1959-06-08

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-55, to amend the Representation Act.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Explain.


Erik Nielsen: The purpose of this bill is to correct a wrong that has been of long standing in Canada, that is to provide to Canadian citizens living in the area described in the bill the right to vote in federal elections, a right which would affect some 8,000 to
10,000	qualified citizens in the area concerned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, now that he has had an opportunity of reading the judgment of the exchequer court concerning the expropriation of land for Malton airport, he has any further statement to make on this matter at the present time.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minisier):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Leader of the Opposition asked this question:
I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question based on reports of a judgment rendered yesterday by the exchequer court with regard to property valuation at Malton airport. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to make a statement concerning the matter covered by this judgment, in which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) are mentioned?
In the course of my reply I said, amongst other things:
However, I think I should say at this time that in so far as any reference to any hon. member in this house is concerned, and in particular to the hon. member for Peel, the integrity and honesty of purpose of that hon. member leaves no question in my mind.
I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the support he gave me in this regard when he said:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In view of statements made in the judgment- and I am not quarrelling in any way with what the Prime Minister has said-has the Prime Minister considered referring this matter to the appropriate standing committee of the house so that it may be given the fullest and most impartial examination?
I repeat that I very much appreciated the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition in entirely supporting me when I said that the honesty and integrity of the hon. member left no question in my mind.
In conformity with the answer I gave, I have read carefully the judgment of the exchequer court and I have also had an opportunity of discussing the matter fully with the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Peel. On the basis of those discussions and studies the opinion I expressed on Friday is fully confirmed. There is nothing which brings into question the integrity and honesty of the hon. member for Peel, and in so far as the minister is concerned there is, of course, no reference whatsoever throughout the entire judgment which in any way to the slightest degree suggests any impropriety.
I feel I should give some particulars regarding the suggestion that this matter might be referred to a committee. According to the judgment, which I have before me, the matters in question having to do with the valuation of land in the Malton area had their origin in the expropriation proceedings of 1954. During the period from 1954 until June 10, 1957, the hon. member for Peel acted in the capacity of solicitor with regard to this matter for some 14 or 15 veterans in that area who felt that justice was not being done to them in the offers made by the department in respect of the land expropriated.
From June, 1957-and I want to underline this-following the change of government the hon. member for Peel thereafter ceased to have any connection with the legal end, disassociating himself from that position. His endeavours were to secure what he believed to be justice for these particular constituents and veterans. It was not until January, 1959, of course, that the hon. member became chief government whip.
I carefully considered the position on the basis of an examination of that judgment and also in the light of past authorities in

Inquiries oj the Ministry respect of the submission to a committee of matters such as these concerning the privileges of any hon. member of parliament, and I found no case in which any such submission to a committee was ever provided for except where it had been alleged that there was on the part of an hon. member improper conduct resulting in his personal gain. Of that there is not one scintilla of evidence in the judgment or elsewhere as far as the hon. member for Peel is concerned.
I think I should refer to the authorities so the record will be complete in this regard. I say, first, that on the basis of the experience of the past and of the traditions of this house, all the cases referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections since 1867 had to do with alleged improper conduct whereby a member allegedly had used his public position in order to further his private interest. Those cases go back to 1877. In 1877 there was the case of a newspaper owned by Hon. T. W. Anglin, M.P. which became a party to a contract with the Post Office Department concerning the insertion of advertisements relating to the public service. However, parliament having been prorogued no action was taken by the house.
In 1890 J. C. Rykert, M.P., was charged and found guilty of having used his influence to get for one John Adams a grant of certain timber limits. This was brought before the committee and Rykert resigned his seat, having been found guilty.
In 1891 charges were brought against Hon. Thomas McGreevy, member of parliament and member of the Quebec harbours commission in connection with tenders and contracts. The committee found a conspiracy between the contractors and the member in question. A contracting firm had taken the member's brother as partner and given him an interest in the firm in order to obtain a contract. McGreevy resigned his seat.
There was the case in 1915 in which A. deW. Foster, M.P., was found by the public accounts committee to have acted as a purchasing agent for the government in the purchase of certain requirements for the army. That committee reported to the house, recommending thorough investigation and action by the Department of Justice. Before such action was taken, A. deW. Foster resigned his seat. There were four other cases of a similar nature in which the action taken resulted in the charges against the member being rejected.
That in general summarizes the situation under which the rights of parliament are subject to that jealous scrutiny which at all times must be maintained. In every case

there was moral wrongdoing or the achievement of personal gain. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances and reinforced by the objective attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition when he confirmed me in the general statement I made during the course of my remarks on Friday, there is nothing to be placed before any committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's reply and particularly in view of his reference to myself perhaps I might be permitted to make an observation. It is quite true, as the Prime Minister has said, that I stated in the house on Friday that I had no quarrel with what the Prime Minister said on that occasion. Of course I would have no occasion either to quarrel with or support any statement the Prime Minister made on that occasion, because it was a preliminary statement pending the examination which at that time he promised to make.
Naturally I am glad to confirm what I said on that preliminary occasion. We on this side will now study the Prime Minister's very important statement today. If that statement seems to require further discussion in the house no doubt there will be an opportunity later to refer to it.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not agree from a study of the judgment-and I had not an opportunity of making that study last Friday-that there are contradictions between statements in this judgment about a member of parliament and statements made outside the house on the same matter by the same hon. member, contradictions which in fairness to all concerned should be cleared up?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know of no contradictions such as are suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. I may say a committee is not set up for the purpose of resolving contradictions. The circumstances under which a committee is set up are very clearly shown to be based upon a charge or charges made by a member of this house. All of us know what happens when charges are made. If charges are made, the house has the opportunity of determining whether they should be submitted to a committee. And if any hon. member makes a charge he, of course, has to substantiate that charge, and if he fails to substantiate the charge the parliamentary tradition, indeed all the experience of the past, indicates that such a member having made a charge unconfirmed

and unsupported may be himself adjudged guilty of a breach of the privileges of the house.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when prime minister, in the House of Commons debates of 1907, at page 5664 of Hansard, with all his regard for the traditions of parliament and the necessity of their maintenance inviolate, made this statement that is most pertinent and applicable:
The house, I hope will not depart from the sound traditions which have come to us from England and according to which there could be no inquisition into any man's conduct or standing except on charges made specifically.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In connection with the expropriation of properties at Malton airport, did the member for Peel recommend to the minister the appointment of an independent appraiser?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister give any assurance to the hon. member for Peel that he would recommend to treasury board settlement of the various expropriation cases on the basis of the appraisals made by the independent valuator?


George Harris Hees: I assured the hon. member that the appraisals made by Mr. Clare would be presented to treasury board for their examination.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, now, Mr. Speaker, in view of what was said by the president of the exchequer court in the case, would it not be desirable for the minister also to make a statement concerning this whole matter?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter has been very clearly set out by the presiding judge in his judgment and, being a distinguished lawyer himself, I do not think the hon. member for Laurier would ask me to comment on the judgment of the court.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he can report anything new to the house on the Polymer strike at Sarnia.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I said last week that Mr. Taylor, the mediator who was appointed, was away because of a commitment made previous to
66968-9-280
Inquiries of the Ministry his appointment. He has arrived back and is in Sarnia. Talks between both parties and Mr. Taylor will be resumed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I
ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is substantially the reply given by the Minister of Labour to me the other day. In view of the fact that this strike has been under way now for many weeks, and in view of the fact that the families of the strikers are experiencing much hardship, does the Minister of Labour not think the situation is one that now warrants vigorous intervention on his part?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the circumstances involved and the suffering and the hardships. The vigorous action to which the hon. member refers has been undertaken through the appointment of our mediator, who is a very capable man. The onus and the responsibility rest to a great degree on both parties concerned, as to their willingness to negotiate and arrive at a settlement.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of conflicting press reports, one report stating that the Prime Minister had announced at Prince Albert that a Canadian satellite would be launched in 1961, and other reports attributing to certain defence research officials that the satellite would merely be a United States satellite with certain Canadian instruments attached to it. Can the Prime Minister tell the house just what is involved, and if this is to be in fact a Canadian satellite or merely a United States satellite to be launched from a Canadian base?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as my statement at Prince Albert is concerned, it was in keeping with a joint announcement made in the month of April by Canada and the United States in connection with joint rocket vehicle and satellite experiments. I also dealt with the matter on another occasion.
In order to keep the record straight may I say that in so far as my remarks are concerned, and I repeat that they were in keeping with what had already been said on previous occasions, the background of the program is as follows. Canadian scientists

Inquiries of the Ministry are of the opinion that work on space research has now passed beyond the stage of hurling a satellite into space. They believe there is valuable scientific data on the properties of space that can be collected, analysed and considered.
Some time ago the defence research board and the defence research telecommunications establishment approached the appropriate United States authorities with proposals for a co-operative program of development in this field. In view of the fact that Canadian scientific personnel have the ability to make their contribution to the world's pool of knowledge in this field, we believe that Canadian technicians and scientists should be given that opportunity. They have proven themselves outstanding in conception, design and craftsmanship in the production of fine electronics components.
In so far as a satellite is concerned, the United States already has expensive and complex bases for launching earth satellites. It will be a considerable time, if ever, before it will be economic for Canada to establish her own satellite launching base. We do not believe that Canadian scientists should be held back on that account, and intend to give every possible encouragement to them to pursue this program and add to the collective pool of knowledge which can be turned to peaceful pursuits.
The purpose of launching satellites, as I have said, has now passed into the field of collecting valuable scientific data. The Canadian defence research telecommunications establishment at Shirley's bay is fully qualified to participate. When the satellite has finally been completed at D.R.T.E. it will be launched into a north-south polar orbit crossing the United States and Canada from the Vandenberg air force base in California, utilizing the multimillion dollar facilities I have already mentioned which are available there.
I mentioned that the launching would take place in 1961. I see some reference to the fact that this date has not been finally determined. The information I have received now is that it will not be launched earlier than 1961. With those explanations I think the hon. gentleman will understand the situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say how many Canadian technicians will be involved in this joint project, and whether the establishment of production facilities will result in substantial employment for Canadians? Will he also comment on the report in the press that Premier Frost has said that Moosonee is to be the launching site?


John George Diefenbaker: I realize the obvious interest hon. gentlemen opposite have in the statements made by Premier Frost, but I have nothing to say with regard thereto. The general plans at the moment are that the launching will take place in the manner I have indicated. I am unable to give the hon. gentleman the details as to the numbers engaged, but I can say this. Canadians are engaged and are making a worth-while contribution to this highly desirable objective.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, will he explain exactly what he meant-and I quote from the text of his statement-when he said on Saturday "a Canadian satellite is to be launched in 1961"?


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what I meant, namely a Canadian satellite. I would call a Canadian satellite one in which the instrumentation is supplied by Canada. After all, the instrumentation is the operative part of any satellite.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Press reports give the impression that the Department of Fisheries has prohibited fishermen from taking gaspereau in the North river, Prince Edward Island. Are these reports correct?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been some misunderstanding here. Regulations which have been in existence for over 20 years prohibit the seining of gaspereau in river mouths and confined spaces because this method would allow the extermination of a run. In conformity with the regulations, fishermen who are operating in this way have been prevented from doing so further, but they are free to catch gaspereau in this area up to the causeway in the North river by the gill netting method, which allows a sufficient escapement to permit the run to continue to exist.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL    SUGGESTED PRIORITIES FOR CANADIAN SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the congestion and still further delays on the Welland canal,

and the charge made recently that Canadian ships are being discriminated against, is the minister giving consideration to the establishment of a system of priorities in the light of what has happened in the last few days?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to assure the hon. member and other members of the house that the congestion at the Welland canal has now been, for all practical purposes, overcome. At nine o'clock this morning there were only four vessels waiting to enter the canal upbound at Port Weller and only four waiting to enter down-bound at Port Colborne.
As I have said on several occasions in this house, about three weeks ago I instituted a system of partial priorities by which vessels carrying bulk commodities would alternate with package freighters. This system of priorities was discussed in my office during a session lasting about one and one half hours with the presidents of several large Canadian shipping companies and the president of the Steel Company of Canada. At the conclusion of that meeting all were eminently satisfied with the system of priorities worked out. I hope the hon. member and other members of the house feel that the steps that were taken at that time have been successful. I sincerely hope, as I know he does, that the Welland canal will be able to continue to operate satisfactorily in the future without too much delay.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement and also of the proposed visit of a convoy of United States naval ships, 32 in number, which will enter the seaway on June 26 or thereabouts, does the minister not think it desirable in the circumstances that this convoy of ships be allowed to remain in Montreal for several days rather than to go up the seaway and add to the congestion?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member might ask this question and I therefore came prepared. I am referring now to the statement by certain people that this United States flotilla might cause a delay of three days.
I would say that this is an exaggerated statement. I may say that the number of naval ships involved is 27, not 32. If the 27 naval ships were to present themselves up-bound over a period when the canal would have been otherwise fully engaged in transiting commercial vessels, the delay would possibly be the best part of two days. I am informed that the plans of the United States navy contemplate passage of 27 ships between June 23 and June 28 inclusive.
66968-9-280i
Inquiries of the Ministry It is not possible at this date to estimate accurately the result in delay to commercial vessels if this number of naval vessels have to be passed through in addition to the commercial traffic. At present the canal is handling both upbound and downbound traffic without appreciable delays; and as I have said, at nine o'clock this morning there were only four vessels awaiting entry at Port Colborne and four at Port Weller. This is considered to be a normal situation. However, a sudden influx of naval vessels, in addition to the regular flow of commercial vessels, could quickly restore the congestion we have just overcome.
I can assure the house that steps have been taken to bring to the attention of United States authorities the serious effect on United States, Canadian and other commercial shipping which could result from the passage of this considerable number of naval vessels. I have suggested to the United States authorities that the number of vessels might be reduced without reducing the effectiveness of the display, and that the ships which do pass through the canal do so at the rate of no more than two per day in order that the least possible delay be caused to commercial shipping. I have been assured that serious; consideration is being given to my representations, and I expect an answer from the United States authorities in the course of the next few days.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether any Bomarc bases are at present under construction in Canada.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, a start has been made on the construction of a Bomarc station near North Bay.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister comment on the report of a statement he made in Winnipeg, I think it was, that no final decision has yet been made with regard to the use of the Bomarc?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement in Winnipeg. I was asked whether, if the United States tests on the Bomarc proved that the weapon was not effective, would Canada go on with the development of that weapon. I explained that the whole development of the Bomarc is being carried

Inquiries of the Ministry out by the United States and that if the tests proved this weapon to be ineffective, of course Canada would not go on with the development by herself. To tell the truth I thought it was a rather foolish question, until I remembered that under the previous administration development of the Sparrow was carried on after the United States found that it was ineffective.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister not agree that it might be wise to postpone expenditure on bases of this kind until the Americans have made up their minds whether or not they are going to use the weapon?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a wise precaution to be ready to receive this weapon as soon as it is made available by the United States authorities.
ILater:1


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize for pressing my curiosity about the Bomarc, but could the minister give us the earliest approximate date upon which the Bomarc "B" could be made available to the R.C.A.F.?


George Randolph Pearkes: My understanding is that it will be in 1961.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister give us the approximate time it takes to construct a Bomarc base?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it is about 18 months to two years.
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State? According to press reports of some months ago, indeed several months ago, work was to go ahead on the building of a base for the Bomarc missile in the Macaza area. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether this work has begun? If so, how many men are employed on the project?


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Minister of National Defence and, therefore, I am not in possession of this information.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question. My question arises out of a statement made by the Secretary of State, when he was not Minister of National Defence. He stated at the time-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: If the first question was directed to the wrong minister, it seems to


me that a supplementary to the same minister would be out of order.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? Could the minister tell us if work has started on the establishment of a Bomarc missile base in the Macaza area? If so, how many people are employed on the project?
(Text):


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the area around Mont Laurier is one of the areas in northern Quebec which is under consideration for a second Bomarc station.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has an agreement been signed between the federal government and the government of the province of New Brunswick in connection with Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Roy McWilliam: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister advise the house as to the cause of this delay?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been going on for some time, and it is contemplated that an agreement will be signed between the federal government and that of the province of New Brunswick in a very short time.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: I wish to
direct a question to the Postmaster General. May I say that we are glad that he is back home after a week's absence. I am informed that he went out west to do some work for his department.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Azellus Denis: I am also informed that he was to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Azellus Denis: The question will come in a minute. I understand that he was to investigate the possibility of establishing twice a day mail delivery. Is this information well founded; and if not, why?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: I should like to direct a question
to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the hon. lady be in a position today to table the contract with Dimensional Investments Limited respecting the Chippewa Indian lands?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I expect to have this document ready for tabling later this afternoon. I may just mention that the other day the hon. member for Trinity was a little critical of the time it took to produce this document. I am sure when he sees it he will realize why it would take so long to produce this rather voluminous document with a great deal of statistical material.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could
ask the Secretary of State if he is yet in a position to table the return concerning which I made inquiries on Friday?


Henri Courtemanche: Several departments are concerned, and I have not received all the information which is required by the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Secretary of State consider tabling the information which he has received from the Department of Finance?


Henri Courtemanche: As soon as I have
received it.
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell me when I can expect an answer to the two questions I asked him, the first on March 12 and the other on April 8? They are recorded under numbers 266 and 317.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member for Essex East that I shall have to check, as I do not recall if those documents were procured.


Azellus Denis: As a supplementary question, may I expect my question to be answered before that of the hon. member for Essex East?
(Text):



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Trinity asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on Friday whether Ontario hydro had made any approach to her department with a view to making a direct purchase. Is the hon. lady in a position to answer that?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. The answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Trinity is yes; an approach had been made, and it was suggested to the hydroelectric power commission that they discuss the matter with the Sarnia band. This was done, and at a meeting on August 21, 1958 the band authorized the commission to negotiate with the individual Indian locatees for the purchase of the land they wished to acquire. One week later, on August 28, 1958 the band council withdrew this authority and in turn authorized the Crown Trust Company to negotiate options from the locatees. The reason given in the band council resolution is as follows:
This is being granted with the full knowledge that previous authority was granted the hydroelectric power commission to take options and deal with the locatees for other portions of our reserve. However, council takes this action because they feel that the offer from the Crown Trust Company of Canada will be of greater benefit to the whole band, and by this resolution revoke the authority granted to the hydroelectric power commission.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I rise merely for the purpose of referring to an answer I gave at page 4265 of Hansard to the hon. member for Beauce, who had asked me a question. I said I *would reply on Monday. However, as of today there is no information in respect of this matter. The department has asked for a report from the London office, and they expect that the answer can be supplied tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he

Inquiries of the Ministry cares to comment on a press report which has just come over the wire to the effect that the president of France has served notice that France is going to make no further commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization unless and until the United States and Britain share their atomic secrets with that country?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I think I could make no helpful comment on that dispatch at the moment.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that we are approaching what may be the end of the session, in the unforeseeable future; in view of the fact the minister has not, in 18 months, made a comprehensive statement on civil defence, and in view of the fact there has recently been a conference with the provinces on this matter, will the minister indicate when he proposes to make a full statement on this important matter on behalf of the government?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not correct in stating that there has not been a comprehensive statement on civil defence. Last year, at the time my estimates were being considered, I did make a statement, and my estimates will be before the committee again shortly. At that time I shall be pleased to deal with the subject again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister say when he will be prepared to give us what is the government's policy with regard to both shelter and evacuation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I have answered that question several times as put by the hon. member. I have said that this is being given prior consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister kindly indicate what that means?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES


John Whitney Pickersgill: So that I may relieve members on the treasury bench of any suspense they may

have in the matter, I can say that it is my intention before I resume my seat to move an amendment which in effect will ask the house to regret the failure of the government to implement promises made before the last two elections to the people of the Atlantic provinces.
I am sure this is one occasion when even with the greatest ingenuity-and I have no doubt that the greatest ingenuity will be employed in this case-it will be very difficult for the administration to get up, when I have completed, and say, "you did not do it; why didn't you do it?" I say this because the things about which I intend to speak this afternoon are things which the hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly their leader, promised and undertook to do; and because they are promises which, except in one or two cases where I will indicate the contrary, were not made by us and were not made by the federal government before 1959.
Thus there can be no question of any obligation on the part of the Liberal party or of the former Liberal government to undertake these things. Indeed, I am not sure that many Liberals would subscribe to all the promises that were made. But whether they would or not, the fact is that they were not made by Liberals and they were not made by the Liberal government and, as I intend to show in a moment or two, with one or two exceptions they have not been carried out, either.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I might interrupt the hon. member to ask for better attention. There seems to be more than the usual amount of competition, and I hope it will soon subside.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate your courtesy in making that suggestion to hon. members. It is not a favour which I have ever asked myself; on the whole I have been reasonably successful in securing the attention of the house, and I certainly have no complaint to make about lack of attention in respect to those things which, from time to time, I feel it expedient to say.
As I said when I began my remarks, the stock answer to every suggestion on our part that the government should do what they promised to do has been, for the past two years, "Why didn't you do it?" I pointed out that nearly all the promises to which I will refer today were promises made by the Conservative party and not by the Liberal party. It was presumably in large part by virtue of those promises that the Conservative government obtained the substantial measure of support it did succeed in getting, particularly in the second election, in the four Atlantic provinces-a majority in all the

provinces but one and, I regret to say, all the members in two of those provinces in 1958.
There is some evidence that some of the people in those provinces, perhaps a majority of them, are already beginning to have second thoughts. I should like to think they are having second thoughts because they now feel that the Liberal program which was placed before them in 1958 was so much better than the Conservative program that they should have voted for it. However, I do not flatter myself that this is the case. The view I hold is that what they are doing is what people all over the country are doing, namely judging the government, not the opposition, because it is the government which has the responsibility, having received so overwhelming a mandate, for carrying on the affairs of this country. It is not the opposition which has that responsibility, and the eyes of the country are, in my view, focussed upon the government, and it is the government which is being judged.


Michael Starr: Like in Manitoba?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the government of the province, if the hon. gentleman will recall, that was being judged in Manitoba. I would be more inclined to say "like Toronto in the constituency of Trinity" if the hon. gentleman wants the last judgment which was made on this government by electors in a federal election. And I may say that the hon. gentleman's friends in Manitoba were very anxious to dissociate themselves from any contamination by the federal government; indeed, the premier said after the election that the election had been decided purely on provincial issues.


George Harris Hees: What about Montmagny-L'Islet?


An hon. Member:: What about Springfield?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Considering what the vote was in Springfield in March, 1958 I do not think the hon. gentleman can take a great deal of satisfaction over the very narrow win his party managed to scrape up there.


An hon. Member:: And Montmagny-L'Islet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might suggest to some of the hon. members who are sitting in what is usually called "the rump" that it is really a waste of time to interrupt me this afternoon, because under the rules of the house I have unlimited time, and nothing they may say will prevent me from completing what I intend to say, though it may remind me of a few additional points.
I was suggesting that this government is being judged already on the record of its performance, and while I do not regard the
Promises to Atlantic Provinces evidence of Gallup polls as infallible-the only evidence which we in this house can take as infallible in these matters is the evidence of the election itself-we do know that ever since 1943 when these Gallup polls were first taken in this country they have, on the whole, been a fairly good indication of what the vote would be in both federal and provincial elections. Hon. members will recall that in the most recent Gallup poll in the four Atlantic provinces the support which was indicated for the Progressive Conservative party by those who were asked questions was below that which it was indicated would be given to the Liberal party.
As I say, I do not attach any exaggerated importance to that, but considering the overwhelming support which was given to the party opposite in at least two of those provinces at the last election, I do think there is an indication that there is a very marked change in sentiment in that part of the country.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the government will claim credit, and very considerable credit, for two things which have happened in the Atlantic provinces since they took office. I for one will say right off, as I said when the legislation was introduced and as I have said publicly and privately ever since whenever I have had occasion to speak about it, that I give the government full credit for the special grants to the Atlantic provinces. The measure, which was brought in by the Minister of Finance in January of 1958, provided the sum of $25 million a year for a period of four years, up until the taxsharing arrangements presently provided for by law expire.
This measure was a source of considerable and very badly needed financial help to the Atlantic provinces. In the light of the experience in the past two years in those provinces I think there is not much doubt that if this action had not been taken the governments of at least some of those provinces would either have been obliged to curtail existing services to some degree or to impose additional provincial taxation. Indeed, one of the provinces, the most populous one, has proposed additional taxation in any case, though that taxation is earmarked or related to a specific and particular measure.
One of the reasons there has been the necessity for this increased financial assistance to the treasuries of these provinces is precisely the economic conditions through which the country has been passing. I do not intend to go into great detail on that subject, but I should like to give one rather striking illustration. In the month of March

Promises to Atlantic Provinces of this year the relief costs which had to be met out of the treasury of the province of Newfoundland-though, of course, half of this is reimbursed by the federal treasury under the unemployment assistance legislation-amounted to $324,884.
That may well be the peak month of the year. We certainly hope it is, but it may not be. It may be that when the figures for April are available they will be higher still, because it must be remembered that these relief costs do not immediately vanish with an increase in the level of employment in a province. As the spring advances more and more persons come to be out of work, particularly in this province where the proportion of seasonal workers is greater than the national average. There come to be more and more people out of work who have also exhausted their benefits under unemployment insurance and who are obliged therefore to resort to provincial or local relief.
There is no doubt that these costs alone have been very materially increased in all the Atlantic provinces, particularly in this last year, much more than in the year 195758, because there was a much bigger backlog of unemployment insurance benefits in 195758 than was available in this past fiscal year.
However, I come back to my original point. I want to give the government full credit for what I believe is bound to be required as long as the Atlantic provinces have a lower level of economic activity and on the whole lower incomes than the rest of the country.
I wish to turn to what I consider should be a permanent part of our federal-provincial financial arrangements, and that is some special arrangement for all the provinces and not just for the Atlantic provinces. As I pointed out to the Minister of Finance at the time of the introduction of the Atlantic grants, I think a formula should be worked out between now and 1962 that is capable of application to all the provinces and not merely to the Atlantic provinces, a formula that will be embodied in whatever may succeed the tax-sharing legislation. I do not intend to labour this point at all. I was simply making the point that I do give the government full credit for having taken this step.
I know it could be said, "Why did you not do it in 1956?" Well, I think the principal reason we did not do this in 1956 is illustrated by what we did do in 1956. We increased the payments or the abatements to the provinces under the tax-sharing arrangement from something over $500 million to substantially over $600 million over the whole country. This represented assistance of a

considerably larger amount than is represented by all the things the federal government has done in this field in the last two years. Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris, in statements that were referred to by the Minister of Finance the other day, indicated quite properly that they felt, at that time, that as much of the national budget had been devoted to this field as it was felt possible to devote on that occasion.
Notwithstanding that, as the representative of a constituency in the Atlantic provinces I am very glad this government has seen fit to do more in this field. As I say, I am not criticizing it in any way, but am merely making what I think is the constructive suggestion that when it becomes a part of our regular fiscal policy, as I hope and expect it will, it will be based on a formula that could be applied, for example, to the province of Saskatchewan if it should ever find itself in conditions at all approaching those which so regrettably occasioned the original tax-sharing proposals of 20 years ago.
We hope that will never happen. We hope too

and this, of course, was pointed out by Mr. Kirk, the former member of this house for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare at the time the minister brought down this legislation-that the day will come when the level of economic activity and the level of incomes in the Atlantic provinces will be such that what are essentially deficiency payments to these provincial governments because of lower incomes in those areas will no longer be necessary. But that will be some time in coming, even if we have in the future the kind of advance in those provinces that we have had in the past 20 years, and about which I intend to say something a little later on.
The other thing for which the government will undoubtedly seek to take credit, of course, is the program for assistance in the development of thermal power and assistance in interconnections through assistance to transmission lines between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, assistance which I am glad to note the Prime Minister offered to extend to a transmission line in the province of Newfoundland in a recent message which he sent to the premier of Newfoundland and which I understand is under very active consideration there at the present time.
About this I cannot offer the government any similar congratulations. In all but two respects this program, of course, is precisely the program that was announced by the former minister of finance in his budget in 1957, and expanded upon by the then minister

of northern affairs and national resources, Mr. Jean Lesage, in this house before the election of 1957. There were two adaptations made in this program, neither of them in my opinion advantageous to the Atlantic provinces.
I want to say a word about each of them. The first was with respect to ownership. In the original proposals made by Mr. Harris and Mr. Lesage it was suggested that the federal government should own those new facilities, those new thermal plants and those new transmission lines, but that the province should have the option to buy them at its convenience. Under the existing legislation what happens is that a loan is made to a province, a long term loan at the current borrowing rate of the government of Canada, with the usual allowances. And I make no criticism of that; but let us consider for a moment the effect of this change. Under the system we proposed the federal government could have gone ahead, if the province wanted *-and, of course, we could do nothing under either scheme unless a province wanted-with thermal plants and even with transmission lines somewhat in advance of the demand for the power, and the federal treasury would for that period, until the demand caught up, have carried that burden. It would have been some burden upon the federal treasury; we knew that. We intended that, we proposed that, when the original scheme was put before parliament.
Under the present scheme the province must start paying interest on the loan and start amortizing the loan immediately. So there would have to be, in view of the much more restricted financial base that each of those provinces has, if you like more prudence; but I would rather put it this way. There has to be a real certainty of an almost immediate demand for the power or it is not going to be developed. What we were suggesting was that we should go a little ahead of the demand, provide the additional power and have it there as an attraction, as a sort of magnet for the development of users of the power.
Of course if the level of economic activity that existed in 1956 and early 1957 had continued that would not have been a problem, because it was quite clear that if the curve of demand was going to continue at the rate it then was going on there would be no doubt about the demand, but we have seen that these things can change very quickly. We have seen, for example, that in the case of Beechwood, which the government of New Brunswick considered was very necessary to that province and very urgently needed, they have found it necessary to export some of this power to the United States.
66968-9-281
Promises to Atlantic Provinces


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: May I ask a
question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. member like to take time to tell us why the old administration was not interested and did absolutely nothing about Beechwood?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I would be glad to, but I do not know whether it would be very profitable to the hon. gentleman, to the house or to anyone else. The first reason, of course, was that up until that time the federal government had never taken part in power developments in any part of Canada except in the Northwest Territories; that the development of hydroelectric power was one of those things that was either left to private enterprise in some provinces or in others it was an exclusively public responsibility; and to take a step in one particular province in one particular case without having a policy which could be applied in the right circumstances right across the country was something which was-I think I can speak for my leader-then and is now and I hope always will be contrary to the policy of the Liberal party.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then you will stay where you are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Maybe we will stay where we are. Maybe the hon. gentleman thinks that a little special bid to someone here and a little special bid to someone somewhere else, without principle, is the right way to get into office. I am not sure it is the right way to stay in office. I think before I am finished I may be able to show that to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister's
question could be left until I have finished answering the first question.
The second reason, of course, is that the Beechwood project was one that at the time was considered to be entirely within the capacity and the resources of the province. What we felt it was desirable to do when the province represented that it needed still more power, and very substantially more power than was going to be available from Beechwood, was to provide something constructive and additional, and that is in fact what was proposed in 1957.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask the
question now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.

Promises to Atlantic Provinces


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know this. When the hon. member asked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) whether he agreed with that statement, did he not assent?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I shall let the Leader of the Opposition speak for himself. Perhaps I should not have said that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, seeing that I have been asked whether I nodded assent, I might tell the minister that over here we base our policies of assistance on principle and not on hand-outs.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Beechwood was a hand-out.


Mr. Nowlan:: Beechwood was a hand-out; that is a nice one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was it not? The hon. gentlemen think that embarrasses me. It does not embarrass me a bit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nor me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor does it embarrass anyone on this side, including the members from the province of New Brunswick.
At the time the present administration asked parliament to vote assistance for Beechwood, the project was completed. All the federal government were doing was taking over the mortgage, and that was all we were doing. It was not anything new or constructive. I put a series of questions on the order paper. I have not them here at the moment, but they will be found in Hansard for 1957 and 1958. I asked the Prime Minister, or I asked the government and the Prime Minister replied, whether or not assistance on the same principle would be applied to other provinces. I was told in the answer that it would be. I sought vainly in the debates on two bills by every device of questioning that I could think of-and I do not think, sir, I am entirely without ingenuity in this field-to find out what that principle was, and there was-


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was not any.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government could
never tell us what that principle was. I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who raised the question, over and over again what the principle was on Beechwood so that we in Newfoundland could apply the same principle there, and I could get no answer.
The minister perhaps knows that at the very time Beechwood was being built a thermal plant was being built in St. John's,

Newfoundland, the interest rates that private interests had to pay were even higher and in consequence the cost to the consumers was going to be higher. I hoped the policy on Beechwood was going to be a policy that was going to have some similar application in N e wf oundland.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What private power plants are we helping now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, on that point, sir, it does not appear to make any difference to the consumer of electricity in a province whether he gets the power from a private power plant or from a publicly owned plant. What he cares about is how much it costs. It does seem to me that if we are going to say we will provide the help to completed plants, we will take over the mortgage and the cost of certain publicly owned ones in one place because we have a political debt to pay and we will not do it in another place because we have not, that is a pretty good definition of what the Leader of the Opposition describes as a hand-out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the only principle they have over there; political.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite. However, sir, this question of Beechwood-as no doubt hon. gentlemen opposite expected it would be- is a diversion from the main point, and I come back to my main point. I do not think there is any doubt whatever that if there had not been a change of government in 1957 there would have been thermal plants built already in Nova Scotia and probably in New Brunswick using coal; and I emphasize that because that is my second point. That is the second point of difference between our policy and the policy of the present administration.


Thomas Miller Bell: This might have taken place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the only reason it would not have happened is if the government of New Brunswick and the government of Nova Scotia refused to have them built. I do not think, once the election had been over, there would have been any danger of that because both premiers came up here in the spring of 1957 and accepted the scheme in principle, and it was only later on, late in May, that they began to have scruples about which we heard a good deal on the hustings.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is sheer nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It happens to be quite
factual.


George Clyde Nowlan: You were out campaigning in the maritime provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They did in fact come here, and they both made public statements to the press. I have not got them under my hand but I could produce them for the hon. gentleman to read although I know I do not need to, because he knows perfectly well that statements were made that our scheme was accepted in principle. I grant that acceptance of a plan in principle does not mean that all the details will be accepted, but I have not the slightest doubt that if there had not been a change of government this is what would have happened.
I say so for this reason, that under the policy with respect to coal enunciated in 1957 by the then minister of public works, while we were still in office, we took the view and said publicly that these plants must charge against consumers only the cost of the cheapest fuel and that the federal government would give a subsidy so that coal would never be more expensive than the cheapest fuel. In other words, if oil were cheaper we would give a subsidy as between the cost of oil and the cost of coal, but if coal were cheaper there would be no subsidy. That was our policy.
What was the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to coal? They said they would reduce the price of Nova Scotia coal to the price of Pennsylvania coal in Ontario. That is the difference between the two, and I suggest that in the one case it was certain coal would be used because it was bound to be as cheap as oil. The province is certain to do so if the province wants to use it. Of course if the government of either of these provinces of its own motion prefers to have oil used, notwithstanding the coal problem in the maritimes, that is another matter, and naturally we could not have compelled them to do it. However, I fancy that public opinion would have taken care of that situation in the circumstances I envisage.
But it is quite conceivable, of course, that in certain circumstances, at certain times and with certain kinds of oil or oil byproducts their cost might be even lower than the cost of Pennsylvania coal in Ontario, and if that should be the case then the subsidy the present administration is offering would not be, sufficient to make coal the cheapest fuel. These are the two differences and, as far as I know, the only differences between what we proposed and what hon. gentlemen opposite embodied in their legislation.
But there is a very great difference between what I think it is reasonable to suppose would have happened under our proposals and what in fact has failed to happen under proposals of hon. gentlemen opposite;
66968-9-281J
8, 1959
Promises to Atlantic Provinces because I understand that with the exception of the Trenton plant in Nova Scotia, which incidentally was started by the previous Liberal provincial administration, no firm commitment has yet been reached after two years for federal aid to any thermal plant in either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. If my information is not entirely up to date I would, of course, be glad to have it corrected, but according to the last information given to us by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that was the situation.
When we come to the other promises in the program of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I intend to take them up in some detail, we find that the record is very different. These promises appeared in many forms and guises before the election of June 10, 1957, but I have here a very large, almost full-page, advertisement which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 8, 1957. May I say that the advertisement was inserted by the Progressive Conservative party of Canada, so I do not think there is any doubt that this may be said to have represented the official position of the whole party. It was not inserted by the local party in the Atlantic provinces, though it was directed to the Atlantic provinces. It reads as follows;
Before you vote read "the Atlantic resolutions" endorsed by every Progressive Conservative candidate in the maritimes, a call for united action at Ottawa. We, the Progressive Conservative candidates from the 31 federal constituencies in the Atlantic provinces, believe that just demands of the Atlantic community for recognition of their economic problems and special needs urgently require more united and forceful representation in the parliament of Canada.
I refrain from any comment about that.
In keeping with the growing co-operative spirit of the people of the Atlantic community, which has already led to the creation of APEC and to the conference of Atlantic premiers, we are resolved to stand together in support of these measures which will help to overcome the historic disabilities which have limited and even denied opportunity to this area. We believe our young people have the right to opportunity at home and we are convinced that only by united action by all individuals and at all levels of government and through constructive efforts of private organizations can this right be made real. We believe that all those who live in this Atlantic community are entitled to the benefits of opportunity and security which shall be no more but certainly no less than all Canadians have the right to enjoy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to say, sir, that these are general sentiments that all of us would applaud, but the applause preceded my observation. But I come now to the particular points, and I doubt if there will perhaps be the same appreciation of them.
National resources development program. We emphatically endorse John Diefenbaker's policy calling for a national development program; we will

Promises to Atlantic Provinces urge that such a comprehensive program permit federal assistance to the Atlantic provinces for the purpose of developing our resources for the maximum benefit to the Atlantic economy and give as well proper recognition to the differing needs of the provinces and to their varying financial capabilities.
I come now to the second point, because I should like to discuss the two of them together. After all, the first one is pretty nebulous but the second one is much more precise. It is called "Decentralization of Industry."
By united and resolute representation from the members of parliament from the Atlantic provinces, we believe that all Canadians will support a federal program of industrial decentralization. We will urge that (1) the Atlantic provinces receive a more equitable share of defence contract expenditures; (2) that crown corporations be established in the area; (3) that special fiscal consideration be given to private enterprises-*
I draw that to the attention of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who seems shocked at the suggestion that any help should be given to private corporations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Private power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue:
-which will encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic area and, further, encourage the processing of our natural resources here.
On these three specific points there are still certain questions on the order paper that were asked by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger) and myself, but one of the questions based on these resolutions was answered last Wednesday by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr, O'Hurley), who asked leave to put his answer on Hansard because he said it was too long to read. I agree with him that it was far too long to read, but I think there was another reason why the minister was not particularly anxious to read it, in that in spite of its length, it says precisely nothing.
What was promised was a more equitable share of defence expenditures. The minister indicated, when I asked him a question about this matter in the committee on estimates a year ago, that a scheme was under consideration for providing a more equitable share of these expenditures in the Atlantic provinces, but it is perfectly clear from reading this answer that no such scheme exists; because these were the minister's words as found in the second paragraph of the statement:
My department continues to rely, wherever possible, on countrywide competition to obtain the best value for the money spent and to provide an opportunity for all competent and interested Canadian suppliers to compete for defence supplies.
I do not question the minister's figures, and that it may be that a slightly larger-


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman say what is the date of his reference to Hansard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Last Wednesday, June 3, 1959. In the last fiscal year a slightly larger percentage of defence expenditures were made in the Atlantic provinces, although total expenditures were slightly lower. I am sure that is a fact. I have not attempted to verify the minister's statement, but on examination of these expenditures I think it will be found that a high proportion of them would have been on what might loosely be called real estate, that is to say the developments of camps, fixed installations and things of that sort. I might say that to the best of my knowledge no new defence establishment has been founded in the Atlantic provinces by the present administration. My leader says some may have been closed. About that matter I have not any precise information but certainly I know of no new one that has been opened.
I think many of those engaged in defence activities in the Atlantic provinces are extremely worried, particularly in the light of the rather uncertain state of the armament of the Royal Canadian Air Force, as to what its role is likely to be. I know that many others in the army are extremely worried about what their role is likely to be under the uncertainty which now seems to hang like an impenetrable cloud over the Department of National Defence. Whether any defence establishments have been in fact closed yet, I do not know. Oh, my leader is usually right. There is the naval establishment at Port Edward. If it has not been actually closed, its activity was certainly seriously curtailed; and that is in Cape Breton of all places. I am very grateful to my leader for the reminder.


Mr. MacEwan:: Who prompted you to say that? Did Henry Hicks tell you to say that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It happens to be a fact.
I happened to recollect it for myself. I have not found it necessary very often to get other people to tell me what to say in this house or elsewhere. I am quite willing to take the responsibility in this house or elsewhere for whatever I may say, even if sometimes I do not say the wisest things in the world. I am quite willing to admit that I have never fancied myself so much that I thought I was an invariable fount of pure wisdom.
I now come to the other two points of this second clause. The second one is that crown corporations are to be established in the area. There may have been crown corporations established in the area, but if there are, apart from the extension to the area of the

Northern Canada Power Corporation or whatever the name of it is which was in existence before that time, and I think it was even designated for the purpose by the previous administration, I am not aware of any other federal crown corporations that have been established for the purpose of promoting the decentralization of industry in the Atlantic provinces. If there have been such crown corporations established and I have overlooked them, and if any member of the government points them out, I shall certainly be glad to make a rectification.
The third point is that special fiscal consideration be given to private enterprise which will encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic area and further encourage the processing of our natural resources. I presume that means fiscal considerations given in the Atlantic area that were not going to be given in other parts of the country. I know of no such considerations. Indeed, far from having any fiscal considerations in this field, we have had fiscal "deconsideration" if I may coin a word, because of the necessity under which the government has found itself to increase the corporation tax in order to attempt to fill part of the vacuum in the treasury. In addition, of course, the legislation which is now before a committee of this house to increase the charges upon employers and employees under the Unemployment Insurance Act will not have the effect of promoting industrial development either in the Atlantic provinces or anywhere else.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a
question at this point because I think it is quite important?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member says his government would not have helped Beechwood because it would have been a special consideration. A minute or two ago he criticized us for not having done something that is a special consideration in itself. Can he bring those things together and at least be consistent about his speech on this occasion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I can be very consistent. I have always thought I ought to pay my own promissory notes but I never thought I was under any compulsion to pay those of the hon. gentleman. I did not sign this advertisement but the hon. gentleman did so. It seems to me that all public men should be judged by the same standards, namely do they keep faith with the people, do they keep their promises. I did not contract nor did any member of my party that special fiscal consideration would be given for this purpose. There is therefore no reason why we should
8. 1959	4423
Promises to Atlantic Provinces be in favour of it when we charge other people with failing to keep their promises.


Thomas Miller Bell: Why will not the hon. member give us credit for putting Beechwood in under this special fiscal consideration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is entitled to take all the credit he wishes for Beechwood; I do not care how much credit he takes for Beechwood. I merely state that Beechwood did not appear to me to be different, in principle, from other power developments, even in New Brunswick, or elsewhere across the country as a whole. That was the reason we did not see fit to do it. It seems to me that was a perfectly honest and straightforward attitude, and it has been expressed many times previously. It was given by Mr. St. Laurent before the election because Mr. St. Laurent, as the hon. member knows, never attempted to conceal even unfavourable things or things that might be unfavourable in a particular locality, and it was all the more credit to him, in my opinion.
I should now like to draw attention to certain other supplementary statements that were made in the elections of 1957 and 1958 that seem to me to relate fairly directly to these two points. I have not finished with this document yet but I should like to deal with the natural resources program and the decentralization of industry. I have not paid much attention to what was said in those elections by anyone except the Prime Minister, simply because I did not think it would be fair to take too much of the time of the house in dealing with them, even though my time is not limited. I should now like to draw attention to the statement made by the Prime Minister at Cambridge, Nova Scotia on June 3, 1957 as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 4 of that year. According to this report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald the Prime Minister said:
The federal government had overtaxed the people by $500 million last year, he said, and this would likely be increased to $700 million this year "if they remain in office". Mr. Diefenbaker said his party advocated "equal opportunity for all Canadians".
I will read on:
In Nova Scotia, he said, the average personal income had decreased 5.9 per cent from $886 in 1948 to $815 in 1955. The Canadian average personal income increased during the same period from $1 025' to $1,078.
I presume the Prime Minister verified those statements. I have not attempted to do so. He went on to give similar figures, for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Then the press report continues:
Mr. Diefenbaker advocated a national development program encompassing decentralization of

Promises to Atlantic Provinces industry which, he said, would help Nova Scotia to keep her sons and daughters at home.
No details, of course, were given in that report. Then on April 29 at Charlottetown as reported in a Canadian Press report in the Ottawa Journal, of April 30, we find these words:
If some of the economic conditions in the mari-times existed in western Canada, members of parliament from the west would soon let the country know about it.
That is the Prime Minister. To continue:
He could not understand how the maritimes time after time elected Liberal members "who make their greatest contribution in the silence they preserve".
A moral can be drawn from that, which I will leave the hon. members on the other side of the house from the maritime provinces to draw for themselves. Then, I continue quoting from this article:
And at Charlottetown (the above had been said at Summerside) with the province's four Conservative candidates on the platform behind him, he added: "You people in Prince Edward Island want action. Then, send these four candidates to the House of Commons. We'll give you action."
I believe the people of Prince Edward Island, with the exception, of course, of the Atlantic provinces grants which were very acceptable and which were made before the second election, would be interested in what the additional action has been.
Then, at St. Stephen-this is from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of May 4, the Prime Minister is reported to have said on May 3:
At St. Stephen, Mr. Diefenbaker spoke of maritime rights and said the eastern provinces should not be "back-benchers in a confederation of equals".
The Conservative party had made confederation possible. If elected, it would work out with the provinces a new deal that would remove the "inequities that too long have held back the maritime provinces".
Then, he quotes the same figures again for income and he added:
"That's a challenge which should demand action."
I might say I took this particular quotation from St. Stephen because at Milltown, which is immediately adjacent to St. Stephen, there was at that time a textile plant which was in operation. The last thing I heard about that textile plant was in February when I was in Fredericton, and the machinery had been sold to someone in the Dominican Republic.


Mr. Grafftey:: Who was it that objected to our dumping duties?


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that the St. Mary's plant to which the hon. gentleman refers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, this is Milltown. The other plant is at Marysville, near Fredericton,

and it is in operation. I read in the Fredericton Gleaner, which is I believe a very reliable newspaper, that the machinery in the Milltown plant had been sold to someone in the Dominican Republic.
Then, there is a Canadian Press report in the Montreal Star of June 3, 1957 in which the Prime Minister is reported to have said at Lunenberg:
-economic conditions must be made such "that maritimers will be encouraged to stay in the area rather than migrate because they cannot get their proper share of the economy.
"I want to see that all Canadians get their share. That is the abiding purpose of my life."
This is a very noble sentiment. The Minister of Labour has told us that in certain parts of the Atlantic provinces today the federal government is paying expenses of people to move away to other parts of the country where they can get work.
Then again at Campbellton, New Brunswick, on May 4, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 6; the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
-the Liberal government for years has been content to allow export of raw materials for processing in other countries.
Here is a quotation:
"If we're to build the country and provide jobs ... it cannot be done by exporting employment to the United States in the form of raw material."
A Conservative government would carry out a program or regional development "to round out Canada's first 100 years as a nation."
This was said at Campbellton. Well, what about raw materials-


William Heward Grafftey: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to continue and I would be delighted to answer his question in a moment. In that area, at Campbellton and in the Bathurst area, as hon. members know, unhappily the very considerable minerals discovered there are not being exploited at the present time. I read some of the reports of the Iron Ore Company and the other companies mining in Labrador and Ungava and they claim that their exports of iron ore are increasing.
Then, here is another quotation from the same place, and this is in direct quotes:
We in this party have launched in every part of this country a national development plan, and the purpose that we have in mind is to assure that your sons and daughters may remain within this province, instead of being forced by economic necessity to leave for other parts of Canada or the United States.
Everyone would like to see that, of course, but the fact is that what has happened does not correspond with what was hoped for.

Then again at Campbellton, in that same speech, and this is in direct quotes:
In order to persuade business firms it is to their advantage to process our raw materials here in Canada, we must show them by tact and other inducements that they will save money by processing those materials in Canada. I say this to you: If we form a government we will introduce legislation which will provide such inducements for we intend to see that Canada shall become the great industrial nation which her raw materials make possible.
We have not seen this legislation. Then, the Montreal chamber of commerce were told on February 19, 1957, and this was about inflation and tight money, by the Prime Minister:
The dread problem of inflation will not be met by regulations which while effective against the individual permit government to have and enjoy the sole privilege of contributing to inflationary pressures.
Then, there is this:
Federal government expenditures constitute the biggest inflationary factor in our economy.
Federal government expenditures are very considerably more today than they were when that speech was made.
Then, at Truro on May 1, as reported in the Globe and Mail for the following day, the Prime Minister said about this tight money policy:
Through its tight money policy, he added, the government has throttled the capital investment which maintains economic growth, supports welfare expenditures and provides full employment.
Small and medium businessmen, farmers and fishermen have been squeezed and even forced into bankruptcy by government policy, he added. "We contend and have contended that this is economically unsound", he said.
As a result, he added, provincial governments and school administrations have had to pay excessive interest rates to finance vital public works and improvements. There has been regional discrimination, Mr. Diefenbaker charged, in the distribution of available credit with the maritimes and western provinces bearing the brunt of this inequality.
I think in the maritimes, the western provinces and everywhere else today there is no provincial government, no school administration, that can borrow money at the interest rates which were prevailing in February of 1957. If these things were going to be remedied, the remedy has been worse than the disease.
There is another report of the same speech at Truro, and this is from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:
The little man-the farmer, the fisherman and the small businessman-is being crushed by the Liberal government's tight money policy, John G. Diefenbaker, national leader of the Progressive Conservative party, said here Wednesday night. The real causes of inflation in this country are over-spending by the federal government and too-high taxes, he said.
Promises to Atlantic Provinces
Then, at Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 3, 1957:
Unemployment in Canada had reached the 300,000 mark because of the tight-money policy, he said.
He said that the tight-money policy had struck a "hard body blow" at small business in Canada and he promised that a Progressive Conservative government would bring into operation a policy whereby a loan fund would be available at low interest "so that small business won't be driven out by larger groups".
Well, where is it?
Then in the second election, in 1958, the Prime Minister made one or two references to interest rates. At that time interest rates were not as high as they were in 1957. In Calgary, according to the Winnipeg Tribune of March 15, the Prime Minister claimed the day before
-that interest rates had fallen sharply as a result of government action since last June from a high of 4.33 per cent to 2.89 per cent in recent weeks.
When they fall, of course, it is the result of government policy. But when, as has happened almost all the time since the conversion loan, they rise, then it is the fault of the Americans or of businessmen who are borrowing money from the chartered banks -the fault of everyone except the government. There were several similar references during the 1958 election campaign.
I should like to make one other reference to the topic of small business. In the election of 1957, speaking of the need for assistance to small business, the Prime Minister was reported as follows in the Campbellton rally of May 4:
We Intend, as well, to do something to assist small businessmen in this country. They find themselves today caught, irretrievably caught, in a situation whereby they cannot survive. We believe the time has come to provide very much after the fashion of the federal government in the United States, assistance to small business, to enable the backbone of our national business, the small businessman, to survive and to prosper.
And even in the election of 1958 something was said on this subject. At Summerside on February 27, as reported in the Charlottetown Guardian of the following day, the Prime Minister announced:
-that if his government is re-elected it is their intention at the first session of parliament to give consideration to a system whereby small business may be able to expand on reasonable terms, and have available to it a system of financing which is being considered to enable small business to meet its responsibility in expanding and assuring extra jobs. A community will continue to prosper and expand if small business expands, he said.
And a very similar statement was made at Yarmouth on March 26. So much for the first two of those resolutions. The third had reference to the power development, and I have already dealt with it. The fourth had reference to transportation and this is what the

Promises to Atlantic Provinces Conservative candidates pledged themselves to do about transportation:
We are committed to the original pledge given to our people at the time of confederation that freight rates would be adjusted and transportation facilities would be provided so that our geographic position would not prejudice our producers in having reasonable access to the markets of Canada.
I could go on and make several references to statements made by the Prime Minister on this subject which are in much the same vein, but I see that I am taking an inordinate amount of time. It seems to me that this is a very clear statement of what the electors were led to expect from a Conservative government. But what has happened? What has happened is that freight rates have gone up. Freight rates have not been adjusted so as to give maritime producers greater access to the markets of central Canada; the exact reverse has been the case. It is true that some small amelioration of the increase has been made by this parliament at this session or, at least, it has been provided for-* precisely how it is going to be made is not yet very clear. But the fact is that these rates are higher and, certainly, the transportation facilities are in no way improved compared with what they were before this statement was made.
Then there were also some specific pledges made particularly about the Chignecto canal and about the Newfoundland railway which I do not intend to deal with at this time.
Then the next item in what I call the Atlantic charter of the Tory party is the capital projects program. Here is the promise:
We favour the immediate institution of an Atlantic capital projects program which will provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
That is a great hope, but all it is is a hope. We have heard nothing about it since. Certainly, we have heard nothing about it in this parliament.
Then there is another promise, the one concerning the Canadian coastguard. "We shall press", members of the Conservative party said, "for a Canadian coastguard". At this point I think I should also make one reference to what the Prime Minister himself had to say about this question in 1957 because I want to make it clear that the Prime Minister was committed on this point. At Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 3, he is reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald the next day as follows:
Mr. Diefenbaker also advocated a Canadian coastguard service to assure that marine disasters were kept at a minimum.
A similar statement was made at Lunenburg later the same day.
We know the history of the coastguard. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), when

he was first asked about this after the election, came into the house and read verbatim a statement which had been made by his predecessor, the same statement which, I think, was originally made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) about the service which we now have. No change whatever has been made in that situation, and no explanation or apology has been offered for the total failure to do anything to implement this particular specific promise.
The seventh of these points has to do with the fiscal needs of the Atlantic provinces. I had something to say on this subject at the beginning of my speech and I need not repeat that again.
I wish to say something about the coal situation in the Atlantic provinces. I do not need to say anything further about coal in relation to power development, because I have already dealt with that question. But promises were made that the production of coal would be increased, and the bitterest and most unfair and distorted criticism was expressed of Mr. St. Laurent because of a statement he made at Fredericton during that election campaign in which he said that in his view the value of coal for purposes other than as fuel was such that he would not take the responsibility for expenditure to increase the production of coal. But Mr. St. Laurent also said that no one wanted to see coal mining towns become ghost towns any more than anyone wanted to see the gold mining towns of northern Quebec and northern Ontario become ghost towns, and that steps must be taken to maintain existing production. The Conservative party, on the other hand, took the view that production should be increased, and gave an undertaking accordingly. I suggest, in the light of the prospects for markets, that that was a wholly irresponsible attitude to have taken. At the same time it was suggested that because Mr. St. Laurent had stated he could do nothing to increase coal production he had suggested that existing production would be curtailed, whereas the whole tenor of his speech was in the opposite direction.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the hon. member that speech with him? If so he might read it to us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had it here the other day, and if the Prime Minister would look up the index to Hansard he would find the precise references there. I cited them in reply to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan) who agreed, finally, for the first time, with my interpretation of what had been said. But the words speak for themselves; they are on Hansard for this very session.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought it was the
same speech; that is why I asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It so happens that the Prime Minister is somewhat mistaken in his recollections because it was not a speech at all. I simply rose to ask for permission to correct an error that had been made by one hon. member on the other side of the house who was making a speech and on looking at it I do not think the Prime Minister will find it is the same speech.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You will not find any agreement with your interpretation, either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the contrary, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond did agree with my interpretation.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The hon. member will recall that it was the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). If the hon. member reads further on in that speech he will find that the hon. member for Cape Breton South did not agree with his interpretation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We could go on arguing for a long time but all the substantial parts are on Hansard. In the mind of any person who reads that speech objectively those parts are incapable of any but one interpretation. At some other time I should be glad to go over the speech word by word with the hon. member and if he can show me that I am wrong in that statement I shall be glad to get up and apologize in the house. I have a few quotations concerning the coal situation which I should like to place on the record. The first is from a speech made by the Prime Minister in the hon. gentleman's own riding, at New Glasgow on April 30, 1957, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 1. Apparently turning to the premier of Nova Scotia who was on the platform with him, the Prime Minister said:
If we form a government I tell you, Mr. Premier, there will be subventions for coal in these provinces, according to your request and to the demands of the people.


Howard Russell MacEwan: And there were.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At Amherst on May 2, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 3, the Prime Minister was reported as follows:
He said the subventions on coal mentioned by the federal government-
That is the Liberal government, of course. I continue:
-are nothing more than a subsidy which Nova Scotians already have to compete with the central provinces.
"What we want", he asserted, "is coal subventions within the province."


Mr. Coates:: That is what we got.
Promises to Atlantic Provinces


George Clyde Nowlan: That is what we asked for and that is what we got.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Subventions on coal consumed within the province?


George Clyde Nowlan: For industrial use.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Speaking in Minto, New Brunswick, on June 3, 1957, as reported in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of that date the Prime Minister said:
The Liberal government is not taking action to help the coal industry. There should be federal treasury aid toward the cost of freighting coal within the maritimes.
At Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 3, 1957, the Prime Minister was reported as having said:
"-there is something strangely peculiar about the fact that Nova Scotia coal delivered in New Brunswick is higher in price than it is when delivered in Montreal. There is a need, and we undertake to supply that need by providing a subvention on maritime coal.
It seems to me that those quotations suggested that there was going to be a general subvention on coal used in the maritime provinces for all purposes within those provinces. I am sure that is the plain meaning that would be taken from those words.
What has been the situation in the coal industry? There has been a steady decline in production and unhappily an even greater decline in consumption and there is very little if any real hope for the future of the industry. Indeed, now we are having applied what has become the almost universal remedy of this government that applies to all these problems when they become urgent-we had it with the Pine Point railway the other day -another inquiry has started. That is what happened.
I wish now to say something about the fisheries and I shall commence by quoting what the Prime Minister said in his speech at Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 3, 1957, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 4:
Touching on agriculture and fishing, he said that there was a need for a prices board which would make provision for support prices-fair and reasonable-set at the start of the production season.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The hon. member is filibustering his own speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister also had some things to say about the 12-mile limit. I will admit I am not going to attach undue importance to that because he found as we found that it is one thing to want something that you have to get from other countries and it is another thing to get it, but this promise of a prices board which would make fair and reasonable provision for

Promises to Atlantic Provinces support prices set at the start of the production season is certainly something entirely within the control of this parliament. It could be done if the government saw fit to do it.
An even more categorical statement was made by the Prime Minister in the 1958 election at Charlottetown as recorded in several newspapers. This speech was made on February 27, and was reported in the Toronto Star of February 28:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker intimated here last night that a Conservative government will place a floor price under fish and contended the agricultural support bill passed last session will provide "crash insurance" for all farm products.
There is no question that there and at Halifax, Saint John, Yarmouth and a number of other places in the Atlantic provinces, in fishing areas, the same sort of assurances were given particularly in the 1958 election. We have had floor prices and deficiency payments for almost all agricultural products except potatoes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Corn?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is not much corn grown in the Atlantic provinces although at certain seasons there may have been some who thought that corn was being distributed.


Orville H. Phillips: Fermented or otherwise?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one other reference I should like to make at this point. This statement appears in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of March 25, 1958, reporting on a speech made the previous day in Halifax by the Prime Minister:
His government, he told the audience, was moving to stabilize prices for farm produce, and consideration is now being given to bring about "the application", on a similar basis, of this measure as it affects fish products.
At Yarmouth, on March 25, as reported in the Gazette of March 26, in a Canadian Press release, the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker today promised federal price supports under fish and a firm stand on protection of Canadian inshore fisheries against foreign trawlers.
The report of the same meeting carried in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of March 26, contained the following:
' "The great difficulty for the fisherman", he said, "is that the price of things he must buy is going up, while the price of what he has to sell is not keeping pace.
If there is any industry in this whole country of which that is true it is the fishing industry. The article continues:
We have in mind to provide for the fisherman, legislation similar to that provided for agriculture. Under the latter program, he said, a floor price was decided in relation to the farmer's costs.

Of course, nothing of that kind has been forthcoming. Not only that, but in view of the failure of the fisheries in some parts of the Atlantic provinces and particularly on the northeast coast of Newfoundland last season it is regrettable that nothing happens when other ameliorative steps are suggested.
In many ways, of course, the gravest situation of all is that which has resulted in the Atlantic provinces because of the disproportionate incidence of unemployment in those provinces.
In the same speech in Charlottetown to which I have already referred and on many other occasions throughout the country is recorded the Prime Minister's most definite pledge of all. This has been placed on the record on several occasions but I do not apologize for putting it on again. This is to be found in the Toronto Star of February 28, reporting on a speech made in Charlottetown.
"I will make one more promise," the Prime Minister asserted. "I make this promise. My pledge is to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed. So long as I am Prime Minister no one will be allowed to suffer in this nation."
The latest figures, I think, speak for themselves and are very eloquent. The latest figures, as produced in the release on the unemployment situation for the month of April, which were released on May 20 last, for Canada as a whole show that while in March the unemployment was 8.6 per cent of the labour force;-and these are the lower, or
D.B.S. figures, not the very much higher figures in the listings of persons actually seeking work-in April, 1958 they were 8.62 per cent. In April, 1959 we were very gratified that it was only 7.3 per cent. That is still a very high level of unemployment for the nation as a whole. But when you compare the national figure with the figure for Newfoundland, which on April 19, 1958 was 24.07 per cent, and April, 1959, 28.2 per cent, there is not much ground for feeling very optimistic. When you take the three maritime provinces you find it was 16.93 per cent in April, 1958 and it is still 12 per cent. There is not much ground for optimism. These figures, of course, are very much higher than they are in Ontario; higher still than they are in the prairie provinces where the unemployment is the lowest in the country, or even in British Columbia. Quebec, of course, comes fairly close to the maritime figure.
There is no doubt that if at the present time we had on a national basis unemployment at the level it is in the four Atlantic provinces today it would be a major calamity to this country, and for that area it is a very serious thing. To a great extent at least the

suffering is ameliorated because that area is part of the national economy and it enjoys the advantages of the national social security and other national welfare benefits. They do not provide employment but they do at least take away some of the rigors of unemployment that were felt 25 years ago; nevertheless, it is a serious situation that calls for serious action. I should like to commend to the government, before I conclude what I have to say, the series of editorials which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, an independent newspaper, entitled, "A Blueprint For Atlantic Advance". I am not going to take the time of the house to read them or even to quote from them; I just draw them to the attention of hon. members. I think all hon. members have probably at one time or another received a copy-certainly, all of us from the Atlantic provinces, I am sure, have- containing some very valuable suggestions for action which, it seems to me, should be considered, not in the way in which this government so often considers problems but with a view to early action.
Now, sir, having taken rather longer than I had intended to take, I shall conclude by moving, seconded by the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Michaud);
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
this house regrets the failure of the government to keep its election promises to the people of the Atlantic provinces, and regrets further its failure to take measures to strengthen, in the light of acute unemployment in the area, the basic economy of the Atlantic provinces.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the house that I will not be taking as much time as the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me, for obvious reasons, but one in particular, namely that this debate is -very much abbreviated, as we know. If time permitted, there are 11 other members here from Nova Scotia besides myself, everyone [DOT]of whom would like the opportunity of standing and refuting the alleged arguments which the hon. gentleman has made this afternoon, in addition to the hon. members from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Therefore, I am going to try to be relatively brief.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), to whose [DOT] department the hon. member made specific reference, will probably have some things to [DOT]say in connection with this, and then we hope there will be time to deal with other matters.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, this is an intriguing debate, and it was rather intriguing to hear some of the advertisements read which were dated June 8, two years
Promises to Atlantic Provinces ago. Two years ago, the day after tomorrow, this government was elected to office, and I do not know of any greater compliment that could be paid to a government than a motion such as this, at this late date, which we hope is near the end of the session. It is one of those substantive motions which presumably is to criticize the actions of the government in connection with its administrative responsibilities, because the rules say that it is the administrative responsibility. What do we have? We have an hon. member spending an hour and a half reading election advertisements which were published two years ago, and that is all they can say about this government after it has been in office for two years. Certainly, no other government could have received that compliment at the hands of the opposition.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: No other government made as many promises.


George Clyde Nowlan: No other government made such promises. Look at the statement made by Mr. Henry Hicks when he came back after being up here and seeing how the preceding government had promised and had failed to carry out its promises. What of the statement made by the late lamented personal friend of mine and of us all, Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, when he was premier and came up here and attempted to get certain promises from the government. As a matter of fact, he did get a promise about the development of power. He got it back in 1945 or in 1946, and it was not until 1956, 10 years later, as a deathbed repentance by Hon. Walter Harris, who saw that the sands of time were running against him and the tide was going out, that he brought in this alleged maritime provinces development to redeem in part a promise they had made over 10 years before to Angus L. Macdonald when he was up here as a head of a maritime delegation.
Speaking of promises, I remember the posters in the election of 1955 or 1953. What were they; what did we see? We saw a picture of the Bluenose, the motor vessel, steaming from Yarmouth to Bar Harbour at 12 or 14 knots an hour, with a bone in her teeth, carrying passengers galore and yet, as a matter of fact, as we found out only a few days before, although they had a bottle of champagne ready for the launching of the ship, they forgot to put the engines in the boat. My hon. friend talks about promises!


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a question? Is the Bluenose not operating pretty successfully?

Promises to Atlantic Provinces


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, very successfully, indeed, after we drew attention to the fact that she could not operate until they put in the engines.
The solicitude of the hon. member for the maritimes is really touching; it is just touching. I remember how he always used to respond so sympathetically, when he sat on this side of the house, to the arguments which we advanced on behalf of the maritimes. You could see the gleam in his eye; you could see the approbation. I am sure that he must have urged his colleagues to do some of the things which he talked about this afternoon but apparently he was unable to convince them.
He regrets the low standard of the economy. He referred to unemployment in the maritime provinces. He said that if the same degree of unemployment prevailed in the nation as a whole it would be a national disaster. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is some justification for such a statement if the figures that the hon. member gave are correct. I have no doubt that he checked them but, after all, they deal with seasonal unemployment there. Lumbering operations have stopped. There is a great deal of unemployment in the fishing industry at the moment and these figures are not representative of industrial unemployment whatsoever in this nation.
I should like to draw to his attention something that originated with the dominion bureau of statistics. I have not got their publication, to tell the hon. gentleman the truth, but he quoted with approbation a few moments ago an editorial from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and I can tell him that this statement is reproduced in an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of today.
The employment expansion in the Atlantic region was greater from March to April this year than in the same period of the last three years. In April an estimated 459,000 persons had jobs, about 18,000 more than in March and 24,000 more than a year ago.
I think that disposes of the hon. member's argument. In addition, Macleans Building Reports has a rather interesting commentary. These provinces which are so poverty stricken, these provinces which have been so grossly betrayed by this government, these provinces which have sunk to such a hopeless level, according to the dire and gloomy statements of the hon. gentleman, what is their record with respect to building? In Canada as a whole for the first five months of this year construction is down below the level of last year but in the Atlantic region there is a gain of 9.6 per cent this year compared with last year, the largest gain in any area in the Dominion of Canada. In the Atlantic
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

area nearly $100 million has been applied for by way of loans for construction within the first five months of this year.
Of course the economic situation there is not as good as one would like to see it. One never is satisfied. We are looking forward, we are hoping and planning and we intend to make progress day after day and year after year. We have made and are making substantial progress in the maritime provinces and the figures to which I have referred at least bear that out. The hon. member referred to the platform on which we agreed and I must express my appreciation for his compliment on the draftmanship of some of us who were present at those Atlantic conferences. He also paid the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) a great compliment by reading at great length extracts from speeches made by him in various parts of the maritime provinces. I had the pleasure of hearing him at the meeting in Cambridge in my own constituency, at Halifax and at the wind-up meeting of the campaign in Sydney. I can vouch for the fact that the Prime Minister made these statements. I can vouch for the fact that he intended them to be believed. I vouch for the fact that the Prime Minister and the government are carrying out the pledges which were made at that time.
This government has been in power for two years and during that time an election and an economic recession have intervened. We do not pretend to be supermen. We do not pretend to be able to achieve miracles. We do not pretend that we are perfect. But we do say that in the two years we have been in office we have done more for the maritime provinces, for the Atlantic area, than the former government did in at least the preceding 25 years. The hon. gentleman could not help himself, of course, but he was good enough to give us credit for the maritime adjustment grants which we introduced at the first session after we came into office whereby the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland each receives $7,500,000 as a special adjustment grant and the province of Prince Edward Island receives $2,500,000, a total of $25 million, this to last during the currency of the dominion-provincial agreements.
These adjustment grants were sought from the preceding government for years. The maritime premiers representing all the maritime provinces made pleas for these or comparable grants and every time they were turned down. They were coldly rebuffed because it was taken for granted that the people of the maritime provinces, having voted Liberal for so many years, would continue to do so and therefore they did not have to pay any attention to their pleas and

they just took them for granted. It was not until, as I said, the handwriting was seen on the wall that the previous government attempted to deal with the situation at all.
My hon. friend has gone to some length this afternoon to prove that the coal subvention policy inaugurated by this government for the development of thermal power within the maritime provinces was the same scheme as was proposed by the preceding government and particularly by the Hon. Mr. Winters and the Hon. Mr. Harris. I say categorically, without going into the details, that there is practically no similarity between the two programs whatsoever. One was a deathbed repentance brought about on the eve of an election whereby the former government saw that they would have to do something. They did not know what they should do. They had not given any consideration to the problem and apparently did not have anyone to advise them very well. As a result they came up wtih some sort of crackbrained scheme which would not have worked. The proof that it would not have worked is to be found in the fact that the provincial governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island-I believe I am correct with respect to Prince Edward Island-said that the scheme would not work and they would not accept it.
We campaigned in May and June of 1957 primarily on the thermal scheme. That was the main matter which we discussed. At that time we said that their plan would not work because the plants were to be owned by the federal government. I noticed that my hon. friend was a little bit vague this afternoon and said that somehow they could be transferred to the provincial government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister does not want to be unfair.


George Clyde Nowlan: I certainly do not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was very precise about it. I said they were to be owned in the first instance by the federal government with an option to purchase by the provinces.


George Clyde Nowlan: What the option to purchase was was one of the terms which was always in dispute because there was correspondence, as my hon. friend knows, and telegrams between the premiers of the two provinces and the responsible officers here as to the definition of those terms. There was no satisfactory definition as far as the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were concerned. Our proposition was that these plants would be built by the federal government and sold outright to the provinces so that we would have a centralized operation instead of the Northern Power Corporation coming in and
Promises to Atlantic Provinces operating the power plant in one place and the province operating the plant in another place, which we said was absolutely impractical and impossible.
As to the question of the use of coal, the former government's proposal was that coal should be provided, as I recall it, so that energy could be produced at cost. There was no definition of "cost" and none was ever suggested. Mr. St. Laurent said that whatever the cost was that was the cost that would have to be paid for power. As has been pointed out by the Prime Minister and by every hon. member from Nova Scotia who came here in 1957, as was pointed out by the premier of Nova Scotia, that was absolutely ridiculous. Unless there was some definition of "cost" how could it be known whether there would be any benefit to the province? It might be that the costs would be far greater than we were paying and no purpose would be served whatsoever by the federal government building these plants or transmission lines. In the proposals submitted by this party the matter of "costs" was determined. It was agreed that a subvention would be paid so as to permit the coal to be competitive with coal landed in Ontario and reduce the cost of power to what we thought would be a price competitive with that for power produced by coal in other parts of Canada. Those were two of the major differences between the two schemes.
Of course one might say that this is political but it is not an effective answer. All of these matters were raised during the 1957 campaign. The claims pro and con were made by the respective parties, the Liberals saying theirs was better. They never said it was identical with ours. We were saying that we had something that was different and that was better. What happened? On election day ten out of twelve members supporting the scheme advocated or supported by the premier of Nova Scotia and advocated by this party were elected and only two of the hon. gentlemen supporting the other scheme were elected. Then six months later those two fell by the wayside and 12 members were elected to this house. That is the judgment of the people of Nova Scotia as to the relative merits of the two schemes.
I must say this. My hon. friend also, in dealing with the statement made at Fredericton by the then prime minister, had something to say about it. He has the same difficulty, although he smoothed it over, that they had in trying to explain it to the electors and as did a colleague of his, the minister of public works at that time from Nova Scotia, who attempted to explain the speech on the platform in Nova Scotia, failed and quit trying to give any answer at all

Promises to Atlantic Provinces because he said it was not understood. That was the only explanation that was given. Certainly no one else ever understood it and it has not been understood today either. Certainly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate understands it less than does anybody else. At any rate, if you accept that speech at its face value, the coal would still be under the ground under any circumstances.
Something has been said about coal. Perhaps I should say a word about coal right now. I did not want to interrupt my hon. friend because I have interrupted him several times. He stated that in the election we promised that we would increase the sale of coal. There is no doubt that we promised subventions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To increase the production of coal.


George Clyde Nowlan: To increase the production of coal. There is no doubt that we made a promise with respect to subventions on the movement of coal in the maritime provinces and I stand by that promise. I do not recall -although I do not deny it; I should like to see the record-that any specific promises were made with respect to an over-all increase in the production of coal or the consumption of coal as compared with those areas. But this is something of what we have done in so far as coal is concerned. When we came into office we increased the preference on Canadian coal for use in dominion public buildings so that coal would get a preference of 20 per cent in competitive bidding against other coals. As a result of that preference it is estimated by the department that the increased consumption of Canadian coal amounted to over 200,000 tons a year. We have paid out money already on this thermal scheme to which the hon. gentleman referred. It is not something that is going to be done in the future; it was not something that was going to be done when the province requested that it be done. I can assure you that, in my opinion, the province would never have requested this federal government or any federal government to carry out the scheme which they proposed at that time. Hence the scheme would not have been in being at this time.
This government has paid subventions on the movement of coal within the maritime provinces, a matter to which the hon. gentleman referred dubiously. He rather questioned the accuracy of the Prime Minister's report. The Prime Minister was dealing with specific and definite suggestions for the use of thermal plants in the maritime provinces to generate power for industrial use. Since we got the scheme into operation we have paid out over $1,692,933 in subventions on the movement

of coal in the maritime provinces for thermal plants there. That subvention is used to reduce the cost of power not to the householder but to industrial plants only so that we can assist in the development of industry. All of that benefit has been passed on for industrial development within the maritime provinces. I may have a word or two to say on that matter a little later on. That of course, was an entirely new subject but it was something which we promised. We said that if we were elected we would inaugurate this dual system of assisting in the building of thermal plants and transmission lines in the maritime provinces. That has been extended to Newfoundland as well. That was one phase of it.
The other phase was that we would pay subventions on the movement of coal in the maritime provinces to service these plants so that the benefit would be passed on to the industrial consumer. As I said, on that subvention alone we have paid out over $1,692,000. As to the movement of coal, there is no doubt, as the hon. gentleman said, that coal production suffered in this country. I want to point out to him this fact, although he undoubtedly knows it. Coal production has suffered in every coal producing area in the world as far as I know, certainly in the western world or the free world. The degree of unemployment here, bad as it is, has been less than elsewhere. To any man who is unemployed even for a day, it is a serious thing to him. To be unemployed for 40 days is an extremely serious thing. There have been miners who have been unemployed for a period of 40 days in the maritime coal fields. I think all of that is over. There may be a few of those left in one or two pits. But had it not been for the subsidy policy which this government inaugurated and put into effect the degree of unemployment would have been double or treble what it has been during this year. As I said-and I want this to be understood-the degree of unemployment in the past year in the Nova Scotia coal field has been less than the degree of unemployment in any other coal field in the western world- and the figures to prove that are there from the dominion coal board. Whether you take as an example Germany, Britain, Virginia, Pennsylvania or wherever you go, the number of men employed two years ago, the increase of unemployment is greater in every other coal field in the world. That is not a mere accident, Mr. Speaker. That fact is in part at least-and in substantial part-owing to the generous subsidy provisions which this government put into effect in order to maintain a high degree of employment in these Nova Scotia coal fields and so that the Canadian

product was upheld and its place was not taken entirely by coal imported from the United States.
Last year, the fiscal year ended in March 31, we moved 425,928 tons or in round figures
426,000	tons of coal into Ontario-despite a drop in industrial demand, despite a tremendous fall off in United States imports-at a cost of $1,938,000. It is the first time Canadian coal moved into Ontario in any appreciable quantity since before the war or since about 1937 or 1938. This government, by a subsidy policy has brought Nova Scotia coal back into the markets of Ontario, as I said at a substantial cost. This coming year, the year ending March 31 next, it is estimated that we will move into Ontario alone 850,000 tons of coal as compared with 450,000 tons last year or twice as much and the total cost of that movement will be over $12 million for the entire subsidy program, or $4,300,000 more than we paid out last year. Yet my hon. friends ask what we have done for the maritime provinces.
In the past, when we have been suffering from recession, when we have not had surpluses but have had deficits, we have gone ahead with our social security measures and have done everything that this government has done. We are also providing 50 per cent more for the movement of our coal from the mari-times to Ontario than was ever provided by our predecessors. Of course, we also established a new principle in connection with it. The Nova Scotia government is acting in partnership with us and to the extent of 20 per cent of the increased subsidy to a maximum of $500,000 the Nova Scotia government will co-operate.
Mr. Speaker, one could go on to speak at length on the coal matter, but I do not think it is necessary. I think the record of this government is clear in so far as coal is concerned. Despite the unfortunate period in which we have been operating, despite the shrinkage in demand, the industrial recession and everything else, I think it is clear that we have established here a record of which any government could be properly proud and of which the people in the coal mining areas of Nova Scotia, the maritimes and Cape Breton are appreciative. Make no mistake about that. The situation is one which is giving and will continue to give this government concern because we want to see the coal industry put on a firm basis. We want to see employment maintained there.
My hon. friend made some remarks,-I do not want to be unkind and I do not want to say sneering remarks-light remarks, about the fact we were taking the same attitude toward this problem as we were taking
8, 1959
Promises to Atlantic Provinces toward other serious problems. Here is a news story in the Cape Breton Post Record which is headed, "No More Idle Time". Then, underneath that heading there are the words, "Government praised". This news story reads in part as follows:
Because of increased government subventions, there will be no more idle times this year in Nova Scotia coal mines, after June, district vice-president Stephen Delhanty told the regular session of the Princess local of the united mine workers of America Saturday night.
He highly commended the federal government along with the provincial government of Nova Scotia for coming forward with assistance, without which there would be a great deal more distress in the coal industry in this province.
I could go on reading that laudatory article for quite a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, but this is a case where repetition is not necessary. The facts are so obvious they speak for themselves, and there is no necessity for repeating them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister goes on to another subject, perhaps he will permit a question. Did I understand the minister to say, as I think he did, that he did not recall any promise made by his party before the election of 1957 to increase coal production? I have here an advertisement published by his party which contains this sentence:
Your Progressive Conservative candidates are in favour of a policy that will increase coal production.


George Clyde Nowlan: We were certainly in favour of it and we supported a policy which has increased and will continue to increase substantially the demand for coal in the thermal plants of the Atlantic provinces. As I pointed out here a moment ago, the answer to that is that last year we increased the market in Ontario from 450,000 tons to 510,000 tons and we hope to increase it this year to 850,000 tons.
My hon. friend made some reference to the fact that we were going to refer this matter to a royal commission. He infers that this is a delaying procedure. I have already answered that. If there is any delaying procedure in what we have done in the last two years, in the accomplishments we have attained, then the miners of Nova Scotia will pray for more and more delay, and a continuance of it. Make no mistake about that.
We also realize that the coal industry is in a critical condition. There are problems facing that industry which have to be solved, and this is true all over the world. The competing fuels, gas and oil, as well as the possibility of atomic energy which is on the horizon, create a situation which deserves the most careful study, not simply the short term planning that we have had to do, frankly, since we came into power. We have been

Promises to Atlantic Provinces faced with one crisis after another, and the preceding government did nothing whatever to alleviate this problem. We did work out an interim solution, and we are continuing to do that. We want also, however, to arrive at a long term solution so that maximum employment can be provided in the coal fields.
It is because we are trying to make a long term study of the problems of that industry, and not because we are trying to sweep them under the carpet where our opponents left them, that we intend to refer this matter to a commission or some other body for study and report. Then, we shall arrive not only at the short term solution, as we have done, but also a long term solution, which will work in concert in the years to come.
My hon. friend read the catalogue from A to Z, as I have said, and referred to every speech the Prime Minister made, to all the advertisements that were published, and as I have said this points up the fact that we did have a positive program to put before the people. I do not intend to follow him on all the matters with which he dealt. He referred to transportation. It is true that we are suffering from a transportation problem. I wonder who would expect us to satisfactorily solve the transportation problem of the maritime provinces or in fact any area, but particularly the maritimes and the far west, in two years? I would think hon. gentlemen opposite would be amongst the last to deal with transportation, and reflect upon it, after having failed to deal with it during their term of office. As I recall it, the Turgeon commission was set up under the regime of the preceding government. If I recall it, the Turgeon commission made certain recommendations with respect to horizontal increases. They deprecated them and suggested that some alternative should be found.
When was that report, Mr. Speaker? My hon. friend at least has the advantage of knowing the subject on which he is going to speak, but we have to answer as we stand here, without any preparation and without any material in front of us. My own impression is that the Turgeon commission report was somewhere around the early fifties, 1951 or 1952. What has been done since 1952? We still have horizontal increases piled one upon the other, with all their detrimental effects.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. member aware that the royal commission on transportation chaired by Mr. Turgeon made no substantial recommendations with reference to horizontal increases?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know how you spell that word "substantial".
[Mr. Nowlan.1


Lionel Chevrier: I will take out the word "substantial", then.


George Clyde Nowlan: There will not be any semantics about it. As I said, I am speaking from memory and I do not have the Turgeon commission report in front of me. If I am not mistaken, the Turgeon commission in its report referred pointedly to horizontal increases-perhaps the reference was in the report of one of the commissioners, I shall qualify it to that extent-and their detrimental effect.


Lionel Chevrier: Does my hon. friend recall that when he was on this side of the house he and the Prime Minister, amongst others, said that if they were in office they would remove the effects of horizontal rate increases? What have you done about it?


George Clyde Nowlan: As I said, my hon. friend is also now going back into what was said by us several years ago. This is a compliment. As I said, we have not accomplished everything that we set out to do because there were so many things left undone by the preceding government it is going to take us some time. I do not want to prophesy, but I doubt very much if we could accomplish everything that should be done in the first four years. We will probably have to be re-elected for eight, ten, twelve or fourteen years in order to correct all the ills that were left behind by our predecessors.
However, we have taken two positive steps in connection with this matter of transportation. We have taken steps in connection with the problem referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)- his reference was lengthy and possibly exaggerated-that is, the incidence of freight rates upon the east and the west. We have provided a sum of money to alleviate the impact of these increases. This is a temporary thing because it will not cure the disease from which the people in the east and in the west are suffering, namely, high freight rates. Frankly, I doubt if anybody else can prescribe a cure at the moment, and that is why we have set up this royal commission. We do not want to sweep the problem under the carpet, but we want to make an exhaustive study of the problem. The instructions are to proceed with that study as rapidly as possible so that we can get an answer to the problems and carry out, in so far as it is humanly possible, the pledge we made with respect to transportation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister not forgotten, in his catalogue, that in the year 1957 the previous administration, which he says did nothing, increased the subvention under the Maritime Freight Rates Act by 50 per cent for all freight shipped out of the maritime area?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not the figures in
front of me, but if there was an increase of 50 per cent that shows how miserably low it was prior to that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister
another question? If the minister thinks it was so miserably low why did the government not increase it?


George Clyde Nowlan: We did increase it. We increased it as soon as we got into office.


Lionel Chevrier: You did not.


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was referring to the subvention under the Maritimes Freight Rates Act which was increased from 20 per cent to 30 per cent-a substantial increase-by the previous administration in 1957.


George Clyde Nowlan: I beg your pardon, I thought you were referring to something else. But in this connection I want to point out that when the increase in rates came into effect after the last decision of the board of transport commissioners we immediately took steps to alleviate the burden on the Atlantic provinces. We also took steps to alleviate the weight on the purchases of feed grain under the feed grain subvention measure. In various other ways, too, we sought to modify the burden imposed by the new rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as we did.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. gentleman and I could disagree about this from now until doomsday without getting anywhere. I am prepared to let the record stand as it is.
The hon. gentleman quoted from the Halifax Herald blueprint for the Atlantic provinces. I agree that this is useful reading and I think it should be read by every member of the House of Commons from east to west. The Halifax Herald has done a great deal of work on this subject. But I would point out that the hon. member referred only to this one book, which refers to the future, and avoided reading any of the editorials which have appeared from time to time in the past and which have so often commended the government for its work in dealing with problems which have been outstanding for a quarter of a century. I suggest the hon. member might also have referred to a few of those tributes.
8, 1953	4435
Promises to Atlantic Provinces
As I said, I do not think there is any point in discussing further the question of coal or transmission lines or of the subvention on the movement of coal within the maritime provinces. The record is there. It is a record which everyone may see, and I am sure it is one which has met with the approval of the people of the maritimes, and which will continue to do so.
There have been other things which this government has done in connection with the maritimes, not all of the same calibre as the subvention or the $7,500,000 grant. For instance, we have the federal government deciding to build an institution at Springhill, a federal government institution which will provide substantial employment after it has been built. Recognizing the special problem of that town, the government has made a special contribution as, of course, it should, as a measure of assistance following the disaster. Thus we have taken a step which we feel will help in the industrial development of the town.
I am reminded of this, also. The hon. gentleman deplored the lack of industrial development in the maritime provinces. I wonder if he saw in the papers on Friday reports of the fact that a Swedish firm had announced its intention of building a $40 million paper mill in the province of Nova Scotia, work to begin within a few months. This will mean the spending of over $10 million a year in the province in wages and in the purchase of pulpwood, and it represents one of the greatest contributions to the industrial development of Nova Scotia, other than the coal industry, which has ever taken place in this country.
I am not saying that the present government deserves any particular credit for this, because this has been primarily the achievement of the provincial government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the preceding provincial government.


George Clyde Nowlan: The preceding government? No, because Hon. Mr. Hicks, after reading about it in the paper-and no doubt he read all of the Halifax Herald, not just favoured extracts from it-said that this development would be of no use to Nova Scotia at all and was not in the interest of the province of Nova Scotia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: O, Lord.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not aware of the fact that it was Mr. Hicks who began the negotiations for the Swedish company to come there?

Promises to Atlantic Provinces


George Clyde Nowlan: Exactly in the same way as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) commenced negotiations for health insurance back in 1916 or 1917 when Mr. King first thought of it. At any rate, Mr. Hicks was quoted in the paper as saying that this would not be in the interest of the province of Nova Scotia. It shows how they learn nothing, or how they forget nothing. Who was it, the Bourbons or the Liberals; it is synonymous, anyway. But in 1925, 1926, and 1927 when another government in Nova Scotia established the Mersey Paper Company, which has been more important to the development of the industrial life of southwestern Nova Scotia than anything else, the Liberals attacked it and criticized it and said it would be no use to Nova Scotia. Now history is repeating itself with regard to the situation in the eastern part of the province. But that is simply an aside.
This government does not claim credit for this particular development, except that if the hon. member is correct in saying that Mr. Hicks deserves credit in originating this -and I do not for one moment accept that; I know it is not correct-if that is correct, then he obviously failed because it was necessary to get this government in power in Ottawa in order to create the proper climate so that the development could proceed. So much for industrial development.
The hon. gentleman was worried about the location of defence forces in Nova Scotia and in the maritime provinces. Had the hon. member listened to the radio this morning he would have heard about an R.C.A.F. plane coming from a constituency of which I am rather proud-coming from the R.C.A.F. station at Greenwood-which took off from that base yesterday, flew to Ireland, turned around and came back non-stop and then landed at Gander, unable to proceed further because of the weather. We have there one of the largest air bases in the western world. That base was constructed many years ago, but it has been developed and is still being developed, and served by those magnificent planes with those excellent people looking after them. It is going to be one of the bases for anti-submarine warfare. At least it will be prepared for this vital role in the defence structure of this country. I do not know of a single defence base, certainly in Nova Scotia, which has been closed.
There is a large camp outside Fredericton which was built by the preceding government, and I know that according to the press -and the press may be wrong; apparently all speeches made by Liberal leaders at Fredericton are suspect and possibly not accurate-report of a speech made by the

Liberal leader at Fredericton he said that two cabinet ministers in the maritime provinces have been able to maintain defence bases in their constituencies but that if he were elected to office those bases would be closed and the men would be moved to Fredericton.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


George Clyde Nowlan: Those bases, at least, have not been closed as yet. I do not intend to develop this further.
The figures were put on the record the other night by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) showing the increase in defence production orders in the maritime provinces during the last year as compared with the preceding year. There has been a substantial increase. As at March 3, 1958 the contracts awarded for construction and maintenance in the maritime provinces amounted to $22,500,000, representing more than 22 per cent of the total awarded for the period for all of Canada. That is a substantial increase. Although smoke stacks may not be dotting the horizon at the moment the foundations have been laid whereby through thermal power and otherwise assistance can be given to the development of industry. This government is different from the preceding government, it is using the instruments at hand including subventions on coal and consequent industrial development, and through the Department of Defence Production, will insist on a fair distribution of orders throughout the country and increase substantially the demand and the market for maritime products. This will be done through the government generally and perhaps particularly through the Department of Defence Production.
I have taken more time than I intended to take. That is the usual fate of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and myself. We are both Irish and perhaps we suffer because of that.
I mentioned that matter of Springhill and industrial development. Some industrial representatives from Springhill were talking to me today about certain matters on which they wanted certain information in order to establish another industry in that area. I have no doubt that because of co-operation between the provincial and federal governments there will be substantial developments there in years to come.
Reference was made to transportation problems. Only the other day the announcement was made of another ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland to augment the existing service. Investigations

are continuing with respect to the Prince Edward Island causeway and the results will be known before too long.
Consideration must also be given to the program of maritime marshland reclamation. This was brought in under the previous government but the expenditures have doubled and trebled during the years we have been in power and substantial works are being carried on at the moment.
I must say to my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-clough), that the industries in her city are setting a wonderful example for all of Canada. They have established a trend which is deserving of emulation. A textile plant operating in Hamilton moved to Yarmouth and is now providing substantial employment there. I commend this development to the attention of hon. members opposite and to people generally.
The hon. member referred to a textile plant in New Brunswick. I am not sure which one he meant but perhaps it was the Marysville plant. It is true that the machinery at the Marysville plant was up for sale and I believe was sold about a year and a half ago. But what has happened? An officer of the plant was in to see me within the last few days. The plant has been completely re-equipped with modern and efficient machinery and approximately 250 to 300 people are employed in that plant today.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) referred to Beechwood and there are other developments to which reference could be made including new bridges. Talk about pledges. There are two bridges under way in New Brunswick including the one at Campbellton which has been promised for years and years in every federal election and was then forgotten until the next election came along.
One could go on and on but I have detained the house long enough. In conclusion I repeat what I said at the outset. This government in my humble opinion and I believe in the opinion of the maritime provinces generally has done more for the Atlantic provinces during the two years less two days it has been in office-that is not a fully accurate calculation because we did not take office immediately-than was done by previous governments in the 25 years they were in office and we will continue to do so during the years just as we will continue to work for the increased development of all of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman really resumes his seat I wonder if he would permit me to ask him a question which I did not want to interrupt
Promises to Atlantic Provinces him by asking. He stated during his speech that the scheme that was proposed by us for power development had not been accepted and never would have been acceptable to the government of Nova Scotia. Could he explain how it was that the present government of Nova Scotia had a bill adopted by the legislative assembly of Nova Scotia approving the thermal scheme that was submitted by us?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have not the history in front of me and I am not prepared to answer that question. However, I strongly doubt the accuracy of that statement. I do not know how the premier could pass a bill approving of this project when he campaigned against it and in fact stood with the Prime Minister on a platform and publicly denounced it stating that his government would not accept it under any circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, well, a lot of people wondered about that.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question before he resumes his seat? Is the minister aware of the statement made by the president of Canadian Cottons Limited to the effect that the textile industry is in a very bad way. It has closed down the mill in Hamilton and threatens to curtail operations in Cornwall by 50 per cent.


George Clyde Nowlan: I fully realize that the president made that statement and that the industry is facing problems now as it did when we came into office when a substantial degree of unemployment prevailed. I was merely pointing out that at least in the maritime provinces in contrast to the gloom referred to by hon. gentleman opposite the picture is a little brighter.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, all of us listened with a measure of delight to the reply that was made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). I noted among other things that again he made light of election pledges. This is not the earliest occasion on which he has told us that election promises in effect ought not to be debated at any great length in the house. His argument was that we rather ought to be debating the actions or inactions of the government instead of making continuous reference to election pledges. I can assure the minister that he will have to plead many more times yet before he persuades the opposition that it ought to ignore election pledges on the basis of which the government of the day was elected.
I thought the minister today was a very modest man indeed in that he admitted there were still many unresolved problems in the

Promises to Atlantic Provinces maritimes. He claimed that the government is carrying out its election promises but he also reminded us that the answers involved long term solutions. Perhaps his plea that the government be re-elected three or four times is one reason for the delay and procrastination we have witnessed that has been allowed to continue in regard to election pledges that were given to the people of the Atlantic area. As I have said, the minister was a modest man today, much more modest than another minister who only several days ago told the people of western Canada that this government has already carried out its election pledges.
The minister claimed that the present government has done more for the Atlantic region in the last two years than the former government had done in 25 years. I regret very much that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) is not in the house at this time. I understand his health is not the best and we are hoping that he will be here again very soon. I should have liked him to be present today because I am convinced that he would not agree with the claim of the minister to the effect that this government has done more in the short space of its life for the Atlantic area than other governments have done in 25 full years.
I doubt very much if the unemployed miners in the Atlantic area would agree with that. I doubt if the producers of pulpwood would agree. I doubt if those engaged in kind. I doubt whether those connected with agriculture would support a claim of that health services, education or municipal governments would agree that more has been done in the last two years than in the previous 25 years.
The minister made a claim in regard to unemployed miners. He read an editorial to indicate that in the Cape Breton area there would be no more short time in the coal mines there. However, I have a telegram which was received this morning by my house leader, and it says:
Membership of Phalen local 4529 united mine workers of America request assistance of low rate interest loan be made available to members affected by cutback. Household appliances are being seized by finance companies. Immediate assistance needed.
Allan Foley President
I have another wire which was received last week from the head of district 26, united mine workers of the maritimes. Both of these telegrams originated in Glace Bay and the contents of the telegrams received certainly indicate that the miners are very much concerned about the problem of the lack of employment of a 40-hour week nature.

The minister made certain claims on behalf of the government's action. He said that more money had been voted this year to keep freight rates from rising again. He mentioned subventions on coal used within the maritimes, and he actually mentioned the extraordinary grants that were voted this year of $25 million for each year of a four-year period. However, in the main, the situation in regard to the Atlantic area of Canada is not being improved. It has not been improved for a long time. I should like to put on the record a clipping which indicates what the premier of Newfoundland had to say. The man is Premier J. R. Smallwood. He made a contribution at one of the earliest meetings of the Atlantic provinces economic council, and in reference to the federal government he said:
If they-
And by "they" I assume he meant the federal government. I continue:
If they are to show statesmanship they should make every province economically strong. Before we become second-class citizens of Canada, we will show the other maritime provinces how to get out of confederation.
This is taken out of a leaflet issued by the Progressive Conservative party, advice to their candidates, and the leaflet is headed "Federal-Provincial Municipal Relations".


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Was that the 1957 election?


Erhart Regier: I believe to all intents and purposes it was in the 1957 election, at least as far as I can assert.
There we have a leader of the government in one of the four Atlantic provinces who indicates that unless there is some sign of new leadership, of assistance on the part of the national government so that all Canadians may live as Canadians, he intends to show the maritimes how to leave confederation. I do think, Mr. Speaker, we ought to take what he says with a grain of salt because recently we have become used to some of his brave remarks. However, just the thought that he should be making that kind of statement, and that the Conservatives of the day should have decided that it was worthy of reprint, indicates that the problem is an old one.
The people of the Atlantic area have a claim on the people in other areas of Canada. In the first place, they have made a very great contribution to our very form of government in other parts of Canada; they have supplied many of the leaders in the fields of education, industry and of government in other areas of Canada. They played a large part in the early years in the development of other areas; and, therefore, when they now ask that they not be left behind

they are merely asking that we begin to recognize the sacrifices and the contributions that they have made in the years gone by so that other areas of Canada might be opened up and developed. It is for this reason that they are not very excited about the prospect of opening up of the north. They feel, and I believe rightly so, that the raising of the levels of incomes of maritimers ought at least to have priority over the opening of yet another vast new area in Canada. They feel that they have not yet received adequate compensation for the opening up of western Canada.
The policies of the government in regard to the Atlantic area in the main, outside of the items listed by the minister, have been a continuation of a policy of neglect and a policy of procrastination. I notice in a news release, a Canadian Press dispatch of January 6, 1959, where:
Alvin Hamilton, federal minister of national resources, said Monday the government has plans to revitalize Alberta's coal industry.
He said the government is expected to announce further details of the plan during the next session of parliament.
We have not heard of those plans as yet. However, if the minister has very extensive plans in mind, whereby he hopes to revitalize that enterprise in Alberta, I am sure that those who have an interest in mining in the maritimes would also like to see him announce a plan whereby their enterprise might be revitalized.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will send the hon. member a clipping from the Lethbridge Herald describing a new future for the Crowsnest pass.


Erhart Regier: I thank the minister and I shall look at the information in the newspaper he mentioned. I hope he will be equally aggressive in the restoration of the coal mining industry in the maritimes. It may well be that the government has decided that the policy enunciated by the Hon. C. D. Howe may be the right one; that if there is any area in Canada in which it is hard to obtain employment, maybe the best policy is to advise the people that they ought to leave the area. We remember very well one time when the implement workers came to Ottawa and presented a brief asking the government of the day to institute policies that would mean greater employment in their field of endeavour. In effect the advice they received was that if you cannot find employment in the farm implement industry you ought to move elsewhere where employment may be available.
8. 1959
Promises to Atlantic Provinces
I hold in my hand a clipping from the Montreal Gazette, dated May 1. This is also a Canadian Press dispatch out of Bell island, Newfoundland. It says:
The federal government has termed this island of 12,000 people a "labour surplus area" which means it will pay the cost of moving miners and their families to other parts of Canada.
This is altogether different from the pledge that was made to the people of the Atlantic provinces by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he said that he would institute a new deal for them so that their sons and their daughters would not have to leave home. Now they declare the area a labour surplus area and help to finance the movement of people out of the district.


William Joseph Browne: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he recall that the A. V. Roe Company closed their mine suddenly and left 500 or 600 men out of work? Does he not remember that?


Erhart Regier: I am not prepared to take up the cudgels on behalf of any of the operators of these mines. However, I find it difficult to appreciate how in a number of Atlantic areas you have huge stocks of unsold coal and miners who are unemployed and yet we take the taxpayers' money to deepen the St. Lawrence seaway so that iron ore from Labrador and Quebec can be moved up the St. Lawrence seaway and, together with United States coal, be used to supply employment for people other than Canadians.
The minister said that it would take time to achieve greatness. If we are going to help the Atlantic area it might well be an act of greatness if ways and means could be explored whereby the iron ore of Labrador and Quebec might be smelted by use of the energy resources of the maritimes rather than using the taxpayers' money to subsidize the export of that iron ore so that outsiders can benefit and with the further result that, over a tariff wall, we have to buy back American manufactured goods. I believe that would be a wiser policy rather than to sit idly by and blame A. V. Roe or any other company that happens to make a decision that a mine must be closed.
We realize that the house has just passed the national energy bill. I can remember so well that my first reactions to maritimers came from impressions I gathered from one of the leading representatives of the maritimes in the House of Commons for many long years, Mr. Clarie Gillis, the former member for Cape Breton South. He sought the establishment of a national energy board for many long years while he was in the House of Commons. He meant such a board as would give adequate consideration to the

Promises to Atlantic Provinces place that coal might some day play in the development of Canadian industrial enterprises. Yet we find that the government of the day is establishing a national energy board which, under the legislation, will completely ignore that vital source of energy.
The people of the maritimes engaged in the fishing industry were assured that they would be given support prices and that such support prices would bear a relationship to the cost of production. Agriculture in the Atlantic area was also given assurances. In the meeting at Summerside on February 27, 1958 the Prime Minister said that each year before the crop year began the farmer would know the lowest price he would receive. I might add that it now seems that each year the farmer knows that he will receive a lower price. However, the farmer was assured that he would know the lowest price. The Prime Minister went on to say that that price, in order to assure the farmer of his fair share of the national income, would have to bear a fair relationship to the cost of production of the farmer and the Prime Minister added that that was what the farmers had been asking for.
We know that we have the Agricultural Stabilization Act. However, in the implementation of that legislation the prices that have been determined up until now have always borne a relationship to the prices paid in the previous ten years and the minister has never yet announced a floor price with any indication that it was being fixed at that level because he had taken the cost of production into consideration.
One member who has taken part in the debate has mentioned the need of adequate transportation for the people of the Atlantic area. The people of Prince Edward Island particularly need ferry service now, not the assurance that a new ferry is going to be built which will be available years hence, not the assurance that a survey of a causeway is being made. If the minister cannot invent more adequate reasons for not buying the ship Vacationland than he gave to the house the other day he can expect the people of Prince Edward Island to be very disappointed. It is pointed out in an editorial in the Charlottetown Guardian that the Vacationland can be bought for $3 million. It is also pointed out that it is estimated that the cost of making it adequate would be another $1 million and that a new ferry would cost at least $8 million and would not be available for several years yet. The minister mentioned
1961.	We have heard these announcements on other occasions with respect to other matters. It might well be 1963 or 1964 and the people of the island feel that they cannot wait that long. May I call it six o'clock?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I adjourn
the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam has asked to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner recess I was emphasizing the fact that we owe much to those who live in the Atlantic provinces. Our leaders of the past and many of our leaders of the present were raised and educated in the Atlantic areas. The expense of the opening up of the rest of the dominion was to a great extent absorbed by those who now live in the Atlantic provinces. As Canadians they have rights. They are not asking for any hand-outs. I have noted with interest how at meetings of dominion-provincial premiers even such men as the premier of British Columbia and the premier of Saskatchewan have asked that the federal government do all within its power to help those in the Atlantic area. I, along with the Minister of National Revenue, realize that helping the Atlantic provinces is going to take a great deal of money, a great deal of energy and a great deal of imagination on the part of the government of the day so that the time may arrive when those living in the Atlantic area will have their economy restored to the point where their people can also have equal chances with us in the field of personal income, education, health and all the other matters that all of us are desirous of having. This requires a new deal as the Prime Minister indicated at election time, it calls for a time of greatness, not little bits and little pieces. It does not call for neglect or for procrastination so that, in the words of the Minister of National Revenue, the Conservatives might win two or three more times yet. It needs action now. The time of needed greatness that was mentioned is now.
It has often been mentioned that the resources of the Atlantic area are limited. Even if that were so we would be able to point to the people of Norway who, with their limited resources, have been able to achieve a standard of living that is almost unequalled in the western world. However, it is our contention that the resources are available. I indicated that we might well embark on a program of smelting the iron ore that is available in Labrador and in the province of Quebec. All these resources-the energy

resources, the iron and the water-are available. We have the basic resources. Transport is not a serious problem.
I should like once again to refer to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) and to what he said in the speech he made in Calgary. These are his words:
Canada must broaden and diversify its economy and the only way we can do that is make use of all our resources.
In the Atlantic area we have available resources that are not being utilized to the full. Even regardless of new resources and new enterprises, what about the enterprises that are now established? I maintain that our government should be able to do a great deal that would help the enterprises that are now established.
One of the first things I would advocate would be that the government encourage the people of the Atlantic area to have more purchasing power. One of the ways in which they might be able to do this is to encourage the establishment of unions, especially for those who work on the sea, the fishermen, and those who work in the woods of Newfoundland. Another thing which our government might do is to encourage Canadian ownership of the enterprises and industrial resources of the Atlantic area. This statement applies especially with regard to ownership of the coal mines and ownership of the enterprises having to do with the woods in that area. The Prime Minister assured Canadians that he would encourage the co-operative movement. Very little, if anything, has been done in this regard on the part of the government of the day. I believe that the government of Canada ought to encourage the activities of the Atlantic provinces economic council. Our government ought to consider the interests of the Atlantic area when amending tariffs and when considering freight rates.
Over the lunch hour I looked at what the Minister of Transport had to say last week. He said that the alterations to the Vacation-land would cost $2 million. Even that amount in addition to the purchase price of $3 million would mean a total cost of $5 million. For the sum of $5 million the people of that island might have improvement almost immediately rather than having to wait for years hence for the possible expenditure, after many elections, of $100 million or more on a causeway. The province of Newfoundland needs regular railroads and it needs highways. The province of New Brunswick needs highways. All of those people need vast expenditures on behalf of health and educational services.
Promises to Atlantic Provinces
The Prime Minister won 25 of 33 ridings in the Atlantic provinces. He won them on the basis of his assurance that a new deal was on the way. The present practice of delay and procrastination, of only a little bit now and then, only enough to keep them at bay for the time being and of assuring them of a little bit after another election, is hardly good enough. This is a time for greatness. Four out of the ten provinces are involved. In this area Canada was begun. The potentialities are great for the building of Canadian unity and for real national development. Unless action is taken we may see a demagogue arising in the years ahead. We have had in the past some indication that the area is not averse to demagogues. We may have arising a demagogue who may make such an appeal to the electorate there that we may end up by being four Canadas rather than one. I am sure that none of us wants that to happen.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited so I will reserve my comments for one or two key points. First of all, I think those of us in the house this afternoon recognized that the speech by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill) set the Liberal party on a new low of imagination for the future of this country. I well recall one year ago in presenting the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act that for five days the hon. member was the leading member of the opposition in filibustering that bill, even to the extent of carrying the debate on into third reading. Now he stands up and says that it is a good bill. What a conversion in one year!


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. minister-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of
privilege. The hon. member has completely misrepresented the position I took this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the last member in this house to talk about misrepresentation. This afternoon he told this house that the previous prime minister of this country, Mr. St. Laurent, had offered coal subventions to the Atlantic provinces. I know the record as to this coal subvention equalization offer made by the previous government on April 29, 1957, less than six weeks before an election as a death bed repentance; it was only for one plant, the first one and no other. The hon. member claims that he has been misrepresented, but those are the facts and the

Division
records, and all he has to do to verify them is to contact the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, who took the records from my department to make sure that he could defend himself if he were attacked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege again, a question which concerns every member of the former administration in this house. The statement made by the hon. gentleman about my former colleague, the present leader of the Liberal party of Quebec, is unreservedly untrue.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All my hon. friend has to do to establish the truth of my allegation is to read the records of Hansard when the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, as he then was, put them on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but it being 8.15 o'clock p.m. it is my duty pursuant to special order made Friday last to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question and any amendment now before the house.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, this is the time which is usually taken up by hon. members stating grievances. At the outset I should say that Yukoners are somewhat hardened to the apparent lack of awareness, shall I say, of the Yukon on the part of a great many Canadians in all parts of the country. There exists a general unawareness of the very existence of the Yukon. This is a situation that apparently obtains across Canada. As one travels across the country one sees the coats of arms of various provinces displayed in air line terminals and other public buildings but the coat of arms of the Yukon is not in evidence. This is also true of Canada House in New York.
The very fact that the building is called Canada House suggests to me and other Yukoners that it should be representative of all of Canada and yet we find there an absence of the coats of arms of the Yukon and

of the Northwest Territories. My concern this evening is not with this isolated instance. This is but one of a great many instances one could cite illustrating what I have referred to as a lack of awareness of the existence of the Yukon or, if you will, an absence of a tendency to include the Yukon in this sort of thing.
My observation this evening is much more serious and concerns the representation of all parts of Canada in the memorial chamber in this building. Before I pursue this thought any further I should say that upon my discussing the absence of the coats of arms of the Yukon and Northwest Territories in the main rotunda of this building last year with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) action was taken between the last session and this and we now see these two coats of arms carved and evident in the rotunda of the building. In the memorial chamber, however, their absence is still felt.
On Armistice day in 1928 the then prime minister opened the memorial chamber with these words:
In the name of the people of Canada in proud and grateful remembrance of 60,000 of her sons and daughters whose lives were given in the cause of freedom, I unlock the doors of this memorial chamber, and declare it henceforth open to the public.
Here upon its walls is inscribed the record of their deeds, and upon its altar will rest the book of remembrance containing their names. This then is the very heart of Canada wherein their memory will be cherished forever.
The point I wish to make is that among the 60,000 dead of the first world war there were a goodly number of Yukon citizens who lost their lives. In this regard I might just mention that in November of 1914, Mr. J. W. Boyle of Dawson City, Yukon, later Lieutenant Colonel Boyle, on his own initiative raised the Boyle mounted machine gun detachment. It consisted of some 50 of all ranks. Boyle clothed these men in frontier-men's uniform and despatched them to Vancouver, where they were billeted at his expense. Included in that group was Hon. George Black who once occupied the chair in this house. The detachment was attached first to the 29th battalion and then to the 2nd Canadian Mounted Rifles Regiment. In June, 1915, the Yukon detachment, as it was then called, accompanied the latter unit to England, without horses or guns and was stationed in the Shorncliffe area. On the same ship bearing the detachment to England and I believe later to France was another former member of this house, the late Mrs. George Black. Some of the personnel went to France as reinforcements for the 2nd Canadian Mounted Rifles-converted from 66968-9-282
8. 1959	4443
Coats of Arms in Memorial Chamber cavalry to an infantry battalion of the 3rd division-and other units in the field.
On June 14, 1916, now 33 strong, the detachment was renamed Yukon motor machine gun battery and brought up to an authorized strength of 4 officers and 55 men. Captain H. R. Meurling, an instructor at the Canadian machine gun school, assumed command. The battery went to Bramshott early in July, to join the 4th division as divisional troops. Motor cars and motorcycles were received later in July and six Vickers machine guns early in August. The unit crossed the channel on August 12, 1916, and became E battery of the 1st Canadian motor machine gun brigade.
The battery served at the Somme, October-November, 1916; Vimy Ridge, April, 1917; Hill 70, August, 1917 and Passchendaele, October-November, 1917. On March 22, 1918, the second day of the great German offensive, the motor machine gun brigade was ordered to the Somme in support of the British fifth army. It left the following day, and for twelve days harassed and hindered the enemy's advance.
On May 23 Captain Meurling was promoted and given command of another MG battery. On June 8, E battery, till then still known unofficially by its Yukon title, was broken up and absorbed into the 2nd Canadian motor machine gun brigade. Its commander at that time was Captain F. W. Thompson. The Yukon battery earned a number of decorations in the field, although details regarding decorations received and casualties suffered are not readily available.
In the memorial chamber the altar rests upon black marble steps which were the gift of Great Britain. Above it and around the steps of the altar are the Royal arms, the arms of Canada and the coats of arms of the provinces. The coats of arms of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are not included among the coats of arms of the provinces nor are they included in the golden book of remembrance embossed within which are the names and ranks of all casualties suffered across Canada during the first war. I feel that all hon. members of this house will agree with me, after having heard a brief history of the part that Yukon volunteers played in the last war, that she has earned her right to be included in the memorial chamber.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government cure the omissions of the past by investigating the circumstances which I described this evening with a view to finding some way of carving the Yukon coat of arms on the altar of the memorial chamber. If the circumstances equally apply to the part

Grain Shipments through Seaway played by the Northwest Territories in the first war, then I would suggest that the coat of arms of the Northwest Territories also be included. There is even a strong argument for its inclusion under any circumstances.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same subject?


William Moore Benidickson: On the same subject.
I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has chosen a most appropriate time for advancing a discussion of this kind, a time when we are all aware that our sovereign is on the high seas in her ship with the prince, coming to our shore.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


William Moore Benidickson: She is flying to Newfoundland; that is correct. In consequence of that, we are all the more conscious of matters that are sometimes neglected over here, such as armorial bearings, heraldry and the like. Particularly because of the greater attention that is now being directed toward the north, to the Yukon and to the Northwest Territories, I think it is most appropriate that the hon. member has brought this up. I want to assure him that there would be strong support for this from this side of the house. I know that if the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) were in his seat at the moment he would certainly endorse this suggestion, as we all do on this side of the house. The hon. member for Yukon would be the first to admit that the approach must be a twin one for recognition of the crest of the Yukon and those that are in that fairly recently dedicated territory as well as in the Northwest Territory.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that those in charge of those matters, at a time when we are so concerned about traditions of this kind, should get the utmost attention from the government in the matter not only of our national crest but, as the hon. member has indicated, in the matter of the Memorial Chamber, and recognition in the building and in other places.



REQUEST FOR EQUALIZED


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the grievance I should like to raise this evening has to do with the grain producers of western Canada. Before launching into that. Mr. Speaker, I hope I may be allowed merely to say that had I not been dealing with this general subject I would have been very

happy at this time to add the support of this group to the very pertinent remarks of the hon. member for the Yukon.
The issue that I wish to raise has to do with the very low delivery quotas prevailing at the present time in western Canada. It has to do with the very drastic falling off of lakehead shipments of grain through the seaway and the general adverse results as far as western grain producers are concerned. I have raised this matter a number of times this session on the orders of the day and I have received from the ministers evasive replies, misinformation and apparently a complete unawareness of the very adverse conditions prevailing at a great many marketing points. There are many reasons, perhaps, or a number of reasons why this situation is as bad as it is, but certainly one of the most important reasons is the fact that since the opening of navigation, lakehead shipments have been much lower this year than a year ago. I hold in my hand a Canadian Press report which appeared on June 1, and which reads in part as follows:
Fort William. Only 55 million bushels of grain have been shipped from the lakehead during the 1959 navigation season compared with 104 million bushels in the corresponding period of 1958.
I had hoped when I raised this grievance, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) would be in his seat. In his absence, I sent a note over to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). In fairness to the Minister of Transport I must say that he replied to me that he had a previous engagement which would make it impossible for him to remain in the chamber.


Mr. Creaghan:: On a point of order, the
minister is in the building, but perhaps not in his seat.


Hazen Robert Argue: That has nothing to do with his note. Surely, the minister will acknowledge that what I said was completely accurate. I do not have to produce the note, surely.
The very drastic drop in shipments of grain through the lakehead is apparently brought about by the inability of the St. Lawrence seaway to handle grain shipments, along with other shipments, in the same volume this year as last year. Since the seaway opened there has been one report after another of congestion, of inability to move ships quickly through the canal, and generally of a situation of very great inefficiency. Because of this congestion, because of a lack of priority for Canadian basic products, the seaway has been unable to provide facilities for the shipment of large quantities of grain this year as compared with last year.

There was an editorial in the Montreal Gazette on June 1 dealing with the congestion of the Welland canal, and it had this to say:
Last year it was possible for Canadian ships to pass through the Welland canal in nine hours. This year it is taking up to 58 hours. Not only are the costs of these delays being added to what Canadians must pay, but the level of tolls, imposed for the opening of the waterway, is yet another addition to the cost structure.
It goes on to say:
Unless Canadian shipping is given reasonable priority in the Welland locks, the Canadian economy may be seriously injured by the St. Lawrence waterway instead of being aided by it, and this surely, after all that has been said about the waterway, would be the height of irony.
Because of the inability of grain shipments to be taken through the seaway in substantial quantities I suggest that now is the time for the government to consider this problem and to act. 1 was pleased this afternoon to hear that the Minister of Transport has made a request to the United States that its flotilla of ships that are to appear in the seaway should go through the canal locks at the rate of only two a day. I would go even further. I would say that if the appearance of those ships in the seaway is to adversely affect the shipment of Canadian products through the seaway, as would appear from reports in today's newspapers, reported by people who are authorities on the seaway, then it would be far better if United States ships stayed at home and if grain, iron ore and other Canadian products went through the seaway. Authorities are telling us that if they all go through at the same time it would make such a tie-up and such a mess that it will take a period of three weeks to unravel the conditions that are brought about by the appearance of so many ships.


William Moore Benidickson: These are military ships.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, they are military ships, it does not matter what ships they are; they are going to block the canal.
I raised this question on May 21, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce to comment on the very drastic drop at that time from 72 million bushels being shipped through the seaway a year ago to 33 million bushels this year, and the minister replied as follows, as reported at page 3870 of Hansard:
I did not require notice of this question from the hon. member. The 47 Conservative members from the prairie provinces are also interested in this matter and have been talking to me about it in the interval. We are not dependent upon one lone figure to draw our attention to these important facts in Canada.
Then he goes on with a real clincher.
I make no comment with regard to the shipping and the seaway facilities; that is not my province.
66968-9-282J
8, 1959	4445
Grain Shipments through Seaway
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, under whose department comes the sale, delivery and export of grain, says "I make no comment" as a result of a drop of 50 per cent in the shipment of grain through the seaway. I raised this question again on June 1. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce the following question, as found at page 4196 of Hansard:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of the very drastic reduction in shipments of grain from the lakehead. Can the minister explain why shipments from the lakehead since the opening of navigation have dropped from 86 million bushels last year to only 42 million bushels this year, and whether anything is being done to speed up shipments through the St. Lawrence seaway?
The minister replied that farm deliveries were good and that quotas were satisfactory. He did everything but deal with the question I raised. Then I tried a supplementary question.


Mr. Harkness:: What date was this?


Hazen Robert Argue: June 1, page 4197 of Hansard. I asked the minister this supplementary question:
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know whether there might be some improvement in this very drastic reduction in shipments out of the lakehead, and I am asking the minister whether he can make any statement on that point. I would like him to comment as to why almost consistently since the opening of navigation Canadian exports are down this year as compared with a year ago.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce replied:
Mr, Speaker, that last statement is quite incorrect. Canadian exports are holding up extraordinarily well.
Then I went on to say:
I am not talking about the year in question; I am talking about recent weeks since the opening of navigation. The graph put out by the minister's own department shows a very substantial reduction. I can send it across to the minister.
I tried the same question the next day and I had figures to substantiate the statement I had made before, namely that Canadian exports had dropped. I asked the minister to explain why Canadian exports from April 22 to May 20 this year were just 15.9 million bushels compared with 25.1 million bushels in the same period last year. After some crossfire the minister replied as follows:
It may well be that exports of wheat during the month of April have been slightly lower than a year ago-
He did not know that the day before but on June 2 he admitted they were down. They were down in April following the opening of navigation and they have been down in May of this year. I have in my hand the latest figures taken from the Canadian wheat board

Grain Shipments through Seaway statistical summary and the board of grain commissioners weekly report. Overseas clearances of wheat from April 11 to May 27 this year amounted to 25.3 million bushels and in the same period last year exports amounted to 35.9 million bushels.
I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) is in his seat, I ask him if this very substantial drop in exports is not a serious matter, if it is not so important that the government should reply and explain why this very drastic drop in exports of Canadian wheat has taken place since the opening of navigation. When I put the question to the minister that the falling off of shipments from the lakehead might be having an adverse effect on Canadian exports he said no. He said that we had sufficient grain on hand at seaway ports and that even though the St. Lawrence seaway has been unable to handle the volume of grain that was handled a year ago there is enough at the seaway ports to take care of all exports.
I would suggest that that puts the matter in an even more serious perspective in that it shows that there has been no loss of export markets because grain was not available and yet, as I have said, from April 22 to May 27 there has been a drop in exports of wheat from 35.9 million bushels in the same period a year ago to 25.3 million bushels this year. These figures show that since the opening of navigation exports of Canadian wheat are not running anywhere nearly as high as they were a year ago and the situation in the present crop year, which has so far not been as bright as last year, is being made even worse in relation to the export sales of the other major exporting countries.
I have in my hand a Canadian Press article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of June 8 and is based on a dominion bureau of statistics report. It reads in part as follows:
Canadian wheat and flour exports in the August-March period dropped to 188,100,000 bushels from
197.600.000	a year earlier despite a 9 per cent gain in the total market of the big four wheat shippers, the United States, Canada, Argentina and Australia.
From August to March of this year Canadian wheat exports were down 9.5 million bushels or 5 per cent from a year ago. In the same period United States exports were
298.200.000	bushels, up from 255,500,000 bushels a year ago, or an increase for the United States of 43 million bushels or 17 per cent. Argentina's exports were up to 62 million bushels this year from 48,500,000 a year ago, an increase of 13.5 million bushels or 28 per cent. Australia's exports were also up to 50,400,000 bushels this year compared

with 46,400,000 bushels last year, an increase of 4 million bushels or 9 per cent.
In the wheat picture in the world today Canada's exports are down while exports by the United States, Argentina and Australia have increased substantially. When we ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce why Canadian exports are down he first of all denies it. Later he says that the reduction in the shipment of grain through the seaway has not adversely affected Canadian exports. So I ask, why has there been such a substantial falling off in Canadian exports since the opening of navigation compared with a year ago? If the grain does not go through the lakehead and through the seaway, if the grain pipe line, as it is called in popular terms, is plugged at Fort William and Port Arthur, this can only mean a falling off of deliveries of wheat and other grains by Canadian wheat producers.
For the period from April 22 to May 27 I find that a year ago farmers delivered 40.7 million bushels of wheat and that in the same period this year there has been a decrease in deliveries of more than 13 million bushels to just 27.3 million bushels. Deliveries from the farms are falling off as one would expect with such a drastic reduction in shipments of wheat and other grains through the lake-head. In the period April 22 to May 27 total deliveries of all grains from farms amounted to 49.4 million bushels a year ago and this year the figure is just 35.8 million bushels, a reduction of approximately 20 per cent this year compared with last year.
Mr. Speaker, the end of the crop year is not far away. The end of the crop year is July 31. Between now and July 31 the Canadian wheat board and the Canadian grain trade have approximately seven weeks in which to provide relative equality of treatment for the grain producers in the prairie provinces. Over the years I have been a strong advocate of a quota system but of a quota system that is equalized during the crop year. No one can expect that quotas can be equalized every day. Everyone who knows anything about the grain business nows that there are certain reasons why grain from time to time is taken from certain delivery points and not from certain other delivery points. But surely it should be the objective of any administration as well as of everyone who is attached to the grain trade in Canada to see to it that in so far as it may be possible provision is made for equal delivery quotas for all producers by the end of the crop year.
What is the situation now? The latest weekly report from the Canadian wheat board which came to my office today shows

that of the three prairie provinces, Alberta is in by far the best situation. For regular quotas there were six points on a four-bushel quota; 135 points on a five-bushel quota; 170 points on a six-bushel quota and 174 points on a seven-bushel quota.	In the
province of Alberta 70 per cent of all regular delivery quotas were in excess of four bushels per acre, that is of the regular delivery quotas.
In the province of Saskatchewan, as to regular delivery quotas, there were 69 points on a three-bushel quota; 551 points on a four-bushel quota; 318 points on a five-bushel quota; 82 points on a six-bushel quota and 36 points on a seven-bushel quota.	Unlike
Alberta which has 70 per cent of its points on quotas in excess of five bushels per acre, Saskatchewan has just 11 per cent of the marketing points on this kind of quota in excess of five bushels per acre.
In Manitoba the situation is as bad and perhaps even worse. In Manitoba there are 88 points on a three-bushel quota; 219 points on a four-bushel quota; 50 points on a five-bushel quota; 12 points on a six-bushel quota and 3 points on a seven-bushel quota. In the provnce of Manitoba only some 4 per cent of the marketing points are on a quota in excess of five bushels per acre. This is a tremendous discrepancy. This means that for the great majority of the areas of western Canada, at those points most producers face a marketing quota of three bushels, four bushels or five bushels per acre. Yet at the same time there is a substantial number of points on a six-bushel and a seven-bushel quota. I am hoping that an extraordinary effort will now be made within the next few weeks to bring up the points with a low quota so that there can be greater equality of treatment in western Canada.
I have in my hand a number of maps and charts showing the quota situation prevailing in Saskatchewan on June 1. On looking at these charts one finds that marketing points for the special quota for tough and damp grain, are concentrated in northeast Saskatchewan. A number of times on the orders of the day I asked the government to give special consideration to providing what I termed emergency quotas for the delivery of tough and damp grain. This action apparently has now been taken. I would be interested in finding out when it was taken.
I am given certain information that would suggest to me that it is something that has taken place only in recent weeks. In any event I think it has been a good action, namely that farmers who have tough and damp grain should be given an opportunity of marketing as large quantities as possible before the grain deteriorates and is lost.
8. 1959	4447
Grain Shipments through Seaway
However, I also have in my hand a chart of the seven-bushel quotas per specified acre. These quotas are not emergency quotas dealing with tough and damp grain; they are regular quotas to take in regular grades of wheat as the farmers deliver it. There is still a substantial concentration of these marketing quotas in northeastern Saskatchewan. The quotas prevail in an area which extends northeast from Saskatoon and southeast from Prince Albert. With the exception of a very few-and there are a few-other points on a seven-bushel quota, the great majority of the points on this quota are concentrated in that area. The six-bushel quota is somewhat more evenly divided but it is still more prevalent in the northeastern and now in the northwestern part of Saskatchewan. The five-bushel quota and the four-bushel quota are scattered about the province but the four-bushel quota is concentrated to a large extent in the southern part of the province of Saskatchewan.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, if I have not already made it clear, that these maps have to do with Saskatchewan only. The quotas in southern and southeastern Saskatchewan are extremely low and I would suggest that they constitute at this time an emergency situation. In the Saskatchewan wheat pool district 3A the latest quotas are as follows: 14 points are on a three-bushel quota; 75 points are on a four-bushel quota and only 13 of the points in that area are on quotas in excess of five bushels. This means that farmers in this area as well as other areas of Manitoba, in other areas of Saskatchewan and perhaps even in some areas of Alberta have not had an equal opportunity, or anything approaching an equal opportunity, to deliver grain at this time.
This situation has been brought about certainly in some substantial degree by the great failure of the St. Lawrence seaway facilities and failure of people in the grain business to pay attention to the need for putting shipments of grain out of the lake-head through the seaway. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says he has no responsibility. If he wants to abrogate his responsibility, if he wants to give it to some other minister, I suggest that the responsibility after all lies with the government. I suggest it is the responsibility of the government to take extraordinary measures to remove the bottlenecks in the seaway and to make certain that Canadian shipments of grain from now to the end of the crop year are given absolute priority of movement through the seaway. It will be too late if the bottleneck has been removed after July 31. Some of the farmers will find they have ended the crop year without an opportunity to deliver

Grain Shipments through Seaway a fair quota of grain and they will be crippled economically because the government has failed to deal with this situation. There has been a transport controller in the past; perhaps the government needs a transport controller today, but it is certainly necessary for someone in authority to see that grain shipments are moved out of the lakehead to protect Canadian overseas markets and to give grain producers on the prairies between now and the end of July a chance to delivery quotas on a more equitable basis.
I would suggest secondly that the government should take emergency action of whatever kind may be necessary to provide all of the box cars that are necessary at low delivery points to give the farmers at those points an opportunity to deliver grain up to I would say at least a 7-bushel quota.
Third, if the government still denies that this situation is as I have pictured it, then I would say that there should be a thorough inquiry by a committee of this house to ascertain why lakehead clearances have dropped by such a drastic and alarming amount as compared with last year. I say that such a committee should inquire into why Canadian exports since the opening of navigation are down, and should inquire why delivery quotas have discriminated to such an enormous degree against producers in certain widespread areas of western Canada.
As a fourth step that I suggest the government needs to take, and I would suggest is morally bound to take, they should decide and announce in this house their policy on deficiency payments and their reply to the grain producers and the briefs they have presented to the government. When we have asked the government what they are going to do about the submissions made by the farm organizations, we get this pat reply. "The government is giving the submission consideration." The submission was submitted to the government on March 10. It has been giving consideration to this now for three months. How long, Mr. Speaker, must the government give consideration to this important submission before it decides on its policy?


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For our guidance, would it be possible for the hon. member to tell us how he can relate-my friend is too anxious to get up.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, I have the floor.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member took his seat; will he allow me to put my question? How can the hon. member relate deficiency payments to his grievance that wheat was not moving this year through the lakehead?

How does the hon. member relate these two and bear upon the rule of repetition in the house on deficiency payments?


Hazen Robert Argue: Now my friend has raised two points of order, and until the house takes a decision on deficiency payments it is in order to raise the question at an appropriate place, and it is relevant to the question under discussion. I shall answer the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, by merely referring to what I said when I opened my remarks. I said that I wished to raise a grievance having to do with the general grain situation on the prairies. Then I went on, after having made those opening remarks, and talked about the drop in shipments through the seaway. I raise this fourth point, Mr. Speaker. Under the general grain situation and the general grievance affecting the grain situation that I have presented tonight I say that it is time this government quit procrastinating and time they quit fooling the prairie grain producers that in fact they are really giving the question of deficiency payments serious consideration.
I asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) after the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had raised this point on May 26. I asked this question as recorded on page 4011 of Hansard of that date:
Can the Prime Minister say whether, following the consideration that is now being given, a decision will be made during the present session of parliament so that if it is necessary to introduce legislation in order to implement the government's decision, that can be done?
To that the Prime Minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to answer that question directly, for the reason that it depends on the length of time during which consideration is given to the request.
The Prime Minister left it open for himself and the cabinet to give consideration to this request, and has done so for months to come, certainly for weeks to come, until the session is ended and until it will be impossible for the house to deal with any legislation that might be required if a decision were favourable. Mr. Speaker, in the name of the grain producers of western Canada I ask the government to come to their assistance in these last weeks of the crop year to provide priorities for the movement of grain through the lakehead, to provide whatever box cars are necessary to allow producers at low delivery points the opportunity to deliver at least a 7-bushel or 8-bushel quota as is being provided for other groups. In the meantime I ask, if the government denies the facts which I have presented, for a thorough inquiry by a committee of this

house as to why lakehead clearances are down, as to why exports have fallen, and as to why delivery quotas are discriminating against so many marketing points and against so many producers in western Canada. I ask the government to take emergency action to remove the bottleneck in the shipments of Canadian grain so that Canadian producers may have the opportunity to deliver substantial quantities of grain before the crop season ends.
Finally, I make a plea that the government ends its procrastination to make a decision and informs the house as to what its decision is on deficiency payments, so that if a favourable decision is made, as I trust it will, parliament during this session will have the opportunity to pass whatever estimates or whatever legislation is necessary to implement that decision.


Mr. Pascoe:: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? Is the hon. member now changing his story, and will he not admit that most farmers have enough wheat on their farms to fill an 8-bushel quota?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if a farmer has an 8-bushel quota, it does not mean that he has the grain to deliver the quota. I am merely asking this very simple thing-


James Ernest Pascoe: Will the hon. member answer my question? Have they enough to fill an 8-bushel quota?


Hazen Robert Argue: Some have and some have not. Mr. Speaker, there are 235,000 or a few more holders of permit books on the prairies. Some have enough grain-


James Ernest Pascoe: Will the hon. member give an idea how many they could have?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a very pertinent point. The pertinent point is whether the farmers in the prairie provinces will have the opportunity to deliver an 8-bushel quota. If they have not the grain at home then they cannot take advantage of that opportunity. There are certain quotas and a certain limited number of points in the west today that are on what are called limited quotas, and in the definition of the Canadian wheat board these are quotas which are now in existence at certain marketing points at a figure high enough to take deliveries. I think the Canadian wheat board can give these statistics to my hon. friend, but I will give him the answer. As of May 25, 1959, in Saskatchewan-and I can give the figures for the three prairie provinces-1,056 points were on regular quotas and only 31 points were on a limited quota, namely on quotas at 31 points which, in the opinion of the wheat board, were ample to take
Grain Shipments through Seaway care of the grain which farmers had ready for delivery in those districts. The fact is that many thousands of western wheat producers at this time are crying out for the opportunity to deliver grain, and quotas are being denied to them.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker,
there are three subjects which, I believe, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) raised, and I suppose I should be the last one to deal in the house with deficiency payments and the movement of wheat.
However, there is a matter in which I am particularly interested, and that is the first part of the grievance which the hon. member for Assiniboia raised, namely the bottlenecks on the Welland canal and on the seaway resulting in a lack of grain deliveries and leading, also, to difficulty in the movement of grain. The point which the hon. member makes has to do with drastic reductions in grain deliveries out of the lakehead; his point was that Canadian exports have declined since last year. I am not in a position to challenge that statement, nor do I, but what I do say is that if that is the case it is not due to anything that is happening on the Welland canal. The proof of that lies in the fact that up till now, when barely more than two months of the navigation season have gone by, almost twice as much traffic, notwithstanding what is happening, has gone through as in the same period last year.
However, that does not derogate from the fact that the government and the Minister of Transport are not applying the right policies to remedy what is happening, and to that extent I find myself in accord with the hon. member for Assiniboia. We all know that the early delays on the seaway were caused by ice conditions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member intends to speak about matters other than this question of grain deliveries I wonder if he would mind if I replied to that aspect of the debate now, and then we could go on to the other subject.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, but I have to go out of the house to a meeting, and I am ten minutes late. I think I can dispose of this within the next few minutes, but I do want to bring to the attention of the house the fact that here are reasons for the bottlenecks which have arisen, and that the congestion could, in my opinion, have been averted. I think that if a decision had been taken in the first place to open navigation on a fixed date, and not postpone it twice, there would not have been that congestion of ships at Montreal waiting to enter the seaway, creating a bottleneck which afterwards continued in the Welland canal.

Grain Shipments through Seaway
I made a suggestion during the question period which was turned down without any consideration whatsoever being given to it. That was that the introduction of sector gates at the Thorold locks of the Welland canal such as those which exist in the lower locks would speed up traffic considerably. I have since been informed by competent engineers that this is a fact and that their introduction would help tremendously in the movement of ships.
I think, in all fairness to the Minister of Transport, that it is still too early to come to a decision on the present position of traffic on the seaway. I think that the seaway must be given a trial period, and this trial period would certainly be not less than the length of the navigation season and perhaps more. One cannot in two or three months make a decision as to what should be done. But there is one thing which I hope will be considered by the minister. I asked him this question and he hedged in his reply: whether or not the engineers of the special projects branch of the seaway authority should not now be giving careful consideration to the duplication of certain of the Thorold locks on the Welland canal. While the engineers are doing that, it might be possible to arrive at a suggestion, with other studies-one or two of which I am going to make-as to whether or not traffic conditions can be substantially improved.
I think, too, that there is a very serious lack of co-ordination between three bodies in the Department of Transport-the national harbours board, the seaway authority and the St. Lawrence ship channel authority. Those three bodies, I am sorry to say, did not work in co-operation during the early part of the navigation season, and it is because of this lack of co-operation that, in my opinion, there has been the first delays which have since been continued.
I am glad that the Minister of Transport announced today that the flotilla or convoy of United States ships will, perhaps, not be introduced into the seaway. My suggestion is that it should be allowed to remain at Montreal and that it be not allowed to go into the seaway at all, because if there is congestion now, as reports in the press indicate, and as even the minister's statements -some of which are quite contradictory- indicate, there is certainly no reason in the world to clutter up the canal more than is the case at the present time. All this traffic, however, goes to show that the seaway is certainly going to be a success, as has been suggested in the house, at this time of the year so early in the period of navigation.

Then there is the really important question of whether or not there should be discrimination against Canadian ships. I raised the question on the orders of the day, and was told, in reply, that there was a system of priorities in existence which staggered a foreign ship and a Canadian ship in so far as bulk cargoes were concerned and it was felt that there should be no change in the procedure in the meantime because, I think the minister said, there were four ships waiting to enter the canal at Port Weller and about five waiting to enter the canal at Port Col-borne on the downward movement or vice versa. That is a matter for which the government is responsible. I remember quite well what the statements were in so far as discrimination was concerned when the matter was discussed many years ago, but whether or not in view of what is happening there should be a system of priorities affecting Canadian traffic is a matter for the government to determine. But I say that the government should determine that as soon as possible having regard to the reports which have been made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) from time to time.
I think that the minister should at the first opportunity-that is Wednesday when his estimates are being discussed in this house- make a statement on this subject. He is in possession of the facts; he has the reports from his engineers and he is familiar with the statistics which have been compiled concerning the movement of ships. I think he owes it to the house and to the country to make a complete statement on the present position-not partial statements such as we have heard from time to time in the question and answer period. That is not sufficient, and I think that until such a full statement is made it will not be possible for us to make up our minds about the seriousness of these delays on the canal and the confusion which has been reported. I therefore invite the minister to make this statement at the earliest possible moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to go into transportation matters at all in my discussion this evening. However, I should like to make a few comments on the speech made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). The hon. member as usual attempted to paint a picture of gloom and anticipated despair on the western prairie as a result of the inability of farmers to market their grain. Nothing could be further from the true facts than the type of picture he attempted to leave in the minds of hon. members in this regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: You cannot get away from the facts and statistics.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member repeated time after time with somewhat monotonous regularity the statement that Canadian exports are down this year. At one point he said that Canadian exports of wheat are drastically down this year. Naturally he implied all of the evil results that would flow from our exports being drastically down.
What is the true situation in this regard? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) put the figures on the record only a few days ago, on June 1, when he stated that up to the end of March of this year exports of wheat and flour were just under 9 million bushels below the figure for the same period last year. That is the drastic decline to which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) referred. Last year exports of wheat from this country amounted to 316 million bushels-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister will recall that in my remarks I was referring to the drastic reduction in exports since the opening of navigation. In order to be completely fair
1	took the exports from the beginning of the first full week following the opening of navigation.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not a point of order. That is an argument.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member is not
advancing a point of order but merely engaging in counter argument. The hon. member repeated time after time that our exports of wheat are drastically down.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the opening of navigation they are drastically down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman
attempted to paint a picture of gloom and despair as far as the western farmer is concerned. The true picture as I said is depicted by the information placed on the record by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June
2	as reported at page 4242 of Hansard. Our exports are down just 9 million bushels below a year ago. Down 9 million bushels from what? From 316 million bushels which we exported in the last crop year as compared with 267 or 268 million bushels exported in the previous crop year. The hon. member neglected entirely to point out the fact that in the first year this government was in office we managed to secure a marked increase in the exports of wheat from Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now you are falling behind again. Exports are down.
66968-9-283
8, 1959
Grain Shipments through Seaway


Douglas Scott Harkness: Three hundred and sixteen million bushels were exported in the last crop year as compared with 267 or 268 million in the previous crop year.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are falling behind once more. Exports are declining.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman is now talking about a drop of 9 million bushels from the figure I mentioned up to date. We have not yet reached the end of the crop year. The hon. gentleman described it as a drastic decline which is a typical example of the exaggerated language in which the hon. member unfortunately engages.
As a matter of fact, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the chairman of the wheat board, various members of the wheat board, and various members of the government including myself have stated on several occasions during the past months that we expected our exports of wheat this year to reach at least 300 million bushels. We still expect our exports to reach that figure. The amount we have exported thus far gives every indication that this target will be reached. If we do reach exports of 300 million bushels then all the other complaints the hon. member has been making about quotas will disappear.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This will mean that practically all the farmers in western Canada will have been able to deliver all of the wheat they wanted to deliver to the elevators. When you subtract the amount they want to retain for seed and so on there will be few farmers in western Canada who will have any wheat that they have been unable to deliver.


Hazen Robert Argue: We will see on July 31.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member went on to say that Canadian exports are down whereas Argentine and Australian exports are up. What he neglected to say was that Australia had a crop failure last year and actually imported wheat from Canada. As proof that Canada is not doing well the hon. member pointed out that Australian exports are up. Naturally they would be up if Australia had no crop failure this year as was the case last year. With typical lack of logic the hon. member attempted to take an extraordinary year as far as Australia is concerned to prove his point that Canada is not doing very well in wheat exports. We know that Australia last year actually imported wheat from Canada. That is an indication of what a completely unfair, biased

Grain Shipments through Seaway argument the hon. gentleman advanced and illustrates the incorrect impression he attempted to convey.
The hon. gentleman went on to exclaim that there were very low delivery quotas. Rather than being low, delivery quotas are the best they have been for a number of years. They are better than they have been for a number of years in the past. I do not have on hand the exact period this would cover but they are better than they have been for a considerable length of time. The hon. member read off a long list of delivery quotas but neglected to refer to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce told him as reported at page 4197 of Hansard of June 2 when the minister said:
If he has any further worry with regard to the quota distribution in the prairie provinces, may I assure him that this year at this time there are 264 stations on a 7-bushel quota per specified acre; last year there were none. This year there are 308 stations on a 6-bushel quota per specified acre; last year there were 341. Generally the picture is much better than it was a year ago.
The hon. member having been told this and knowing it of his own knowledge still rose in his place and said that delivery quotas are low and that a serious situation exists in western Canada because farmers cannot deliver their grain.
I have in my hand the Regina Leader-Post of Friday, June 5, 1959 which contains an article entitled, "Board Not Concerned by Small Wheat Export" which is a statement of the wheat board.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought there was a big wheat export; you said there was.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman should let me make my speech. I did not interrupt him. The article states in part:
The Canadian wheat board Thursday announced new increases in grain delivery quotas at provincial points.
The following increases are effective immediately-
That is, effective on Friday. The article then lists 24 points that are to be put on a 4-bushel quota, 50 points that are to be put on a 5-bushel quota, 19 points that are to be put on a 6-bushel quota and 16 points that are to be put on a 7-bushel quota. These are all Saskatchewan points. The article then lists increases that are to be effective on Monday; in other words, today. A further 34 points are to be put on a 4-bushel quota, a further 96 points are to be put on a 5-bushel quota, a further 28 points are to be put on a 6-bushel quota, a further 5 points are to be put on a 7-bushel quota and a further 11 points are to be put on an 8-bushel quota.
In other words, due to the fact that we have been exporting grain at a very satis-

factory rate this year the delivery quotas are rapidly going up in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They were already somewhat higher in Alberta as the hon. member said. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman, if he read this newspaper article-


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I did not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly he should not be making speeches such as he made in the house when delivery quotas on Friday last and today were considerably increased in the very province about which he was complaining.


Hazen Robert Argue: The picture I painted was accurate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that he is not entitled to speak from his seat when another hon. member has the floor. It would be appreciated if he did not constantly interrupt the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). If the hon. member for Assiniboia wants the floor he may have it at some other time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the hon. member interrupting because I know this hurts a little and therefore I expect to hear him squeal to a certain extent.
Having disposed of this complaint raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia that very low delivery quotas obtained this year and having indicated that exactly the reverse is the true situation I should like to turn to the remarks the hon. gentleman made about low shipments from lakehead ports. Just the reverse is the case. I should like to say something about what he had to say about low shipments from lakehead ports. I should like to ask him, or any other hon. member here, if any exports have been lost as a result of the lower shipments from lakehead ports this year. There is not an hon. member in this house who can say that any has been lost.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why then are they down?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this same paper is a statement from the wheat board in which they state:
A spokesman of the Canadian wheat board said there is no problem,-
He is talking about small shipments from the head of the lakes this year. I continue:
-there is no problem, as plenty of wheat is in store at eastern elevators right now.
In other words, we have not lost the sale of a single bushel of grain because the shipments on the lakes are lower this year than they were last year. The hon. member was building up a great big strawman, and then

trying to make a big fellow of himself by punching holes in it, by talking about those low grain shipments from the head of the lakes this year. This has not lost us a bushel of exports, not one, and therefore, this was all shadow-boxing by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
Then, he made an attack on the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) in connection with his saying that he had no comment to make on the transportation difficulties on the great lakes. After reading what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say, which was as follows:
I make no comment with regard to the shipping and the seaway facilities-
He made a great point out of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce takes no interest in this; he apparently does not care about the seaway shipments, and so forth and so on, and this was a terrible dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but he completely neglected to read what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said after that, which was as follows:
The situation with regard to export trade is being maintained. The fact that the shipment of grain from the lakehead is not as great as it was last year has no effect on our export market at the present time, because there is sufficient grain in position further east to handle these exports. Our exports of wheat are continuing at a good figure. We still expect to reach the quota that we set earlier in the year.
This is on page 3870 of Hansard of May 21. The quota that we set earlier in the year was 300 million bushels, which I mentioned a little while ago. If we reach the 300 million bushels, which I feel quite confident we will, which the members of the wheat board feel quite confident we will, then the number of farmers who will have been unable to deliver the grain they wanted to deliver will be very, very small indeed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Wesson, the head of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, when he was down here on his last trip about 10 days ago, I guess, in connection with deficiency payments, made that very statement to us, that in his opinion the four and five bushel quotas which existed at most points would be more than sufficient to take the grain that the great majority of farmers in western Canada wanted to deliver, let alone going to six, seven and eight bushels quotas which the hon. member was talking about. I would suggest he should get some better information from Mr. Wesson and some of the other people who know something about the grain business and the grain situation in western Canada than the type of information 66968-9-283J
Dominion-Provincial Relations with which he has been attempting to give a completely inaccurate picture to the house this evening.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a question? Will the minister assure the house that all marketing points at July 31 will have at least a seven bushel quota?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member knows to begin with that this is not my department, and I am not in a position to give any such assurance to the house, as a result of that.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the answer to your own
speech.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE General administration-
106. Departmental administration, $2,461,599.

[Stage Direction]
238. Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a Member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $15,000.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
380. Departmental administration, including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,636,084.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Third reading of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act -The Minister of Finance.
Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps we would be ready to go on at this stage.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member wished, we could call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
4454	HOUSE OF
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the list would be as I indicated on Thursday and Friday night. If we go into estimates this week it would be the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: Would that be on Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: It depends on what progress we make.


Lionel Chevrier: What estimates will follow the estimates of the Department of Transport?


Howard Charles Green: The Department of Justice.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader whether any determination has been made of the date on which the defence estimates will be discussed?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that; I will let the hon. member know just as soon as possible.


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

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

Mr. Argue: 1.	At what universities did Dr. Richard S. MacNeish, presently an employee of the national museum of Canada, take his degrees?
2.	At what universities did Dr. MacNeish take post graduate training, and under whom did he study?
3.	Is Dr. MacNeish a veteran of any war?
4.	If so, in what armed forces did he serve, and in what war?
5.	What positions had Dr. MacNeish held previous to his appointment to the staff of the national museum of Canada?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1.	University of Chicago.
2.	Harvard University, University of Michigan and University of Chicago; names of professors studied under not available in departmental records.
3.	Yes.
4.	United States of America forces; world war II.
5.	District supervisor, museum project, works progress administration; archaeological supervisor, Illinois state museum; archaeological supervisor and fellow, University of Michigan; director, archaeological field school, University of Kentucky; director, second Tamaulipas expedition, Mexico, under auspices of Wenner-Gren foundation for anthropoligical research, New York City.


DR. RICHARD S. MACNEISH-U.S. RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any communications ever been received by officers of the Department of Northern Affairs
Division
and National Resources or any other agency of the Canadian government, either directly or indirectly, from any official or agency of the government of the United States, since January 1, 1948, regarding Dr. Richard S. MacNeish, presently an employee of the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so, by whom were these communications received, from whom were they received, on what dates were they received, and what was the nature of each such communication?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Not to our knowledge.
2.	N/A.


NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has a Mr. Wm. E. Taylor ever been employed at the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so, has Mr. Taylor ever taken (a) the oath of allegiance: (b) the oath of office, as required by section 42(1) of the Civil Service Act?
3.	If so, on what date was this done?
4.	If not, under what authority was Mr. Taylor allowed to take a position under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Act?
5.	At what universities did Mr. Taylor take his degrees, in what subjects did he specialize, and under whom did he study at each university?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	See answer to question No. 393.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) yes.
3.	May 29, 1956.
4.	N/A.
5.	University of Toronto, B.A. (honours), 1951; anthropology; Professor T. F. Mc-Ilwraith, Dr. G. Gordon Brown, Dr. J. N. Emerson, Dr. E. S. Carpenter.
University of Illinois, A. M., 1952, sociology; Professors J. Steward, J. C. McGregor, O. Lewis and B. Zimmerman.
University of Michigan, passed preliminary examination for Ph.D. 1956; anthropology; Professors L. A. White, J. B. Griffin, A. C. Spaulding, R. K. Beardsley, F. Thieme and
E.	Service.



.


Tuesday, June 9, 1959


REPRESENTATION ACT
Erik Nielsen: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-55, to amend the Representation Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Explain.


Erik Nielsen: The purpose of this bill is to correct a wrong that has been of long standing in Canada, that is to provide to Canadian citizens living in the area described in the bill the right to vote in federal elections, a right which would affect some 8,000 to
10,000	qualified citizens in the area concerned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, now that he has had an opportunity of reading the judgment of the exchequer court concerning the expropriation of land for Malton airport, he has any further statement to make on this matter at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Leader of the Opposition asked this question:
I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question based on reports of a judgment rendered yesterday by the exchequer court with regard to property valuation at Malton airport. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to make a statement concerning the matter covered by this judgment, in which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) are mentioned?
In the course of my reply I said, amongst other things:
However, I think I should say at this time that in so far as any reference to any hon. member in this house is concerned, and in particular to the hon. member for Peel, the integrity and honesty of purpose of that hon. member leaves no question in my mind.
I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the support he gave me in this regard when he said:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In view of statements made in the judgment- and I am not quarrelling in any way with what the Prime Minister has said-has the Prime Minister considered referring this matter to the appropriate standing committee of the house so that it may be given the fullest and most impartial examination?
I repeat that I very much appreciated the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition in entirely supporting me when I said that the honesty and integrity of the hon. member left no question in my mind.
In conformity with the answer I gave, I have read carefully the judgment of the exchequer court and I have also had an opportunity of discussing the matter fully with the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Peel. On the basis of those discussions and studies the opinion I expressed on Friday is fully confirmed. There is nothing which brings into question the integrity and honesty of the hon. member for Peel, and in so far as the minister is concerned there is, of course, no reference whatsoever throughout the entire judgment which in any way to the slightest degree suggests any impropriety.
I feel I should give some particulars regarding the suggestion that this matter might be referred to a committee. According to the judgment, which I have before me, the matters in question having to do with the valuation of land in the Malton area had their origin in the expropriation proceedings of 1954. During the period from 1954 until June 10, 1957, the hon. member for Peel acted in the capacity of solicitor with regard to this matter for some 14 or 15 veterans in that area who felt that justice was not being done to them in the offers made by the department in respect of the land expropriated.
From June, 1957-and I want to underline this-following the change of government the hon. member for Peel thereafter ceased to have any connection with the legal end, disassociating himself from that position. His endeavours were to secure what he believed to be justice for these particular constituents and veterans. It was not until January, 1959, of course, that the hon. member became chief government whip.
I carefully considered the position on the basis of an examination of that judgment and also in the light of past authorities in

Inquiries oj the Ministry respect of the submission to a committee of matters such as these concerning the privileges of any hon. member of parliament, and I found no case in which any such submission to a committee was ever provided for except where it had been alleged that there was on the part of an hon. member improper conduct resulting in his personal gain. Of that there is not one scintilla of evidence in the judgment or elsewhere as far as the hon. member for Peel is concerned.
I think I should refer to the authorities so the record will be complete in this regard. I say, first, that on the basis of the experience of the past and of the traditions of this house, all the cases referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections since 1867 had to do with alleged improper conduct whereby a member allegedly had used his public position in order to further his private interest. Those cases go back to 1877. In 1877 there was the case of a newspaper owned by Hon. T. W. Anglin, M.P. which became a party to a contract with the Post Office Department concerning the insertion of advertisements relating to the public service. However, parliament having been prorogued no action was taken by the house.
In 1890 J. C. Rykert, M.P., was charged and found guilty of having used his influence to get for one John Adams a grant of certain timber limits. This was brought before the committee and Rykert resigned his seat, having been found guilty.
In 1891 charges were brought against Hon. Thomas McGreevy, member of parliament and member of the Quebec harbours commission in connection with tenders and contracts. The committee found a conspiracy between the contractors and the member in question. A contracting firm had taken the member's brother as partner and given him an interest in the firm in order to obtain a contract. McGreevy resigned his seat.
There was the case in 1915 in which A. deW. Foster, M.P., was found by the public accounts committee to have acted as a purchasing agent for the government in the purchase of certain requirements for the army. That committee reported to the house, recommending thorough investigation and action by the Department of Justice. Before such action was taken, A. deW. Foster resigned his seat. There were four other cases of a similar nature in which the action taken resulted in the charges against the member being rejected.
That in general summarizes the situation under which the rights of parliament are subject to that jealous scrutiny which at all times must be maintained. In every case

there was moral wrongdoing or the achievement of personal gain. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances and reinforced by the objective attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition when he confirmed me in the general statement I made during the course of my remarks on Friday, there is nothing to be placed before any committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's reply and particularly in view of his reference to myself perhaps I might be permitted to make an observation. It is quite true, as the Prime Minister has said, that I stated in the house on Friday that I had no quarrel with what the Prime Minister said on that occasion. Of course I would have no occasion either to quarrel with or support any statement the Prime Minister made on that occasion, because it was a preliminary statement pending the examination which at that time he promised to make.
Naturally I am glad to confirm what I said on that preliminary occasion. We on this side will now study the Prime Minister's very important statement today. If that statement seems to require further discussion in the house no doubt there will be an opportunity later to refer to it.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not agree from a study of the judgment-and I had not an opportunity of making that study last Friday-that there are contradictions between statements in this judgment about a member of parliament and statements made outside the house on the same matter by the same hon. member, contradictions which in fairness to all concerned should be cleared up?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know of no contradictions such as are suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. I may say a committee is not set up for the purpose of resolving contradictions. The circumstances under which a committee is set up are very clearly shown to be based upon a charge or charges made by a member of this house. All of us know what happens when charges are made. If charges are made, the house has the opportunity of determining whether they should be submitted to a committee. And if any hon. member makes a charge he, of course, has to substantiate that charge, and if he fails to substantiate the charge the parliamentary tradition, indeed all the experience of the past, indicates that such a member having made a charge unconfirmed

and unsupported may be himself adjudged guilty of a breach of the privileges of the house.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when prime minister, in the House of Commons debates of 1907, at page 5664 of Hansard, with all his regard for the traditions of parliament and the necessity of their maintenance inviolate, made this statement that is most pertinent and applicable:
The house, I hope will not depart from the sound traditions which have come to us from England and according to which there could be no inquisition into any man's conduct or standing except on charges made specifically.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In connection with the expropriation of properties at Malton airport, did the member for Peel recommend to the minister the appointment of an independent appraiser?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister give any assurance to the hon. member for Peel that he would recommend to treasury board settlement of the various expropriation cases on the basis of the appraisals made by the independent valuator?


George Harris Hees: I assured the hon. member that the appraisals made by Mr. Clare would be presented to treasury board for their examination.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, now, Mr. Speaker, in view of what was said by the president of the exchequer court in the case, would it not be desirable for the minister also to make a statement concerning this whole matter?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter has been very clearly set out by the presiding judge in his judgment and, being a distinguished lawyer himself, I do not think the hon. member for Laurier would ask me to comment on the judgment of the court.


POLYMER CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he can report anything new to the house on the Polymer strike at Sarnia.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I said last week that Mr. Taylor, the mediator who was appointed, was away because of a commitment made previous to
66968-9-280
Inquiries of the Ministry his appointment. He has arrived back and is in Sarnia. Talks between both parties and Mr. Taylor will be resumed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I
ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is substantially the reply given by the Minister of Labour to me the other day. In view of the fact that this strike has been under way now for many weeks, and in view of the fact that the families of the strikers are experiencing much hardship, does the Minister of Labour not think the situation is one that now warrants vigorous intervention on his part?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the circumstances involved and the suffering and the hardships. The vigorous action to which the hon. member refers has been undertaken through the appointment of our mediator, who is a very capable man. The onus and the responsibility rest to a great degree on both parties concerned, as to their willingness to negotiate and arrive at a settlement.


RESEARCH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of conflicting press reports, one report stating that the Prime Minister had announced at Prince Albert that a Canadian satellite would be launched in 1961, and other reports attributing to certain defence research officials that the satellite would merely be a United States satellite with certain Canadian instruments attached to it. Can the Prime Minister tell the house just what is involved, and if this is to be in fact a Canadian satellite or merely a United States satellite to be launched from a Canadian base?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as my statement at Prince Albert is concerned, it was in keeping with a joint announcement made in the month of April by Canada and the United States in connection with joint rocket vehicle and satellite experiments. I also dealt with the matter on another occasion.
In order to keep the record straight may I say that in so far as my remarks are concerned, and I repeat that they were in keeping with what had already been said on previous occasions, the background of the program is as follows. Canadian scientists

Inquiries of the Ministry are of the opinion that work on space research has now passed beyond the stage of hurling a satellite into space. They believe there is valuable scientific data on the properties of space that can be collected, analysed and considered.
Some time ago the defence research board and the defence research telecommunications establishment approached the appropriate United States authorities with proposals for a co-operative program of development in this field. In view of the fact that Canadian scientific personnel have the ability to make their contribution to the world's pool of knowledge in this field, we believe that Canadian technicians and scientists should be given that opportunity. They have proven themselves outstanding in conception, design and craftsmanship in the production of fine electronics components.
In so far as a satellite is concerned, the United States already has expensive and complex bases for launching earth satellites. It will be a considerable time, if ever, before it will be economic for Canada to establish her own satellite launching base. We do not believe that Canadian scientists should be held back on that account, and intend to give every possible encouragement to them to pursue this program and add to the collective pool of knowledge which can be turned to peaceful pursuits.
The purpose of launching satellites, as I have said, has now passed into the field of collecting valuable scientific data. The Canadian defence research telecommunications establishment at Shirley's bay is fully qualified to participate. When the satellite has finally been completed at D.R.T.E. it will be launched into a north-south polar orbit crossing the United States and Canada from the Vandenberg air force base in California, utilizing the multimillion dollar facilities I have already mentioned which are available there.
I mentioned that the launching would take place in 1961. I see some reference to the fact that this date has not been finally determined. The information I have received now is that it will not be launched earlier than 1961. With those explanations I think the hon. gentleman will understand the situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say how many Canadian technicians will be involved in this joint project, and whether the establishment of production facilities will result in substantial employment for Canadians? Will he also comment on the report in the press that Premier Frost has said that Moosonee is to be the launching site?


John George Diefenbaker: I realize the obvious interest hon. gentlemen opposite have in the statements made by Premier Frost, but I have nothing to say with regard thereto. The general plans at the moment are that the launching will take place in the manner I have indicated. I am unable to give the hon. gentleman the details as to the numbers engaged, but I can say this. Canadians are engaged and are making a worth-while contribution to this highly desirable objective.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, will he explain exactly what he meant-and I quote from the text of his statement-when he said on Saturday "a Canadian satellite is to be launched in 1961"?


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what I meant, namely a Canadian satellite. I would call a Canadian satellite one in which the instrumentation is supplied by Canada. After all, the instrumentation is the operative part of any satellite.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Orville H. Phillips: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Press reports give the impression that the Department of Fisheries has prohibited fishermen from taking gaspereau in the North river, Prince Edward Island. Are these reports correct?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been some misunderstanding here. Regulations which have been in existence for over 20 years prohibit the seining of gaspereau in river mouths and confined spaces because this method would allow the extermination of a run. In conformity with the regulations, fishermen who are operating in this way have been prevented from doing so further, but they are free to catch gaspereau in this area up to the causeway in the North river by the gill netting method, which allows a sufficient escapement to permit the run to continue to exist.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL    SUGGESTED PRIORITIES FOR CANADIAN SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the congestion and still further delays on the Welland canal,

and the charge made recently that Canadian ships are being discriminated against, is the minister giving consideration to the establishment of a system of priorities in the light of what has happened in the last few days?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to assure the hon. member and other members of the house that the congestion at the Welland canal has now been, for all practical purposes, overcome. At nine o'clock this morning there were only four vessels waiting to enter the canal upbound at Port Weller and only four waiting to enter down-bound at Port Colborne.
As I have said on several occasions in this house, about three weeks ago I instituted a system of partial priorities by which vessels carrying bulk commodities would alternate with package freighters. This system of priorities was discussed in my office during a session lasting about one and one half hours with the presidents of several large Canadian shipping companies and the president of the Steel Company of Canada. At the conclusion of that meeting all were eminently satisfied with the system of priorities worked out. I hope the hon. member and other members of the house feel that the steps that were taken at that time have been successful. I sincerely hope, as I know he does, that the Welland canal will be able to continue to operate satisfactorily in the future without too much delay.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement and also of the proposed visit of a convoy of United States naval ships, 32 in number, which will enter the seaway on June 26 or thereabouts, does the minister not think it desirable in the circumstances that this convoy of ships be allowed to remain in Montreal for several days rather than to go up the seaway and add to the congestion?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member might ask this question and I therefore came prepared. I am referring now to the statement by certain people that this United States flotilla might cause a delay of three days.
I would say that this is an exaggerated statement. I may say that the number of naval ships involved is 27, not 32. If the 27 naval ships were to present themselves up-bound over a period when the canal would have been otherwise fully engaged in transiting commercial vessels, the delay would possibly be the best part of two days. I am informed that the plans of the United States navy contemplate passage of 27 ships between June 23 and June 28 inclusive.
66968-9-280i
Inquiries of the Ministry It is not possible at this date to estimate accurately the result in delay to commercial vessels if this number of naval vessels have to be passed through in addition to the commercial traffic. At present the canal is handling both upbound and downbound traffic without appreciable delays; and as I have said, at nine o'clock this morning there were only four vessels awaiting entry at Port Colborne and four at Port Weller. This is considered to be a normal situation. However, a sudden influx of naval vessels, in addition to the regular flow of commercial vessels, could quickly restore the congestion we have just overcome.
I can assure the house that steps have been taken to bring to the attention of United States authorities the serious effect on United States, Canadian and other commercial shipping which could result from the passage of this considerable number of naval vessels. I have suggested to the United States authorities that the number of vessels might be reduced without reducing the effectiveness of the display, and that the ships which do pass through the canal do so at the rate of no more than two per day in order that the least possible delay be caused to commercial shipping. I have been assured that serious; consideration is being given to my representations, and I expect an answer from the United States authorities in the course of the next few days.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether any Bomarc bases are at present under construction in Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, a start has been made on the construction of a Bomarc station near North Bay.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister comment on the report of a statement he made in Winnipeg, I think it was, that no final decision has yet been made with regard to the use of the Bomarc?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement in Winnipeg. I was asked whether, if the United States tests on the Bomarc proved that the weapon was not effective, would Canada go on with the development of that weapon. I explained that the whole development of the Bomarc is being carried

Inquiries of the Ministry out by the United States and that if the tests proved this weapon to be ineffective, of course Canada would not go on with the development by herself. To tell the truth I thought it was a rather foolish question, until I remembered that under the previous administration development of the Sparrow was carried on after the United States found that it was ineffective.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister not agree that it might be wise to postpone expenditure on bases of this kind until the Americans have made up their minds whether or not they are going to use the weapon?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a wise precaution to be ready to receive this weapon as soon as it is made available by the United States authorities.
ILater:1


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize for pressing my curiosity about the Bomarc, but could the minister give us the earliest approximate date upon which the Bomarc "B" could be made available to the R.C.A.F.?


George Randolph Pearkes: My understanding is that it will be in 1961.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister give us the approximate time it takes to construct a Bomarc base?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it is about 18 months to two years.
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State? According to press reports of some months ago, indeed several months ago, work was to go ahead on the building of a base for the Bomarc missile in the Macaza area. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether this work has begun? If so, how many men are employed on the project?


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Minister of National Defence and, therefore, I am not in possession of this information.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question. My question arises out of a statement made by the Secretary of State, when he was not Minister of National Defence. He stated at the time-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: If the first question was directed to the wrong minister, it seems to


me that a supplementary to the same minister would be out of order.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? Could the minister tell us if work has started on the establishment of a Bomarc missile base in the Macaza area? If so, how many people are employed on the project?
(Text):


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the area around Mont Laurier is one of the areas in northern Quebec which is under consideration for a second Bomarc station.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Roy McWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has an agreement been signed between the federal government and the government of the province of New Brunswick in connection with Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Roy McWilliam: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister advise the house as to the cause of this delay?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been going on for some time, and it is contemplated that an agreement will be signed between the federal government and that of the province of New Brunswick in a very short time.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: I wish to
direct a question to the Postmaster General. May I say that we are glad that he is back home after a week's absence. I am informed that he went out west to do some work for his department.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Azellus Denis: I am also informed that he was to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Azellus Denis: The question will come in a minute. I understand that he was to investigate the possibility of establishing twice a day mail delivery. Is this information well founded; and if not, why?


William McLean Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to direct a question
to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the hon. lady be in a position today to table the contract with Dimensional Investments Limited respecting the Chippewa Indian lands?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I expect to have this document ready for tabling later this afternoon. I may just mention that the other day the hon. member for Trinity was a little critical of the time it took to produce this document. I am sure when he sees it he will realize why it would take so long to produce this rather voluminous document with a great deal of statistical material.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could
ask the Secretary of State if he is yet in a position to table the return concerning which I made inquiries on Friday?


Henri Courtemanche: Several departments are concerned, and I have not received all the information which is required by the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Secretary of State consider tabling the information which he has received from the Department of Finance?


Henri Courtemanche: As soon as I have
received it.
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell me when I can expect an answer to the two questions I asked him, the first on March 12 and the other on April 8? They are recorded under numbers 266 and 317.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member for Essex East that I shall have to check, as I do not recall if those documents were procured.


Azellus Denis: As a supplementary question, may I expect my question to be answered before that of the hon. member for Essex East?
(Text):



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Trinity asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on Friday whether Ontario hydro had made any approach to her department with a view to making a direct purchase. Is the hon. lady in a position to answer that?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. The answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Trinity is yes; an approach had been made, and it was suggested to the hydroelectric power commission that they discuss the matter with the Sarnia band. This was done, and at a meeting on August 21, 1958 the band authorized the commission to negotiate with the individual Indian locatees for the purchase of the land they wished to acquire. One week later, on August 28, 1958 the band council withdrew this authority and in turn authorized the Crown Trust Company to negotiate options from the locatees. The reason given in the band council resolution is as follows:
This is being granted with the full knowledge that previous authority was granted the hydroelectric power commission to take options and deal with the locatees for other portions of our reserve. However, council takes this action because they feel that the offer from the Crown Trust Company of Canada will be of greater benefit to the whole band, and by this resolution revoke the authority granted to the hydroelectric power commission.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I rise merely for the purpose of referring to an answer I gave at page 4265 of Hansard to the hon. member for Beauce, who had asked me a question. I said I *would reply on Monday. However, as of today there is no information in respect of this matter. The department has asked for a report from the London office, and they expect that the answer can be supplied tomorrow.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he

Inquiries of the Ministry cares to comment on a press report which has just come over the wire to the effect that the president of France has served notice that France is going to make no further commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization unless and until the United States and Britain share their atomic secrets with that country?


Howard Charles Green: I think I could make no helpful comment on that dispatch at the moment.


CIVIL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that we are approaching what may be the end of the session, in the unforeseeable future; in view of the fact the minister has not, in 18 months, made a comprehensive statement on civil defence, and in view of the fact there has recently been a conference with the provinces on this matter, will the minister indicate when he proposes to make a full statement on this important matter on behalf of the government?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not correct in stating that there has not been a comprehensive statement on civil defence. Last year, at the time my estimates were being considered, I did make a statement, and my estimates will be before the committee again shortly. At that time I shall be pleased to deal with the subject again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister say when he will be prepared to give us what is the government's policy with regard to both shelter and evacuation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I have answered that question several times as put by the hon. member. I have said that this is being given prior consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister kindly indicate what that means?


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


ATLANTIC PROVINCES
John Whitney Pickersgill: So that I may relieve members on the treasury bench of any suspense they may

have in the matter, I can say that it is my intention before I resume my seat to move an amendment which in effect will ask the house to regret the failure of the government to implement promises made before the last two elections to the people of the Atlantic provinces.
I am sure this is one occasion when even with the greatest ingenuity-and I have no doubt that the greatest ingenuity will be employed in this case-it will be very difficult for the administration to get up, when I have completed, and say, "you did not do it; why didn't you do it?" I say this because the things about which I intend to speak this afternoon are things which the hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly their leader, promised and undertook to do; and because they are promises which, except in one or two cases where I will indicate the contrary, were not made by us and were not made by the federal government before 1959.
Thus there can be no question of any obligation on the part of the Liberal party or of the former Liberal government to undertake these things. Indeed, I am not sure that many Liberals would subscribe to all the promises that were made. But whether they would or not, the fact is that they were not made by Liberals and they were not made by the Liberal government and, as I intend to show in a moment or two, with one or two exceptions they have not been carried out, either.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I might interrupt the hon. member to ask for better attention. There seems to be more than the usual amount of competition, and I hope it will soon subside.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate your courtesy in making that suggestion to hon. members. It is not a favour which I have ever asked myself; on the whole I have been reasonably successful in securing the attention of the house, and I certainly have no complaint to make about lack of attention in respect to those things which, from time to time, I feel it expedient to say.
As I said when I began my remarks, the stock answer to every suggestion on our part that the government should do what they promised to do has been, for the past two years, "Why didn't you do it?" I pointed out that nearly all the promises to which I will refer today were promises made by the Conservative party and not by the Liberal party. It was presumably in large part by virtue of those promises that the Conservative government obtained the substantial measure of support it did succeed in getting, particularly in the second election, in the four Atlantic provinces-a majority in all the

provinces but one and, I regret to say, all the members in two of those provinces in 1958.
There is some evidence that some of the people in those provinces, perhaps a majority of them, are already beginning to have second thoughts. I should like to think they are having second thoughts because they now feel that the Liberal program which was placed before them in 1958 was so much better than the Conservative program that they should have voted for it. However, I do not flatter myself that this is the case. The view I hold is that what they are doing is what people all over the country are doing, namely judging the government, not the opposition, because it is the government which has the responsibility, having received so overwhelming a mandate, for carrying on the affairs of this country. It is not the opposition which has that responsibility, and the eyes of the country are, in my view, focussed upon the government, and it is the government which is being judged.


Michael Starr: Like in Manitoba?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the government of the province, if the hon. gentleman will recall, that was being judged in Manitoba. I would be more inclined to say "like Toronto in the constituency of Trinity" if the hon. gentleman wants the last judgment which was made on this government by electors in a federal election. And I may say that the hon. gentleman's friends in Manitoba were very anxious to dissociate themselves from any contamination by the federal government; indeed, the premier said after the election that the election had been decided purely on provincial issues.


George Harris Hees: What about Montmagny-L'Islet?


An hon. Member:: What about Springfield?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Considering what the vote was in Springfield in March, 1958 I do not think the hon. gentleman can take a great deal of satisfaction over the very narrow win his party managed to scrape up there.


An hon. Member:: And Montmagny-L'Islet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might suggest to some of the hon. members who are sitting in what is usually called "the rump" that it is really a waste of time to interrupt me this afternoon, because under the rules of the house I have unlimited time, and nothing they may say will prevent me from completing what I intend to say, though it may remind me of a few additional points.
I was suggesting that this government is being judged already on the record of its performance, and while I do not regard the
Promises to Atlantic Provinces evidence of Gallup polls as infallible-the only evidence which we in this house can take as infallible in these matters is the evidence of the election itself-we do know that ever since 1943 when these Gallup polls were first taken in this country they have, on the whole, been a fairly good indication of what the vote would be in both federal and provincial elections. Hon. members will recall that in the most recent Gallup poll in the four Atlantic provinces the support which was indicated for the Progressive Conservative party by those who were asked questions was below that which it was indicated would be given to the Liberal party.
As I say, I do not attach any exaggerated importance to that, but considering the overwhelming support which was given to the party opposite in at least two of those provinces at the last election, I do think there is an indication that there is a very marked change in sentiment in that part of the country.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the government will claim credit, and very considerable credit, for two things which have happened in the Atlantic provinces since they took office. I for one will say right off, as I said when the legislation was introduced and as I have said publicly and privately ever since whenever I have had occasion to speak about it, that I give the government full credit for the special grants to the Atlantic provinces. The measure, which was brought in by the Minister of Finance in January of 1958, provided the sum of $25 million a year for a period of four years, up until the taxsharing arrangements presently provided for by law expire.
This measure was a source of considerable and very badly needed financial help to the Atlantic provinces. In the light of the experience in the past two years in those provinces I think there is not much doubt that if this action had not been taken the governments of at least some of those provinces would either have been obliged to curtail existing services to some degree or to impose additional provincial taxation. Indeed, one of the provinces, the most populous one, has proposed additional taxation in any case, though that taxation is earmarked or related to a specific and particular measure.
One of the reasons there has been the necessity for this increased financial assistance to the treasuries of these provinces is precisely the economic conditions through which the country has been passing. I do not intend to go into great detail on that subject, but I should like to give one rather striking illustration. In the month of March

Promises to Atlantic Provinces of this year the relief costs which had to be met out of the treasury of the province of Newfoundland-though, of course, half of this is reimbursed by the federal treasury under the unemployment assistance legislation-amounted to $324,884.
That may well be the peak month of the year. We certainly hope it is, but it may not be. It may be that when the figures for April are available they will be higher still, because it must be remembered that these relief costs do not immediately vanish with an increase in the level of employment in a province. As the spring advances more and more persons come to be out of work, particularly in this province where the proportion of seasonal workers is greater than the national average. There come to be more and more people out of work who have also exhausted their benefits under unemployment insurance and who are obliged therefore to resort to provincial or local relief.
There is no doubt that these costs alone have been very materially increased in all the Atlantic provinces, particularly in this last year, much more than in the year 195758, because there was a much bigger backlog of unemployment insurance benefits in 195758 than was available in this past fiscal year.
However, I come back to my original point. I want to give the government full credit for what I believe is bound to be required as long as the Atlantic provinces have a lower level of economic activity and on the whole lower incomes than the rest of the country.
I wish to turn to what I consider should be a permanent part of our federal-provincial financial arrangements, and that is some special arrangement for all the provinces and not just for the Atlantic provinces. As I pointed out to the Minister of Finance at the time of the introduction of the Atlantic grants, I think a formula should be worked out between now and 1962 that is capable of application to all the provinces and not merely to the Atlantic provinces, a formula that will be embodied in whatever may succeed the tax-sharing legislation. I do not intend to labour this point at all. I was simply making the point that I do give the government full credit for having taken this step.
I know it could be said, "Why did you not do it in 1956?" Well, I think the principal reason we did not do this in 1956 is illustrated by what we did do in 1956. We increased the payments or the abatements to the provinces under the tax-sharing arrangement from something over $500 million to substantially over $600 million over the whole country. This represented assistance of a

considerably larger amount than is represented by all the things the federal government has done in this field in the last two years. Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris, in statements that were referred to by the Minister of Finance the other day, indicated quite properly that they felt, at that time, that as much of the national budget had been devoted to this field as it was felt possible to devote on that occasion.
Notwithstanding that, as the representative of a constituency in the Atlantic provinces I am very glad this government has seen fit to do more in this field. As I say, I am not criticizing it in any way, but am merely making what I think is the constructive suggestion that when it becomes a part of our regular fiscal policy, as I hope and expect it will, it will be based on a formula that could be applied, for example, to the province of Saskatchewan if it should ever find itself in conditions at all approaching those which so regrettably occasioned the original tax-sharing proposals of 20 years ago.
We hope that will never happen. We hope too

and this, of course, was pointed out by Mr. Kirk, the former member of this house for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare at the time the minister brought down this legislation-that the day will come when the level of economic activity and the level of incomes in the Atlantic provinces will be such that what are essentially deficiency payments to these provincial governments because of lower incomes in those areas will no longer be necessary. But that will be some time in coming, even if we have in the future the kind of advance in those provinces that we have had in the past 20 years, and about which I intend to say something a little later on.
The other thing for which the government will undoubtedly seek to take credit, of course, is the program for assistance in the development of thermal power and assistance in interconnections through assistance to transmission lines between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, assistance which I am glad to note the Prime Minister offered to extend to a transmission line in the province of Newfoundland in a recent message which he sent to the premier of Newfoundland and which I understand is under very active consideration there at the present time.
About this I cannot offer the government any similar congratulations. In all but two respects this program, of course, is precisely the program that was announced by the former minister of finance in his budget in 1957, and expanded upon by the then minister

of northern affairs and national resources, Mr. Jean Lesage, in this house before the election of 1957. There were two adaptations made in this program, neither of them in my opinion advantageous to the Atlantic provinces.
I want to say a word about each of them. The first was with respect to ownership. In the original proposals made by Mr. Harris and Mr. Lesage it was suggested that the federal government should own those new facilities, those new thermal plants and those new transmission lines, but that the province should have the option to buy them at its convenience. Under the existing legislation what happens is that a loan is made to a province, a long term loan at the current borrowing rate of the government of Canada, with the usual allowances. And I make no criticism of that; but let us consider for a moment the effect of this change. Under the system we proposed the federal government could have gone ahead, if the province wanted *-and, of course, we could do nothing under either scheme unless a province wanted-with thermal plants and even with transmission lines somewhat in advance of the demand for the power, and the federal treasury would for that period, until the demand caught up, have carried that burden. It would have been some burden upon the federal treasury; we knew that. We intended that, we proposed that, when the original scheme was put before parliament.
Under the present scheme the province must start paying interest on the loan and start amortizing the loan immediately. So there would have to be, in view of the much more restricted financial base that each of those provinces has, if you like more prudence; but I would rather put it this way. There has to be a real certainty of an almost immediate demand for the power or it is not going to be developed. What we were suggesting was that we should go a little ahead of the demand, provide the additional power and have it there as an attraction, as a sort of magnet for the development of users of the power.
Of course if the level of economic activity that existed in 1956 and early 1957 had continued that would not have been a problem, because it was quite clear that if the curve of demand was going to continue at the rate it then was going on there would be no doubt about the demand, but we have seen that these things can change very quickly. We have seen, for example, that in the case of Beechwood, which the government of New Brunswick considered was very necessary to that province and very urgently needed, they have found it necessary to export some of this power to the United States.
66968-9-281
Promises to Atlantic Provinces


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a
question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. member like to take time to tell us why the old administration was not interested and did absolutely nothing about Beechwood?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I would be glad to, but I do not know whether it would be very profitable to the hon. gentleman, to the house or to anyone else. The first reason, of course, was that up until that time the federal government had never taken part in power developments in any part of Canada except in the Northwest Territories; that the development of hydroelectric power was one of those things that was either left to private enterprise in some provinces or in others it was an exclusively public responsibility; and to take a step in one particular province in one particular case without having a policy which could be applied in the right circumstances right across the country was something which was-I think I can speak for my leader-then and is now and I hope always will be contrary to the policy of the Liberal party.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then you will stay where you are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Maybe we will stay where we are. Maybe the hon. gentleman thinks that a little special bid to someone here and a little special bid to someone somewhere else, without principle, is the right way to get into office. I am not sure it is the right way to stay in office. I think before I am finished I may be able to show that to the hon. gentleman.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister's
question could be left until I have finished answering the first question.
The second reason, of course, is that the Beechwood project was one that at the time was considered to be entirely within the capacity and the resources of the province. What we felt it was desirable to do when the province represented that it needed still more power, and very substantially more power than was going to be available from Beechwood, was to provide something constructive and additional, and that is in fact what was proposed in 1957.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask the
question now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.

Promises to Atlantic Provinces


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know this. When the hon. member asked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) whether he agreed with that statement, did he not assent?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I shall let the Leader of the Opposition speak for himself. Perhaps I should not have said that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, seeing that I have been asked whether I nodded assent, I might tell the minister that over here we base our policies of assistance on principle and not on hand-outs.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Beechwood was a hand-out.


George Clyde Nowlan: Beechwood was a hand-out; that is a nice one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was it not? The hon. gentlemen think that embarrasses me. It does not embarrass me a bit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nor me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor does it embarrass anyone on this side, including the members from the province of New Brunswick.
At the time the present administration asked parliament to vote assistance for Beechwood, the project was completed. All the federal government were doing was taking over the mortgage, and that was all we were doing. It was not anything new or constructive. I put a series of questions on the order paper. I have not them here at the moment, but they will be found in Hansard for 1957 and 1958. I asked the Prime Minister, or I asked the government and the Prime Minister replied, whether or not assistance on the same principle would be applied to other provinces. I was told in the answer that it would be. I sought vainly in the debates on two bills by every device of questioning that I could think of-and I do not think, sir, I am entirely without ingenuity in this field-to find out what that principle was, and there was-


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was not any.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government could
never tell us what that principle was. I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who raised the question, over and over again what the principle was on Beechwood so that we in Newfoundland could apply the same principle there, and I could get no answer.
The minister perhaps knows that at the very time Beechwood was being built a thermal plant was being built in St. John's,

Newfoundland, the interest rates that private interests had to pay were even higher and in consequence the cost to the consumers was going to be higher. I hoped the policy on Beechwood was going to be a policy that was going to have some similar application in N e wf oundland.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What private power plants are we helping now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, on that point, sir, it does not appear to make any difference to the consumer of electricity in a province whether he gets the power from a private power plant or from a publicly owned plant. What he cares about is how much it costs. It does seem to me that if we are going to say we will provide the help to completed plants, we will take over the mortgage and the cost of certain publicly owned ones in one place because we have a political debt to pay and we will not do it in another place because we have not, that is a pretty good definition of what the Leader of the Opposition describes as a hand-out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the only principle they have over there; political.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite. However, sir, this question of Beechwood-as no doubt hon. gentlemen opposite expected it would be- is a diversion from the main point, and I come back to my main point. I do not think there is any doubt whatever that if there had not been a change of government in 1957 there would have been thermal plants built already in Nova Scotia and probably in New Brunswick using coal; and I emphasize that because that is my second point. That is the second point of difference between our policy and the policy of the present administration.


Thomas Miller Bell: This might have taken place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the only reason it would not have happened is if the government of New Brunswick and the government of Nova Scotia refused to have them built. I do not think, once the election had been over, there would have been any danger of that because both premiers came up here in the spring of 1957 and accepted the scheme in principle, and it was only later on, late in May, that they began to have scruples about which we heard a good deal on the hustings.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is sheer nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It happens to be quite
factual.


George Clyde Nowlan: You were out campaigning in the maritime provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They did in fact come here, and they both made public statements to the press. I have not got them under my hand but I could produce them for the hon. gentleman to read although I know I do not need to, because he knows perfectly well that statements were made that our scheme was accepted in principle. I grant that acceptance of a plan in principle does not mean that all the details will be accepted, but I have not the slightest doubt that if there had not been a change of government this is what would have happened.
I say so for this reason, that under the policy with respect to coal enunciated in 1957 by the then minister of public works, while we were still in office, we took the view and said publicly that these plants must charge against consumers only the cost of the cheapest fuel and that the federal government would give a subsidy so that coal would never be more expensive than the cheapest fuel. In other words, if oil were cheaper we would give a subsidy as between the cost of oil and the cost of coal, but if coal were cheaper there would be no subsidy. That was our policy.
What was the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to coal? They said they would reduce the price of Nova Scotia coal to the price of Pennsylvania coal in Ontario. That is the difference between the two, and I suggest that in the one case it was certain coal would be used because it was bound to be as cheap as oil. The province is certain to do so if the province wants to use it. Of course if the government of either of these provinces of its own motion prefers to have oil used, notwithstanding the coal problem in the maritimes, that is another matter, and naturally we could not have compelled them to do it. However, I fancy that public opinion would have taken care of that situation in the circumstances I envisage.
But it is quite conceivable, of course, that in certain circumstances, at certain times and with certain kinds of oil or oil byproducts their cost might be even lower than the cost of Pennsylvania coal in Ontario, and if that should be the case then the subsidy the present administration is offering would not be, sufficient to make coal the cheapest fuel. These are the two differences and, as far as I know, the only differences between what we proposed and what hon. gentlemen opposite embodied in their legislation.
But there is a very great difference between what I think it is reasonable to suppose would have happened under our proposals and what in fact has failed to happen under proposals of hon. gentlemen opposite;
66968-9-281J
8, 1959
Promises to Atlantic Provinces because I understand that with the exception of the Trenton plant in Nova Scotia, which incidentally was started by the previous Liberal provincial administration, no firm commitment has yet been reached after two years for federal aid to any thermal plant in either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. If my information is not entirely up to date I would, of course, be glad to have it corrected, but according to the last information given to us by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that was the situation.
When we come to the other promises in the program of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I intend to take them up in some detail, we find that the record is very different. These promises appeared in many forms and guises before the election of June 10, 1957, but I have here a very large, almost full-page, advertisement which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 8, 1957. May I say that the advertisement was inserted by the Progressive Conservative party of Canada, so I do not think there is any doubt that this may be said to have represented the official position of the whole party. It was not inserted by the local party in the Atlantic provinces, though it was directed to the Atlantic provinces. It reads as follows;
Before you vote read "the Atlantic resolutions" endorsed by every Progressive Conservative candidate in the maritimes, a call for united action at Ottawa. We, the Progressive Conservative candidates from the 31 federal constituencies in the Atlantic provinces, believe that just demands of the Atlantic community for recognition of their economic problems and special needs urgently require more united and forceful representation in the parliament of Canada.
I refrain from any comment about that.
In keeping with the growing co-operative spirit of the people of the Atlantic community, which has already led to the creation of APEC and to the conference of Atlantic premiers, we are resolved to stand together in support of these measures which will help to overcome the historic disabilities which have limited and even denied opportunity to this area. We believe our young people have the right to opportunity at home and we are convinced that only by united action by all individuals and at all levels of government and through constructive efforts of private organizations can this right be made real. We believe that all those who live in this Atlantic community are entitled to the benefits of opportunity and security which shall be no more but certainly no less than all Canadians have the right to enjoy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to say, sir, that these are general sentiments that all of us would applaud, but the applause preceded my observation. But I come now to the particular points, and I doubt if there will perhaps be the same appreciation of them.
National resources development program. We emphatically endorse John Diefenbaker's policy calling for a national development program; we will

Promises to Atlantic Provinces urge that such a comprehensive program permit federal assistance to the Atlantic provinces for the purpose of developing our resources for the maximum benefit to the Atlantic economy and give as well proper recognition to the differing needs of the provinces and to their varying financial capabilities.
I come now to the second point, because I should like to discuss the two of them together. After all, the first one is pretty nebulous but the second one is much more precise. It is called "Decentralization of Industry."
By united and resolute representation from the members of parliament from the Atlantic provinces, we believe that all Canadians will support a federal program of industrial decentralization. We will urge that (1) the Atlantic provinces receive a more equitable share of defence contract expenditures; (2) that crown corporations be established in the area; (3) that special fiscal consideration be given to private enterprises-*
I draw that to the attention of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who seems shocked at the suggestion that any help should be given to private corporations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Private power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue:
-which will encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic area and, further, encourage the processing of our natural resources here.
On these three specific points there are still certain questions on the order paper that were asked by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger) and myself, but one of the questions based on these resolutions was answered last Wednesday by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr, O'Hurley), who asked leave to put his answer on Hansard because he said it was too long to read. I agree with him that it was far too long to read, but I think there was another reason why the minister was not particularly anxious to read it, in that in spite of its length, it says precisely nothing.
What was promised was a more equitable share of defence expenditures. The minister indicated, when I asked him a question about this matter in the committee on estimates a year ago, that a scheme was under consideration for providing a more equitable share of these expenditures in the Atlantic provinces, but it is perfectly clear from reading this answer that no such scheme exists; because these were the minister's words as found in the second paragraph of the statement:
My department continues to rely, wherever possible, on countrywide competition to obtain the best value for the money spent and to provide an opportunity for all competent and interested Canadian suppliers to compete for defence supplies.
I do not question the minister's figures, and that it may be that a slightly larger-


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman say what is the date of his reference to Hansard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Last Wednesday, June 3, 1959. In the last fiscal year a slightly larger percentage of defence expenditures were made in the Atlantic provinces, although total expenditures were slightly lower. I am sure that is a fact. I have not attempted to verify the minister's statement, but on examination of these expenditures I think it will be found that a high proportion of them would have been on what might loosely be called real estate, that is to say the developments of camps, fixed installations and things of that sort. I might say that to the best of my knowledge no new defence establishment has been founded in the Atlantic provinces by the present administration. My leader says some may have been closed. About that matter I have not any precise information but certainly I know of no new one that has been opened.
I think many of those engaged in defence activities in the Atlantic provinces are extremely worried, particularly in the light of the rather uncertain state of the armament of the Royal Canadian Air Force, as to what its role is likely to be. I know that many others in the army are extremely worried about what their role is likely to be under the uncertainty which now seems to hang like an impenetrable cloud over the Department of National Defence. Whether any defence establishments have been in fact closed yet, I do not know. Oh, my leader is usually right. There is the naval establishment at Port Edward. If it has not been actually closed, its activity was certainly seriously curtailed; and that is in Cape Breton of all places. I am very grateful to my leader for the reminder.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Who prompted you to say that? Did Henry Hicks tell you to say that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It happens to be a fact.
I happened to recollect it for myself. I have not found it necessary very often to get other people to tell me what to say in this house or elsewhere. I am quite willing to take the responsibility in this house or elsewhere for whatever I may say, even if sometimes I do not say the wisest things in the world. I am quite willing to admit that I have never fancied myself so much that I thought I was an invariable fount of pure wisdom.
I now come to the other two points of this second clause. The second one is that crown corporations are to be established in the area. There may have been crown corporations established in the area, but if there are, apart from the extension to the area of the

Northern Canada Power Corporation or whatever the name of it is which was in existence before that time, and I think it was even designated for the purpose by the previous administration, I am not aware of any other federal crown corporations that have been established for the purpose of promoting the decentralization of industry in the Atlantic provinces. If there have been such crown corporations established and I have overlooked them, and if any member of the government points them out, I shall certainly be glad to make a rectification.
The third point is that special fiscal consideration be given to private enterprise which will encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic area and further encourage the processing of our natural resources. I presume that means fiscal considerations given in the Atlantic area that were not going to be given in other parts of the country. I know of no such considerations. Indeed, far from having any fiscal considerations in this field, we have had fiscal "deconsideration" if I may coin a word, because of the necessity under which the government has found itself to increase the corporation tax in order to attempt to fill part of the vacuum in the treasury. In addition, of course, the legislation which is now before a committee of this house to increase the charges upon employers and employees under the Unemployment Insurance Act will not have the effect of promoting industrial development either in the Atlantic provinces or anywhere else.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a
question at this point because I think it is quite important?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member says his government would not have helped Beechwood because it would have been a special consideration. A minute or two ago he criticized us for not having done something that is a special consideration in itself. Can he bring those things together and at least be consistent about his speech on this occasion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I can be very consistent. I have always thought I ought to pay my own promissory notes but I never thought I was under any compulsion to pay those of the hon. gentleman. I did not sign this advertisement but the hon. gentleman did so. It seems to me that all public men should be judged by the same standards, namely do they keep faith with the people, do they keep their promises. I did not contract nor did any member of my party that special fiscal consideration would be given for this purpose. There is therefore no reason why we should
8. 1959	4423
Promises to Atlantic Provinces be in favour of it when we charge other people with failing to keep their promises.


Thomas Miller Bell: Why will not the hon. member give us credit for putting Beechwood in under this special fiscal consideration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is entitled to take all the credit he wishes for Beechwood; I do not care how much credit he takes for Beechwood. I merely state that Beechwood did not appear to me to be different, in principle, from other power developments, even in New Brunswick, or elsewhere across the country as a whole. That was the reason we did not see fit to do it. It seems to me that was a perfectly honest and straightforward attitude, and it has been expressed many times previously. It was given by Mr. St. Laurent before the election because Mr. St. Laurent, as the hon. member knows, never attempted to conceal even unfavourable things or things that might be unfavourable in a particular locality, and it was all the more credit to him, in my opinion.
I should now like to draw attention to certain other supplementary statements that were made in the elections of 1957 and 1958 that seem to me to relate fairly directly to these two points. I have not finished with this document yet but I should like to deal with the natural resources program and the decentralization of industry. I have not paid much attention to what was said in those elections by anyone except the Prime Minister, simply because I did not think it would be fair to take too much of the time of the house in dealing with them, even though my time is not limited. I should now like to draw attention to the statement made by the Prime Minister at Cambridge, Nova Scotia on June 3, 1957 as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 4 of that year. According to this report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald the Prime Minister said:
The federal government had overtaxed the people by $500 million last year, he said, and this would likely be increased to $700 million this year "if they remain in office". Mr. Diefenbaker said his party advocated "equal opportunity for all Canadians".
I will read on:
In Nova Scotia, he said, the average personal income had decreased 5.9 per cent from $886 in 1948 to $815 in 1955. The Canadian average personal income increased during the same period from $1 025' to $1,078.
I presume the Prime Minister verified those statements. I have not attempted to do so. He went on to give similar figures, for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Then the press report continues:
Mr. Diefenbaker advocated a national development program encompassing decentralization of

Promises to Atlantic Provinces industry which, he said, would help Nova Scotia to keep her sons and daughters at home.
No details, of course, were given in that report. Then on April 29 at Charlottetown as reported in a Canadian Press report in the Ottawa Journal, of April 30, we find these words:
If some of the economic conditions in the mari-times existed in western Canada, members of parliament from the west would soon let the country know about it.
That is the Prime Minister. To continue:
He could not understand how the maritimes time after time elected Liberal members "who make their greatest contribution in the silence they preserve".
A moral can be drawn from that, which I will leave the hon. members on the other side of the house from the maritime provinces to draw for themselves. Then, I continue quoting from this article:
And at Charlottetown (the above had been said at Summerside) with the province's four Conservative candidates on the platform behind him, he added: "You people in Prince Edward Island want action. Then, send these four candidates to the House of Commons. We'll give you action."
I believe the people of Prince Edward Island, with the exception, of course, of the Atlantic provinces grants which were very acceptable and which were made before the second election, would be interested in what the additional action has been.
Then, at St. Stephen-this is from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of May 4, the Prime Minister is reported to have said on May 3:
At St. Stephen, Mr. Diefenbaker spoke of maritime rights and said the eastern provinces should not be "back-benchers in a confederation of equals".
The Conservative party had made confederation possible. If elected, it would work out with the provinces a new deal that would remove the "inequities that too long have held back the maritime provinces".
Then, he quotes the same figures again for income and he added:
"That's a challenge which should demand action."
I might say I took this particular quotation from St. Stephen because at Milltown, which is immediately adjacent to St. Stephen, there was at that time a textile plant which was in operation. The last thing I heard about that textile plant was in February when I was in Fredericton, and the machinery had been sold to someone in the Dominican Republic.


William Heward Grafftey: Who was it that objected to our dumping duties?


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that the St. Mary's plant to which the hon. gentleman refers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, this is Milltown. The other plant is at Marysville, near Fredericton,

and it is in operation. I read in the Fredericton Gleaner, which is I believe a very reliable newspaper, that the machinery in the Milltown plant had been sold to someone in the Dominican Republic.
Then, there is a Canadian Press report in the Montreal Star of June 3, 1957 in which the Prime Minister is reported to have said at Lunenberg:
-economic conditions must be made such "that maritimers will be encouraged to stay in the area rather than migrate because they cannot get their proper share of the economy.
"I want to see that all Canadians get their share. That is the abiding purpose of my life."
This is a very noble sentiment. The Minister of Labour has told us that in certain parts of the Atlantic provinces today the federal government is paying expenses of people to move away to other parts of the country where they can get work.
Then again at Campbellton, New Brunswick, on May 4, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 6; the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
-the Liberal government for years has been content to allow export of raw materials for processing in other countries.
Here is a quotation:
"If we're to build the country and provide jobs ... it cannot be done by exporting employment to the United States in the form of raw material."
A Conservative government would carry out a program or regional development "to round out Canada's first 100 years as a nation."
This was said at Campbellton. Well, what about raw materials-


William Heward Grafftey: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to continue and I would be delighted to answer his question in a moment. In that area, at Campbellton and in the Bathurst area, as hon. members know, unhappily the very considerable minerals discovered there are not being exploited at the present time. I read some of the reports of the Iron Ore Company and the other companies mining in Labrador and Ungava and they claim that their exports of iron ore are increasing.
Then, here is another quotation from the same place, and this is in direct quotes:
We in this party have launched in every part of this country a national development plan, and the purpose that we have in mind is to assure that your sons and daughters may remain within this province, instead of being forced by economic necessity to leave for other parts of Canada or the United States.
Everyone would like to see that, of course, but the fact is that what has happened does not correspond with what was hoped for.

Then again at Campbellton, in that same speech, and this is in direct quotes:
In order to persuade business firms it is to their advantage to process our raw materials here in Canada, we must show them by tact and other inducements that they will save money by processing those materials in Canada. I say this to you: If we form a government we will introduce legislation which will provide such inducements for we intend to see that Canada shall become the great industrial nation which her raw materials make possible.
We have not seen this legislation. Then, the Montreal chamber of commerce were told on February 19, 1957, and this was about inflation and tight money, by the Prime Minister:
The dread problem of inflation will not be met by regulations which while effective against the individual permit government to have and enjoy the sole privilege of contributing to inflationary pressures.
Then, there is this:
Federal government expenditures constitute the biggest inflationary factor in our economy.
Federal government expenditures are very considerably more today than they were when that speech was made.
Then, at Truro on May 1, as reported in the Globe and Mail for the following day, the Prime Minister said about this tight money policy:
Through its tight money policy, he added, the government has throttled the capital investment which maintains economic growth, supports welfare expenditures and provides full employment.
Small and medium businessmen, farmers and fishermen have been squeezed and even forced into bankruptcy by government policy, he added. "We contend and have contended that this is economically unsound", he said.
As a result, he added, provincial governments and school administrations have had to pay excessive interest rates to finance vital public works and improvements. There has been regional discrimination, Mr. Diefenbaker charged, in the distribution of available credit with the maritimes and western provinces bearing the brunt of this inequality.
I think in the maritimes, the western provinces and everywhere else today there is no provincial government, no school administration, that can borrow money at the interest rates which were prevailing in February of 1957. If these things were going to be remedied, the remedy has been worse than the disease.
There is another report of the same speech at Truro, and this is from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:
The little man-the farmer, the fisherman and the small businessman-is being crushed by the Liberal government's tight money policy, John G. Diefenbaker, national leader of the Progressive Conservative party, said here Wednesday night. The real causes of inflation in this country are over-spending by the federal government and too-high taxes, he said.
Promises to Atlantic Provinces
Then, at Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 3, 1957:
Unemployment in Canada had reached the 300,000 mark because of the tight-money policy, he said.
He said that the tight-money policy had struck a "hard body blow" at small business in Canada and he promised that a Progressive Conservative government would bring into operation a policy whereby a loan fund would be available at low interest "so that small business won't be driven out by larger groups".
Well, where is it?
Then in the second election, in 1958, the Prime Minister made one or two references to interest rates. At that time interest rates were not as high as they were in 1957. In Calgary, according to the Winnipeg Tribune of March 15, the Prime Minister claimed the day before
-that interest rates had fallen sharply as a result of government action since last June from a high of 4.33 per cent to 2.89 per cent in recent weeks.
When they fall, of course, it is the result of government policy. But when, as has happened almost all the time since the conversion loan, they rise, then it is the fault of the Americans or of businessmen who are borrowing money from the chartered banks -the fault of everyone except the government. There were several similar references during the 1958 election campaign.
I should like to make one other reference to the topic of small business. In the election of 1957, speaking of the need for assistance to small business, the Prime Minister was reported as follows in the Campbellton rally of May 4:
We Intend, as well, to do something to assist small businessmen in this country. They find themselves today caught, irretrievably caught, in a situation whereby they cannot survive. We believe the time has come to provide very much after the fashion of the federal government in the United States, assistance to small business, to enable the backbone of our national business, the small businessman, to survive and to prosper.
And even in the election of 1958 something was said on this subject. At Summerside on February 27, as reported in the Charlottetown Guardian of the following day, the Prime Minister announced:
-that if his government is re-elected it is their intention at the first session of parliament to give consideration to a system whereby small business may be able to expand on reasonable terms, and have available to it a system of financing which is being considered to enable small business to meet its responsibility in expanding and assuring extra jobs. A community will continue to prosper and expand if small business expands, he said.
And a very similar statement was made at Yarmouth on March 26. So much for the first two of those resolutions. The third had reference to the power development, and I have already dealt with it. The fourth had reference to transportation and this is what the

Promises to Atlantic Provinces Conservative candidates pledged themselves to do about transportation:
We are committed to the original pledge given to our people at the time of confederation that freight rates would be adjusted and transportation facilities would be provided so that our geographic position would not prejudice our producers in having reasonable access to the markets of Canada.
I could go on and make several references to statements made by the Prime Minister on this subject which are in much the same vein, but I see that I am taking an inordinate amount of time. It seems to me that this is a very clear statement of what the electors were led to expect from a Conservative government. But what has happened? What has happened is that freight rates have gone up. Freight rates have not been adjusted so as to give maritime producers greater access to the markets of central Canada; the exact reverse has been the case. It is true that some small amelioration of the increase has been made by this parliament at this session or, at least, it has been provided for-* precisely how it is going to be made is not yet very clear. But the fact is that these rates are higher and, certainly, the transportation facilities are in no way improved compared with what they were before this statement was made.
Then there were also some specific pledges made particularly about the Chignecto canal and about the Newfoundland railway which I do not intend to deal with at this time.
Then the next item in what I call the Atlantic charter of the Tory party is the capital projects program. Here is the promise:
We favour the immediate institution of an Atlantic capital projects program which will provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
That is a great hope, but all it is is a hope. We have heard nothing about it since. Certainly, we have heard nothing about it in this parliament.
Then there is another promise, the one concerning the Canadian coastguard. "We shall press", members of the Conservative party said, "for a Canadian coastguard". At this point I think I should also make one reference to what the Prime Minister himself had to say about this question in 1957 because I want to make it clear that the Prime Minister was committed on this point. At Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 3, he is reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald the next day as follows:
Mr. Diefenbaker also advocated a Canadian coastguard service to assure that marine disasters were kept at a minimum.
A similar statement was made at Lunenburg later the same day.
We know the history of the coastguard. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), when

he was first asked about this after the election, came into the house and read verbatim a statement which had been made by his predecessor, the same statement which, I think, was originally made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) about the service which we now have. No change whatever has been made in that situation, and no explanation or apology has been offered for the total failure to do anything to implement this particular specific promise.
The seventh of these points has to do with the fiscal needs of the Atlantic provinces. I had something to say on this subject at the beginning of my speech and I need not repeat that again.
I wish to say something about the coal situation in the Atlantic provinces. I do not need to say anything further about coal in relation to power development, because I have already dealt with that question. But promises were made that the production of coal would be increased, and the bitterest and most unfair and distorted criticism was expressed of Mr. St. Laurent because of a statement he made at Fredericton during that election campaign in which he said that in his view the value of coal for purposes other than as fuel was such that he would not take the responsibility for expenditure to increase the production of coal. But Mr. St. Laurent also said that no one wanted to see coal mining towns become ghost towns any more than anyone wanted to see the gold mining towns of northern Quebec and northern Ontario become ghost towns, and that steps must be taken to maintain existing production. The Conservative party, on the other hand, took the view that production should be increased, and gave an undertaking accordingly. I suggest, in the light of the prospects for markets, that that was a wholly irresponsible attitude to have taken. At the same time it was suggested that because Mr. St. Laurent had stated he could do nothing to increase coal production he had suggested that existing production would be curtailed, whereas the whole tenor of his speech was in the opposite direction.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the hon. member that speech with him? If so he might read it to us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had it here the other day, and if the Prime Minister would look up the index to Hansard he would find the precise references there. I cited them in reply to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan) who agreed, finally, for the first time, with my interpretation of what had been said. But the words speak for themselves; they are on Hansard for this very session.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought it was the
same speech; that is why I asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It so happens that the Prime Minister is somewhat mistaken in his recollections because it was not a speech at all. I simply rose to ask for permission to correct an error that had been made by one hon. member on the other side of the house who was making a speech and on looking at it I do not think the Prime Minister will find it is the same speech.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You will not find any agreement with your interpretation, either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the contrary, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond did agree with my interpretation.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The hon. member will recall that it was the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). If the hon. member reads further on in that speech he will find that the hon. member for Cape Breton South did not agree with his interpretation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We could go on arguing for a long time but all the substantial parts are on Hansard. In the mind of any person who reads that speech objectively those parts are incapable of any but one interpretation. At some other time I should be glad to go over the speech word by word with the hon. member and if he can show me that I am wrong in that statement I shall be glad to get up and apologize in the house. I have a few quotations concerning the coal situation which I should like to place on the record. The first is from a speech made by the Prime Minister in the hon. gentleman's own riding, at New Glasgow on April 30, 1957, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 1. Apparently turning to the premier of Nova Scotia who was on the platform with him, the Prime Minister said:
If we form a government I tell you, Mr. Premier, there will be subventions for coal in these provinces, according to your request and to the demands of the people.


Howard Russell MacEwan: And there were.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At Amherst on May 2, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 3, the Prime Minister was reported as follows:
He said the subventions on coal mentioned by the federal government-
That is the Liberal government, of course. I continue:
-are nothing more than a subsidy which Nova Scotians already have to compete with the central provinces.
"What we want", he asserted, "is coal subventions within the province."


Robert Carman Coates: That is what we got.
Promises to Atlantic Provinces


George Clyde Nowlan: That is what we asked for and that is what we got.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Subventions on coal consumed within the province?


George Clyde Nowlan: For industrial use.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Speaking in Minto, New Brunswick, on June 3, 1957, as reported in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of that date the Prime Minister said:
The Liberal government is not taking action to help the coal industry. There should be federal treasury aid toward the cost of freighting coal within the maritimes.
At Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 3, 1957, the Prime Minister was reported as having said:
"-there is something strangely peculiar about the fact that Nova Scotia coal delivered in New Brunswick is higher in price than it is when delivered in Montreal. There is a need, and we undertake to supply that need by providing a subvention on maritime coal.
It seems to me that those quotations suggested that there was going to be a general subvention on coal used in the maritime provinces for all purposes within those provinces. I am sure that is the plain meaning that would be taken from those words.
What has been the situation in the coal industry? There has been a steady decline in production and unhappily an even greater decline in consumption and there is very little if any real hope for the future of the industry. Indeed, now we are having applied what has become the almost universal remedy of this government that applies to all these problems when they become urgent-we had it with the Pine Point railway the other day -another inquiry has started. That is what happened.
I wish now to say something about the fisheries and I shall commence by quoting what the Prime Minister said in his speech at Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 3, 1957, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 4:
Touching on agriculture and fishing, he said that there was a need for a prices board which would make provision for support prices-fair and reasonable-set at the start of the production season.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The hon. member is filibustering his own speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister also had some things to say about the 12-mile limit. I will admit I am not going to attach undue importance to that because he found as we found that it is one thing to want something that you have to get from other countries and it is another thing to get it, but this promise of a prices board which would make fair and reasonable provision for

Promises to Atlantic Provinces support prices set at the start of the production season is certainly something entirely within the control of this parliament. It could be done if the government saw fit to do it.
An even more categorical statement was made by the Prime Minister in the 1958 election at Charlottetown as recorded in several newspapers. This speech was made on February 27, and was reported in the Toronto Star of February 28:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker intimated here last night that a Conservative government will place a floor price under fish and contended the agricultural support bill passed last session will provide "crash insurance" for all farm products.
There is no question that there and at Halifax, Saint John, Yarmouth and a number of other places in the Atlantic provinces, in fishing areas, the same sort of assurances were given particularly in the 1958 election. We have had floor prices and deficiency payments for almost all agricultural products except potatoes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Corn?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is not much corn grown in the Atlantic provinces although at certain seasons there may have been some who thought that corn was being distributed.


Orville H. Phillips: Fermented or otherwise?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one other reference I should like to make at this point. This statement appears in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of March 25, 1958, reporting on a speech made the previous day in Halifax by the Prime Minister:
His government, he told the audience, was moving to stabilize prices for farm produce, and consideration is now being given to bring about "the application", on a similar basis, of this measure as it affects fish products.
At Yarmouth, on March 25, as reported in the Gazette of March 26, in a Canadian Press release, the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker today promised federal price supports under fish and a firm stand on protection of Canadian inshore fisheries against foreign trawlers.
The report of the same meeting carried in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of March 26, contained the following:
' "The great difficulty for the fisherman", he said, "is that the price of things he must buy is going up, while the price of what he has to sell is not keeping pace.
If there is any industry in this whole country of which that is true it is the fishing industry. The article continues:
We have in mind to provide for the fisherman, legislation similar to that provided for agriculture. Under the latter program, he said, a floor price was decided in relation to the farmer's costs.

Of course, nothing of that kind has been forthcoming. Not only that, but in view of the failure of the fisheries in some parts of the Atlantic provinces and particularly on the northeast coast of Newfoundland last season it is regrettable that nothing happens when other ameliorative steps are suggested.
In many ways, of course, the gravest situation of all is that which has resulted in the Atlantic provinces because of the disproportionate incidence of unemployment in those provinces.
In the same speech in Charlottetown to which I have already referred and on many other occasions throughout the country is recorded the Prime Minister's most definite pledge of all. This has been placed on the record on several occasions but I do not apologize for putting it on again. This is to be found in the Toronto Star of February 28, reporting on a speech made in Charlottetown.
"I will make one more promise," the Prime Minister asserted. "I make this promise. My pledge is to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed. So long as I am Prime Minister no one will be allowed to suffer in this nation."
The latest figures, I think, speak for themselves and are very eloquent. The latest figures, as produced in the release on the unemployment situation for the month of April, which were released on May 20 last, for Canada as a whole show that while in March the unemployment was 8.6 per cent of the labour force;-and these are the lower, or D.B.S. figures, not the very much higher figures in the listings of persons actually seeking work-in April, 1958 they were 8.62 per cent. In April, 1959 we were very gratified that it was only 7.3 per cent. That is still a very high level of unemployment for the nation as a whole. But when you compare the national figure with the figure for Newfoundland, which on April 19, 1958 was 24.07 per cent, and April, 1959, 28.2 per cent, there is not much ground for feeling very optimistic. When you take the three maritime provinces you find it was 16.93 per cent in April, 1958 and it is still 12 per cent. There is not much ground for optimism. These figures, of course, are very much higher than they are in Ontario; higher still than they are in the prairie provinces where the unemployment is the lowest in the country, or even in British Columbia. Quebec, of course, comes fairly close to the maritime figure.
There is no doubt that if at the present time we had on a national basis unemployment at the level it is in the four Atlantic provinces today it would be a major calamity to this country, and for that area it is a very serious thing. To a great extent at least the

suffering is ameliorated because that area is part of the national economy and it enjoys the advantages of the national social security and other national welfare benefits. They do not provide employment but they do at least take away some of the rigors of unemployment that were felt 25 years ago; nevertheless, it is a serious situation that calls for serious action. I should like to commend to the government, before I conclude what I have to say, the series of editorials which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, an independent newspaper, entitled, "A Blueprint For Atlantic Advance". I am not going to take the time of the house to read them or even to quote from them; I just draw them to the attention of hon. members. I think all hon. members have probably at one time or another received a copy-certainly, all of us from the Atlantic provinces, I am sure, have- containing some very valuable suggestions for action which, it seems to me, should be considered, not in the way in which this government so often considers problems but with a view to early action.
Now, sir, having taken rather longer than I had intended to take, I shall conclude by moving, seconded by the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Michaud);
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
this house regrets the failure of the government to keep its election promises to the people of the Atlantic provinces, and regrets further its failure to take measures to strengthen, in the light of acute unemployment in the area, the basic economy of the Atlantic provinces.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the house that I will not be taking as much time as the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me, for obvious reasons, but one in particular, namely that this debate is -very much abbreviated, as we know. If time permitted, there are 11 other members here from Nova Scotia besides myself, everyone [DOT]of whom would like the opportunity of standing and refuting the alleged arguments which the hon. gentleman has made this afternoon, in addition to the hon. members from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Therefore, I am going to try to be relatively brief.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), to whose [DOT] department the hon. member made specific reference, will probably have some things to [DOT]say in connection with this, and then we hope there will be time to deal with other matters.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, this is an intriguing debate, and it was rather intriguing to hear some of the advertisements read which were dated June 8, two years
Promises to Atlantic Provinces ago. Two years ago, the day after tomorrow, this government was elected to office, and I do not know of any greater compliment that could be paid to a government than a motion such as this, at this late date, which we hope is near the end of the session. It is one of those substantive motions which presumably is to criticize the actions of the government in connection with its administrative responsibilities, because the rules say that it is the administrative responsibility. What do we have? We have an hon. member spending an hour and a half reading election advertisements which were published two years ago, and that is all they can say about this government after it has been in office for two years. Certainly, no other government could have received that compliment at the hands of the opposition.


Murdo William Martin: No other government made as many promises.


George Clyde Nowlan: No other government made such promises. Look at the statement made by Mr. Henry Hicks when he came back after being up here and seeing how the preceding government had promised and had failed to carry out its promises. What of the statement made by the late lamented personal friend of mine and of us all, Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, when he was premier and came up here and attempted to get certain promises from the government. As a matter of fact, he did get a promise about the development of power. He got it back in 1945 or in 1946, and it was not until 1956, 10 years later, as a deathbed repentance by Hon. Walter Harris, who saw that the sands of time were running against him and the tide was going out, that he brought in this alleged maritime provinces development to redeem in part a promise they had made over 10 years before to Angus L. Macdonald when he was up here as a head of a maritime delegation.
Speaking of promises, I remember the posters in the election of 1955 or 1953. What were they; what did we see? We saw a picture of the Bluenose, the motor vessel, steaming from Yarmouth to Bar Harbour at 12 or 14 knots an hour, with a bone in her teeth, carrying passengers galore and yet, as a matter of fact, as we found out only a few days before, although they had a bottle of champagne ready for the launching of the ship, they forgot to put the engines in the boat. My hon. friend talks about promises!


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a question? Is the Bluenose not operating pretty successfully?

Promises to Atlantic Provinces


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, very successfully, indeed, after we drew attention to the fact that she could not operate until they put in the engines.
The solicitude of the hon. member for the maritimes is really touching; it is just touching. I remember how he always used to respond so sympathetically, when he sat on this side of the house, to the arguments which we advanced on behalf of the maritimes. You could see the gleam in his eye; you could see the approbation. I am sure that he must have urged his colleagues to do some of the things which he talked about this afternoon but apparently he was unable to convince them.
He regrets the low standard of the economy. He referred to unemployment in the maritime provinces. He said that if the same degree of unemployment prevailed in the nation as a whole it would be a national disaster. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is some justification for such a statement if the figures that the hon. member gave are correct. I have no doubt that he checked them but, after all, they deal with seasonal unemployment there. Lumbering operations have stopped. There is a great deal of unemployment in the fishing industry at the moment and these figures are not representative of industrial unemployment whatsoever in this nation.
I should like to draw to his attention something that originated with the dominion bureau of statistics. I have not got their publication, to tell the hon. gentleman the truth, but he quoted with approbation a few moments ago an editorial from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and I can tell him that this statement is reproduced in an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of today.
The employment expansion in the Atlantic region was greater from March to April this year than in the same period of the last three years. In April an estimated 459,000 persons had jobs, about 18,000 more than in March and 24,000 more than a year ago.
I think that disposes of the hon. member's argument. In addition, Macleans Building Reports has a rather interesting commentary. These provinces which are so poverty stricken, these provinces which have been so grossly betrayed by this government, these provinces which have sunk to such a hopeless level, according to the dire and gloomy statements of the hon. gentleman, what is their record with respect to building? In Canada as a whole for the first five months of this year construction is down below the level of last year but in the Atlantic region there is a gain of 9.6 per cent this year compared with last year, the largest gain in any area in the Dominion of Canada. In the Atlantic
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

area nearly $100 million has been applied for by way of loans for construction within the first five months of this year.
Of course the economic situation there is not as good as one would like to see it. One never is satisfied. We are looking forward, we are hoping and planning and we intend to make progress day after day and year after year. We have made and are making substantial progress in the maritime provinces and the figures to which I have referred at least bear that out. The hon. member referred to the platform on which we agreed and I must express my appreciation for his compliment on the draftmanship of some of us who were present at those Atlantic conferences. He also paid the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) a great compliment by reading at great length extracts from speeches made by him in various parts of the maritime provinces. I had the pleasure of hearing him at the meeting in Cambridge in my own constituency, at Halifax and at the wind-up meeting of the campaign in Sydney. I can vouch for the fact that the Prime Minister made these statements. I can vouch for the fact that he intended them to be believed. I vouch for the fact that the Prime Minister and the government are carrying out the pledges which were made at that time.
This government has been in power for two years and during that time an election and an economic recession have intervened. We do not pretend to be supermen. We do not pretend to be able to achieve miracles. We do not pretend that we are perfect. But we do say that in the two years we have been in office we have done more for the maritime provinces, for the Atlantic area, than the former government did in at least the preceding 25 years. The hon. gentleman could not help himself, of course, but he was good enough to give us credit for the maritime adjustment grants which we introduced at the first session after we came into office whereby the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland each receives $7,500,000 as a special adjustment grant and the province of Prince Edward Island receives $2,500,000, a total of $25 million, this to last during the currency of the dominion-provincial agreements.
These adjustment grants were sought from the preceding government for years. The maritime premiers representing all the maritime provinces made pleas for these or comparable grants and every time they were turned down. They were coldly rebuffed because it was taken for granted that the people of the maritime provinces, having voted Liberal for so many years, would continue to do so and therefore they did not have to pay any attention to their pleas and

they just took them for granted. It was not until, as I said, the handwriting was seen on the wall that the previous government attempted to deal with the situation at all.
My hon. friend has gone to some length this afternoon to prove that the coal subvention policy inaugurated by this government for the development of thermal power within the maritime provinces was the same scheme as was proposed by the preceding government and particularly by the Hon. Mr. Winters and the Hon. Mr. Harris. I say categorically, without going into the details, that there is practically no similarity between the two programs whatsoever. One was a deathbed repentance brought about on the eve of an election whereby the former government saw that they would have to do something. They did not know what they should do. They had not given any consideration to the problem and apparently did not have anyone to advise them very well. As a result they came up wtih some sort of crackbrained scheme which would not have worked. The proof that it would not have worked is to be found in the fact that the provincial governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island-I believe I am correct with respect to Prince Edward Island-said that the scheme would not work and they would not accept it.
We campaigned in May and June of 1957 primarily on the thermal scheme. That was the main matter which we discussed. At that time we said that their plan would not work because the plants were to be owned by the federal government. I noticed that my hon. friend was a little bit vague this afternoon and said that somehow they could be transferred to the provincial government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister does not want to be unfair.


George Clyde Nowlan: I certainly do not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was very precise about it. I said they were to be owned in the first instance by the federal government with an option to purchase by the provinces.


George Clyde Nowlan: What the option to purchase was was one of the terms which was always in dispute because there was correspondence, as my hon. friend knows, and telegrams between the premiers of the two provinces and the responsible officers here as to the definition of those terms. There was no satisfactory definition as far as the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were concerned. Our proposition was that these plants would be built by the federal government and sold outright to the provinces so that we would have a centralized operation instead of the Northern Power Corporation coming in and
Promises to Atlantic Provinces operating the power plant in one place and the province operating the plant in another place, which we said was absolutely impractical and impossible.
As to the question of the use of coal, the former government's proposal was that coal should be provided, as I recall it, so that energy could be produced at cost. There was no definition of "cost" and none was ever suggested. Mr. St. Laurent said that whatever the cost was that was the cost that would have to be paid for power. As has been pointed out by the Prime Minister and by every hon. member from Nova Scotia who came here in 1957, as was pointed out by the premier of Nova Scotia, that was absolutely ridiculous. Unless there was some definition of "cost" how could it be known whether there would be any benefit to the province? It might be that the costs would be far greater than we were paying and no purpose would be served whatsoever by the federal government building these plants or transmission lines. In the proposals submitted by this party the matter of "costs" was determined. It was agreed that a subvention would be paid so as to permit the coal to be competitive with coal landed in Ontario and reduce the cost of power to what we thought would be a price competitive with that for power produced by coal in other parts of Canada. Those were two of the major differences between the two schemes.
Of course one might say that this is political but it is not an effective answer. All of these matters were raised during the 1957 campaign. The claims pro and con were made by the respective parties, the Liberals saying theirs was better. They never said it was identical with ours. We were saying that we had something that was different and that was better. What happened? On election day ten out of twelve members supporting the scheme advocated or supported by the premier of Nova Scotia and advocated by this party were elected and only two of the hon. gentlemen supporting the other scheme were elected. Then six months later those two fell by the wayside and 12 members were elected to this house. That is the judgment of the people of Nova Scotia as to the relative merits of the two schemes.
I must say this. My hon. friend also, in dealing with the statement made at Fredericton by the then prime minister, had something to say about it. He has the same difficulty, although he smoothed it over, that they had in trying to explain it to the electors and as did a colleague of his, the minister of public works at that time from Nova Scotia, who attempted to explain the speech on the platform in Nova Scotia, failed and quit trying to give any answer at all

Promises to Atlantic Provinces because he said it was not understood. That was the only explanation that was given. Certainly no one else ever understood it and it has not been understood today either. Certainly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate understands it less than does anybody else. At any rate, if you accept that speech at its face value, the coal would still be under the ground under any circumstances.
Something has been said about coal. Perhaps I should say a word about coal right now. I did not want to interrupt my hon. friend because I have interrupted him several times. He stated that in the election we promised that we would increase the sale of coal. There is no doubt that we promised subventions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To increase the production of coal.


George Clyde Nowlan: To increase the production of coal. There is no doubt that we made a promise with respect to subventions on the movement of coal in the maritime provinces and I stand by that promise. I do not recall -although I do not deny it; I should like to see the record-that any specific promises were made with respect to an over-all increase in the production of coal or the consumption of coal as compared with those areas. But this is something of what we have done in so far as coal is concerned. When we came into office we increased the preference on Canadian coal for use in dominion public buildings so that coal would get a preference of 20 per cent in competitive bidding against other coals. As a result of that preference it is estimated by the department that the increased consumption of Canadian coal amounted to over 200,000 tons a year. We have paid out money already on this thermal scheme to which the hon. gentleman referred. It is not something that is going to be done in the future; it was not something that was going to be done when the province requested that it be done. I can assure you that, in my opinion, the province would never have requested this federal government or any federal government to carry out the scheme which they proposed at that time. Hence the scheme would not have been in being at this time.
This government has paid subventions on the movement of coal within the maritime provinces, a matter to which the hon. gentleman referred dubiously. He rather questioned the accuracy of the Prime Minister's report. The Prime Minister was dealing with specific and definite suggestions for the use of thermal plants in the maritime provinces to generate power for industrial use. Since we got the scheme into operation we have paid out over $1,692,933 in subventions on the movement

of coal in the maritime provinces for thermal plants there. That subvention is used to reduce the cost of power not to the householder but to industrial plants only so that we can assist in the development of industry. All of that benefit has been passed on for industrial development within the maritime provinces. I may have a word or two to say on that matter a little later on. That of course, was an entirely new subject but it was something which we promised. We said that if we were elected we would inaugurate this dual system of assisting in the building of thermal plants and transmission lines in the maritime provinces. That has been extended to Newfoundland as well. That was one phase of it.
The other phase was that we would pay subventions on the movement of coal in the maritime provinces to service these plants so that the benefit would be passed on to the industrial consumer. As I said, on that subvention alone we have paid out over $1,692,000. As to the movement of coal, there is no doubt, as the hon. gentleman said, that coal production suffered in this country. I want to point out to him this fact, although he undoubtedly knows it. Coal production has suffered in every coal producing area in the world as far as I know, certainly in the western world or the free world. The degree of unemployment here, bad as it is, has been less than elsewhere. To any man who is unemployed even for a day, it is a serious thing to him. To be unemployed for 40 days is an extremely serious thing. There have been miners who have been unemployed for a period of 40 days in the maritime coal fields. I think all of that is over. There may be a few of those left in one or two pits. But had it not been for the subsidy policy which this government inaugurated and put into effect the degree of unemployment would have been double or treble what it has been during this year. As I said-and I want this to be understood-the degree of unemployment in the past year in the Nova Scotia coal field has been less than the degree of unemployment in any other coal field in the western world- and the figures to prove that are there from the dominion coal board. Whether you take as an example Germany, Britain, Virginia, Pennsylvania or wherever you go, the number of men employed two years ago, the increase of unemployment is greater in every other coal field in the world. That is not a mere accident, Mr. Speaker. That fact is in part at least-and in substantial part-owing to the generous subsidy provisions which this government put into effect in order to maintain a high degree of employment in these Nova Scotia coal fields and so that the Canadian

product was upheld and its place was not taken entirely by coal imported from the United States.
Last year, the fiscal year ended in March 31, we moved 425,928 tons or in round figures
426,000	tons of coal into Ontario-despite a drop in industrial demand, despite a tremendous fall off in United States imports-at a cost of $1,938,000. It is the first time Canadian coal moved into Ontario in any appreciable quantity since before the war or since about 1937 or 1938. This government, by a subsidy policy has brought Nova Scotia coal back into the markets of Ontario, as I said at a substantial cost. This coming year, the year ending March 31 next, it is estimated that we will move into Ontario alone 850,000 tons of coal as compared with 450,000 tons last year or twice as much and the total cost of that movement will be over $12 million for the entire subsidy program, or $4,300,000 more than we paid out last year. Yet my hon. friends ask what we have done for the maritime provinces.
In the past, when we have been suffering from recession, when we have not had surpluses but have had deficits, we have gone ahead with our social security measures and have done everything that this government has done. We are also providing 50 per cent more for the movement of our coal from the mari-times to Ontario than was ever provided by our predecessors. Of course, we also established a new principle in connection with it. The Nova Scotia government is acting in partnership with us and to the extent of 20 per cent of the increased subsidy to a maximum of $500,000 the Nova Scotia government will co-operate.
Mr. Speaker, one could go on to speak at length on the coal matter, but I do not think it is necessary. I think the record of this government is clear in so far as coal is concerned. Despite the unfortunate period in which we have been operating, despite the shrinkage in demand, the industrial recession and everything else, I think it is clear that we have established here a record of which any government could be properly proud and of which the people in the coal mining areas of Nova Scotia, the maritimes and Cape Breton are appreciative. Make no mistake about that. The situation is one which is giving and will continue to give this government concern because we want to see the coal industry put on a firm basis. We want to see employment maintained there.
My hon. friend made some remarks,-I do not want to be unkind and I do not want to say sneering remarks-light remarks, about the fact we were taking the same attitude toward this problem as we were taking
8, 1959
Promises to Atlantic Provinces toward other serious problems. Here is a news story in the Cape Breton Post Record which is headed, "No More Idle Time". Then, underneath that heading there are the words, "Government praised". This news story reads in part as follows:
Because of increased government subventions, there will be no more idle times this year in Nova Scotia coal mines, after June, district vice-president Stephen Delhanty told the regular session of the Princess local of the united mine workers of America Saturday night.
He highly commended the federal government along with the provincial government of Nova Scotia for coming forward with assistance, without which there would be a great deal more distress in the coal industry in this province.
I could go on reading that laudatory article for quite a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, but this is a case where repetition is not necessary. The facts are so obvious they speak for themselves, and there is no necessity for repeating them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister goes on to another subject, perhaps he will permit a question. Did I understand the minister to say, as I think he did, that he did not recall any promise made by his party before the election of 1957 to increase coal production? I have here an advertisement published by his party which contains this sentence:
Your Progressive Conservative candidates are in favour of a policy that will increase coal production.


George Clyde Nowlan: We were certainly in favour of it and we supported a policy which has increased and will continue to increase substantially the demand for coal in the thermal plants of the Atlantic provinces. As I pointed out here a moment ago, the answer to that is that last year we increased the market in Ontario from 450,000 tons to 510,000 tons and we hope to increase it this year to 850,000 tons.
My hon. friend made some reference to the fact that we were going to refer this matter to a royal commission. He infers that this is a delaying procedure. I have already answered that. If there is any delaying procedure in what we have done in the last two years, in the accomplishments we have attained, then the miners of Nova Scotia will pray for more and more delay, and a continuance of it. Make no mistake about that.
We also realize that the coal industry is in a critical condition. There are problems facing that industry which have to be solved, and this is true all over the world. The competing fuels, gas and oil, as well as the possibility of atomic energy which is on the horizon, create a situation which deserves the most careful study, not simply the short term planning that we have had to do, frankly, since we came into power. We have been

Promises to Atlantic Provinces faced with one crisis after another, and the preceding government did nothing whatever to alleviate this problem. We did work out an interim solution, and we are continuing to do that. We want also, however, to arrive at a long term solution so that maximum employment can be provided in the coal fields.
It is because we are trying to make a long term study of the problems of that industry, and not because we are trying to sweep them under the carpet where our opponents left them, that we intend to refer this matter to a commission or some other body for study and report. Then, we shall arrive not only at the short term solution, as we have done, but also a long term solution, which will work in concert in the years to come.
My hon. friend read the catalogue from A to Z, as I have said, and referred to every speech the Prime Minister made, to all the advertisements that were published, and as I have said this points up the fact that we did have a positive program to put before the people. I do not intend to follow him on all the matters with which he dealt. He referred to transportation. It is true that we are suffering from a transportation problem. I wonder who would expect us to satisfactorily solve the transportation problem of the maritime provinces or in fact any area, but particularly the maritimes and the far west, in two years? I would think hon. gentlemen opposite would be amongst the last to deal with transportation, and reflect upon it, after having failed to deal with it during their term of office. As I recall it, the Turgeon commission was set up under the regime of the preceding government. If I recall it, the Turgeon commission made certain recommendations with respect to horizontal increases. They deprecated them and suggested that some alternative should be found.
When was that report, Mr. Speaker? My hon. friend at least has the advantage of knowing the subject on which he is going to speak, but we have to answer as we stand here, without any preparation and without any material in front of us. My own impression is that the Turgeon commission report was somewhere around the early fifties, 1951 or 1952. What has been done since 1952? We still have horizontal increases piled one upon the other, with all their detrimental effects.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. member aware that the royal commission on transportation chaired by Mr. Turgeon made no substantial recommendations with reference to horizontal increases?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know how you spell that word "substantial".
[Mr. Nowlan.1


Lionel Chevrier: I will take out the word "substantial", then.


George Clyde Nowlan: There will not be any semantics about it. As I said, I am speaking from memory and I do not have the Turgeon commission report in front of me. If I am not mistaken, the Turgeon commission in its report referred pointedly to horizontal increases-perhaps the reference was in the report of one of the commissioners, I shall qualify it to that extent-and their detrimental effect.


Lionel Chevrier: Does my hon. friend recall that when he was on this side of the house he and the Prime Minister, amongst others, said that if they were in office they would remove the effects of horizontal rate increases? What have you done about it?


George Clyde Nowlan: As I said, my hon. friend is also now going back into what was said by us several years ago. This is a compliment. As I said, we have not accomplished everything that we set out to do because there were so many things left undone by the preceding government it is going to take us some time. I do not want to prophesy, but I doubt very much if we could accomplish everything that should be done in the first four years. We will probably have to be re-elected for eight, ten, twelve or fourteen years in order to correct all the ills that were left behind by our predecessors.
However, we have taken two positive steps in connection with this matter of transportation. We have taken steps in connection with the problem referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)- his reference was lengthy and possibly exaggerated-that is, the incidence of freight rates upon the east and the west. We have provided a sum of money to alleviate the impact of these increases. This is a temporary thing because it will not cure the disease from which the people in the east and in the west are suffering, namely, high freight rates. Frankly, I doubt if anybody else can prescribe a cure at the moment, and that is why we have set up this royal commission. We do not want to sweep the problem under the carpet, but we want to make an exhaustive study of the problem. The instructions are to proceed with that study as rapidly as possible so that we can get an answer to the problems and carry out, in so far as it is humanly possible, the pledge we made with respect to transportation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister not forgotten, in his catalogue, that in the year 1957 the previous administration, which he says did nothing, increased the subvention under the Maritime Freight Rates Act by 50 per cent for all freight shipped out of the maritime area?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not the figures in
front of me, but if there was an increase of 50 per cent that shows how miserably low it was prior to that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister
another question? If the minister thinks it was so miserably low why did the government not increase it?


George Clyde Nowlan: We did increase it. We increased it as soon as we got into office.


Lionel Chevrier: You did not.


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was referring to the subvention under the Maritimes Freight Rates Act which was increased from 20 per cent to 30 per cent-a substantial increase-by the previous administration in 1957.


George Clyde Nowlan: I beg your pardon, I thought you were referring to something else. But in this connection I want to point out that when the increase in rates came into effect after the last decision of the board of transport commissioners we immediately took steps to alleviate the burden on the Atlantic provinces. We also took steps to alleviate the weight on the purchases of feed grain under the feed grain subvention measure. In various other ways, too, we sought to modify the burden imposed by the new rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as we did.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. gentleman and I could disagree about this from now until doomsday without getting anywhere. I am prepared to let the record stand as it is.
The hon. gentleman quoted from the Halifax Herald blueprint for the Atlantic provinces. I agree that this is useful reading and I think it should be read by every member of the House of Commons from east to west. The Halifax Herald has done a great deal of work on this subject. But I would point out that the hon. member referred only to this one book, which refers to the future, and avoided reading any of the editorials which have appeared from time to time in the past and which have so often commended the government for its work in dealing with problems which have been outstanding for a quarter of a century. I suggest the hon. member might also have referred to a few of those tributes.
8, 1953	4435
Promises to Atlantic Provinces
As I said, I do not think there is any point in discussing further the question of coal or transmission lines or of the subvention on the movement of coal within the maritime provinces. The record is there. It is a record which everyone may see, and I am sure it is one which has met with the approval of the people of the maritimes, and which will continue to do so.
There have been other things which this government has done in connection with the maritimes, not all of the same calibre as the subvention or the $7,500,000 grant. For instance, we have the federal government deciding to build an institution at Springhill, a federal government institution which will provide substantial employment after it has been built. Recognizing the special problem of that town, the government has made a special contribution as, of course, it should, as a measure of assistance following the disaster. Thus we have taken a step which we feel will help in the industrial development of the town.
I am reminded of this, also. The hon. gentleman deplored the lack of industrial development in the maritime provinces. I wonder if he saw in the papers on Friday reports of the fact that a Swedish firm had announced its intention of building a $40 million paper mill in the province of Nova Scotia, work to begin within a few months. This will mean the spending of over $10 million a year in the province in wages and in the purchase of pulpwood, and it represents one of the greatest contributions to the industrial development of Nova Scotia, other than the coal industry, which has ever taken place in this country.
I am not saying that the present government deserves any particular credit for this, because this has been primarily the achievement of the provincial government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the preceding provincial government.


George Clyde Nowlan: The preceding government? No, because Hon. Mr. Hicks, after reading about it in the paper-and no doubt he read all of the Halifax Herald, not just favoured extracts from it-said that this development would be of no use to Nova Scotia at all and was not in the interest of the province of Nova Scotia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: O, Lord.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not aware of the fact that it was Mr. Hicks who began the negotiations for the Swedish company to come there?

Promises to Atlantic Provinces


George Clyde Nowlan: Exactly in the same way as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) commenced negotiations for health insurance back in 1916 or 1917 when Mr. King first thought of it. At any rate, Mr. Hicks was quoted in the paper as saying that this would not be in the interest of the province of Nova Scotia. It shows how they learn nothing, or how they forget nothing. Who was it, the Bourbons or the Liberals; it is synonymous, anyway. But in 1925, 1926, and 1927 when another government in Nova Scotia established the Mersey Paper Company, which has been more important to the development of the industrial life of southwestern Nova Scotia than anything else, the Liberals attacked it and criticized it and said it would be no use to Nova Scotia. Now history is repeating itself with regard to the situation in the eastern part of the province. But that is simply an aside.
This government does not claim credit for this particular development, except that if the hon. member is correct in saying that Mr. Hicks deserves credit in originating this -and I do not for one moment accept that; I know it is not correct-if that is correct, then he obviously failed because it was necessary to get this government in power in Ottawa in order to create the proper climate so that the development could proceed. So much for industrial development.
The hon. gentleman was worried about the location of defence forces in Nova Scotia and in the maritime provinces. Had the hon. member listened to the radio this morning he would have heard about an R.C.A.F. plane coming from a constituency of which I am rather proud-coming from the R.C.A.F. station at Greenwood-which took off from that base yesterday, flew to Ireland, turned around and came back non-stop and then landed at Gander, unable to proceed further because of the weather. We have there one of the largest air bases in the western world. That base was constructed many years ago, but it has been developed and is still being developed, and served by those magnificent planes with those excellent people looking after them. It is going to be one of the bases for anti-submarine warfare. At least it will be prepared for this vital role in the defence structure of this country. I do not know of a single defence base, certainly in Nova Scotia, which has been closed.
There is a large camp outside Fredericton which was built by the preceding government, and I know that according to the press -and the press may be wrong; apparently all speeches made by Liberal leaders at Fredericton are suspect and possibly not accurate-report of a speech made by the

Liberal leader at Fredericton he said that two cabinet ministers in the maritime provinces have been able to maintain defence bases in their constituencies but that if he were elected to office those bases would be closed and the men would be moved to Fredericton.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


George Clyde Nowlan: Those bases, at least, have not been closed as yet. I do not intend to develop this further.
The figures were put on the record the other night by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) showing the increase in defence production orders in the maritime provinces during the last year as compared with the preceding year. There has been a substantial increase. As at March 3, 1958 the contracts awarded for construction and maintenance in the maritime provinces amounted to $22,500,000, representing more than 22 per cent of the total awarded for the period for all of Canada. That is a substantial increase. Although smoke stacks may not be dotting the horizon at the moment the foundations have been laid whereby through thermal power and otherwise assistance can be given to the development of industry. This government is different from the preceding government, it is using the instruments at hand including subventions on coal and consequent industrial development, and through the Department of Defence Production, will insist on a fair distribution of orders throughout the country and increase substantially the demand and the market for maritime products. This will be done through the government generally and perhaps particularly through the Department of Defence Production.
I have taken more time than I intended to take. That is the usual fate of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and myself. We are both Irish and perhaps we suffer because of that.
I mentioned that matter of Springhill and industrial development. Some industrial representatives from Springhill were talking to me today about certain matters on which they wanted certain information in order to establish another industry in that area. I have no doubt that because of co-operation between the provincial and federal governments there will be substantial developments there in years to come.
Reference was made to transportation problems. Only the other day the announcement was made of another ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland to augment the existing service. Investigations

are continuing with respect to the Prince Edward Island causeway and the results will be known before too long.
Consideration must also be given to the program of maritime marshland reclamation. This was brought in under the previous government but the expenditures have doubled and trebled during the years we have been in power and substantial works are being carried on at the moment.
I must say to my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-clough), that the industries in her city are setting a wonderful example for all of Canada. They have established a trend which is deserving of emulation. A textile plant operating in Hamilton moved to Yarmouth and is now providing substantial employment there. I commend this development to the attention of hon. members opposite and to people generally.
The hon. member referred to a textile plant in New Brunswick. I am not sure which one he meant but perhaps it was the Marysville plant. It is true that the machinery at the Marysville plant was up for sale and I believe was sold about a year and a half ago. But what has happened? An officer of the plant was in to see me within the last few days. The plant has been completely re-equipped with modern and efficient machinery and approximately 250 to 300 people are employed in that plant today.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) referred to Beechwood and there are other developments to which reference could be made including new bridges. Talk about pledges. There are two bridges under way in New Brunswick including the one at Campbellton which has been promised for years and years in every federal election and was then forgotten until the next election came along.
One could go on and on but I have detained the house long enough. In conclusion I repeat what I said at the outset. This government in my humble opinion and I believe in the opinion of the maritime provinces generally has done more for the Atlantic provinces during the two years less two days it has been in office-that is not a fully accurate calculation because we did not take office immediately-than was done by previous governments in the 25 years they were in office and we will continue to do so during the years just as we will continue to work for the increased development of all of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman really resumes his seat I wonder if he would permit me to ask him a question which I did not want to interrupt
Promises to Atlantic Provinces him by asking. He stated during his speech that the scheme that was proposed by us for power development had not been accepted and never would have been acceptable to the government of Nova Scotia. Could he explain how it was that the present government of Nova Scotia had a bill adopted by the legislative assembly of Nova Scotia approving the thermal scheme that was submitted by us?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have not the history in front of me and I am not prepared to answer that question. However, I strongly doubt the accuracy of that statement. I do not know how the premier could pass a bill approving of this project when he campaigned against it and in fact stood with the Prime Minister on a platform and publicly denounced it stating that his government would not accept it under any circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, well, a lot of people wondered about that.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question before he resumes his seat? Is the minister aware of the statement made by the president of Canadian Cottons Limited to the effect that the textile industry is in a very bad way. It has closed down the mill in Hamilton and threatens to curtail operations in Cornwall by 50 per cent.


George Clyde Nowlan: I fully realize that the president made that statement and that the industry is facing problems now as it did when we came into office when a substantial degree of unemployment prevailed. I was merely pointing out that at least in the maritime provinces in contrast to the gloom referred to by hon. gentleman opposite the picture is a little brighter.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, all of us listened with a measure of delight to the reply that was made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). I noted among other things that again he made light of election pledges. This is not the earliest occasion on which he has told us that election promises in effect ought not to be debated at any great length in the house. His argument was that we rather ought to be debating the actions or inactions of the government instead of making continuous reference to election pledges. I can assure the minister that he will have to plead many more times yet before he persuades the opposition that it ought to ignore election pledges on the basis of which the government of the day was elected.
I thought the minister today was a very modest man indeed in that he admitted there were still many unresolved problems in the

Promises to Atlantic Provinces maritimes. He claimed that the government is carrying out its election promises but he also reminded us that the answers involved long term solutions. Perhaps his plea that the government be re-elected three or four times is one reason for the delay and procrastination we have witnessed that has been allowed to continue in regard to election pledges that were given to the people of the Atlantic area. As I have said, the minister was a modest man today, much more modest than another minister who only several days ago told the people of western Canada that this government has already carried out its election pledges.
The minister claimed that the present government has done more for the Atlantic region in the last two years than the former government had done in 25 years. I regret very much that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) is not in the house at this time. I understand his health is not the best and we are hoping that he will be here again very soon. I should have liked him to be present today because I am convinced that he would not agree with the claim of the minister to the effect that this government has done more in the short space of its life for the Atlantic area than other governments have done in 25 full years.
I doubt very much if the unemployed miners in the Atlantic area would agree with that. I doubt if the producers of pulpwood would agree. I doubt if those engaged in kind. I doubt whether those connected with agriculture would support a claim of that health services, education or municipal governments would agree that more has been done in the last two years than in the previous 25 years.
The minister made a claim in regard to unemployed miners. He read an editorial to indicate that in the Cape Breton area there would be no more short time in the coal mines there. However, I have a telegram which was received this morning by my house leader, and it says:
Membership of Phalen local 4529 united mine workers of America request assistance of low rate interest loan be made available to members affected by cutback. Household appliances are being seized by finance companies. Immediate assistance needed.
Allan Foley President
I have another wire which was received last week from the head of district 26, united mine workers of the maritimes. Both of these telegrams originated in Glace Bay and the contents of the telegrams received certainly indicate that the miners are very much concerned about the problem of the lack of employment of a 40-hour week nature.

The minister made certain claims on behalf of the government's action. He said that more money had been voted this year to keep freight rates from rising again. He mentioned subventions on coal used within the maritimes, and he actually mentioned the extraordinary grants that were voted this year of $25 million for each year of a four-year period. However, in the main, the situation in regard to the Atlantic area of Canada is not being improved. It has not been improved for a long time. I should like to put on the record a clipping which indicates what the premier of Newfoundland had to say. The man is Premier J. R. Smallwood. He made a contribution at one of the earliest meetings of the Atlantic provinces economic council, and in reference to the federal government he said:
If they-
And by "they" I assume he meant the federal government. I continue:
If they are to show statesmanship they should make every province economically strong. Before we become second-class citizens of Canada, we will show the other maritime provinces how to get out of confederation.
This is taken out of a leaflet issued by the Progressive Conservative party, advice to their candidates, and the leaflet is headed "Federal-Provincial Municipal Relations".


William Joseph Browne: Was that the 1957 election?


Erhart Regier: I believe to all intents and purposes it was in the 1957 election, at least as far as I can assert.
There we have a leader of the government in one of the four Atlantic provinces who indicates that unless there is some sign of new leadership, of assistance on the part of the national government so that all Canadians may live as Canadians, he intends to show the maritimes how to leave confederation. I do think, Mr. Speaker, we ought to take what he says with a grain of salt because recently we have become used to some of his brave remarks. However, just the thought that he should be making that kind of statement, and that the Conservatives of the day should have decided that it was worthy of reprint, indicates that the problem is an old one.
The people of the Atlantic area have a claim on the people in other areas of Canada. In the first place, they have made a very great contribution to our very form of government in other parts of Canada; they have supplied many of the leaders in the fields of education, industry and of government in other areas of Canada. They played a large part in the early years in the development of other areas; and, therefore, when they now ask that they not be left behind

they are merely asking that we begin to recognize the sacrifices and the contributions that they have made in the years gone by so that other areas of Canada might be opened up and developed. It is for this reason that they are not very excited about the prospect of opening up of the north. They feel, and I believe rightly so, that the raising of the levels of incomes of maritimers ought at least to have priority over the opening of yet another vast new area in Canada. They feel that they have not yet received adequate compensation for the opening up of western Canada.
The policies of the government in regard to the Atlantic area in the main, outside of the items listed by the minister, have been a continuation of a policy of neglect and a policy of procrastination. I notice in a news release, a Canadian Press dispatch of January 6, 1959, where:
Alvin Hamilton, federal minister of national resources, said Monday the government has plans to revitalize Alberta's coal industry.
He said the government is expected to announce further details of the plan during the next session of parliament.
We have not heard of those plans as yet. However, if the minister has very extensive plans in mind, whereby he hopes to revitalize that enterprise in Alberta, I am sure that those who have an interest in mining in the maritimes would also like to see him announce a plan whereby their enterprise might be revitalized.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will send the hon. member a clipping from the Lethbridge Herald describing a new future for the Crowsnest pass.


Erhart Regier: I thank the minister and I shall look at the information in the newspaper he mentioned. I hope he will be equally aggressive in the restoration of the coal mining industry in the maritimes. It may well be that the government has decided that the policy enunciated by the Hon. C. D. Howe may be the right one; that if there is any area in Canada in which it is hard to obtain employment, maybe the best policy is to advise the people that they ought to leave the area. We remember very well one time when the implement workers came to Ottawa and presented a brief asking the government of the day to institute policies that would mean greater employment in their field of endeavour. In effect the advice they received was that if you cannot find employment in the farm implement industry you ought to move elsewhere where employment may be available.
8. 1959
Promises to Atlantic Provinces
I hold in my hand a clipping from the Montreal Gazette, dated May 1. This is also a Canadian Press dispatch out of Bell island, Newfoundland. It says:
The federal government has termed this island of 12,000 people a "labour surplus area" which means it will pay the cost of moving miners and their families to other parts of Canada.
This is altogether different from the pledge that was made to the people of the Atlantic provinces by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he said that he would institute a new deal for them so that their sons and their daughters would not have to leave home. Now they declare the area a labour surplus area and help to finance the movement of people out of the district.


William Joseph Browne: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he recall that the A. V. Roe Company closed their mine suddenly and left 500 or 600 men out of work? Does he not remember that?


Erhart Regier: I am not prepared to take up the cudgels on behalf of any of the operators of these mines. However, I find it difficult to appreciate how in a number of Atlantic areas you have huge stocks of unsold coal and miners who are unemployed and yet we take the taxpayers' money to deepen the St. Lawrence seaway so that iron ore from Labrador and Quebec can be moved up the St. Lawrence seaway and, together with United States coal, be used to supply employment for people other than Canadians.
The minister said that it would take time to achieve greatness. If we are going to help the Atlantic area it might well be an act of greatness if ways and means could be explored whereby the iron ore of Labrador and Quebec might be smelted by use of the energy resources of the maritimes rather than using the taxpayers' money to subsidize the export of that iron ore so that outsiders can benefit and with the further result that, over a tariff wall, we have to buy back American manufactured goods. I believe that would be a wiser policy rather than to sit idly by and blame A. V. Roe or any other company that happens to make a decision that a mine must be closed.
We realize that the house has just passed the national energy bill. I can remember so well that my first reactions to maritimers came from impressions I gathered from one of the leading representatives of the maritimes in the House of Commons for many long years, Mr. Clarie Gillis, the former member for Cape Breton South. He sought the establishment of a national energy board for many long years while he was in the House of Commons. He meant such a board as would give adequate consideration to the

Promises to Atlantic Provinces place that coal might some day play in the development of Canadian industrial enterprises. Yet we find that the government of the day is establishing a national energy board which, under the legislation, will completely ignore that vital source of energy.
The people of the maritimes engaged in the fishing industry were assured that they would be given support prices and that such support prices would bear a relationship to the cost of production. Agriculture in the Atlantic area was also given assurances. In the meeting at Summerside on February 27, 1958 the Prime Minister said that each year before the crop year began the farmer would know the lowest price he would receive. I might add that it now seems that each year the farmer knows that he will receive a lower price. However, the farmer was assured that he would know the lowest price. The Prime Minister went on to say that that price, in order to assure the farmer of his fair share of the national income, would have to bear a fair relationship to the cost of production of the farmer and the Prime Minister added that that was what the farmers had been asking for.
We know that we have the Agricultural Stabilization Act. However, in the implementation of that legislation the prices that have been determined up until now have always borne a relationship to the prices paid in the previous ten years and the minister has never yet announced a floor price with any indication that it was being fixed at that level because he had taken the cost of production into consideration.
One member who has taken part in the debate has mentioned the need of adequate transportation for the people of the Atlantic area. The people of Prince Edward Island particularly need ferry service now, not the assurance that a new ferry is going to be built which will be available years hence, not the assurance that a survey of a causeway is being made. If the minister cannot invent more adequate reasons for not buying the ship Vacationland than he gave to the house the other day he can expect the people of Prince Edward Island to be very disappointed. It is pointed out in an editorial in the Charlottetown Guardian that the Vacationland can be bought for $3 million. It is also pointed out that it is estimated that the cost of making it adequate would be another $1 million and that a new ferry would cost at least $8 million and would not be available for several years yet. The minister mentioned 1961. We have heard these announcements on other occasions with respect to other matters. It might well be 1963 or 1964 and the people of the island feel that they cannot wait that long. May I call it six o'clock?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I adjourn
the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam has asked to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner recess I was emphasizing the fact that we owe much to those who live in the Atlantic provinces. Our leaders of the past and many of our leaders of the present were raised and educated in the Atlantic areas. The expense of the opening up of the rest of the dominion was to a great extent absorbed by those who now live in the Atlantic provinces. As Canadians they have rights. They are not asking for any hand-outs. I have noted with interest how at meetings of dominion-provincial premiers even such men as the premier of British Columbia and the premier of Saskatchewan have asked that the federal government do all within its power to help those in the Atlantic area. I, along with the Minister of National Revenue, realize that helping the Atlantic provinces is going to take a great deal of money, a great deal of energy and a great deal of imagination on the part of the government of the day so that the time may arrive when those living in the Atlantic area will have their economy restored to the point where their people can also have equal chances with us in the field of personal income, education, health and all the other matters that all of us are desirous of having. This requires a new deal as the Prime Minister indicated at election time, it calls for a time of greatness, not little bits and little pieces. It does not call for neglect or for procrastination so that, in the words of the Minister of National Revenue, the Conservatives might win two or three more times yet. It needs action now. The time of needed greatness that was mentioned is now.
It has often been mentioned that the resources of the Atlantic area are limited. Even if that were so we would be able to point to the people of Norway who, with their limited resources, have been able to achieve a standard of living that is almost unequalled in the western world. However, it is our contention that the resources are available. I indicated that we might well embark on a program of smelting the iron ore that is available in Labrador and in the province of Quebec. All these resources-the energy

resources, the iron and the water-are available. We have the basic resources. Transport is not a serious problem.
I should like once again to refer to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) and to what he said in the speech he made in Calgary. These are his words:
Canada must broaden and diversify its economy and the only way we can do that is make use of all our resources.
In the Atlantic area we have available resources that are not being utilized to the full. Even regardless of new resources and new enterprises, what about the enterprises that are now established? I maintain that our government should be able to do a great deal that would help the enterprises that are now established.
One of the first things I would advocate would be that the government encourage the people of the Atlantic area to have more purchasing power. One of the ways in which they might be able to do this is to encourage the establishment of unions, especially for those who work on the sea, the fishermen, and those who work in the woods of Newfoundland. Another thing which our government might do is to encourage Canadian ownership of the enterprises and industrial resources of the Atlantic area. This statement applies especially with regard to ownership of the coal mines and ownership of the enterprises having to do with the woods in that area. The Prime Minister assured Canadians that he would encourage the co-operative movement. Very little, if anything, has been done in this regard on the part of the government of the day. I believe that the government of Canada ought to encourage the activities of the Atlantic provinces economic council. Our government ought to consider the interests of the Atlantic area when amending tariffs and when considering freight rates.
Over the lunch hour I looked at what the Minister of Transport had to say last week. He said that the alterations to the Vacation-land would cost $2 million. Even that amount in addition to the purchase price of $3 million would mean a total cost of $5 million. For the sum of $5 million the people of that island might have improvement almost immediately rather than having to wait for years hence for the possible expenditure, after many elections, of $100 million or more on a causeway. The province of Newfoundland needs regular railroads and it needs highways. The province of New Brunswick needs highways. All of those people need vast expenditures on behalf of health and educational services.
Promises to Atlantic Provinces
The Prime Minister won 25 of 33 ridings in the Atlantic provinces. He won them on the basis of his assurance that a new deal was on the way. The present practice of delay and procrastination, of only a little bit now and then, only enough to keep them at bay for the time being and of assuring them of a little bit after another election, is hardly good enough. This is a time for greatness. Four out of the ten provinces are involved. In this area Canada was begun. The potentialities are great for the building of Canadian unity and for real national development. Unless action is taken we may see a demagogue arising in the years ahead. We have had in the past some indication that the area is not averse to demagogues. We may have arising a demagogue who may make such an appeal to the electorate there that we may end up by being four Canadas rather than one. I am sure that none of us wants that to happen.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited so I will reserve my comments for one or two key points. First of all, I think those of us in the house this afternoon recognized that the speech by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill) set the Liberal party on a new low of imagination for the future of this country. I well recall one year ago in presenting the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act that for five days the hon. member was the leading member of the opposition in filibustering that bill, even to the extent of carrying the debate on into third reading. Now he stands up and says that it is a good bill. What a conversion in one year!


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. minister-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of
privilege. The hon. member has completely misrepresented the position I took this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the last member in this house to talk about misrepresentation. This afternoon he told this house that the previous prime minister of this country, Mr. St. Laurent, had offered coal subventions to the Atlantic provinces. I know the record as to this coal subvention equalization offer made by the previous government on April 29, 1957, less than six weeks before an election as a death bed repentance; it was only for one plant, the first one and no other. The hon. member claims that he has been misrepresented, but those are the facts and the

Division
records, and all he has to do to verify them is to contact the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, who took the records from my department to make sure that he could defend himself if he were attacked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege again, a question which concerns every member of the former administration in this house. The statement made by the hon. gentleman about my former colleague, the present leader of the Liberal party of Quebec, is unreservedly untrue.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All my hon. friend has to do to establish the truth of my allegation is to read the records of Hansard when the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, as he then was, put them on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but it being 8.15 o'clock p.m. it is my duty pursuant to special order made Friday last to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question and any amendment now before the house.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, this is the time which is usually taken up by hon. members stating grievances. At the outset I should say that Yukoners are somewhat hardened to the apparent lack of awareness, shall I say, of the Yukon on the part of a great many Canadians in all parts of the country. There exists a general unawareness of the very existence of the Yukon. This is a situation that apparently obtains across Canada. As one travels across the country one sees the coats of arms of various provinces displayed in air line terminals and other public buildings but the coat of arms of the Yukon is not in evidence. This is also true of Canada House in New York.
The very fact that the building is called Canada House suggests to me and other Yukoners that it should be representative of all of Canada and yet we find there an absence of the coats of arms of the Yukon and

of the Northwest Territories. My concern this evening is not with this isolated instance. This is but one of a great many instances one could cite illustrating what I have referred to as a lack of awareness of the existence of the Yukon or, if you will, an absence of a tendency to include the Yukon in this sort of thing.
My observation this evening is much more serious and concerns the representation of all parts of Canada in the memorial chamber in this building. Before I pursue this thought any further I should say that upon my discussing the absence of the coats of arms of the Yukon and Northwest Territories in the main rotunda of this building last year with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) action was taken between the last session and this and we now see these two coats of arms carved and evident in the rotunda of the building. In the memorial chamber, however, their absence is still felt.
On Armistice day in 1928 the then prime minister opened the memorial chamber with these words:
In the name of the people of Canada in proud and grateful remembrance of 60,000 of her sons and daughters whose lives were given in the cause of freedom, I unlock the doors of this memorial chamber, and declare it henceforth open to the public.
Here upon its walls is inscribed the record of their deeds, and upon its altar will rest the book of remembrance containing their names. This then is the very heart of Canada wherein their memory will be cherished forever.
The point I wish to make is that among the 60,000 dead of the first world war there were a goodly number of Yukon citizens who lost their lives. In this regard I might just mention that in November of 1914, Mr. J. W. Boyle of Dawson City, Yukon, later Lieutenant Colonel Boyle, on his own initiative raised the Boyle mounted machine gun detachment. It consisted of some 50 of all ranks. Boyle clothed these men in frontier-men's uniform and despatched them to Vancouver, where they were billeted at his expense. Included in that group was Hon. George Black who once occupied the chair in this house. The detachment was attached first to the 29th battalion and then to the 2nd Canadian Mounted Rifles Regiment. In June, 1915, the Yukon detachment, as it was then called, accompanied the latter unit to England, without horses or guns and was stationed in the Shorncliffe area. On the same ship bearing the detachment to England and I believe later to France was another former member of this house, the late Mrs. George Black. Some of the personnel went to France as reinforcements for the 2nd Canadian Mounted Rifles-converted from 66968-9-282
8. 1959	4443
Coats of Arms in Memorial Chamber cavalry to an infantry battalion of the 3rd division-and other units in the field.
On June 14, 1916, now 33 strong, the detachment was renamed Yukon motor machine gun battery and brought up to an authorized strength of 4 officers and 55 men. Captain H. R. Meurling, an instructor at the Canadian machine gun school, assumed command. The battery went to Bramshott early in July, to join the 4th division as divisional troops. Motor cars and motorcycles were received later in July and six Vickers machine guns early in August. The unit crossed the channel on August 12, 1916, and became E battery of the 1st Canadian motor machine gun brigade.
The battery served at the Somme, October-November, 1916; Vimy Ridge, April, 1917; Hill 70, August, 1917 and Passchendaele, October-November, 1917. On March 22, 1918, the second day of the great German offensive, the motor machine gun brigade was ordered to the Somme in support of the British fifth army. It left the following day, and for twelve days harassed and hindered the enemy's advance.
On May 23 Captain Meurling was promoted and given command of another MG battery. On June 8, E battery, till then still known unofficially by its Yukon title, was broken up and absorbed into the 2nd Canadian motor machine gun brigade. Its commander at that time was Captain F. W. Thompson. The Yukon battery earned a number of decorations in the field, although details regarding decorations received and casualties suffered are not readily available.
In the memorial chamber the altar rests upon black marble steps which were the gift of Great Britain. Above it and around the steps of the altar are the Royal arms, the arms of Canada and the coats of arms of the provinces. The coats of arms of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are not included among the coats of arms of the provinces nor are they included in the golden book of remembrance embossed within which are the names and ranks of all casualties suffered across Canada during the first war. I feel that all hon. members of this house will agree with me, after having heard a brief history of the part that Yukon volunteers played in the last war, that she has earned her right to be included in the memorial chamber.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government cure the omissions of the past by investigating the circumstances which I described this evening with a view to finding some way of carving the Yukon coat of arms on the altar of the memorial chamber. If the circumstances equally apply to the part

Grain Shipments through Seaway played by the Northwest Territories in the first war, then I would suggest that the coat of arms of the Northwest Territories also be included. There is even a strong argument for its inclusion under any circumstances.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same subject?


William Moore Benidickson: On the same subject.
I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has chosen a most appropriate time for advancing a discussion of this kind, a time when we are all aware that our sovereign is on the high seas in her ship with the prince, coming to our shore.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


William Moore Benidickson: She is flying to Newfoundland; that is correct. In consequence of that, we are all the more conscious of matters that are sometimes neglected over here, such as armorial bearings, heraldry and the like. Particularly because of the greater attention that is now being directed toward the north, to the Yukon and to the Northwest Territories, I think it is most appropriate that the hon. member has brought this up. I want to assure him that there would be strong support for this from this side of the house. I know that if the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) were in his seat at the moment he would certainly endorse this suggestion, as we all do on this side of the house. The hon. member for Yukon would be the first to admit that the approach must be a twin one for recognition of the crest of the Yukon and those that are in that fairly recently dedicated territory as well as in the Northwest Territory.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that those in charge of those matters, at a time when we are so concerned about traditions of this kind, should get the utmost attention from the government in the matter not only of our national crest but, as the hon. member has indicated, in the matter of the Memorial Chamber, and recognition in the building and in other places.


REQUEST FOR EQUALIZED
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the grievance I should like to raise this evening has to do with the grain producers of western Canada. Before launching into that. Mr. Speaker, I hope I may be allowed merely to say that had I not been dealing with this general subject I would have been very

happy at this time to add the support of this group to the very pertinent remarks of the hon. member for the Yukon.
The issue that I wish to raise has to do with the very low delivery quotas prevailing at the present time in western Canada. It has to do with the very drastic falling off of lakehead shipments of grain through the seaway and the general adverse results as far as western grain producers are concerned. I have raised this matter a number of times this session on the orders of the day and I have received from the ministers evasive replies, misinformation and apparently a complete unawareness of the very adverse conditions prevailing at a great many marketing points. There are many reasons, perhaps, or a number of reasons why this situation is as bad as it is, but certainly one of the most important reasons is the fact that since the opening of navigation, lakehead shipments have been much lower this year than a year ago. I hold in my hand a Canadian Press report which appeared on June 1, and which reads in part as follows:
Fort William. Only 55 million bushels of grain have been shipped from the lakehead during the 1959 navigation season compared with 104 million bushels in the corresponding period of 1958.
I had hoped when I raised this grievance, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) would be in his seat. In his absence, I sent a note over to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). In fairness to the Minister of Transport I must say that he replied to me that he had a previous engagement which would make it impossible for him to remain in the chamber.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: On a point of order, the
minister is in the building, but perhaps not in his seat.


Hazen Robert Argue: That has nothing to do with his note. Surely, the minister will acknowledge that what I said was completely accurate. I do not have to produce the note, surely.
The very drastic drop in shipments of grain through the lakehead is apparently brought about by the inability of the St. Lawrence seaway to handle grain shipments, along with other shipments, in the same volume this year as last year. Since the seaway opened there has been one report after another of congestion, of inability to move ships quickly through the canal, and generally of a situation of very great inefficiency. Because of this congestion, because of a lack of priority for Canadian basic products, the seaway has been unable to provide facilities for the shipment of large quantities of grain this year as compared with last year.

There was an editorial in the Montreal Gazette on June 1 dealing with the congestion of the Welland canal, and it had this to say:
Last year it was possible for Canadian ships to pass through the Welland canal in nine hours. This year it is taking up to 58 hours. Not only are the costs of these delays being added to what Canadians must pay, but the level of tolls, imposed for the opening of the waterway, is yet another addition to the cost structure.
It goes on to say:
Unless Canadian shipping is given reasonable priority in the Welland locks, the Canadian economy may be seriously injured by the St. Lawrence waterway instead of being aided by it, and this surely, after all that has been said about the waterway, would be the height of irony.
Because of the inability of grain shipments to be taken through the seaway in substantial quantities I suggest that now is the time for the government to consider this problem and to act. 1 was pleased this afternoon to hear that the Minister of Transport has made a request to the United States that its flotilla of ships that are to appear in the seaway should go through the canal locks at the rate of only two a day. I would go even further. I would say that if the appearance of those ships in the seaway is to adversely affect the shipment of Canadian products through the seaway, as would appear from reports in today's newspapers, reported by people who are authorities on the seaway, then it would be far better if United States ships stayed at home and if grain, iron ore and other Canadian products went through the seaway. Authorities are telling us that if they all go through at the same time it would make such a tie-up and such a mess that it will take a period of three weeks to unravel the conditions that are brought about by the appearance of so many ships.


William Moore Benidickson: These are military ships.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, they are military ships, it does not matter what ships they are; they are going to block the canal.
I raised this question on May 21, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce to comment on the very drastic drop at that time from 72 million bushels being shipped through the seaway a year ago to 33 million bushels this year, and the minister replied as follows, as reported at page 3870 of Hansard:
I did not require notice of this question from the hon. member. The 47 Conservative members from the prairie provinces are also interested in this matter and have been talking to me about it in the interval. We are not dependent upon one lone figure to draw our attention to these important facts in Canada.
Then he goes on with a real clincher.
I make no comment with regard to the shipping and the seaway facilities; that is not my province.
66968-9-282J
8, 1959	4445
Grain Shipments through Seaway
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, under whose department comes the sale, delivery and export of grain, says "I make no comment" as a result of a drop of 50 per cent in the shipment of grain through the seaway. I raised this question again on June 1. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce the following question, as found at page 4196 of Hansard:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of the very drastic reduction in shipments of grain from the lakehead. Can the minister explain why shipments from the lakehead since the opening of navigation have dropped from 86 million bushels last year to only 42 million bushels this year, and whether anything is being done to speed up shipments through the St. Lawrence seaway?
The minister replied that farm deliveries were good and that quotas were satisfactory. He did everything but deal with the question I raised. Then I tried a supplementary question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What date was this?


Hazen Robert Argue: June 1, page 4197 of Hansard. I asked the minister this supplementary question:
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know whether there might be some improvement in this very drastic reduction in shipments out of the lakehead, and I am asking the minister whether he can make any statement on that point. I would like him to comment as to why almost consistently since the opening of navigation Canadian exports are down this year as compared with a year ago.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce replied:
Mr, Speaker, that last statement is quite incorrect. Canadian exports are holding up extraordinarily well.
Then I went on to say:
I am not talking about the year in question; I am talking about recent weeks since the opening of navigation. The graph put out by the minister's own department shows a very substantial reduction. I can send it across to the minister.
I tried the same question the next day and I had figures to substantiate the statement I had made before, namely that Canadian exports had dropped. I asked the minister to explain why Canadian exports from April 22 to May 20 this year were just 15.9 million bushels compared with 25.1 million bushels in the same period last year. After some crossfire the minister replied as follows:
It may well be that exports of wheat during the month of April have been slightly lower than a year ago-
He did not know that the day before but on June 2 he admitted they were down. They were down in April following the opening of navigation and they have been down in May of this year. I have in my hand the latest figures taken from the Canadian wheat board

Grain Shipments through Seaway statistical summary and the board of grain commissioners weekly report. Overseas clearances of wheat from April 11 to May 27 this year amounted to 25.3 million bushels and in the same period last year exports amounted to 35.9 million bushels.
I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) is in his seat, I ask him if this very substantial drop in exports is not a serious matter, if it is not so important that the government should reply and explain why this very drastic drop in exports of Canadian wheat has taken place since the opening of navigation. When I put the question to the minister that the falling off of shipments from the lakehead might be having an adverse effect on Canadian exports he said no. He said that we had sufficient grain on hand at seaway ports and that even though the St. Lawrence seaway has been unable to handle the volume of grain that was handled a year ago there is enough at the seaway ports to take care of all exports.
I would suggest that that puts the matter in an even more serious perspective in that it shows that there has been no loss of export markets because grain was not available and yet, as I have said, from April 22 to May 27 there has been a drop in exports of wheat from 35.9 million bushels in the same period a year ago to 25.3 million bushels this year. These figures show that since the opening of navigation exports of Canadian wheat are not running anywhere nearly as high as they were a year ago and the situation in the present crop year, which has so far not been as bright as last year, is being made even worse in relation to the export sales of the other major exporting countries.
I have in my hand a Canadian Press article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of June 8 and is based on a dominion bureau of statistics report. It reads in part as follows:
Canadian wheat and flour exports in the August-March period dropped to 188,100,000 bushels from
197.600.000	a year earlier despite a 9 per cent gain in the total market of the big four wheat shippers, the United States, Canada, Argentina and Australia.
From August to March of this year Canadian wheat exports were down 9.5 million bushels or 5 per cent from a year ago. In the same period United States exports were
298.200.000	bushels, up from 255,500,000 bushels a year ago, or an increase for the United States of 43 million bushels or 17 per cent. Argentina's exports were up to 62 million bushels this year from 48,500,000 a year ago, an increase of 13.5 million bushels or 28 per cent. Australia's exports were also up to 50,400,000 bushels this year compared

with 46,400,000 bushels last year, an increase of 4 million bushels or 9 per cent.
In the wheat picture in the world today Canada's exports are down while exports by the United States, Argentina and Australia have increased substantially. When we ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce why Canadian exports are down he first of all denies it. Later he says that the reduction in the shipment of grain through the seaway has not adversely affected Canadian exports. So I ask, why has there been such a substantial falling off in Canadian exports since the opening of navigation compared with a year ago? If the grain does not go through the lakehead and through the seaway, if the grain pipe line, as it is called in popular terms, is plugged at Fort William and Port Arthur, this can only mean a falling off of deliveries of wheat and other grains by Canadian wheat producers.
For the period from April 22 to May 27 I find that a year ago farmers delivered 40.7 million bushels of wheat and that in the same period this year there has been a decrease in deliveries of more than 13 million bushels to just 27.3 million bushels. Deliveries from the farms are falling off as one would expect with such a drastic reduction in shipments of wheat and other grains through the lake-head. In the period April 22 to May 27 total deliveries of all grains from farms amounted to 49.4 million bushels a year ago and this year the figure is just 35.8 million bushels, a reduction of approximately 20 per cent this year compared with last year.
Mr. Speaker, the end of the crop year is not far away. The end of the crop year is July 31. Between now and July 31 the Canadian wheat board and the Canadian grain trade have approximately seven weeks in which to provide relative equality of treatment for the grain producers in the prairie provinces. Over the years I have been a strong advocate of a quota system but of a quota system that is equalized during the crop year. No one can expect that quotas can be equalized every day. Everyone who knows anything about the grain business nows that there are certain reasons why grain from time to time is taken from certain delivery points and not from certain other delivery points. But surely it should be the objective of any administration as well as of everyone who is attached to the grain trade in Canada to see to it that in so far as it may be possible provision is made for equal delivery quotas for all producers by the end of the crop year.
What is the situation now? The latest weekly report from the Canadian wheat board which came to my office today shows

that of the three prairie provinces, Alberta is in by far the best situation. For regular quotas there were six points on a four-bushel quota; 135 points on a five-bushel quota; 170 points on a six-bushel quota and 174 points on a seven-bushel quota.	In the
province of Alberta 70 per cent of all regular delivery quotas were in excess of four bushels per acre, that is of the regular delivery quotas.
In the province of Saskatchewan, as to regular delivery quotas, there were 69 points on a three-bushel quota; 551 points on a four-bushel quota; 318 points on a five-bushel quota; 82 points on a six-bushel quota and 36 points on a seven-bushel quota.	Unlike
Alberta which has 70 per cent of its points on quotas in excess of five bushels per acre, Saskatchewan has just 11 per cent of the marketing points on this kind of quota in excess of five bushels per acre.
In Manitoba the situation is as bad and perhaps even worse. In Manitoba there are 88 points on a three-bushel quota; 219 points on a four-bushel quota; 50 points on a five-bushel quota; 12 points on a six-bushel quota and 3 points on a seven-bushel quota. In the provnce of Manitoba only some 4 per cent of the marketing points are on a quota in excess of five bushels per acre. This is a tremendous discrepancy. This means that for the great majority of the areas of western Canada, at those points most producers face a marketing quota of three bushels, four bushels or five bushels per acre. Yet at the same time there is a substantial number of points on a six-bushel and a seven-bushel quota. I am hoping that an extraordinary effort will now be made within the next few weeks to bring up the points with a low quota so that there can be greater equality of treatment in western Canada.
I have in my hand a number of maps and charts showing the quota situation prevailing in Saskatchewan on June 1. On looking at these charts one finds that marketing points for the special quota for tough and damp grain, are concentrated in northeast Saskatchewan. A number of times on the orders of the day I asked the government to give special consideration to providing what I termed emergency quotas for the delivery of tough and damp grain. This action apparently has now been taken. I would be interested in finding out when it was taken.
I am given certain information that would suggest to me that it is something that has taken place only in recent weeks. In any event I think it has been a good action, namely that farmers who have tough and damp grain should be given an opportunity of marketing as large quantities as possible before the grain deteriorates and is lost.
8. 1959	4447
Grain Shipments through Seaway
However, I also have in my hand a chart of the seven-bushel quotas per specified acre. These quotas are not emergency quotas dealing with tough and damp grain; they are regular quotas to take in regular grades of wheat as the farmers deliver it. There is still a substantial concentration of these marketing quotas in northeastern Saskatchewan. The quotas prevail in an area which extends northeast from Saskatoon and southeast from Prince Albert. With the exception of a very few-and there are a few-other points on a seven-bushel quota, the great majority of the points on this quota are concentrated in that area. The six-bushel quota is somewhat more evenly divided but it is still more prevalent in the northeastern and now in the northwestern part of Saskatchewan. The five-bushel quota and the four-bushel quota are scattered about the province but the four-bushel quota is concentrated to a large extent in the southern part of the province of Saskatchewan.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, if I have not already made it clear, that these maps have to do with Saskatchewan only. The quotas in southern and southeastern Saskatchewan are extremely low and I would suggest that they constitute at this time an emergency situation. In the Saskatchewan wheat pool district 3A the latest quotas are as follows: 14 points are on a three-bushel quota; 75 points are on a four-bushel quota and only 13 of the points in that area are on quotas in excess of five bushels. This means that farmers in this area as well as other areas of Manitoba, in other areas of Saskatchewan and perhaps even in some areas of Alberta have not had an equal opportunity, or anything approaching an equal opportunity, to deliver grain at this time.
This situation has been brought about certainly in some substantial degree by the great failure of the St. Lawrence seaway facilities and failure of people in the grain business to pay attention to the need for putting shipments of grain out of the lake-head through the seaway. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says he has no responsibility. If he wants to abrogate his responsibility, if he wants to give it to some other minister, I suggest that the responsibility after all lies with the government. I suggest it is the responsibility of the government to take extraordinary measures to remove the bottlenecks in the seaway and to make certain that Canadian shipments of grain from now to the end of the crop year are given absolute priority of movement through the seaway. It will be too late if the bottleneck has been removed after July 31. Some of the farmers will find they have ended the crop year without an opportunity to deliver

Grain Shipments through Seaway a fair quota of grain and they will be crippled economically because the government has failed to deal with this situation. There has been a transport controller in the past; perhaps the government needs a transport controller today, but it is certainly necessary for someone in authority to see that grain shipments are moved out of the lakehead to protect Canadian overseas markets and to give grain producers on the prairies between now and the end of July a chance to delivery quotas on a more equitable basis.
I would suggest secondly that the government should take emergency action of whatever kind may be necessary to provide all of the box cars that are necessary at low delivery points to give the farmers at those points an opportunity to deliver grain up to I would say at least a 7-bushel quota.
Third, if the government still denies that this situation is as I have pictured it, then I would say that there should be a thorough inquiry by a committee of this house to ascertain why lakehead clearances have dropped by such a drastic and alarming amount as compared with last year. I say that such a committee should inquire into why Canadian exports since the opening of navigation are down, and should inquire why delivery quotas have discriminated to such an enormous degree against producers in certain widespread areas of western Canada.
As a fourth step that I suggest the government needs to take, and I would suggest is morally bound to take, they should decide and announce in this house their policy on deficiency payments and their reply to the grain producers and the briefs they have presented to the government. When we have asked the government what they are going to do about the submissions made by the farm organizations, we get this pat reply. "The government is giving the submission consideration." The submission was submitted to the government on March 10. It has been giving consideration to this now for three months. How long, Mr. Speaker, must the government give consideration to this important submission before it decides on its policy?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For our guidance, would it be possible for the hon. member to tell us how he can relate-my friend is too anxious to get up.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, I have the floor.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member took his seat; will he allow me to put my question? How can the hon. member relate deficiency payments to his grievance that wheat was not moving this year through the lakehead?

How does the hon. member relate these two and bear upon the rule of repetition in the house on deficiency payments?


Hazen Robert Argue: Now my friend has raised two points of order, and until the house takes a decision on deficiency payments it is in order to raise the question at an appropriate place, and it is relevant to the question under discussion. I shall answer the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, by merely referring to what I said when I opened my remarks. I said that I wished to raise a grievance having to do with the general grain situation on the prairies. Then I went on, after having made those opening remarks, and talked about the drop in shipments through the seaway. I raise this fourth point, Mr. Speaker. Under the general grain situation and the general grievance affecting the grain situation that I have presented tonight I say that it is time this government quit procrastinating and time they quit fooling the prairie grain producers that in fact they are really giving the question of deficiency payments serious consideration.
I asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) after the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had raised this point on May 26. I asked this question as recorded on page 4011 of Hansard of that date:
Can the Prime Minister say whether, following the consideration that is now being given, a decision will be made during the present session of parliament so that if it is necessary to introduce legislation in order to implement the government's decision, that can be done?
To that the Prime Minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to answer that question directly, for the reason that it depends on the length of time during which consideration is given to the request.
The Prime Minister left it open for himself and the cabinet to give consideration to this request, and has done so for months to come, certainly for weeks to come, until the session is ended and until it will be impossible for the house to deal with any legislation that might be required if a decision were favourable. Mr. Speaker, in the name of the grain producers of western Canada I ask the government to come to their assistance in these last weeks of the crop year to provide priorities for the movement of grain through the lakehead, to provide whatever box cars are necessary to allow producers at low delivery points the opportunity to deliver at least a 7-bushel or 8-bushel quota as is being provided for other groups. In the meantime I ask, if the government denies the facts which I have presented, for a thorough inquiry by a committee of this

house as to why lakehead clearances are down, as to why exports have fallen, and as to why delivery quotas are discriminating against so many marketing points and against so many producers in western Canada. I ask the government to take emergency action to remove the bottleneck in the shipments of Canadian grain so that Canadian producers may have the opportunity to deliver substantial quantities of grain before the crop season ends.
Finally, I make a plea that the government ends its procrastination to make a decision and informs the house as to what its decision is on deficiency payments, so that if a favourable decision is made, as I trust it will, parliament during this session will have the opportunity to pass whatever estimates or whatever legislation is necessary to implement that decision.


James Ernest Pascoe: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? Is the hon. member now changing his story, and will he not admit that most farmers have enough wheat on their farms to fill an 8-bushel quota?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if a farmer has an 8-bushel quota, it does not mean that he has the grain to deliver the quota. I am merely asking this very simple thing-


James Ernest Pascoe: Will the hon. member answer my question? Have they enough to fill an 8-bushel quota?


Hazen Robert Argue: Some have and some have not. Mr. Speaker, there are 235,000 or a few more holders of permit books on the prairies. Some have enough grain-


James Ernest Pascoe: Will the hon. member give an idea how many they could have?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a very pertinent point. The pertinent point is whether the farmers in the prairie provinces will have the opportunity to deliver an 8-bushel quota. If they have not the grain at home then they cannot take advantage of that opportunity. There are certain quotas and a certain limited number of points in the west today that are on what are called limited quotas, and in the definition of the Canadian wheat board these are quotas which are now in existence at certain marketing points at a figure high enough to take deliveries. I think the Canadian wheat board can give these statistics to my hon. friend, but I will give him the answer. As of May 25, 1959, in Saskatchewan-and I can give the figures for the three prairie provinces-1,056 points were on regular quotas and only 31 points were on a limited quota, namely on quotas at 31 points which, in the opinion of the wheat board, were ample to take
Grain Shipments through Seaway care of the grain which farmers had ready for delivery in those districts. The fact is that many thousands of western wheat producers at this time are crying out for the opportunity to deliver grain, and quotas are being denied to them.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker,
there are three subjects which, I believe, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) raised, and I suppose I should be the last one to deal in the house with deficiency payments and the movement of wheat.
However, there is a matter in which I am particularly interested, and that is the first part of the grievance which the hon. member for Assiniboia raised, namely the bottlenecks on the Welland canal and on the seaway resulting in a lack of grain deliveries and leading, also, to difficulty in the movement of grain. The point which the hon. member makes has to do with drastic reductions in grain deliveries out of the lakehead; his point was that Canadian exports have declined since last year. I am not in a position to challenge that statement, nor do I, but what I do say is that if that is the case it is not due to anything that is happening on the Welland canal. The proof of that lies in the fact that up till now, when barely more than two months of the navigation season have gone by, almost twice as much traffic, notwithstanding what is happening, has gone through as in the same period last year.
However, that does not derogate from the fact that the government and the Minister of Transport are not applying the right policies to remedy what is happening, and to that extent I find myself in accord with the hon. member for Assiniboia. We all know that the early delays on the seaway were caused by ice conditions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member intends to speak about matters other than this question of grain deliveries I wonder if he would mind if I replied to that aspect of the debate now, and then we could go on to the other subject.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, but I have to go out of the house to a meeting, and I am ten minutes late. I think I can dispose of this within the next few minutes, but I do want to bring to the attention of the house the fact that here are reasons for the bottlenecks which have arisen, and that the congestion could, in my opinion, have been averted. I think that if a decision had been taken in the first place to open navigation on a fixed date, and not postpone it twice, there would not have been that congestion of ships at Montreal waiting to enter the seaway, creating a bottleneck which afterwards continued in the Welland canal.

Grain Shipments through Seaway
I made a suggestion during the question period which was turned down without any consideration whatsoever being given to it. That was that the introduction of sector gates at the Thorold locks of the Welland canal such as those which exist in the lower locks would speed up traffic considerably. I have since been informed by competent engineers that this is a fact and that their introduction would help tremendously in the movement of ships.
I think, in all fairness to the Minister of Transport, that it is still too early to come to a decision on the present position of traffic on the seaway. I think that the seaway must be given a trial period, and this trial period would certainly be not less than the length of the navigation season and perhaps more. One cannot in two or three months make a decision as to what should be done. But there is one thing which I hope will be considered by the minister. I asked him this question and he hedged in his reply: whether or not the engineers of the special projects branch of the seaway authority should not now be giving careful consideration to the duplication of certain of the Thorold locks on the Welland canal. While the engineers are doing that, it might be possible to arrive at a suggestion, with other studies-one or two of which I am going to make-as to whether or not traffic conditions can be substantially improved.
I think, too, that there is a very serious lack of co-ordination between three bodies in the Department of Transport-the national harbours board, the seaway authority and the St. Lawrence ship channel authority. Those three bodies, I am sorry to say, did not work in co-operation during the early part of the navigation season, and it is because of this lack of co-operation that, in my opinion, there has been the first delays which have since been continued.
I am glad that the Minister of Transport announced today that the flotilla or convoy of United States ships will, perhaps, not be introduced into the seaway. My suggestion is that it should be allowed to remain at Montreal and that it be not allowed to go into the seaway at all, because if there is congestion now, as reports in the press indicate, and as even the minister's statements -some of which are quite contradictory- indicate, there is certainly no reason in the world to clutter up the canal more than is the case at the present time. All this traffic, however, goes to show that the seaway is certainly going to be a success, as has been suggested in the house, at this time of the year so early in the period of navigation.

Then there is the really important question of whether or not there should be discrimination against Canadian ships. I raised the question on the orders of the day, and was told, in reply, that there was a system of priorities in existence which staggered a foreign ship and a Canadian ship in so far as bulk cargoes were concerned and it was felt that there should be no change in the procedure in the meantime because, I think the minister said, there were four ships waiting to enter the canal at Port Weller and about five waiting to enter the canal at Port Col-borne on the downward movement or vice versa. That is a matter for which the government is responsible. I remember quite well what the statements were in so far as discrimination was concerned when the matter was discussed many years ago, but whether or not in view of what is happening there should be a system of priorities affecting Canadian traffic is a matter for the government to determine. But I say that the government should determine that as soon as possible having regard to the reports which have been made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) from time to time.
I think that the minister should at the first opportunity-that is Wednesday when his estimates are being discussed in this house- make a statement on this subject. He is in possession of the facts; he has the reports from his engineers and he is familiar with the statistics which have been compiled concerning the movement of ships. I think he owes it to the house and to the country to make a complete statement on the present position-not partial statements such as we have heard from time to time in the question and answer period. That is not sufficient, and I think that until such a full statement is made it will not be possible for us to make up our minds about the seriousness of these delays on the canal and the confusion which has been reported. I therefore invite the minister to make this statement at the earliest possible moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to go into transportation matters at all in my discussion this evening. However, I should like to make a few comments on the speech made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). The hon. member as usual attempted to paint a picture of gloom and anticipated despair on the western prairie as a result of the inability of farmers to market their grain. Nothing could be further from the true facts than the type of picture he attempted to leave in the minds of hon. members in this regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: You cannot get away from the facts and statistics.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member repeated time after time with somewhat monotonous regularity the statement that Canadian exports are down this year. At one point he said that Canadian exports of wheat are drastically down this year. Naturally he implied all of the evil results that would flow from our exports being drastically down.
What is the true situation in this regard? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) put the figures on the record only a few days ago, on June 1, when he stated that up to the end of March of this year exports of wheat and flour were just under 9 million bushels below the figure for the same period last year. That is the drastic decline to which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) referred. Last year exports of wheat from this country amounted to 316 million bushels-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister will recall that in my remarks I was referring to the drastic reduction in exports since the opening of navigation. In order to be completely fair
1	took the exports from the beginning of the first full week following the opening of navigation.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not a point of order. That is an argument.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member is not
advancing a point of order but merely engaging in counter argument. The hon. member repeated time after time that our exports of wheat are drastically down.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the opening of navigation they are drastically down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman
attempted to paint a picture of gloom and despair as far as the western farmer is concerned. The true picture as I said is depicted by the information placed on the record by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June
2	as reported at page 4242 of Hansard. Our exports are down just 9 million bushels below a year ago. Down 9 million bushels from what? From 316 million bushels which we exported in the last crop year as compared with 267 or 268 million bushels exported in the previous crop year. The hon. member neglected entirely to point out the fact that in the first year this government was in office we managed to secure a marked increase in the exports of wheat from Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now you are falling behind again. Exports are down.
66968-9-283
8, 1959
Grain Shipments through Seaway


Douglas Scott Harkness: Three hundred and sixteen million bushels were exported in the last crop year as compared with 267 or 268 million in the previous crop year.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are falling behind once more. Exports are declining.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman is now talking about a drop of 9 million bushels from the figure I mentioned up to date. We have not yet reached the end of the crop year. The hon. gentleman described it as a drastic decline which is a typical example of the exaggerated language in which the hon. member unfortunately engages.
As a matter of fact, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the chairman of the wheat board, various members of the wheat board, and various members of the government including myself have stated on several occasions during the past months that we expected our exports of wheat this year to reach at least 300 million bushels. We still expect our exports to reach that figure. The amount we have exported thus far gives every indication that this target will be reached. If we do reach exports of 300 million bushels then all the other complaints the hon. member has been making about quotas will disappear.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This will mean that practically all the farmers in western Canada will have been able to deliver all of the wheat they wanted to deliver to the elevators. When you subtract the amount they want to retain for seed and so on there will be few farmers in western Canada who will have any wheat that they have been unable to deliver.


Hazen Robert Argue: We will see on July 31.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member went on to say that Canadian exports are down whereas Argentine and Australian exports are up. What he neglected to say was that Australia had a crop failure last year and actually imported wheat from Canada. As proof that Canada is not doing well the hon. member pointed out that Australian exports are up. Naturally they would be up if Australia had no crop failure this year as was the case last year. With typical lack of logic the hon. member attempted to take an extraordinary year as far as Australia is concerned to prove his point that Canada is not doing very well in wheat exports. We know that Australia last year actually imported wheat from Canada. That is an indication of what a completely unfair, biased

Grain Shipments through Seaway argument the hon. gentleman advanced and illustrates the incorrect impression he attempted to convey.
The hon. gentleman went on to exclaim that there were very low delivery quotas. Rather than being low, delivery quotas are the best they have been for a number of years. They are better than they have been for a number of years in the past. I do not have on hand the exact period this would cover but they are better than they have been for a considerable length of time. The hon. member read off a long list of delivery quotas but neglected to refer to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce told him as reported at page 4197 of Hansard of June 2 when the minister said:
If he has any further worry with regard to the quota distribution in the prairie provinces, may I assure him that this year at this time there are 264 stations on a 7-bushel quota per specified acre; last year there were none. This year there are 308 stations on a 6-bushel quota per specified acre; last year there were 341. Generally the picture is much better than it was a year ago.
The hon. member having been told this and knowing it of his own knowledge still rose in his place and said that delivery quotas are low and that a serious situation exists in western Canada because farmers cannot deliver their grain.
I have in my hand the Regina Leader-Post of Friday, June 5, 1959 which contains an article entitled, "Board Not Concerned by Small Wheat Export" which is a statement of the wheat board.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought there was a big wheat export; you said there was.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman should let me make my speech. I did not interrupt him. The article states in part:
The Canadian wheat board Thursday announced new increases in grain delivery quotas at provincial points.
The following increases are effective immediately-
That is, effective on Friday. The article then lists 24 points that are to be put on a 4-bushel quota, 50 points that are to be put on a 5-bushel quota, 19 points that are to be put on a 6-bushel quota and 16 points that are to be put on a 7-bushel quota. These are all Saskatchewan points. The article then lists increases that are to be effective on Monday; in other words, today. A further 34 points are to be put on a 4-bushel quota, a further 96 points are to be put on a 5-bushel quota, a further 28 points are to be put on a 6-bushel quota, a further 5 points are to be put on a 7-bushel quota and a further 11 points are to be put on an 8-bushel quota.
In other words, due to the fact that we have been exporting grain at a very satis-

factory rate this year the delivery quotas are rapidly going up in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They were already somewhat higher in Alberta as the hon. member said. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman, if he read this newspaper article-


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I did not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly he should not be making speeches such as he made in the house when delivery quotas on Friday last and today were considerably increased in the very province about which he was complaining.


Hazen Robert Argue: The picture I painted was accurate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that he is not entitled to speak from his seat when another hon. member has the floor. It would be appreciated if he did not constantly interrupt the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). If the hon. member for Assiniboia wants the floor he may have it at some other time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the hon. member interrupting because I know this hurts a little and therefore I expect to hear him squeal to a certain extent.
Having disposed of this complaint raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia that very low delivery quotas obtained this year and having indicated that exactly the reverse is the true situation I should like to turn to the remarks the hon. gentleman made about low shipments from lakehead ports. Just the reverse is the case. I should like to say something about what he had to say about low shipments from lakehead ports. I should like to ask him, or any other hon. member here, if any exports have been lost as a result of the lower shipments from lakehead ports this year. There is not an hon. member in this house who can say that any has been lost.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why then are they down?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this same paper is a statement from the wheat board in which they state:
A spokesman of the Canadian wheat board said there is no problem,-
He is talking about small shipments from the head of the lakes this year. I continue:
-there is no problem, as plenty of wheat is in store at eastern elevators right now.
In other words, we have not lost the sale of a single bushel of grain because the shipments on the lakes are lower this year than they were last year. The hon. member was building up a great big strawman, and then

trying to make a big fellow of himself by punching holes in it, by talking about those low grain shipments from the head of the lakes this year. This has not lost us a bushel of exports, not one, and therefore, this was all shadow-boxing by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
Then, he made an attack on the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) in connection with his saying that he had no comment to make on the transportation difficulties on the great lakes. After reading what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say, which was as follows:
I make no comment with regard to the shipping and the seaway facilities-
He made a great point out of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce takes no interest in this; he apparently does not care about the seaway shipments, and so forth and so on, and this was a terrible dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but he completely neglected to read what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said after that, which was as follows:
The situation with regard to export trade is being maintained. The fact that the shipment of grain from the lakehead is not as great as it was last year has no effect on our export market at the present time, because there is sufficient grain in position further east to handle these exports. Our exports of wheat are continuing at a good figure. We still expect to reach the quota that we set earlier in the year.
This is on page 3870 of Hansard of May 21. The quota that we set earlier in the year was 300 million bushels, which I mentioned a little while ago. If we reach the 300 million bushels, which I feel quite confident we will, which the members of the wheat board feel quite confident we will, then the number of farmers who will have been unable to deliver the grain they wanted to deliver will be very, very small indeed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Wesson, the head of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, when he was down here on his last trip about 10 days ago, I guess, in connection with deficiency payments, made that very statement to us, that in his opinion the four and five bushel quotas which existed at most points would be more than sufficient to take the grain that the great majority of farmers in western Canada wanted to deliver, let alone going to six, seven and eight bushels quotas which the hon. member was talking about. I would suggest he should get some better information from Mr. Wesson and some of the other people who know something about the grain business and the grain situation in western Canada than the type of information 66968-9-283J
Dominion-Provincial Relations with which he has been attempting to give a completely inaccurate picture to the house this evening.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a question? Will the minister assure the house that all marketing points at July 31 will have at least a seven bushel quota?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member knows to begin with that this is not my department, and I am not in a position to give any such assurance to the house, as a result of that.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the answer to your own
speech.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE General administration-
106. Departmental administration, $2,461,599.

[Stage Direction]
238. Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a Member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $15,000.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
380. Departmental administration, including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,636,084.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Third reading of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act -The Minister of Finance.
Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps we would be ready to go on at this stage.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member wished, we could call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
4454	HOUSE OF
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the list would be as I indicated on Thursday and Friday night. If we go into estimates this week it would be the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: Would that be on Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: It depends on what progress we make.


Lionel Chevrier: What estimates will follow the estimates of the Department of Transport?


Howard Charles Green: The Department of Justice.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader whether any determination has been made of the date on which the defence estimates will be discussed?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that; I will let the hon. member know just as soon as possible.


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

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

Mr. Argue: 1.	At what universities did Dr. Richard S. MacNeish, presently an employee of the national museum of Canada, take his degrees?
2.	At what universities did Dr. MacNeish take post graduate training, and under whom did he study?
3.	Is Dr. MacNeish a veteran of any war?
4.	If so, in what armed forces did he serve, and in what war?
5.	What positions had Dr. MacNeish held previous to his appointment to the staff of the national museum of Canada?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1.	University of Chicago.
2.	Harvard University, University of Michigan and University of Chicago; names of professors studied under not available in departmental records.
3.	Yes.
4.	United States of America forces; world war II.
5.	District supervisor, museum project, works progress administration; archaeological supervisor, Illinois state museum; archaeological supervisor and fellow, University of Michigan; director, archaeological field school, University of Kentucky; director, second Tamaulipas expedition, Mexico, under auspices of Wenner-Gren foundation for anthropoligical research, New York City.


DR. RICHARD S. MACNEISH-U.S. RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any communications ever been received by officers of the Department of Northern Affairs
Division
and National Resources or any other agency of the Canadian government, either directly or indirectly, from any official or agency of the government of the United States, since January 1, 1948, regarding Dr. Richard S. MacNeish, presently an employee of the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so, by whom were these communications received, from whom were they received, on what dates were they received, and what was the nature of each such communication?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Not to our knowledge.
2.	N/A.


NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has a Mr. Wm. E. Taylor ever been employed at the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so, has Mr. Taylor ever taken (a) the oath of allegiance: (b) the oath of office, as required by section 42(1) of the Civil Service Act?
3.	If so, on what date was this done?
4.	If not, under what authority was Mr. Taylor allowed to take a position under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Act?
5.	At what universities did Mr. Taylor take his degrees, in what subjects did he specialize, and under whom did he study at each university?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	See answer to question No. 393.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) yes.
3.	May 29, 1956.
4.	N/A.
5.	University of Toronto, B.A. (honours), 1951; anthropology; Professor T. F. Mc-Ilwraith, Dr. G. Gordon Brown, Dr. J. N. Emerson, Dr. E. S. Carpenter.
University of Illinois, A. M., 1952, sociology; Professors J. Steward, J. C. McGregor, O. Lewis and B. Zimmerman.
University of Michigan, passed preliminary examination for Ph.D. 1956; anthropology; Professors L. A. White, J. B. Griffin, A. C. Spaulding, R. K. Beardsley, F. Thieme and E. Service.



.


Tuesday, June 9, 1959