (Kamouraska)
Robinson
Rouleau
Skoreyko
Smallwood
Southam
Taylor
Thrasher
Winkler

54.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs.
3, 1958 which indicate that on the day the report was tabled the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff) moved that the report be concurred in and the motion was agreed to.
Mr. Bell (Carleton):: And that has been the invariable practice.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I have not had an opportunity of checking the practice but I recall last year, when this was done, not taking exception to the procedure because I thought it was a new whip who was not familiar with the practice. My recollection is, although I may be wrong in this-
Aitken, Miss	Matthews
Argue	McFarlane
Bourbonnais	McGee
Bourque	Mcllraith
Brunsden	Muir (Lisgar)
Campeau	Nixon
Dorion	Pigeon
Eudes	Pratt
Fairfield	Racine
Fisher	Ratelle
Fleming (Okanagan-	Richard (Ottawa
Revelstoke)	East)
Forbes	Simpson
Frechette	Skoreyko
Grenier	Small
Hanbidge	Smith (Lincoln)
Houck	Smith (Simcoe
Kindt	North)
Knowles	Smith (Winnipeg
LaRue	North)
Lennard	Southam
Lessard	Stinson
Macquarrie	Tremblay
Martineau	Tucker-45.



RESTAURANT

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messrs.
Bourque	Letourneau
Campbell (Lambton- Martin (Timmins)
Kent)	McGregor
Carter	McQuillan
Deschatelets	Muir (Lisgar)
Dorion	Pratt
Doucett	Richard (Ottawa
Godin	East)
Gour	Stearns
Hales	Taylor
Horner (The	Villeneuve
Battlefords)	Weichel
Lafreniere	Wratten-25.
Legere
Mr. Pallet! moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. The report has not been printed. Let us follow the usual practice; let the hon. member move concurrence tomorrow in the usual way.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have in my hand Votes and Proceedings of June


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. member is wrong.


George James McIlraith: -and I think the house leader will support me in this matter-that the practice was to have the motion stand; that is to have the report presented one day and to have the names stand over until the next day until the members of the house have an opportunity of seeing them, and then immediately moving concurrence.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: My understanding of the practice has been that the representatives of the different parties submit the names, and that has been done in this case. The hon. member's party has submitted names. These names have been put on the respective committees in accordance with the wishes of the leader of the official opposition. I do not suppose there is any particular objection to allowing the motion made by the government whip to stand until tomorrow. However, I would point out that every courtesy has been extended, and I think there was agreement among the three parties as to these names.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the house leader, Mr. Speaker, whether as a matter of courtesy he will not allow the matter to stand over until tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: There is no objection to that procedure, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk informs me that the usual practice has been to make the motion immediately, but it would seem to be a better practice to give hon. members of the house a chance to read the list before they are asked to approve the report. With the concurrence of all hon. members can the motion stand until tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.
[Mr. Pallett.l



POWERS OF COMMITTEES

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement with reference to the report on old age security which Dr. Robert Clark of the University of British Columbia is preparing, which report he had hoped to have completed by to-day. I was in touch by telephone with Dr. Clark this morning. He advises me that he has completed and sent forward 18 of the 20 chapters of his report, and that he has the last two chapters in the final stages of revision. He expects to have these chapters completed by the end of this present week.
In view of the widespread interest in the document I am arranging, as soon as the full text is received, to have it reproduced in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of parliament, the press and other interested parties. This may take a little time, but I can assure hon. members that we will arrange to complete the work of reproduction as quickly as possible, and will table the document in the house and make ^^^ttional copies available to all who are interested at the earliest possible moment.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to comment on the statement made by the minister. He will remember that on Thursday last I asked him when we could expect this report to be tabled, and he directed me, quite properly, to a reply that was made on the second day of the session by the Prime Minister. This reply was to the effect that he hoped to be able to table the report on February 9. Now we are advised that Dr. Clark is not able to give the minister and the house the full report.
The minister, I am sure, feels somewhat embarrassed by this situation, because it will be recalled that when the Prime Minister announced last January that he had assigned to Professor Huson the writing of this report, he indicated that he hoped to have it completed in not more than four 66968-9-514
Old Age Security months. When Professor Huson indicated that he could not possibly have the report ready in four months, which was a period that coincided with important electoral events, the Prime Minister then discharged- or perhaps the word discharged is too strong, but he asked that Professor Huson be released from his obligation and it was then assigned to Dr. Clark, for whom I have very high regard.
The minister now tells us that the report is not ready. Some of it is ready, so perhaps the minister will give consideration to releasing part of it, at any rate, in serial form. It might have very great interest, and there are some good precedents for that because one of the reports of the government's own appointed royal commission on energy has been released on an instalment basis, if that report could be released in serial form, surely a report of this importance could receive similar treatment. I hope the minister will find it possible to give some consideration to this suggestion.
Then perhaps when he deals with the matter the next time he might tell the house whether he is not really convinced that much of this work, if not all of it, could have been disposed of within a week by his own able officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. SDeaker, I do not think this is the type of report which it would be reasonable to table in portions. It concerns a complete study of the old age security system in the United States-insurance and survivors, I believe it is called.
I think due to the imminence of the tabling of the complete report it would be somewhat unnecessary even to consider tabling part of it at this time.



FRASER RIVER


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-23, respecting navigation and salmon fishery on the Fraser river.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: This bill is simply designed to protect navigation and the salmon fishery on the Fraser river, British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Motions for Papers INDIAN ACT



MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
February 5-The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-The following proposed motions-
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to examine and consider the Indian Act, Chapter 149, R.S.C.,	1952, and
amendments thereto, and to suggest such amendments as they may deem advisable, with authority to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, on the social and economic status of the Indians;
That 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the house as members of the said committee, and that standing order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses under oath; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time; and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Stand.
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State
for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I must inform the house that there are no papers which could be produced in accordance with the terms of this motion. Concultations have, of course, been held by Canadian and United States officials over the past few years with the object of determining how pilotage matters in the waters of the great lakes basin can be dealt with most satisfactorily. In the course of these discussions, which are of a continuing nature, working papers have been prepared and subjected to joint examination. No documents or correspondence on pilotage have, however, passed between the two governments subsequent to the Canadian aide memoire of March 20, 1958, a copy of which was tabled in the house on June 24 last.
Since there are no relevant papers, I suggest that the hon. member might allow this motion to drop.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion be dropped subject to consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ACT FURTHER EXTENSION OF INCOME TAX RATE

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act to extend for a further period of one year the rate of 13 per cent for standard individual income tax for the purpose of calculating the tax equalization payments to the provinces and the amounts payable to the provinces under the tax rental agreements.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between government departments, including the VLA administration, and persons, associations, and authorities involved in expropriation proceedings by the crown in connection with the extension of Malton airport, since June 10, 1957.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transpori):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the hon. member for Port Arthur, and since it deals with a question which is now before the courts the hon. member is, I believe, willing to let the motion drop.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable that this motion be dropped in view of the explanation made by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion dropped.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government and officials of the United States concerning pilotage and the regulation of pilotage on the St. Lawrence-great lakes waterway, since June 1, 1958.
[Mr. McPhillips.l

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Hardie:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government, or any of its departments, and air line companies, since September 1, 1957, concerning the use of Frobisher Bay as a refueling stop on their international routes.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Hardie:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government, or any of its departments, and the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways, since January 1, 1957, concerning the building of a railway from Alberta to the south shore of Great Slave lake?
He said: Mr. Speaker, since putting this motion on the order paper I have spoken to the Minister of Transport, who has informed me that discussions are still going on with the railways. For this reason I have agreed with the minister to drop the motion at this time, but I reserve the right to place a similar motion on the order paper at a later date.
Motion dropped.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and each of the provincial governments since March 31, 1958, regarding a bill of rights.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is agreeable subject to the customary exceptions and reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitations expressed by the Prime Minister is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister arising out of the reported decision of the Canadian Pacific Railway to discontinue as of February 25 winter steamship connections with the mainland from Vancouver island out of Victoria. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the government to maintain this essential service.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that question will be answered by the Minister of Transport.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked questions about this matter by the hon. member for Victoria, the hon. member for Nanaimo and the Minister of National Defence. I have been in touch with senior officials of the C.P.R.
Inquiries of the Ministry in this connection, and they have informed me that winter traffic has been exceedingly low, running for example, upon occasion, to only one automobile and only half as many passengers as crew on certain trips. Moreover they have advised that the two vessels involved are close to the expiry date of their safety certificates, and the company is facing heavy refit and modernization costs if the ships are continued in service. Accordingly, decision has been taken to suspend winter operations although summer service will be reinstated with other ships during the tourist season.
The company has also informed me that to accommodate traffic to Victoria special arrangements have been made with Vancouver Island Bus Lines to have connecting bus service at Nanaimo to meet the company ferries there, and that this will provide a faster over-ail transit time from Vancouver to Victoria than the direct Vancouver to Victoria ferry has given. Similarly, it is understood that the Washington State Ferries are starting a service from Anacortes to Sidney on February 26 with connecting bus services at each end, which will also provide a faster transit time from Victoria to Seattle than the ferry has hitherto given. Moreover, the provincial government of British Columbia has, I understand, announced that it proposes to go into the ferry service to serve this part of the island, and that it is building two new ferries for this purpose.
Doubtless all the foregoing factors have played their part in the decision of the Canadian Pacific to withdraw the present ships from service.
While I would not wish this to be taken as a final and categorical statement on my part regarding the legal position, I have not been able to find anything to the effect that provision of this service is a constitutional or legal responsibility of the federal government.
There is nothing further that I can say on the matter at the present time, though we will continue to give it our active consideration.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Having regard to the arrangements that have been made is it not a fact that the Vancouver Island Bus Lines is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the C.P.R.?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of that fact.


George James McIlraith: Can
the minister advise the house whether or not there is any statutory or contractual obligation on the part of the federal government to provide a ferry service between Victoria and the mainland?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my statement I am not aware whether that is a fact. We have tried to ascertain if there is any, but have not been able to find that there is any such obligation. However, as the hon. member will have noticed in listening to my statement, the C.P.R., by providing bus service from Victoria to Nanaimo and ferry service from Nanaimo to Vancouver, is providing a faster over-all service in this manner than previously was the case with the ferry service direct from Victoria to Vancouver.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a further supplementary question. I understood the minister to say that he had received information from the steamship company that alterations and modernization work are required. If that is the reason why they cannot maintain winter service, will the minister make a further investigation as to how they intend to operate a summer service with the same boats?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member had paid attention to what I said he would know the answer. I said that the summer service will be reinstated with other ships during the tourist season. Perhaps if the hon. member would pay more attention to what is being said rather than thinking up supplementary questions he would know what is going on.


Mr. Regier:: May I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether his favourite, the C.P.R., only has to provide transportation when they can make money on the deal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Was there consultation between the federal government on the one hand and the provincial government of British Columbia or the Canadian Pacific Railway on the other hand before this decision was taken by the railway?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask the minister whether or not any application has been received by him or the government from the C.P.R. for a subsidy in order to maintain the service.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: If so, would this be considered?


George Harris Hees: That is a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I also be permitted to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that it is the policy of the minister's department to build ferries and in certain instances to turn them over to private initiative for operation, will the minister give consideration to that policy in respect of the service he has mentioned?
[Mr. Mcllraith.l


George Harris Hees: I think all hon. members will agree from what I have said that good service is going to be provided by the present arrangement. A bus service is being provided to Nanaimo and then the ferry service from Nanaimo to Vancouver, which will mean a shorter over-all elapsed time for the trip-


Harold Edward Winch: Who said so?


George Harris Hees: -than is available at present to passengers. That is the statement of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Harold Edward Winch: I will challenge that statement anytime.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not answer my question.


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member for Laurier wants a further answer to his question, as I have said there will be a shorter elapsed time under the present arrangement than under the former.


Erhart Regier: That is not so and you know it.


George Harris Hees: Other boats will be provided
during the tourist season. The provincial government of British Columbia is going into the ferry business in the very near future. Therefore I do not think it would be a very good business venture for the federal government to try to step in in any way at all at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister give consideration to the suggestion?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the federal government always gives consideration to any sensible suggestion.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, a copy of which I have sent him. In view of the good work done by the Girl Guides Association, especially in Canada, has the minister given consideration to commemorating by a special postage stamp the sixtieth anniversary of guiding in Canada next year, 1960?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: During the course of a year, Mr. Speaker, we receive many suggestions for just such commemorative postal stamps. Therefore we make no decision as to the subjects for the succeeding year until fairly well along in the year which precedes the issue of the stamps. Thus it is impossible to answer this question at this

time, although certainly the Girl Guides Association and their representations in this respect will receive very serious consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I am sorry I did not give him notice. My question relates to a very short announcement in a Canadian Press dispatch to the effect that 800 army beds and blankets were being made available to unemployed persons in the Vancouver area. Will the minister inform the house whether these beds and bedding will be made available only to unemployed transients, or might they be made available to others who may be temporarily unemployed in the Vancouver area?


Harold Edward Winch: You should direct that question to the Minister of Labour, because he says there is no unemployment.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Bedding and other equipment which is urgently required in a province is only made available at the request of the provincial government. The government of British Columbia has applied for the use of this equipment.


John Russell Taylor: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say who might be responsible for the cleaning, repair and transportation of the beds?


George Randolph Pearkes: The provincial government of British Columbia.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Can the
Minister of Labour tell the house whether a settlement in the dispute between the C.B.C. and the producers has been reached? If not, what is the present position of negotiations?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I direct the question, in that case, to the Minister of National Revenue?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: So far as I know,
Mr. Speaker, no settlement has yet been reached, and I do not want to indulge in
Inquiries of the Ministry prophecy with respect to this matter. I had thought on Friday that a settlement would be reached within the matter of an hour or so, but various other problems were raised and a decision was delayed. As the hon. member and the house well know from press reports, the parties representing the producers and the corporation have been meeting almost daily. On Friday night they met until after midnight, Saturday night until after midnight, and I believe again on Sunday. They met again this morning at 11 o'clock.
My advice is that progress is being made and that the negotiations are being carried on in an atmosphere which would suggest the possibility, if not the probability, of arriving at a settlement. As soon as I have word of it I shall inform the house as to the result.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA    REPORTED SUSPENSION OF WORK ON ROGERS PASS SECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: As
I aim to serve all my constituents, regardless of party affiliation, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works prompted by some of his political friends in my constituency. Will the minister inform the house if reports are correct to the effect that owing to impossible snow conditions, all work on the Rogers pass section of the trans-Canada highway has been suspended? In view of the unusual construction difficulties and winter weather conditions experienced in this section of the trans-Canada highway, has the government given consideration to the necessity for an alternative all-weather route through the Jumbo pass?


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid I cannot give much comfort to my good friend the hon. member for Kootenay West or my own political friends in that riding. As the hon. member knows, he and I conducted a campaign in the house some years ago in favour of Jumbo pass. However, we lost out and the road is now being built through Rogers pass. A great deal of money has been spent, and while work is now shut down, this is only because of the winter and there will be a resumption just as soon as the contractors are able to go to work in the spring.



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 or not

Inquiries of the Ministry a draft western reply to the recent Soviet proposals for a German settlement has been discussed with the Canadian government, and can the minister make a statement about the government's position on this particular matter?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I thank the Leader
of the Opposition for notice of his intention to address this question to me. I am able to inform the house that consultation has already commenced in the NATO council on the replies to be sent to the Soviet union in response to its notes of January 10, 1959 on the German question. When this process of consultation has been completed I hope to be able to inform the house of the position of the Canadian government on this matter.
It would seem to me that it would be helpful if I took this opportunity of tabling the text of the note sent to the Canadian government by the Soviet government on January 10, 1959, and also a copy of the draft peace treaty with Germany which accompanied that note. The main proposal in this note was that a conference be held to consider a peace treaty with Germany, and it was suggested that both parts of Germany participate in this process.
The note to the Canadian government was similar to the notes submitted to the United States, the United Kingdom and France, the powers with occupation responsibilities, as well as to a number of other countries identified by the Soviet union as those which had taken part in the second world war. I table the note and the copy of the draft treaty.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Will the
Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether the United Kingdom government is seeking to amend the air agreement with Canada in order to obtain for B.O.A.C. fifth freedom rights at Montreal and Toronto?


George Harris Hees: As this matter comes more directly
under my jurisdiction, I shall answer the question. There have been discussions during the past year and a half between the Canadian government and the United Kingdom government regarding this air agreement. These discussions are still going on. There have not been any applications by the British government for fifth freedom rights at either Toronto or Montreal.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister allow me
to ask a supplementary question. Will he give consideration to the fact that if these fifth freedom rights were granted at Montreal and Toronto, it would mean a very severe blow to Dorval as an international airport?


George Harris Hees: I agree with the hon. member
that it would. As I say, I am glad to be able to reassure him that such fifth freedom rights have not been applied for by the British government.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: On Thursday last the hon. member for Gloucester asked me the following question:
Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether the Borden commission on energy has resumed sittings in the Atlantic provinces and, if not, when such sittings are expected to be resumed?
As already advised, the second report of the commission dealing with oil marketing will probably not be ready until April or May. The commission informs me it does not plan to hold any further public hearings until after this second report, dealing with another phase of the matters to be investigated by it, has been submitted to the government. Thereafter, public hearings will be resumed as soon as practicable, and when such hearings are resumed later in the year the commission intends to hold public hearings in the Atlantic provinces.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Has the
Minister of Transport received a telegram from Murray A. Lowe, secretary treasurer of the industrial union of marine and shipbuilding workers of Canada, pointing out that approximately 300 employees have been laid off at the Halifax shipyard since December? Will the minister say what consideration the government is giving to the request that is made that the award of the Belle Isle ferry contract be made to the Halifax shipyard, and the request that other government work be provided for that shipyard?


George Harris Hees: I have not received such a telegram. I should like to inform the hon. member that such contracts are awarded on the basis of the lowest tender.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF POSITION OF MARITIME CONSUMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's announcement in the house on Friday last that the increase in price would apply only to wheat for shipment from the lakehead and not to wheat for shipment from the Atlantic coast ports, would the minister give assurance that maritime domestic consumers shall not have to pay higher prices for western grain, particularly for feed?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice, in order to give me an opportunity to consult with the wheat board.



FURTHER STATEMENT ON CHANGE IN PRICING POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: On Friday, Mr. Speaker, a somewhat related question was asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur, which I took as notice. He asked me the following question:
Did the wheat board take cognizance of the tentative seaway tolls on lake shipping in setting this price increase? If so, is an adjustment in the price increase either up or down possible if the tentative tolls schedule is changed?
As I indicated in my statement, the increase represented the board's preliminary estimate of the gross saving in freight likely to be realized. This, of course, would take into consideration the question of tolls. Generally speaking the board's policy is flexible, and they will be guided by experience as to its future determination and make adjustments as necessary.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister. Was not the statement made by the minister the other day one that did not take into consideration, as it should not have, the question of tolls on the seaway?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What was the question?


Lionel Chevrier: The statement was made irrespective of tolls on the seaway, was it not?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I presume that is correct, but the question asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur is related to changes that might take place in those tolls. I presume the
Inquiries of the Ministry board, as it does with all other transportation charges, would relate that to its current business and current prices.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SUPPLE- MENTARY QUOTAS TO SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware of the article in the February 5 issue of the Western Producer captioned "Supplementary quota on rye authorized"? The article goes on to say that the Canadian wheat board has authorized a supplementary quota of 5 bushels per seeded acre for rye, subject to a minimum delivery of 150 bushels, at all Alberta delivery points, effective January 26. Can the minister tell us if this quota will be put into effect in Saskatchewan as well; and if so, how soon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary delivery quota for rye at Alberta stations was authorized to provide necessary mill supplies in that province, and to make available additional supplies for shipment to the west coast to meet potential sales commitments. Producer deliveries of rye in Saskatchewan and Manitoba normally move to the lakehead, where stocks are presently adequate to meet requirements. It is the intention of the board, however, to extend the supplementary rye quota to Saskatchewan and Manitoba points after the opening of navigation on the great lakes, when further stocks will be required at the lakehead and elevator space will be available.
It is customary for the board to authorize supplementary quotas within specified areas shipping to terminal facilities where stocks are not adequate to meet existing or potential sales commitments.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON REVISION OF TERMS OF UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gafe):: In view of the fact that the report has now been available for more than six months, and in view of the urgent fiscal need of the provincial government of Newfoundland, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the government will find it possible at an early date to make an announcement about what it is proposed to do about implementing the report of the McNair commission?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance can conveniently answer that question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As all hon. members are aware, Mr. Speaker, Premier Smallwood was here a week ago-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Two weeks ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -or I should say two weeks ago today accompanied by the minister of finance and other officials including Mr. Perlin who had been a member of the provincial royal commission which had advised the province earlier in the matter, and also Mr. Goldenberg who was counsel to the province of Newfoundland in the hearings of the royal commission headed by Chief Justice McNair.
On the Monday morning there was a conference with the Prime Minister, and that afternoon a further conference proceeded in my office. At these conferences the subject was discussed fully from, I think, every possible angle. Indeed, when the conclusion of the afternoon conference was reached Premier Smallwood was good enough to indicate his pleasure at the hearing he had received and at the thorough way in which all aspects of the question had been reviewed in the meetings.
Premier Smallwood continued to indicate that he is not satisfied with the recommendations of the royal commission. There are problems with regard to the duration of payments as well. The report of the royal commission is anything but clear and definite on some points. In the light of the remarks made by Premier Smallwood and his advisers with regard to the report of the royal commission and what action he would like the federal government to take in the light of the recommendations of the royal commission, the whole subject is under active consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether it is the intention of the government to re-equip the Canadian F-86 air squadrons in Europe with new planes? If so, will the new planes be purchased, as reported, in the United States of America?
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, it is questionable if the requirements for a day fighter of the type

of the F-86 Sabre for the NATO forces in Europe will exist much longer. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the F-86 Sabre, which at one time was undoubtedly the most efficient fighter in Europe, may have ceased by 1961-62. Consideration is therefore being given to the future role of the air division and the possible replacement of the F-86 by some other aircraft. No decision has yet been reached as to the question of replacing that aircraft, nor as to the type of the aircraft which will replace the F-86, nor where that aircraft will be purchased or made.


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



REQUEST FOR RECONVENING OF DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this motion affords an opportunity, both with respect to an amendment which I propose to move later in the course of my remarks and, by what I say, to direct the attention of the house to a matter of great national importance at this time, namely the unexplained delay in the reconvening of the dominion-provincial conference, particularly in so far as it affects such matters as fiscal and unemployment questions.
No one in this house will fail to agree on the need for federalism in Canada. Our need, of course, is based upon a number of considerations such as geography, physical diversity, the stretch of our territories, regional differences in resources and economic activity and, of course, cultural diversity.
On the other hand we have in Canada a great number of common problems. All of us certainly want to continue to build up a strong nation, and we want to use the existence of these common problems for that purpose. These basic needs which I mentioned are illustrated by such expressions as "Unity without uniformity" or "Unity out of diversity". In order to be reconciled and to be satisfactorily met, they require federalism or in other words the assignment of specific constitutional responsibilities to different governments.
This requirement was recognized by the fathers of confederation, and indeed it was embedded in the constitution itself. It still exists today as a basic need, and for the same basic reasons as in 1867. Federalism is the only political system through which we in Canada can be united and continue to progress as a nation. But federalism involves the

assignment of specific constitutional responsibilities to different governments wholly independent of one another. However, the solution of many of these problems for which the modern state has to assume ultimate responsibility does not respect the constitutional division of powers, and cannot be found by one sphere of government acting alone. In other words, such problems are the joint responsibility of all spheres of government in a country like our own.
A good illustration of this is unemployment, where for a full and effective solution the joint responsibility of all governments within the federal state is required. Tax cuts, unemployment assistance, public works especially to give work in winter to unemployed persons, are all essential remedies capable of coping with mass unemployment. But their application does not lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of one sphere of government. This requires, then, the co-ordinated action of all governments, including the municipalities.
This illustration shows that federalism cannot function effectively to satisfactorily solve the problems facing a country like Canada if the different spheres of government ignore each other. In other words, interdependence must be recognized in concrete terms. Coordination of all governmental activity is essential. Continuing consultations and discussions between the senior levels of government in particular are necessary.
We have current problems in Canada which require concentration and joint action. We have to face at present several very important problems requiring intergovernmental discussion, joint action and consideration. One of those questions has to do with the matter of constitutional amendment. At the present time we have an anomalous situation. Parliament and the provincial legislatures can change our constitutional provisions in matters concerning both levels of government. However, there is no recognized procedure for amending our constitution, and the United Kingdom parliament still has the final responsibility of changing our constitutional provisions in this respect.
Now, is this not an undesirable situation? The previous administration tried to do something about this problem. It tried to solve it. It brought this subject up for discussion in 1950 at a federal-provincial conference which was specially convened for that particular purpose. There were lengthy discussions, and after those lengthy discussions and consultations, which extended far beyond the conference room, no tangible result was produced. The Prime Minister, good constitutional lawyer that he is, will recognize why that 66968-9-52J
Dominion-Provincial Conference was the result. It was because of the failure of certain provincial leaders who are now friendly with the present Conservative government in office. So it is the responsibility of this government to discuss this important question with the provincial premiers and solve this basic constitutional issue just as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: To which provincial government does the hon. gentleman refer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring in particular to my friend's colleague, the premier of the province of Quebec. I would hope that because of his well known association and political community of interest with him he would be able to do something that the previous prime minister and the former minister of justice were unable to effect.
Then there is the matter of human rights. VvTe are going to be asked very shortly this session to consider a bill on human rights which apparently would be limited in its application to the federal field of jurisdiction. Quite apart from the substance of this proposed bill, such limitation I think even the Prime Minister, apart from his own immediate responsibility, would regard as being far from satisfactory. Provincial jurisdiction in the field of human rights, through the property and civil rights clause in section 92 of the British North America Act, is very wide indeed, and the government should at least try to find a formula which would permit joint action with respect to a matter so important as this.
This suggestion was made by the Leader of the Opposition in this house on September 5, 1958, when the bill was given its first reading. Here is what the Leader of the Opposition said, and his words are to be found at page 4652 of Hansard:
Indeed, as a result of consultation with the provinces it might be possible to widen the action so as to include both the federal government and provincial governments in a joint declaration on individual rights and freedoms. Then indeed we would have a powerful symbol.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman would excuse me, during the period of office of the last government is it not a fact that the various provinces were consulted with respect to this very important matter, and that several of them did not even deign to reply?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure if my right hon. friend says that is the case, that is the situation. My memory does not altogether agree with him, but I could be wrong. All I would say in answer is that that is no excuse now, particularly in light of the fact that some of these former objecting premiers may now be more disposed to


John George Diefenbaker: What was the reaction of the government of that day?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to give the house its reaction right now. The reaction was that we, as the government in office at that time, had the responsibility for doing something. So we did call a conference. A preliminary meeting with the provinces was held on April 26 and 27 of 1955 to consider matters of mutual concern, including the problem of unemployment.
That is the answer I give to the right hon. gentleman. We called a conference to do the very thing which we now urge him to do with regard to unemployment and for other reasons I have already mentioned-reasons why this conference, called in the month of November and adjourned at the end of that month, without reconvening in January as had been promised, should now be held. In answer to the question asked by the right hon. gentleman we did exactly what we are now asking him to do.
At that conference which was called in 1955 we decided that a federal-provincial unemployment assistance sharing plan had become desirable in Canada, and that a special meeting should be organized to consider that plan. A conference on unemployment assistance was accordingly held on June 20 and 21, 1955. The federal government then put forward a specific proposal which was modified during the discussion with provincial representatives and later implemented as amended. Moreover, it was agreed that if at any time in the future the total number of unemployed employables on relief should

exceed 2 per cent of the population, a further conference would be called to review the whole situation.
Now I understand from the Minister of Labour, who will correct me if I am wrong, that there are no current figures available on this point at the present time. But is there any doubt that the total number of people receiving unemployment assistance at the present time exceeds that 2 per cent? Therefore I say that if we were asked what we would do under present conditions, on the basis of what I have just said we did do in 1955 the answer would be that a federal-provincial conference on unemployment would already have been called and conclusions would have been reached.


Michael Starr: We held one last July.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We would not have held a conference and told the provinces we were going to reconvene it, and then allow a whole year to go by without any action being taken by way of conference or without any indication being given by the Prime Minister as to the government's intention with regard to this particular matter.
Since this government took office the floor of 4.5 per cent of the population has been removed, but the serious unemployment situation has never been discussed with the provinces.


Michael Starr: Yes, it has.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has never been discussed with a view to reappraising the unemployment assistance plan, or in the light of the other provisions for general assistance in connection with this subject. The Minister of Labour said yes, it has. I want to be fair to him. He is referring to the discussions with the provincial ministers of labour. I am referring to a dominion-provincial conference dealing not only with unemployment but with those other matters involving joint responsibility between the two senior levels of government.
The conference to which the hon. gentleman referred was a conference between ministers of labour who met to consider a program of winter work. As the minister knows, for reasons for which I do not blame him personally the recommendations he was able to make reached the cabinet only many weeks after that conference had been held. Perhaps it was this delay which was responsible for holding up the announcement of the Prime Minister regarding the finance-sharing program of the government until just before he left the country, an announcement which so far as it goes is acceptable, but which really does not meet this problem at all.
Dominion-Provincial Conference
The real fact is-and I hope hon. gentlemen will indicate when they reply whether or not this statement is correct-that at no time since this government came into office, except with respect to the conference of ministers of labour held last summer, has there been any conference on the intergovernmental level, that is to say between the federal government and the provincial governments. Certainly there has been no federal conference between heads of governments on the scale we are talking about now. I heard the Prime Minister in the opening speech he made at the conference in November, and I remember very well what he said about unemployment at that time. He said at that time that the unemployment problem was a temporary situation-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Page?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: I have not got it
before me but I will get it. This is from the opening statement of the Prime Minister at the public session of that conference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But what is the hon. gentleman reading from? It would be very interesting to know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am reading from the Prime Minister's speech, but I have not got the page.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman has demonstrated recently some very meticulous concern for precise references, and I invite him now to set the house an example by telling us the precise source from which he is now preparing to read.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think what the hon. gentleman said when he rose to his point of order is quite justified, and before I resume my seat I shall identify the quotation for him.
However, the Prime Minister in the course of this speech did refer to unemployment as a temporary situation. That was in November of 1958. Unemployment was rising and, as we know, during the months of December, January, February and March it rose to an increasing extent until, now when we have a situation in which the figures are more serious. We wonder whether this statement by the Prime Minister about the situation being temporary did justify his belittling the existence of the problem.
The point I am making is that this was the only reference to this matter of unemployment during the public session of this conference. My genial friend, the Minister of Finance whose interjections are always so acute and ingenious-


Donald Methuen Fleming: And friendly.

Dominion-Provincial Conference


Murdo William Martin: -has asked me to give the exact page on which are to be found the words I used a moment ago, and I am now pleased to do so. I refer to the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference of 1957 issued by the government of Canada, and represented as a verbatim report of the conference held in Ottawa on November 25 and 26, 1957. I draw the hon. gentleman's attention to page 10, the third last paragraph, the second last sentence of that paragraph. In fact I think I had better read the whole paragraph.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Murdo William Martin: The third last paragraph on page 10 reads as follows:
I wish now to say a word or two-
Notice that; a word or two.
-on the question of unemployment. In many countries of the free world there has been a pause this year in the rapid pace of development and, as in 1954 and 1955, an increase in unemployment. You will remember in those years that while the percentage of unemployed in Canada in relationship to the number employed was much higher than it is today, that fact and those circumstances did not herald the beginning of depression. What actually happened was that there was a levelling off process which subsequently led to an even wider development and expansion program.
Then the statement continues:
When I say that, of course, I do not mean that prompt action must not be taken to meet-
And here are the words I used:
-what I believe to be a temporary situation this winter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will my hon. friend read the next sentence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I shall be glad to. The paragraph concludes with this sentence:
This government has taken active measures to meet this short term situation and is taking additional ones.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What my hon. friend has done has been to remind me that this government has taken short term measures for one winter only when, as of January 8, we were confronted with more unplaced applicants than at any time since the dark thirties. A temporary situation indeed. That is why we should have without any delay a dominion-provincial conference. If the ministers of this government want to be consistent with what they used to say when they were in opposition and, with what was done by the former government, they should immediately call a dominion-provincial conference to deal with this question.
Then there is another matter, the question of fiscal relations. We all know-and no one

knows it better than the Minister of Finance- that the subject of fiscal relations between the two senior levels of government in a federal state like ours raises a very complex problem for which no permanent and fully satisfactory solution has yet been devised anywhere. Practical compromises have to be worked out from time to time in the light of changing social and economic conditions as they confront the country, and as well in the light of the evolving allocation of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments.
The financial settlement reached in 1867 and embodied in our constitution was in itself and by its very nature a compromise. At the time of confederation the federal government received authority for-and I now quote from the constitution:
The raising of money by any mode or system of taxation.
Provincial legislatures were given power to levy direct taxation within the provinces in order to provide for the raising of revenue for provincial purposes. These constitutional provisions which established the right of both levels of government to direct taxation did not appear sufficient to meet the financial requirements of the provinces, and a system of subsidies was devised as an additional source of revenue to meet the growing obligations of the provincial governments. And so, right from the beginning of our confederation and indeed as a prerequisite to its establishment, the principle of payments from one government to the others was recognized, practised and embodied in the constitution.
Between 1867 and the second world war the financial settlement reached at confederation was changed in two ways. First, several major revisions were made to the subsidies and a general readjustment was effected in 1907. Second, the provinces have gained access to new tax fields. This change is seldom noted but is nevertheless most significant. In 1867 the taxing powers of provincial legislatures had been restricted to direct taxation, and the field of indirect taxes had been reserved exclusively to the federal government. Since then, however, the distinction between direct and indirect taxes has become much less significant because the provinces, with the acquiescence of the federal government, have come to use many kinds of commodity taxes in the guise of direct taxes. I think the only sources of revenue which the federal government does not now share with the provinces are customs duties.
This entry of the provinces into the commodity tax field had not been contemplated by the fathers of confederation and it should be recognized as a major step in the direction of financial decentralization when we try to

appraise the evolution of our federalism over the past decades. But it must be noted that while this important new tax field has become accessible to all the provinces, the constitutional position in this particular is not too clear and the method of collecting those taxes which has to be used by the provinces at the retail level is not too effective, so that the several provinces have been reluctant to use that source of revenue.
This is rather important, I believe, and I point it out to the Minister of Finance now. The previous administration had agreed again to submit to the provinces an amendment to the constitution which would have explicitly given to the provinces access to indirect taxation. Approval of the proposed amendment was expressed by nine provinces. The province of Quebec, however, refused approval to that proposal which would have given wider taxation powers to the provinces, and on that account no constitutional amendment was put forward.
It seems to me today that this would be a very useful change to make in our constitution in order to provide additional sources of revenue to the provinces. With that objective in mind the government should review this suggestion just as soon as possible, as was done in 1951. It would probably be more readily acceptable at this time to the province of Quebec which through its premier is certainly more friendly to the present administration that it was to its predecessor. Moreover, the present Prime Minister promised to revise the current tax-sharing arrangements, and more recently several premiers have publicly expressed their dissatisfaction about the present situation and have urged the federal government to call a conference to deal with this problem of mutual concern.
Up to now I have sought to put this question on the basis of historical perspective. I wish now to briefly review some reasons that are incapable of attack as to why this government should now call the provinces together in consequence of a commitment it made to them in November, 1957 and also in fulfilment of promises made by members of this government in the elections of 1957 and 1958.
I want to examine this subject, and I am extremely happy that the Prime Minister is in the house today so that we may deal with the situation face to face and man to man. If there was one promise he gave to the Canadian people it was that if given the opportunity he would, when everyone else had failed, resolve once and for all this matter of fiscal difficulty between the federal and provincial governments. He gave the
Dominion-Provincial Conference world and the country the first intimation of this when he opened his campaign in Massey hall in the month of April, 1957. Before dealing with some of the things the Prime Minister said in that speech I should like to give something of the background of the meeting held in Massey hall, a meeting at which the Prime Minister, then the leader of his party, was only one of the speakers, the other speaker being that genial old man of Ontario, Premier Frost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A little too young for you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend says, "A little too young for you." I suppose it all depends on the interpretation one places on my hon. friend's remark, but I would say perhaps a little too complicated for my hon, friend to understand. I have here a Canadian Press story which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of April 26, 1957, and I am sure that anything the Ottawa Journal would report would be a correct representation of the facts. The report has this to say, inter alia:
Mr. Frost started at 9.10 o'clock, drawing a burst of cheers with the statement that Ontario was welcoming John Diefenbaker back home. He was introducing, said Mr. Frost, the next prime minister of Canada.


An hon. Member:: He was right, too.


Murdo William Martin: That prophecy came true and the Prime Minister now sits in the first place and looks at me now in full confirmation of what Mr. Frost said. But Mr. Frost went on.
Mr. Frost turned to a favourite theme-the unfair policies of the dominion Liberal government in distributing tax revenues.


Mr. Hodgson:: Right again.


Murdo William Martin: I continue:
The premier, who has a way of saying "Ontario" as if it were a caress, could see no hope of fairness for Ontario from the Liberals and proved the steadiness of his nerves when a balloon burst with a loud pop that made everyone but him jump. Mr. Diefenbaker, his national policy speech in his hand, listened attentively as the courtly Mr. Frost completed the listing of Ontario financial grievances ... In the warmth of his regard, Mr. Frost said he had looked with dismay at the rugged schedule of campaign meetings arranged for Mr. Diefenbaker and brought down the house with -"don't let them work you to death, John, we need you."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He was speaking for all Canada.


Murdo William Martin: Then the story goes on:
Mr. Diefenbaker, pressed for time-
Obviously Les had spoken too long.

Dominion-Provincial Conference


John Whitney Pickersgill: Too much.


Murdo William Martin: I go on.
-started his speech at 9.55 p.m.
Now I want to come to some parts of that speech, because that speech laid down the basis of an argument which the Prime Minister made all over this country and which constitutes for him an obligation under the traditions of our public life to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference at the earliest possible moment or subject himself to misinterpretation at the hands of those who look upon what he does sometimes critically but understandably. Here is what the Prime Minister said in that speech as reported by the Canadian Press, and I take this again from the Ottawa Journal:
We believe there can be no national unity in this nation until there is a realization that the federal-provincial matters have handcuffed the provinces of this nation, have denied the municipalities adequate sources of revenue, have placed the provinces and the municipalities in a position where they cannot discharge their constitutional responsibility or permit the necessary development in their own territorial confines of the natural resources that there are.
The Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, speaking at the first meeting of the campaign went on to say:
We believe the provinces and municipalities must have the financial resources to carry out those responsibilities. We believe in the federal system of government. We believe that its preservation is essential to Canadian unity. We believe the federal system is today being challenged by the centralization complex of the St. Laurent government and that a healthy division and balance of revenues as between federal and provincial governments must be assured.
There is his declaration of belief, of faith. Now let us ascertain as I proceed in what I want to say today whether or not the Prime Minister has in any way lived up to this solemn declaration made to the people of Canada. On that occasion the Prime Minister went on to say:
We intend to form a government to immediately convene a dominion-provincial conference to bring about a settlement of these problems, not in the spirit of arrogant domination as displayed by the present government but in the spirit of unity and amity and with mutual tolerance and respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen say "hear, hear". These people who say "hear, hear" are supporters of the government. I ask them, particularly those from the province of Quebec, to rise in their places and ask the Prime Minister to carry out this solemn assurance given to the people of Canada.


Mr. Graffley:: It is being carried out.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).}


Paul Joseph James Martin: Listen to what was reported in he Soleil of April 20:
(Translation):
Present fiscal agreements between the provinces and the central government were criticized yesterday evening by Mr. John Diefenbaker, leader of the Progressive Conservative party, who promised that his party, if put into power, will correct the situation.
In his speech delivered in Charlottetown, capital of Prince Edward Island, Mr. Diefenbaker gave the assurance that if he were entrusted with the federal power, he would immediately call a conference to redistribute taxation fields.
"Our desire, our wish, our intention, is to give provinces the share which is coming to them."
"While the provinces and the municipalities are moaning," the Conservative leader went on to say, "the government allows itself the luxury of a $400 million surplus".
(Text):
That was what he said in the province of Quebec. In Halifax he said, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 3:
A Conservative government will call a federal-provincial fiscal conference at which there "must be municipal representation".
In London, Ontario, on May 22 the Conservative leader, according to the London Free Press, "called for a new dominion-provincial conference at which the municipalities could sit in because the latter are in financial difficulties." I also have here the Montreal Gazette of February 20, 1957, in which I find the following:
The time has come for the federal government to make outright grants on a 50-50 basis with the provinces who ask for it for the construction of access roads.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: They are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I continue:
The whole field of taxation will have to be reviewed to assure that the provinces and municipalities may have more equitable share of tax yields.
And so on and so on. The Prime Minister did say to the people in 1957, "Elect me and I will call a dominion-provincial conference in September." There was no dominion-provincial conference called in September. It was only as a result of the prodding of members of the opposition that one was finally called in November of 1957.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is so utterly untrue. How ridiculous.


Murdo William Martin: I am going to deal with the Minister of Finance right now. We will see how untrue it is, because I have got a quotation of his. This realization that there had to be a new deal with the provinces and the government's intention to bring it about right away was expressed by the Minister of Finance in this way, according

to the Victoria Daily Times of March 31 of that year, 1957. Here is what the Minister of Finance said:
If there is one subject upon which the people of this country spoke with a clear voice on the 31st of March, it was on the subject of the position of this government with respect to the provinces of this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would my hon. friend give us the date of that again, please?


Paul Joseph James Martin: June 11, 1958. The minister was speaking to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and he may not have comprehended the full import of what he said. The words, reported by the Victoria Daily Times, are:
If there is one subject upon which the people of this country spoke with a clear voice on the 31st of March, it was on the subject of the position of this government with respect to the provinces of this country.
I say that is a correct statement, but what is this government doing about it? All that it has done has been to call the provinces to a conference which provided the government with an opportunity of making its own statement, but did not afford opportunity for full discussion with the provinces or the proposals that they had in mind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member indicate where, according to the newspaper report, those words were uttered?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I do not want to disturb hon. friend's nervous system, so I did not use the first words. The report says:
Speaking rather angrily in the House of Commons the other day-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Exactly; you see, my hon. friend is leaving the impression that these were words uttered out in Victoria. My hon. friend knows that when he is referring to words alleged to have been uttered in the House of Commons he is required, under the rules of the house, to refer to the verbatim report in Hansard. Reference to a secondary source like a newspaper report concerning something said in the House of Commons is inadmissible. You see, Mr. Speaker, why it is we have to check the hon. gentleman's references all the time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At least he gives them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because of this second brilliant and ingenious intervention by the Minister of Finance, I shall give him the exact page Hansard within a very few moments.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, you have not got it.
Dominion-Provincial Conference


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the deduction I have made about the Prime Minister's campaign in 1957 is to be regarded as possibly overstating the case, I want to call as my witness no less a figure than the premier of Ontario. The election, of course, took place before this date. On June 21, the premier of Ontario was interviewed by the Canadian Press. I now quote from the Canadian Press story appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of June 21, 1957. Here is what Premier Frost said:
Premier Frost says he expects the change of governments in Ottawa will make considerable difference on a number of questions affecting the province.
Then, the article goes on:
Mr. Diefenbaker, who officially becomes Prime Minister today, said during the election campaign that if elected he would call a federal-provincial conference this fall. The Ontario premier said the tax split should be top matter for consideration at such a conference.
Mr. Frost has said Ontario needs an additional $100 million to meet demands of provincial and municipal growth. If granted, most of that amount would go to relieve municipal education costs, he said Thursday.
Here is this Ottawa Citizen article with this headline: "Frost sees new look with new government". Let us see whether or not we are getting this new look. Ontario was not the only province that had views about this matter. Mr. Frost came down and saw the Prime Minister on many occasions. The Prime Minister will recall that on one occasion I asked him if he had lunch yesterday with the premier of Ontario. The Prime Minister said, "No, I did not have lunch yesterday with the premier of Ontario", but then the next day the newspapers pointed out that the premier of Ontario had had lunch with him earlier and that they had been discussing this matter, according to Premier Frost. Why had they been discussing dominion-provincial relations? It was because Premier Frost wanted the right hon. gentleman to call a conference, and a conference was called in November but was not reconvened.
Lest there be any mistake about-


John George Diefenbaker: Some more of your
personal statistics and personal revisions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister introduces these light-hearted irrele-vancies, but they do not in any way extricate him from the obvious embarrassment in which he finds himself. Mr. Frost wants this conference reconvened. I have before me an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of June 6, 1958 and which says:
Premier Frost says a dominion-provincial tax conference is "inevitable" before the end of the summer.
818	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Conference
The end of the summer has come and this inevitability has not made itself manifest. The premier told a press conference that he was full of hope that at the conference Ontario would get an additional $78 million from Ottawa. The province asked for $100 million before the last conference and received $22 million as an interim payment.
In predicting a conference by autumn, Mr. Frost said he did not intend to provide any ammunition for Liberal leaders in parliament who have been pressing Prime Minister Diefenbaker for a statement on when the conference will be held.
But Mr. Frost shared with us at that time, as did the provinces, a desire that the conference be reconvened. Here is another story on January 14, 1959, in the Ottawa Journal:
Says government will call provinces to tax meeting. The Tribune says the federal government will probably invite the provinces to a conference in Ottawa to discuss tax-sharing agreements sometime next month.
This was on January 14 of this year.
Premier Roblin of Manitoba said in an interview that he and other provincial premiers have written *Ottawa requesting a conference and said he has suggested it be held before the end of February.
The newspaper said Mr. Roblin seemed optimistic ithat Ottawa will grant the request.
Then, here we have the same story appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 16:
Premier disappointed; still want tax talks-Roblin. Premier Roblin made a number of remarks and then struck them from the record. He then continued :
"My official statement is this. We note this (tax agreement decision), but we will still press for continued discussion between the federal government and the provinces on this matter.
Then the premier of Prince Edward Island, as reported in the Guardian of January, said:
"Nothing short of a full scale federal-provincial conference will meet the requirements of this province," said Premier A. W. Matheson yesterday following receipt of a letter from Prime Minister Diefenbaker.
This was alter the provinces had learned from the speech from the throne, of this unilateral, give it or take it renewed offer of the Minister of Finance, and what the intention of the government was. Then, here we have the Toronto Star of January 20, 1959, quoting Premier Frost:
Premier Frost said he presumes on the basis of remarks by Prime Minister Diefenbaker there will be a meeting sometime this year of the federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal relations and of the finance ministers.
No word at that point from Premier Frost as to the calling of a full conference, although in the month of September, as I have indicated, he was anxious that there should be such a conference called. I suspect that the Prime Minister and Premier Frost have gotten together. They belong to the same political


party. The Prime Minister would say, "Well now, Les, you are going to have a provincial election; I think the best way not to embarrass you would be for this question not to be officially resolved. I will find some dextrous way, and I am very dextrous in these matters, Les, of not answering the questions put to me by members of the opposition. We will weather this storm and at the end of the session we will not have called a provincial conference."
Then, in the province of British Columbia- I am revealing the opinion of most of the provinces, Mr. Speaker, and trying to indicate the national interest in this problem-here is what Mr. Bonner, the attorney general of British Columbia, said on January 28 as reported in the Province of January 29:
He said dominion-provincial conferences can do much to "improve our situation," and "certainly such a conference concerning the national economy is now overdue."
Then if there was any indication of what really was agreed to and of what the Prime Minister himself gave assurance would take place, it was a story appearing in the Globe and Mail the day after the conference was called on November 25 and 26. In the Globe and Mail of November 27, in an article written by Mr. Clark Davey, we find the following:
Mr. Diefenbaker stressed that another conference would be convened as soon as possible in the new year after the dominion government has had a chance to study the many proposals of the provincial premiers.
I direct attention to the words "another conference will be called in the new year". That was a year ago or more than a year ago.


Mr. Benidickson:: And the communique.


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1 am going to deal with that. As I say, that was more than a year ago. Yet the Prime Minister day after day in this house refuses to tell us when he proposes to carry out a commitment as to a matter in respect of which, if we are to have satisfactory dominion-provincial relations, the federal government is but one party. The decision to reconvene the conference was a matter that was decided by all of the parties, the provinces and the federal government. I can interpret the present attitude of this government as nothing more than contempt of the provinces and of parliament itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members say "oh, oh". I well remember the words of Mr. Bennett, as leader of the opposition on this side of the house, speaking about commitments made by one government to another.

Here is the situation with respect to this particular matter. The Prime Minister says, "I do not propose to answer questions put by members of the opposition". He is within his rights in taking that position. No minister can at a particular moment with respect to a particular question be compelled to answer. But I say that in the spirit of our parliamentary tradition there is nothing which justifies a prime minister, day in and day out, in one session and another, refusing to tell parliament and the country what the government's policy is with regard to a particular matter, and particularly with regard to a matter about which there is the clearest evidence of a solemn commitment; and here it is. I refer to the communique itself after the conference, issued by the Prime Minister on behalf of the members of the conference. This communique I have from the Montreal Star of November 27. It concludes as follows:
It was agreed that a subsequent meeting be held as soon as possible in the new year in accordance with the proposal made by the dominion government in calling this conference.
Will any hon. member say that I was not justified in saying that the action of this government from November 27 up until this particular time constitutes contempt of the provinces and of parliament itself?


An hon. Member:: Don't be silly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But I am not alone in this matter. Even Conservative newspapers bear me out. Here is the Winnipeg Tribune of January 15, 1959:
Several provincial premiers, including Premier Roblin, have been trying to persuade Ottawa to hold new talks on dominion-provincial tax-sharing arrangements.
Most of the provinces are cliff-hanging with regard to the deal they may expect to receive from Ottawa during the months ahead. A new conference should be held.
Then here is the Hamilton Spectator, also a strong supporter of the present administration. In an editorial of July 3, 1958, it states:
It is one of the lesser disappointments of the Fleming budget that it ignored any reference to future relationships between Ottawa and the provinces and municipalities. The government can scarcely avoid an early conference to determine financial arrangements.
I say this to the Prime Minister. I hope that when I shall have finished-and I have not by any means finished yet

he is going to rise in his place and deal with this situation, and tell us precisely what the difficulties are, why this commitment to the provinces is not being carried out, and why he finds its necessary to dodge questions day after day as to the intentions of the government.
But it was not only in the matter of relations with the provinces that the Prime
Dominion-Provincial Conference Minister spoke of the requirements in two election campaigns, both of which I acknowledge were unprecedently successful but of which I am sure there is no evidence that there is likely to be any repetition. I refer to the matter of municipal relations. The Prime Minister felt keenly about the municipalities of our country. Wherever he went he reminded the mayors and the people of our cities and towns and in some cases even the villages what he was going to do if given the opportunity to form a government. I find that on May 3, 1957, in St. Stephen, he said this:
No one could say that municipalities or provinces had the tax resources to carry out their responsibilities.
Then, in a Winnipeg press conference, as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 14,
1957,	he said this:
Municipalities have been placed in a position where property owners are saddled with heavy burden of taxation. He charged that continued centralization of taxation by the federal government was leaving the municipalities as the forgotten people.
Then near his own home town of Prince Albert, in Saskatoon at another press conference on May 27, 1957, as reported in the Star-Phoenix we have this:
The Conservative government, if elected, said the P.C. leader, would remove the crushing burden of municipal taxes.
Then right near Ottawa, namely in Hull, on February 25, 1958, we find this:
He also indicated prompt action on holding an "informal" meeting between the federal government and municipal representatives-he said it would occur after the election-to hear municipal views on their financial problems.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: We did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. That was 1957. The meeting with municipalities occurred in
1958.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That was fairly soon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The quotation continues:
Such a meeting, he said, would allow the federal government to draw up proposals to present to the next federal-provincial conference for easing "excessive" municipal real estate taxes.
That is taken from the Canadian Press report in the Montreal Star of February 26, 1958. It is apparent that the attitude of the Prime Minister has changed. His changed attitude is indicated and reflected in the speech which he gave at the informal meeting of representatives of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities on October 6, 1958, the date that I referred to a few moments ago. Here is what was said by the Prime Minister, the man who in Saskatoon,

Dominion-Provincial Conference Hull, St. Stephen, Winnipeg and elsewhere said what he was going to do about the hard-pressed municipalities. Here is what he said to the mayors alter the election when he had them in the conference room not far from this chamber. First of all he said this:
I feel that I should also point out that despite the huge requirements of dominion responsibilities, Canada's progress has been such in the past quarter century that, after federal taxes are taken off, the national Income available to pay provincial and municipal taxes has increased by many times as compared to pre-war years, and the fraction of that remaining income taken as provincial and municipal taxes is less than it was before the war.
So far those are not words that suggest to me that the spokesman is the same man who spoke in Saskatoon, Hull, St. Stephen and Winnipeg during the course of the election campaign. Then he went on to say this:
I know you are particularly conscious of the burden of real estate taxes, upon which you are so dependent, and often they do look high In terms of mill rates, but in the final analysis taxes on real estate are paid by people out of income.
It should be realized that if average income, after income tax is deducted, is considered in its relationship to the total of real property taxes, it will be found that real property taxes are now, on the average across Canada, about 4 per cent of personal incomes, compared with about 5.8 per cent immediately before the war. Therefore, although I have no doubt the situation varies widely in particular cases, municipalities have on the average achieved a relative reduction in the effective burden of real estate taxes.
Here are the words of the Prime Minister in what apparently were his concluding remarks when he met the mayors of Canada in October last, a year after he said that he would meet them to resolve their problems. They came with a six point program, and they returned with nothing from the Prime Minister. His answer was: no.
What was this six point program? The municipalities asked for increased federal participation with municipalities in slum clearance. They asked for the allocation of National Housing Act funds to develop water and trunk sewer lines. They asked for federal aid with regard to street construction when the streets are part of an intercity or interprovincial highway system. They asked for the inclusion of capital costs in hospital construction in the operational costs of the provincial-federal hospitalization scheme. They asked for federal aid to the municipal works projects for winter employment; not the scheme which has been devised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. StarrL They asked for a scheme which would provide assistance, not only in the matter of employment and in the matter of labour costs but in the matter of supplies as well. Finally, they asked the government for the elimination of federal sales tax on municipal purchases.

Not one of those points was accepted, some of which, directly or by implication, were covered by the Prime Minister in the assurances which he gave in the course of the two elections, to the municipalities. They got the same kind of courteous treatment that they got from preceding governments, and they got the same explanation about the constitutional difficulties and the constitutional distribution of powers. They were told that the federal government had heavy social security obligations, heavy defence obligations, and because of these the Prime Minister said "There is nothing that we can do for you." That conference was, if any conference is, an indication of the real purpose for which the various assurances were given to the municipalities in the course of an election. Compare that last statement of the Prime Minister which I quoted with this one which he gave on May 30, 1957, at St. Patrice de Beaurivage, reported in the Montreal Gazette on May 31, 1957. The Prime Minister said:
A Progressive Conservative federal government would give the provinces and municipalities a larger share of the national revenue, John Diefen-baker said today.
The Progressive Conservative leader, in his first Quebec province speech of his current eastern tour, said this would permit the non-central governments to "discharge their constitutional responsibilities and to develop their natural resources".
Then listen to this:
Discussing his pledge to distribute more federal revenue to the provinces and municipalities, Mr. Diefenbaker said that "they are poor but the Ottawa government is rich".
All I can say to the Prime Minister is that that statement undoubtedly had the intended effect. It created the impression that a government which was rich would do something for these municipalities which were poor. He whetted their appetites, and if consequences flow from his present action he will have no one else to blame but himself and these words uttered on May 30 at St. Patrice de Beaurivage.
Mr. Speaker, what is the situation now? What is the record of the Prime Minister's method? Here we have a promise in an election speech in 1957 to settle this question with the provinces once and for all. No conference was called in September. One was called in the fall of 1957 as a result, I say again, of prodding by members of the opposition and the demands of certain provincial premiers. The record of Hansard for the fall of 1957 is there to prove what I say. The conference was called in November of 1957. It adjourned after two days. As I have indicated, it was to resume in January; the communique said so. The Prime Minister's letter to Premier Campbell

at the end of December 1957 said so likewise, but no conference has been reconvened.
What did the federal government do? What did this government do, a government Which criticized the so-called arrogance of the preceding government, which criticized a government which gave formulae which the Prime Minister said were on a take it or leave it basis? What did this government, which refused to negotiate with the provinces on equal terms, do? One day the Minister of Finance, in all of his glory, stood up in this house and told us that he had telegraphed the provinces and that he had provided them, as spokesman for the government, with further grants which would total some $62 million, and if account were taken of the Atlantic provinces, this figure would total $87 million.
First of all, that was a unilateral act. That was a decision arrived at not as a result of a conference, but as a result of a decision made by this government which for some reason or other is now reluctant to meet the provinces again regarding this matter of fiscal relations. He told the provinces, "You will be getting another $62 million." He told the Atlantic provinces, "You will be getting a fixed $25 million." There was to be granted some $7.5 million to three of the maritime provinces, and I think $2.5 million to Prince Edward Island. The provinces, on the basis of this particular unilateral act, framed their budgets, many of them only to find themselves now in the face of falling revenues in an embarrassing position. But I will deal with that later.
As I say, the provinces were advised by telegram, and whatever the Prime Ministei may say there is no justification for that kind of action. Incidentally, as we all recall, the figures used in the telegrams were not accurate. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance will, I am sure, tell me if I am not right in saying that the information given him as to the share of each province of that $62 million was on the basis of figures not provided him by any civil servant in the government of Canada, but by Mr. George Gathercole of the department of finance in the government of the province of Ontario. I see the hon. minister laughs, but this is an important matter. He can deny right now whether or not my statement is true. If it is true, it is an unfortunate reflection on the confidence that the Minister of Finance should have demonstrated at that time in his own officials. Then in the session of 1958, no conference having been convened, we kept on prodding the government, but all we were able to get from the Prime Minister was an assurance that there would be a conference with the municipalities.
Dominion-Provincial Conference
The next chapter in this sorry record of government failure was the further unilateral action of the government, this time using the vehicle of the speech uttered by the representative of the crown, to inform the governments of the provinces that the government would continue for a new year this arrangement which had been announced by telegram, which was both unilateral and irregular. This government, which has now been in office 18 months; this government which was going to solve this problem for all time, now deals on a year to year basis- on a unilateral basis-imposing its will and giving evidence of its distrust of common discussion and negotiation, and says to the provinces: here is what we are going to give you; if you do not want it; as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said the other day to Mr. Fines: propose something else. Now we have reached the present situation and we find that the government still refuses to tell us when they are going to call a meeting of the provinces, as was promised and by their own spokesmen and supporters.
One of the things which the Minister of Finance has failed to remind this house in speaking of this arrangement for an additional $62 million was this: that it now turns out to be about half of that sum, and the hon. gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I were to take up the time of the house by correcting all the errors in the hon. gentleman's speech I am sure he would not get started again for a long time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That evasive reply is characteristic of my former classmate who was more punctilious as a student than he has learned to be as a minister of the crown. But the answer confirms what I said-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it does not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: that this statement made by the Prime Minister in Winnipeg that the government intended to give the provinces another $62 million was not correct, and that the telegram sent by the Minister of Finance on the eve of the election was misleading because the $62 million has turned out not to be $62 million at all. It is true that the formula was raised. This government said that instead of continuing the formula of 10-9-50 of the St. Laurent government it would produce another formula based on a proportion of 13-9-50, that is, 13 per cent of income taxes, 9 per cent of corporation taxes and 50 per cent of succession duties. But, in fact, it is not any such thing. What the Minister of Finance failed to do when he sent his telegrams to the provinces was to tell them there was not going to be any

Dominion-Provincial Conference change at all in the stabilization clause. He was also very remiss in not telling them that the final sum depended on whether or not there would be an increase or a decline in revenues from these three tax fields.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do you not think they understood that very well?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman asked me whether I do not think they understood that very well. I think that no one could give a proper interpretation to the meaning of the telegram which the Minister of Finance sent and which, shortly afterwards, he had to correct in this house.
Let us see what the situation is with regard to at least six of the provinces on the basis of the fiscal year 1958-59 in comparison with revenues received in 1957-58. Six of these provinces did not receive from this government what the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister said they would receive. That is the situation. For the fiscal year 1958-59, Newfoundland expected $25,214,000, and received $24,213,000; Nova Scotia expected $36,691,000 and received $34,595,000; New Brunswick expected $30,990,000 and received $29,518,000. In Manitoba there was an expectancy of $35,755,000 and the province actually received only $33,202,000. In the case of Saskatchewan it was anticipated the province would receive $36,552,000 and received only $33,885,000. In the case of the other province, $48,231,000 was expected and the actual yield will be about $45,836,000. Thus, all that the provinces really received, apart from some possible $30 million, was what they had already received from the previous administration, namely a guarantee that they would receive 95 per cent of what they had received in the preceding year. This was a guarantee put into the tax agreement by Mr. Harris in respect of the agreements which became effective on April 1, 1957.
And so, when the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister spoke about this great new change on a unilateral basis they neglected to indicate that there would not be a corresponding change in the stabilization clause, as I have already pointed out. But we must not stop there, because this is a serious matter for the provinces; it is the kind of matter one is forced to discuss in this house in detail because this government refuses to meet the provinces and permit them to have a discussion on these very questions which mean so much to the operations of government in the ten provinces. When one realizes that in a province such as Manitoba almost 40 per cent of the total budget is spent out of grants made by the federal government, and that the same is


generally true of all the other provinces with the exception of Ontario and Quebec, one can see how much this question means to the provinces. Thus we are forced to do in this chamber what the provinces would normally be doing themselves at a dominion-provincial conference.
I say to the Prime Minister that not only did he overstate the case in so far as the yield to the provinces for 1958-59 is concerned, but that the situation in 1959-60 will be that several provinces will receive less than they received in 1958-59. These provinces are Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The hon. gentleman seems to question this. He looks somewhat mystified at my statement. Does he challenge the statement I have just made that these provinces in the fiscal year 1959-60 will receive less than they will have received in the fiscal year 1958-59? I have seen this estimated on the basis of the hon. gentleman's estimates tabled the other day. The figures will support it, and I hope that when the Minister of Finance speaks he will indicate whether or not I have stated the situation correctly.
I have been giving the reason why I feel this conference should be called. I have put side by side the plan of the previous administration and the plan of this government with regard to fiscal arrangements with the provinces. We have not yet received from this government any firm statement as to what the Prime Minister meant when during the course of an election he said he was in favour of the principle of equalization.
We all remember in this house how in the winter session of 1957-58 we sought to ask the Minister of Finance to tell us whether or not he would agree to the extension of the principle of equalization beyond the year. This is something which means a great deal to the provinces because under the equalization clauses payments are made to all the provinces except Ontario, bringing their receipts up to what they would have been if the three taxes yielded as much as the average paid by residents of British Columbia and Ontario.
This means everything, not only to the maritime provinces but to every province in our country except the province of Ontario. Yet we do not know from this government which was going to resolve once and for all this matter of fiscal relations what its attitude is regarding equalization. The Prime Minister was the only member of the government who sought to deal with this question at all, and it was after his speech in Massey hall when he found the reaction in the west was such as to warrant the suggestion that he, the Prime

Minister, had been "taken in" by Mr. Frost who could get his $100 million only at the expense of provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba. But the Prime Minister is a good politician, and I mean that in the best sense of the word; he is dexterous, tactful and imaginative. He addressed himself to the people of Manitoba and said, "No, that will not happen. I am going to look after the poor provinces like my own, the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Manitoba because I, too, am in favour of the principle of equalization."
I ask the Prime Minister at this time what he meant by that. On what basis will he have the equalization clause operate? Will it be on the basis of the national average? On what basis will it be? We must know; otherwise it means no more than the friendly observation of Mr. Coolidge who said he was against sin. That is all the Prime Minister's statement means: "I am in favour of equalization but do not ask me to tell you what I mean by equalization because I either do not know or I might be embarrassed by what I should have to say."


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Speaker, am I not correct in pointing out that Mr. Coolidge did not say he was against sin. As I understand it he said the parson was.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I accept that theological intervention of my hon. friend and I shall accept his interpretation of what Mr. Coolidge did say. I am less interested in presidents of the United States than I am in the present Prime Minister of Canada.
I mentioned several reasons for the calling of this conference including the present muddle of fiscal affairs, the necessity of doing something about human rights and the matter of being able to amend the constitution in so far as it applies to the federal government. There is another reason why a dominion-provincial conference should be called and that relates to the problem of unemployment.
I appreciate that the Minister of Labour in the last few days has been very touchy on this subject. I understand that because I know he has been working extremely hard and I have a suspicion that he does not get in regard to this matter the kind of co-operation that his energy and his devotion to duty really deserve. Because of that I do not want him to think I am making any personal observations when I tell him that the situation now is even more serious than some of us have already been able to indicate. For instance, in looking at the most recent data, a press release issued jointly by the Department of Labour and the domion bureau of statistics dated January 20, 1959, I find in
Dominion-Provincial Conference the second paragraph a statement about which we should be reminded at this time and which I think is worth quoting in full. As I say, the Minister of Labour will understand the spirit which moves me in reminding him of this paragraph which I am sure he has by this time learned by heart. It reads as follows:
Unemployment continued to rise more slowly than last year. The number of persons without jobs and seeking work was estimated at 440,000 in December, 79,000 more than in the previous month and 48,000 more than a year earlier. Those on temporary layoff numbered 26,000 up from 18,000 in November but slightly less than last year. The seeking-work figure was 7.2 per cent of the labour force in December, compared with 6.5 per cent in December 1957.
The paragraph illustrates a worsening condition on three counts: more persons seeking work than a year ago, more persons seeking work than in the preceding month, and finally a greater proportion of the labour force without jobs and seeking work than was the case a year earlier.
As a matter of fact I have before me here -and this is available to all hon. members of the house and I am sure the Minister of Labour knows it-a document entitled "Comparative Data from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Monthly Labour Force Survey, Revised Estimates, from January 1954 on". One of the conclusions to be drawn from this, if one looks at the last column, is that in March of 1956, 6.6 per cent of the paid workers were without jobs and in March 1958, 12.1 per cent were in that category. One could go on citing other comparisons indicating the seriousness of the situation. As the Minister of Labour, I know, has already pointed out to his colleagues, this is a serious state of affairs.
A detailed picture of the regional impact of unemployment is contained in the publication of the dominion bureau of statistics entitled "The Labour Force, December 1958" and on the basis of what is contained in that document we find that the number of persons without jobs and seeking work not only for Canada as a whole but for various regions of Canada reflects a very disturbing situation. It shows that the problem of unemployment is bearing down heavily on particular regions where the volume of unemployment is greater than the national average.
I wish to read into the record the percentage of persons without jobs and seeking work, representing the labour force in Canada, and giving the percentage for Canada and its regions. After he has a chance of

Dominion-Provincial Conference examining these figures I challenge the Minister of Labour to tell me whether or not my statement is correct. The figures are as follows:
Per cent
Canada	 7.2
Atlantic region	 14
Maritimes	 10
Newfoundland	 27
Quebec	 9
Ontario	 5
Manitoba	 4
Saskatchewan	 4
Alberta	 4
British Columbia	 8
The press release of January 20 to which I have already referred makes the following comment with respect to the Atlantic region:
The increase in unemployment was widespread in December and resulted in the reclassification of 13 of the 21 areas from the moderate to the substantial surplus category.
Since that comment was made on January 20 we now know there has been a mass layoff of 4,000 persons in the Nova Scotia coal mines. On Tuesday, February 3, 1959, I asked the Minister of Labour for the number of unplaced applicants in relation to paid workers for Canada as a whole. The question and the answer given me will be found at page 667 of Hansard of that date. The question reads as follows:
What is the percentage of unplaced applicants in relation to paid workers as at December 31, 1958, in the following Canadian communities:
I draw the attention of the house to the answer filed by the Minister of Labour in response to my question:
The percentage of persons registered for jobs at all national employment service offices across Canada to the total number of paid workers, as reported by the dominion bureau of statistics monthly labour force survey during the week ending December 13, 1958, the latest date such figures are available, was 11.4 per cent.
That is not my statement. That was the reply of the Minister of Labour.


Michael Starr: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would read the rest of the answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer
covered two or three pages.


Michael Starr: I refer just to the next consecutive paragraph that followed the one just read by the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not have it before me but I want to be fair and if there is anything my hon. friend wishes to produce I invite him to do so at this time.


Michael Starr: I should like to read the next paragraph in the answer because there is no relevancy between the two figures to which you referred. The concluding paragraph of

that answer as reported at page 669 of Hansard of February 3, reads as follows:
The figures of paid workers include those with jobs and those without jobs and seeking work but do not include employers, own account workers and unpaid family workers all of whom are included in the total labour force figure.
There is no relevancy between the two figures referred to by the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The paragraph my hon. friend has read certainly does not help him. It really makes the situation worse because it does not include self-employed workers. I want to be fair to him but I think he will recognize that what I am saying is true. The true significance of my hon. friend's reply today and in the written submission he tabled-and it ought to be drawn very forcibly to the attention of the administration-is that it simply means that 11.4 per cent of the paid workers, that is, salary and wage earners, are registered for jobs at national employment service offices in our country. Paid workers is a less broad group than the total labour force. As I said a moment ago, it does not include employers, the self-employed and unpaid family workers, all of whom are included in the total labour force figure. In that sense, and I make this additional comment, the paid worker group measured against the number of unplaced applicants can be regarded as a more precise measure of unemployment.
What is my authority for this statement? I give as my authority a statement that appeared in the bulletin, Labour Research, of the Canadian Congress of Labour for January to April, 1958. Here is the statement:
For our purposes, it is perfectly ridiculous to measure unemployment against a conglomerate mass of workers, employers, the self-employed and unpaid family workers. The unemployed are looking for work as wage earners or salary earners, nothing else. So they should be taken as a percentage of the total number of people who have or are looking for wage and salary jobs. Who ever heard of an unemployed employer? Who ever heard of an unemployed self-employed? Who ever heard of an unemployed unpaid family worker? Of course there are unemployed people who have been employers, or self-employed, or unpaid family workers. But they are not now; and not one of them will present himself at an N.E.S. office or anywhere else asking for a job as an employer, or asking to be set up in his own business or given a farm, or asking for a job as an unpaid worker in a business or on a farm.
I would think that the statement in the Canadian Congress of Labour bulletin, Labour Research, would be regarded as logical and would not be contested by the Minister of Labour. On the basis of taking unplaced applicants as a percentage of paid workers, as I pointed out the latest data at our disposal

show that 11.4 per cent of paid workers are registered as unplaced applicants at the national employment offices.
In the face of this situation I say to the Prime Minister: Is there any overstatement or any extravagance in the suggestion that the Prime Minister must, without delay, tell the house what his intentions are regarding the calling of a dominion-provincial conference if for no other reason than to deal with the problem of unemployment on the basis of the Prime Minister's speech in 1955 and the recommendation of the leader of the opposition of that day that the provinces should be called together to deal with unemployment, a matter of joint intergovernmental responsibility in a country like our own? If the Prime Minister refuses then he cannot be regarded as having carried out his promise of seeing to it that "if I become Prime Minister no one will suffer as long as my government is in office."
If the Prime Minister, who undoubtedly meant what he said when he used those words, wants to give proof of that sincerity let him tell the house frankly now why, in spite of the agreement that there would be a reconvening of the conference, the government persists in not calling it and in not giving any reason for it not being reconvened. I repeat that in my judgment his failure to do so will constitute contempt of parliament and contempt of the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen say, "oh, oh". There are people in this country who have governmental responsibilities as well as the federal government and who are demanding that the conference be reconvened. Among them are the premier of Manitoba, the premier of Ontario, the premier of Saskatchewan, the premier of Newfoundland, the premier of Prince Edward Island, the premier of British Columbia and the premier of Alberta. Are we to disregard their demand? If we disregard them, are we to say that does not constitute contempt, does not constitute contempt of parliament?


William Heward Grafftey: It is not contempt of
parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. and very learned parliamentarian from the eastern townships says that does not constitute contempt of parliament. I like my hon. friend and I know he has a great knowledge of constitutional and parliamentary practice, but he will not mind if I say that his disagreement with me on this subject in no way lessens my assertion.
We have given reasons why a conference with the provinces should be called, and
Dominion-Provincial Conference before taking my seat I want to try to analyse the reason why the government has not met the provinces. Can it be that the government, in the light of heavy deficits now confronting it of at least $700 million on the basis of the statement of the Minister of Finance, would be embarrassed by additional demands on the government? We know what Mr. Frost's formula is now. Our formula was 10-9-50; the present government's formula is 13-9-50; Mr. Frost's formula is 15-15-50; then we know that Mr. Duplessis' formula is 50-50-50.


An hon. Member:: It is 50-50-100.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it because the Minister of Finance knows that if the conference were reconvened he would have demands from the provinces, including the province of Ontario, that would add to the obligations of the federal government by several hundreds of millions of dollars? Is that the reason why the conference has not been called? Is it also because the premier of Manitoba and the premier of Saskatchewan have joined together with the premier of Ontario in support of the latter's formula of 15 per cent of income taxes, corporation taxes and succession duties? The premier of Manitoba also proposes that the equalization clause should be tied in, not to the wealthiest provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, but to Ontario alone.
Is it because the Minister of Finance feels that now, having a deficit of close to $1 billion, we say-he says $700 million-he does not want to add to that burden? Is it because of financial reasons? If those are the reasons, then why should the government not rise and tell the house frankly that that is the situation. I think we would respect the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance if they took that course, but to sit here day after day and give no reason gives us, of course, the right to conclude that there are other reasons besides the ones I mentioned, and I am now going to give some of those other reasons. There is to be a provincial election in Ontario very soon. There is to be a provincial election in the province of Manitoba very soon.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: We
will take care of you, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Frost told the legislature on Friday, "I am still after my $100 million and more"-he is even adding to it-"but I must tell the legislature that I have great faith in John and I know that his study of the program now is going to result in a real reassessment of the whole tax structure of our country, but I want my

Dominion-Provincial Conference $100 million and I am going to get it whether or not that reassessment justifies it."
Mr. Roblin is in a very difficult position because he is going to have an election too. He needs this additional revenue. He is in favour of the 15-15-50 formula, but if there is a dominion-provincial conference now and it is turned down what is he going to say to the people of Manitoba? He is going to come back on that agreeable train that proceeds from Ottawa and arrives in Winnipeg at 10 o'clock in the morning. He will meet the newspapermen and have to say, "Sorry, boys; I have a lot of faith in John, but he let me down this time." I know that no one is naive enough to think Mr. Roblin is going to take that course. The only way he can avoid taking that course is to have the genial Prime Minister do exactly what he is doing, and that is nothing.
Since he is not doing anything, the provinces are not able to discharge their functions, and the right hon. gentleman is not giving effect to the assurances that he gave to the people of Canada that he would, once and for all, resolve this problem involving fiscal matters with the provinces.
Then, I suspect that there is another reason. Mr. Duplessis has problems at home and so has the Conservative party problems in the province of Quebec. This greatly concerns, and understandably so, the rt. hon. gentleman who is not only Prime Minister but leader of the Conservative party. What would happen if there were a conference now and the premier of Quebec said, "We want 50-5050, John". What would happen if he went back to the people of Quebec and did not have his 50-50-50? Would there not be an increasing estrangement between the present government and the government of Quebec?
Is there still another reason? Has the province of Ontario changed its formula altogether? Mr. Macaulay, who is now a member of that government, says that so far as he is concerned he would completely change the basis of the tax agreements. He thinks that the present basis of allocation is fictitious, wrong and inequitable. He would distribute grants to the provinces on the basis of the gross national product, forgetting of course that the dominion bureau of statistics does not provide the gross national product figure on a provincial or regional basis. However, it may be that these speeches delivered by Mr. Macaulay in the legislature and in by-elections would be very embarrassing at the present time to the provincial Conservative party and to the other Conservative governments throughout the country.
I say this to the Prime Minister: In 1957, he went from one end of Canada to another

and, by the effectiveness of his speech, his capacity for debate, he gave a picture of sincerity which the people of Canada believed. Now, I am saying this to him as one man to another across the floor-my hon. friend now laughs, but he did not laugh during the election. He said this arrogant St. Laurent government has overlooked the interests of the provinces; it has not been concerned with the proper allocation of powers and revenues. It has embarked on a policy of centralization, but give me a chance and I will give you a new heaven and a new earth. That is what the Prime Minister said. If he wants us or if he wants the people of Canada to continue to have faith in his assurances, he cannot renege on this question any longer. We on this side of the house will, day after day, ask him questions about his intentions and the intentions of the government, until they discharge their obligations to the people ol Canada and to this parliament.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house is of the opinion the government should call a federal-provincial conference at once to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations."


Hazen Robert Argue: We in the
C.C.F. agree that the immediate calling of a federal-provincial conference at this time is absolutely necessary. We believe that Canada today has an economic crisis and that the treasuries that have the most difficulty meeting this crisis are the treasuries of the provincial governments. Our country at this time faces widespread unemployment. This is a great burden on our provinces and on the municipalities. The provinces, by our constitution, are required to take care of the costs of education, roads and public health. They find themselves in an impossible position, with falling provincial revenues and with reduced payments from the federal treasury.
Is this government to allow the Canadian economy to drift into a deeper and deeper recession? Is the government to be satisfied with the very tiny effort now made to deal with unemployment? Is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) himself satisfied with the government's winter works projects that have placed directly less than 20,000 people at work? Is the government prepared to allow the provincial governments to face greater and greater difficulties in obtaining the money necessary to carry on their services and obtaining money in the capital markets? Is the government prepared to allow the municipalities in this country to face higher and

higher costs with greater and greater difficulty in obtaining revenues?
There are many things that members on the government side of the house fought for while they were in the opposition. They were the champions of the rights of many Canadians. They were the champions of a bill of rights as has already been stated this afternoon. They were certainly the champions of provincial rights. Leaders of the opposition in years gone by such as the Hon. George Drew and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he was in opposition, session after session, day in day out, castigated the former government for having gobbled up the lion's share of taxation revenues in this country. They castigated the former government for not having called, on a regular basis, a federal-provincial conference. How their voices were raised in this chamber whenever the government announced financial policy without discussion of the question with the provinces.
But anything that the former Liberal government has done in the past by way of insulting the provinces, by way of overlooking the provinces, is very small in relation to the arrogant attitude of this government toward the provinces during their 17 months in office. When this government came into power there was to be a new federal-provincial conference called immediately in September. The conference was not held until November. When the conference adjourned there was to be a new conference early in the year. This was not just a statement from the government or from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) or the Prime Minister. This was a statement contained in the official communique, the agreed upon communique, published at the conclusion of the conference. It was agreed that a subsequent meeting be held as soon as possible in the new year, in accordance with a proposal made by the dominion government in calling this conference.
There we have the pledged word of the federal government that a new conference would be held at the beginning of 1958. Was such a conference held? Of course it was not held. Were the provinces consulted as to whether this conference could be postponed from early 1958? There was no consultation. They were not asked whether they would like to postpone the conference. Instead, the Minister of Finance sent a telegram to the provinces. This is the kind of arrogant attitude from which this government should keep away. The telegram did not reach all the provinces in time. It did not reach the province of Saskatchewan. The premier was obliged to read about his telegram in the
Dominion-Provincial Conference newspapers and finally, I assume by some other means the communication was delivered to the premier of Saskatchewan.
There was to be a conference in 1958. It never took place. Does this government have any intention now of calling another federal-provincial conference? There is no indication of it. It was bad enough that the government served notice on the provinces by the telegram of January 24, 1958 that they were taking certain unilateral action with regard to federal-provincial payments. But after having been safely returned to office, after having been given the largest majority ever afforded a government in the history of this country, what is their action with respect to the provinces? With this all-powerful majority they say, "We are not obliged to discuss anything with the provinces; we are not compelled to keep our pledged word and have a federal-provincial conference. If the opposition moves an amendment we will call in the members and will vote them down even though the amendment is asking the government to keep their pledged word". Apparently their pledged word means little or nothing to the government. In the speech from the throne the government tell the provinces what is to be done. Here is what we find:
My government will recommend an amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax Sharing Arrangements Act to extend for another year the increase made last year in the provincial share of personal income tax revenue.
Then the speech goes on to say that it is intended that a continuing committee of provincial treasurers will study the whole question of federal-provincial relations. Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. Does the Minister of Finance not recall the many speeches he himself made when he was in opposition asking for a federal-provincial conference to deal with the extremely important questions which such a conference should now consider? Of course he recalls them. But when, as a member of the cabinet, he had the opportunity to make a recommendation that would go into the speech from the throne, he does nothing. There is to be no conference. The government says to the provinces, "Here is what you will get", on a "take it or leave it" basis.
I think this attitude is not only an insult to the provinces but is completely incomprehensible in the light of the statements made by members of the present government when they were in opposition. I have in my hand a statement that was made by the present Prime Minister on July 24, 1956, as

Dominion-Provincial Conference reported at page 6370 of Hansard of that day. He had this to say about a federal-provincial conference:
I believe this. I think it is lair to say that the attitude taken by the government at the last conference was an arbitrary one. The government simply said, "These are the terms".
This government did not do that. They had the conference. They let the premiers talk. Then after the premiers had gone home, they sent them a telegram. Instead of telling them face to face "These are the terms", they sent the terms in a telegram. The Prime Minister went on to say this:
No opportunity was given for amendment or for amelioration of any term. The recipe for a division of taxation was as final as the laws of the Medes and Persians; and how similar that attitude was to the attitude of the government in this house, which is that power makes perfect anything they do.
What could be more true of the government in power at the present time? Then the present Prime Minister, on July 24, 1956, went on to say this:
There was no opportunity for negotiation; there was simply the attitude of a feudal lord bringing into being a modern feudalism and laying down the law to the vassals.
That is not the attitude, that is not the consideration to which the provinces are entitled under a constitution which allocates powers as between the federal and provincial governments. That is not an attitude which will remove the road blocks which today deny Canada the development which should indeed be hers. I feel that even yet if there were an attitude on the part of the federal government to negotiate, terms could be achieved which would be acceptable and which would go a long way toward solving this difficult and complex problem.
We could understand the position of the government today if they were following a consistent policy they had taken over the years. But the government in office today is following precisely the opposite policy of that laid down by the Prime Minister in 1956. He said then that if such a conference were called,
-terms could be achieved which would be acceptable and which would go a long way toward solving this difficult and complex problem.
What is the attitude of the provinces and the municipalities? Have they endeavoured to co-operate with the government? I think they have done so. They have been most anxious to co-operate with the government. They have co-operated on the winter work program. More and more provinces are cooperating in the hospitalization program. By their action they have shown that all this government needs to do, in order to obtain co-operation from the provinces, is to show some leadership in the field of development and in the field of extending social services. If the federal government called a conference

I have no doubt that the provincial governments in attending the conference would take a co-operative attitude. As a matter of fact in this house the other day, in discussing the way in which the governments of the provinces have co-operated with the federal government, the Minister of Labour said that if the government had from members of the opposition "the same co-operation and constructive and reasonable suggestions" as they obtained from the provinces and the municipalities and organizations and individuals across the country, more and more would be gained. We have there from the Minister of Labour a statement that the provinces and municipalities have shown cooperation, and have put forward constructive and reasonable suggestions. If that is the attitude of the provinces, why does the government refuse to call a conference? Why does the government refuse to bring them in so that discussion can take place and action can be taken on the great Canadian problems of unemployment, high interest rates, agricultural crises, inflation and many others that are facing this country? The government's action has not been one to help the provinces or the municipalities.
We heard so much for so long of a conference that was to be held with the municipalities. It was not an officially constituted conference at all. It was a kind of listening conference. The municipalities came down and did the talking, and we expected that the Prime Minister would do the listening.
Just the other day Mr. Claude Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress presented for the C.L.C. their brief to the Prime Minister and his cabinet. After presentation of this comprehensive brief the Prime Minister took it upon himself to lecture the Canadian Labour Congress and to tell them that they cannot have it both ways. He said, "You cannot have increased expenditures and reduced taxes." If they had been reading the Prime Minister's speeches in the past, they would have seen that that was quite possible. The Prime Minister campaigned in two elections. He said, "The Liberals and others say you cannot have it both ways. Give me a chance and I will show you that you can reduce taxes and increase expenditures."
That was to be a listening conference from the standpoint of the Prime Minister and the government. The municipalities came here, presented their case to the government, and not only did the Prime Minister hold out no promise of assistance but he told them to go back home and to increase their taxes. What an original idea. What kind of advice was that to give in relation to very heavy

costs of municipal services. There is scarcely an authority in this country which would not say that real property taxes are very high and should not be increased.
The Prime Minister goes back, according to this newspaper report, to a comparison of real property tax-a municipal property tax as compared with net income-and says that before the war the percentage was 5.8, but since then it is down to 4 per cent. Why should the Prime Minister suggest to the municipalities that they should have the relatively high taxes that they had in a period of depression? Surely that is not the kind of advice that municipalities should be given by the Prime Minister of this country.
Of course, municipal taxes may have to be increased as a result of action by this government. This is the government that was going to have a federal-provincial conference early in 1958. Then they gave the lamest excuse possible why they could not have a conference, that the session was going on. Since when has a session of parliament meant that the Minister of Finance had to stay in the house all the time? Since when has a session meant that the Prime Minister had to stay in the house all the time? I do not know when cabinet meetings are held. Rumour around the corridor has it that many cabinet meetings are held with the house in session, and I think that rumour must be based on the attendance of cabinet ministers in general. I do not expect them, of course, to be here all the time, but certainly a federal-provincial conference can be held at any time whether parliament is in session or not.
One of the reasons why the municipalities of this country require action to help them now is the increased difficulty which they are experiencing in raising money necessary for capital improvements. One of the reasons we need a federal-provincial conference at this time is to enable the provinces to provide the capital necessary to carry on expansion in the provinces. Since this government has taken office, since the bond conversion program the cost of provincial credit has increased. The cost of municipal credit has also increased. This government is making it more and more difficult for provinces to finance. That is their responsibility. This government is making it more and more difficult for the municipalities to carry on. This is the policy of a government that was going to reduce the high interest rates which had been charged under a former administration. This government was going to get rid of the tight money policy, yet the rediscount bank rate at the Bank of Canada for Thursday last was 3.62 per cent, one of the highest rates that this country has ever experienced.
Dominion-Provincial Conference As I say, this government, by its high interest policies, is making it more and more difficult for the provinces to finance the programs for which they are responsible.
One of the additional reasons why we need a federal-provincial conference is to deal with the whole question of unemployment. As one picks up the newspapers from time to time these days one finds statements that give great cause for concern. The amendment specifically says that one of the reasons we should have a federal-provincial conference is to deal with unemployment. In the Montreal Gazette of February 7, there is a news item which says:
Some 42,000 Newfoundlanders-one out of every ten-are now on relief and another 75,000 are largely dependent on federal unemployment insurance benefits.
The article goes on to say that Newfoundland faces a public debt of $80 million, that Newfoundland has greater and greater difficulty meeting its financial obligations, and that Premier Smallwood had been in Ottawa in an attempt to get a sizable federal grant and to get money in keeping with the recommendation for an increase made by the royal commission. If one reads about the condition of the province of Newfoundland he sees that that province faces a real financial crisis.
Unemployment in this country is serious. It is serious in every province. In spite of the government's glib statements, unemployment is still with us. I have in my hand a newspaper report dated February 3, 1959, headed " 'We want work' flags in B.C. lobby march". It goes on to state that the British Columbia federation of labour, its leaders and unemployed workers have participated in a march on the capital of Victoria, pointing out the very serious unemployment situation in that province. They made the statement to Premier Bennett that more than 70,000 persons are without jobs in the province, and many have their backs to the wall. William Black, the president of the British Columbia federation of labour, recalled the terrible days of the thirties. "Mr. Black said that he would never have guessed we would return to the poverty of those days. Today the situation is much more desperate". A Conservative government in office in the thirties was unable to deal with unemployment in an effective manner.
A Conservative government is in office today, and we have widespread unemployment. They have no policy to deal with unemployment and remove the huge numbers from the unemployment rolls. We have a government which even has no policy to provide for an early federal-provincial conference in keeping with its own promises to the Canadian public.
830	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Conference
There are other things that such a conference should deal with. The provinces have great calls on provincial finances. There is room for much discussion at such a conference of the whole field of education. There should be a great amount of consultation and study in order to obtain a program of assistance from the federal government which will make education in this country available to all Canadians who are capable of acquiring a higher education. Then there is the question of a modern highway program. We are 40 years behind the United States in providing a system of modern federal highways.
This is the type of over-all program which should be considered at such a conference, and it should be considered in such a way as to provide employment, and to provide these very important services in an expanding economy. At a federal-provincial conference consideration should be given to the whole problem of marketing agricultural products and giving to the producers of those products a fair return for their labour. This government should not stand idly by while many farmers in this country are eradicated by vertical integration and removed from the normal type of farming which we have known for so many years. This is the kind of problem which should be discussed at a federal-provincial conference.
The premiers of the provinces have been asking for a conference. Premier T. C. Douglas of Saskatchewan wrote to the Prime Minister on September 19 asking for such a conference. And it is no wonder they are asking for a conference. Not only are they faced with greater difficulties in obtaining revenue by taxation and not only are they faced with higher interest rates on the money market, but they are faced with the latest insult contained in the estimates which were tabled in this house the other day which showed that the special payment which the great majority of the provinces would receive from the federal government for 1959-60 will be less than they received in 1958-59. Oh yes, these were just tentative figures placed there to indicate what the Minister of Finance expected to happen. But before the election the figures showed that the provinces would receive a great deal more money than in fact has accrued to them; and according to the latest figures tabled in this house the government does not hold out any hope at this time that they will receive as much money as was forecast in January.
A federal-provincial conference was solemnly promised. It was promised for April, 1958. The government advanced a phoney excuse as to why a conference could not be held at that time. The government said it


could not be held while parliament was in session because, presumably, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and other members of the cabinet were too busy. Of course, the conference might have been held last fall had the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance been in Ottawa at the time. But where were they? The Prime Minister was on a world tour and the Minister of Finance, not to be outdone, said: I am going on a world tour, too. They both went and I am sure they studied very carefully the financial positions of the countries they visited. Perhaps they studied the finances of the provinces of some of the countries they visited. They should have stayed at home, Mr. Speaker, and held a federal-provincial conference to deal with the problems of unemployment and inflation and to deal with the difficulties in which the agriculture industry finds itself today. But no. They have no time for the provinces; they have no time for a federal-provincial conference.
Between sessions this has become a suitcase government and a suitcase cabinet. As soon as the session is over ministers charter transport for a trip to as many countries as possible for a long as possible. They pack their suitcases and while the country faces an unemployment crisis and a crisis of inflation and while the agriculture industry is in difficulties no dominion-provincial conference can be called because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are not available.
The present attitude of the federal government, if it remains unchanged, threatens the financial solvency of the provinces of this country. If this attitude does not change it will condemn the Canadian people in the course of the next three years or longer-the term of office of this government-to continuing widespread unemployment. If the present attitude of the government does not change, vertical integration will wipe out thousands upon thousands of farmers who are today still endeavouring to take a living in an ordinary way in the agriculture industry. We have often heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance when in opposition call upon the government of the day to hold a federal-provincial conference, to take the provinces into the confidence of the government and to undertake financial policies which would enable the provinces to meet their constitutional responsibilities. I call on the government and I challenge the government to do those things that it said, in opposition, it would do if the people of Canada placed confidence in it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house is indebted to the hon. gentleman who represents Essex East (Mr. Martin)-should I say to the social and economic planner for Essex East-for introducing the present amendment into this discussion today. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the terms of the amendment. The hon. gentleman moved, seconded by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion the government should call a federal-provincial conference at once to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations."
Mr. Speaker, will you permit me one preliminary observation about the breadth of this debate. The hon. gentleman, you will observe, speaks generally in his amendment about calling a conference to deal with serious problems of common concern. He has introduced at the end of his amendment the two subjects, unemployment and fiscal relations, merely by way of illustration. This is somewhat significant, Mr. Speaker, because you will recall that in the course of his two-hour long speech the hon. member for Essex East sought to justify his demand for the calling of a dominion-provincial conference at this time on many grounds other than unemployment and fiscal relations. Since he has sought to base his contention on these broad grounds I propose, Mr. Speaker, to meet him on his broad grounds and, indeed, on all of them.
I draw your attention, also, Mr. Speaker, to the similarity which this present motion bears to one which was introduced a year ago. I think this similarity portends a similarity of tactics in the course of the present session to those which we witnessed a year ago. It was on the first government motion in the 1958 session to resolve the house into committee of supply that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) seconded on that occasion by the hon. member for Essex East, introduced the following motion, which will be found in Hansard of June 2, 1958, at page 733:
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the government has failed to call a federal-provincial conference to discuss unemployment and other urgent problems of common concern to federal and provincial authorities: and that the government has failed to give assurance that it would maintain or improve the principle of equalization of direct tax revenues of the provinces embodied in the existing law."
Mr. Speaker, you will observe in the first half of the 1958 amendment the purport and indeed many of the terms are those that are reproduced in today's amendment. Last year that amendment was introduced only a matter
Dominion-Provincial Conference of a fortnight before the budget was brought down and a two-day debate ensued in which, if you please,-it may have some bearing on the matter for the present-the Minister of Finance, among others as I recall it, took part. But when we came to the budget speech on June 17 I thought that the house had already heard sufficient on the subject of dominion-provincial relations. I referred to that fact and made reference to the debate that had occurred on the subject two weeks earlier. I said in effect that I thought there was no occasion, for that reason, to go into the subject all over again. And from that time on hon. members opposite have been saying, as they said during the course of the budget debate, "Isn't it shocking that the Minister of Finance did not discuss dominion-provincial relations in the course of his budget speech." It is extremely unfortunate that hon. members opposite are not capable of a little novelty, some small measure of variety. Do you see what they are doing today? They are simply trying to beat the gun again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not difficult.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why do I say that? You are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that in the throne speech the government indicated a course of action that would be submitted to this house with respect to the division between the dominion and the provinces of the revenues from the common fields of taxation. That was one of the things in respect of dominion-provincial fiscal relations proposed in the throne speech. I will have something to say in a moment about the other.
Today there was a motion on the order paper in this respect. I moved today and the house adopted the motion that at its next sitting the house should resolve itself into committee on the following government resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act to extend for a further period of one year the rate of 13 per cent for standard individual income tax for the purpose of calculating the tax equalization payments to the provinces and the amounts payable to the provinces under the tax rental agreements.
It is perfectly obvious that my hon. friends opposite when they proceeded with this amendment today were well aware that the government had on the order paper and had advanced a stage today a resolution dealing with this very subject. But you see, they are not content. These are members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition who are determined to beat the gun. It does not matter to them that this means repetition of debate. Oh, no, Mr. Speaker, they wish to make it appear
832	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Conference to the people of Canada that it was their idea that something should be done at this session about dominion-provincial fiscal relations. And so, with this resolution on the order paper staring every one of them straight in the eye they nevertheless decided to take up the time of the house for these two days to debate a resolution to the effect that the house should now address itself to the subject of dominion-provincial relations and that there should be, if you please, a conference. This is an interesting tactic but indeed a familiar one since hon. gentlemen opposite find themselves in the situation where they do not know what to do in this house from one week to another.
I said, Mr. Speaker, there was perhaps something else of interest in the other part of last year's amendment. You will remember that as I read it the amendment moved last year by hon. members opposite said this:
-and that the government has failed to give assurance that it would maintain or improve the principle of equalization of direct tax revenues of the provinces embodied in the existing law.
Why have they not added that today? You will notice, because it is so conspicuous, that they have dropped the second half of last year's amendment. It must be perfectly plain that they know well now, as I said to you they well knew when they brought in the amendment last session, that the government had already vindicated and upheld the principle of equalization.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is a very simple one. Is the principle of equalization that the minister says the government has vindicated the principle embodied in the present law?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the principle of equalization as I assume my hon. friend defines it must have been embodied in the law of 1956, the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, because he was a member of the government that brought it in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will recall that in the amendment we introduced to that legislation in the 1958 session we carried the principle of equalization farther than it had ever been carried before in the history of this country. We did it for the benefit of those provinces that are not in as favoured or strong a fiscal position as the provinces that provide for this purpose the standard test.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does it not treat them all equally?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend feigns here to be the champion of the principle of equalization. It is an undeniable fact that in 1958 this government carried the principle of equalization farther than it has ever been carried in the history of this parliament and so my hon. friend will find that mantle does not fit. It is like a great many other mantles with which my hon. friend, the social and economic planner from Essex East, sought to adorn himself. They are in some cases very good mantles but on him they look like a notorious misfit. They never were intended to be worn by him and I shall have something to say as I proceed about the way in which my friend the hon. member for Essex East sought today to wear clothes that do not belong to him.
I draw attention to proposals that this government made to the house in the throne speech and upon which we sought the approval of the house and which I believe received the approval of the house in the votes which occurred at the conclusion of the throne speech debate and at various stages when amendments were disposed of that had been introduced by hon. members opposite. May I remind hon. members of the announcement in that respect contained in the throne speech in the following language:
My government will recommend an amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act to extend for another year the increase made last year in the provincial share of personal income tax revenue.
That paragraph outlined the government's intention to proceed in the manner I have indicated today as embodied in the resolution on the order paper which was advanced one stage this afternoon. But the government did not stop there. I shall now read the next following paragraph in the speech from the throne, the report the government gives to the house with respect to its program for the session. In this particular, with reference to dominion-provincial relations, the next paragraph in the throne speech reads:
My government proposes that the entire subject of financial relations between the dominion and the provinces shall receive continued active cooperative study. All provincial governments are being asked to agree to the use, for this purpose, of the machinery of the existing federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal and economic matters working under the direction of a committee consisting of the Minister of Finance and all provincial treasurers.
In the face of that clear statement, Mr. Speaker, in the face of a comprehensive study of the entire subject of dominion-provincial financial relations, how can any

member of the house laying claim to intellectual honesty come before the house and say that this government is proposing to do nothing to advance the study or discussion between the dominion and the provinces of the question of their joint fiscal relations? We have proposed concrete action in this respect. We have proposed that the entire subject, not part of the subject but the entire subject, of financial relations between the dominion and the provinces should be submitted to active, co-operative study by the representatives of the federal and provincial levels of government in this country. I will have something further to say in the course of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, about the method that is proposed and about the breadth and scope of this study, but I propose before proceeding on that theme to have a word further to say about some of the other striking aspects of the amendment and the treatment of this subject in general by hon. gentlemen opposite.
I think it is noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that there is one other item of business on the order paper of the house dealing with this same subject. It is resolution No. 43 which appears on page 14 of today's order paper under the heading "Notices of Motion." It is a resolution of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson).


William Moore Benidickson: You know it will never be reached this session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will have a comment to make on that subject. The resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a federal-provincial conference at an early date to discuss unemployment, fiscal relations and other matters of common concern.
There is certainly no variety in the language here, Mr. Speaker. It is quite evident that the hon. member for Essex East has scooped his colleague, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He seconded the motion.


William Moore Benidickson: Not at all. I seconded the motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Leader of the Opposition says that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River got the chance to second the motion. This is wonderful, Mr. Speaker. Such is the degree of co-operation prevailing among hon. members opposite that when one of Her Majesty's loyal opposition demonstrates his interest in a particular subject to the point of placing on the order paper a resolution the hon. member for Essex East, in the course of his appropriation of the 66968-9-53
Dominion-Provincial Conference resolution for his purposes from time to time, will very graciously accord to the first hon. gentleman the opportunity to second the motion introduced by the hon. member for Essex East. I notice something of a progression going on in the Liberal party amongst the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Always progressive.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You see, Mr. Speaker, this same resolution was introduced last year by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the hon. social and economic planner for Essex East. This year it is the social and economic planner for Essex East who introduces the amendment and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, having established his right to second the motion by himself having placed a resolution on the order paper in this behalf, succeeds to the position of seconding the motion. We are told on high authority, Mr. Speaker, that history repeats itself. May it not be that when the house convenes for the session of 1960, perhaps in January of next year, that on the first occasion when the government moves to resolve the house into committee of supply we shall be faced with an amendment introduced by hon. members opposite which will read, I fancy, in the following terms-


Lester Bowles Pearson: You will not have had a conference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -"that all the words after that"- it will not matter whether we will have had a conference or not. Hon. gentlemen opposite, not having anything more accurate to say than the hon. member for Essex East had to say today, not having anything more to talk about than the empty calls and the demands that he issued today, I expect that we will be faced with just such a motion. It would not matter if we had two dominion-provincial conferences this year. They will be back hawking this amendment around which will probably be in about its fourth year by then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A pretty poor outlook for the provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I also say that by that time and in the same progression the amendment will probably be introduced by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and it will be seconded by such other member of the Liberal party opposite as has the enthusiasm, the zeal, the foresight to introduce and place on the order paper a private member's resolution to the same effect calling

Dominion-Provincial Conference lor a conference to deal with serious matters of common concern such as unemployment
and fiscal relations.


William Moore Benidickson: It sounds as if they will still be unattended to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would not matter if there had been two dominion-provincial conferences. My hon. friends opposite, not having anything factual to lay before the house, not having any grievance to bring before the house that has any basis to it, will go on mouthing as they have been doing today the same empty, baseless charges without facts to support them.
Just by way of introduction to the next subject I should like to take up after the dinner adjournment, may I say that when it comes to advocating the calling of dominion-provincial conferences or appearing before the Canadian parliament or the Canadian people as champions of the rights of the provinces, the last people in the house who have any right to cast themselves in that role are the hon. gentlemen who today constitute Her Majesty's loyal opposition. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I will call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Donald Methuen Fleming: At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had just indicated that I proposed to proceed in these remarks to discuss the question of whether hon. gentlemen opposite, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, have any right to pose as the champions of provincial rights or to picture themselves before this house and before the Canadian people as amongst those who have supported the calling of dominion-provincial conferences in the past. Listening to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) this afternoon, one would almost have thought he was putting before the house the proposition that the Liberal party, in recent times, favoured the calling of dominion-provincial conferences. One almost got the impression that that was what he was arguing for.
Perhaps those who are not acquainted with the record of the hon. gentleman and his party might almost have sensed that that is what he was driving at. If the calling of dominion-provincial conferences forms such an important part, holds such a signal place in the program and in the thinking of the Liberal party, one would surely have thought that one would find the calling of a dominion-provincial conference would have occupied


a place of high importance in the official pronouncements of the Liberal party. We have been hearing this afternoon a good deal of ancient history and some fairly modern history from the hon. member for Essex East. I might say that his history is just about as accurate as his statistics have been.
But, Mr. Speaker, is it a fact that the Liberal party, whose representatives in this house chose to make the calling of a dominion-provincial conference and the discussion of dominion-provincial fiscal relations the subject of their first amendment to a supply motion in the 1958 session and the subject of their first amendment to a supply motion in the 1959 session, favour the calling of dominion-provincial conferences? The Liberal party had a national convention in January, 1958, just a year ago. I have a document before me which is entitled, "New statements of Liberal policy". It is "for a greater Canada", and contains the 1958 resolutions adopted by the fourth national Liberal convention held in Ottawa January 14, 15, 16, 1958. I have read this document with some degree of care. You can read it from cover to cover and you will not find in it anywhere a demand or a plea for a dominion-provincial conference. This document, of course, is much truer to the history of the Liberal party than were the pronouncements we heard in this house today. One does not look for consistency on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite; that would be asking too much of them.
As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East chose to support his demand for the condemnation of the government in relation to the matter of dominion-provincial relations, not simply on the basis of fiscal relations or the question of unemployment but he went into almost every facet of dominion-provincial relations, and I propose to follow him in that respect. The hon. member talked about methods of amending the constitution, and I should like to say something on that subject and on dominion-provincial relations so far as they affect the larger question of the Canadian constitution. In this respect, I am simply following what was said by the hon. member for Essex East this afternoon.
It has been my privilege to be a member of this house now for 14 years. Those of us who came to this house in the general election of 1945 had not been in the house very long before we heard, and some took part in, one of the most important debates on the constitution of this country that had been held for many a year. It will not be forgotten what were the positions taken respectively by the Liberal party, then the

government, and the Conservative party, then in opposition, in relation to the calling of a dominion-provincial conference before hands were laid upon the constitution of Canada. So that hon. members may have their recollections refreshed and may not be misled by the statements made this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East, may I recall to hon. members some of the things that appeared in the course of that notable debate.
It was in the course of that debate that the then minister of justice, who later became the prime minister of Canada, Mr. St. Laurent, spoke in support of a proposal that an amendment to the constitution should be sought from the Westminster parliament in relation to the provision of the British North America Act concerning the basis of representation in the House of Commons by provinces. He proposed that that should be done without any consultation with the provinces. It was the position that he took, and firmly held in that debate, that there was no obligation whatever on the federal government to consult the provinces by way of any dominion-provincial conference before seeking that amendment of our basic act of confederation in the Westminster parliament. The Conservative party in opposition took the position that there ought to be a dominion-provincial conference before that amendment to the constitution was sought.
In the course of the debate a question was put to the then minister of justice, Mr. St. Laurent, by the hon. member for Calgary West, the late Arthur Smith. The question he put to the then minister of justice, Mr. St. Laurent, was this, and I am reading from the unrevised Hansard of June 18, 1946, at page 2696:
The hon. gentleman-
That is the hon. member for Calgary West.
-asked, what about section 133, which provides: "Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec: and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec."
The question asked by the hon. member for Calgary West was, could that section be amended by the Canadian parliament without any consultation with the provinces simply by seeking an amendment from the Westminster parliament. That was the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary West and this is how Mr. St. Laurent answered it. He paraphrased the question this way:
66968-9-53J
Dominion-Provincial Conference
Can that be dealt with without the consent of the provincial legislatures? Legally I say it can.
Mr. Speaker, that was the position of the Liberal party on June 18, 1946, those who pretend today to be the champions of the rights of the provinces, those who have the unmitigated temerity to stand up in this house and pretend they are the people who down through the years have been in the lead in consulting the provinces.
The Conservative party's position in this respect was pressed to the point of an amendment in 1946. It is interesting now, looking back, to see what became of that amendment. The Liberal government resolution to seek this amendment to the British North America Act without any consultation with the provinces on a very important constitutional point was followed by an amendment which you will find in Hansard, page 2235, June 6, 1946. It was an amendment introduced on behalf of the then Conservative loyal opposition by the man who holds today the distinguished office of Prime Minister of Canada. This was the amendment which he put forward:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words: "A humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:'' and substituting therefor:-And whereas it is desirable that the government should consult with the several provinces in respect of the said matter.
Now therefore be it resolved that the government be required to consult at once the several provinces and upon satisfactory conclusion of such consultations be authorized to present an humble address to His Majesty in the following terms.
Mr. Speaker, there we find the difference between the two parties in 1946. It was the Conservative party, as you may judge by the amendment introduced by the man who is today the Prime Minister of Canada, which called for consultation with the provinces before hands were laid upon the constitution of this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And we had
those consultations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have the
Liberal party of that day, through its official spokesmen, rejecting the idea that they should consult with the provinces before seeking an amendment to the constitution. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party not only set the tone and tenor of its attitude towards the provinces in these post-war years but they proved themselves false to the standards of the Liberal party in previous days. They proved themselves faithless to the position that had been taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by Mr. Lapointe. Mr. Speaker, if you will forgive a reference, I should like to remind you of some passages from the utterances of these great Liberals of other days that were forgotten then and have largely

Dominion-Provincial Conference been forgotten since then by those who profess to be the heirs of these Liberal great men of days gone by. This is what Laurier said in this house on January 28, 1907.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister give
the page reference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Page 2269, volume II. He said this:
(Translation):
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this house and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
(Text):
Then, Mr. Speaker, there came the words of the eloquent Ernest Lapointe, first of all in 1924, as found at page 520 of Hansard: (Translation):
Now this treaty cannot be changed, it has been the contention of many constitutional authorities, and I think it is only fair that no change should be accepted without the consent of all those who were parties to it. It is a sacred treaty just as is any other treaty; it is no "scrap of paper."
(Text) .*
Then in the following year again this chamber heard from the eloquent tongue of the late Ernest Lapointe. In 1925, as reported st page 301 of Hansard of that year, he said:
(Translation):
I think I cite history correctly when I say that every time there has been a dispute in Canada as regards provincial rights, those who were on the side of provincial rights were victorious in the end I do not think there can be any attempt to change the mutual charter of both the Dominion and the provinces by the arbitrary action of this parliament. I do not think it is possible to do it. To those who want changes, and I am willing to admit that there might be the necessity for changes, I would say that the only way to get them is the constitutional way, to ask the consent of the various parties to confederation.
(Text):
That was the position of the Liberal party in those past days, the days of Laurier and of Lapointe. But, Mr. Speaker, that position of the Liberal party was departed from in the most blatant fashion in 1946. But the sorry tale of Liberal departure from its soundest positions does not end there. One does not need to debate here today the compact theory of confederation or to take a position on that subject in order to be able to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the position of the Liberal party taken from time to time and to expose in this house today the fact that it would be impossible to conceive of anything much more hypocritical than that any member of this house should pretend that the Liberal party is the party

that has stood for consultation with the provinces or for dominion-provincial conferences.
Let us move on, Mr. Speaker, to the year 1949. The Liberal party in modern times is running true now to the position in 1946. In 1949, flushed with the success of 1946 when they defeated the Conservative opposition in this debate to which I have referred, they decided to go a step further and without, the slightest consultation with the provinces introduced an amendment to section 91 of the British North America Act for the purpose of taking unto the parliament of Canada power to amend the constitution in what was regarded as a federal matter without any consultation with the provinces. The position of the Conservative party then in opposition was consistent with the position they had taken in 1946. Mr. Drew, the then leader of the opposition, introduced the following amendment, seconded by the then hon. member for Lake Centre who is today the Prime Minister of Canada, on October 17, 1949. As found at page 841 of Hansard, these are the terms of the amendment introduced by the then leader of the opposition:
That the said proposed resolution be amended by striking out all the words after the first word "that" and substituting therefor the following:
"That His Excellency the Governor General in Council be requested to convoke as soon as may be possible a constitutional convention of representatives of the dominion and provincial governments to devise a method of amending within Canada the constitution of Canada, and of safeguarding minority rights; so that such method may become the subject later of an humble address, when adopted, to His Majesty the King praying an amendment of the British North America Act, 1867 accordingly".
It was as simple as that. The Conservative party said that there should be consultation with the provinces, that there should be a dominion-provincial conference. The attitude of the Liberal party then, in opposition, was that there should be no conference; that they would have nothing to do with any conference; that they would go right ahead and seek an amendment to the constitution in this important particular without provincial consultation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister permit a question at this moment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it the minister's argument that the federal government is not in a position to recommend amendments to the constitution with regard to federal matters exclusively except with the agreement of every province? Is that the argument he is making?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making a poor show of following what I am saying.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is just asking a simple question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He does not do himself any credit with an interjection like that. If he will follow what I am saying he will see clearly that I am picturing before this house as a snare and a delusion and as hypocrisy the position which the Liberal party is pretending to take in this house today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. These interesting perversions of history are no doubt as usual amusing. My point of order is that there is before the house a motion which was introduced by my friend the hon. member from Essex East and which relates to the present and the future. I would be interested to see how the Minister of Finance relates these irrelevancies to that motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I
think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) was not in the house this afternoon to hear the speech which was made by his colleague.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was in the house from beginning to end.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was giving him credit for intelligence and ability to follow the twisting and tortuous remarks of his colleague from Essex East, but he has just demonstrated to me that although he was in the house he did not follow what his colleague was saying. Obviously the thread of discussion was too tortuous for him this afternoon.
I need not remind you that it was the hon. member for Essex East who opened up the subject wide this afternoon and who went back to discuss methods of amending the constitution of Canada, and the positions of the respective parties in regard to that question. That is why I am dealing with this question, to set the record right. It is for his instruction and also for that of his colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate, who sits here listening to his colleague from Essex East, but evidently does not follow him. I was referring to the amendment which had been introduced on October 17, 1949-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my point of order was a serious one and I ask for a ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. Perhaps I should read the amendment again. It was moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion the government should call a federal-provincial conference at once
Dominion-Provincial Conference to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations."
As long as hon. members who are speaking stay within the matter of a federal-provincial conference I am sure they are in order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, while my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate is thinking up his next point of order may I go on to say that the amendment introduced by Mr. Drew, to which I have just made reference, was ruled out of order. But that was not the end of the matter. I refer the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to the speech made by the present Prime Minister of Canada in the course of that debate. He will find that speech reported in Hansard of October 18, 1949, and I commend it to his most serious perusal and contemplation. I want to quote from the final paragraph of the speech of the hon. member who is today the Prime Minister of Canada, which is to be found in Hansard of October 20, on page 957. He concluded his speech with these words:
So once more Mr. Speaker, I ask, why the haste? Why not postpone this measure until the next session of parliament? Call a conference. If it proves abortive, if we have the power to do what the Prime Minister contends must be done, I will join with him, no matter what others may do, and support him. I shall make my contribution, humble though it may be, to the rebuilding of a foundation that will bring about a constitution in keeping with our responsibility as a nation.
Mr. Speaker, he pleaded with the government to call a conference, but his remarks fell upon unhearing ears. It fell to my lot, just at the conclusion of the debate, as found in Hansard of October 27, 1949, page 1210, to introduce on behalf of the then Conservative opposition an amendment in the following words:
That the said proposed resolution be amended by striking out all the words after the first word "that'' and substituting therefor:
"This house is of the opinion:
1.	That an humble address should be presented to His Majesty the King praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom providing for an amendment to the British North America Act, 1867, relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada by the parliament of Canada.
2.	That as a condition precedent to the presentation of such address the scope and form of the amendment prayed for should be made the subject matter of a conference of the dominion and provincial governments and the subsequent approval of the parliament of Canada."
On October 27, 1949, the voting on that amendment followed at once, and interestingly enough among those whom I find voting against the amendment, voting against the calling of a conference of the dominion and

Dominion-Provincial Conference provinces to discuss this very important amendment of the constitution, is the name "Martin".


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Since he has referred to my own voting record, may I ask my classmate, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), if he will honour me by voting for my amendment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is inviting me to consent to being committed to the nearest institution for the mentally unfit. It is all right for him, Mr. Speaker, but there are some places where I will not join him.


Murdo William Martin: At least the humour of the house is good.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, so much for the subject of conferences to amend the British North America Act which has been very agreeably introduced this afternoon by my hon. friend for Essex East.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us go on to another aspect of federal-provincial relations which was touched on by him this afternoon. The hon. member talked about unemployment. He said that there had been no dominion-provincial conference which had discussed the subject of unemployment. I am sure that all hon. members of the house acquainted with the fact inferred at once, correctly, that there had been a dominion-provincial conference recently where the subject of unemployment had been discussed. This subject was referred to at the dominion-provincial conference of November, 1957, in relation to a proposal from the present federal government that the so-called "threshold" provision of the Unemployment Assistance Act should be removed. Those who were in the house in the years prior to 1957 will not have forgotten that the stoutest defender of that threshold provision, which had the effect of denying federal assistance in matters of unemployment in any province unless the proportion of unemployment exceeded 4.5 per cent of the population was the hon. member for Essex East. When we came into office we proposed to eliminate that limitation, and we put that proposal before the dominion-provincial conference in November of 1957. It is referred to in the speech made to the conference by my leader, the Prime Minister, and it was approved by the conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? Would the minister indicate where in the proceedings of the conference that proposal was approved by the conference, because I have examined it several times but have never been able to find anything to that effect?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the hon. member cannot find it, but-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister show me where it is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member give me the opportunity? The hon. member has overlooked the fact that after the public statements as published in the official report were made the conference went into private session. No doubt the provinces liked the idea of this proposal being put forward, because this was something for the benefit of the provinces. The hon. member simply cannot understand why any federal government should do something to assist the provinces. That measure was duly enacted into law, without very much help, I may say, from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate or from the hon. member for Essex East or any of their colleagues in the house. The threshold provision was eliminated and now the federal government assists the provinces without there being any such limitation.
May I say at this point that provincial conferences are not simply those attended by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by the premiers of the provinces. There are also those conferences which are held at the ministerial level, and in July, 1958 there was a dominion-provincial conference on unemployment and on labour matters held here in Ottawa and was attended on behalf of the federal government by my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) who thus had an opportunity to meet his opposite numbers in the governments of the provincial legislatures. At that conference they discussed matters pertaining to unemployment, and I put this fact alongside the empty, baseless assertions made in this house this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East who said there had been no dominion-provincial conference held in recent times to discuss unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, we have become so accustomed in this house to witnessing these lachrymose exhibitions by hon. members opposite-none better, of course, than the act put on by the hon. member for Essex East- on the subject of unemployment. The week before last he could not wait to begin the discussion of measures pertaining to unemployment. He wanted us to stop talking- or, rather, he wanted other people to stop talking; he had already made his speech- so that he could get on and talk about unemployment. The opportunity was given last week. We have been waiting now for two days to get on to an item relating to the winter works program in the supplementary

estimates, but hon. members opposite are talking about everything under the sun in order to prevent our reaching the discussion of this winter works program.


Mr. Robichaud:: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last week we saw two days given over to interminable discussions, and one can only conclude that there is not bursting the bosoms of hon. gentlemen opposite an irresistible urge to discuss the question of unemployment and the government's measures to meet it.
I might tell the hon. member for Essex East, if he can bear another observation, that the exchanges between the dominion government and the governments of the provinces in relation to unemployment and the winter works program have not been confined to conferences. My colleague the Minister of Labour has been conducting exchanges of correspondence with the governments of the provinces with regard to the winter works program for the last three or four months, and this has been issuing in action, the kind of vigorous, constructive action which is associated with the present government.
The hon. gentleman from Essex East dragged in by the forelock the subject of municipal relations. He is forgetting, of course, that for the first time in history there was held in Ottawa at the end of September last year a conference, informal it is true, between the dominion government and representatives of the municipal governments of this country to discuss questions pertaining to the problems of municipalities in this country and the relationship of those problems to other spheres of dominion-provincial relations.


Some hon. Members:: Held every year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one other point I should like to bring to the faltering memory of the hon. member for Essex East-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Leave the poor member alone.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I did not love my old friend from Essex East I would really bear down on him, I would really expose him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this the new humanity?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman had forgotten when he made his jumbled speech in which he appeared to be advocating-if it was capable of any interpretation at all-that there should be a dominion-provincial conference to talk about amendments to the constitution, municipal relations,
Dominion-Provincial Conference dominion-provincial fiscal relations, unemployment and I do not know how many other things-


Murdo William Martin: Human rights.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh yes, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the bill of rights. These are some of the things he mentioned this afternoon. He wanted them all discussed at the one conference. I can only recall to his mind the program with regard to these matters of the government of which he was a member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A distinguished member.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, of which he was perhaps the most distinguished member. What we used to hear from his less distinguished colleagues of those days, such as the prime minister and the minister of justice of those days, was the contention that when you call a dominion-provincial conference you should call it for one purpose; in other words, that you should not get the subjects mixed up. I can remember discussions with those colleagues of his on just this question, and they expressed their firm belief that if you hoped for any success from a dominion-provincial conference you must confine it strictly to one subject. However, the hon. member for Essex East has forgotten all about that in his approach to this question.
May I turn now to a different subject? I wish to go back to the year 1956 and correct the mythology in which the hon. gentleman indulged this afternoon as to the events of the past two and a half years. It was in 1956 that the then Liberal government, having met the provinces in a conference, brought to the house for enactment a measure which appears on our statute books as the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Agreements Act, 1956. It was at that conference that was reflected for the last time in hard, unyielding form, the stiff-necked attitude of the former government in meeting the provinces in a conference. I suppose that if there should ever be a federal government in office such as the one that was in office in 1956, and if it were to take the same stiff-necked attitude that that unyielding government took toward the representatives of the provinces, the case for calling dominion-provincial conferences would be greatly weakened. Some might even say: what is the use of calling conferences if the federal government is going to take that kind of attitude? That may be a point, Mr. Speaker. But in that conference the federal government took such an attitude, and the result was that the provinces all went away dissatisfied. I do not deny that nine of them signed agreements with the federal government, eight of them going the full way

Dominion-Provincial Conference by renting all three of the joint fields of taxation to the federal government. One, the province of Ontario, rented only the field of personal income tax. But, Mr. Speaker, were those provinces satisfied? Were they content in entering into agreements with the federal government to accept the terms that were imposed upon them? No, they were not.
May I remind the house of some of the things several of the provincial premiers said. I select those who are Liberals. These are excerpts from their comments quoted in the debate in this house in July, 1956, when we Conservatives who were then in the opposition opposed this legislation because we said it was unfair to the provinces and that they would be deprived of what they were entitled to expect at the hands of the federal government. This is what Mr. Campbell, then premier of Manitoba, had to say at that time as reported at page 6290 of Hansard of July 23, 1956:
However Manitoba was still disappointed that so little attention had been paid to the question of the actual financial requirements faced by the provincial governments in the next few years.
And again:
It is our recommendation that before any new pattern in federal-provincial relations is adopted a thorough reassessment of the relative responsibilities and revenue sources of the various governments in Canada should be undertaken.
We then have Premier Matheson of Prince Edward Island saying this, as reported at page 6038:
No recognition of a province's fiscal need problem or its tax-raising ability was taken into consideration in the re-allocation or distribution of the tax monies, but the same old factors were again used in the formula-the gross national product of Canada and the population of the provinces.
Here is what the provincial premier of Alberta had to say:
The federal government has retained for itself the broader and higher-yielding tax fields and, plagued with its financial problems at national level, has failed to recognize the financial needs of its provinces and their municipalities.
We hope that the shift toward centralization of governing authority which has resulted from a complex system of grants will be reversed so that more than ever the decisions can be made by representatives close to the people.
This, Mr. Speaker, was the tone of these statements that were referred to from time to time in the debate in July 1956 in this house. Those were our criticisms and the federal government enjoying lush times and enjoying a favourable financial position at that time declined to do anything more for the provinces.
In assessing later events let it be clearly understood that the federal government, of which the hon. member for Essex East, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member

for Bonavista-Twillingate were then members, said emphatically that the provinces could have the 10 per cent of the yield from the personal income tax, 9 per cent of the yield from the corporation tax and 50 per cent of the yield from the succession duties but not another cent. That was the position when the 1956 legislation was written.
When we came into office in 1957 we moved to call a dominion-provincial conference to discuss this and other questions. We moved in that direction not because of any pressure from the opposition. It is crudely laughable to hear the hon. member for Essex East expounding that phantasy in this house today. His imagination soared to heights hitherto unreached even by the hon. member for Essex East. That conference was called in November of 1957 and the provinces realized that there was in that conference an entirely different atmosphere from anything they have known for many years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There certainly was.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A number commented after the conference that they had never seen a conference like it because the provinces had been invited there to act as equals, to state their cases and were afforded the opportunity of discussing in the freest way whatever proposals they wished to put forward. At the conclusion of that conference there was a communique issued which correctly states the conclusions of the conference. I draw attention to one of the comments which was completely overlooked this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East which was to this effect-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am reading from page 104 of the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference of November 1957:
It was generally agreed that the over-all economic position of the Atlantic provinces is now such as to justify some special grants in aid to the governments of those provinces from the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, we moved diligently in the face of that decision taken by the dominion-provincial conference. Steps were taken to convene in Halifax representatives of the four Atlantic provincial governments. Federal officials went down there simply to assist in any way they could and a decision was reached there on the part of those four provinces through their representatives that if the federal government would move to bring about the payment of a special Atlantic adjustment grant they were prepared to divide it among themselves in an agreed ratio: 3, 3, 3 and 1-the 1 to go to Prince Edward Island. Having regard to relative populations that was a generous act on the

part of the governments of Nova Scotia and New	Brunswick-particularly	of Nova
Scotia-when they were prepared to accord to Newfoundland an equal share of the Atlantic adjustment grant with them and to the province of Prince Edward Island they were prepared to accord one-third as much as any of the others even though on a population basis Prince Edward Island would not have been entitled to as large a share.
When parliament met as soon as we could after the decision was reached, we moved in January in this house for the implementation of this agreement and asked parliament to enact into law the provision of an Atlantic adjustment grant of $100 million to be paid to the Atlantic provinces at the rate of $25 million a year for the next four years. Today Prince Edward Island is receiving $2,500,000 and New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are each receiving $7,500,000 per annum that they would not have received but for the change of government in 1957.
However, Mr. Speaker, we did not stop there. As the communique issued at the conference indicates we had hoped to see this conference resumed early in 1958. But, Mr. Speaker, those who today would have you in your innocence believe that they wanted the re-convening of the dominion-provincial conference did their level best in this house-and it was not very level, either; they did their very worst in this house-to put in our path every possible obstacle to the calling of such a conference or doing things outside this house that the government might have wished to do at the time.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that we were a minority government. We were being pressed and harried at every turn in those January days by hon. members opposite who were doing their best to encompass our downfall day by day. We did not know from one day to another whether we would be continued in office. Under those circumstances, followed by the dissolution of parliament on February 1, it was a physical impossibility to call a conference. Parliament was sitting that January, morning, afternoon and night and on Saturdays. Hon. gentlemen opposite now say, "Why did you not call a dominion-provincial conference"? The responsibility I lay at the door of hon. members opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was 12 months ago. You have not done anything since.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, it was 12 months ago. The hon. member will recall that in the face of that situation we moved in this house before the end of January to take care of the situation during the next 12 months. What we did in that situation 66968-9-54
Dominion-Provincial Conference was to ask parliament to approve an increase in the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax from the Liberal 10 per cent to the Conservative 13 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Take it or leave it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here I draw your attention to the necessity for correction in the statements made in this house this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East, like the statements made by his colleagues at the last session. The action taken by this government was not a repetition of the tactics of the former Liberal administration in saying to the provinces, "There are the terms. Take them or leave them. If you want this much you must yield up your right to collect revenue from these common fields of taxation." No, Mr. Speaker, that was not what we did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was not what we did.	.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is that the legislation was there and what we did was to say to the provinces, "We are prepared to increase without asking anything of you". Will you sit down?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the Speaker asks me to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was asking the minister if he would permit a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am reviewing some facts that the hon. gentleman does not like. I think I would prefer to complete this review of the facts and then I would be glad to have his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I said that we did not ask anything of the provinces, yet in this talk, this empty, misleading talk that hon. gentlemen opposite indulge in now, you would think we had asked something of the provinces when they talk about a take it or leave it attitude. We simply offered to give the provinces another three per cent. We did not ask anything of them in return, not a thing. That is the difference between the tactics of hon. members opposite when they formed the government, the highhanded, rigid, stubborn, unyielding attitude that they took and our attitude in not asking anything of the provinces but simply asking parliament to increase from 10 pfer

Dominion-Provincial Conference cent to 13 per cent the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister now permit my question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister tell us what the Liberal government asked from the provinces under the tax-sharing arrangement of 1957? The provinces are perfectly free, as the minister well knows, under that legislation to impose-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -as much more tax as they like.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker,
apparently the hon. member did not know this afternoon what his colleague, the hon. member for Essex East was saying and tonight he does not know what a question is. It is not the first time. I would ask the hon. gentleman to try to bring his mind under control and cast it back to 1956. I would ask him not to be jumping up and down and letting his mind jump but just to think calmly now, to concentrate and direct his mind to 1956. He will recall that what the government of which he was a member said to the provinces was, "If you want these revenues then you must yield up the right to us to collect these taxes."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all. That is not true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: "If you do not
give them up, all right, we are not prepared to go further", and when the provinces in the course of the discussions-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -tried to persuade the federal government to look at the problems of the provinces and of their municipalities and be a little more generous they said "no" and the hon. member opposite was one of those who said "no" to the provinces. The provinces today can thank the present government for the additions they have received since we came into office and can recall that they would not have had one cent of these additional revenues if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and his colleagues had remained in office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not wish to appear persistent but I should like the minister to answer my question. My question was this.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is there in this statute-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wishes to ask a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Does the Minister of Finance wish to have one asked?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did answer the hon. gentleman's question and I answered the assertion that followed his question which, of course, was not an assertion of fact but of Liberal fancy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the minister's opinion of my intelligence, may I ask another question? Will the minister answer another question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With pleasure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would he point in the taxsharing statute to any provision that prevents a provincial government from increasing any of these three taxes if it wishes to do so?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no, that was not what I was dealing with at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what you said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What I was saying was this-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You said yours was
different.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that the federal government said to the provinces that it was not prepared-I note that the hon. member for Essex East is disgusted with the question of his colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate and is leaving the chamber-


Mr. Habel:: He is disgusted with you skating around.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and who wouldn't be? So, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are not going to get an answer. That is obvious.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -let us now examine what was said by hon. members opposite. They objected that this increase in the provision to the provinces was made without calling a dominion-provincial conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As you promised.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is that at that time the provincial governments across the country were sending urgent messages to Ottawa asking us-


John Whitney Pickersgill: To call a conference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to take steps to increase their share of the revenues and to do so at once because of the fact they had to know in planning their budgets what we

were going to do. That was what led to the sending of the urgent reply in the form of a telegram and to the urgent action that was taken in the house in the last week of January, 1958 to increase the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax. When my hon. friends enjoy the fact that the telegram under those circumstances in the amounts that it contained by way of estimate, and estimate only, did not take account of the stabilization payments, let me say to them that nobody in this country was misled by the error in the estimates in the telegram. Nobody was-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -because that was followed on Monday with the figures of estimates including the stabilization payments, and those figures were in the hands of the provincial governments long before any one of them moved a finger on this subject. So, Mr. Speaker, we may dismiss what the hon. member for Essex East had to say on that subject this afternoon as so much figment of his extended imagination.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we thus made provision for the needs of the provinces for the ensuing 12 months and today, as I indicated in opening my remarks this afternoon, we are taking action in two respects. We are asking parliament to extend for another 12 months this important provision made for the assistance of the provinces and we are proposing at the same time that the study of dominion-provincial fiscal or financial relations be carried forward.
I think it is well that hon. members should know something of the assistance which has accrued to the provinces as a result of the measures which we took a year ago and what, according to our present best calculations, are estimated to be the provisions that the provinces may expect to receive in this coming fiscal year in respect of the unconditional payments provided for under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act as amended.


William Moore Benidickson: Are you speaking about 1959-60? You referred to the forthcoming year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will indicate the various years and the figures. I propose to give figures, estimates so far as the current ones are concerned or next year's, and I had better reinforce that by saying again that they are estimates-


William Moore Benidickson: You called them assurances a year ago.
66968-9-544
Dominion-Provincial Conference


Donald Methuen Fleming: I called them estimates last year.


William Moore Benidickson: On January 25 you called them assurances.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I made it quite clear that these were our estimates because my hon. friend knows they could not be more than estimates as applied to what remained of the current fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal year. I give these figures by way of illustration and in doing so I am leaving out any reference to the Atlantic adjustment grants. In the year 1957-58, on the basis of the Liberal 10-9-50 formula the payments made to the provinces amounted to $639,-
909,000.	Then, we move forward to the fiscal year, the present one, 1958-59. Again not including the Atlantic adjustment grants, the figure that would have resulted from the 10-9-50 Liberal formula would have been $613,483,000 in the present fiscal year. Under the present government's 13-9-50 formula the yield to the provinces is estimated at $661,-
298,000.	Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there was a difference of $47,815,000 between the two formulae.
Now let me add at once that in the actual payments to be made this year, had there been no change in the formula, $20,926,000 would have been due on account of stabilization payments. Nevertheless there was an actual increase of $47,815,000, even after allowing for the above stabilization payments. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you will see what benefit accrued to the provinces, quite apart from the stabilization payments and quite apart from the Atlantic adjustment grants.
It is estimated, Mr. Speaker, that in the coming fiscal year commencing on April 1 next, on the basis of the 13-9-50 formula, the yield to the provinces will be $684,409,000 or an increase of $23,111,000 in the coming fiscal year over the yield in the present fiscal year. In order to give hon. members the full picture so that they can compare this with the estimates in the blue book, the estimates being themselves on the basis of the contemplated cash payments to the provinces, that is to say on the basis that Ontario collects its corporation tax and succession duty and Quebec collects from all these three fields of taxation, the actual payments to the provinces in 1958-59 are estimated to be $397,-
962,000,	and the estimate for the next fiscal year-again leaving out the Atlantic adjustment grants-is $411,098,000. In other words, there is an increase of $13,136,000 in the yield to the provinces on the basis of the 13-9-50 formula which we are asking parliament to continue for another 12 months. Added to that, there are the Atlantic adjustment

Dominion-Provincial Conference grants, with all the benefits which they give to those provinces down by the sea.
I ask the house to recall as well that the unconditional payments made pursuant to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act are not all the payments that the federal government makes for the assistance of the provinces. Here again, the present government has enlarged very substantially the assistance that goes to the provinces in the form of conditional payments. The conditional grants and cost sharing programs with the provinces cost the federal treasury, in the fiscal year 1957-58, a total of $156,980,000. This was the year divided between Liberal and Conservative governments. However, in 1958-59, the first full fiscal year of Conservative government, these payments advanced from the previous figure of $156,980,000 to $270,330,000 at the expense of the federal treasury.
The increase in federal assistance in the form of conditional grants and cost sharing programs in this fiscal year as compared to the last fiscal year was $113,350,000. This does not include any of the provisions we are asking parliament to make for the federal contribution to the winter works program in aid to the municipalities. This kind of assistance breaks down into measures of this kind. The principal fields in which increases are to be noted are in our welfare payments, and these are the approximate figures: old age assistance, $5,600,000; blind persons allowance, $670,000; disabled persons allowance, $4,485,000; unemployment assistance, $12,-
285,000.
On the health side-


Lester Bowles Pearson: All Liberal measures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All Liberal measures-how hollow that sounds in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition. What I am showing the house is how the Conservative government has virtually doubled the provisions made by the Liberal administration.


Mr. Crestphl:: And how you have increased the deficit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Your own figures do not
show that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I gather from a
remark made by an hon. member opposite that he begrudges these welfare payments and health payments about which I am going to speak. I would be interested in knowing; Which of the hon. merhbers apposite made that; remark. I see the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) pointing to the hon. member 'for Hull (Mr. Caron).


Mr. Caron:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not make any interruptions. I was silent. I did not interfere with his speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say the
hon. member for Hull interfered with the speech. I merely said that the hon. member for Mackenzie River pointed at the hon. member for Hull when I asked who had made the remark.


Mr. Hardie:: As a matter of fact, the hon.
member for Mackenzie River did not point to the hon. member for Hull. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his-


Some hon. Members:: Point of order.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: in his usual way-I tried to point out to the house some-


Mr. Murphy:: Spell it out, if you cannot
say it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps my hon.
friend would write me a letter at his leisure. I think, perhaps, I had better proceed.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Since the minister referred
to me, and he has no reason.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the minister has
the floor.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I pointed to no one in the
house. If I had pointed to anyone, it would have been to you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend is pointing to me now, but I can assure him that with his right hand he pointed toward the hon. gentleman who sits next to him, the hon. member for Hull. If he did not mean that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising
on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is that
surely it is not within the province of any member of this house, even though he be a minister, to question the word of another hon. member about his own conduct. The hon. member for Mackenzie River said he did not point to the hon. member for Hull and the minister is obliged to accept his word.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, no
one will accuse .the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate of being a pointer, and no one will even accuse him of being a setter.
Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the increases made by the present government in this; fiscal year 1957-58 in the conditional grants and cost sharing programs with the

provinces for the benefit of all provinces and their people. I have indicated the increase in welfare payments.
I now come to the increase in health payments. In hospital construction grants there is an increase of $12 million. Hospital insurance, of course, is up $60 million and we know how much larger the increase will be in the approaching fiscal year. We have increased our grants to the railway grade crossing fund by $8 million; our grants to roads to resources or for the development of natural resources, by $8 million and as to housing, even the direct grants for land assembly and low-cost housing under the National Housing Act by $5J million. These are increases in the present fiscal year.
In the fiscal year 1959-60 which will shortly begin we must take account of further increases that will be made in federal contributions to these sharing programs with the municipalities. The increases that are estimated for the fiscal year 1959-60 reach to these figures: hospital construction grants, $6 million; health grants, $11 million; old age assistance, $2 million; disabled persons assistance, $2| million; roads to resources, $10 million; trans-Canada highway, $5 million; housing projects and land assembly, $16 million; and, of course, Mr. Speaker, the contributions to the hospital insurance program will this year, it is estimated, be $160 million. It will thus be seen, Mr. Speaker, that while we as a federal government have proceeded, with the approval of parliament, to increase by substantial sums the provincial share of the yield from the joint fields of taxation in the unconditional payments, we have at the same time raised by huge amounts the federal contribution to these programs, the cost of which is shared largely with the provincial governments.


Mr. Leduc:: What about the deficit?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is apparent that the hon. member who has just interrupted believes that that portion of the deficit which is attributable to our increased assistance in the form of welfare payments and health grants is not justified and that we should not have done as we did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say
that at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the undeniable inference to be drawn from this interruption if it has any meaning at all.


William Moore Benidickson: That is a wholly improper inference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was a wholly improper interruption by the hon. member
Dominion-Provincial Conference for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc), if he did not mean what anybody would naturally infer from his remark.


William Moore Benidickson: I wonder whether the Minister of Finance, who naturally and obviously was reading from statistical tables in connection with his comparison between 1957-58 and 1958-59, in enlargement of his remarks1 on conditional grants and sharing programs, would not think that it would be advisable to present those tables as an appendix to Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I put the figures on record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How about the two tables?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend would not know what a table is unless he concocted it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the way the minister answers all questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the usual courtesy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have put the figures on record in their entirety. These figures I have given as increases in these conditional payments. I have given these to the house now in full.
I now come to the final subject upon which I should touch. I am still short, Mr. Speaker, by three-quarters of an hour of equalling the long speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Let us hear you say something.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend opposite will listen I think his wish may be gratified but I cannot promise that he will like it.
I have drawn to the attention of the house the reference to this subject in the speech from the throne. Hon. members opposite have expressed their resentment of the fact that this subject found its way into the speech from the throne as the first information to the nation of our proposals with reference to the dominion-provincial program for this ensuing year. Let us look at that contention for a moment, Mr. Speaker.
There were two things that were in the speech from the throne. One was the statement that parliament would be asked to continue the government's 13-9-50 formula of unconditional grants for another year. They evidently say that matter should not have been brought to parliament first, but that it should have been drawn first to the attention of the provinces. Then with regard to our proposal that there should be now inaugurated an active co-operative study on the part of

Dominion-Provincial Conference the proper body, on which the dominion and provincial governments are represented, of the whole field of dominion-provincial fiscal relations, they say that we ought to have brought that matter to the attention of the provinces before we brought it to parliament.
No one knows better than yourself, Mr. Speaker, that if we had not brought this matter to the attention of parliament first, hon. members opposite would have been loud in their denunciation of the government for, they would have said, ignoring and by-passing parliament. We took the proper constitutional course and there was no discourtesy to the provinces in the course that we took.
As soon as the speech from the throne was read by His Excellency the Governor General a letter was dispatched by the Prime Minister to each of the provincial premiers drawing their attention to the text of the proposal appearing in the speech from the throne and inviting their co-operation in the proposed study. I may say-and this will not please hon. gentlemen opposite but it is the fact-[DOT] that it is a tribute to the broader view that the provinces took; broader than that of hon. members opposite-that eight of the provinces have already, through their premiers, responded to the Prime Minister's letter and have indicated that they are prepared to participate in the study. We wait yet to hear from the governments of Newfoundland and Alberta.
As the house is well aware, the proposal was that we should follow up the present situation with a study conducted by the federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal and economic matters operating under a committee of ministers consisting of the provincial treasurers or ministers of finance of the provinces and the federal minister of finance. Earlier in my remarks, I drew attention to the breadth of the field of study which this body is asked to undertake, namely the whole field of financial relations between the dominion and the provinces. We are not proposing to place any limitations on the reasonable scope of that proposed study. Hon. members opposite, who ought to know better, now deride this extremely important proposal. It is not amiss, Mr. Speaker, to remind them that they participated in setting up this important body. The federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal and economic matters grew out of a proposal made by the province of Ontario at the agenda conference of April, 1955, which preceded the federal-provincial conference of October, 1955.
Several other provinces indicated their belief that a continuing joint federal-provincial committee of officials would promote the exchange of factual information, secure a better understanding of mutual problems, and

promote greater co-operation among the various governments in the fields of national development, income and employment maintenance. In his opening address to the October 1955 conference, Mr. St. Laurent placed the question of establishing such a committee before the conference, and the conference, in its concluding communique, stated:
There was general agreement that the conference should authorize the establishment of a committee of federal and provincial officials to meet from time to time to exchange information and examine technical problems in the field of federal, provincial, fiscal and economic relations. Representatives on this committee would be designated by the Prime Minister or premier of each government and the chairman would be designated by the Prime Minister of Canada. The committee will not take collective action but each of the members will report to his own government on the subjects discussed.
The federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal and economic matters, set up as a result of the above conference, is composed of federal and provincial officials designated by the heads of their respective governments. The officials are generally drawn from the deputy minister ranks of the departments of finance, economics or provincial treasuries. These officials may have associated with them additional officials in an advisory capacity. The federal deputy minister of finance serves as chairman of the committee, and the director of the federal-provincial relations division as secretary. The committee generally meets twice a year, the spring meeting being in Ottawa and the fall meeting being in a provincial capital. The meetings are held in camera, and fiscal and economic matters of interest to the various governments are examined. No decisions are reached, but the committee members report to their own government the tenor of the discussions.
It is to this committee of officials that the government wishes to direct a re-examination of the present tax-sharing arrangements. Associated with this technical committee will be the committee of ministers of finance and provincial treasurers who will be empowered to direct the process of re-examination and to make any necessary decisions.
Mr. Speaker, not only does this federal government believe that this is the proper way, under the circumstances, to proceed with what we believe will be a timely co-operative study of this whole question of dominion-provincial financial relations, but we believe that it will be the most fruitful way of proceeding. There are many problems in this field. You do not solve those problems simply by calling a two-day conference of prime ministers. The success of such a conference depends on the preparatory work, and this federal-provincial continuing committee was

conceived when first set up as the kind of technical committee which would review the difficult questions, and in that way pave the way to decisions to be taken at the ministerial level or the prime ministerial level of conference to be called later.
This is not the end of the story. This is not ruling out dominion-provincial conferences at which the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers of the provinces will be meeting. Not at all. This is rather a sensible and constructive, indeed the most sensible and constructive way which could be proposed for the study of this whole field in the broadest and most comprehensive way in order that we may arrive, we hope, in the end at more effective and acceptable fiscal arrangements between the federal and provincial governments. Believe me, sir, we do not propose to take anything away from the provinces in these discussions. The provinces know that. They know they are dealing with a federal government which has done more to recognize the provincial problems and help the provinces to meet their problems than has any federal government in Canada's history.
As my final word, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. The hon. member for Essex East took it upon himself this afternoon to acuse the Prime Minister of this country of not carrying out undertakings that he had given. Mr. Speaker, I say to you that none knows better than the hon. member for Essex East that that was a hollow, false charge, and that when the hon. member, or any other hon. member opposite makes charges of that kind in this house against the Prime Minister of Canada he will find 207 loyal members and followers of the Prime Minister of this country rallying to his support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister of Finance a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the hon. minister tell us when the dominion-provincial conference will be reconvened?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, steps have already been taken to assemble this dominon-provincial conference of the provincial treasurers and the Minister of Finance. In the letters which have already gone out to the provincial treasurers they have been asked for their proposals in regard to the subjects of study. Indication has been given to them that we invite their suggestions in the broadest way as to the agenda for the studies, and we have indicated that we hope, as soon as they may find it convenient-
Dominion-Provincial Conference presumably shortly after the provincial legislatures have concluded their sessions-to convene the conference of the provincial treasurers and the Minister of Finance. In the meantime, in order that no time may be lost and every assistance may be afforded in proceeding with the studies and initiating agreement on the agenda of studies, the head of the dominion-provincial relations section of the Department of Finance will shortly be making a tour of the provincial capitals to discuss the subjects with the provincial authorities there. I may say that already today I have heard from the provincial treasurers of two of the provinces, those grand old provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, who have indicated their pleasure at the contents of the proposals in the letters I sent to them, and I have their assurance of their full co-operation and the fact that they will welcome the visit of the officer from the Department of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Might I ask the hon. minister a final supplementary question: Are we to understand that the conference to which he has just referred is a conference which will be called to initiate studies?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is hoped that the conference of the ministers will have before it when it meets the proposals of all eleven governments with respect to the agenda. It is also hoped that this conference will be able to resolve the agenda, indicate the studies that it wishes to be made, and perhaps arrive at agreement on some of the subjects. It may be that some of the subjects are capable of agreement at the meeting of ministers, but certainly it is hoped that that conference will achieve very important results in framing the scope of the terms of reference for the studies which are to be made at the technical level in the days following.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about federal-provincial relations with special reference to the tax-sharing agreements. In Canada we have a federation, and we cannot have a strong federation and good unity in our country unless we strive to provide equality of opportunity in all parts of our country no matter where the people may live. We cannot achieve this end in a short time because of the unevenness of our country's development. The areas of the greatest population are in the central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and in those areas, along with British Columbia we have centres of manufacturing and finance with a consequent concentration of wealth. Most of the rest of the country is contributory to these more fortunate areas.

Dominion-Provincial Conference
I do not think there is any difference of opinion among members of this house that the less fortunate areas should receive subsidies. In fact, I heard the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) say this afternoon that the fathers of confederation recognized this. I was looking up the records the other night and I noticed that on 16 occasions between confederation and 1937 the subsidies to some or all of the provinces were increased. After the great depression and during its aftermath the Rowell-Sirois commission was set up. The commission made its report in 1940. I read some parts of that report and I was struck by one very significant item, namely that the weaker provinces which were overwhelmed by the depression suffered hard times even when the other provinces were enjoying good times. This report suggested that a minimal national standard of services should be set up and that grants should be given to the less fortunate provinces when it was impossible for them to raise enough money to pay for these minimal services.
A dominion-provincial conference was called at that time and there was failure to agree. Then the war came on and we had the war taxes agreement. Then, in 1947, we had the first peacetime agreement. All the provinces came in with the exception of Ontario and Quebec. When these agreements were revised in 1951 the province of Ontario came in, renting its corporation and income tax fields. The last Liberal revision to this agreement was in 1956 and it came into effect in 1957. At that time, as hon. members know, the principle of equalization was introduced. Stabilization was also effected by the federal government guaranteeing 95 per cent of the amount of the payment for the previous year. The equalization was reached by a formula somewhat complicated in its end result.
This formula is used at the present time although there was an amendment introduced in the last session of parliament. The wealth of each province was measured in accordance with the per capita sum of the income tax, the corporation tax and the succession duties tax, which were called the standard taxes. The average or per capita yield of the wealthiest provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, are taken as the national standard and all the other provinces are paid sums equal to the difference between the per capita yield of the standard taxes in the province and the standards set by Ontario and British Columbia.
To give an example, I have here a paper which shows the standard taxes of the different provinces, and the national standard set by British Columbia and Ontario amounts to $38.16 in the fourth estimate of the payments for these provinces for this year. The

preliminary estimates as contained in this paper show that the standard tax for Newfoundland is $10.65 and for Prince Edward Island $7.59. Under the equalization formula, each province must receive the difference between this amount and $38 for every person living in this province. Under these arrangements therefore Newfoundland will receive something in excess of $12 million and Prince Edward Island an amount in excess of $3 million in payments. The formula applies to every province across the country except that almost every year there are some minor readjustments.
The agreement reached at the 1956 conference gave to the provinces 10 per cent of the federal income tax collection, 9 per cent of the corporation tax and 50 per cent of the succession duties tax, and this was called the 10-9-50 formula. Up to those levels, individuals and corporations living in the province, and paying taxes in the province in those provinces that did not participate under that agreement, were allowed full deduction for federal taxes but beyond this amount no deductions would be allowed. It makes no great net difference to the federal treasury whether these taxes are collected federally or by the provincial governments themselves. Premier Frost of Ontario advocated a 15-1550 formula under which the federal government would give up the collection of 15 per cent of the income tax plus 15 per cent of the corporation tax plus 50 per cent of the succession duties tax to the provincial government, and this came to be known as the 15-15-50 formula.
When this government came to power a federal provincial conference was held in November, 1957 and Premier Frost proposed again this 15-15-50 formula. He got the 10 per cent personal income tax increased to 13 per cent, but he is still demanding $100 million extra.
The formula proposed by Mr. Frost, without equalization, would of course weigh against the less wealthy provinces. It would cost the federal treasury about $130 million of which Ontario would receive about $118 million. No doubt the other provinces would take a dim view of this arrangement. This is the real crux of the situation as I see it.
The 15-15-50 formula based on the present equalization and standardization, taking the two wealthy provinces as the standard, would cost the federal government about $1 billion. The previous Liberal government could not afford this amount and most certainly we cannot afford it now because our deficit exceeds the total amount paid under the tax sharing agreement to the provinces. Mr. Frost claims that Ontario pays about half of the

standard taxes and that he collects a little more than one-third in return. If he were to get his $100 million under the present equalization formula it is not difficult to figure out that the people of the province of Ontario would have to pay approximately $140 million extra in taxes. Ontario is developing at a fast rate and our provincial government has many obligations to meet not only on its own account but in respect to municipalities as well. I have every sympathy for Mr. Frost's demand and I hope he gets more money.
I know that the premier of Ontario agreed to a special grant to the Atlantic provinces in the sum of $100 million to be paid in amounts of $25 million over a period of four years and that occurred at the time the extra 3 per cent personal income tax was allowed but the premier still insisted on getting his $100 million. One thing to remember is that the stabilization applies only to the formula introduced by the Liberal government and does not apply to the increase of 3 per cent in personal income tax.
I have in my hand an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of February 5 and which states in part:
Premier Frost says he plans to get a full $100 million a year in extra tax revenues from Ottawa- and then some.
He told the Ontario legislature Wednesday he has retreated "not one quarter of an inch" from the position he took when the Liberals were in power at Ottawa.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) if he thinks these words of Premier Frost are empty and misleading. In the last election campaign Premier Frost appeared on the same platform with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on different occasions. I recall seeing one photograph of the Premier pointing his finger at the Prime Minister and it stated under the photograph that Mr. Frost was saying, "There is the man who will give me the $100 million."
I have here some extracts taken from Hansard of the Ontario provincial legislature in which Premier Frost clearly indicates that the $22 million he got by telegram from this government was purely an interim payment and that he was still pressing for the 15-15-50 formula namely $100 million. One very significant interjection in the debate by hon. Mr. Dunbar, M.L.A. for Ottawa was, "He will get it."
When the federal-provincial conference met in November of 1957 and the provinces put forth their demands I think it must have set the Minister of Finance to do some figuring. He must have been shocked when he heard what the provinces wanted and the conference adjourned after only two days.
Dominion-Provincial Conference If you read the record of that conference and the various statements of the premiers attending I do not see how you could come to any conclusion other than that the conference would meet again in January or February last.
During the election campaign a rosy picture kept coming up in my mind as I am sure it did in the minds of others, that if the Progressive Conservatives were successful the provinces and municipalities would be called here and would divide the spoils and that this government would get along on the little that would be left. But what happened? The municipalities did not get in on the meeting at all. Afterwards some of the mayors were called here and were told some of the facts of life, and it was explained to them that the Liberals had left the cupboard bare.
I thought there might be some excuse for the government not calling the federal-provincial conference last January or February because at that time the Prime Minister was planning his zig-zag plane trip to Quebec city and of course nothing so insignificant as finances should interfere with that jaunt. But now another whole year has passed and the provinces have again received word that the federal payments are to be the same as last year. It is perfectly obvious that this government does not want to face the provinces at this time and it appears as though the provinces will continue to be told what they will receive by letter, telegram or by some other means of communication.
It is possible that we can carry this business of collecting money for the provinces too far. We must of necessity have to collect a good deal of money for the provinces in order to maintain a strong federation but the spending of money by anybody who is not responsible for collecting it is not conducive to good responsible government. On a smaller scale we have all seen frequent irritations between municipal councils and boards of education or school boards. The school boards s'et down their own financial requirements and the council must collect the money. While it would not be practical for the school boards to collect the funds they need it has often occurred to me that if the various boards of education had to collect their own money and be thus responsible to the people there would be less irritation in the municipalities and probably in some cases a greater scrutiny of expenditure.
When the Liberal government was in power I often attended dinners where a minister of the provincial government told the audience that the federal government took so much of the tax dollar that there was not

Dominion-Provincial Conference enough left for the provinces and the municipalities. I have often attended dinners addressed by Hon. Charles Daley, minister of labour of Ontario, but he never said that in my presence because he, I know, understood that much federal money was returned to the provinces directly or through social security and other payments.
I can recall attending a dinner at Niagara Falls that was also attended by the speaker of the Ontario legislature. While he was speaking he turned to me and said that the federal Liberal government was collecting 75 per cent of the tax dollar and that the province and the municipalities did not have enough left to meet their obligations. He did not refer at all to any of the money that was coming back to the province. I do not know if the 75 per cent figure is correct but I would suggest to that hon. gentleman that if the figure was right he will certainly soon have to jack up the 75 per cent because as soon as this government gets around to balancing its budget it will take a great deal more money than the Liberal government ever did. I say this after seeing the current estimates which were tabled the other day.
It is interesting to examine the record of the federal-provincial conference of 1957. The previous year the present Prime Minister laid down the position of the Progressive Conservative party, as found on page 6370 of Hansard for July 24, 1956, where, referring to the St. Laurent government, he said:
The government simply said, "These are the terms" . . . The recipe for a division of taxation was as final as the laws of the Medes and Persians . . . There was no opportunity for negotiation: there was simply the attitude of a feudal lord bringing into being a modern feudalism and laying down the law to the vassals.
There was much more along the same line. He was speaking of the former Liberal government which had met the provinces at three full conferences. I think I am right when I say there were three. There were at least two and I think there were three full conferences. The federal government had made its final offer. All the provinces were at the conference table. They were told what the government could give, and this was done after full discussion.
In contrast, the present government met with the provinces for two days in November of 1957, submitted no proposal to the provinces but notified the provinces of its decision by telegram some time in January at the very moment when this matter was coming before the house for decision. There was no conference then. There was no opportunity for concurrence, no opportunity to express disapproval or to express any comment. It was simply a take it or leave it attitude.

The point is that the government has no decided policy in dealing with the provinces and the Toronto Globe of January 16 has a long article dealing with the row that looms because of the delay in settling the tax deal. It gives some reasons for this. One is that the old standardization formula of 10-9-50 does not apply to the extra three per cent additional allowance with regard to income tax. A second reason is that apart from the $25 million going to the Atlantic provinces the extra three per cent allowed the provinces will fall considerably short of the $62 million estimated at first by the government.
Following the federal-provincial conference of November, 1957 there were some heated exchanges by letter between the Minister of Finance and some of the premiers of the provinces, some of which reached the press. There was some difficulty of interpretation with Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan, for example, and also there was a threat to the premier of Prince Edward Island that the Minister of Finance would restrict his dealings with that province unless the premier withdrew some remarks he had made concerning one or two civil servants. There was a love feast, however, in Toronto, between the Prime Minister and Premier Frost and according to the Globe and Mail-I have a copy here-Premier Frost compared the Prime Minister to the late Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Prime Minister took some exception to this comparison. He referred to the earlier Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and said that he was trying to give Canadians the same vision of development and the same pride in their country as the earlier Roosevelt. After much patting of one another on the back they parted but Mr. Frost is still taking his 22 cents on the dollar from the government, although some people tell me that it is now only 19 cents.
As I have said before, I hope that Mr. Frost can get more help but the fiscal policy of the government involving a huge deficit and a foolish conversion loan has made it more difficult and more expensive for every province and every municipality in the country to borrow money. Provinces must now pay at least 5J per cent to get money and most of our municipalities must pay 6 per cent. In fact, I know some that cannot get money at that rate and I have heard of some that cannot borrow money at any interest rate at all. Whether or not that is true I cannot tell you but I know that some are paying over 6 per cent in Ontario.


William Moore Benidickson: Go back to Bennett for a precedent.


William Hector McMillan: This high cost money makes things difficult for business and for municipalities and compounds the troubles of the provinces. The Minister of Finance has got himself into a vicious circle. The more money he gives the provinces at this time the more debts he contracts and therefore the higher interest rate he has to pay. Then interest rates to the provinces and municipalities go up. They need more money and they come to Ottawa for more money. So you have a continuing vicious circle.
As I said last September, the Minister of Finance gave reasons why the conversion loan was good for the country. I will not look them up but from recollection he said, first, that there were too many maturities overhanging the market.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has this anything to do with dominion-provincial relations?


William Hector McMillan: It is true they were overhanging the market but we had many 30-day, 60-day and other short term maturities overhanging the market at the time. The minister said that the bond market would be stabilized and municipalities would be able to borrow money to better advantage. I will leave it to any hon. member of the house to answer that one. The minister produced a letter from the secretary of some labour union who said it was a good thing.
Dominion-Provincial Conference


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
should recall that the amendment relates to the necessity for a dominion-provincial conference and not to the conversion loan.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, that is very true but I want to remind the Minister of Finance who, as usual, objects to anything he does not like to hear-


An hon. Member:: He did not object.


William Moore Benidickson: -that when he brought in this formula in January of 1958 he talked about money rates and the relationship to the provinces and patted himself on the back for reducing rates.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Let him read on.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is nearly ten o'clock the hon. member might consider whether he should pursue that subject when he starts tomorrow.


William Hector McMillan: I want to show how these money rates affect the provinces and that when the provinces cannot borrow money there is cause for unemployment.


William Moore Benidickson: That is what the Minister of Finance did on January 27, 1958.


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

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

Mr. Eudes: 1.	How many capital sentences have been considered by the governor in council, since June, 1957?
2.	How many of these have been commuted to life imprisonment?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of
Justice):
1.	21.
2.	17.


SECTION 38, CUSTOMS ACT
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Under section 38 of the Customs Act, have any special cases been determined by the minister since this section went into force?
2.	If so, what was the date of such decisions, the nature of the goods involved and the country of their origin?
Answer by:	Hon. George C. Nowlan
(Minister of National Revenue):
1.	Yes.
2.	December 2,	1958:	Paint brushesmainland China.
January 16, 1959: Cotton sheets, cotton pillow cases, and cotton fabrics commonly known as "twill" or "drill", "clothing sateen" and "denim" which are not prime quality goods in full pieces-all countries.
January 29, 1959: Cotton fabrics-mainland China.


ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS
Mr. Argue: 1.	What provinces have approached the federal government for aid under the roads to resources program?
2.	What provinces have entered into agreements under this program?
3.	What were the terms of the agreement for each province?
4.	What amount is to be paid to each province, and what proportion is this of the total to be expended on this program in each province?
5.	What provinces, if any, have been unable to take advantage of the assistance given under this program?
6.	What reasons, if any, were given by each such province, for being unable to accept this assistance?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minisier
of	Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
2.	British Columbia.
3.	Arrangements are now being made to have the document tabled.
4.	The program provides for a maximum expenditure of $15,000,000 in each province of which the federal government's share is 50 per cent or $7,500,000.
5.	None.
6.	Not applicable.


FRUIT AND VEGETABLE IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. McMillan: What was the value of the following commodities imported from the United States of America in the year 1958: (a) fresh peaches; (b) canned peaches; (c) fresh asparagus; (d) canned asparagus; (e) fresh strawberries; (f) canned strawberries; (g) fresh raspberries; (h) canned raspberries; (i) fresh tomatoes; (j) canned tomatoes; (k) fresh pears; (1) canned pears; (m) grapes; (n) grape juice?
Answer	by:	Hon.	Gordon	Churchill
(Minister of Trade and Commerce):
Statistics of imports from the United States as specified during the period January-October 1958	(latest	available) are as
follows:
Commodity
(a)	Fresh peaches	
$1,500,106(b)	Canned peaches	
1,998,078(c)	Fresh asparagus	
583,545(d)	Canned asparagus	
213,893(e)	Fresh strawberries	
3,372,305(f)	Canned strawberries, no statistics available(g)	Fresh raspberries, no statistics available(h)	Canned raspberries, no statistics available(i) Fresh tomatoes	
4,585,733(j)	Canned tomatoes	
348,784(k)	Fresh pears	
1,555,459(l)	Canned pears	
413,158(m) Grapes	
8,322,359(n)	Grape juice	
33,507
* This figure relates only to imports in containers of 1 gallon or more. No statistics are available on imports in containers of less than 1 gallon.


IMPORTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. McMillan: 1.	What were the total imports from the United Kingdom to Canada in the years 1957, 1958?
2.	What was the total importation of United Kingdom motor cors in the years 1957-1958?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Questions
1 and 2.	Imports from the United Kingdom
Total	Motor	CarsValue	Number	ValueCalendar year 1957 	
January-October 1958 (latest regular statistics	$521,957,699	29,621	$32,474,486available) 	
(For comparative purposes, January-October	437,238,942	40,517	46,292,9851957, 10 months) 	
January-November 1958 (preliminary estimate of total only) 	436,423,672 487,000,000	23,926	26,465,799


FARM LOAN BOARD BORROWINGS AND LOANS
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	What were the amounts, times and terms of borrowings by the Canadian farm loan board from the government since March 31, 1958?
2. How many loans and for what aggregate amount were paid out by the Canadian farm loan board, since March 31, 1958?
3.	What was the rate of interest charged to borrowers from the Canadian farm board, during the current fiscal year?
4.	How much have operating costs of the Canadian farm loan board been to date?
Answer by:	Hon. Donald M. Fleming
(Minisler of Finance):
1. $10,000,000 at 4 per cent in the period April 1, 1958 to September 30, 1958; $7,100,000
at 4| per cent in the period October 1, 1958 to January 31, 1959.
Interest only payable on June 30, 1959.
Interest and principal repayable in 25 equal annual instalments commencing June 30, 1960.
In addition, certain bonds due December 1, 1958, held by the Minister of Finance were refinanced by a $5,000,000 loan at 4J per cent repayable in 15 equal annual instalments of principal and interest commencing December 1, 1959.
2.	April 1, 1958 to January 31, 1959,-3,919 loans in the aggregate amount of $23,210,999.
3.	5 per cent.
4.	April 1, 1958 to December 31, 1958- $706,536.87.

Tuesday, February 10, 1959
The nouse met at 2.30 p.m.


STANDING COMMITTEES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house under standing order No. 65 presented yesterday be approved.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has appointed Messrs. Bourque, Campbell (Lambton-Kent), Carter, Deschatelets, Dorion, Doucett, Godin, Gour, Hales, Horner (The Battlefords), Lafreniere, Legere, Letourneau, Martin (Timmins), McGregor, McQuillan, Muir (Lisgar), Pratt, Richard (Ottawa East), Stearns, Taylor, Villeneuve, Weichel, and Wratten a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the parliamentary restaurant so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of this house as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has appointed Miss Aitken, Messrs. Argue, Bourbonnais, Bourque, Brunsden, Campeau, Dorion, Eudes, Fairfield, Fisher! Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke), Forbes, Frechette, Grenier, Hanbidge, Houck, Kindt, Knowles, LaRue! Lennard, Lessard, Macquarrie, Martineau, Matthews, McFarlane, McGee, Mcllraith, Muir (Lisgar), Nixon, Pigeon, Pratt, Racine, Ratelle, Richard (Ottawa East), Simpson, Skoreyko, Small, Smith (Lincoln), Smith (Simcoe North), Smith (Winnipeg North), Southam, Stinson, Tremblay, and Tucker, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned and to act on behalf of this house as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members, namely: Messrs.
Allard, Asselin, Badanai, Barrington, Batten, Belzile, Bissonnette, Boivin, Bourdages, Bourque, Brunsden, Cadieu, Campeau, Clancy, Cooper, Creaghan, Des-chambault, Dubois, Dupuis, Fane, Flynn, Gillet, Godin, Grafftey, Gundlock, Henderson, Howard, Jorgenson, Korchinski, Lahaye, Lessard, Letourneau, Loiselle, Maclnnis, MacLellan, Martin (Timmins), Martini, McLennan, McWilliam, Michaud, Morissette, O'Leary, Phillips, Rapp, Ratelle, Richard (Kamou-raska), Robinson, Rouleau, Skoreyko, Smallwood, Southam, Taylor, Thrasher, and Winkler will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of disturbing reports that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been used, in connection with a woodworkers' strike in Newfoundland, to march 125 striking loggers ten miles in subzero weather, after which they were held incommunicado for 36 hours. I should like the hon. minister's assurance that the R.C.M.P. are not being used for the purpose of what are commonly called strike-breaking activities.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. I do not have a full or complete report on this matter today, though I have a preliminary report. I will naturally follow the matter closely. The information I have so far makes it clear that in any action they have taken in this respect the police were carrying out their responsibilities for local law enforcement under the contract with the province, as agents of the attorney general. Therefore with respect to any action taken in this connection they would be acting under the direction of the attorney general of Newfoundland.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, on
February 5 the Leader of the Opposition

Inquiries of the Ministry asked me a question with respect to an agreement between the United Kingdom and EURATOM. I took that question as notice. The report from London that Great Britain had signed an agreement with EURATOM was correct; the agreement was in fact signed in London on February 4 and came into force immediately. The agreement provides a framework for the working out of detailed arrangements for the co-operative exchange of information and the supply of material.
I must add that we should welcome this further evidence that EURATOM is becoming an active and important power in the use of atomic energy for peaceful and productive purposes. I reiterate what I said in the house on February 2, that we are endeavouring to negotiate a somewhat similar treaty with EURATOM for the promotion of those objectives to which I referred a moment ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Might I ask the minister a supplementary question. Can he indicate to the house the effect which this agreement between the United Kingdom and EURATOM may have on subsequent negotiations between EURATOM and Canada for the sale of Canadian uranium to that organization?


Sidney Earle Smith: I hope
the study of this agreement will be useful to us. I may say that we in the department have not as yet received the text of the agreement. We have a draft which was used during the negotiations between the United Kingdom and EURATOM. I understand that this document is being made public, and subject to the usual reservations I will table it in the house as soon as we get a copy of the final agreement.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to that picture of health, the Minister of Transport. My question relates to the creeping paralysis of the passenger train service on the Kettle Valley railway.
In view of the continuous protests against the inconveniences suffered by residents of the southern interior of British Columbia from inadequate passenger train service and facilities on the Kettle Valley railway, and in view of the company's statement to the effect that the decline in these services is occasioned by abnormal local circumstances and unusual patrolling costs, would the minister consider meeting with representatives of the company and of the employees, if this can be arranged,

with a view to discussing the solution of this problem by the provision of satisfactory daily train service facilities to which the people of this unusually productive area are entitled?


George Harris Hees: I will be very glad to speak with the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway and bring what the hon. member has said to their attention, and report to him as soon as I have had word from them.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W.	Pickersgill	(Bonavisla-
Twillingaie): I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Transport if he has received representations from the Newfoundland board of trade about the desirability of having additional ferry service, in this case to the east coast of Newfoundland. If so, is the government giving active consideration to this request?
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I
have received any representations lately from the Newfoundland board of trade, although I know they would like to have an additional ferry. I have been spoken to recently in this regard by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and I have assured him, as I have assured the members of the Newfoundland board of trade, that these matters are always under consideration by the government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Leon David Crestohl: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether it is his intention to recommend the appointment of a committee either of the House of Commons or of both houses of parliament to hear and receive representations and suggestions with respect to the effectiveness of the bill on human rights and fundamental freedoms which he proposes to introduce this session?


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question. He will recall that on September 5 last a draft bill of rights was introduced into the house and given first reading and some discussion, and then allowed to stand with a view to giving individuals and representatives of various organizations across the country

interested in fundamental freedoms, an opportunity of placing their views before the government. In so far as setting up another committee is concerned, while I am not speaking with finality at the moment I cannot see any good reason why a further committee should be set up. As the hon. gentleman knows, some time ago, in two successive years, as I recall it, a committee of both houses of parliament sat and dealt with matters affecting fundamental freedoms.
I can go no further at this time than to say, while not necessarily closing the door to the possibility, that I cannot now see any good reason why a further committee should be set up, especially in view of the fact that this matter was brought before the house last September and, in the intervening months, an opportunity has been provided for the representations which he apparently has in mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether any approach has been made by the government to the provincial governments in respect of the adequacy or otherwise of this particular bill?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer would be a simple no, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think that would cover the situation. The hon. gentleman will remember that some years ago, while one or other of those committees was sitting, the provinces were communicated with and the attorneys general of the several provinces asked for their opinions and reactions. At that time it seemed to be generally accepted by the government of that day that a bill of rights in the form of an amendment to the constitution which would cover not only those rights that are specifically allotted to parliament but as well those which fall within provincial jurisdiction was not acceptable to many of the provinces.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask a further supplementary question. Before the Prime Minister closes the door on the possibility of a parliamentary committee to consider a bill of rights, would he comment on the fact that many prominent authorities in this country have suggested that the bill should be given further study in order that a more effective bill might be introduced?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not had the time to count the number, as apparently the hon. gentleman has, but I know there have been statements made along the lines suggested by the hon. gentleman. However, those who hold that view apparently have suddenly arrived at that conclusion. This matter has been before the house over a period of years,
Inquiries of the Ministry and I think the views of Canadians as a whole have been secured in the intervening years, and that no further advantage would be obtained by a further adjournment of consideration of this matter at the present session of parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the Prime Minister inform the house when a bill covering this matter was previously introduced into this house?


John George Diefenbaker: At no time previously was a bill introduced. I placed before this house on a number of occasions a draft bill, with certain suggestions, which were based upon the views of Senator Roebuck and a committee of the Senate. That draft in general was before the house for consideration on more than one occasion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not think that in view of the fact that well-known constitutional authorities have recently commented, not only on the subject matter of civil rights but on the particular bill introduced by the Prime Minister, they ought to be afforded the opportunity through a parliamentary committee to indicate what they regard as the inadequate features of this bill, and that parliament should be enabled to listen to their suggestions for improvements in connection with it?


John George Diefenbaker: The reason for the postponement at the last session was to attain the worthy objective the hon. gentleman now has in mind. I must say that the solicitude of the hon. gentleman, and of those associated with him, in the problem today does not altogether sound consonant with the objections they used to take when they were in office.


Leon David Crestohl: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister introduced the bill at the last session and invited representations to be made, can he inform the house whether he has received any suggestions, indications or representations as to the constitutionality of the bill, and in any event has he obtained an opinion from the Department of Justice as to its constitutionality?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, anyone who suggests that the question of constitutionality arises apparently has not studied the bill, because it specifically states that it is related to those matters within the constitutional power of the federal parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not realize that one reason for our solicitude in regard to this bill is that it

Inquiries of the Ministry differs so widely from ideas previously put forward by the hon. gentleman when he was in opposition?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the objective and the purposes are the same; the nomenclature may not be the same. May I say to my hon. friend that his solicitude on this subject does not jibe well with the fact that the international declaration on freedoms was not brought before parliament by the government to which he belonged.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Prime Minister has made the statement that the United Nations declaration of human rights was not brought forward in this parliament. I think if the Prime Minister reflects he will find that he is wrong in that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: No.



PROTEST BY ATLANTIC PROVINCES ON PRICING POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister now received the original of a letter from the maritimes transportation commission on behalf of the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, conveying the dissatisfaction of the Atlantic provinces with some aspects of the Canadian wheat board's recent change in pricing policy?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have received the letter he mentioned. The contents of that letter are being given very careful consideration and study. The increase in the price of wheat at the lakehead was designed to reflect the reduced transportation costs which will prevail when the seaway is opened in the spring, and the saving that is expected to be reflected in freight costs will result in increased income to the farmers of western Canada.
The representations made by the maritime commission will receive very careful consideration.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the

Postmaster General. Was he invited to attend a meeting called last Sunday in Montreal by the letter carriers and other employees of this department? Did he attend that meeting and, in any case, does he have any comment to make on this meeting which was reported in yesterday's newspapers?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I did receive an invitation two or three days before the date set for this meeting; unfortunately, I had already accepted another invitation for that very Sunday, so that I was unable to go to this meeting.
(Text):
I would only add that the matters which were discussed there, according to my understanding, were completely within the purview of the civil service commission in the first instance, and it would therefore be unnecessary and almost improper for me to comment on them.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister confirm or deny that brick of United States manufacture has been ordered for the maintenance building at Dorval airport? If so, can the minister inform the house whether such a choice, rather than the choice of Canadian brick, was made because of price or specification?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister answers may I say that the question is of the type which would be more properly put on the order paper.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As yet we have not completed our plans for such a building. Perhaps the hon. member had in mind our northern shipping building. If so, the brick used in it is Canadian brick manufactured in Montreal. On the other hand the reference might be to construction work for Trans-Canada Air Lines at another part of Dorval airport. If that is the building the hon. member has in mind and he will so indicate, I will be glad to make inquiries of T.C.A.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of the reply I received yesterday to a question of mine, in which it was stated that some time ago an official of his department had to wait for eight months in order to get clearance to visit the D.E.W. line installations. Is the arrangement with the United States government today such that these requests are dealt with quickly, and there is no longer any undue delay as there was in this instance?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: In the first instance the answer to the question referred to was from another department, not mine. I think if the hon. member will go back and refer to the words of the Prime Minister when this matter was discussed in the house last August he will get all the answers he needs to the second part of the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether there have been any further unwarranted delays since that time?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the statement of the Prime Minister in the house a few days ago that Canada has now taken over responsibility for the administration of the D.E.W. line, is there any necessity now for a Canadian to secure clearance from any United States authority in order to visit that line? Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs might answer that question.


Sidney Earle Smith: I am unable to answer it, sir.


Mr. Harkness:: Take it as notice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the government will take the question as notice.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can he inform the house as to what policy
Dominion-Provincial Conference the government is following in accepting applications for the position of director of our national museum? Specifically, can he tell the house whether the director when appointed will be a Canadian citizen?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention for the present to open the position for applications either within the civil service or without. We have asked the director of the natural history branch to take charge of both sections of the museum until the situation becomes more peaceful.


Hazen Robert Argue: Until you are out of hot water.

The house resumed, from Monday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Martin (Essex East).



REQUEST FOR RECONVENING OF DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in this extremely important debate. I am happy especially because it was initiated by my friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) for whom I entertain the highest regard and with whom I spent some time pleasantly last summer at an international gathering. I have always admired him, but never did I admire him more than I did yesterday, when he put on a performance so different from that which he put on a few days earlier over television. Yesterday he seemed to be everywhere at once and on the previous occasion he did not seem to be anywhere at all when a question was asked.
This earlier performance was matched only by his ecumenical display of knowledge yesterday. He dipped into philosophy, into history, into logic, and one of his favourite fields of sport, statistics. But I think he was at his best when he was bristling with moral indignation. In his beginning as he lectured in federalism, I thought he was extremely interesting. Until he became more of a partisan and less of a constitutionalist I was applauding his every word in my dignified silent style. One who might have been led along in such similar general thoughts in the field of political science might have thought of the important part that political parties play, and he might think of, and theorize on the desperation with which some political parties seek to recapture office and regain the position which once they held.

Dominion-Provincial Conference
Some of us who are devoted to the two-party system are at times a little unhappy at the way in which the present opposition reveal on occasion a lack of astuteness when it comes to an opportunity to grasp an issue. There is either a tendency to fire so many broadside shots that they all miss target, or to grasp the very subject upon which the government is strongest in the view of the Canadian people. On the question of dominion-provincial relations I feel they were in the second category.
In the part of Canada from which I come we are vitally concerned with the very questions to which the hon. gentleman has directed our attention, namely the question of dominion-provincial relations and their place in a federal state. The purist, of course, would say that Canada is indeed not precisely a federal state but perhaps a quasi-federal state, but our development has certainly been along that line. All down through the years we have talked about having a rigid constitution. Of course the British North America Act is not our whole constitution but merely a part of it. We have found flexibility and, if I may use the expression, constant change. In no area of the country has there been greater interest and greater concern and indeed greater need for a readjustment of the fiscal relations of the units of the nation than in my area. A great scholar who was also a great politician and statesman, namely the late Norman McLeod Rogers, at one time said:
A federation defeats its primary purpose if through its constitutional arrangements or through policies instituted by the national government it accomplishes the gradual debilitation of one or more of the provincial communities of which it is composed.
Here surely is an opportunity for a representative of a maritime constituency to make a comment which may indeed be germane to the discussion before us and may have a direct bearing upon some of the actions of national governments in the past and the action of the national government in the present. I am sure that down through the years this house has heard speeches on maritime claims, for in our area we have suffered from economic inequality. We came into confederation in a period of great prosperity but our golden age, it seems, has long since passed behind us. Many things which our people were led to believe would come from the new and greater entity have not come at all or have been very slow in coming.
We in the maritimes have watched this great country expand to the west and now to the north. This new northward expansion has caught our imagination as it has caught the imagination of the rest of the citizens of Canada. But as our great country has
[Mr. Macquarrie.l moved and developed we feel too often that we, in the region where it all began, have been left behind.
Of all the vexed questions of dominion-provincial relations in which the maritimes are concerned, one in my opinion has never yet even approached a final settlement or a thorough-going examination. I refer to the question of the great lands to the north. We look forward to our expansion there, and we know that under the guiding genius of this government it will come. But let it not be forgotten that if the north is developed, it must be developed by a united Canada and that in that union the maritimes form a great part.
Only once or twice in our national story have we seemed to find a statesman who recognized the importance of this fact. One whom I refer to and who will go down in history as one of our greatest leaders, namely Sir Robert Borden, caught the significance of this. In 1912 an hon. member from New Brunswick said in this House of Commons:
The three maritime provinces have but 52,000 square miles, and it is proposed at once, without consulting the other provinces, without seeing what New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island may think, to add something like 200,000 square miles to the territory of the province of Manitoba.
The then prime minister later replied:
I would like to point out to my hon. friend that one of his own colleagues on that side of the house has raised an important question this afternoon, and has expressed views with which perhaps my hon. friend may not be inclined to concur, namely, that when this question of the transfer of the natural resources to the prairie provinces does come to be considered some regard will have to be given to the claims of some of the provinces in Canada and especially the three maritime provinces whose boundaries have not been increased, whose boundaries cannot very well be increased on account of their natural situation.
In the days ahead it is our fervent hope that considerations along that line will be taken into account.
Mr. Speaker, in examining the question of dominion-provincial relations I believe it would be fitting to look at the province of Prince Edward Island, my native province, as a sort of touchstone on this very question. Why would Prince Edward Island be the appropriate place to make a study of this problem? One reason, of course, is that confederation was born in my province. The city of Charlottetown is the birthplace of confederation, and we can therefore at least be expected to express paternal feeling on the whole process. It is also the smallest province of all, and it is the province in

which contributions from the dominion treasury proportionately play the largest part in the provincial budget.
Indeed, Prince Edward Island makes an ideal touchstone for the wisdom of any government in the national arena concerned with national development. The Rowell-Sirois report states that the province does not form a satisfactory unit from the point of view of public finance, and particularly for raising revenue. The subsistence nature of the economy, the low average net value of agricultural production, and the lack of urbanization are reflected in a total real property rate which is only one-fifth the Canadian per capita average. The province's lack of any public domain is responsible, of course, for the absence of revenue from that source. Under these circumstances Prince Edward Island, through the years, has found it necessary, as someone has said, to tax everything, tangible and intangible.
Another reason which I think might be cited is that of all the provinces of Canada, none has been so faithful to the Liberal party over the years. For 23 years we have had in the province a Liberal government. Indeed in 1935, from the very community in which I was born, there arose a Liberal leader to capture every seat in the provincial legislature, and for four years there was not a single opposition voice raised. In the federal field Prince Edward Island was looked upon as a haven for cabinet ministers. From time to time migrating ministers were given safe seats in Prince Edward Island. We had the minister of finance, Mr. Dunning, in Queens; and in that especially safe seat, Prince, the former prime minister, Mr. King, found refuge for a short time. We also had Mr. Ralston. Prince county, was a Liberal seat from 1904 to 1957, when my colleague cracked the sound barrier, so to speak, and in 1958 he did it again, increasing his majority one hundredfold. It is perhaps symptomatic-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the floor to speak to a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not like to interrupt an academic colleague, but it is a little difficult for me to relate this very interesting history to the motion which is before the house, and I wondered if the hon. gentleman could do so.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have heard what the hon. member has just said. It is my conception of this motion that relations between the dominion government and the provincial governments are of great significance in a discussion such as this. Surely we
Dominion-Provincial Conference must discuss the relative needs of provinces and their relationship to the national revenue, which I opine would be germane to the discussion. I am only sorry that I was not able to include the hon. gentleman in my list of ministers. Newfoundland, the second last remaining Liberal province in this dominion, was able to do that. What their views are on expatriate cabinet ministers I am not able to determine. Prince Edward Island


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised a point of order, and the hon. member who has the floor has spoken to it, I think it might be well to remind the hon. member who has the floor that the motion is in these terms:
This house is of the opinion the government should call a federal-provincial conference-
That is the basic matter under discussion. The necessity for, or the desirability of, calling a federal-provincial conference opens the door for a discussion of federal-provincial relations in connection with that necessity.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to look at the financial status of one province at the present time in relation to development in the past in order to argue that the amendment, so far as that province is concerned, is not a matter of immediate moment. I shall endeavour to relate more clearly and more directly the question at issue.
Throughout the years the need for greater financial assistance for my province has been pressed, not only at dominion-provincial conferences but on many occasions through contacts between the dominion and provincial governments. At the recent dominion-provincial conference the premier of Prince Edward Island recalled the previous condition which had developed from the unfortunate economic difficulties in which the province, through no fault of its own, found itself. Originally in 1873 we were given a subsidy of $45,000, which was nearly all eaten up by the interest on an extensive loan of $800,000 which was made necessary by certain financial operations of the province. In 1887 our subsidy was raised $20,000, in 1900 it was raised $30,000 and in 1912 it was raised by $100,000. At that time a Conservative government was in office in both Prince Edward Island and at Ottawa. It was at that time that the question of public domain in northern lands was discussed and very sympathetically entertained by Mr. Borden and Mr. White. In 1934 our subsidy was raised by another $275,000.
The situation in Prince Edward Island at the present time, and in the maritimes in the recent past, was very well recorded by many, many people who looked at the unequal

Dominion-Provincial Conference economic development of this country. I suppose an outstanding document on this is the famous Gordon commission report. We were so far behind in development that it was implied that perhaps in order to maintain a better standard of living some of our people had better leave and go to other parts of the country. Surely that was a strain upon dominion-provincial relations in the whole federal system of this country. Unfortunately some people did leave and that, of course, made the revenue situation in the poorer provinces even worse than it was before. In the many years during which the Liberal party was in office, the aggravating question of financial relations came up again and again. From my province there came constant appeals for greater aid and many, many of these were turned back. On one occasion instead of getting greater aid the Prince Edward Island government received a bill for $1,142,000 as a result of the 1952 agreement, when a miscalculation on the population projection had been made by dominion authorities.
In 1957 there came new hope for the maritime provinces, especially for the province of Prince Edward Island, where we had had several set-backs and reverses one after the other. With amazing alacrity there came a movement by the present government which expressed itself in the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant.
What does that mean? It means to the province of Prince Edward Island every year an additional amount of $2J million, which might be interpreted as $100 per capita over the four-year period. This is a sum which represents nearly one-third of the provincial budget, and it represents the greatest single grant our province has received from Ottawa since confederation. This is the result of the meeting called by this government shortly after the election.
It is interesting to find hon. gentlemen opposite so concerned about the alacrity of fulfilling promises. One might think of some of the promises which were made on their platform in 1919; if they really want to go back, they might go back to 1883. An important part of the economic inequality as between the provinces is the lack of adequate social services which some of the provinces possess. In the small province of Prince Edward Island which I think, as I have indicated, might serve as the touchstone of present policy, we are now seeing some improvement as a result of the dominion-provincial negotiations carried out by this government. Teachers are being paid higher salaries, though they are still not high enough; roads are being built which the province could not afford to build before, and all across

the board there is an improvement as a result of the justice which has been accorded to the small province of Prince Edward Island by this government.
In passing one might note also that the dominion government is picking up a greater portion of the total expenditures in the province than ever before; the largest item in history ($11,000,000) stands in the estimates we hope to pass. Referring to one of the statements made yesterday, is this an insult to the provinces? Is it contempt? Has Prince Edward Island been insulted by the way in which this government has handled dominion-provincial relations? I need hardly say that such is not the case. Referring to the situation the Charlottetown Guardian had this to say on January 28, 1958:
Our chief grievance with the St. Laurent government was the manner in which our fiscal claims were ignored, forcing us to impose additional taxes and bringing strong condemnation from Liberal as well as Conservative members of the legislature. Hon. Mr. Harris had nothing to offer us commensurate with what the Diefenbaker government is now legislating to do. Yet the Liberals claim that the country was much better off financially under their administration than it is at present.
I suppose it would be appropriate to go to the head of the government, Premier Matheson who on his way to a certain event which took place in the middle of January, 1958, said that his party would seek a better deal for the maritimes than the Liberal party had ever given before. Then he gave a little explanation; on the result of the 1957 election "that is why the Liberals were defeated last June. They did not give the maritimes half a deal." The statements which have been made by those who say that the provinces of Canada have been insulted by the present government have aroused righteous indignation. The events to which I have referred have taken place in the province which perhaps more than any other deserved a second look and a little more consideration.
This is a new era. There are those who mock and smile about the expression "the new vision." But it is not a joke in the maritime provinces, because we came very near to a state of discouragement and intellectual depression which might have been very dangerous for us. It was because there appeared on the scene a man with a national vision- and you cannot have a national vision unless you are concerned with the problems of all the provinces-that the situation seemed at last to offer hope. That man, the present Prime Minister, came with a national vision and rapidly took measures to deal with our situation.
Yet there are some who say that the government has moved slowly. I can point to government activities in the province of

Prince Edward Island which are being carried out today which would have been impossible before the present dominion government took office. Let no man tell us, in our island province, that this government has been lax in the field we have been discussing. None of us is here to say that a full measure has been meted out; none of us will say to this government that they have heard the last of maritime claims. But a sense of realism and a sense of decency impel us to say that in this field the government has moved and moved with consideration for the provinces.
It is perhaps an inevitable part of the political process that a party in opposition should seek to find some device by which to make itself popular, but I think with regard to this question the opposition has not struck gold. Perhaps it is something like the balloon at the meeting in Ontario which was mentioned yesterday.
On this question of dominion-provincial relations now before us the answer can be found most readily in the maritime provinces, where it is underscored and underlined. One does not have to listen only to Conservative members of parliament; one will find it on the lips of the leaders of those areas, people of all parties who are more devoted to the areas in which they live than to political partisanship. I could if I wished quote from the most ardent Liberal newspapers in the maritime provinces and place upon the record words of commendation and congratulation to this government for action so long delayed and for justice so long denied by its predecessors, for a national policy which began with a recognition that the area from which I come has for too long been denied what was its just due.
Now at last a way has been devised which will give the people of my area an opportunity to go forward with the rest of Canada to the great days which lie ahead.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not propose to reply directly, Mr. Speaker, to the very erudite historian from Queens who has just spoken. I have no doubt that in a very short time one of my colleagues from the maritime provinces will address himself to his most interesting and exceedingly well delivered address. I am chiefly concerned about some of the points we heard last night in connection with the magniloquence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). Unfortunately, as so often happens with his spread-eagle type of oratory, we did not hear too much about the resolution that is before us, but we were treated to a rather silk-hatted Barnum-type of trumpeting about other matters of governmental administration. Then, of course, he gave the
Dominion-Provincial Conference signal, as is typical, at the end of his long address by raising his voice as his arguments were weakening and got, as he expected, the applause of the large group of followers behind him. His theme seemed to be at this point that might is right.
I believe we should be reasonably sympathetic toward the Minister of Finance because on many occasions in the last 19 months-somebody said last night 16 months, but I remind the house that in a week it will be 20 months-since this administration took office the minister has certainly had his nose rubbed into a lot of hard facts. The point I want to make is that the country today, despite his form of oratory, is looking behind the rhetoric and is very concerned about the jettisoning of so many promises by this administration. Despite the arguments that we heard last night I remind the Minister of Finance that fog is not dispelled either by a fan or even by a windmill. I just want to remind him of a phrase I have heard him use at least ten times since he became a member of this house, that a tree is known by its fruit. I say the public is certainly equating the promises with performance.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is recognized as a great admirer of Lincoln. I am sure he has not overlooked one of Lincoln's wise sayings, to the effect that we must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called upon to perform what we cannot. I think that is the position in which the Prime Minister has so frequently found himself recently.
Now, I do not propose at this moment to deal with some of the new estimates about tax sharing revenues that were given by the Minister of Finance in his address last night. It is well known to the house that there is a resolution on the order paper that will permit us to discuss more carefully the financial results of a continuation of the formula of tax sharing to which reference has been made. The minister and I did last night have a word or two with respect to the question of whether or not this had from the beginning, when introduced a year ago, been called by the minister an estimate. I simply want to point out that on January 27, 1958-I was wrong by a day because it was the next sitting of the house, and I said January 25 last night-at page 3849 of Hansard, you will find this reported, and these are the words of the Minister of Finance. He was referring to the new formula that he announced so hurriedly, probably having in his mind that dissolution was very close at hand. He said:
It will assure for the fiscal year_

Dominion-Provincial Conference
I emphasize the word "assure".
-commencing April 1 next an additional sum of $62,203,000-
It is true that in the very small print in the table that was placed upon Hansard the word "estimate" is used. Despite the denial last night of the minister that he ever used that word "assured" I draw the attention of the members to that page of Hansard, 3849, for January 27, 1958. The question before us is not some of the points that we heard from the minister last night, but why not have a dominion-provincial conference before we consider the resolution the minister has on the order paper.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and which I seconded yesterday, appears on page 826 of Hansard for February 9, 1959. Since this is a subsequent sitting of the house I think it might be repeated. The motion reads:
This house is of the opinion the government should call a federal-provincial conference at once to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations.
It is to this that we should direct our attention. I well realize that there are just about 100 members in this house who were not in the house at the time the proposal of January 1958 was advanced. I think it is very desirable that we have on the record the assurances in solemn, definite form that were given that this was an interim matter, and that a dominion-provincial conference would be called at a subsequent date. I refer to the communique of November, 1957 itself which at that time made it exceedingly clear that it was intended to have in the new year another dominion-provincial conference.
This is the indictment against the government at the present time in connection with this motion. Again, they are not carrying out one of their promises which was very, very firmly planted with the Canadian people. The Minister of Finance himself repeatedly emphasized in January, 1958, that this was simply an interim matter. On the other hand, we have before us on the order paper a proposal to renew this formula for another year. The minister said it was an interim measure only for the forthcoming fiscal year. I emphasize those words, "forthcoming fiscal year."
In the debate that took place at that time- I am repeating this because there are so many new members in the house-the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, shrewd as he was, did indicate that there might be a nigger in this proposition. He is quoted on January 28, 1958 at page 3935 as saying that an interim period might last for a long time.

I am afraid he was quite prophetic. At that time the Minister of Finance himself said that the immediate needs-I underline the word "immediate"-of the provinces had been met in the interim measure. He said that when the time was ripe and there was an opportunity-I emphasize the word "opportunity"-for a resumption of the dominion-provincial conference, of course one would be called. Hon. members of the government party who are friendly with the premier of Manitoba or with the premier of Ontario might indicate whether or not they think the immediate needs have been met in those provinces.
The hon. member for Essex East I think very shrewdly gave some ideas yesterday as to why this conference may be postponed. I would add that I am inclined to believe that in the case of the premier of Manitoba the conference may be delayed because that premier does not want to be shown up as less of a champion of his province than his predecessors when they came to dominion-provincial conferences. In the case of the premier of Ontario, I am inclined to think the difficulty may be that, unlike a year and a half ago, there may be no desire to have any display as to who today is the real sahib in connection with the Conservative party.
Last night the minister had something to say about "take it or leave it". In this respect I certainly think I can remind him of a publication which he himself quoted on several occasions in the past when we were debating matters of this kind. I refer to the interim report by the Canadian tax foundation in its comment upon the 1955-56 proposals. This refers particularly to this question of "take it or leave it". This is the comment of Mr. Perry in test 5 as to the desirability of a formula of this kind, and the "take it or leave it" question.
In this respect the author has achieved a delicate balance. There is almost nothing in it to sway a province toward one side or the other.
I ask the house, and the Minister of Finance particularly, what difference, except for one numeral, is there in the proposition he is sponsoring this session and last and the proposition of 1956 which received such bitter condemnation from him and his colleagues? There are two differences. There was the change with respect to one figure which increased a formula figure from 10 per cent to 13 per cent and, of course, there was another disadvantageous feature in so far as the provinces are concerned, in that the revised proposition omitted any reference to stabilization with respect to the new 3 per cent formula.
The Minister of Finance had some very bitter things to say about this formula in

1956. I want to give the house some indication of the kind of language he used then when he was screaming at the keyhole of events. On July 23, 1956 with respect to this formula, a formula which today he is prepared to put forward for the second time for the approval of the house, with the most minor changes and one of those in favour of the federal treasury he said, as reported at page 6287 of Hansard for July 23, 1956:
As to the details of the formula, suffice it to say at this point that it is an actuarial maze to most people. The formula itself would undoubtedly confuse most citizens. Talk of tax equalization payments, provincial revenue stabilization payments, tax rental agreements, gross national product, average personal income, and other expressions in which the formula abounds make it very difficult for the average citizen to appreciate the niceties of the formula.
Well, the niceties of the formula seem to have appealed to the Minister of Finance, because we have a resolution again advancing the formula with only the minor changes I have outlined. But I suggest to the house that the big point is this. The government is by no means consistent. They took the stand in 1956 that in the absence of evidence of agreement on the part of the provinces, this parliament should not be asked to accept the formula. I want to know whether anybody in the government will say that this formula, any more than the other, has received unanimous or majority support from the provincial premiers.
This was the attitude taken by Mr. Drew, the leader of the opposition at that time. He said at page 5999 of Hansard for July 16, 1956:
A government that fails to seek a solution of this problem and puts this matter into rigid statutory form before there has been approval is a government that is not fit to govern.
What evidence can the government give us that this is any more approved today? Yesterday the hon. member for Essex East very effectively gave the house comments from such premiers as the premier of Ontario and the premier of Manitoba. We have heard from the premier of Saskatchewan who sits perhaps in a neutral position in viewing the present government and the administration that went before. This is what the premier of Saskatchewan had to say in relating the present intention of this government to what took place in years gone by:
Former prime minister Louis St. Laurent and the late W. L. Mackenzie King had at least discussed dominion-provincial finances.
That, of course, is not what is done at the present time. The Minister of Finance endeavoured to twit the hon. member for Essex East last night when he was speaking on this proposition. His words were that clothes scarcely suit the hon. member for Essex 66968-9-55
Dominion-Provincial Conference East. Well, let me tell the Minister of Finance that there is always a very considerable increase in the amount of secondhand clothing when we have a Tory administration. I further want to remind the house that there has never been a dominion-provincial conference which has not resulted from some changes in a proposition advanced by a federal administration. That opportunity is not being provided when we are asked simply to renew the present formula.
I think we have to analyse why we are not having a dominion-provincial conference, despite the very firm commitments made by the Prime Minister in two election campaigns, despite the wording of the communique after the dominion-provincial conference of November, 1957, despite what the Minister of Finance said a year ago that this was an interim proposition for the current fiscal year. I think the hon. member for Essex East again had some shrewd observations on that point. He referred to the deficit; he referred to the obvious endeavour not to embarrass some Conservative provincial premiers who were soon to have provincial elections.
But I think there are reasons beyond those, and on this matter the Minister of Finance was singularly silent. He usually does not lack words, but in explaining why we were not having a conference he was, I say, singularly silent. I suggest that the primary reason we are not having a dominion-provincial conference is that the government, as in so many other matters, is lacking in capacity for constructive decision. They are merely carrying on the attitude they have shown on so many other urgent and important questions, a "wait and see" policy; and they are simply trying to sit the situation out.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) was pretty shrewd, as usual, in matters of this kind. On June 3, 1958, as found at page 804 of Hansard, he had this to say:
If the government does not act to change the statute in this session and if normal events follow we are going to be faced somewhere about next February or March with another urgent situation and we are going to have hon. gentlemen opposite saying another crisis has arisen because-and they will use words to this effect-"you talked so much we did not have time to have a federal-provincial conference", and we are going to be faced with another unilateral decree. That just is not good enough.
That again was most prophetic. Oh, the government gave some reasons. They were exceedingly puny reasons. One was that parliament was sitting. We have had many dominion-provincial conferences when parliament was sitting. It was said that the legislatures were sitting. We have had federal-provincial conferences when the legislatures
866	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Conference were sitting, and I have no doubt whatever that if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance extended invitations right now to the provincial premiers they would see to it that their legislatures permitted their absence for time enough to attend a conference of this importance. I suggest that this should be done.
I think another real reason for the failure to hold a conference during all this period of time, despite the very Arm and ringing declarations about it, is that the present government lacks a policy to put before such a conference if it were held. They do not know what their policy is, and in this connection I think we find support for this view because when many prominent members of the present ministry were on the opposition side of the house they indicated that they were not at all happy with the type of formula we had for tax sharing between the federal government and the provinces. I can quote innumerable statements by members of the present cabinet that would lead anyone to the conclusion that they wanted something new in the way of policy. They talked about reallocating taxing powers and reallocating constitutional powers. I think we can very properly ask the ministry, are they abandoning and discarding the views they so often expressed in the house in the past?
I have here a statement of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). As found at page 6015 of Hansard for July 16, 1956 he said:
We in this party believe and have said time and time again that there should be a reallocation of responsibilities, that there should be a reallocation of taxation powers-
The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) took this view. In that same year the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) - I will also quote what he said earlier-had this to say as found at page 6064 of Hansard for July 17:
But the root of the matter has not been attacked, and that is the division of responsibility between the dominion government and the provincial jurisdictions.
Then we have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), as found at page 6335 of Hansard for July 23, 1956. He talked about the exchange of constitutional responsibilities. Is this what is in the mind of the government? If so, one can imagine that the provincial premiers would like to know it at the earliest opportunity. This indeed, was the view of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on May 10, 1955. As found at page 3647 of Hansard he said:
Dominion-provincial conferences may continue to be a necessity for Canada. If so, they should be
[Mr. Benidickson.l

restricted to the core of the problem, the division of administrative responsibility between the dominion and the provinces, and the division of fields of taxation.
We have heard that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is credited with being the architect of the victories of the Conservative party in recent election campaigns.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He credits himself.


William Moore Benidickson: He credits himself, as somebody says; but in any event is this an indication that he is going to be the architect of policy with respect to dominion-provincial relations? I ask the house, Mr. Speaker, what is the chance of anything worth while being achieved by study groups consisting of officials of the provincial and federal governments if they are all wanting to know the views of the many new provincial administrations and the views of the new federal administration? They all know that the members of the federal cabinet have expressed so many views in the past that a very substantial change might be made in the set-up now that they have come to power.
I say that we are putting the cart before the horse when we suggest that officials acting in the dark, without instructions from political leadership, meet without knowing what are the policies of their political chiefs. There is doubt about equalization. How can officials of governments meet with any confidence when there is doubt even as to the type of thing that would meet with the approval of their political chiefs?
The Minister of Finance is very evasive with respect to his stand on equalization. Oh, he talks about equalization, but when an effort is made to find out just what kind of equalization we find that the minister is quite silent. On June 2, 1958, as found at page 742 of Hansard, an effort was made to try to find out what was the minister's view in this respect. The hon. member for Essex East asked the minister this question about equalization:
Does that mean that the hon. minister now accepts the principle of equalization on the basis of the position of the two highest provinces?
The Minister of Finance replied:
That is not what I said at ail.
Indeed, he was most vague with respect to the type of equalization he might provide. What are some of the other reasons for the lack of policy? I think the leader of the C.C.F. group made a pretty solid observation yesterday when he talked about suitcase government and said there were simply not enough ministers around who would have direct responsibility for matters of this kind during the recess. That is not a view held exclusively

by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). Quite a number of other people have expressed that view. I quote from the Winnipeg Tribune, which is not unfriendly to the present administration. That paper made this comment during the recess:
Led by the ever-mobile Prime Minister, the Conservative cabinet is emerging as the most footloose band of have briefcase-will travel administrators in Canada's history.
I think everybody who has been in the house for any length of time knows there is no one in the press gallery who is normally more friendly to a Conservative administration than our good friend Mr. Norman MacLeod. On January 14 last he made this comment:
-any log of the movements of the cabinet ministers since they assumed office would show a figure of absenteeism that no private enterprise could afford to admit. Literally, no international occasion has been too unimportant for some representative of the Canadian cabinet to attend.
The other day, after the reading of the speech from the throne, the Financial Times made this comment:
The moment of truth is now at hand. _______Let
Ghana for one moment rest on its laurels; let the world make statements about freedom unspecified and couched in no compelling terms. Let Asians mind, for only a brief moment, their own business while the government in Canada attends to its own.
These are comments by people outside this house. It was a fairly shrewd observation of the leader of the C.C.F. in that respect. I think perhaps another reason that we have not had the conference is that at a conference I have no doubt the present ministry, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) would be asked about the money policy of this government. Certainly they did not hesitate to refer to that matter at the last convening on November 25, 1957. As reported on page 11 of the proceedings, the Prime Minister said this:
Here in Canada, quietly and gradually over the last three months, the tight money situation has been eased. Those whose business it is to follow the bond market will have noticed it-
Even in the election campaign the same kind of thing was said at a later date. As late as March 14, 1958, the Prime Minister in Calgary, is quoted in the Winnipeg Tribune, as follows:
The Prime Minister claimed that interest rates had fallen sharply as a result of government action since last June-
I must also quote the Minister of Finance; he would not want to be left out. When we had a similar debate a year ago, on January 27, 1958, as reported at page 3852 of Hansard of that date, he had this to say:
That tight money policy has now been eased- 66968-9-55J
Dominion-Provincial Conference
He referred to the municipalities.
-in line with the policies of this government.
The question that I raise-and I am sure the provincial premiers would raise it-is this. If when interest rates are going down the situation is due to the policy of the government, what is the policy of the government that has resulted in the most expensive interest rates we have had for 25 years or 30 years? Of course we know what the stock answer is. The stock answer is that on an upturn of interest rates the wicked Americans are responsible. But when interest rates were going down, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said the situation was due to the good management of the government. I want to know whether or not the administration feel that they picked up some votes by claiming that they were responsible for effecting the interest rates described in the quotations that I have given. We know what rates we have had in recent times.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I should remind the hon. member that he is straying a bit from the subject matter.


William Moore Benidickson: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that this would be one of the questions that certainly would be raised by the provincial premiers because the cost of their money is so important to them. But, Mr. Speaker, I simply close on that subject by saying that even in the current issue of the Financial Post it is indicated that these interest rates are still likely to rise.
In debates of this kind in the past the Minister of Finance was always talking about making room for the provinces in connection with expenditures. He denounced centralization and said that the previous administration was not making room. He used a very striking phrase at one time. In 1956, as reported at page 6295 of Hansard, he said this:
The camel got its head into the tent, and instead of being content to share the tent with the former occupant has been busy trying to push the camel driver out.
When they look at the estimates that were brought down the other day, I wonder what will be the reaction of the provincial premiers, particularly when they know how difficult it is to raise the sums that will be required by them.
We heard a great deal about the municipalities. The minister for development in the province of Ontario this summer made a statement that any additional money that Ontario received from Ottawa would be passed on to the municipalities. That, of course, is exceedingly interesting to the municipalities in my province. In addition to that, we had many indications that something

Dominion-Provincial Conference in the nature of a new deal could be expected by the municipalities if we had a new administration.
Of course, they had an informal conference with the new administration and the answers that the government had in the election campaigns were certainly not the answers that they had for the municipalities when the municipalities met members of this administration last September. May I just quote some of the impartial observers who heard the lecture given by the Prime Minister to the municipalities. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) gave yesterday the six or seven points or requests that were made by the municipalities. I will not repeat them because my time is running short. However, Mr. Harvey Hickey had this to say:
it-
He refers to the conference with the mayors.
-was informal if the word is interpreted to mean that no one was giving anything away.
Then in addition in the same article Mr. Hickey said that after the Prime Minister spoke to the representatives of the municipalities, one newspaperman jokingly remarked to one of the cabinet ministers on the similarity between what the Prime Minister said and what Mr. St. Laurent used to say to the mayors and reeves, and the answer of the cabinet minister, as quoted in this article, was:
Maybe the same people wrote the speech-
There has not been much change of policy in this respect. I should like rapidly just to indicate some comments that were made at this time. I have one headline from the Winnipeg Tribune: "P.M. throws cold water on hopes for more aid". Another one indicates "Defense, welfare cost curbs cash to cities, P.M. warns mayors". This is not the way in which the former mayor of Oshawa used to talk and who is now in a key position in the present cabinet. I refer to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). He used fairly strong language in this respect as to the needs of the municipalities. He said, as reported in an article in January 1957:
A complete realignment of long-term taxing powers is needed.
Reference is made to shortsighted, pessimistic and unrealistic policies which result in expensive costs of money to the municipalities.
I have referred to some of these things. I think the administration should indicate what their attitude is to these matters which are of vital concern to the provinces and to the municipalities. Beyond what was mentioned yesterday in the excellent address by the hon. member for Essex East, I think
[Mr. Benidickson.l
that the provinces at a conference would want to know why there is any necessity for postponing until 1960 a conference on conservation. I think that many of them- particularly the western provinces and indeed the consuming provinces in eastern Canada -would want to urge the government to move quickly and to indicate what its policy is with respect to the rules for oil and gas industry. The Financial Post this week indicates that delay in matters of this kind may cost many people hundreds of jobs in 1959. The feature editorial states the urgency in this language:
The oil, gas and allied industries must promptly be released from their present purgatory of fear, apprehension and uncertainty so that important projects can get ahead in this coming construction season.
These are all matters that vitally affect unemployment. I am sure that the administration would benefit immensely by taking the premiers into their confidence because so many efforts along that line must be joint efforts. The fact that they are left in a vacuum, that they do not know the policies of the administration on such matters as I have indicated, and others, is contributing in a large fashion to the unemployment we have at the present time.


Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be words of congratulation to the administration for what I consider to be the policy which is the most forward-looking and the most sympathetic to the provinces in regard to provincial-federal relations in a quarter of a century. Since the last war, as all hon. members know, great inequities had developed between the provinces and the federal government as regards the sharing of the tax dollar. These inequities across those ten years became at times so acute that in some ways they seemed to threaten our federation, as the provinces and municipalities sought always a larger share of the national revenue to meet ever-increasing demands for public and social service. As the revenues of the federal government were increasing year by year the share of the tax dollar that was available to municipalities and to provinces was actually decreasing, while at the same time the demands upon those two levels of government kept increasing. Finally, in the face of continual demands, the former administration sought to try to quiet the outcry of the nation by calling the federal-provincial conference of 1956. From that conference, all hon. members know, emerged the formula, very grudgingly given which provided 10 per cent of income taxes, 9 per cent of corporation taxes and 50 per cent of the succession duty revenue to the provinces.

It was very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hear the words of the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and to hear of the new consciousness in the Liberal party of the problem of federal-provincial relations. In a fiery, ringing speech he challenged the government on its record of keeping its promises to the provinces, and challenged it on the basis of meeting the needs of the provinces at this time. From the way he spoke he announced a policy which was new to all people who had heard the Liberals speak before on dominion-provincial relations. He suggested that if the Liberals were in office they would immediately call a conference with the provinces. They would open all the vaults of Ottawa, and every provincial treasurer could find here everything which he needed to meet all problems which arose in his province.
I sat and listened to his speech carefully. It sounded good, but I am from the maritimes, and down in the maritimes our experience has been to beware of the Grits bearing gifts. Our experience with the actions of the Liberal party has been that they are a long way from the policy we hear so clearly ringing out from Liberal members of the house today. We find often, when we examine Liberal policy on this matter of federal-provincial relations, that like so many other things, the policy turns out to be like the Cheshire cat in "Alice in Wonderland": As you examine it, "it fades away till there is nothing left but the grin."
I would like to take you back, Mr. Speaker, a few years, to 1955 and 1956. They were days when everywhere across this land could be heard the complaints of the municipalities and of the provinces, that they were being squeezed, that they had to skimp to keep from running into deficits. In my own province a deficit was always very near. In the budget and the accounts of 1956 Nova Scotia was very close to the wire. In the following year it faced a deficit, and all during this time, all during those so-called good years when municipalities in my own province were facing these tremendous problems the government at Ottawa was wallowing in tremendous surplus.
It had lots of other money for many other projects in Canada but none at all to meet the needs of the municipalities in their constant striving to provide for the need for social and public services. There was no money at all to meet the growing demands of the provinces. The continual requests and prayers of the municipalities and the provinces fell upon deaf ears here in Ottawa. Take any single factor of provincial life in Nova Scotia in 1955 or 1956 and you see the same thing. You see us with an educational
Dominion-Provincial Conference system in jeopardy, with many more students than we had schools to accommodate them. You see staggered student attendance; not nearly sufficient classrooms to provide for a decent education. Children were out of school more than in because seats could not be provided for them. We had a highway program that had shrunk, across the previous ten years, to the point where it was no longer meeting the needs of the province; it was totally inadequate. The program of new highways had slowed to a snail's pace, and there was barely sufficient money in the treasury of the province of Nova Scotia to maintain the already substandard highway system.
With regard to social welfare, we had nothing in the provincial treasury to help meet the increasing demands of our people and, as hon. members know, this is a particular problem in the maritime provinces, because the record of the Liberal administration in these provinces has been such that young people had to leave their homes year after year to find a living elsewhere. We have a much larger percentage than other provinces of people who are in need of social assistance. We have people of 65 and over who need pensions in order to carry on. We have people who are blind and disabled. We have more of them in the maritimes than anywhere else in Canada. Our provincial treasury could not meet the demands of these people for help and for services. At the same time, while municipalities suffered and skimped, while we in Nova Scotia and in the other maritime provinces went without, surpluses piled up here in Ottawa. No attention was paid at all to our needs.
Mr. Speaker, that was in 1956. By good fortune, by good luck for Canada, the arrogant government that centralized all money in Ottawa but could find nothing for the people of the provinces was defeated and a new government came into office. Immediately, in response to his promise to call a provincial-federal conference to discuss this most urgent question, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) arranged a conference of the provincial premiers to consider the immediate problems of federal-provincial relations. The result of that conference is known to all. It meant a 30 per cent increase for the provinces in the provincial share of income tax. It meant, of most importance to Nova Scotia and to the provinces toy the sea, the $100 million Atlantic adjustment grant, a grant which came just in time to save our provinces by the sea from bankruptcy. This extra $25 million a year poured into the Atlantic

Dominion-Provincial Conference provinces has meant a new lease of life for my province, as well as for our sister provinces. It meant tangible things.
For example, education, that had declined to the point where it might almost be called a disgrace, blossomed with the help of that money into a new program that has meant a terrific boost for Nova Scotia and a new life for our people. Mr. Speaker, over the last two years, with the help of this new aid from Ottawa, 162 new schools have been built in Nova Scotia, the biggest schoolbuilding program in our history. In 1956 we faced the position that because our treasury could not afford to pay decent salaries to our teachers, we were losing our teaching staffs. We were approaching the point where our educational staff would no longer be with us. The extra aid for the province and, in turn, the aid from the province to the municipalities in terms of assistance with teachers' salaries and so on meant that at least this problem of educational salaries had been met for the present.
I do not say that all problems of education have been met in Nova Scotia. It would be impossible in a year and a half, even with the help we have had, to turn back the clock and make up for 20 years of retrogression in Nova Scotia.
We come now to highways. In 1958, with the aid of the money made available to our provincial treasurer, the province of Nova Scotia paved 368 miles of highway, the biggest paving program in our history. Over the last two years the Nova Scotia department of highways has installed 236 new bridges, the biggest bridge building program in the history of the province. In addition, the federal government is making available under the roads to resources program the sum of $7,500,000 in the course of the next five years. This will mean an extra million and a half dollars a year for highways which we could not otherwise afford to spend. In my constituency alone the extra highway money will represent an increase of approximately $3 million in highway construction over a five-year period.
At the same time the municipalities are receiving much needed help through grants which could be made to them by the province from money which came from the government at Ottawa. In Nova Scotia in 1958 the province was able to pay 50 per cent of the cost of hospitalization to municipalities, and this great burden was lifted from the backs of the town and city councils and county councils in the province. Aid to the provinces has meant aid to the municipalities in terms of grants for the building of schools, and in terms of increased salaries for teachers. It

has also meant-and I emphasize this as being, perhaps, most important of all-that in many cases where municipal taxes have been rising year after year they now have a much greater tendency to remain constant.
I have read in some instances of county tax rates in Nova Scotia decreasing for the first time in many years. What it all amounts to is this: that the new policy of this government in the short one and a half years during which it has been in office has been a tremendous boon to Nova Scotia and, I am sure, to the other provinces of Canada as well.
In addition to the money provided as a result of the conference held in 1957 and under the adjustment grant, I should also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the tremendous volume of new assistance which has been made available across this nation under the conditional grants and the cost sharing programs. I should like to illustrate this point once more by referring to my own province of Nova Scotia. In addition to the adjustment money we have seen a great increase in money benefits under the Old Age Assistance Act, in blind persons pensions and in pensions paid to disabled persons. We have seen an increase in grants for hospital construction, in grants for the construction of the trans-Canada highway, in university grants and grants for building picnic and camping sites alongside the trans-Canada highway and elsewhere. I shall not take up the time of the house by putting on record all the figures showing the assistance we have received from these different programs during the relatively short period that this government has been in office, but let me say that in 1956-57, the last year of the former administration, Nova Scotia received by way of cost sharing programs and conditional grants the sum of $5,593,000. In 1957-58, the first year of the present administration, that amount rose to $8,990,000; an increase of 61 per cent in one year of Conservative administration. In 1958-59 the amount rose to $16,210,000, an amount which represents an increase of 190 per cent as compared with the amount paid during the last year the Liberal party was in power.
It is my hope that the generous policy of the present government toward the provinces and toward the maritimes provinces in particular will be continued. Nova Scotia needs help. It went down so far during the last 20 years and became so impoverished through lack of industry and lack of means to earn a stable living that it needs great help. Our maritime provinces need assistance more than any other province, and I must say we all appreciate the sympathy and assistance which the other provinces of

Canada showed at the conference in 1957 when they so readily agreed to the adjustment grant to the Atlantic provinces. If we continue as we are doing, if we continue to rebuild our education program and to go ahead with increased public services, and if we continue to industrialize the maritimes, I believe the day is not too far distant when we shall be able to support ourselves. We shall not have to come before the other provinces of Canada and before the government of Canada seeking help in order to maintain our essential services. Certainly there is a new approach evident today in dominion-provincial affairs. The provinces receive a sympathetic hearing in Ottawa; their problems are more quickly met. A continuing committee to deal with the fiscal problems of all the provinces is something we have needed for a long time.
We have only begun, of course, to repair the damage which has been done to provincial relations in the course of the last 20 years. We have only made a start. In the years that are to come we have a great job to do in building up federal-provincial relations and in seeing to it that each section of this great country has its fair share of opportunity. We must all keep in mind that each province and each region in this nation has its rights and that these rights must be safeguarded. When men from all parts of this land regard the problems of their neighbours with sympathy, and try to see their points of view, only then will we be able to make this nation the strong nation that it can become. We have made tremendous progress in provincial relations in the last year and a half. Even greater opportunities for progress lie ahead. I must say I was very pleased to hear this attitude expressed in speeches both today and yesterday by hon. members who belong to the Liberal party. In particular, the words of the hon. member for Essex East when he insisted that provincial rights should be respected and when he mentioned unity as being the key problem in Canada, were certainly good words to hear. Undoubtedly they represented a change in the policy of the party to which he belongs and which for 20 years would rather rely on the principle of divide and conquer, setting one province against another -Ontario against Quebec, the maritimes against Ontario and Quebec, and so on-than to foster Canadian unities.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Liberal party is sincere in its new policy with regard to national unity. I hope, in particular, that their policy with regard to dominion-provincial relations has been renewed and refreshed. Hon. members will recall how interested the nation was in the question of
Dominion-Provincial Conference dominion-provincial relations in 1957. As an example of the outlook of the Liberal party on provincial relations at that time they allowed candidates to go from platform to platform in my province and to appear on the radio and television with this slogan: "Save Nova Scotia from the Diefenbaker-Frost alliance".
This, Mr. Speaker, is the very thing that weakens this nation. It strikes at the ankles of Canada. It was the attitude, the theme of the late Liberal government in the matter of dominion-provincial relations. I will say also, that the recent speeches of these Liberal members are a far cry from their former attitude. They are a far cry from the time when Liberal policy and philosophy in connection with dominion-provincial relations could be expressed in the very simple, straightforward phrase, which I recall particularly when I hear them speak of Manitoba and Ontario, the phrase, "not a flve-cent piece for a Tory province".


Erhart Regier: was very pleased indeed to hear about the wonderful progress that is being made in the province of Nova Scotia. I was very heartily in accord with the proposal of the government a year ago to make $7.5 million more available to Nova Scotia. If a relatively small sum like $7.5 million is able to work such wonders for one of the Atlantic provinces, I like to think how much more the proposed $150 million to be spent on the igloo to igloo highway program would do if it were used in the Atlantic provinces. I am sure the report would be even more glorious.
However, Mr. Speaker, the cruel fact remains that when compared to a year ago there is more hardship in Canada because of unemployment and there is much more economic uncertainty on the Canadian national scene. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) calls upon the government to call a federal-provincial conference at once to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations. Most of the speeches today have dealt with the matter of fiscal relations. I wish to underline the reference to unemployment. It is for that purpose now, Mr. Speaker, that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding thereafter the following words:
"and should present for consideration of such conference federal proposals:
(a)	to assume complete responsibility for the welfare of the employable unemployed.
(b)	to ensure employment opportunities to all Canadians willing and able to work; and

Dominion-Provincial Conference
(c)	to reduce the burden of interest rates on new provincial and municipal borrowings".
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, when on Wednesday last I attempted to move the adjournment of the house in order to call specific attention to this matter of unemployment you reminded me, as is recorded on page 677 of Hansard, that there would be an opportunity for a general debate on Monday on a subject of the choice of the opposition. I am very pleased to note that the spokesman of the official opposition on this occasion has brought up the seriousness of unemployment and is calling for a dominion-provincial conference to discuss possible remedies for that problem.
I should like to recall to your memory, Mr. Speaker, the statements on that occasion of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) when he spoke on a point of order. He said that on the subject of unemployment the C.C.F., and these are his words, "had practically no suggestions to make." The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) went a little beyond that. He is usually not so conservative in his estimate of things as is the Minister of Public Works for whom we have very high regard in the province of British Columbia and who, as you know, did not say the C.C.F. had not offered any ideas. He said we had offered practically no ideas. However, the Prime Minister said, and these are his words as recorded on page 677 of Hansard:
-though hon. gentlemen opposite, having the opportunity to make suggestions, made none.
I think that was a very wild statement coming from the Prime Minister of Canada, because I am sure that if he will read even the speeches of some of his own members, he will find many proposals to deal with the situation known as unemployment in Canada. Certainly, in the speeches of opposition members there were many more.
It is because the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister are asking the opposition to present their program on unemployment that I mean to do so this afternoon, in exactly the same comprehensive manner as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) on January 29 last presented our program on the subject of inflation. We consider these to be the two major problems, and they should receive the serious attention of thinking people not only in this house but throughout the whole of Canada.
The unemployment situation is very serious indeed. I believe it was the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who pointed out that these people who are unemployed are actually in need, and that they are not to be regarded as merely so many numbers in

a recitation of cold statistics. We have once before in Canadian history gone through heavy unemployment, and we have seen the suffering and the misery that the people have had to endure. We have no intention of again going through a period such as that. In presenting our program I hope to present it as a program that might be presented by this federal government to a federal-provincial conference because we realize that the assistance of the provincial governments is necessary.
It will be seen that our program is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. We usually take account of past events when we make recommendations as to what should be done in the years ahead. I fully realize that the cost of our program may appear to some hon. members to be simply fantastic. However, we contend that it is not beyond the capabilities of our nation to meet this cost and we are quite prepared to tell the government how they can find the money necessary.
We would like to advise the government to cease this looking for scapegoats. It is hardly satisfactory to tell the wage earner that the farmer cannot buy the automobile he makes because the farmer has received more than he should. It is hardly satisfactory to tell the man engaged in agriculture that the industrial worker cannot buy the bacon and eggs because of these high wages. It is hardly satisfactory to blame communists for our own economic ills. It is hardly satisfactory to blame foreign competition, and I am very surprised when I see so many leading Canadians blaming the element of competition for our ills. It is hardly satisfactory to blame the type of flag we use or the type of anthem we sing for our unemployed. It will not do very much longer even to be blaming the former Liberal government for the state of unemployment in Canada. The people of Canada are not going to be misled by any kind of diversion, and they are not taking their eyes or their thoughts away from the problems that are facing us. The vision that is there, in fact, really exists in the imagination of the political propagandist whose responsibility it was to prepare the election program.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point
of order, Mr. Speaker. At the outset of his remarks the hon. member read the text of an amendment which he indicated he proposed to move and without waiting for the amendment to be read from the Chair he proceeded to debate it. In my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, he is quite out of order in so doing, because his amendment is out of order. If there is any question

about that, the amendment which the hon. member is proposing should now be read to the house so that it can be discussed because, in my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, it is manifestly out of order. I ask that it be read from the chair, Mr. Speaker.


Erhart Regier: May I say a word on the
point of order, Mr. Speaker? We had, in our opinion, cleared with the Chair as to the suitability of continuing to speak before the amendment was read. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that anything I have said or intend to say relates very directly to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex East and therefore whether or not my particular amendment is in order is completely irrelevant and the point should not be raised at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker,
further on the point of order, in the course of his remarks the hon. member did indicate that at the conclusion of his remarks he proposed to introduce an amendment to a particular effect. That is one thing. It is quite another thing for an hon. member to say, as the hon. gentleman did say at the outset of his remarks, that he was moving an amendment. The amendment has been circulated. A copy was handed to the Chair and, Mr. Speaker, that amendment is now before the house. It has not been read from the chair. I respectfully submit that it should be read, but it certainly is before the house. The fact that the hon. member's remarks may be in part relevant to the main amendment which is now before the house is no answer to the point that I am now raising. I would ask that the hon. member's amendment be now read because I respectfully wish to make a submission to the Chair that the amendment is clearly out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I can say a word on the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance. I listened most attentively to what has been said by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam up to now and I can see nothing in what he has said that is not strictly relevant to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East. I feel we should proceed in the ordinary way and wait until the hon. gentleman does move his amendment and not seek to anticipate a ruling of the Chair before the amendment is moved, because all members should have equal treatment in the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It was the
opinion of the Chair that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam expressly said that he would move an amendment. Actually, though a copy of the amendment had been received 66968-9-56
Dominion-Provincial Conference by the Chair it was not the impression of the Chair that the amendment had yet been officially presented in the house. However, since it is a fact that at the present time the amendment is being discussed or debated by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I believe it would be preferable to have the amendment read to the house. Is it the pleasure of the house that the amendment be read at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) and seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding thereafter the following words:
"and should present for consideration of such conference federal proposals:
(a)	to assume complete responsibility for the welfare of the employable unemployed;
(b)	to ensure employment opportunities to all Canadians willing and able to work; and
(c)	to reduce the burden of interest rates on new provincial and municipal borrowings.
Is it the pleasure of the house to accept the subamendment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I now wish to raise a point of order and submit to you that this amendment is clearly out of order. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment which has been under debate since yesterday afternoon is one calling for the holding of a dominion-provincial conference to discuss matters of common concern to the dominion and the provinces, and unemployment and fiscal relations were mentioned by way of illustration of what are matters of common concern.
The amendment which has just been introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam proposes to amend that amendment by adding these words:
And should-
This is a direction to the government. I continue:
And should present for consideration of such conference federal proposals:
(a)	to assume complete responsibility for the welfare of the employable unemployed;
(b)	to ensure employment opportunities to all Canadians willing and able to work; and
(c)	to reduce the burden of interest rates on new provincial and municipal borrowings.
Every one of those measures would involve the expenditure presumably of millions of dollars; every one of them. Here are three of them which my hon. friend in introducing his amendment has chosen to call the program of his party.
This is not put forward as something which the government might be invited to consider;

Dominion-Provincial Conference this is put forward on the basis of a direction from the house to the government to submit to a dominion-provincial conference proposals which would call for the expenditure of millions of dollars. Such an amendment at any time would be most manifestly out of order. The only way in which such a measure, whether it be a resolution, a bill or an amendment, could originate in this house is on a recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General and placed before the house by one of His Excellency's ministers. On that ground this resolution is completely out of order. Nothing could be more manifestly out of order than this kind of resolution which constitutes a direction by the house to the government to bring forward proposals which call for the expenditure of millions of dollars.
This is not the only ground on which this resolution is out of order, Mr. Speaker. This resolution has nothing in common with the amendment which it purports or proposes to amend. This is something entirely new: this is something not germane to the amendment now under debate in the house. I can think of other reasons why this amendment is clearly out of order, but I think the point is so plain and clear that I do not need to detain you or the house on the point. But I will refer to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Black on May 24, 1932. You will find it recorded in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, at page 710. The gist of the ruling is as follows:
A private member cannot move, on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply, an amendment to the effect that the government should proceed without delay with a certain undertaking involving an expenditure of public money.
This ruling was made on the occasion of a government motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. A private member moved an amendment but I will not attempt to read the full text of the amendment which was a very lengthy one. In effect, it sought an expression of the opinion of the house that the government ought to proceed without delay with certain steps which would have involved the expenditure of money. I quote:
Mr. Cahan raised the point of order: That the proposed resolution involved a very large and unparalleled expenditure of money by way of nationalizing the Beauharnois power project and developing and extending it, and such a resolution could be introduced only by the government, with the approval of His Excellency the Governor General, who should recommend it to the house.
Mr. Speaker Black said:
In my opinion the objection raised by the secretary of state is well taken.

I will pass over the next few sentences.
-it is not in order for a private member to move the resolution, nor would it be in order for a member of the government to move it without following well-defined procedure relating to the presentation and discussion of such resolutions, as defined by standing order 60 of this house, which further safeguards the principle by prohibiting the consideration and debate of a motion which involves any public aid or charge upon the people, even when made by a member of the government, upon the day it is made-
He then proceeds to quote section 54 of the British North America Act, quoted in Bourinot at page 406, and then gives this further quotation from Bourinot:
No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian commons receiving the authority of the crown through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money. No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer.
Mr. Speaker Black went on to say:
In my opinion this resolution if passed would be a direct order from the house to the government to do certain things which would involve an expenditure of public money. Therefore I say such resolution is not in order when moved by a private member.
That was the ruling of Mr. Speaker Black on May 24, 1932. You have before you, Mr. Speaker, a resolution of precisely the same nature that comes within precisely the same ban. This resolution now before you, in the language of Mr. Speaker Black, "if passed would be a direct order from the house to the government to do certain things which would involve an expenditure of public money." For this as well as the other reasons I have put forward I submit that this amendment is clearly out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may say a word on the point of order that has been raised I should like to deal first with the contention that the subamendment is not relevant to the amendment. The amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Essex East reads as follows:
This house is of the opinion the government should call a federal-provincial conference at once to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations.
Our subamendment reads in part as follows:
-and should present for consideration of such conference federal proposals:
(a)	to assume complete responsibility for the welfare of the employable unemployed.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant amendment to the section of the

main amendment having to do with unemployment. Subparagraph (b) of our amendment reads as follows:
(b)	to ensure employment opportunities to all Canadians willing and able to work.
Certainly that has to do with the whole question of solving unemployment. The main amendment calls for a federal-provincial conference to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations. I would suggest that within the realm of fiscal relations certainly comes the whole question of the interest policy of the government and the interest rates that must be borne by provinces and municipalities in connection with their borrowings. The fiscal policies of the government and its fiscal relations with the provinces have a very definite bearing on the question of interest rates.
I take it that the main contention of the Minister of Finance as to the validy of the subamendment is that its terminology would force the government to spend many millions of dollars. I submit that the wording of the subamendment is in the traditional form. First of all it says that "this house is of the opinion", merely expressing an abstract opinion of the house. I do not have the reference here but I can remember that a few years ago the house expressed its opinion to the government in power at the time that the subsidy on milk should be continued. This opinion was expressed unanimously by the house. The government did not comply with the expression of opinion but nonetheless the opinion was expressed.
If an amendment containing an expression of opinion is passed it does not force the government to bring in measures involving a cost of millions of dollars. If that were the case it would be farcical to debate private members' motions because almost every single private member's motion on the order paper, if it were considered by the government to be a direction to the government, would be a direction for the expenditure of money. The phraseology of such motions is in the traditional form, namely that in the opinion of the house the government should consider the advisability of doing so and so. The phrase "in the opinion of the house" is in the main amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East and in the subamendment we ask the government to present certain proposals to the conference for consideration.
In the past we have had a government present green book proposals to such a conference for consideration and one could argue that as a result of these proposals having been submitted there had been no cost to the federal treasury. I submit that having regard to the terms in which the amendment 66968-9-56i
Dominion-Provincial Conference and the subamendment together are drafted the subamendment merely asks the house to express an opinion. It asks the government to give consideration. It asks the government to present certain proposals to the conference for consideration.
I submit that in the traditional sense this in no way constitutes an expenditure of money by the house. After having given the subamendment the most careful consideration, I submit to Your Honour that it is definitely in order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my friend has resorted to a very interesting diversion. He draws attention to the usual form of resolutions introduced by private members. There are a number of them on the order paper and they follow the well established form. They begin with the words, "that in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability" of doing certain things. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that form is accepted as a proper one in connection with a resolution introduced by a private member but that is a very different thing from the kind of amendment you have before you now.
What is submitted to you here, Mr. Speaker, is not that in the opinion of the house the government should consider something but that in the opinion of the house the government should present for consideration to the dominion-provincial conference, which is an entirely different matter. This is not submitted for the consideration of the government. This is a direction to the government.
I invite the attention of the Chair to the fact that similar words were used in the amendment of May 24, 1932, which Mr. Speaker Black ruled out of order. The amendment which he ruled out of order ran thus:
Inasmuch as parliament . . . declared the Beau-harnois canal and the works appurtenant thereto to be a work for the general advantage of Canada-
Note these words, Mr. Speaker.
-it is the opinion of this house that the government should proceed without delay to determine the legality of the claim of the province of Quebec-
To do thus and so.
-and should it be determined that the ownership of such power is properly vested in the dominion then this government should submit, at the earliest possible date, the necessary legislation enabling the government to exercise the said rights of ownership to nationalize the whole project-
And so on.
And further in the opinion of this house that the government should without delay take all necessary and proper steps to determine whether or not the act passed by the legislature of Quebec . . . and the amendments thereto are ultra vires- And further in the opinion of this house a royal commission should be appointed to investigate the reasons-
876	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Conference
And so on.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment introduced today must have been drawn with some eye on the language used in the amendment of 1932 because it could scarcely be more completely on all fours with it or more completely governed by the decision made by Mr. Speaker Black on that occasion when he ruled that amendment out of order as one which would be a direct order from the house to do certain things which would involve the expenditure of public money.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I must come to the conclusion that this amendment in its present form, if passed by the house, would be an order initiated by a private member, to the government to spend public money. Consequently, since such a motion is unacceptable according to the rules and regulations, I believe that this motion in its present form is out of order and that it must be phrased differently in order to be accepted by the Chair. I therefore declare the motion to be out of order.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I have what I believe will be an acceptable amendment this time and, at the conclusion of my remarks, I intend to move to add to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex East:
-and should consider the advisability of presenting for consideration of such conference federal proposals:
And then follow (a), (b) and (c) are as they were before. I hope that amendment will at that time prove to be in order. If I may proceed from the point at which I was interrupted on the point or order, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member read the amendment again so that we can get the wording of it?


Erhart Regier: It will then read:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding thereafter the following words:
"and should consider the advisability of presenting for consideration of such conference federal proposals:"
I believe the hon. member has the rest of the amendment. We believe that on this matter of unemployment which is being proposed as one for discussion at the proposed meeting of the dominion government with the provincial governments there are a number of immediate actions that must be taken at this time. We have therefore divided our proposals into two definite and distinct sets
[Mr, Fleming (Eglinton) .1

of recommendations. We have listed proposals of immediate urgency. The first one is that the government, in view of the length of time that many people must be unemployed, should immediately make to the provinces an offer to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act in such a way as to increase the weekly benefits payable thereunder. We believe that the government should immediately offer to utilize the offices of the unemployment insurance commission across Canada in order to deal with all employable unemployed, thereby removing these people from the jurisdiction of provincial and municipal departments of social welfare. We believe that an employable unemployed person ought not to be treated in or dealt with by a social welfare department. Rather, we believe that he properly belongs in the offices of the unemployment insurance commission. The third immediate recommendation is that the unemployment insurance benefits be payable until work is again found, the cost of such expansion of benefits to be borne entirely out of federal consolidated revenue and not out of the revenues of the provinces as is the case at the present time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member were making remarks which were relevant to the main motion I would not now be rising; but his remarks are not relevant to the main motion. He is purporting now to proceed clearly to the discussion of something that is in the amendment which he has now indicated he intends to move at the conclusion of his remarks. He has not yet moved his amendment but he has already clearly indicated the amendment he proposes to introduce and he is now proceeding to discuss the terms of the amendment which he has indicated he intends to introduce at the conclusion of his remarks.
Until that amendment is introduced and is found to be in order, the hon. gentleman's remarks must be relevant to the main motion. However, they are not relevant to the main motion. The main motion is one dealing with the calling of a dominion-provincial conference. The hon. gentleman is not now discussing the calling of a dominion-provincial conference. He is talking about a program of the kind that is indicated in the (a), (b) and (c) parts of the motion which has been ruled out of order and which he now suggests to the chair he intends to introduce in modified form at the conclusion of his remarks.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct my hon. friend to make his remarks relevant to the main motion until his amendment has been introduced and has been found to be in order. Remarks such as those he is making in proposing the assumption by the federal

government of responsibility for the welfare of the employable unemployed and the assuring of employment opportunities to all who are willing and able to work are not relevant to the main motion. There are in this house hon. members who are awaiting an opportunity to speak on the subject of the calling of a dominion-provincial conference which has been under debate in this house since yesterday afternoon.


Erhart Regier: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. It seems that the minister is not anxious to hear the C.C.F. proposals with regard to the unemployment situation. May I point out that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex East calls for a federal-provincial conference at once to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations. If the minister does not want me to present any ideas that, in my opinion, the federal government ought to be presenting to such a conference on the subject of unemployment, then I do not know what is meant by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East in the first plac^. Then all other talk is irrelevant. I feel that this is just another case of being a little bit supersensitive to a little bit of reminding of election speeches and assurances that have been given.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can we discuss the point of order, Mr. Speaker, without this demagoguery?


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, oh; after a two-hour speech by the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is quite certain that the last few words by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) were completely out of order. It cannot be admitted by the Chair that those words should be used.
As to the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance, it is quite true that unemployment can be discussed during the debate on the present amendment since the amendment itself refers to problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations. However, it must be borne in mind by all members of the house that the question of relevancy is most important and that the discussion in the present debate must be directly on matters mentioned in the amendment, not on matters mentioned in the proposed subamendment which has not been proposed to or accepted by the house.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue with my advice to the government with regard to what offers it ought to make to the provinces on the subject of unemployment,
Dominion-Provincial Conference I propose that this government should also immediately offer to extend coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to include more, or if at all possible all, Canadian workers. This alone would relieve the provincial governments of considerable responsibility in looking after unemployed who have not the protection of the Unemployment Insurance Act at the present time.
I believe that the federal government should offer to the provinces to enlarge the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to give some protection to whole communities against the closing of any major industry. At the present time, the closing of Kitimat becomes, to a great extent, the responsibility of the government of British Columbia. The disaster in Nova Scotia becomes the major responsibility of the government of Nova Scotia. We have on numerous occasions, by means of resolutions, suggestions-and the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) has one on the order paper now, No. 14-called for the establishment of some type of machinery to be incorporated in the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby the provincial governments and municipalities will not have to bear the brunt whenever a major industry ceases to exist.
We recommend that the federal government should offer to extend their winter work program to May 1, and the federal government should offer to pay a larger share of the costs than they are at the present time. We recommend that the federal government should offer to re-activate the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act so as to make available low interest funds to municipalities who will participate in the winter work program.
Then-and this is, I think, maybe not of specific urgency, but certainly of immediate urgency-the federal government should offer to the provincial governments to undertake to share the cost of a major adult education and training program. Canada still urgently needs trained doctors, dentists, nurses, librarians, social workers, teachers, physical education teachers, civil servant officers, veterinarians, technicians and so on, to be trained in a program similar to that available for veterans after world war II, and to include a living allowance for these adult students while they are being trained to fill a national need. Mr. Speaker, many of these people, because of age or because of technological advances or automation, will, unless given training in some new occupation, never again be able to find useful employment. The federal government should relieve the provincial governments by recognizing the problem and undertaking to take the lead in this

Dominion-Provincial Conference regard. We believe that at this proposed conference the federal government should once again do as the federal government did in its 1945 green book proposals, that is once and for all to assume the complete cost of looking after Canada's employable unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, we have also long term solutions which we feel Ottawa should offer in its discussions with the provinces. However, we realize that that might not be possible at just one conference. Many, many conferences might be needed. Mention was made by the previous speaker of the aid that Ottawa has given in the field of highway building in his province of Nova Scotia. We feel that the federal government must offer to aid provinces and municipalities to meet their social investment capital needs. Under those capital needs of the provinces and municipalities such offers could be made as the sharing of the cost of a national highways program, rather than the present policy of sharing the cost of only one trans-Canada highway. We feel that the federal government should offer to share in the capital cost of education. This would leave the matter of curriculum to the autonomy of the provinces, and yet would go a long, long way toward relieving the burden on municipal and provincial taxpayers. We believe that Ottawa should offer to increase the present $2,000 per bed grant for building of hospitals to at least $5,000 per bed. We believe that Ottawa should offer to undertake a program to supply Canada with modern penal institutions. Some penitentiary buildings in Canada are a disgrace, and most of them leave much to be desired. We believe that the federal government should offer more aid to the provinces and municipalities for the building of houses at low interest rates, including housing for senior citizens. We believe that much greater financial assistance should be given to provincial governments to encourage the development of community provincial and federal parks and recreational facilities. We believe that Ottawa should offer to reactivate the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act so that municipal governments could get low cost long term capital for the building of sewers and waterworks.
The main solution to unemployment will, of course, be recognized by leaders on both levels of government. The main solution is to find adequate markets for Canadian production. Since the end of the war the situation in regard to markets, both overseas and at home, has been rapidly deteriorating. We believe that Ottawa could offer much to restore the purchasing power of the Canadian public. They could enlist the aid of the

provinces toward the establishment throughout Canada of a minimum wage of not less than $1.25 per hour. I am very pleased that this recommendation now has the support of one of the Conservative M.P.P.'s in the Ontario house. I understand that yesterday he recommended that the minimum wage for the province of Ontario should be $50 a week. We believe that much could be done to supply employment if there were throughout Canada, both by provincial and federal legislation, a maximum 40-hour work week for everybody. We believe that the federal government itself could, by its own actions, do much to restore markets and purchasing power by paying adequate wages to some categories of its own civil servants. In this regard, I have mail carriers particularly in mind. We believe that with the co-operation of the provinces there could be established a national pension plan so that not only those who are able to work but all Canadians could enjoy an adequate minimum purchasing power. We believe that family allowances could be raised by this government to restore their original purchasing power. We believe that this government should enlist immediately the help of provincial governments so as to establish marketing legislation at both levels of government, and take other measures so that farmers will have parity prices and will also be able to act as consumers in Canada's economic life.
The federal government should offer to the provincial governments that if they will reduce the cost of living by removing some of the direct sales taxes which are being levied the federal government in its part will do its share and remove the 10 per cent sales tax on essential commodities. Employers would expand production in Canada if they could be assured that markets were available for their products.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded toy the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding the following words:
And should consider the advisability of presenting for consideration at such a conference the following proposals:
(a)	To assume complete responsibility for the welfare of the employable unemployed.
(b)	To ensure employment opportunities for all Canadians willing and able to work, and
(c)	To reduce the burden of interest rates on new provincial and municipal borrowings.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are any copies of the amendment available for distribution?


Erhart Regier: I sent six copies of the original up, and I supplied the table with another six copies.


Mr. Speaker:: This amendment appears to be in the same form as the previous amendment with the exception of the words "consider the advisability of".


Donald Methuen Fleming: In my submission this amendment, like the previous one is out of order. It is a little difficult to follow without having a copy in one's possession, but I will do my best to follow it in the light of the comparison you have indicated with the previous resolution.
Here, the hon. member is seeking to circumvent, if I may use that word without offence, the ruling which the Deputy Speaker made a few moments ago when he was in the chair in ruling out of order an amendment similar in form which proposed to add to the amendment of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) certain words which began: "and to present for the consideration of such conference federal proposals" and so on to (a), (b) and (c)-(a), (b) and (c), all being matters involving the expenditure of public money and, indeed, of very large sums. That amendment was ruled out of order on the ground that it would have constituted a direction to the government to proceed with a matter which would involve expenditure, something which can only be initiated in the house by a minister with the recommendation of His Excellency, the Governor General. That was not the only ground of objection taken to the earlier amendment introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but it was the ground upon which the Deputy Speaker ruled that amendment out of order. He did not comment on the other grounds upon which I argued that the amendment could not be accepted.
Now the hon. gentleman has simply added four words to those he is asking to have added to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex East. The amendment asks now that the government should consider the advisability of these proposals, all of which relate to the expenditure of large sums of money.
I turn now to one of the other grounds upon which I submitted that the first amendment was out of order. Even if it be contended that the present amendment does no more than ask the government to consider a certain course, I submit that it is clearly out of order on several grounds. The first is the ground of relevancy. We have had under debate for the past 24 hours an amendment relating to the calling of a federal-provincial conference. The amendment is proposed in a form which simply seeks an expression of the opinion of the house that the government should call a federal-provincial conference at once to deal with serious problems of
Dominion-Provincial Conference common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations. The whole substance of that amendment concerns the calling of a dominion-provincial conference. What have we added here, Mr. Speaker? We have added here a whole group of proposals, far-reaching in their scope, which the hon. member says the federal government should submit to the provinces. These cover such a wide field as assumption by the federal government of complete responsibility for the welfare of the employable unemployed, ensurance of employment opportunities for all Canadians willing and able to work, and-an entirely different subject-the reduction of the burden of interest rates on new provincial and municipal borrowings. I submit that this amendment is clearly out of order on the ground of irrelevancy. This amendment is not relevant to the amendment which has been under debate for the past 24 hours.
In the second place-and this ground is not unrelated to the first ground-this amendment purports to enlarge very widely the scope of the amendment. That is not open to an hon. member of this house in relation to an amendment at any time, let alone an amendment to resolve the house into committee of supply. The rule is plainly stated in Beauchesne, fourth edition at page 171, as follows:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto. The exceptions to this rule are amendments on the question of going into supply or ways and means.
On the matter of the enlargement of the scope of the motion may I refer to page 169 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, paragraph 202, sub-paragraph (3):
Since the purpose of a sub-amendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment; if it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
The amendment now submitted so widens the scope of the main amendment as to make it quite unrecognizable. On this ground, and on others I could mention, I submit that the amendment is completely out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the minister would help me by telling me whether his contention is that the three additional subject matters mentioned, additional, that is, to the two subject matters named in the original amendment, namely unemployment and fiscal relations, are fit and proper subjects for discussion at a dominion-provincial conference,

Dominion-Provincial Conference because I think that has a bearing on whether they are relevant to the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would depend entirely on the scope of the conference. Conferences can be called for certain designated purposes. Every conference has some scope attached to it at the time of calling the conference or in relation to an agreed agenda.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I might, I should like to say a word on this point. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) sat down he said that, for this and other reasons which he did not care to go into for the moment, the subamendment was out of order. Perhaps if this amendment needs to have one or two words deleted from it the minister could advance these other undisclosed arguments which he has and which he would not allow the house to hear.
It is just about an hour since the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) rose to speak. I think if the house had dealt with the first amendment he presented, in the terms in which he presented it the business of the house would have been expedited. The question is, however, whether or not the proposed subamendment is in order. The deputy speaker in advising us that the phraseology of the first subamendment was out of order said that it would mean an expenditure of money by the federal government. This was the main reason, I think the only reason, why the Deputy Speaker felt that the subamendment, as it was originally drafted, was not in order. However, that particular omission in the subamendment has since been corrected.
In so far as relevancy is concerned, I could scarcely understand the Minister of Finance attempting to make a case that the subamendment was not relevant because it is related to the terms of the amendment presented by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). It has to do with the calling of a federal-provincial conference to deal with unemployment and fiscal relations. Certainly, any consideration of the advisability of the proposal to assume complete responsibility for the welfare of the employable unemployed is very pertinent to the whole question of unemployment. The same thing could be said of subparagraph (b), which asks for the consideration of the advisability of presenting for consideration of such conference federal proposals to ensure employment opportunities to all Canadians willing and able to work. Surely, that is very much a part of the discussion of the unemployment situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am disposed to agree with the hon. member that the amendment is relevant. It would save the time of the house if he allowed me to enquire whether or not there is any member who would like to advance different or other grounds for considering the proposed subamendment to be irregular? If not, I feel that the initial objection which was taken to the subamendment in its first form has been cured by the addition of the words which no longer make it mandatory for the government to proceed if the house adopts the amendment. All the present subamendment calls for the government to do is to consider the advisability of presenting these proposals, and if this subamendment were adopted it would leave the government free, after consideration of the advisability of presenting these proposals to a dominion-provincial conference, to come to the conclusion it should not submit these matters. There is not, therefore, necessarily an expenditure of public money involved in the amendment.
On the question of relevancy, I am relying on the reference which the minister gave me to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 202, which deals generally with these matters. It seems to me that the scope, and "scope" is the word Beauchesne uses, of the initial amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex East covers anything that would come properly within the purview of a dominion-provincial conference. The things which were mentioned in the original amendment as being desirable for consideration by such a conference were unemployment and fiscal relations. The subamendment repeats unemployment in item (b) in these words:
(b) to ensure employment opportunities to all Canadians willing and able to work;
It does not, therefore, really add anything to the initial amendment. The subamendment also proposes that two further items, (a) and (c) be considered for submission for such a conference. One of these deals with the employable unemployed which, as I understand it, has been a subject of discussion between the provinces and the dominion over the years. The final one is to reduce the burden of interest rates on new provincial and municipal borrowings. Perhaps this is less purely a matter for a dominion-provincial conference although it has certainly been involved in discussions of the relations of these two sets of governments.
In my view, the amendment is sufficiently relevant to allow it to go to a vote. Is the house ready for the question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say a word by way of seeking clarification of the very

painstaking ruling Your Honour has just made. The resolution before us, of course, as the Minister of Finance pointed out earlier, is in substantially different form. We are not being called upon by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) by this amendment to do any of these things or indeed to decide whether or not these things should be done. If I understood what Your Honour said, all we are being asked to do is to say that the house is of the opinion that it should consider the advisability of presenting for the consideration of such conference, such federal proposals as are related to (a) (b) and (c). I would assume that was the gist of the ruling which Your Honour has just given, and just before I exercise my right to vote on the matter I would be grateful if Your Honour, by a quick acknowledgement, would indicate whether or not I have properly interpreted what you said.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot act as adviser to the hon. member for Essex East. I have given a ruling that the amendment appears to me to be in order. It is open to any member of the house to interpret it as he wishes. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: It is a little difficult to hear down in this corner, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes we cannot hear everything that is going on up there and this causes us some hesitation.
This amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is one which would always give rise to a very good debate in the house. Anything that has to do with federal-provincial relations is of very great interest to all members of parliament. It is also of interest to all members of provincial legislatures and municipal councils and to anyone who has anything to do with government.
When the hon. member for Essex East commenced his address he mentioned that under our constitution we are a federation of states. Our form of government, of necessity, does call for a certain amount of discussion between the various levels of government. I think we would all agree with him on that but I would also like to mention that I think the type of government we have in this country is a form of partnership. When it was first considered we had four provinces in what was called Upper and Lower Canada and we had the maritime provinces. I should like to say to hon. members that it was not those who were governing the maritime provinces who came up here seeking to join with the provinces of Upper Canada. As the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) said this afternoon, it was those in Upper Canada who
Dominion-Provincial Conference came down seeking union, or the consideration of union, with us. I believe it was a great move on their part and I am glad that union took place, but in that union we created a partnership under which one part of Canada undertook to help other parts of Canada. Not only did we undertake that in that partnership but we undertook the duty to protect the freedoms, the rights and the traditions of each of the two great nations of this country.
In discussing this question of federal-provincial relations we must keep that before us at all times. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said last night, it has been the policy of the Conservative party and also the policy of the original Liberal party that went into confederation that at no time would the constitution-if you wish to call it that-or the partnership be changed unless there was thorough discussion arid agreement among the provinces involved.
The question that the amendment brings before us, if I may paraphrase it, is that we in the house are to decide that there be a federal-provincial conference called at this time. I think that is the question put to us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Right.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I listened attentively to and I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. member for Essex East. From his point of view I think he presented very strong arguments. As I read it over I came to realize that he put forth the position that we should have a federal-provincial conference called at once, not next week, but at once. He went on to cite quotations from members who formed the opposition a few years ago, some of whom are in the government today and some of whom are not, to indicate that at that time the government of that day could call a conference at once. They were pressed to call a conference at once and therefore the government today could call a conference at once.
I then looked for the reasons why this conference should be called at once and I found that, as far as I could see them spelled out in the very interesting outline, there were three outstanding reasons he gave. The first one was a constitutional amendment. I am not going to take issue with him on that; I am not going to take issue with him on the principle of constitutional amendments. If constitutional amendments are necessary, then I believe a conference should be called before any amendments are undertaken. Is there any great rush to call a conference to amend the constitution? I do not think any have been cited. I do not know of any great rush. I see no reason to stop the
882	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Conference business of this house or of any provincial legislature for that purpose. There are no constitutional issues before us and I see no reason to call a conference between the provincial and federal administrators for that purpose.
The second point the hon. member raised quite clearly was that of human rights. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) answered that point quite well today in answering questions on the orders of the day. I think he very well answered the argument there. I wondered what the hon. member for Essex East expected to attain by asking for the calling of a conference of the federal and provincial governments on the question of human rights. I cannot see anything to be gained. Would it be possible that there might be a political motive behind such an item as this? I would hope not. Nevertheless, as J have said, I have read the hon. member's speech. I cannot find the particular quotation I would like to use but if I am wrong in what I say I know the hon. member will correct me. In effect he said that a few years ago the government of which he was then a minister undertook to call a conference to consider amendments to the constitution or did call one for that purpose, and it was not successful. Of course, he tried to flatter the Prime Minister and this government by saying that we were much more friendly with the provinces that objected at that time, and that may be true. But I do not believe that we have travelled far enough along the road yet to change the opinions of the gentlemen concerned. I do not blame them. I believe that we must guard-we do believe it down east and they believe it in the province of Quebec-the constitution very carefully, and it must be considered very carefully before we undertake to bring in amendments. But suppose all that the hon. member says were true. What is the great rush?
With respect to human rights, I can see no great rush for calling a federal-provincial conference in order to enlighten us on a question we are going to have to vote on if the bill of rights comes before the house. There may be differences of opinion but I am satisfied that hon. members will have the right to vote and as they see fit on the bill of rights according to their consciences. I think it is something that should not be considered until the bill is placed before us and we can see whether there have been any amendments. I do not see any reason for it there.
The third one is unemployment. I think that is quite a legitimate reason because according to the figures unemployment is a very serious problem in the country today.


We have heard about it ever since parliament opened and we are in no position to do anything but admit that it is bad. In fact, unemployment is bad if there are two men in the country out of work who want work.
I was listening to the radio the other morning and heard a report of something that unfortunately is not isolated. I do not know whether the report was true but it came from Smiths Falls, Ontario. I do not know whether it is a small town or a large one but that town or city had arranged for some work under the winter program. They went to the unemployment insurance office to get men to do the work and the report that came over the radio was-if it is wrong I should like to have it denied-that they could not obtain anyone to carry on that work. No one listed as wanting work with the unemployment insurance office would go to work. The officials of the town had to go out into the country and hire people there. It may be that they got men in the country who where out of work. It may be that they got men from the country who were glad to work. As a matter of fact, the constituency in which I live is rural and you can always get a man if you want a job done. As a rule he is willing to work but he is not looking for work in the wintertime, and that is just about the situation.
I know that that might be an excuse for calling a conference but I listened to the Minister of Finance last night and I believe the hon. member for Essex East requested an answer. There have been conferences between the provinces and the federal government concerning unemployment. Apparently the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government have been getting together. They have devised a program, are carrying it out and everything is being done that could be done if we had a conference. So, Mr. Speaker, I think any weight in that request has been taken away.
I think the hon. member for Essex East brought this matter forward quite legitimately. It was a good thing to bring forward. It was a good thing that the government had a chance to explain what has been done. I do not suppose he knew what was going on. You cannot blame him for that and I do not because I think he presented his case in a wonderful way. At the same time, I think that the Minister of Finance answered his arguments in a better way.
May I also say that I have a lot of confidence in the provincial premiers and the members of the legislatures. It seems to me that we spend a lot of time in the house arguing, debating and saying what we should

do for the provinces. I wonder whether we are not wasting a great deal of time. Under our constitution the provincial legislatures have full control of the subject matters allotted to them under the British North America Act. The people elect their representatives to those legislatures. In doing so they must have confidence in them and if they have confidence in these men I am sure I have. Frankly, I am prepared to leave it to the men charged with the responsibility of dealing with provincial affairs to look after their own business. I think they are quite capable of doing so and in my opinion we have plenty to do in the federal field if we attend to our own business.
In my view we waste a terrible amount of time. I know that some hon. members may say that when I was sitting in the opposition I did so too but I have learned something in the few years I have been here. I really think we waste considerable time so I am prepared to leave the problems of the provinces and the problems of the municipalities, which come under the authority of the provincial governments, to the men in charge of the provinces until such time as the provinces come to us and say that they cannot cope with their problems.
I think that this debate has wandered far afield. An amendment was presented before I began to speak, and although I did not hear the ruling I believe it was ruled in order and we will have to vote on it. Regardless of how it was worded it did seem to indicate what some members belonging to the C.C.F. party are thinking. I do not know whether or not they all agree on this point but it looked to me like they were taking advantage of the opportunity to place their social program on the record through the back door. If the federal government said to the provincial governments, if the provincial governments said to the municipalities or if the municipalities said to their school boards, "we will assume all responsibility, we will hire your teachers, we will raise their salaries, we will build the schools, we will buy the buses, we will transport the children to school, we will build gymnasiums for them to play in and it will not cost you anything", human nature being what it is can you imagine anybody on a county or town council turning down such an offer? I do not think so. I have had a lot of experience on county councils. Neither would the provinces turn down such an offer. As the Minister of Finance said, if we invite them here and offer them all these things we may as well make up our minds right now that they are going to take them. Why should they not do so? We will be responsible for raising the money and raising money, as every member knows, means taking it from
Dominion-Provincial Conference the people. I do not believe in turning out money by machine. There is only one way by which to get the money to do the things mentioned in the subamendment and that is by raising taxes.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at 6 o'clock I was discussing generally the necessity for the calling of a federal-provincial conference. I had tried to look for the reasons for it and I was trying to make the point that I had grave doubts that good reasons for it had been advanced in the argument supporting the amendment. As I said, I trust that provincial members will look after their own affairs fairly well. As far as I know, that is so. I can only speak more or less for the east or at least for my own province; I should confine it to that.
Not knowing that I was going to be discussing this issue and not knowing that this issue was going to be up for consideration, a few days ago I had the privilege of meeting and having a long chat with one of the cabinet ministers in my own province. They seem to be quite happy down there in view of the fact that for a number of years, ever since the war the premiers of the maritime provinces have been pressing for certain rights or what they felt were rights. They were asking for special grants at each one of those conferences. In 1952 the tax rental agreement was renewed and improved. They appreciated that action. In 1955, when the matter came up again for discussion, they pressed their case again. It is interesting to note that politics was not a part of that program as far as the maritime premiers were concerned. At that time there were Premier Hicks of Nova Scotia, Premier Matheson of Prince Edward Island, both good strong supporters of the federal government at that time, and Premier Flemming. I do not need to take much of the time of the house but I think it is worth while to refer shortly to what each of them had to say. I am referring to the proceedings of the federal-provincial conference of 1955, dated October 3, 1955. I am going to quote Premier Hicks first. These remarks will be found at page 43. The premiers were pressing their claim. They had been pressing it previously. Here is what he said:
It is now evident that the relative capacity of the different provinces to provide even a minimum
884	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Conference
standard of services cannot be determined byreference to population figures alone. If, therefore, population does not provide a satisfactory yardstick to measure the extent to which a province should share in the general tax revenues of Canada, what yardstick can be applied? I suggest that any formula which might be devised should take into consideration not only the population of the province but also its tax potential.
He then goes on to support that proposition by a strong argument. As I said this afternoon, the maritimes came into this union or into this partnership and it was recognized at that time that they must have something to compensate them in view of the revenues that they were giving up, the location they were giving up, because at that time their trading area was not east and west-it was not west as far as we were concerned

their trading area was north and south. That was recognized by confederation.
I should also like to mention what Premier Flemming said because, again, they were asking for the same thing. He said this:
However, experience has indicated that the tax rental agreements do not go far enough to meet the needs of low-income provinces in that they are largely based upon a per capita plan of compensation. We are firmly convinced that these provinces should receive a national adjustment grant to compensate them for their lack of taxable capacity in respect of those sources of revenue remaining to them.
As hon. members know, at the time of confederation there was taken away from these provinces the right of indirect taxation, so to speak. If they wanted to raise taxes they were obliged to do it directly. As all hon. members know, that is the type of tax that seems to hurt the worst, is the hardest to collect and therefore is the most unpopular. After quoting some parts of the Rowell-Sirois report, something which I am not going to do, he ends up by saying this:
The government of New Brunswick urges with all the force at its command that, in addition to the tax rental agreements, there should be adjustment grants to the low-income provinces, and we submit herewith a formula, based on relative per capita personal income which would, we consider, accomplish this purpose in a simple and equitable manner. The formula is as follows:
1. Determine the average amount in dollars by which the per capita personal income of each province falls short of 85 per cent of the capita personal income of Canada for the latest three years for which this information is available.
And so on. I am not going to go into that matter now because I have not the necessary time. I think hon. members are familiar with the formula. Premier Matheson backed him up. I just want to read a word or two of what he said. It is all in the report and there is no need of my taking up the time of the house unduly. Premier Matheson said this:
In 1946 we accepted the tax-rental agreement offer, not because it represented some recognition 

of fiscal need but with a hope that during the lifetime of that agreement a more satisfactory formula would be devised. In 1952 the federal government proposed a new guaranteed minimum payment based on the one allotted to a province under the 1947 agreement with an increase proportionate to change in provincial population and per capita gross national product between 1942 and 1948.
No recognition of a province's fiscal need problem or its tax-raising ability was taken into consideration in the re-allocation or distribution of the tax moneys-
I think that is generally conceded. At the end of the conference the maritime premiers went home feeling that they had not been given the consideration which they should have had.
I can speak for my own province. In 1957, after that conference of 1956, and after the legislation was brought down in this house permitting the payments which the federal government said they could make and apparently could not go any further, here is what the provincial secretary treasurer of the province of New Brunswick said in presenting his budget in 1957. First of all he quoted the New Year's message from the premier of New Brunswick:
The goal of your government since 1952 has been to do everything possible to narrow the economic gap which has existed for so long between this province and some of the wealthier provinces.
One of the avenues by which this "narrowing of the gap" could be done, we believed, was through the medium of a national adjustment grant to supplement the new tax rental agreement. Our proposal was that this adjustment grant go to provinces whose per capita income was below 85 per cent of the national average.
And he goes on:
Failure by the federal authorities to recognize this principle of a national adjustment grant is, we believe, a shocking disregard of the problems faced by the poorer provinces.
That was the feeling after the 1956 conference, and after the legislation went through. That was the feeling which existed in the maritime provinces. So are you very much surprised that the election which followed showed Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia coming back here practically unanimously for this government?
Then a conference was called. There is no need to go into the argument whether or not it should have been called or as to when it should have been called, or whether it was called as quickly as the Liberals think it should have been called. The fact is that a conference was called after the election in June at the earliest date which the government could arrange, and the matter of a month or two does not make much difference in the affairs of a nation. Those premiers came back, although Premier Hicks had been discarded by Nova Scotia and in his place came a new premier. Nevertheless, the new

Division
premier put forward the same case that Premier Hicks had, and he quoted Premier Hicks in some of his presentations. The result of that conference was that the present government listened to those premiers, and in the communique which was issued as a result of that conference, as a result of the attitude of the present federal government there was a conviction all across this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 8.15 o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (d) of Standing Order 56, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?


George James McIlraith: No.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a very few minutes of the time of the house to present a grievance which I think deserves the attention of the government in the immediate future. I, therefore, take advantage of the first opportunity to present it as a grievance. The subject I wish to speak about has to do with the development of the national capital plan and the national capital commission.
Hon. members will recall that since 1899 the federal parliament has seen fit to legislate on this subject and has provided, in one form or another, for a commission to deal with the development and beautification of the capital of the country. The history of that development is rather interesting, but I promise the house I will not take the time to develop it here tonight. The first act setting up the Ottawa improvement commission was brought forward in 1899 by the government headed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Succeeding

governments from that day to this have tried to carry on the plan to meet the needs of the times and have, I think it is fair to say, done so in a way that has met with the general approval of all parties in the house. There may at times have been minor differences, but I think that has been the approach to the problem.
It will be recalled that the work was continued under the government of Sir Robert Borden which followed. Then in 1927, as changing circumstances required, the Ottawa improvement commission was changed to the federal district commission. The legislation was amended and developed. In 1946 further changes were made enlarging the commission. Then at the last session of parliament the name of the commission charged with the responsibility of developing the national capital was changed to the national capital commission. That legislation had been proposed by the former government and was adopted and brought forward by the present government and enacted at the last session.
By the very nature of the work of developing the national capital and particularly by reason of the fact that jurisdiction over real estate resides in the provinces and through them to a limited extent in their statutory creations, the municipalities, it is necessary that the work be done in full co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. With all the difficulties inherent in the problem a high degree of cooperation has been developed over the years and fair success achieved in the field of co-operation.
One of the big contributing factors to that co-operation was the knowledge the municipal bodies particularly affected gained through the membership their representatives had on the commission, and in particular is that true of the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull. It is a matter of history that the mayors of Ottawa and Hull were on the commission by virtue of a clause permitting the corporations to make those appointments. When the new commission was appointed some few days ago the representatives of these two corporations and of the two large townships on the Ontario side were omitted. None of them was appointed.
Not only were they omitted but the appointments were made and announced in a way that can only lead to a loss of co-operation between the bodies concerned with the national capital development. Instead of the announcement being made in the House of Commons with the appropriate explanation as to the reason, if any, for not appointing the mayors of the two cities and any other ap-
National Capital Plan
propriate municipal officials, it was made through the newspapers without any explanation whatever. The launching of the national capital commission in this way only means that the new commission, which I am sure everyone in the house wishes well, is being handicapped. I am sure it is the hope of everyone in the house that their work will be successful over the years ahead.
I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) to consider this matter carefully, to do what he can to rectify the situation and take advantage of the first available opportunity to correct the damage done. The situation of the mayor of the national capital itself having to read in the newspapers that his services are dispensed with is not a happy one when it is necessary that the federal government and the mayor of the national capital must co-operate with respect to so many of the plans of the commission.
The same thing is true of the situation concerning the mayor of the adjacent city of Hull. Indeed, it is also true, as I think the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) will agree, with respect to the reeves of the townships of Nepean and Gloucester. I do not want to belabour the subject unduly but I feel that I would almost be justified in using the word "clumsiness" to describe the manner in which the matter was handled. I ask the Prime Minister to rectify the situation at the earliest possible opportunity, to explain at least why the extraordinary action he took was taken and to take any other appropriate measures to bring about the degree of co-operation required so that the national capital can be developed in the way that I am sure members of all parties represented in parliament wish it to be developed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker I do not wish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Hull wish to speak on the same matter?


Alexis Pierre Caron: The same matter. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Mcllraith), I feel it is my duty to tell the house something of the views of the people who live on the Quebec side of the national capital. We all know that, originally, the idea behind the setting up of a national capital was, above all, to set up something patterned after the district of Columbia. I know that Sir Wilfrid Laurier often referred to "the Washington of the North" and that Mr. Mackenzie King, for some time, was of the opinion that we should make of our capital a district similar to that of Columbia.

National Capital Plan
We also know that Mr. Greber proved to him, beyond all doubts, that the district of Columbia, U.S.A., had been a complete failure.
When a district is being set up on the pattern of the district of Columbia, the commission responsible for its administration has to make decisions that can involve considerable expenditures. The commission then pays half the cost, but the other half falls upon the shoulders of the people, with the result that taxes go up considerably.
That is one of the reasons which impel us to ask the national capital commission to include among its members representatives of the municipal councils of Hull and Ottawa, those obviously most directly concerned.
At present, mayors from outside localities are sitting on the commission. It also includes an alderman from the city of Aylmer. I agree that they were not appointed as such, but they none the less represent their municipalities while the mayors of Hull and Ottawa were completely ignored. The commission has serious decisions to make, and those decisions might often be such as to hamper certain municipal projects. I shall give but one example. In the past, one of the main purposes of the federal district commission was the removal of the Eddy plants from the city of Hull. It was claimed at the time that it was a disgrace to see paper plants surrounded by woodpiles just across the river from parliament hill. There were even offers made to this firm, and they were objected to by the representatives of the municipalities in the federal district commission. We are all for beautification, esthetics, as I have said before and as I repeat now, but we are first and foremost for letting people keep their livelihood. Many such problems can arise, and I know of no one who is more interested in preventing such situations from developing than the representatives of the municipalities on the commission.
We all know also that the commission meets in camera and that its decisions are made known by means of press releases issued by the chairman. A press conference enables the chairman to say what he sees fit; he does not have to report everything that is discussed. Therefore, the municipalities have no way of knowing what goes on and so anything can happen within the commission without the municipalities being aware of them.
It is therefore necessary that municipalities be represented on the commission. They were in fact represented under the previous act, and they were not represented by the mayors of Ottawa or Hull but by people appointed

by the municipal councils concerned. In each case the municipal councils appointed their mayor to represent them on the federal district commission. The mayors were thus able to look after the interests of their respective municipalities. Far from enjoying the same privilege under the new act, the municipalities of Hull and Ottawa lost their representation on the commission.
The former act provided for the appointment of representatives for the city of Hull; there was also a representative for the district of Hull, the last of whom was Mrs. Fontaine, and before that, Mr. J. Wilfrid Ste. Marie, barrister.
This means that we then had two representatives on the commission. Besides, there were on the national capital planning committee an alderman from the city of Hull and an alderman or a controller from the city of Ottawa. Under the old act, we had three representatives. Now, the city of Hull, which is enormously interested, has only one representative, Mr. Aime Guertin. I have confidence in Mr. Guertin and I would say nothing to disparage him. He has proved in the past that he was of sufficiently independent mind to stand up to all those who would try to contradict his views. I do not say that I have always agreed with Mr. Guertin on federal district matters, but I do say that he will be a worthy representative of the city of Hull. However, Mr. Guertin is not on the municipal council; he will represent the city of Hull in general, but he cannot represent the interests of the municipality, as could be done by the mayor or a member of the municipal council.
And again, why were not the mayors appointed to the commission? Many reasons have been given, including the matter of efficiency.
According to Le Droit of January 26 last, the mayors of Hull and Ottawa made strong protests against this change in the provisions. Here is what Mr. Nelms said:
I still wonder what could be the reason for the federal government's decision stated Mr. Nelms. The mayor of Hull, like the mayor of Ottawa, has always played a leading role on the F.D.C. There are so many problems that require solution at federal and at municipal levels.
When I know mayor Moncion's views and when I get additional information, I shall make a statement to the press, probably at the meeting of the board of control tomorrow afternoon.
For the time being, I wish, as mayor of the capital city of Canada, to express my painful surprise. If any two men are in a position to help the federal agency are they not the mayors of Hull and Ottawa?

This morning, the office of the Prime Minister stated that the omission of mayors of Ottawa and Hull from membership in the new National Capital Commission was due to a practical reason.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what is that practical reason? Did the representatives of those cities do anything in the past that could hinder the progress of the national capital plan? I do not believe so.
When I was mayor of the city of Hull, 1 had the opportunity to sit on the commission and I realized, while we were there, that the federal district commission has enjoyed the fullest co-operation from the municipal authorities on both sides of the river. Nevertheless, the mayors of Hull and Ottawa are now being removed from this agency without any explanation. Could it be that a few backward persons still entertain the idea of developing a national capital along the lines of the district of Columbia? If so, they can be assured that this will never happen, and we, on both sides of the river will fight it tooth and nail, as we intend to retain our autonomy and independence, and we have no intention of knuckling down to a small group who are seeking to create jobs for themselves in the national capital.
(Text):


Richard Albert Bell: Don't be so silly.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not know what the hon. member for Carleton calls silly, but I know that he has changed his mind since he has been sitting with the Conservative party in the government. Previously he criticized the federal district commission with regard to the green belt and with regard to everything. But since he has been over there on the government side he has praised the commission for everything they have done in the past and he is willing to praise the commission for anything they will do in the future because he is sitting with the government.


Richard Albert Bell: And he is still one of the most outspoken members of this house on national capital matters.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: In spite of the opinions of the member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), which can change according to circumstances, because they are those of a blind partisan, I say that possibly there are still some people who intend to develop a national capital patterned after the district of Columbia, but we will keep opposing such a project. I do not claim that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-
National Capital Plan
baker) is in favour of such a project, no. But the Prime Minister is not eternal. There have been other prime ministers in the past who favoured such a project; so I claim that we must put all the weight of our opinion against such a project, and the best way to protect ourselves against those who share that view is to have representatives for Hull and for Ottawa.
Besides, the Prime Minister could remedy the situation; first of all, there are other appointments to be made. He could also simply amend the act, in such a way to provide that each year both the Ottawa and Hull municipal councils could appoint one of their representatives to the national capital commission, in order that the municipal interests of both cities be well protected.
The problems to be faced will be numerous. There is the matter of water pollution, which could be very costly, not to mention the problems of sewers from upper Aylmer to beyond the Gatineau.
So then, if the commission is given a free rein, we might very well be forced to shoulder the burden of heavier taxes. And yet, heaven knows that the people of our municipalities are sufficiently burdened with taxes. According to the Citizen, it has been stated by some one that the reason why the mayors of Hull and Ottawa were ignored was the fact that there had been some discontent in regard to Miss Whitton's attitude, when she was mayoress of Ottawa, and that it was claimed she had caused the commission to waste its time.
Well, even if it were true, so-and I admit she caused the commission to waste a few hours-she was nonetheless the representative of the city of Ottawa, delegated by the city council, and therefore represented the views of the people of Ottawa, and, as such, was entitled to some respect. In any event, the way things look now, it is unlikely that she will return as mayoress of Ottawa, and therefore there is no danger on that score.
Mayor Nelms and mayor Moncion, were competent representatives who gave their best to the national capital and at the same time to the people of the municipalities they represented. That is why I feel the Prime Minister made a mistake in failing to appoint the representatives of Hull and Ottawa. As was stated by the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), I hope he will reconsider and correct the monumental mistake he committed in ignoring the municipalities of Hull and Ottawa.

National Capital Plan
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) wish to speak on the same subject?
(Translation):


Mr. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temiscamingue):: I do not claim to be privy to all that concerns the make-up of the national capital commission. However, after hearing the speeches of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and of my colleague, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), I must rise to make a few remarks on this controversy about the appointment of the mayors of Hull and Ottawa on this commission.
It has been said there might be practical objections, and indeed I can quite clearly see the nature of those objections. I have no wish at all to deny the qualifications of the mayor of Ottawa, Mr. Nelms, or of the mayor of Hull, Mr. Moncion, to sit on this commission. Both are well known, and, in this regard, I join with my colleague, the member for Hull, in praising their high abilities. Yet there is a well-known judicial principle under which a person having some interest in a particular problem should not be a member of a commission responsible for making decisions on the problem. In other words, a judge who might be interested in a dispute must disclaim competence, just as a company director who personally stands to profit from a decision of the board of directors must refrain from voting.
As the member for Hull has just said, there will be many cases where there might be a conflict of interests between the national capital commission and the cities of Hull or Ottawa. As things stand, the mayor of Ottawa or the mayor of Hull can certainly be more outspoken in expressing the views and interests of their electors and municipalities, because they will not have, as we say, to sit on the fence, since neither is a member of the commission.
For that particular reason, I believe it was very wise not to appoint the mayors of these two cities on the commission. On the other hand, another point was raised which should be considered and it is this: as the country expands, the people of Canada consider Ottawa, the capital, as something that belongs to the country as a whole. An effort is being made to get rid of the idea that Ottawa and Hull together are the capital. Nothing prevents the mayors of those cities from making representations to the commission, as was done in the past by the mayors of other municipalities. Therefore when these people have to deal with the cities of Ottawa

and Hull they will be able to do so freely while the representatives of those two cities will be in a much better position to express their opinion.
All in all, I think that the decision is a wise one.
Reference was made to the representative of the Quebec side of the national capital, Mr. Guertin. I am happy to associate with my colleague the hon. member for Hull in praising the high efficiency of this member. Yet I must say that there is also on that commission another member representing the western part of the province, Mr. Nelson Morin, of Aylmer, whose ability is also well known and who will no doubt be able to speak on behalf of the important section of western Quebec, part of which is situated in the constituency of Pontiac, which is part of the national capital.
It could be that some day certain industries like the E. B. Eddy Company might have to move out of Hull. That will certainly happen only in a more or less distant future. Nevertheless I would like to take this opportunity, in case a relocation of that industry was ever decided, to invite the directors to come and set up their plant in my constituency of Pontiac which is not that far away and which provides a great part of the natural resources used by that company.
All in all, I believe that the members of that commission have been quite wisely chosen. This was not meant to reflect at all on the qualities of the prominent citizens who have been elected to run the affairs of Hull and Ottawa. I believe though that the taxpayers of these two cities have chosen these people to look after their interests but not in the hope that they would be appointed on the national capital commission. If they restrict their energy to the welfare of the citizens of these two important cities, they will certainly be in a position to realize the dreams which the member for Hull (Mr. Caron) might entertain for the future. In fact I believe that if it was ever considered to replace the present administration of the cities of Hull and Ottawa by a federal district like that of Washington in the United States, for example, then the mayors of those two cities would no doubt be in a better position to fight such a plan since they would be uncommitted to the commission, having only to look after the interests of those under their authority.

(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) wish to speak on the same subject?
(Translation):


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset of my remarks, I must say I disagree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau). Rather do I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron). Like them, I find it strange that the government, in appointing the new members of the national capital commission, should have by-passed the mayors of Hull and Ottawa. The development of the national capital includes the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull, as well as an area around those two cities, of which the constituency of Gatineau, which I have the honour to represent, forms a large part. In view of the fact that the cities of Ottawa and Hull have no official delegates on this commission, the latter is deprived of the services and advice which those men would be in a position to provide.
As regards the appointment of Mr. Morin, of Aylmer, to represent the municipalities adjacent to Hull, in the province of Quebec, I feel the choice is sound. Mr. Morin is fully qualified to properly represent that part of the province of Quebec comprised in the national capital development plan. However, it is strange that the recommendations made by the municipal councils, and more especially by the union of the chambers of commerce of western Quebec, to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), concerning the appointment of Dr. Matte, to represent that part of the province of Quebec on the commission, should have been ignored.
If I have expressed regret that the government has not appointed the mayors of Ottawa and Hull, nor Dr. Matte, I cannot but approve, on the other hand, the attitude taken by the government in regard to the establishment of a green belt around the national capital. I know that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) does not share my views on this matter. I also know that the new representative of Hull, Mr. Guertin, has never shared my views on the proposed green belt. However, I share the opinion of the government that a limit should be set once and for all to the area covered by the city of Ottawa, or by the national capital. And I commend the government for its policy of expropriating the land required to develop a green belt around the city of Ottawa. This is of benefit not only to the city of Ottawa, but to all of Canada, since the responsibility of the govern-
National Capital Plan
ment in this field will thus be limited. Without this limitation, the Canadian government would have to spend tremendous amounts for developing and beautifying the capital city, whereas with a green belt its expenses will be limited to that part of the capital city that is included in the green belt.
I am pleased to note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has increased the grants for improving the national capital.
May I add that the government and the national capital commission should take steps to complete the development of Gatineau park in the near future. It can be said, Mr. Speaker, that Gatineau park will be the only national park in the province of Quebec. For my constituency and for the constituency of my hon. friend from Pontiac-Temiscamingue, as well as for the constituencies of the western part of the province of Quebec, Gatineau park will be a great tourist attraction.
Mr. Speaker, once this park is completely developed, the Canadian government travel bureau can invite American as well as Canadian tourists to visit it, and they will find everything they can hope for: hunting, fishing, scenery and natural beauty.
Those who want to indulge in their favourite sports of hunting or fishing, will find in the park employees who can give them information, and say to them for example: Hunting is not allowed in the park, and fishing is restricted. Move on to Gatineau, to Pontiac or the Lievre, and there you will find everything you want to suit your interests.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will permit me to interrupt him, may I say that he may be enjoying himself in describing the beauties of the Gatineau park but he seems to have departed from the grievance which was mentioned by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). There are other members who have grievances on which they wish to speak, and I invite the hon. member to return to the subject if he has not finished.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to say a great deal at this time, but I support the contention that at the present time at least there should be a nominee of both the city of Hull and the city of Ottawa on the national capital commission. The commission which was named is entirely new; only the chairman, Mr. Kennedy, who has, of course, to serve for only two more years, has had any experience of the operations of the commission. The

Little Valley Railway-Passenger Service mayors of the cities of Ottawa and Hull, Mr. Moncion and Mr. Nelms, or their representatives, have this experience and the knowledge which would help the other members of the commission.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that it will not be easy to transact the business of the commission without the help of nominees from these two cities. After all, decisions of the commission involve great expenditure on the part of both cities. At the present time, particularly, when we are talking of spending between $35 million and $40 million to solve the problem of water pollution; when we are talking about bridges, a matter which involves expenditure by the city of Ottawa; and when we are talking about the Queensway which involves huge sums of money, I think the councils should be represented on the national capital commission.
In the light of past experience I think there is little fear of undue influence being asserted by any one member of the commission, even if that member should be the mayor of the capital city.



KETTLE VALLEY RAILWAY


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am as successful in ringing as a big bell with my grievance as the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) was when he was speaking. I might explain that some hon. members may consider me to be somewhat repetitious in stating this grievance and they may have a dim recollection that I have mentioned the matter in the past. I am presenting this grievance because it is based on sound grounds and the protests of my constituents and because I have been asked to raise the matter in this house on every appropriate occasion.
My grievance concerns the completely inadequate passenger train service on the Kettle Valley railway and the lack of adequate facilities. As I said before I have mentioned this on other occasions but it is a serious matter to those persons who live along the Kettle Valley railway which runs from Hope in British Columbia to Lethbridge in Alberta. This grievance was the result of the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway in October 1957 which prior to that time ran a passenger train with sleeping and dining cars and adequate day coaches. When the company changed this service it substituted a Budd car and the service now provides no sleeper or cafe car. The action on the part of the company was seriously resented by the people who live along that railway. Later there were further reasons for complaint because of a reduction in the

schedules on which this Budd car ran owing, as the C.P.R. explained, to some temporary unfortunate local circumstances in my and adjoining constituencies. These did prove to be temporary because the difficulties have not been experienced for some months now.
I do hope I get the sympathy of the house in this connection. Here is a district in which live about 100,000 people who are affected by this change in service, an area which has an annual production of over $200 million in the forest industry, in manufacturing, in smelters and in agriculture. This populous and highly productive area is now forced to depend on the uncertain and unpleasant service of a Budd car which runs every other day or so and which provides no sleeping accommodation or cafe car.
Protests with regard to this matter have been well organized. All the municipalities have protested this present service by resolutions, by briefs and by their representatives meeting with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) when he was in the Kootenay district during the last election trying his level best to make certain that I would not return to this house. All the unions and the chambers of commerce have protested the present .arrangement and in speaking on this question I represent the views of all political parties in my constituency and I am sure all those in the adjoining constituencies.
The people in this area are not asking for expensive service. It is important to remember that the Kettle Valley railway is one of the most profitable sections of the C.P.R. because it hauls the ore of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company from Kimberley to Trail-thousands of tons daily- and it hauls thousands of tons of the products of consolidated mining to coastal points, or south to points in the United States, or to prairie and eastern Canadian points. As a result of this large tonnage the C.P.R. is able to operate this section of the railway at a profit but it has reduced the passenger service. It is interesting to remember that the service has been reduced in the area which produces the majority of the profits that the C.P.R. enjoys at the present time because the C.P.R. owns 51 per cent of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
As I said before, the people in this area seek only to be provided with a Budd car, sleeping accommodation and a cafe car so that the aged will have some reasonable comfort, the sick may be attended to and the people travelling with children may do so in decency and with a measure of comfort.
At the present time freight trains are running regularly along the line hauling

Requested Program for Lobster Fisherman
thousands of tons of ore, manufactured goods, fertilizers, chemicals and things of that sort. We in the area appreciate that the cost of patrols are heavy. There are patrols on the railway and lights on bridges in order to protect the raildoad against possible bombings and other forms of aggression.
I should now like to outline why the provision of this service is of particular importance to our district. The railway service is important the year round but it is particularly vital during the winter months. Owing to the nature of that part of the country planes often fail to land at some of the inland airports such as Castlegar. They are not allowed to land if the clouds lie below the tops of the mountains and therefore this winter, day after day, Canadian Pacific Air Lines planes have been unable to land at Castlegar. There has been no transportation into that district, no airmail, no opportunity to get the sick to the coast in a hurry or to fly out accident victims and others in need of medical care. This passenger service is essential at all times but particularly during the winter months.
The C.P.R. will say that the traffic has greatly decreased in recent years and so it has particularly since the Budd car has been put on the line. There is no reason why anyone would choose to travel in discomfort if they could arrange to travel in any other way. Those who travel from Vancouver to Fernie are faced with the prospect of sitting up in a day coach for 36 or 40 hours existing on dry sandwiches and lukewarm coffee. That is not proper in this present age. Because of the existing service the former somewhat limited traffic has been reduced. I am informed by representatives of municipalities, chambers of commerce and other organizations that if this train service were improved and operated daily with a Budd car plus a sleeping car and a cafe car there would be a great increase in the patronage of this train.
I am speaking only briefly at this time because I know many other hon. members have grievances to bring to the attention of the house. As I said, I have raised this grievance before and I promised my constituents that I would continue to mention it until this disgraceful state of affairs has been remedied. I urge the minister to do all he can as a step in the right direction toward calling a meeting between the officials of the company, representatives of the employees and representatives of people in the district to find out exactly what they wish so that the company will realize that the requests of the people in the area are reasonable and modest. They are not asking for something
that is going to cost the company a great deal of extra expense. As a result of this get-together on the part of the various groups concerned they should be able to devise and arrange for a satisfactory service. Because of the extra costs of patrolling the tracks and the provision of lights there may be some consideration given in those discussions to assisting the company to cover the cost which would be relatively small compared to the operation of the railroad in toto between the points I have mentioned.
I bring this to the attention of the house at this time and seek the support of hon. members from all parties who may come from British Columbia to get this most unfortunate and unnecessary imposition on the people of the southern interior remedied as soon as possible.



REQUEST FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR LOBSTER FISHERMEN

Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the house the subject of which is altogether different from the subjects of the grievances which have been discussed this evening. On many occasions since becoming a member of this house I have brought to the attention of the Department of Fisheries the unfortunate situation that exists with respect to illegal lobster fishing in the Atlantic provinces.
While speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I touched on this subject. On that occasion I mentioned that I was taking no exception to a certain statement made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) to the effect that he and his department would prosecute-to use the minister's own words- "as vigorously as the law requires anyone catching or canning lobsters illegally." On that occasion I also mentioned that it would be advisable for the department to spend more time on and to pay more attention to the education of the fishermen and more particularly of the lobster fishermen.
I realize that on the last occasion when I brought this subject before the house my remarks were misunderstood. I am not taking the part of the poachers. I am not one of those members who has been after the minister or his department every time that a poacher in my constituency was caught or arrested for breaking the lobster fishery regulations. But I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Fisheries should give some consideration to the education of the lobster fishermen. I have placed this request before the department at every session since 1953. If the department would realize that by establishing a system of education for the
894	HOUSE OF
Requested Program, for Lobster Fisherman fishermen, by showing them that when they destroy small lobsters or berried lobsters they are working against their own interests, I am convinced that the activities of the protection branch of the department in so far as preventing illegal lobster fishing is concerned would be much more effective.
A program should be instituted through public meetings, through the showing of films, through the public schools in the area where lobster fishing operations take place. When I brought this point to the attention of the house during the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I mentioned that there was a danger for the department and for the officers of the department in using the methods which they are using at this time. In saying this, Mr. Speaker, I am not casting any reflection whatsoever on the inspector of fisheries or on the different protection officers who have to enforce the lobster fishing regulations. These men receive instructions from the department and they carry out those instructions to the best of their ability. I know it is a difficult job for the fisheries inspector, for the captain and the crew of a patrol boat to be exposed at all hours of the day-some of them are working at times even 24 hours a day-and carry out the instructions which they have received from the department or from their superior officers.
If the department would realize once and for all that what is needed is a good, well-prepared educational program I am positive that the work of the officers and the department would be much easier and they would get much better results than they are getting now.
Again, I want to emphasize that I have great respect and admiration for those officers of the Department of Fisheries, and particularly for those who are engaged in the enforcement of the fishery regulations. I know that just recently certain officials of the department in the maritime provinces gave certain information to the newspapers which was directly in reply to the remarks which I had made in this house during the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They said that the Department of Fisheries had done everything possible to try to educate the lobster fishermen. They mentioned that meetings had been held; that pamphlets had been circulated; that films had been prepared; that even the help of the clergy had been requested in certain areas. Mr. Speaker, I want to state that the activities of the Department of Fisheries in this field have been limited and too limited to produce any satisfactory results.
[Mr. Robichaud.l

I remember that in 1954 or 1955 the officials of the department did hold a few public meetings in the province of New Brunswick in the counties of Kent and Northumberland and in my own constituency of Gloucester. But why did the department not carry on with this program? Why did they not keep on with those meetings? Why did they stop this educational program which they had started, because when they were carrying on this program they were on the right track? Just a few meetings had been held and I realize that the results may not have been within expectations.
I suggest that if the Department of Fisheries feels that it does not have the personnel -and I fully realize the fisheries officers, whether of the inspection or protection branch, may not be the right type of men to institute and to put into practice this educational program-the officials of the Department of Fisheries know and the minister knows that we have in the Atlantic provinces at St. Francis Xavier University what we call the adult education branch and we have a similar plan operating from Sacred Heart University in my own constituency. I have good reason to believe that the extension department of St. Francis Xavier University and the adult education branch of Sacred Heart University would be prepared to accept the challenge of the Department of Fisheries. They would be prepared to take this matter in hand and carry on with this program for the education of the lobster fishermen. They would be prepared to hold meetings in the different centres where lobster fishing is carried on; they would be prepared to meet with the fishermen; they would be prepared to convince them through education that when they are committing offences against the lobster fishery regulations they are working against their own good.
After all, those regulations have been enacted after a careful study by scientists and others of the life of the lobster. We know that in the Atlantic provinces we have different lobster seasons; we have different size limits and those regulations, those size limits and those lobster seasons are there to protect the lobster population. If the department is sincere, and I know it is, I know it wants to do away with this illegal practice, I feel that it would be in the best interests of all concerned to give serious consideration to the establishment of an educational program which would take care of the situation.
Just a few days ago a question of mine on the order paper concerning the lobster fisheries of the maritime provinces was answered. I asked what was the total number of convictions for infractions of the lobster fishery

regulations in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island for the years ended March 31, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958. The reply I received indicates that in 1954, for example, there were 69 convictions in New Brunswick, 150 in Nova Scotia and 215 in Prince Edward Island, and this, Mr. Speaker, in spite of rumours which are circulating that New Brunswick fishermen are the worst offenders. The figures for the years 1955 to 1958 are almost in the same relative proportions.
In order to secure these convictions the fisheries officers have to be on the job, and again I sympathize with them. I sympathize with a man who has to brave storms and rough seas in order to patrol the shoreline and try to carry out his duties. But now that the Minister of Fisheries is in his seat I want to make it clear again that I take no exception to the statement he made last fall and has repeated since that it is the intention of the minister and the department to prosecute as vigorously as the law requires anyone catching or canning lobster illegally. I sympathize with the minister and his officers because I know what these men are up against and I want to make it clear that it is the duty of the department to see that the law is enforced to the limit.
But I would appreciate it, and I know that those interested in the lobster fishing industry would also appreciate it, if the minister would give consideration to an educational program, and when I say "consideration" I mean serious consideration. I feel that if the department could be convinced that it should establish such a program the whole problem would be much easier for the department. Such a program would produce results.
The figures to which I have referred show that since 1954 the situation is getting worse and worse every year. I understand that in the last two seasons the fishing was poor and the fishermen were up against it and had to find a way of getting additional money to provide for their families, but just the same that is no excuse for fishermen to break the law. The law is there for a reason; for the protection of the industry.
Before resuming my seat I ask the minister once again to give this request very serious consideration, and once again I want to make it clear that at no time have I approached the minister or his officials to ask them to protect those who were breaking the law.



SUGGESTED CHANGE IN METHOD OF VOTING

Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise at this time
House of Commons
because I realize that the house is anxious to get on with the vote. However, after watching us spend approximately three-quarters of an hour on standing votes accompanied by the very excellent feat of memory of the second clerk assistant I feel impelled to suggest that in the age of electronics the house should perhaps give consideration to the introduction of an electronic voting system such as is used in the United States at present whereby each member could record his vote by pressing a button and the result would be available in approximately 30 seconds.
I make this suggestion, because in one of the assemblies in the United States having approximately 254 members they are able to make an estimated saving of some 100 hours. In my opinion the time of hon. members is relatively valuable and when we spend almost one hour out of two of an evening sitting in standing up and having our names called I believe I am justified in taking a couple of minutes to suggest that such an electronic machine might merit the consideration of the house.


William McLean Hamilton: That is an electrifying suggestion.
(Translation):



ABSENCE OF MINISTER FROM MEETING OF EMPLOYEES

["Order. It being ten o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (f) of standing order 56, to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith the question on the motion now before the house.\nMotion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the Chair.\nThe estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:\nDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch-\n1.\tDepartmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $747,531.\nDEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 48. Departmental administration, $774,401."]
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I call the attention of the house on a new grievance arising from a fairly recent incident, since it occurred last Sunday. We all know that we have trouble trying to settle the C.B.C. French network producers strike. Before the strike went on, we all regretted that the government had done nothing to seek an agreement or to conduct negotiations in order to prevent it.
Last Sunday, 2,000 letter carriers and postal employees, many of whom came from major centres of the country, met in Montreal. Newspapers have also announced that another large meeting called for the same purposes had been held in Winnipeg. I understand that the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) has said this afternoon that he had been invited to the meeting, but due to a previous appointment, was unable to attend. I do not know where he went, but there is no doubt that the invitation he had accepted was more important and was more directly related to his department than the one he received from the mail carriers. Anyway, we know that the Postmaster General, despite the invitation he had received, was

Business of the House not able to attend that meeting which seemed important, since more than 2,000 mail carriers attended it in Montreal. During this meeting, postal employees complained about the way they were treated, about their salaries, about their working hours, as well as about the way in which examinations are conducted.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Azellus Denis: Well, I will take this up again some other time.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (f) of standing order 56, to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith the question on the motion now before the house.
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 AGRICULTURE Administration branch-
1.	Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $747,531.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 48. Departmental administration, $774,401.



[Stage Direction]
Department and missions abroad-
76. Departmental administration, $6,319,803.
[Stage Direction]
Administration services-
186. Departmental administration, $697,289.
[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
254. General administration, $4,317,418.
[Stage Direction]
448. Departmental administration, $2,437,352.
Proceedings reported.

William Moore Benidickson: Being inexperienced in this respect, Mr. Speaker, I was out of order previously. May I now ask the house leader whether he can confirm that the order of business for tomorrow will be as announced on Friday last and whether he can say what will be taken up on Friday following the housing resolution.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall commence with the supplementary estimates. Then when they are finished we shall take the resolutions on housing, the Trans-Canada Highway Act, the Northwest Territories Act, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, the National Defence Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I hope we can get all this business through by six o'clock. Probably we shall have the same order on Friday. We may move tomorrow to refer the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters and the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


William Moore Benidickson: Had the house leader discussed either of those two motions with the house leader for the official opposition?


Howard Charles Green: Not in detail, Mr. Speaker. If there is any objection to our making that motion tomorrow, we will defer it.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	According to the records of the board of transport commissioners, what is the total number of rail-highway (including streets) crossings within the limits of (a) the city of Ottawa: (b) the county of Carleton, excluding the city of Ottawa?
2.	Of these, in (a) the city of Ottawa; (b) the county of Carleton, excluding the city of Ottawa, how many are (i) level crossings; (ii) rail crossings elevated over the highway; (iii) highway crossings elevated over the railway?
3.	Of the level crossings in (a) the city of Ottawa; (b) the county of Carleton, excluding the city of Ottawa, how many have protective devices? Classify according to type the number of protective devices existing?
4.	How many of these protective devices have been installed since the year 1935?
5.	Of the elevated crossings in (a) the city of Ottawa; (b) the county of Carleton, excluding the city of Ottawa, how many have been constructed since the year 1935?
6.	Where is each such elevated crossing so constructed since 1935 located; when was each constructed and at what cost; among whom was the cost of each divided and in what shares or amounts;
7.	Since the year 1935, in (a) the city of Ottawa;
(b)	the county of Carleton, excluding the city of Ottawa, how many level crossings have been abandoned (i) through removal of the railway; (ii) closing of the highway or street by a municipal or other authority?
8.	Are there any pending applications before the board of transport commissioners for (i) installation of protective devices; (ii) for construction of elevated crossings (a) in the city of Ottawa; (b) in the county of Carleton, excluding the city of Ottawa?
9.	If so, to what crossings do such applications relate and how is it anticipated each will be dealt with by the board?
10.	How many level crossings are there between a railway and a driveway, parkway or other road maintained by the federal district commission (a) in the city of Ottawa; (b) in the national capital area within Ontario, excluding the city of Ottawa;
(c)	in the national capital area within Quebec?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
1.	(a) City of Ottawa	 109
(b) County of Carleton	 123
2.	(a) City of Ottawa
(i)	Level crossings	
90(ii)	Subways	
7(iii)	Overhead bridges	
12
(b) County of Carleton
(i)	Level crossings	
113(ii)	Subways	
9(iii)	Overhead bridges	
1
Questions
3.	(a) City of Ottawa	 30
Wig-wags and bell	 6
Flashers and bell	 16
Bell	 1
Manual flagging	 4
Gates, manually operated		3
(b)	County of Carleton	 9
Wig-wags and bell	 2
Flashers and bell	 7
4.	21.
5.	(a) 3, (b) 1.
6.	Overhead bridge on Metcalfe road, in lot 2, con. 3, Rideau front, city of Ottawa, Ont. Project was authorized by board's order No. 77732 dated November 14, 1951 without grant from the railway grade crossing fund and actual cost of construction is unknown. All costs of construction were borne by the federal district commission.
Overhead bridge on Russell road, in lot 1, con. 6, Rideau front, in the city of Ottawa, Ont. Project was authorized by board's order No. 77731 dated November 14, 1951 without grant from the railway grade crossing fund and actual cost of construction is unknown. All costs of construction were borne by the federal district commission.
Overhead bridge over the Canadian National Railways east of the Rideau canal (known as Mackenzie King bridge) in the city of Ottawa, Ont. Project was authorized by board's order No. 74349 dated April 25, 1950 without grant from the railway grade crossing fund and actual cost of construction is unknown. All costs of construction were borne by the federal district commission.
Overhead bridge over the Canadian Pacific Railway in lot 2, con. 10, township of Goulburn, Ont., mile 22.57 Carleton Place subdivision. Project was authorized by board's order No. 85161 dated December 13, 1954 without grant from the railway grade crossing fund and actual cost of construction is unknown. All costs of construction were borne by the department of highway of
Ontario.
7.	(a) (i) City of Ottawa	 20
(b) (i) County of Carleton	 4
(a)	(ii) No information
(b)	(ii) No information
8.	(i) City of Ottawa	 Nil
County of Carleton	Nil
(ii) City of Ottawa	Nil
County of Carleton	 Nil
9.	See answer to No. 8.
10.	(a) 2, (b) Nil, (c) 1.
898

Questions


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Argue: 1.	What sections of the trans-Canada highway have been completed in each province?
2. What was the total cost of the completed sections of the trans-Canada highway in each province?
3.	What was the federal contribution towards the total cost of the completed sections in each province?
4.	What mileage in each province remains to be completed?
5.	What percentage of the total mileage in each province is this?
6.	Of this, what mileage in each province is now under construction?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1. The mileage paved on the trans-Canada highway in each province is as follows:
Paved under	Paved prior to
Province	T.C.H. agreement December 10,1949	TotalNewfoundland	
34	17	51Prince Edward Island	
70	-	70Nova Scotia	
26	195	221New Brunswick	
94	232	326Ontario	
535	443	978Manitoba	
289	4	293Saskatchewan	
406	-	406Alberta	
276	-	276British Columbia	
291	67	358TOTAL	
2,021	958	2,9792 and 3.-The shareable cost of work	will only become available when the province	submission of claims up to March 15, 1961.	has submitted all claims	covering cost of	The total estimated cost of	work approvedconstruction of the highway. The trans-	to	date and payments made	by Canada onCanada highway agreements provide for the	account thereof is as follows:	Estimated Cost	Estimated Amount	Payments byProvince	of Work Approved	of Canada's Share	CanadaNewfoundland 	. $ 30,555,179.80	$ 18,880,828.47	$ 11,822,580.89Prince Edward Island ...	. 8,477,741.02	5,348,733.62	3,807,646.67Nova Scotia 	. 18,596,567.20	13,243,283.60	5,921,098.41New Brunswick 	. 38,381,047.28	26,656,367.00	17,991,470.91Ontario 	. 151,521,471.94	88,436,310.95	47,321,930.26Manitoba 	. 31,357,921.15	17,308,438.82	13,818,684.49Saskatchewan 	. 27,759,207.27	15,864,748.65	15,219,691.13Alberta 	. 35,487,930.14	20,832,455.47	18,517,644.44British Columbia 	. 118,255,668.69	70,014,872.54	48,804,215.73TOTAL 	. $460,392,734.49	$276,586,039.12	$183,224,962.93Mileage to be	Percentage of4. Province	completed	Mileage to beNewfoundland 	
503	5. Province	completedPrince Edward Island	
1	Newfoundland 	
91Nova Scotia 	
90	Prince Edward Island ..	
1New Brunswick	
64	Nova Scotia	
28Ontario 	
458	New Brunswick	
1616	Ontario 	
32Saskatchewan 	Manitoba 	
5
6	Saskatchewan 	Rrit.ish Columbia . .. .	
210	
2Total 	
1,348	British Columbia	
37
Mileage Now under
6. Province	Construction
Newfoundland	 332
Prince Edward Island		1
Nova Scotia	 90
New Brunswick	 64
Ontario	 310
Manitoba	 16
Saskatchewan	 -
Alberta	 2
British Columbia	 179
Total	 994


RAILWAY CROSSING SIGNALS, ST. JEAN, QUE.
Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Has a resolution been received from the city of St. Jean, Quebec, asking for the installation of signs or signals at certain railway crossings within the city limits?
2.	If so, on what date and what points were referred to in the resolution?
Questions
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	No.
2.	See answer No. 1.


FERRY SERVICE, MOHR'S LANDING  QUYON, QUE.
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Have any amounts been expended on improvements to the ferry service between Mohr's Landing and Quyon, Quebec, during the present and each of the past two fiscal years?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the improvements which have been made, and what amount was expended for each?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	The nature of the improvements and the amounts expended are as follows:
Location	Year Nature of Work	Amounts ExpendedMohr's	Landing	1956-57	Construction of wharf.... $9,866.081957-	58	Construction of adjustable	ramp.	.	2,117.37Timber sheet piling in front of wharf	
2,783.961958- 59	To complete driving of piles_______	730.89to date	To complete adjustable ramp . .	838.92
Installation of light on landing
head	 346.95
Quyon,	Quebec	1956-57	Construction of wharf	
5,145.981957-58	Construction of adjustable	ramp.	.	1,649.18
Installation of light on landing
head	 259.75
Wharf repairs	 2,377.00
LOBSTER REGULATIONS, ATLANTIC	New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward
PROVINCES___FINES	Island, for the years ending March 31, 1954, 1955,
1956, 1957 and 1958?

Question No. 104-Mr. Robichaud:
What was the total amount of fines collected from Answer by. Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister convictions against lobster fishery regulations in of Fisheries):
Year Ending Mar. 31, 1954 Mar. 31, 1955 Mar. 31, 1956 Mar. 31, 1957 Mar. 31, 1958


N.B. $ 1,616.00 1.669.00 1.835.00 3.023.00 1.893.00 N.S. $ 1,990.00 2.977.00 3.295.00 3.496.00 4,017.50 P.E.I. $ 2,849.00 3.637.00 1.248.00 1.288.00 1,898.00
[Stage Direction]
Total $ 6,455.00
8.283.00
6.378.00
7.807.00 7,808.50
$10,036.00	$15,775.50	$10,920.00

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 11, 1959