1960-05-03

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. E. Halpenny (London) presented the first report of the special committee on defence expenditures, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. In view of press reports from Paris, will the government make known to the United Kingdom, the United States and France its view that the ban on nuclear tests should be discussed and, if possible, decided at the forthcoming summit conference?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have not seen the press reports to which the hon. gentleman refers. However, sir, it is well known that disarmament is to be an important item on the agenda of the summit meetings, and there is obviously a close connection between the question of the discontinuance of nuclear tests and disarmament.
On the question of nuclear tests, the policy of the Canadian government has been made very clear, both in public and in private, to our allies, including the countries to which the hon. gentleman referred in his question, on many previous occasions. Therefore I do not think there can be any doubt in the minds of any of our allies as to the government's firm opposition to the continuance of such tests.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the
understandable confusion at the moment and, I might add, the genuine concern of the people of my area, can the minister say, first, whether work will be proceeded with as planned at the Bomarc site near North Bay? Second, regardless of the success or failure of the Bomarc, will the control project, which for security reasons is referred to as the defence installation at Trout lake, be continued without interruption?
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): On December 14 last, Mr. Speaker, a contract for some $3 million was let for the construction of the Bomarc site at North Bay. To date something over $427,000 has already been spent. It is not the intention of the government at the present time to cancel that contract. Work is proceeding and will continue to proceed until the government of the United States inform us of any change of program they may suggest in connection with the Bomarc development and the air defence plans for the defence of this continent.
Regarding the other installation which has been referred to, as the hon. gentleman said, as a defence installation, the purpose of that has not been declared for security reasons, but I see no reason why it could not now be announced that that is a SAGE communication centre. The SAGE communication system is designed not only to control the Bomarc but to control interceptors or any other weapons which are being used in the air defence system. It is of assistance in the identification and tracking of friendly and hostile aircraft, and may be described as a centre for air battle management and air surveillance. So, quite irrespective of what is the final decision regarding the Bomarc program, the SAGE program near North Bay will continue according to the present plans of the government.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex Easl):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of his reply that there will be no change in the Canadian program until the United States government has declared its position, continued, confirmed or changed, then may I ask the minister whether the government of Canada, since the announcement of the congressional committee on Friday last, has taken any steps whatever to ascertain what is the position of the government of the United States with regard to this matter at this time.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Pearkes:: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was speaking to the assistant secretary of defence this morning at 10 o'clock and was informed by him what are the intentions of the government of the United States.
Hon. L.	B.	Pearson	(Leader	of iheOpposition):	Will	the minister tell the house
the intentions of the United States, as given to him this morning?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think that would be proper.



BOMARC MISSILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L.	B.	Pearson	(Leader	of theOpposition):	Mr.	Speaker,	I should	like to
ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statement-and if so has he any views to express to the house on it- of the chairman of the United States House of Representatives subcommittee on military appropriations that "if the Canadian government starts putting pressure through the Senate foreign relations committee or the executive branch we may, after all, have to spend money on this missile in which we have no confidence at all"?
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, that was the opinion expressed by the gentleman referred to. Of course it is ridiculous to think that the Canadian government is putting any pressure on the United States government in this respect. The virtue of the Bomarc and the ultimate decision as to whether it is included in the air defence inventory of this continent will depend entirely upon the military worthiness of the weapon.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of official denials in Washington that there was any agreement between the two governments regarding the implementation of the Bomarc program, does the minister still believe that the cancellation of this program by the United States government would be a breach of an intergovernmental agreement?


George Randolph Pearkes: Most certainly there was an
intergovernmental agreement, and the cancellation of the Bomarc program without consultation with the dominion government 
would be a breach of that agreement. That is recognized in government circles in the United States.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: A supplementary question. Did the minister, when he was speaking to Washington this morning, indicate any preference in respect to the Canadian attitude as to whether the Bomarc program should be continued?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of the interest of many Canadians in the conservation of wildlife and our forests, can the minister report to the house what effect his official noisemakers are having in the scaring of blue herons out of Mr. Elmhurst's woods?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I will have inquiries made and inform the hon. member of the degree of success. If they are not having sufficient success I can recommend certain people who will do a very good job.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, notice of which was given to him. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a statement made by Premier Smallwood in the Newfoundland house of assembly on April 25, in which Mr. Smallwood gives a summary of a conversation he says he had with the Minister of Justice last year on the subject of the proclamation of the Newfoundland legislation creating the position of a fourth judge in that province?
Second, was there such a conversation and, if so, did the minister decline to give an assurance regarding Newfoundland traditions, as alleged by Mr. Smallwood?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Smallwood-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for any unintentional discourtesy. Mr. Smallwood and I did have a conversation on this matter in his office, in June of last year, I think. Mr. Smallwood is an interesting man and it

was an. interesting and informal conversation, but it did not really go at all in the way or to the effect that he now seeks to convey.
There was no discussion of "traditions" in the sense in which ordinary people would understand that word. What actually happened was that Mr. Smallwood raised a number of specific points and made clear to me a number of his own views on them as to particular tests that should be applied in determining the qualifications of any person for appointment to this position. What he asked for was an assurance that the government of Canada would agree to accept his views as to these qualifications in making the appointment. He said that if we would give him this assurance he would call a cabinet meeting at once and proclaim the Newfoundland act.
I told Mr. Smallwood that in making appointments to the bench the government of Canada accepts no such restrictions as he sought to impose, and that I declined to enter into the improper bargain which he asked me to make. I simply told him that the government of Canada was ready, as soon as he proclaimed his act, to consider immediately the appointment of the best qualified man.
That is still our position today. We do not enter into bargains with respect to judicial appointments.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any legislation of this parliament that would permit the minister to recommend such an appointment?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker.



STATEMENT BY MINISTER RESPECTING NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON INTERVIEW

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in two parts, stemming from statements in the morning press today by a Mr. Goldberg which say that the minister's review of his interviews with Mr. Goldberg in Moscow, given in this house last week, deformed the facts. First, has the minister any comment on this commentary upon the statement he gave us? Second, has he considered moving in this house to have Mr. Goldberg or the senior representative of the Associated Press in this country called before the bar of the house to explain his reflections upon the minister's veracity?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not given consideration to the second suggestion as yet. With regard to the first part of the hon. member's question, I have seen the article to which reference is made. The account I saw in the Gazette was largely a reprint of the statements which I declared on Monday to be false, and I so declare again.
I notice there is very little comment by Mr. Goldberg except the flat statement that I have been incorrect in what I have said. The rest of it is a somewhat garbled account, in my opinion, as to statements which have already been dealt with. I had rather wondered why, if there was to be a reprint of this statement, a reprint of my statement might not have been made at the same time.
I notice that the correspondent, Mr. Goldberg, was misquoted in his original dispatch. This is, of course, a calamity. The word "if" was altered to "and" through a transmission error between Moscow and the Associated Press office in New York. I sympathize with him in the misquotation which occurred.
I notice that at the request of the Canadian Press, the Associated Press checked Goldberg on the accuracy of his original statement at the time; they were able to get in touch with him, and apparently he was able to reply. I notice that in the article, in justice to Mr. Goldberg, "the following facts have to be made known", and the following facts are a reprint of the original article.
I notice that Mr. Goldberg has had 27 years' experience. By inference I have had none. I notice that he was stationed in Paris, in Prague and at the United Nations; he has been abroad. I was stationed abroad for six years in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. Mr. Goldberg's opinion is to be relied upon, apparently, because he was a war correspondent. I never had that privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was not a war correspondent. Many of them saw considerable danger in the course of their activities. My experience, unfortunately, was limited to just 20 battles.
I notice that in this article Mr. Goldberg attempts to implicate a distinguished civil servant, and accuses him of levity in the course of the discussion on uranium. The discussion on uranium consisted of one question. The distinguished civil servant is a very competent civil servant, Mr. Warren, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce. He was not a war correspondent; he was just an officer in the Royal Canadian Navy who underwent as much danger and extreme hazards as any person in the Canadian navy.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Goldberg has left unexplained four things; the motive for his question; his original dispatch, which any reasonable person would assume was such to cause international trouble. He has left unexplained the fact that he asked no questions at the press conference; and he has left unexplained his reference to Blind River uranium, which is an uncommon expression nowadays because we speak of Elliot Lake, Bancroft, Beaver-lodge and Northwest Territories. I have noted the report in the paper, and I stand by my statement of Monday.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the minister. Could the minister tell the house how many times since 1957 he has complained of being misquoted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is asking a question which is intended to be argumentative rather than one seeking information.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, in his statement of privilege last week the minister expressed surprise that no Canadian newspaper had tried to get in touch with him. Has it been brought to his attention that two Canadian newspapers did try to get in touch with him in Moscow and were unable to contact him?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I received a note from the press gallery the day I spoke saying that some hours had been spent trying to get in contact with me in Moscow. I also received a telegram to the effect that a phone call was put through to Moscow, but a reply came back that the Canadian embassy was closed.
The Canadian embassy is never without someone in the building. The upper part is occupied by the ambassador, and the lower part is comprised of offices; when the staff is absent there is a security guard in attendance at all times, and he answers the phone in an emergency. During the period in question, which according to the telegram I received was from eight o'clock on Saturday morning onward, which would be three o'clock Moscow time, I was in the hotel and could have been reached there had the operator got through. There was no question about my not being accessible. Mr. Goldberg was.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is now in a position to answer the questions asked him on April 29 concerning uranium.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. These questions were asked during my absence on April 29. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) inquired about certain reports concerning action being proposed in Australia. These reports in the press have been noted, to the effect that the government of Australia has had proposed to it financial assistance to the uranium industry in that country either through subsidies or by stockpiling.
I have no indication that any action has been taken on that proposal. In view of the relatively high cost of Australian uranium production it is doubtful whether such financial assistance, if forthcoming, would make Australian uranium seriously competitive with that of the lower cost Canadian producers.
Then on the same day the hon. member for Ottawa West drew attention to the increase in production of uranium in the United States. During the calendar year 1959 the production of Canadian uranium was less than the production of the United States of America by some 500 tons. It is expected that the United States production will rise further during 1960, because certain mines are only now reaching their contract output.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY ST. CLAIR RIVER    AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CUT-OFF BY U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister comment on a report that a large contract has been awarded by the United States corps of engineers for construction of a new cut-off channel at the southeast bend in the St. Clair river, being part of a larger project in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway?
Would the minister also explain why, although this particular phase of the over-all project is located entirely in Canada, the contract should have been awarded by the United States corps of engineers?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question shortly before I entered the house.
I have not seen the article in question, but I have had officials of my department check into it. They have been in touch with the Department of External Affairs, who have advised us as follows. In the reach of the St. Clair river to which the hon. member has referred, an intergovernmental agreement was worked out whereby the improved



I860

[Stage Direction]
channel would be financed by funds appropriated by the United States congress. The work on this channel was to be shared between Canada and the United States, Canadian and United States contractors being given equal opportunity to bid, and Canadian and United States labour being employed as equally as possible.
When bids were called about two months ago, two contractors, one Canadian and one from the United States, submitted bids. They were accepted, and these two contractors will presumably be hiring workers from their respective countries so that the provisions of the agreement worked out between the governments whereby Canadian and United States labour will be employed in approximately equal numbers may be fulfilled.
The maintenance of this channel will be the responsibility of the Canadian government.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. I have not given the hon. gentleman notice, but perhaps he can take this as notice if he desires. I should like to know whether the minister has seen an article which appeared in this morning's Gazette entitled "Dumping by U.S. Charged" which implies that millions of dollars worth of second hand United States construction equipment is being dumped in Canada with the sanction of the federal government.
Have representations been made to the minister against this action, as stated in the article, and has the hon. gentleman any comment to make thereon?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier should know that sales of United States equipment have been going on for several years. Representations have been made with a view to the cancellation of the agreement under which these imports have been possible. I have been interested in this problem, and I do not think anybody approves of the dumping of used construction material on the Canadian market. On the other hand, while I was considering this brief, small contractors and municipal contractors as well as local municipalities, presented their views to the effect that it is to their advantage that this construction machinery be sold by crown assets to different municipalities in Canada. At the moment I am comparing the two briefs, one by this
Inquiries of the Ministry equipment company and the other by the municipalities and small contractors, and a decision will soon be reached by the government.
As I read the article, the Minister of Defence Production is said to have done a turn-about. There is no turn-about in this question, as the question has not been brought to the government. We are waiting for the preparation of the memorandum by small contractors, and especially municipal contractors.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In the absence of the minister I direct the question to her parliamentary secretary. My question arises out of newspaper reports to the effect that a new immigration policy has been initiated which will enable young farmers from the Netherlands, Belgium and France to come to Canada to work on Canadian farms. Can the minister inform the house whether the same policy will apply to sons of farmers of other countries such as Greece, Poland, Italy, Yugoslavia, or any other country wishing to participate in this scheme?


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take this question as notice and bring it to the minister's attention on her return.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked me a supplementary question in connection with the death of an inmate at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary on Sunday. His supplementary question was a request for information as to where the physician was at the time the man fell and where he had to be called from.
I am advised that the doctor at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary is Dr. Lefebvre. He lives on Jean-Talon street in Montreal and is employed on a full time basis by the penitentiary. I am further advised that Dr. Lefebvre was called by the penitentiary between 10.15 and 10.20 a.m. on Sunday, May 1, and that he was informed that the penitentiary officials thought

Inquiries of the Ministry the inmate was already dead. He left immediately for the penitentiary, where he arrived between 10.40 and 10.45 a.m. In the meantime the inmate had been carried to the penitentiary hospital and had been looked after by the attendants and nurses. The death certificate was signed by the doctor at 10.50.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I can ask the Minister of Labour whether he was consulted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) before he made the statement attributed to him in his speech before the Canadian chamber of commerce in London that "this year will be a good year; we shall be able to welcome and absorb into employment many tens of thousands of immigrants"? If so, does the minister not think he should try first to absorb into employment the hundreds of thousands of Canadian unemployed?


Mr. Graffley:: That is a nice speech, but it is really not a question.


Mr. Speaker:: The latter part of the question was undoubtedly asked for the purpose of argument. I am not sure about the earlier part, whether it is a suitable question to ask the minister, whether he was consulted by the Prime Minister before he made the statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to ask the
minister whether he concurs in that view.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is one of the greatest prime ministers this country has ever had, and he is a person who has his finger on the pulse of the whole economy.



ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he been able to obtain the information concerning the question I asked the Prime Minister, which question was referred to him and which he said he would take up with Canadian National Railways, in connection with the protest of the Alberta lodge against the abolition of railway sections in that province?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I passed that question along to the management of Canadian National Railways, and I have not had a report from them since that time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport apropos of the matter about which I asked him a moment ago. Since I posed the question to him another letter addressed to the Prime Minister has come to my attention. The effect of this letter is that instead of the abolition of 10 miles of section it is now proposed to abolish from 12 to 25 miles of section in the area referred to in the earlier letter and in the further letter to the Prime Minister. When the minister inquires of the officers of Canadian National Railways, could he get information on this additional matter as well?


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to do so.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, one of the greatest acting prime ministers Canada has ever had-


Hazen Robert Argue: The question comes from one of the greatest actors Canada has ever had.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question unfortunately relates not to the high office of prime minister but to the important-in terms of prestige and status not as important -office of Minister of Finance-


William Heward Grafftey: Question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that as of March 31 the unemployment insurance fund had reached the alarmingly low figure of $359 million, can the Minister of Finance say whether he has, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, authorized any loans whatsoever by any agency of the government of Canada or otherwise to the unemployment insurance commission?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In thanking the hon. gentleman for his most generous and touching allusion, in reply may I say I recognize that I am replying to one of the greatest parliamentarians to have represented the riding of Essex East in the last five years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You could have been generous and said 25.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The loans of which he is aware, which were made to the unemployment insurance commission by the Minister of Finance in the fiscal year 1958-59, were repaid in due course, and there is no such indebtedness at the present time. Under the law, Mr. Speaker, I am required at the close of the fiscal year, when I bring in the budget, to report any loans that may be outstanding. If my hon. friend will do me the honour of examining the budget speech closely, and the white paper, he will find no loans outstanding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Minister of Finance say whether any recommendation is now on his desk from the investment committee suggesting that such a loan should be extended by the Bank of Canada to the unemployment insurance commission?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have two desks. When I left my office in the Confederation building at 10.20 a.m. this morning that desk was clear. When I left my office in the parliament buildings to come into the chamber at 2.30 p.m. that desk was clear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I correctly understand the Minister of Finance, who has such a clear desk, to say that it was his obligation to report those loans in his budget speech? If so, can the minister tell us why he failed to do so last year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the law was punctiliously complied with. The hon. gentleman will see the full report of loans outstanding at the end of the fiscal year. He understands, I am sure, that the fiscal year ends March 31st.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware of a legal suit against the commanding officer at Uplands airport in relation to the towing away or removal of 30 automobiles owned by air force personnel on that station? I understand that the notice was sent out on April 22.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Arnold Peters: Will the minister inform the house whether an investigation is contemplated to ascertain if the commanding officer, Group Captain Mussells, exceeded his authority in disposing of the automobiles belonging
Inquiries of the Ministry to air force personnel at Uplands in this disgraceful manner?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have no information on this matter. This is the first time it has been brought to my attention. I will be very pleased to look into it.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON BOMBER CRASH NEAR MILWAUKEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister have any report for the house in respect of the very tragic crash of the R.C.A.F. Mitchell bomber?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members regret the 'loss of the Mitchell bomber over the week end which resulted in six officers and airmen of the Royal Canadian Air Force losing their lives. I understand that the plane has been located and that part of the wreckage has already been salvaged'. Two bodies have been recovered. An investigation is being carried out as to the cause of this tragic accident. I have no detailed report yet of the investigation.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF STUDENTS FROM ST. LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister to which I have given him the answer. Is he aware that for more than 10 years students from a United States university have visited parliament each year to observe the workings of our system of democracy, and that students from St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York are now in the gallery with Professor William Willoughby?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of the answer though not of his intention to ask this question. I welcome the question, and I am sure all hon. members welcome the presence in the gallery of these students and their professor from St. Lawrence University in Canton.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade

Inquiries of the Ministry and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house whether he was able to have conversations yesterday with representatives of the Canadian wheat board concerning the large proportion of low and inequitable quotas in certain parts of Saskatchewan, and as to what steps are being taken to equalize these quotas by the end of the crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Canadian wheat board concerning this subject not yesterday but on Friday, and received an assurance from them that as quickly as possible the quotas will be raised to a six-bushel level across the prairies. The number of points still on low quotas is quite limited, and every effort is being made to bring them into balance.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, it has been brought to my attention by the president of Canadian National Railways that before the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping, which has completed its deliberations, I uttered a gross misstatement of fact, and I want to put the record straight if I may. At a meeting of the committee I indicated that the former distinguished member for Port Arthur, Right Hon. C. D. Howe, was a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This was an error on my part, made through an association he has with a completely different firm. If by that remark I caused any embarrassment to Mr. Howe I should like to take this opportunity of apologizing to him and correcting the record.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azsllus Denis (St. Denis):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware that in the income tax building in Montreal there is a large room for the parking of employees' cars, and that the department has now decided to charge the employees $10 rent for the parking of their cars?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisler of Nalional Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of that fact. I do not think the department has control of the rental of public buildings. I would assume that this is a question that probably should be directed to 
my colleague the Minister of Public Works. All I do is collect money, and I do not charge anybody for the privilege.


Azellus Denis: If the Minister of Public Works heard the question could he answer without my repeating it?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the matter under consideration.

The house resumed, from Monday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pickersgill, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.



FEDERAL AID TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, before calling it ten o'clock last night I had endeavoured to show that the economic ills of the maritime provinces can be directly attributed to three causes. These three causes are, first, the political union between the maritime provinces and the central provinces; second, the failure of the central provinces to carry out certain parts of their agreements included in the terms of union and their tardiness in carrying out other parts of their agreements; third, federal policies since confederation, which have been geared to the political and economic requirements of the central provinces rather than to the economic needs of the maritime provinces.
It did not make economic sense for the maritime provinces to join up politically with central Canada. The channels of trade have always run north and south, and when these channels were changed to an east and west direction the result was that the maritime provinces were placed in an inferior economic position. However, out of loyalty to the British crown and to British traditions, they accepted that inferior position, knowing that it would cost them something financially but not knowing quite how much, and trusting that the central provinces, in good faith, would see to it that this price would be kept to the absolute minimum.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw a parallel between the maritime provinces and Newfoundland. If it made poor sense for the maritime provinces to join central Canada, it made even less economic sense for Newfoundland to become a part of Canada. All our production is competitive with mainland Canada. None of our production is complementary to mainland Canada. A celebrated economist pointed out that analogy a few days ago as between Canada and Russia, that

Canada and Russia have competitive production. If the maritime provinces made Canada possible, Newfoundland made Canada complete.
Now, had the maritime provinces put dollars before loyalty they would not have joined with the central provinces. They would very likely have formed a union amongst themselves, and quite possibly they might have joined with the United States. Had Newfoundland put dollars first we certainly would not have joined with Canada. We did not have to join with mainland Canada. We had excellent relations with our friends in the United States. They had already established bases in our country, and those bases were making a very big contribution to our economic life. Like every free people we were entitled to self-determination, and if we had been prepared to think only in economic terms our chances of development and prosperity as part of the United States would have been far greater than our chances as part of Canada.
But our loyalty in Newfoundland to the British crown and to British traditions is second to none, and like the maritimes we too were prepared to pay a price. Some hon. members may wonder why I make that statement. You will ask, is not Newfoundland better off now than ever before? The answer is yes, but Newfoundland was better off than ever before in her history before she joined Canada. As part of the United States-if we had made a request and elected to become a state of the United States-we would be eminently better off than we are at the present time.
I remember that when I first came here to parliament in the years 1949 and 1950, many of my colleagues would inquire as to how Newfoundland was getting on as part of Canada. I would say well, we are doing very well but, and as soon as I came to this word "but" I would seldom ever be permitted to go any further. As soon as I said "but" they would interrupt me and say, are you not getting family allowances; are you not getting old age pensions? Certainly we are. Since we are a part of Canada, what would be strange about that? Why would anybody ask that question?
This type of question reveals an attitude that seems to be imbedded in the subconscious minds of mainlanders. One overlooked it because one realized that they meant well and did not realize the type of attitude they were revealing. However, I believe it is worth while to examine the reason for that kind of attitude.
The price paid by the maritimes to become a part of Canada-and I think we can include
3, 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces Newfoundland and say the Atlantic provinces-has become too costly for their economies to support. Their economic position has degenerated. Over the years various ingenious methods have been devised to try to offset that situation to some extent. I have no quarrel with those methods that have been invented. They will have to be continued for many years to come. But I think we must realize that these methods have generated a wrong relationship. They have put the maritime provinces in the position of poor relations who have become permanent pensioners of the rest of Canada. It implies also an unwillingness to recognize the indebtedness of the rest of Canada to the maritime provinces and to Newfoundland, and because of that fact this assistance which is given in various forms is regarded by the people on the mainland of Canada as generosity, as a favour, as something emanating from their big-heartedness rather than something that is justly due.


Mr. Aiken:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Chesley William Carter: No. Every time you have asked me a question it has been a foolish one. I am not going to be interrupted.


William Heward Grafftey: It is because he cannot
answer it.


Chesley William Carter: I think the ancient and decrepit member from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) had better remain quiet.


An hon. Member:: That was not smart.


William Heward Grafftey: His vocabulary is very
limited.


Chesley William Carter: The first step toward curing these ills is a change of attitude and a recognition of the sacrifices made by the Atlantic provinces for a greater cause. Nowhere is that spirit more lacking than toward Newfoundland. We have been constantly reminded in the ten years of union of how much we are getting out of confederation. Never a word has been said publicly, nor has there been an acknowledgement by any official that I know of, as to how much Newfoundland contributed to Canada. That contribution included 150,000 square miles of new territory, rich resources in the Labrador, mineral wealth, hydroelectric power, half a million new citizens, an addition to the domestic market worth $250 million annually, international airports which greatly strengthen the bargaining power of Canada with other countries, various public services including railway services, hotels, public wharves and other public structures.
Last but not least, most important of all is the fact that union with Canada made

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces Canada a nation in the true and real sense of the word. We cannot appraise that in terms of dollars and cents, but if you want to put a value on it compare Canada with Newfoundland to what Canada would be if Newfoundland and Labrador were a part of the United States. There is never a word of appreciation of what we have given to Canada. The only reference is to the few million dollars received as a hand-out.
We are only human and we like a little appreciation, too. The first requirement, then, if we are going to tackle this problem of the maritimes is a new spirit and a new motive born of a sense of appreciation and a desire to end the disabilities from which the maritimes suffer. This new spirit is needed because it is going to involve sacrifice on the part of the other Canadian provinces. It is their turn now to accept the sacrifice for Canada. This means they may have to scale down the rate of some of their improvements in public services in order to raise the level of those in the maritimes. The economic rehabilitation of the maritime provinces should be a truly national project. It should be not merely a project of the federal government but a national project in the fullest sense of that word, undertaken and motivated by a desire in the hearts of Canadians in the other provinces to see the maritimes achieve economic equality.
This will involve a long term program, and I think this program should be based on two main principles. The first is equality of opportunity. The second principle is that there should be a minimum level of public services for all Canadians. That will require in the maritimes a survey of the existing services to determine what that level should be. Once that level of public services has been determined, then fiscal grants will have to be adjusted to attain that goal over a predetermined period. Equality of opportunity means an opportunity to help us to help ourselves. We do not want to be permanent pensioners existing on hand-outs. We can stand on our own feet. We have the resources which are able to supply us with a reasonable standard of living, but we do not have equality of opportunity at the present time. Tight money, high interest rates, excessive transportation costs, tariff policies and monetary policies all militate against the maritime provinces.
Ways and means must be found to offset those disabilities. The Maritime Freight Rates Act should be restored to its original proportions. Tariff policies should be adjusted to suit the needs of the industries. Tariff policies should be adjusted to provide special

incentives to new industry. Tight money can be overcome by the setting up of a development corporation for the rehabilitation of our existing industries and the encouragement of new ones.
All these things are included in this amendment, either expressly or by implication. They have been included in the so-called Atlantic charter to which the Conservative members from the maritimes have subscribed. In view of that fact it is difficult to see how they can vote against this amendment. The blueprint for the Atlantic provinces has been set forth in very great detail in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and there is no need to elaborate further on that point. All that is necessary is to untie our hands, and we can do the rest.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a correction in a statement made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who has been speaking has made some misstatement which relates to the hon. member himself, then it would be in order to ask to make a correction.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was going to ask a question which the hon. member stated was a silly question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has no
reason for rising to comment on a refusal to accept his question. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. member would now permit the question I ask going to ask him.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, replying to the question of privilege, I have observed on several occasions when I have been making speeches that the hon. member seeks to raise points-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege. The hon. member has a perfect right to refuse to be interrupted when another hon. member wants to ask a question. I take it that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was objecting to the words which were used about him. Is that the question of privilege the hon. member is raising?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has stated his question of privilege. He has no right to ask a question now. The hon. member has concluded his speech. I recognize the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks).

Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy this afternoon to say a few words on this resolution. I do not intend to follow the argument of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, except to say that we in what were formerly called the maritime provinces are very happy and proud indeed to have the province of Newfoundland as one of our associates in the Atlantic area.
We are very happy, too, that at no time in its history did the old colony of Newfoundland show any intention or desire to belong to any other organized nation than those comprising the British empire or the British commonwealth. I can assure the hon. member that if he will go back and read the debates in the House of Commons at the time Newfoundland came into confederation, he will find no stronger advocates for the union than those who were then in opposition and who belonged to the Conservative party. I sometimes feel that we get very little credit for this from Newfoundland, and that we are held out as great opponents of Newfoundland and its prosperity and happiness. I can assure you that this was never the case.
The hon. member did say that Newfoundland has not received very much from confederation.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I did not make that statement; the hon. gentleman must have misunderstood me. I admit what we have received; I do not want there to be any doubt about that.


Mr. Brooks:: Then I stand corrected. But I did hear the hon. gentleman say that perhaps we did not give a proper balance to what Newfoundland had contributed to Canada compared with what Newfoundland received from the other parts of Canada.


Chesley William Carter: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was interested to see the other day a statement by Premier Smallwood to the effect that the day on which Newfoundland entered confederation was one of the greatest days in the history of that province. He was opening, I think, the new provincial building in the city of St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has had considerable courage in opening up this matter of the maritime and Atlantic provinces. The subject has already been fairly well discussed by members on both sides of the house. As I listened to the speeches of hon. members on the other side I must say that I found the facts certainly had no resemblance to the material in the speeches made by those hon. members. It has 79951-0-221
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces been amusing indeed to listen to these speeches filled with gloomy forebodings about conditions in the different Atlantic provinces. I would recommend to my hon. friends in the opposition that they read some of the leading papers in the maritime provinces, that they read some of the special editions of those papers showing the new industries which are springing up almost weekly at the present time in different parts of those provinces. If I were in my own home town of Sussex this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, as I was invited to be, I would be assisting in opening a new industry. This has become quite characteristic of the different sections of my own province.
The feature about the Atlantic provinces which I am sure is worrying my hon. friends opposite most at the present time is the small number of Liberal representatives in this house from those provinces. There are no Liberal members from Nova Scotia. There are no Liberal members from the province of Prince Edward Island. We have a few from the province of New Brunswick. The three maritime provinces sent three Liberal members here in the last election.
As far as the provincial field is concerned today, all three maritime provinces, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, have Conservative governments. Therefore it is no wonder that on the eve of elections in the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we hear a cry of desperation, as it were, on the part of the few Liberals who are here representing these provinces. Indeed I think it is quite significant, Mr. Speaker, that the attack on this government should come from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, in the province of Newfoundland, because that province is the last outpost of Liberalism to be found anywhere in this country.
It is true that the maritime provinces have their problems. These are problems which have been accumulating for many years. The hon. member who just took his seat mentioned some of them. Our greatest problem has been that of geography, as everyone knows. After confederation we did not prosper in the maritime provinces as we had hoped to. As the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo says, we might have done better financially if we had thrown in our lot with the United States. But there was no sentiment, at least very little, for that move in those provinces at the time; and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that there is practically none today.
We have received a very great compliment in the resolution, which expresses what they consider is the hope that in three years'

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces time we the government could have and would have overcome the disabilities which our provinces suffered for years since confederation, and most of all the disabilities we suffered at the hands of the Liberal party in this country for 23 years.
The other day the hon. member spoke about the deserts of the maritime provinces and said that we had made our full contribution to the rest of Canada. I do not think there is anyone who can or would doubt that our people have made a tremendous contribution to Canada. In years past they went to all sections. The great west was opened up to a large extent by men from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. We also bore our share of the responsibility of opening up different parts of what we then called Upper and Lower Canada. So we feel that we have been very deserving as far as this country is concerned.
However, there have been two matters which have particularly reacted against our prosperity. As I mentioned a moment ago, geography was one of the great handicaps to our provinces. The railway situation and transportation was the great problem. The railway and transportation question is still a great problem for us. Shortly after confederation the Intercolonial railway was built, which was supposed to be a great help to our three provinces. I am not going into the history of railroads, but it is sufficient to say that on account of the long hauls the Intercolonial railway did not provide the opportunities we had hoped.
In 1914 it was found that the situation had become practically intolerable as far as transportation was concerned. From 1914 to 1927 the situation went from bad to worse. In 1927, on the recommendation of Sir Rae Duncan, father of the Duncan report, the Maritime Freight Rates Act was brought into being. From 1927 to the present time freight rates have been increasing horizontally across this country, mostly under Liberal governments, I may say, until the situation in the maritime provinces had become absolutely intolerable.
Hon. members opposite ask us, what are you doing about the situation at the present time? Well, a good physician or a good doctor always examines the patient very carefully to find out just what the situation is. The present government has appointed a royal commission to study and report on the situation in the Atlantic provinces. That report has not been brought in as yet, but I am satisfied that when it is brought in this great problem of transportation as far as our part of the country is concerned will receive very careful attention.

May I say that in my opinion the Maritime Freight Rates Act must be brought up to date; it must reflect the benefits to which the Atlantic provinces are entitled. We must not again be neglected for so many years under a transportation system such as we have had in the past if we are really to play a proper part in confederation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? Would he say what government was in office when the Maritime Freight Rates Act was enacted?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does that make very much difference?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It makes a lot of difference to historians.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Liberal government was in office then, and it was in office for most of the time since, when all the inequalities as a result of the horizontal increases came into effect.
The other great problem which I mentioned a moment ago was that of cheaper power. I have heard hon. members from New Brunswick and other parts sneer at what has been done by this government to assist in the development of power in the province of New Brunswick. Beechwood has been mentioned many times in this house; it was mentioned many times before the present government came into power, and even before the Flemming government came into power in New Brunswick.
The facts are these. For many months the premier of New Brunswick came to Ottawa and asked for assistance in order that power might be produced at Beechwood on the Saint John river. All he got was smiles; no promises. Finally in desperation the premier of New Brunswick, Hon. Hugh John Flemming, determined to take the matter into his own hands and, as we know-this is history now -he borrowed money from banks and wherever he could. He took great chances and displayed great courage. He started Beechwood, and until the present government came to power he received no assistance whatsoever from the federal parliament. After the present government came to power in 1957 a $30 million loan was made to the province to pay for the building of Beechwood, at a low interest rate of 3| per cent.


An hon. Member:: In what year?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In 1959.


Mr. Robichaud:: Did the minister say 1957?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In 1959. In addition to the assistance the province received toward the construction of Beechwood we also received, as hon. members know, assistance toward the construction of thermal plants, the grid

system in New Brunswick and other maritime provinces, and so on. Perhaps I may be allowed to read an extract from a speech made by Hon. Hugh John Flemming in the provincial legislature. This is from the synoptic report. Speaking of Beechwood he had this to say:
Well, Mr. Speaker, the opposition leader does not realize what that loan meant to us. I have spoken in this house many times regarding our many trips to Ottawa between 1953 and 1958 when his party was in power there, in an attempt to secure some encouragement and some financial guarantee of our bonds in order to start the Beechwood project which we knew we needed, or rather would need very soon. We received politeness and courtesy from Mr. St. Laurent- nothing more-and, Mr. Speaker, you cannot start a $30 million project without something more substantial than politeness and courtesy. We finally started the project on our own resources and, Mr. Speaker, that took some faith and courage.
I emphasize that. It did take great faith and courage on the part of the premier of New Brunswick. The report continues:
The official opening was held in June 1955 and the St. Laurent Liberal federal government did share in it. They really did something. Perhaps they deserve some credit. They allowed the Right Hon. Mr. Howe to fly to Presque Isle, Maine, in his aeroplane, drive to Beechwood by motor car, and make a speech. But, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the Beechwood hydro development project has been a magnificent success.
The report goes on to say, further on:
From the Liberals we received-politeness and courtesy and a speech by Mr. Howe.
From the present Conservative government we received a cheque for $29,500,000 at 31 per cent interest repayable over an eight-year period.
Hon. members can make their own comparisons.
What has happened as a result of this cheap power which we now have in my province? I apologize for speaking mainly about the province of New Brunswick, but the minister from Nova Scotia spoke of his own province yesterday and I think that I might therefore be excused for confining most of my remarks to New Brunswick. What has happened as a result of this cheaper power? I should like to quote from an article in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of February 9 of this year. The heading is "Plenty of Power for the Whole Area". It goes on to say:
Progress means more Industry. More Industry means more power, and that Is what the greater Saint John in the province of New Brunswick is getting.
That is a direct result of the efforts and the work of the federal government as far as my own province is concerned. Having that federal grant has helped the establishment of an oil refinery near Saint John, a $50 million project which could not and would not have been built if we did not have cheap 79951-0-221J
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces power as the result of assistance from the dominion government. Another article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of December 2, 1959 speaks about the railway situation.
Says Fast Rail Service Helping Atlantic Ports
Faster Canadian National Railways services are placing the ports of Halifax and Saint John in a better position to increase their share of Canada's year-round export and import traffic, D. V. Gonder, vice president and general manager for the Atlantic region of the company, told an Atlantic ports day panel in Saint John, New Brunswick, Tuesday.
I have a long list of new enterprises which have sprung up and which are being built around the city of Saint John and in other parts of the province of New Brunswick at the present time. An airport addition contract has been awarded and a larger airport is being built near the city; new homes have set a record, says another article in a Saint John paper. If the people of the province of New Brunswick were discouraged why is it, as someone mentioned the other day, that the population of the province has greatly increased? It does not need me to tell this house that in days gone by we could hardly keep our average population in the maritime provinces on account of the fact that thousands of people left there every year. In the last few years, particularly in the last three years, the population of my province has grown very rapidly because the people of that province are willing to stay in New Brunswick, and they now have faith in their native province.
I am not going to weary the house with any more of these articles and headlines; I have a great many of them here. They all point to one thing, namely that the situation is improving and improving beneficially as far as our province is concerned.
How about primary industries? We heard the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robi-chaud) speak about the coal mines of Nova Scotia which have had a hard time. I know that this federal government has done everything that it is humanly possible for any government to do to assist. I would defy anyone to question that statement; but has the hon. member ever mentioned the coal mines in New Brunswick? Our coal mines have never been in a better position in the last 25 or 30 years than they are at the present time. We are producing about a million tons of coal, which is more than the normal amount we produce. We are not only producing it, Mr. Speaker, we are selling every ton of it and the employment of the miners in the Minto area is kept at a maximum.
So much for coal; I might ask, what assistance are we getting from the federal government? Yesterday, my colleague spoke

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces about the assistance in subventions, which has been a great help to the maritime provinces' coal industry. We also get great assistance in loans from the federal coal board, which has assisted the mining operators in Minto very greatly. There is splendid cooperation between the federal department and the department of mines in the province of New Brunswick.
What about our forests? The production of the forests of the province of New Brunswick is as good as that of any other part of Canada. Our forests are our greatest asset. Most hon. members know that in New Brunswick our spruce trees grow faster than they do in any other part of the world. As I say, it is our greatest asset in New Brunswick. What has happened? Besides the many pulp mills which we already have in New Brunswick there is another pulp mill being built at the present time. There are other people who are interested in pulp mills who are making inquiries with the hope and the intention of building pulp mills in New Brunswick. Why are they coming? They are coming because we have this great raw material; and, second, because we now have electric power which will help them in their operations.
I will not go into the fishing industry to any great extent. My constituency is not a fishing constituency, but I think it is generally understood that the fisheries of the maritime provinces today are in as good a condition as the fisheries of any other part of Canada. As a matter of fact, speaking of the assistance which the federal government is giving, I notice that in 1957, when the Liberal government was in power for the last time, the assistance given the fisheries in New Brunswick amounted to $697,037. Last year, 1959, the assistance given by the Department of Fisheries to the province of New Brunswick amounted to $1,102,040, a difference of over $300,000. This will indicate the great interest which is being taken by that department as far as our fishing industry is concerned.
What about agriculture? I have been in the House of Commons a good many years and I must say that with all our troubles in the maritimes I have heard fewer complaints from the maritimes or from the Atlantic provinces about agriculture than I have heard from any other part of Canada, particularly the west. I am not complaining about that, Mr. Speaker, because I know the west has a terrific problem in its great wheat crop and the matter of selling wheat is one of the biggest problems we have in Canada today or we have had in Canada for a number of years. But we get very few complaints from the agriculturists or the farmers in the maritime provinces. I had letters the other day


thanking this government-and thanking me -for the assistance which has been given to the dairy industry in Canada. I have the largest dairy centre in the maritime provinces; I have two large butter factories and my whole constituency is made up mostly of dairy farmers. They are satisfied and pleased with what is being done and has been done by the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa.
If I may I should like to mention some other assistance which has been of great benefit to our province and to the three other Atlantic provinces. I refer to the roads to resources. It is true that the roads to resources program touches every province in Canada except Quebec. The sum of $15 million is to be spent in each province, half by the province and half by the federal government; but I wish to point out that the little province of Prince Edward Island gets the same amount as the province of Ontario. The small province of New Brunswick gets the same amount, namely $7,500,000, as does the province of British Columbia; that is, we are used exactly in the same way.
Hon. members can imagine what $7,500,000 can do in building roads in Prince Edward Island; they can also realize how little it will do for the great province of Ontario. But I wish to point this out. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) informs me that not one province in Canada except Saskatchewan complained about the smaller maritime provinces being given what might be termed a great advantage in the building of roads to resources compared with larger provinces.
This is a great help to the four Atlantic provinces, particularly to the province of Newfoundland. I happened to be in Newfoundland in 1958 and, as a matter of fact, had been there a number of times. But what has struck me on each visit is how few roads there are in that great province. It has also occurred to me that if the Liberal government, for which party the province of Newfoundland has so much love, had made contributions to Newfoundland when it was in power on anything like the same scale as the present government has in the last three years the road situation in Newfoundland would have been infinitely better.
The federal government has made adjustment grants, for instance, to the four Atlantic provinces amounting to $7,500,000 a year. If the province of Newfoundland had received the same attention from the Liberal government over the 10 years from 1948 to 1958, if that province had received $7,500,000 a year it would have had $75 million to spend on roads and Newfoundland would have had roads instead of horse tracks in many parts of that province.

Let us take the question of public works. Let us take a trip through the province of New Brunswick, as I have done on many occasions. We will start with the northern part of our province. Shortly after this government came into power it authorized the building of a bridge between Campbellton, New Brunswick, and Cross Point in the province of Quebec. My mind goes back 10 or 12 years even longer to the time when former Premier McNair of the province of New Brunswick requested that a bridge be built between these two points. He put up a very strong and just argument but his argument fell on deaf ears. Nothing was done until the Conservative government came into power in 1957 when it was decided that we would give our share of the over $3 million required to build this bridge between Quebec and New Brunswick.
Go to Dalhousie and look at the work we have done in the harbour there. Go to Bathurst in the constituency of the hon. member for Gloucester. Nothing was done about the harbour there for years. The present government has made plans to dredge the harbour and make it a really good harbour. One can go anywhere in the province of New Brunswick and one will find that where the fishermen are concerned the government has been building wharves and breakwaters and assisting the fishermen and others along the coast of New Brunswick in every way.
Then we have Campobello island. For years this island with a population of over 1,200 people has had practically no access to the mainland. The Liberal government was asked for assistance and no assistance was given. At the present time arrangements are being made to build a bridge from Campobello island to Lubec in the state of Maine. Part of the cost is to be paid by the federal government, part by the province of New Brunswick and part by the state of Maine.
I could mention many other undertakings such as the numerous public buildings in the cities and towns which have been built in the very short time that the present government has been in power. Never in the history of the Atlantic provinces, particularly the province of New Brunswick, has so much been done as has been done in the last three years since the Diefenbaker government came into power.
Let us mention finance. When one speaks of giving assistance to the provinces one begins to think of money. Of course, money is the best form of assistance that can be given to any province or any people if you wish to assist them in a practical way. I have mentioned what this government has given. We
3, 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces have given $100 million by way of adjustment grants to be paid to the Atlantic provinces over four years at the rate of $25 million a year. That is $25 million a year over and above what is received by any other province in Canada.
I have mentioned roads to resources and I want to point out the effect this has had on the economy and the budgeting of my province. I remember that for years we were continually going into debt. This year the province of New Brunswick declared a substantial surplus. The province could never have had a surplus if it had not been for the money it received from the federal treasury. In 1957, the last year the Liberal government was in power, the provincial government of New Brunswick received $19,967,729 in unconditional grants but in 1959 the figure was $32,638,620. Surely that tells a story not only to the people of the province of New Brunswick but to all the people of Canada.
When the hon. member for Gloucester spoke yesterday he said that the increase was due to the increase in population. The increase is about $13 million, an increase of more than 33J per cent. Surely no one with common sense would attribute that to an increase in population. It is due to the generosity and desire of the present government to help the province of New Brunswick and the other Atlantic provinces. Since 1952 the net debt of the province has been reduced from $218 per capita to $180 per capita in 1959, the lowest figure in many years. Of course, all these things have been possible because, in addition to receiving assistance from the federal government, we have had a very able government in the province of New Brunswick.
In closing may I repeat that there is no question that we in the Atlantic area have our problems that have not been solved. In the short time it has been in power the present government has done everything in its power to help solve these problems. What is true as to problems in the maritimes is of course also true as to problems in other parts of Canada. The expansion of the Canadian economy this year has been on a vast scale. All parts of Canada have not shared in it equally, but all have shared in it. I have faith that the Atlantic area will grow in economic strength with the rest of Canada. I do not take any pessimistic view, and I believe the future of these regions is a good one. No one who knows its people and areas as I do can entertain any doubts as to the future of the Atlantic provinces.
As I have already said, it has been a recognized aim of federal policy to provide fiscal aid to the Atlantic area. The dominion government is continuing, in many ways, to

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces assist the people of our four provinces to win for themselves a prosperous and secure future.


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


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I just have one more sentence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Go ahead.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was saying, just in closing, that for years past the economy and prosperity of the Atlantic provinces had not been in any way comparable to the other provinces of Canada. I believe today we are approaching nearer to it than we ever were before. If I may cut my conclusion real short, Mr. Speaker, then it is needless for me to say it is my intention to vote against the amendment and the subamendment. Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) said that it was a vote of non-confidence in the government, and that is exactly what it is. We, in the Atlantic provinces, have confidence in this government. We have every reason to have confidence in it, and we will show our confidence by voting and giving it our support whenever we can.


Hazen Robert Argue: I feel that the debate that took place yesterday and is taking place today is a very important debate, and a very essential debate in the House of Commons. I was pleased that the official opposition, who have the right under our rules to decide the type of amendment that will be moved as a want of confidence motion, did not yield to the temptation of bringing in a motion on the Bomarc but rather took advantage of this opportunity to introduce a substantial motion that affects a large section of the Canadian nation. If they had introduced a motion on the Bomarc it would have been merely to shoot what is already a dead duck and to attempt to bury, perhaps a few weeks in advance, a weapon which I hope will be given a respectable burial within a short time.
I have not very often spoken on maritime matters, Mr. Speaker, but I have often spoken on grievances affecting a larger part of Canada. Those of us who come from western Canada have felt at times in the past that we have had particular grievances that should be raised. We think so today. We have received some attention from time to time from previous governments, and I think one of the reasons the prairies have received attention from previous governments is that we have had some extended, and sometimes spirited, debates in the House of Commons. The maritime provinces, in my opinion, have a very real grievance. The people of the maritime provinces have failed to share in Canada's prosperity from time to time. Although they

came into confederation with a relatively industrialized area, the fortunes of confederation have not been kind to the maritime provinces. I think a debate such as this will be of some benefit in pointing up their real and important problems.
From time to time we hear a good deal about basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. They usually have to do with political rights. They usually have to do with freedom of speech or equality because of race or equality before the law. But I think there is another equality to which the people in a sovereign democracy have a right, and that is their fair share in the resources and in the production of the nation of which they are a part. If that is so, as I believe it is, then the maritime provinces and the people of those provinces have a just grievance against the rest of Canada.
Of course, this is not a situation that developed in 1960. This is not a situation that developed in 22 years of Liberal government which did not give attention to this problem. This is a problem that has been developing for generations. The question today is not so much who is to blame as what is going to be done about this grave problem. Those of us in the C.C.F. movement feel that a planned economy, that an extension of government responsibility and government control, that a vast expansion of directed public funds in regional investment, are absolutely essential. We are certain that if the present economic system is allowed to go uncontrolled, undirected, whether this is done with a Conservative government in power or a Liberal government in power will make no difference whatever but will continue to relegate the people of the mari-times to a position of economic second-class citizens.
We have heard a lot from government members about the situation. If one were to listen to them he would think there was no problem at all, that everything had been solved, that all you had to have was three years of Tory administration and the worries of the maritime provinces had come to an end. The shorter of the members for Halifax [DOT]-I understand they do not like to be referred to as the senior or junior member-last evening talked about the Atlantic resolutions. He said the resolutions were and are, and will remain, a beacon of light after 20 years of darkness for the people of the Atlantic provinces. It is not a beacon of light the people want; it is not more talk about a vision; it is not some pie in the sky. They want jobs now. They want the government to implement the Atlantic resolutions instead of talking about a beacon of light.

The hon. member went on to say, after giving some economic forecasts about capital and repair expenditures, that we have here the highest capital intentions of any year in Nova Scotia's history. The people of Nova Scotia have been living on intentions for years, good intentions. 1 do not believe it helps them much that the intentions now come from a Tory government rather than from a Liberal government.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) made a very interesting speech and, since he is an old friend of mine of many years' standing in the House of Commons, I listened to him with great attention and great respect. However, I detected all through his speech a note of self-satisfaction that all was well. The maritimes had turned the corner and, under a Conservative administration, at long last they were coming into their own. He did not give us the unemployment statistics. He did not tell us why there are more unemployed in the maritimes now than there have been for some years. He did not tell us why the total number of persons in the maritimes with jobs is 449,000, and yet the registrations at the national employment service office total 116,488.
There is widespread and serious unemployment in the maritime provinces about which this government is doing absolutely nothing. The same report shows that in the province of Ontario there are 2,192,000 persons with jobs and 240,668 registrations at the national employment service offices. In Ontario 9.1 persons had jobs for every person registered at the national employment service offices; in the maritimes only 3.85 persons had jobs for every person registered at the national employment service offices. Unemployment in the maritimes is more than twice as serious as in Ontario. If we could take care of the people of the maritimes with nice pious statements and a lot of soothing syrup then they should be well satisfied after listening to members of the government.
Hon. members opposite have not been frank enough to tell us that the problem in the maritimes is still exceedingly serious, that the unemployment situation has deteriorated rather than improved and that relative incomes of people of the maritimes compared with those of other Canadians are disgracefully low.
I have in my hand a portion of the Gordon royal commission report entitled, "Some Regional Aspects of Canada's Economic Development". In table 9 on page 45 the per capita income for the years 1951-55 is shown for the various provinces. I will mention only the incomes of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as related to the per capita income
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces of Ontario, the province with the highest income. The government has been saying that conditions in the maritimes are improving and that the people there are better off than they were in the past. Conditions were not good back in 1951-55. The per capita income in New Brunswick was $787 compared with a per capita income of $1,448 in Ontario. I have done some arithmetic on this, comparing these figures with the latest figures for per capita income in the provinces in 1958. The per capita income in 1958 in New Brunswick was $919 and in Ontario it was $1,696. How much better off are the people of New Brunswick with respect to income and cash dollars about which the Minister of Veterans Affairs spoke so eloquently?
In 1951-55, according to the report of the Gordon commission, the per capita income in New Brunswick was some 54 per cent of the per capita income in Ontario and under this wonderful Conservative administration about which we have heard so much and after having done such a fine job the people are in exactly the position they were in under the previous administration. Per capita income in New Brunswick is still just 54 per cent of the per capita income in Ontario. Where is the improvement? Where is the great development in the maritimes that has resulted from the Conservative administration? The percentage of per capita income is just as low under the Tories as it was under the Liberals.
What about Nova Scotia? In 1951-55 according to the report Nova Scotia had a per capita income of $880 as compared with $1,448 in Ontario. According to my calculations this works out at 63 per cent. The latest statistics available for 1958 show that the per capita income in Nova Scotia had risen to $1,072 compared with $1,696 in Ontario, still 63 per cent.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Is the per capita income per person in the whole population of these provinces or per the working force?


Hazen Robert Argue: The whole population, I take it.


William Joseph Browne: That makes a difference.


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend may want to look at family statistics and I would appreciate his talking about them but it does not make any difference. I do not think that families under the Conservatives are bigger than they were under the Liberals. My point is that the per capita income in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as compared with the per capita income in Ontario, the province with the highest income, is just as low

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces under the Tories as it was under the Liberals, yet because the Conservative government is in power they are complacent and say, "All is well; we are doing a fine job". The only recommendation is that the conditions are no worse than they were under the previous administration.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Do I understand that while he has pointed out that there has been a substantial increase in per capita income in the maritimes he seems to think this is of no avail whatever because there has also been an increase in Ontario and the percentage of difference is still the same? Now, granted, we would all be pleased if the income in New Brunswick had risen so much more that it had overtaken Ontario, but does the hon. member suggest that that very substantial increase which has taken place is not of great avail in New Brunswick?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not what we have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite. I am of course glad to see any increase in the per capita income in any part of Canada.


Mr. Bigg:: Well, hurray.


Mr. Murphy:: How are you getting along in Saskatchewan?


Hazen Robert Argue: I just wish that the Tories were glad of this too instead of bringing in balanced budgets that are balanced on the backs of half a million unemployed or perhaps more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Warner Murphy: How are you getting along out in Saskatchewan? The hon. gentleman will not answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: The great grievance of the maritimes has been that they have not shared in a proportionate way in the production of the Canadian nation. This grievance remains the same now and in the same proportion as it was under the previous administration. I am convinced that if you allow the present uncontrolled monopolistic dog eat dog system to go unchecked as is the wish of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) the people of the maritimes will continue to be second-class citizens as far as economic standards are concerned. We suggest the time has come for government action. My hon. friends in the Liberal party can beat their breasts about how much they believe in free enterprise but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and free enterprise is in disgrace in this country because it is failing the people of the maritimes, the unemployed and hundreds of other Canadians.
[Mr. Argue.)


Joseph Warner Murphy: What about Saskatchewan?


Hazen Robert Argue: There is one voice on the government side of the house that has expressed some realization of the difficulties being faced in the maritimes. On February 26 as reported at page 1489 of Hansard this statement was made:
The economic problems in Restigouche-Mada-waska and in the maritime provinces generally were always bad, but when you come along with a policy of tight money conditions become a hundred times worse.
There is a statement from a Conservative member in good standing in the Conservative party who says to the government that things were bad under the Liberals but that now with Tory tight money conditions are one hundred times worse. Mr. Speaker, political recrimination will not help the people of the maritime provinces.
I am glad this motion has been brought forward. I am exceedingly disappointed by the answers of members of the government, because their answers today to the desires of the maritime provinces are one big "No". They do not intend to do any more in the future than they have done in the past, even though the record is that conditions in the maritimes now are as bad, if not worse, as they were under the administration of the former Liberal government.
Mr. Speaker, we think that the time has come for government action and for public funds to be directed into the development of the Atlantic provinces. We suggest that Canadian citizens living in the maritime provinces have a right to share equitably in the production of this country. I would suggest that the government should offer a portfolio to enable members to discover what the duties of the minister are, because we imagine he could handle his portfolio during the normal coffee break, shall we say, in the morning. They might take one of the interested cabinet ministers and make him a minister of a new department, a department of regional and economic development, a department whose specific purpose would be to see that regionally depressed areas such as the maritime provinces, Elliot Lake, Uranium City in Saskatchewan and other areas of the country receive attention from the national government. This calls for money, and here I agree with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I suggest there should be a capital development budget of at least $1 billion of public funds for development of the economy of depressed areas.
If there are interruptions that this is too much, it is just 3 per cent of the gross national product; it is just 16 per cent of the amount now being spent by way of our

national budget; and it is just over 60 per cent of the money now being spent and largely wasted on national defence.
I would suggest that monies can be obtained for a great capital development program; that as it becomes necessary to reduce our defence expenditures the people of the maritime provinces should not be forced to suffer even more but that some large part of these savings should go into the regional development fund. I would suggest that the government should give speedy attention to such things as the Chignecto canal which holds real promise. I would suggest that the government should say what it intends to do about a causeway to Prince Edward Island. I would suggest that the government should take action to help the export industries of the maritime provinces, as well as other exporting industries in Canada such as the forestry industry and the fishing industry, by instituting a system of economic policies which will bring the Canadian dollar into par with the United States dollar and thus bolster Canada's export industry. I think it is national madness for our country to follow a policy which cripples our export industries and puts the nation in hock to foreign investors which this past year amounts to almost $1.5 billion.
I would suggest that there are other great programs for economic development. There should be a start made on an over-all highway program for Canada. The government should not be satisfied with the one highway ribbon that it is helping to promote across our country. I would suggest that for the maritime provinces as for the rest of Canada there should be a great housing development instead of the Tory policy of cutting housing, allowing the slums to remain and failing to take care of the housing needs of Canadians.
I am convinced that at this time more and more people in the maritime provinces are questioning the very tenets of the policies both of the Conservative government and the Liberal party. I hear very interesting and encouraging reports of the support that is coming to the C.C.F. party particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. This debate is bringing the attention of parliament to the needs of the maritime provinces.
There are other ways whereby people can bring to the attention of the government and the Canadian nation their needs. It can be done in provincial elections about which this government was so satisfied when provincial Liberal governments were overturned, and we used to hear so much of that in the house. Action can be taken on a provincial basis and other action can be taken.
79951-0-222
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
I make no apology for the delegation which came from the prairie provinces a year ago to impress upon this government and the Canadian nation in a very vivid way conditions in the prairie provinces which condemned citizens in those areas of our agricultural industry to an inferior position. I think the people of the maritime provinces who have a just cause would be well advised to consider sending large delegations to wait on the government, which is their democratic right, in order to bring to the Canadian nation in a vivid and spectacular way the very important, serious and just grievances which are theirs. Delegations are an excellent method of focusing attention on problems in a democratic country.
Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis the only real solution will come by a very definite, decided and drastic change in the principles operating in our economic society.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion today. I tried to recall the different points made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) in opening the debate yesterday. I am not quite sure that he was serious in what he was saying, but he gave me the impression, as I think he must have given others, that he had no great heart in the task he was undertaking.
He selected the Atlantic provinces as the area in which he attempted to show that the Conservative government had failed to carry out its promises which they made before the election of 1957. At this time he took the opportunity to consider our record because of the impending elections in the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which will be held within the next month or so. So he concentrated on that topic, the elections being over in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.
Of course, there was not much he could say about Prince Edward Island. He had no complaint about that province because the people themselves had given their verdict in the general election which took place last year and had overturned a Liberal government that had been in office, I think, for over 20 years.
With regard to Newfoundland, I am sure he must have been aware of what the premier of that province said recently. He is quoted as saying that anybody would be foolish to blame the government in Ottawa for the recent recession.
However, the hon. member did manage once more to accuse this government of repudiating the constitution in regard to term 29. I have heard the hon. member say that

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces before, and I resent that statement. The h<jn. member knows perfectly well that the constitution has not been repudiated, and that we have carried out the recommendation of the McNair commission We are carrying out that recommendation, and we have provided for a review as was asked for by counsel for the Newfoundland government and by the premier of that government. We are having that review take place before 1962, not three years later as the premier wanted.
He produced then some of the resolutions which were passed by a group of candidates who met in Moncton before the election of 1957, the resolutions which the hon. member called the Atlantic charter. It is important to remember what the circumstances of that meeting were. At that time the hon. member had, I believe, become a member of the government and we were then in opposition. The Progressive Conservative candidates met in Moncton and, actuated by the knowledge that the Atlantic provinces had been neglected for a long period, we considered what methods could best be adopted in order to bring about an improvement. Thus, we set out the objectives at which we should aim.
The complaint of the hon. member and his associates is that we have not attained all these objectives at the present time. Bearing in mind the economic difficulties of the maritime provinces-and these have been set out today by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter)-it is not surprising that we have not been able to carry out all our intentions in the short space of three years. I think it is something of which we can be proud that we have been able to do as much as we have. We do not pretend to have solved all the problems; we do not pretend to have all the answers. On the other hand, we are doing all we can, and we have done all we can; we intend to give attention to all these problems as they are brought before us in the proper way.
The mover of this amendment then gave a brief general review under various headings: industry, coal, agriculture, fisheries, roads, transportation, the tourist industry, mining and finance. I do not think he mentioned power, which constituted such an important feature of the contribution made by the Conservative government to the expansion and development which has been taking place in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick during the past three years. I propose, myself, to say a few words about the subjects with which the hon. member dealt, but before I embark on that undertaking I should like to say something which I believe must be obvious to everyone here, namely that the
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).}

federal government is not responsible for everything which takes place or which does not take place in the Atlantic provinces or any of the other provinces; we cannot interfere in the affairs of the provincial governments even to the slightest degree.
The provinces are autonomous and selfgoverning with regard to everything which is within their own jurisdiction. Nobody should know that better than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, because in Newfoundland we have the sole Liberal government in Canada today. Surely he does not expect the federal Conservative government to be responsible for the sins and omissions of that government. Neither can the federal government take credit-and we do not take credit- for what is being done of a beneficial nature in the provinces. I recommend to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) that he read the speech made by the president of the Atlantic provinces economic council contained in the April edition of the Atlantic Advocate. Mr. Arthur Johnson, the president, is the deputy minister of the economic development department, of which Premier Smallwood is the minister in charge. If the hon. member for Gloucester would read that speech I think he would finish up by holding a view different from the one he expressed yesterday. To get the drift of his remarks, I now propose to quote from page 3483 of Hansard what the hon. member said:
We are not asking for hand-outs. The central provinces and the western provinces know what we of the Atlantic provinces need. Just a week ago I was visiting one of my constituents and X noticed that the car at his door was manufactured in Ontario.
What a crime.
When I opened the door I noticed that the door knob came from Peterborough.
Just imagine the hon. member getting down to look at the door knob to see where it was made.
When I walked into the house, I saw that the carpet came from Ontario.
He bent down and picked up the edge of the carpet to see where it was made. And then the hon. member said:
The furniture came from Quebec.
What is the matter with Quebec? (Translation):
Is it not a fact that the member can speak French and is known to speak French? But he has nothing against Quebec people working in furniture factories.
(Text):
The quotation continues:
When I went into the kitchen I saw that the washing machine, the refrigerator, the toaster and everything were manufactured in Quebec and Ontario.

I draw the attention of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who prides himself on being a free trader, to the attitude of the hon. member for Gloucester.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Keep on reading.


William Joseph Browne: The next thing was an interruption, "What about the lawnmower?" Instead of continuing to read let me just tell hon. members what I had for lunch in the parliamentary restaurant. I had apple juice from the Annapolis valley; I had smoked codfish from Halifax and potatoes from Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick. This is evidence of the trade which is taking place between the different provinces, and I see no reason why the hon. gentleman should be excited. If he would look at his watch he will probably find that it was made in Switzerland. What a terrible thing, to be wearing an import from an European country. The hon. gentleman surely cannot hold us responsible for what this friend of his-this imaginary friend, I suggest-has in his home. I may say that when I went home I looked at the stove in our kitchen and saw it was manufactured in Sackville, New Brunswick. So they do have manufactures down there, or at least, it had been manufactured since the Conservatives came into office.
Does the hon. member want us to tell the people of New Brunswick where they should buy their things, or does he want the federal government to go down there and make the things for them? Does he want us to tell the provincial governments what they should make or import? What is the point of that argument? As I gathered, it is that the central provinces are manufacturing goods which are bought in the east, and that the people here should buy things in return. They certainly do buy produce, and anything else they can get which is supplied to them.
The former Liberal government was aware in 1956, as the secret report informed us, that there was to be a recession, and it did come to a head in 1957. Everyone in this house is aware, or should be, of the drastic measures which have been taken by this government to offset the effects of that recession. Our chief contribution to overcoming the effects of that period was in the field of housing, and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who makes these grandiloquent speeches and is so generous in distributing millions-I see he has left the house-failed to mention that we spent $1 billion on housing. He did not give us any credit for that. One billion dollars spent in three years is not peanuts. It is a considerable amount of 79951-0-2221
3,	1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces money and, surely, the hon. member should give us some credit for doing what he himself has been advocating. This financial aid resulted in great numbers of houses being built and great numbers of people finding employment during a very difficult time.
I wish only to mention a few of the other things we did. For example, in the field of social security we increased old age pensions to $55-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And took it away by increasing taxes.


William Joseph Browne: Taxation did not go higher than it was under the previous government. We increased welfare payments, grants to hospitals and certain payments to veterans. I am sure the hon. gentleman from Essex East will be interested in this. We have put the hospital insurance program into effect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon.
friend, who is a very fair minded member, not agree that the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was introduced in this house in 1957 by the St. Laurent government?


William Joseph Browne: I agree that the Liberal government had some very good ideas but they did not put them into effect; it was left to us to put them into effect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend a second question which I am sure he will be anxious to answer. Is it not a fact that every single act of social welfare in this country on federal account was placed on the statute books by a Liberal government?


William Joseph Browne: I do not
agree with that, but if I were to agree to it I would have to go a little into history because you might say that all the social security measures have developed in the last, say, 25 or 30 years, since the great depression that began in 1929.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were put on the statute books by Mackenzie King and St. Laurent.


William Joseph Browne: Yes; I think Mr. Bennett had something to do with some of the social security measures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not one.


William Joseph Browne: If the Liberal government had never been in office those measures would have been introduced.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not one.


William Joseph Browne: I want to repeat that if the Liberal government had not been in office, if it had been a Conservative government, those measures would have

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces been introduced into this country the same as they were introduced in Great Britain by a Conservative government. The social security measures under Lord Beveridge were introduced-


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that the first old age pension act and the first health insurance act-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I am asking a question. The first old age pension act and the first health insurance act were introduced by a Liberal government.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesl):: No. My hon. and learned friend knows very well that there was no comparison between the earlier measures and the social securities introduced after Lord Beveridge's report. The point I want to make is this. All those measures have contributed in a substantial degree to the financial and economic improvement of those provinces. You could not have the financial improvement that did take place without having those social security measures, and they have been particularly beneficial in the Atlantic provinces, and more particularly, I suppose, in Newfoundland.
In Newfoundland, for example, the federal contribution for hospital insurance went as high as 64 per cent; 64 per cent was paid for by the federal government; I think it is down to 63 per cent now. In Nova Scotia it amounted to 55 per cent; and in New Brunswick 54 per cent.
As was pointed out by my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), we provided $7,500,000 to each province for the building of roads to resources. This amounts to $30 million in the four maritime provinces. If each of the 10 provinces gets $7,500,000, it would amount to $75 million; therefore, the four Atlantic provinces get 40 per cent, but they have only 10 per cent of the population. I think this must be regarded as a special favour, if you like, or, certainly, a gesture of interest in the welfare of the people of the Atlantic provinces.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate made reference to the plan proposed by the Liberal leader in Nova Scotia at the federal-provincial conference in 1955. He pointed out the Liberal government in 1956 had made concessions to the people all over Canada, in all the provinces, of about $106 million, and that the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island had benefited by about $9 million a year.
Then, the hon. member made reference to the question of agriculture, and he referred to agriculture in his own riding. I do not


have much knowledge of the small settlements in his riding where agriculture assumes some local importance, but I think he will admit that if agriculture declined in Newfoundland it has been due particularly to the impact of confederation, bearing in mind that the former Liberal government at Ottawa subsidized a vessel, jointly with the government of Prince Edward Island, for the shipping of agricultural produce to Newfoundland. I think he will agree that it was very difficult for the farmers of Newfoundland to carry on their industry after confederation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Ferguson Browne: The industry is at its lowest ebb today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister say a subsidy is not being given by the present government to a vessel for the precise purpose that he mentioned?


John Ferguson Browne: Yes, but it was started by the Liberal government. The Liberal government likes to take credit for the things it started, so we will give it credit now. It is being partly paid by the Conservative government of Prince Edward Island at the present time but that, too, was started by a Liberal government.
However, there are some important farms in Newfoundland. I would draw the attention of hon. members to the great farm that is owned by the premier of Newfoundland on Roche's line. I would like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to tell us something about it, because I believe he had the privilege of spending a night there as the guest of the distinguished squire who presides over that magnificent farm. It is supposed to have the greatest number of cattle on any farm in eastern Canada, and I think the number of chickens there-some of them have come home to roost-goes into the many thousands.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They come home to roost every night, you know.


William Joseph Browne: They will come home to roost eventually for the premier of Newfoundland.
I do not know why the hon. member referred to farming because I have always been under the impression that farming has been successfully practised in the maritime provinces. They have large areas of fine agricultural land, and the produce from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is famous. We in Newfoundland, of

course, have been accustomed all our lives to buying produce from those places. I know they come on the market here as well.
Then he referred to fisheries and he regretted the preponderance of our fish finding its way to the United States market as fresh frozen fish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 am sure the hon. gentleman-


John Ferguson Browne: He did not
say it in so many words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I certainly do not regret it; I regret we do not sell more there.


John Ferguson Browne: The hon. member spoke about the large quantities of fresh fish exported to the markets as if it was something to be regretted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not speak that way.


John Ferguson Browne: He knows that during the past 40 years, since the first world war, the countries of Europe which used to purchase large quantities of our salt fish have gone into building fleets of their own and catching their own fish. Spain, Portugal and Italy particularly send out large fleets every year to the Grand Banks and catch their own fish and salt and cure it for their people.
The policy of the Newfoundland government in regard to fisheries was to finance the building of large fresh fish plants and the fresh fish plant operators were able to borrow the money from the government of Newfoundland, as high as $5 million, to help them establish those industries, so that great financial assistance given by the government of Newfoundland resulted in an incentive to the production of fresh fish.
Then, again, the recruiting for United States bases construction of large numbers of our people who live along the long extended coast line of thousands of miles around the island took place. They were drawn away from the fishery and went to work as labourers, carpenters and carpenters' helpers, and at other work. It was the policy of the government to take 10,000 men out of the fishing boats. Their fishing gear went to ruin, and not so many of them are engaged in fishing today as formerly. Those who are engaged in it are engaged mostly in catching fresh fish which they sell to the fresh fish plants; or partly making fish which they sell at times to fish buyers who come to Newfoundland from Nova Scotia. But our government at Ottawa has also given assistance to the fisheries. The hon. member knew about that but he did not say anything about it. Last year
3, 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces we built 20 community stages in Newfoundland and a good many of them were in the hon. gentleman's own riding.


James Aloysius McGrath: Over half of them.


William Joseph Browne: He did not
make any reference to the assistance given to the fisheries by the government. We have reorganized the bait services. I do not think our fishermen will be able to complain of a shortage of bait as they were able to in the past. Anybody who knows anything about the Newfoundland fisheries knows how important is the question of bait supply. The federal government has gone out of its way to implement the report of the Newfoundland royal commission on the fisheries of the southwest coast. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo must be aware of the several expensive wharves that have been built or are being built to assist the Newfoundland government solve the problem of the fishermen of the southwest coast.
Again, we have built a new ferry for service between Portugal Cove and Bell island. We have built two new icebreakers and new government steamers. The St. John's harbour development, which was one of those projects thought about by the former Liberal government and put on the shelf, is being carried out by the present Conservative government. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate complimented his colleague, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger), on the speech he made recently regarding the fisheries of Labrador. But if I am right I think the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador was advocating a return to the Labrador fishery. He can correct me if I am wrong but I think that is what he recommended. I should like to draw to his attention the fact that in 1951 a former minister of fisheries, Mr. Mayhew, put the kibosh on the Labrador fishery when he said that no further support would be given under the Fisheries Prices Support Act to fishermen fishing on the Labrador. There is not much use in anybody going in for that unless that decision is changed and I do not think the fishermen of Newfoundland have gone to Labrador to anything like the same extent since that was done.
The mover of the amendment did have a good word to say about the pulp and paper industry, especially in Newfoundland where it is booming. I do not know whether he made any reference to the new pulp mill being built in Nova Scotia which will cost $45 million. That has always been regarded in Newfoundland as the high water mark of government accomplishment. It will mean a great boon to that part of Nova Scotia where the mill is going to be built.

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
On the subject of mining the hon. member acknowledged the remarkable expansion and development taking place at Carol lake and to take place before long, I hope, at lake Wabush. This Labrador-Quebec mineralized area is in for a tremendous boom and the results of the expansion in employment will be felt in many other parts of Canada as well.
With regard to transportation, a problem that has agitated the business people in the Atlantic provinces and the federal government as well as the governments of the maritime provinces, we have appointed a royal commission which is now investigating the transportation problems of all parts of Canada and more particularly those of the Atlantic provinces. I hope that the commission will be able to bring in a report which we can implement and which will be of benefit to business people and people generally in these provinces.
My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, referred to the subject of coal, a subject to which the hon. member for Gloucester has constantly referred. Notwithstanding the sweeping expansion of oil and gas distribution in the last few years which has been phenomenal-I do not know whether people realize how much domestic consumers have taken to using gas and oil-and the decline in consumption of coal by 50 per cent, the amount of coal mined in Nova Scotia last year increased over the previous year. We have given annual subventions to the coal industry of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since we have been in office. Last year we gave nearly $14 million and in the estimates this year there is provision for the same amount. I wish the hon. member for Gloucester would get out his pencil, write down all these figures, add them up and see if they are not an indication of the interest that the government has taken in the welfare of the people of the maritime provinces.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Production is still going down.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to refer to the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) and point out to him that the steel industry of Nova Scotia is one of the oldest industries in Canada. We in Newfoundland have a particular interest in the Nova Scotia steel industry. Many of our people work there. I suppose there are as many people from Newfoundland in Sydney and Glace Bay as there are from any other part of Canada. We supply the iron ore that is used in the manufacture of steel. We supply the limestone from Aguathuna in the Port au Port region of Newfoundland in the constituency of Humber-St. George's. We make a

tremendous contribution to the manufacture of steel in Nova Scotia and therefore we are vitally interested in seing the steel industry of Nova Scotia retain and, if possible, increase its importance.
But the hon. member must know, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) knows, that there has been a rapid expansion in the steel industry, notably at Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton. Only this morning there was an item in the paper that the premier of Quebec had attended a ceremony yesterday to mark the coming into existence of a new mill for making steel pipe. The fact that there is such tremendous production of iron ore in the province of Quebec and also in the Labrador part of the province of Newfoundland and such cheap transportation from Seven Islands to the area below Montreal makes me believe quite strongly that a big steel industry is going to come into being in the province of Quebec. I believe that the prediction made by the premier of Quebec is going to be fulfilled.


Lionel Chevrier: It was made years ago.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, but it does not lose anything in the repetition.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It does not help Cape Breton very much.


William Joseph Browne: It is coming to fruition now and I am sure the hon. member must wish it as much as I do.


Lionel Chevrier: I have been saying it was coming for years.


William Joseph Browne: Despite the undoubted and tremendous progress in the steel industry, which was given great impetus last year because of the strike in the steel mills of the United States, we cannot possibly manufacture all the iron ore that we produce. We just cannot do it. Next year we will probably be producing 20 to 30 million tons in the Labrador-Quebec area alone. Then we have Bell island and Steep Rock and there are other mines coming into production in different parts of Canada. We must export ore. We should be grateful that we have near us in the New York-Pittsburgh area great steel mills that can take all the ore we can produce. This will mean employment for the miners and for those in the service enterprises who supply the workers, for the railways and the steamers that operate to bring the ore to this great steel market in the United States.
I find that all the C.C.F. members are nothing if not generous with money. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said that his program would cost $500 million. His leader

doubled that and made it $1 billion. I say to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, where would he get the $500 million in the first place and what would he do with it when he got it? He did not elaborate on that at all. He gets up, and his leader does the same, and with this offhand generosity distributes this money.
We have been criticized and badgered because of our few-no, I will not say few, I will say something else-because we had a deficit this year of $400 million. Last year, we had a bigger deficit. We are badgered, we are criticized and told we are not running things right. If we do not have a deficit, we have to increase taxes. This government could increase taxes and get the money to pay for these things. Who is in favour of increasing taxes?


An hon. Member:: The C.C.F.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, so long as they increase the taxes for somebody else. They have no interest in business. They are not in favour of private business at all. I do not want to get into that subject at all, but all they have to do is look at the United States, the richest country in the world, and think that the people achieved their tremendous prosperity through private enterprise. How they can seriously stand up for state ownership is more than I can understand. You can only have successful state ownership when you have communism as you have in Russia and the countries behind the iron curtain. The sooner those hon. members realize that-perhaps they do realize it-the better. He spoke about $500 million as a modest beginning. I suppose his leader has gone a step further and made it $1 billion, and if any other hon. members speak the whole revenue will be gone out in that sort of thing.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had a good word to say about the financial assistance that we provided in 1958 for the Atlantic provinces. The hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Northum-berland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam) even damned it with faint praise. Well, they could not say anything else. This $7.5 million which is going to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and the $2.5 million for Prince Edward Island, making a total of $25 million, will be paid for four years. This will amount to $100 million in four years. These payments have been of tremendous importance to these provinces. We can hardly begin to think of all the benefits that have come to those provinces, in which there are only one and one-third million people, from the expenditure of $25 million a year.
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
Let me point this out-I do not know whether it is discouraging to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-several times the hon. member referred to the desirability of finishing the trans-Canada highway, especially in Newfoundland. His party had a program whereby the Liberals, if they had been elected, would build the trans-Canada highway. Let me point this out-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not right; we would pay 90 per cent of the cost.


William Joseph Browne: Ninety per cent of the cost. I am going to show the hon. member how the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland could have been built twice over if the government of that province had been really a sensible government. In the first place, they put $30 million into secondary industries, with the help of German industrialists, most of which went down the drain and from which not one cent ever came back. After all, if $30 million had been spent on the trans-Canada highway, the trans-Canada highway would be an accomplished fact now.
Then, if the government of Newfoundland took the $7.5 million we have been giving them for the past two years, and will give them for the next two years, and spent that on the trans-Canada highway, we would have a trans-Canada highway by 1962. Then we would be able to talk about a tourist industry. The tourists do not want to go to a place where the roads are dusty when it is dry and muddy when it is wet. The tourists want to drive on good roads; that is the first essential for a tourist industry. This would have been a sensible and sound undertaking, and would have brought thousands of tourists to the province of Newfoundland. After all, this year in Newfoundland, this very month, we are celebrating the 350th anniversary of the first colony of the British empire. Three hundred and fifty years ago John Guy, an alderman from Bristol, came out to Newfoundland and made a settlement at Cupids. There was, thus, the first British colony at Conception bay 350 years ago.
This would have been a great time to have our trans-Canada highway. We have other places of historic interest such as cape Bonavista, the first place seen by John Cabot, and Placentia, where the French priests and the French soldiers lived at one time, as well as Ferryland. Both these latter places are in my own constituency. Newfoundland is a most interesting, and certainly the oldest part of Canada. Thousands of tourists, not only from Newfoundland but from the United States would be happy to visit Newfoundland if the trans-Canada highway were built.
I should like to speak of the assistance we have given to the Atlantic provinces for the
3516	HOUSE OF
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces construction and improvement of their power projects. The previous government also dil-lied and dallied with this idea and did nothing about it. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) explained this afternoon-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not correct.


John Ferguson Browne: Oh, they sent Mr. Howe down to officiate at the opening, but they gave no financial assistance to the Beechwood project. We lent them money to pay off debts at the bank that the government had incurred. We provided $13 million in the last three years for subventions on coal, partly used for the production of electricity. We have provided over $10 million for the building of steam power plants and the erection of transmission lines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I do not know how many members are aware of this, but we made an offer to Newfoundland to build transmission lines from Bay d'Espoir to Grand Falls at a cost of $11 million and give the Newfoundland government 40 years in which to pay off this substantial loan. So, I think we have provided innumerable benefits to the Atlantic provinces.
People like my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo seem to think there is something improper or indecent in talking about what the government has done to assist these provinces. When we are challenged like this there is nothing else for us to do except point out the things we have done. I have here a report of the power commission of New Brunswick for the year ending March 31, 1959. I should like to give two or three figures from this statement of their operations for the previous year. This statement shows that the kilowatt capacity at March 31, 1957 was 132,575 kilowatts; at the end of March, 1959, it had risen to 204,525, that is an increase of over 55 per cent. The total generation of kilowatts had increased from 606 million to 754 million, an increase of 25 per cent. The total energy distributed increased from 534 million to 676 million. There was a substantial increase in the sale of electrical energy in the province of New Brunswick. In a time of depression, that could not happen. The number of retail customers increased from 75,316 at the end of March, 1957 to 82,655, an increase of 7,300 in two years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I must inform him that his time has expired.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to add just one sentence?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).l


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Joseph Browne: There is just one sentence to which I wish to refer, a statement made by Mr. Arthur Johnson, president of APEC who said that the effect of this assistance to the Atlantic provinces resulted in a minimum saving of more than $60 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate on the problems of the Atlantic provinces I feel an especial pleasure in following my friend the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne) because, among other things, it gives me an opportunity to wish him well and send him our congratulations on his birthday. I do so with the greater pleasure because he is exactly ten days younger than I am and I hope that I look and act as youthful and vigorous as he does.
Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing this problem in a way which I think makes it quite clear, whatever side of the house we are on, that there is with us now and indeed there has been for a long time the problem of economic underdevelopment in this part of our country. The problem of the development of new areas, Arctic areas and others if you like, is an important one and we all want to see that proceeded with. But it is of equal if not of greater importance that we should redevelop those areas of Canada whose people have in the past contributed so much to our country but who have through no fault of their own been forced to lag behind in the march of national progress, perhaps so far as material things are concerned.
This need for redevelopment is great. It is a most urgent problem of public policy. There has been progress made in this respect in the last few decades but in spite of that progress average incomes in those parts of Canada are still well behind those in the rest of Canada. A wide and persistent gap remains and as long as it does remain it constitutes a strain, as it is bound to, on the kind of complete national unity we want. As long as it remains there is bound to be a regional problem.
The rate of economic progress in the three maritime provinces between 1926 and 1955- and I quote the figures of the Gordon commission on this point-show that personal income in constant dollars during that period -and it is a considerable period-increased by 94 per cent while in the six other provinces it increased by only 80 per cent. In other words the rate of increase was greater in the maritimes during those years but nevertheless in 1955 in that part of Canada personal income was 37 per cent below that

in the rest of the country and the average family income was 31 per cent below the rest of the country. Therefore a faster rate of growth is essential in the Atlantic provinces if the gap to which I referred is going to be closed and if those provinces are going to catch up with the rest of the country in economic and material development.
From 1956 to 1958 the figures show that that gap is not being closed. The per capita income in 1958 again in constant dollars was up, I will admit, in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia but it was down in New Brunswick. The average income in 1958 as compared with the Canadian average as a whole was below the national average by $482. That is the average income in the Atlantic provinces compared with the average income in the country as a whole.
Although there has been some improvement over recent years there has not been enough improvement and the improvement such as it has been is largely due to transfer payments from the federal government; as has already been pointed out in this discussion. These payments account for nearly one quarter of the increase in personal per capita income in the maritime provinces since 1926. Indeed, in 1958, the last year for which I have figures, the transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces made up 16.3 per cent of the total personal income in the Atlantic area. Total personal income amounted in that year to $1,731 million of which $283 million came from transfer payments from the federal government.
These payments are useful and indeed they are essential to the welfare of those provinces. No one regrets for a minute that they should have been received especially in the Atlantic provinces which over the years have made their own transfer payments of another kind to the rest of Canada. We are all the beneficiaries of that kind of transfer, inside this house and outside of it. While no one regrets these payments and are glad they have been made something else is required to reduce this disproportionate reliance on government transfers. That something else, of course, must be new capital investment.
In so far as that kind of capital investment is taking place in the Atlantic provinces-and there have been examples of it given in this discussion-we all rejoice but notwithstanding the remarks just made by my hon. friend it has not happened in any significant way or to a degree that has had any significant effect in closing this gap. The official figures prove that.
In 1953 the proportion of Canada's total capital outlays made in the Atlantic region
3,	1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces were 6.2 per cent. In 1960, the current year, investment intentions from the recent report of the department on that subject show that that figure is expected to be 6.4 per cent. That is very little increase indeed and not nearly enough to bring about the expansion which we all would like to see brought about. Indeed, there are signs that point to a weakening of industrial economy rather than an expansion such as is necessary to increase income and close the gap with the rest of Canada.
In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick between 1956 and 1959 industrial employment has decreased by 8.4 index points for New Brunswick and 5.4 index points for Nova Scotia. It is up in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island but the base from which to advance there is a very low one indeed.
One feature that has been referred to by nearly every hon. member who has taken part in this debate and one which, notwithstanding what was said by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) last night, must cause great anxiety is the declining coal production in Nova Scotia. In 1957 the monthly average production was 474,000 tons and in 1959 it was 365,000 tons. Total production for the year through which we have just passed was 4,380,000 tons although the Minister of National Revenue put on the record the figure of 5,806,000 tons which does not correspond with any official figures we have been able to secure. It would be interesting to find out where the hon. gentleman got that figure of production because it is not the figure that appears in the federal statistics nor the one given to the Rand commission by the Nova Scotia bureau of mines. The official figures show a decrease of 23 per cent or 1.3 million tons in this two-year period.
So, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding certain hopeful signs there are indications that more will have to be done if this gap is to be filled. These signs do reflect a serious problem which we are presenting to this house in the motion before it. I suggest that development of the Atlantic region which is embodied in this motion is a main problem of public policy at this time, as it has indeed been a main subject of public pronouncements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and members of his government.
The Prime Minister talks a great deal about development. No one quarrels with the talk providing the facts justify the talk. But I ask, is this development occurring in the Atlantic provinces at this time? Basic to this development-and I refer to what the minister who has just sat down has said-* is the situation in regard to power. On March

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces 3 over the television network the Prime Minister has this to say on this matter. I am quoting his text:
The next point-
He was talking about development.
-was a ten-year plan for the development of thermal power plants in the Atlantic provinces. This has already been provided for by legislation. The Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act has been on the statute books for two years and has resulted in immediate savings of some $20 million in power costs to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, that figure of $20 million saving is grossly inaccurate and therefore misleading, I shall have no difficulty in showing that by the official figures which we have received from answers made by the minister himself to questions from this side of the house.
I wish I had time to trace the origins of this very important statute, the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, which is the foundation upon which power development will have to take place in the Atlantic provinces. The proposal for a power program for the Atlantic region in the form in which it was later implemented was made on March 4, 1957 by Mr. Harris in his budget speech. As some hon. members will remember, he then made an offer which would have provided for the construction and operation of thermal plants and transmission lines by the federal government; the rental of these lines and the sale of power at cost to provincial electric systems; and the acquisition of plants and other facilities by the provinces at any time on payment of their amortized cost. That proposal, as hon. members know, grew out of a carefully conducted study by the dominion coal board through Professor Christie of John Hopkins University. Later in that session the minister of northern affairs and national resources, Mr. Lesage, made it quite clear that in carrying out this program the government of the day intended to make coal competitive with oil in the construction of these thermal plants.
Mr. Speaker, all these ideas were embodied, with one important exception, and I think in the wrong direction, in the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act which was introduced by this government and passed on, I think, January 15, 1958. So that this phase of so-called national development, the national development program, which on March 3 the Prime Minister claimed for himself and his government, was borrowed from Liberal proposals with one change, which I think was a change in the wrong direction. In piloting this bill through the House of Commons, the minister of northern affairs had this to say:


For the purposes of the two fiscal years now in contemplation,-
That is, the years 1957-58 and 1958-59.
[DOT]-a total of $12,700,000 for construction of plants and transmission lines will certainly be required.
The minister then gave the house his vision of the future power construction program right up to 1967. This must be the ten-year program the Prime Minister was talking about in his broadcast, for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Relying presumably upon estimates which were prepared for him by the Montreal Engineering Company, in this program, as he put it before this house at that time, the present minister visualized two plants for New Brunswick and eight plants for Nova Scotia at a cost of about $105 million. That statement will be found at pages 3037 and 3038 of Hansard for January 8, 1958.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the realization of this particular vision. To date, for three, not for two years the money spent by the federal government on the power construction program-I get this information from Hansard from questions addressed to ministers-was $7,700,000, which is $5 million less than the minister forecast for two years. Yet the Minister of National Revenue-I am sorry he is not in his seat at the moment- said last night that $12 million had been spent already on this program. That statement appears in Hansard and I would like to know where he got that figure when his own colleague gave us a figure of $7.7 million. Of this $7.7 million, $5 million was spent on transmission lines and most of the rest on assisting the rehabilitation of the plant at Trenton in Nova Scotia.
For 1960-61, the current year, the estimates which have been laid before the house show that $4,900,000 have been appropriated for advances under this power act. That is less than last year. Yet the Minister of National Revenue said, as reported on page 3475 of Hansard, that in this current year $13 million had been pledged.


William Joseph Browne: That is for subventions on coal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With great respect, that is not what the minister said last night. He was talking about advances under the act. If only $4,9 million is included in the estimates I would like to get the source from which the rest of it has been pledged. But even using the ministers own figures, they seem to me to be demonstrably inaccurate.
What about the $105 million program we were told about in 1958? What about the two thermal plants proposed for New Brunswick? One, of course, is being built and it should be of great assistance to the province. It is

at East Saint John but it is being financed by the provincial government without federal assistance. What about the eight proposed plants for Nova Scotia? There is not one new plant; but assistance, as I have already indicated, was given to increase the capacity of an existing plant at Trenton, Nova Scotia.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what has been previously said in this house and outside the house, no new thermal power plants are being built in the Atlantic provinces by the present government, and I ask why. The answer seems to me to be quite obvious. It is because no formula has been found by this government to provide for the burning of coal in these plants which the minister said was a condition for federal financial assistance. At the East Saint John, New Brunswick, plant the New Brunswick power commission claimed that oil would save half a million dollars a year. I am not criticizing this decision of the New Brunswick government in any respect because, under the circumstances, they perhaps had no alternative; and as the premier of New Brunswick made quite clear to the Rand commission, oil would be used. That decision, Mr. Speaker, underlines the weakness of the thermal power program put forward by this government.
It seems to me to underline the fact that our formula would have been a more satisfactory one for the Atlantic provinces, because we pledged ourselves as a government to make coal competitive with any other fuel in the production of electricity. That was made perfectly clear, and it was stated categorically by the former minister of public works-the minister from Nova Scotia-in June, 1957. Yet the Prime Minister will not give this house a similar assurance about the East Saint John thermal plant. The result is what we know.
In the face of this attitude, the Prime Minister now claims savings of $20 million in power costs to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in two years. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) has given a figure which does not agree with the Prime Minister's. It is in excess of the actual figure, but he only claims some $9.5 million. We put some questions to the minister in order to ascertain the figures on this point as will be found on pages 2345 and 2346 of Hansard of March 23. According to the minister's answers, the figures were $7.71 million for capital construction and $1.88 million for assistance by way of subventions. That is a far cry from the $20 million mentioned by the Prime Minister in his broadcast. In any event, how can the minister call an advance
3, 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces of $7.71 million "immediate savings in power costs" when any such advances will be paid back by the provinces, plus interest and service charges. The minister himself boasted when speaking in the House of Commons on January 8, 1958, as may be found on page 3038 of Hansard:
-the amounts of money expended on the construction program will all be refunded with interest, so that this phase of the program is self-liquidating.
Five days later the right hon. gentleman said the construction would involve "no loss whatever to the federal treasury". So the only economy that could possibly be effected is through borrowing from the federal government rather than elsewhere. When we tried to find out by questions where the money for subventions went, and did what we could to find out what savings were involved, we were not able to get that information; we were told it had all gone to the provincial power commission which acted as the agent of the federal government in this matter.
There is something else I should like to deal with, because it is of great importance to the development of the Atlantic provinces. It was touched on by my hon. friend who has just sat down, and it has to do with monetary policy and its effect on the development of the Atlantic region. This is a matter of intense interest to the provincial governments, an interest which has been stimulated and increased as a result of the tight money policy of the present government, and high interest rates.
Over the last two years the provincial governments of the Atlantic region, three of which are supposed to be on such friendly and co-operative terms with the federal government, have been trying at every possible opportunity to get the federal government at least to investigate the effect of monetary policy on regional development. They have pleaded more than once for a more flexible application of monetary policy, and some of them have suggested in their statements that perhaps there might be a differential rate of interest for the Atlantic provinces to take care of their needs. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has stated categorically that this could not be done, and I am not going to quarrel with that financial opinion. Surely, however, there is no justification for the minister's refusal of the repeated requests of the premiers of the Atlantic provinces for an investigation of this matter. The evidence seems clear that the request has been made. The premiers, having found the Minister of Finance completely unresponsive, have decided to go it on their own, and the premier
3520	HOUSE OF
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces of Nova Scotia, speaking recently in the house of assembly in Halifax, summed up the position by saying:
We had come to the conclusion we could not make any progress in this field-make any progress with the Minister of Finance and his officials- by requesting that something be done, so we were convinced that we would have to document our request with the opinion of a recognized authority in this field.
In the face of this attitude of the Minister of Finance they have taken steps to investigate this matter on a provincial basis. Perhaps, as a result of that investigation, something worth while may be discovered. This is a matter surely, where the federal government could have co-operated when they were first asked to do so by the provincial governments.
I am not suggesting that the Minister of Finance should take any position at this time as to what might be done, but I do suggest- and my suggestion has been supported by the financial editor of the Montreal Gazette- that an investigation should be made. As the editor of the Gazette said-and I quote from his column which appeared, I think, on April 8, 1960:
All (areas) are affected by the expansion or contraction of the money supply. What is wanted are measures which restrain those areas or those industries which require restraint without hurting those which do not.
Then, later:
If it is impossible with present procedures, the maritimes not unreasonably argue, the procedures should be changed.
If the Atlantic provinces now feel that national monetary policy is being applied unfairly to them, not only, perhaps, in the sphere of interest rates but in the availability of money at a fixed rate for the Atlantic provinces; if they feel that-and they do feel it-that will add to their problems; it will add to the grievances of the area, and it is going to make the national application of monetary policy more difficult. I suggest, therefore, that the federal government should have co-operated wholeheartedly with the Atlantic provinces in the kind of examination which was sought. The considerations which I have just mentioned, together with a good many others, surely support the desirability of an inquiry to study this phase of monetary policy with the object of assessing the adverse effects on the Atlantic region of present monetary policy and, perhaps, to relieve any such adverse effects. A study of this kind in which the federal government participated together with the Atlantic provinces would surely have a better chance of making the most constructive kind of recommendations.


If this is now to be done on a provincial basis, it could be better done on a joint cooperative basis.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I understood him to say that the maritime provinces were seeking an expert opinion which would support regional differences. Have they already secured such an opinion, or are they still seeking it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They asked a distinguished British economist, Sir Oliver Franks, to undertake the work but I understand' through the press that he regretfully replied that he could not take on the job. They are, no doubt, trying to get an equally distinguished expert to do it in the hope that they may find some solution to this problem.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I had been attempting to analyse some of the problems of the Atlantic region. I come now to the more important question, what to do about it. The arguments on that, in part at least, are found in the amendment, on which we shall shortly be voting, moved by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate which calls for a comprehensive and planned program of federal assistance for the Atlantic provinces. The amendment then recites a number of elements which, in our view, ought to be considered at the earliest possible time as part of such a comprehensive and planned program. I emphasize the words "planned" and ."comprehensive" as opposed to ad hoc, unrelated and temporary expedients.
This emphasis that I venture to place on planning and co-ordination received strong support from the Halifax ChYonicle-Herald in an admirable discussion of Atlantic problems and plans in an article entitled "A Blueprint for Atlantic Advance". I might quote one sentence from that blueprint, Mr. Speaker:
-ad hoc provisions... do not provide the solution to the basic economic problem which confronts the Atlantic region of Canada with such magnitude today.
I know that to inaugurate any program of this kind the Canadian people as a whole would willingly accept obligations that might follow from such a program, provided that the public funds in question were spent constructively and in ways which would improve facilities and stimulate income and employment. My own view on this has been

made known already in this session, when I said that the wealthier parts of this country will have to accept obligations, perhaps in a way they have not in the past, to the economically weaker and less developed parts of the country and to help solve their special problems.
The Canso causeway is a prototype of this kind of planned, creative project. This program would require special capital assistance for the Atlantic provinces, a capital assistance program which should not be regarded in any sense as a handout but as a constructive method of balancing in that area what has been done in other regions of Canada. In fact, it would help balance at least, federal programs in other parts of Canada such as the St. Lawrence seaway and the trans-Canada pipe line which, when they are carried out- and some of them have been-will certainly help other regions more than they will help the Atlantic provinces.
Moreover, it seems to me it would be desirable to establish special administrative arrangements to operate such an Atlantic capital projects program. I should like to suggest for consideration that the industrial development bank should be used for this special regional purpose, even if it might require an amendment to the legislation setting up that bank.
Certainly the establishment of more secondary industries in the Atlantic provinces is essential, although we know in the past this has been hindered, first, by transportation costs and the difficulties arising from those costs and second, because of the fact that the market-although it is growing-is not big enough to absorb the present products of those regions. Because of the desirability of this new expansion we are obliged then to seek new means and not merely try to improve on the old methods that we have been following in the past.
Among the new means which we advocate in this amendment are the provision of fiscal incentives to encourage new industries to establish in areas where old industries are declining. This method would be fully justified in the coal areas of Nova Scotia for the purpose of easing the social and economic impact of changes, when they have to take place of reduced production, if it has to take place, and of cut-backs and of mine closures. Even if a solution-perhaps from the recommendations of the Rand commission -can be found that will increase or at least stabilize coal production, nevertheless it will remain essential to devise measures to expand and diversify employment opportunities not only in those coal areas but throughout the Atlantic provinces generally. That is
3, 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces why we make in our amendment two suggestions, namely the capital projects program which I mentioned, and the provision of fiscal incentives to new industries, which I think should be considered now by this government.
It would be wrong to rely entirely on accelerated development of existing resources or on stimulation of secondary industries. Great benefits to the Atlantic provinces would accrue economically from the discovery of entirely new and presently unknown resources, as was pointed out in the Gordon commission report a few years ago. That is a more long term endeavour, but it certainly in our view should not be neglected.
Therefore we advocate the intensification of federal activity in this field to complete our knowledge, which is not now complete, of the resources of the Atlantic area. As a party we made a policy statement on this matter in 1958 and perhaps I can put it on record. It is as follows:
The Liberal party, with a view to accelerating the economic development of the Atlantic provinces stands for a policy of special federal effort to explore, survey, map, measure and make generally available up-to-date knowledge of the natural resources of the Atlantic provinces, so as to bring about speedier maximum use of the natural wealth of the Atlantic area, thereby raising the standard of prosperity in that part of Canada.
In addition, we attach at this time great importance to measures leading to a more efficient use of land. A principal cause of lower income levels is the relatively larger number of persons engaged in subsistence farming, fishing and logging. The low incomes prevailing in such subsistence occupations depress the average earnings in the whole area. A report attached to the Gordon commission, entitled "Some regional aspects of Canada's economic development" points out:
If these sectors of the Atlantic regional economy are eliminated for purposes of calculation, the disparity in average annual earnings is lessened considerably . . . annual earnings in the primary aspects of farming, fishing and forestry were about 50 per cent of the Ontario average.
Therefore, a more efficient use of these basic land resources would be a direct method of increasing standards of living in that area; and I believe that the successful prosecution of this objective should receive much greater governmental attention than it has.
These are some of the things which we put in the amendment which is now before the house. Very often when we on this side speak we are asked the question from the other side, "what would you do?" Well these are the measures that we would support in

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces any program to strengthen the economy of the Atlantic provinces and improve income levels:
1.	A capital projects program.
2.	Fiscal incentives to stimulate private enterprise.
3.	New efforts to discover new resources in the Atlantic provinces.
4.	A more efficient use of land resources.
5.	An inquiry into the regional effects of national, fiscal, monetary and economic policies.
6.	Adjustments in freight rates and improvement of transportation facilities.
That is what we would do, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Why in 22 years did hon. gentlemen opposite do nothing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In 22 years we did a great many other things. The record stands and the record cannot be altered by the intervention of my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friends seem a little disturbed. Maybe they will be a little more disturbed when they have to vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is when it will hurt.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that the vote has not been called and the hon. gentleman who has the floor has not finished his speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I gave the figures for Atlantic provinces development and expansion from 1925 to 1955 this afternoon and from 1956 to 1959. When hon. gentlemen opposite ask, what would you do now, this is what we would do now, and I ask them how are they going to vote tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Closure, closure,
closure.


An hon. Member:: A new form of closure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure hon. members do not want to prevent the Minister of Finance from using the few minutes remaining.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
	__
Hon. Donald Fleming (Minister of Finance) t
Mr. Speaker, everything that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has said about what his party would like to do now is an indictment of what his party failed to do when in office. This has been, from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition, the most telling indictment of Liberal inaction, indifference and neglect of the Atlantic area when they were in office that we have yet heard in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What are you going to do?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Leader of the Opposition was asked a moment ago what he and his colleagues of the former administration had done in 22 years and he could not find an answer. I will help him, Mr. Speaker. I will tell him that in the 22 years that he and his colleagues were in office-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We gave good government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -they did very little to meet the needs of the Atlantic area. The present government has done far more in three years than our predecessors did in all their 22 years in office.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question is now on the amendment.



HOUSING


John Richard Garland: I rise on a grievance. I should like to raise a matter which has caused widespread concern throughout the country during the past few weeks, and understandably so. I am referring to the situation caused by the apparent failure of the government's housing program for 1960.

When housing legislation came before us for discussion in this chamber in February and March of this year we were told by the minister responsible that the government planned to reduce housebuilding in 1960 as compared with 1959 and 1958. At that time the minister said the government's objective was 125,000 starts in 1960 as compared with
141,000	in 1959 and 164,000 in 1958. Some of us on this side of the house tried to point out that because of the tight money and high interest rates caused by government fiscal and monetary policy it would be unlikely that more than 100,000 starts would be made in 1960.
It is not my intention to repeat here arguments which were used at that time. It is common knowledge that the government, through its conversion loan of 1958 and its huge deficits, boosted interest rates to unprecedented levels for government borrowings which, in turn, boosted interest rates on all borrowing for building operations. The results of this policy, which led to higher interest rates, have had the effect of knocking the banks completely out of house building. Only 19 loans were made by the chartered banks in the first quarter of 1960 as compared with 3,327 in the first quarter of 1959. Government policy, resulting as it has in higher interest rates throughout the economy, has also had a most detrimental effect on lending for house building by the approved lenders-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question? In view of what he has said about the reduced number of loans made by the chartered banks, may I ask if he would approve or propose that the present ceiling of 6 per cent on the interest chargeable by the banks, as imposed by the Bank Act, be raised with a view to inducing the banks to participate more largely in lending under the National Housing Act?


John Richard Garland: I am delighted to reply to the Minister of Finance. I certainly did not recommend such a course during the extensive debate on housing which took place in this house earlier this year, nor do I now.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if before the hon. member goes further he would' indicate the exact nature of the grievance which he is raising. I ask him to do so because we have had a debate in this house on Bill No. C-53, an act to amend the National Housing Act, which dealt in a fairly general way with the federal housing program, and I do not want the hon. member to initiate a grievance which might constitute a repetition of that debate.

I take it he has some specific grievance, or narrower point than was raised in the debate on the bill. If he would state what it is it would help to limit the scope of the debate.


John Richard Garland: Yes, I am referring to a situation which has become apparent since the debate on housing took place, namely the failure of the government in my opinion to carry out the will of parliament by using moneys already approved by this parliament for housing. It is a matter of degree, but I think my point is well taken and I should like to develop it.


Mr. Speaker:: If I understand the hon. member correctly he is complaining about the administration of the act which was extended and amplified this session.


John Richard Garland: I should like to point out that in the first quarter of 1960 the approved lendei's made 1,780 loans as compared with 5,881 loans in the first quarter of 1959. This represents a decrease of approximately 70 per cent. Under these circumstances it is understandable that housing starts were down at the end of the first quarter of this year in excess of 45 per cent in areas over 5,000. Then, to add insult to injury, we have the government's announced policy of reducing their direct lending in 1960 to only half the amount of direct lending done in 1959. Direct lending has been further curtailed, of course-


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member be good enough to raise his voice as he makes his speech.


George James McIlraith: Strike above the belt.


David James Walker: I cannot hear a word he says. This may not be a matter of importance, but could he raise his voice so I can hear him?


John Richard Garland: I do not think that is an appropriate comment, Mr. Speaker, but I shall retain any comment for a future occasion. I was pointing out that the direct lending has been further curtailed by restrictions imposed by this government in respect of persons earning more than $5,000 per annum, with minor allowances depending upon the size of the family. In my opinion, this wage ceiling restriction is a gimmick developed to do two things: first, to create the impression that something is to be done for the little man; and, second, to make it more difficult for Canadians generally to qualify for a direct loan.
Actually the little man who really needs assistance will get precious little out of this government's 1960 housing program, a housing program which is deliberately restrictive and which can have only one effect, namely that of increasing the cost of housing.
In an earlier debate we covered the detrimental effect, particularly to the medium
Suggested Increase in Housing Program and lower wage earners, that these high interest rates are having on the cost of housing. Even under the National Housing Act it is estimated that at 6f per cent a house buyer will pay out more in interest than in principal on a 20-year mortgage for the first time since the National Housing Act came into existence.
Several weeks have passed since the housing debate took place. Results clearly show that the doubts expressed by some of us as to the adequacy of the government's housing program for 1960 were well founded. I feel sure this drastic fall-off in housing starts must concern all hon. members in this house. I find it difficult to understand the government's apparent determination to stick stubbornly to their announced policy of restricting housebuilding in 1960. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the present housing situation. It is now becoming abundantly clear with each passing month that the government must re-assess the situation. It must face up to the fact that its own fiscal and monetary policies over the past three years have contributed greatly to the present unsatisfactory situation. As a result, it must increase the amount of direct lending it is prepared to make this year beyond the announced $150 million to $175 million, which is only half the amount of direct lending done in 1959. Unless the government is prepared to increase the amount of direct lending, housing starts will fall well below
100,000	in 1960.
It is difficult to understand the government's thinking on this subject at the present time and their stubborn refusal to face up to the situation. This government must be aware of the beneficial effect house construction has on the entire economy. In fact, on this subject. I would like to refer to a statement made in this house on February 4, 1959, by the then minister of public works when he was dealing with the subject of employment resulting from house construction, as reported at page 684 of Hansard. He was referring to the completions in 1958, which numbered 146,686. I should like to quote what the minister had to say. These are the minister's words:
As I pointed out, one of the main objectives was to help create employment by this housing policy. There can be no doubt but that housebuilding in 1958 has set the pace for all activities in Canada. It has been in the forefront of the economic activity in Canada. We estimate that during the year there were probably 200,000 man-years of employment provided by on-site construction alone. This means about 400,000 jobs because it takes about six months to build a home.
Then, in addition, there have been all the jobs more remotely involved in the construction of housing units of various kinds. For example, there is the ground servicing of the land, the production, handling and transportation of building materials,

Suggested Increase in Housing Program bringing the total to about 400,000 man-year jobs. There are, as well, the men employed in getting out the logs, lumbering, the making of furniture and the equipment which goes into a home.
The minister continued with a reference to a statement made at that time by the vice president of Simpson-Sears. He is quoted as saying:
That these new homes represent a potential demand for furnishings and equipment estimated at $1,700 to $2,000 per house.


David James Walker: I am not blaming the hon. member but I cannot hear a word he is saying. Usually he is so fluent and sonorous. Can he speak up?


John Richard Garland: I am reading from 1959 Hansard, a statement by the former minister of public works.


David James Walker: I am not complaining about what you are reading; I should like to hear what you are saying.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that with the leave of the house the hon. member could speak from the seat behind and he would then have a microphone in front of him. There is some difficulty in hearing him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen ought to keep quiet.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, in the light of this statement by a senior member of this government that the construction of 146,000 houses created 400,000 jobs, quite apart from the other businesses referred to such as the supplying of lumber, furniture, appliances and so forth, what possible justification can there be for this government to sit on its hands with hundreds of thousands of our people unemployed. Statistics show that in no field is there greater unemployment than among residential construction workers. Yet the government sits there day in and day out, like one of Dickens' characters, hoping that something will turn up.
All winter the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) kept telling us, "Do it now, don't wait for spring". A month ago, during the budget presentation, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) urged us, "Don't worry now, wait until spring". The time for action by this government in respect of the 1960 housing program is long overdue. Here we have the government, by its own statement, having within its power the ability to create an extra 200,000 jobs, and yet stubbornly refusing to do so.
Parliament has already approved $500 million for direct lending to bolster the housing program, yet this government refuses to act. Its refusal leaves one with only one conclusion, namely that they are holding the

bulk of these millions approved by parliament to be poured into the economy prior to the next general election. This sort of action on the part of a national government, if true, is deplorable and certainly by their actions they are leaving themselves open to this criticism.
If there are other reasons why the government is refusing to use these dollars, let them come forward and say so. Actually, while they propose lending $150 million to $175 million this year, the government will be receiving an estimated $110 million in interest and mortgage payments. This means, of course, that while the fund is not a revolving one, the additional net lending proposed will be only $40 million to $65 million.
During the housing debate much was said about the 82,000 units carried over from last year which remained to be completed. The National House Builders Association release, as far back as April 4, estimated that no more than 10 per cent of the labour required to complete these 82,000 units remained to be done. It is obvious to all of us that loans being applied for now, with the usual administrative time lag, will not result in any real employment for several weeks or even months.
In view of these circumstances, I think the government should act now. With their many experts I am sure they are very much aware of the causes and results of this bogging down of house construction in 1960. In the light of present circumstances I think they should re-assess the situation at once and show the public that they are determined that the rate of house construction will be increased so as to ensure the provision of adequate housing for our people and to show the Canadian people that they, the government, are aware of the relationship between the number of Canadians unemployed and the rate of house construction in Canada.
There are many aspects of housing that could and perhaps should be dealt with at this time. There are internal problems within the industry itself which add to builders' costs and are simply passed along to the buyer. I believe the government has a responsibility to prevent violent fluctuations in the industry that result in a higher cost for houses. However, as I have indicated, we have had a rather extensive debate on housing earlier this year.
I will close by reminding hon. members that housing starts have averaged 138,000 yearly for the past five years. The government has set 125,000 as this year's objective. Results to date clearly indicate that this minimum objective of the government will not be met. The need for proper housing remains great among many of our people. Great quantities

of building materials lie waiting in inventory. Residential construction workers stand by unemployed and waiting. Surely the house construction industry and hundreds of thousands of our people do not have to stand by waiting for a sag in the Canadian economy that might have the effect of making more mortgage money available for houses. I believe that human need should have priority and I do not believe there is any justification for the government sitting around with almost $500 million up its sleeve while our unemployed walk the streets.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, may I add a few words to what the hon. member has said with respect to housing. The grievance he has raised is that the activity of the housing industry across Canada has slackened, and I know that this has affected my riding particularly because many construction workers live in my riding and they are finding difficulty in obtaining employment. However, the grievance that the hon. member has raised is that the situation is entirely the fault of the government. I should like to raise the point that perhaps there is something more than the government involved.
Hon. members will recall that in 1957, when $250 million was available for housing under statutory provision, the Liberal government used only $100 million. There was still on the books at that time the right to use $150 million. At that time there was a slackening in the housing program across Canada and as a result there was unemployment in my riding. But what has happened since then? The government has pumped nine times as much money into the housing industry as a sort of primer to get the water flowing, so to speak, to get money flowing into housing programs.
Having spent that amount of money on housing and having increased the housing starts, it was hoped that the legitimate financial institutions across the country would assume their social obligations and get into the lending field. That did not happen. Today, with interest rates higher than they were before, these financial institutions are not supporting house construction by providing the mortgage money required. Is the government to blame for that?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Murray Douglas Morton: How? Interest rates have increased and they should find it more desirable to get into this field. If we are to say that the government is at fault, are we to say that from now on the government must assume direct responsibility for financing all housing construction throughout the country? If we have reached that stage in our country,
3, 1960	3527
Suggested Increase in Housing Program it is a condemnation of private industry. I believe that these financial institutions have been developed for a purpose going beyond merely investing in government bonds and clipping the coupons.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order at this time. As I understand the rules, the grievance period is designed to afford an opportunity to speak to members who have grievances to lodge against the government. The hon. member-
I know this has happened before but only on rare occasions-by occupying a part of the grievance period is in effect coming to the defence of the government, thereby denying the intent of the grievance period to other members of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely this is a most far fetched viewpoint. Under our rules, on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply the grievance period lasts the entire two days, and it is surely a new exposition of the rules with regard to airing grievances that the speeches must all come from the opposition and that no opportunity should be given to the government side to reply. I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that not only is there no merit in the point of order taken by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam but it is a blatant denial of the right of free speech to government supporters in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. In the first place, I think the minister has completely perverted the statement that the hon. member made. There was no suggestion by the hon. member that any member anywhere in the house could not support a grievance or raise a grievance. In the British house members of parliament on the government side frequently do raise grievances against the government, and it might be a good thing if it happened here once in a while too.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member for Acadia did so a while ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point is that it has always been a tradition of the house in the grievance period after the amendments have been dealt with for those people who wish to support a grievance to speak and then for a member of the government, not a supporter of the government, to reply. Since under the new rules two days are devoted to supply motions, I think the hon. member is quite right that this period after the
3528	HOUSE OF
Suggested Increase in Housing Program voting was designed for the airing of grievances and that it should not be preempted by hon. members making speeches in defence of the government.


Thomas Miller Bell: Another lecture.


Mr. Speaker:: The practice in dealing with grievances after the amendments have been disposed of has been to speak to one grievance at a time, and I would not deny any member in the house the right to speak to the matter before the house. In recognizing an hon. member I do not know whether he is going to speak for or against the proposition. However, if he keeps on the same subject it seems to me he is within the rules and that a member who disagrees with the point of view raised by a member speaking to a grievance is just as much entitled to speak as any member who wants to support a grievance.


Murray Douglas Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have not had the long experience in the house that some hon. members across the way have had. I understood that the grievance raised had to do with housing, the fact that we have not had as many housing starts as in the past and the fact that there is more unemployment in the construction industry that we had envisaged. I had not realized in my short period in the house that all grievances had to be directed against the government rather than having to do with conditions that prevail. I might add that some private members, especially on the government side, have a grievance with respect to the attempt by certain members of the opposition to deny us the opportunity to speak if we want to.


Mr. Howard:: What about your own whip?


Murray Douglas Morton: Our own whip is not as difficult as some people in the opposition.


Charles Benjamin Howard: But he is difficult.


Murray Douglas Morton: No, he is not. If I may get back to the grievance which was raised, I should like to emphasize my point that the government has been pouring more money into housing in the last two years than was done by the former administration. It has poured nine times as much into housing as the former government and yet when the government has withdrawn some support it finds that the ordinary lending institutions have not assumed their responsibility. When we find the government continually pouring large amounts of money into an industry, I think it is time we examined the situation instead of just saying this is another problem for the government. In so far as this and


other problems are concerned, if somebody cannot solve them we all too frequently hear it said, let the government do it.
I think this problem goes deeper than that. We have seen the government pouring money into housing, but we have not been able to induce the regular lending institutions to enter the field and take their rightful place. I think the hon. member was quite right in raising this question. I merely point out that, in my opinion, something more than the government continually pouring money into housing is needed. We must get back where the lending institutions will perform the function for which they were organized.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to say a few words about this particular grievance. Before I make the remarks I had intended I should like to say that I am very pleased to find that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) is finally recognizing there is something basically wrong with this society of ours, something which goes deeper than appears on the surface. I hope the hon. member will go a little bit further in his studies and come to the same conclusion I have in regard to this society of ours.
The grievance before the house at the present time has to do with the failure of the government to implement the provisions of the housing act which was passed in this house some few weeks ago. During the Easter recess I had an opportunity of visiting my riding and discussing this housing situation with a number of people. I must say that the present action, or total lack of action, on the part of the government is causing some concern. I found that this lack of action was spreading consternation amongst the builders in my riding. I talked with one builder who planned to construct 100 homes this year but because of the lack of available funds he has had to cancel the whole project.
Now some two or three weeks ago I had occasion in this house to read a letter from a disillusioned former supporter of this government. As I went around my riding during the last two or three weeks I found that there were quite a number of former supporters of this government who had joined the ranks of the disillusioned. Not too long ago I attended a meeting of the northeastern Ontario development association in which the civic leaders from all the northeastern parts of Ontario took part. They were meeting to try to find how they could develop that particular section of northern Ontario. They discussed various ways and means, but each and every amendment they discussed crashed on the same rocks. How was the money going to be made available? How were they going to get the money for the construction of

homes, for small industries and so forth? This is something that is very keenly felt in that area right now because for some 18 or 20 years the Porcupine camp was at a standstill. It has only been within the last two years or so that the camp has started to come alive. In fact, during the last two years there was more construction in the Timmins area than there had been in the previous 20 years.


Mr. Henderson:: And under Conservative rule.


Murdo William Martin: Unfortunately this hope that came into being in that area has come to a sorry halt this year. Everybody with whom I talked wanted to know what the trouble was. They were of the opinion that $500 million had been made available for housing and wanted to know why that money was not available. When I told them that the government's stated intention was to use only a very small portion of that money they asked the same question that I asked in the house. Unfortunately, whether or not it was for the same reason, they did not get an answer. I did not know the answer because I was not able to find out in the house.
I would suggest, and this is just my personal opinion as a result of talking to a number of people over the last few weeks, that if the government does not care about the public or about the unemployed in this particular field, then they had better start to care about their own future. This unfortunate situation in the construction field seems to have started the moment the former minister of public works left that office. I do not know whether or not there is any connection between the two events. It seemed, when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) was minister of public works he was the only minister in the cabinet who was really doing a job. When we take a good look at the housing situation today, even though the international situation may be serious, I think that for the good of this country we had better call him back to his job at public works.


Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: I should like to make a few comments on this grievance. I cannot agree with the Liberal or C.C.F. members, but there is one point upon which I must commend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker). I refer to limited dividend mortgage money. Some few years ago the Liberal party started this Liberal dividend provision and from 1946 to 1957 they put $58 million into limited dividend projects. From June 10, 1957 until December 31, 1959 this government put $115 million into this market, and I think they should be commended for their action.
Suggested Increase in Housing Program
However, I am a little disturbed at the amount of loans that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is allowing private enterprise in their efforts to help the people in the income bracket below $3,600 to finance housing projects. Before the private investor had to put up 10 per cent of his own money and the government provided the remaining 90 per cent. The private investor was allowed to make 5 per cent on his money. A lot of private lenders went into this type of project, even though they might have purchased government bonds. They were shouldering their responsibilities. I would hope the Minister of Public Works would look at this provision a little more closely in the future. In 1957 the minister of finance, Walter Harris, had a little report on housing and I should like to quote from that report:
Housing construction is expected to drop fairly markedly below the high levels of the two previous years.
This statement was made just before the election and the two cups of coffee budget. We did not hear of the great Liberal party pouring money into the housing market to help the builders of the country. If this government had not put $150 million into the housing market in July, 1957, 75 per cent of the small builders in this country would have been bankrupt. It was the direct responsibility of the Liberal party before the budget of March, 1957 when they knew the condition of the housing industry in the country and failed to meet their responsibility. They must accept the responsibility for their failure to take action.
This government has done a lot in the housing field in the past three years and more remains to be done.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that the hon. member is dealing with the past, may I remind the house that this is a narrow subject with which we are dealing. This grievance relates to the administration of the housing act passed and amended by parliament this year. It does not deal with the past but with the present, as I understand the grievance. I think more hon. members will have an opportunity to speak if the discussion is kept to that narrow range.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Thank you for calling me to order, Mr. Speaker. I hope I can get back on the track. This government raised the amount of insured N.H.A. moneys from $4 million to $6 million. Unlike the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) I am a little concerned about the inactivity of the lending institutions in the country who make available money at 6| per cent. It is all well and good, as indicated before, to say that they can collect bonds and get quite
3530	HOUSE OF
Suggested Increase in Housing Program a bit of money, but it is the people's money that the banks and lending institutions have. It is up to them to take a long range view at future housing and construction in Canada. I think it is about time they shouldered a little bit more responsibility in this field.
When speaking in this house a few months ago on the subject of housing I indicated that the government should get out of the direct lending business. I feel this is something the government should do in a long range program. They should stay in the field of insured N.H.A. lending but it is the responsibility of banks, trust companies and other financial institutions in a private enterprise system to be active in direct lending. I do not say the government should get out of this type of business immediately but should stay in it until the rough period is over and then get out. The lending institutions should take a longer ranged view and possibly shoulder their responsibilities more adequately.
I think that the present Minister of Public Works is attempting to meet his responsibilities squarely. I know that I have had complaints, but then we have complaints about everything. I have no doubt that hon. members opposite received complaints too when they sat on the government side of the house. I believe that the minister has put forward a direct policy. I am sure he has not had too many complaints because the people have accepted this. The builders are in a bad way, it is true, but it is due to the high cost of land and the lack of services. One could name a thousand other reasons. I am sure that the minister and this government will take the proper action that is necessary to help the Canadian housing industry and will not do what the Liberals did in March of 1957.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, among the many grievances which the Canadian people have against the present government undoubtedly one of the most fiercely debated throughout the country is the present administration of the housing act. As you stated, Mr. Speaker, we recently amended this act and following these amendments regulations were passed and directions given as to the future administration of the legislation.
Throughout Canada and more specifically in my area of northern Canada it has been found that the administration of the act works a hardship in many cases. If there was ever a project which had social significance in this country it was the housing project promoted by the former government over a period of many years. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) has adduced enlightening statistics which indicate that home


construction has been reduced by 45 per cent under the administration of the present government. This is due to many causes but the fault rests primarily with the government. The reasons arise in large part from the regulations put into effect following the amendments of 1960.
Another reason why this grievance is exceedingly important to the people of Canada is because the unemployment situation has been aggravated by and reflects a falling off of residential home construction. This has affected my area wherein we have prosperous mines. Unemployment there has doubled between March of 1958 and March of 1960. I dare say that approximately 80 per cent of those who find themselves in the doubled numbers of unemployed in my area were employed in the construction industry. Construction activity in northern Ontario has decreased at a serious rate.
For the two reasons I have advanced I am sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the government as a whole will listen to the voices of hon. members who have spoken in this debate and will bring about certain changes in the recently imposed regulations which have brought about the disaster to which I referred. I am not alone in drawing this matter to the attention of the government. This trend has been observed and commented upon by several hon. members and many alert citizens.
I would like to quote from a newspaper article containing a report of a recent meeting between northern Ontario municipalities to discuss this grave problem of home construction and its effect on the economic situation of various areas. Unfortunately the article happened to be written in French but of course with the translation system with which we are favoured all hon. members will be able to follow. This article appeared in the newspaper Le Devoir and reads:
(Translation):
Allow me to quote from an article which appeared in Le Droit for April 29, under the following heading:
Sudbury files the same application as Kapus-kasing.
And the article goes on to say:
Unless certain changes are made in the National Housing Act, heavy losses are in the offing for the building industry in the Sudbury area.
Tuesday night, the Sudbury city council unanimously passed a resolution urging the federal government to raise by $1,000 the salary ceiling for qualifying for mortgage loans through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
(Text):
This action by members of municipalities in northern Ontario clearly illustrates the impasse which the housing industry has

reached there. Housing has been reduced by 45 per cent. The statistics reveal drastic declines. I am sure this government will assume some responsibility in this important field and give an incentive to the housing industry.
One problem created by the new regulations is the maximum salary figure of $5,000 in relation to obtaining direct loans. Miners are confronted with a problem with respect to the bonuses they receive from time to time. These bonuses vary greatly in relation to certain jobs in the mining industry. A miner therefore has to report that he receives a variable income which will fluctuate widely from year to year.
In the mining industry you have workers in the mines and smelters. Let us assume that a smelter worker earning between $4,400 and $4,500 obtains a loan from this government assist in securing a home for himself and his family. But a miner, a mucker as we call him in the district of Sudbury, who works just a few miles away and who is considered for every purpose on the same social level as the furnace puncher or smelter man, if he is making $5,100 he cannot obtain from the government the service which his fellow workers can obtain. That is because his pay is slightly more than the others, possibly because his work is more dangerous or is heavier. We have set ways and means to enable a person in this country to obtain the service of this government at a figure of $5,000, and I say this is wrong.
Further, I realize that we have been called repeaters, but for 15 or 20 years it has been repeated to me that the cost of living in northern Ontario is higher than elsewhere. That is true because of the cost of transportation of materials and goods, and it is also true for other various reasons. The cost of public works is much more in northern Ontario than in other places in Canada and the province of Ontario because the cost of living is much higher. Therefore the pay must follow the cost of living in some way and we find a rather fair rate of wages in northern Ontario. So that this system of using a level of $5,000 creates a situation in this province and elsewhere in Canada where the salary of a regional director of a company of some major store, for instance, in one area is, say, $4,800 and therefore this person under the regulations can obtain a service from the government which provides a loan so he can build a home. In my riding a worker, not a district manager of a store but a worker, cannot get a loan under the regulations of this government and for this reason it is obvious he has a grievance owing to the most harsh and difficult situation in the area I represent.
Suggested Increase in Housing Program
We have seen other statutes being administered with variations from area to area. We see this in the laws of the federal government and in the industrial standards act of the province of Ontario where minimum wages are zoned by areas. The minimum standards act of Ontario does not declare the same minimum wage for northern Ontario as it does for some other sections of that province.
To be fair to all these people in Canada who are on the same social level but possibly do not receive the same pay cheque on Saturdays on account of the region in which they live and on account of the cost of living in their respective area, I would like to say that they find themselves in a position where they cannot obtain this government service and that they have a clear grievance against this government. The government has introduced an absolute arbitrary figure with which they distinguish between the citizens who can obtain the service of this government and the citizens who can not. In taking such an arbitrary figure they have created in my area especially, great disadvantages.
I have a letter here which I think should convince the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker). I have received information through a letter which is in the form of a petition. It is not from an ordinary citizen in my riding but it comes through the committee of the unemployment insurance commission in my area. Hon. members know that the unemployment insurance commission has a committee which studies ways and means of putting men to work. Here we have this government after passing this new legislation being criticized by sections of the administration of this country and by sections of the unemployment insurance commission, the committee of which meets with laymen to discuss ways and means of putting men to work. I would like to quote a paragraph of this letter for the benefit of the Minister of Public Works. The letter is on the letterhead of the unemployment insurance commission, national employment service, and the address is 152 Elm street east, Sudbury, Ontario. Apparently they had passed a resolution at the meeting of this committee, and one paragraph of this letter reads as follows:
-to petition the federal government to eliminate the premium and bonus factors from the maximum income level required to qualify for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans and that they consider basic pay only.
I am sure the Minister of Public Works has received many directions or demands similar to this one.
As I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I trust that this government through the Minister of
3532	HOUSE OF
Suggested Increase in Housing Program Public Works will immediately consider the plea of the people of my area and the people of northern Ontario, and all the people in these other regions who are definitely faced with a problem to meet this arbitrary figure to enable them to obtain the services of this government, and if the government would sit down and consider the falling statistics relating to housing in Canada and the rising statistics relating to unemployment they would bring about remedies to eliminate this arbitrary legislation which they have placed in the administration of this country.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have ten minutes in which to reply and I would like to say in reply to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) that his figures do not include any loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation because they covered the first three months of the year, and as such of course they are greatly down on the average for last year. If the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans had been included in the estimate of 73,000 starts for the year 1960, then we would have had 15,000 more starts added to that. If the areas under 5,000 population had been taken into consideration we would have had average figures of 125,000 starts for this year.
I do appreciate what hon. members have said, that there are a great many aggravating situations resulting from the necessity of placing a ceiling on the loans; in other words, to determine by income those who will get loans. But let me first deal very briefly with unemployment. I can assure you that so far our housing policy has done nothing but improve the situation of employment. At the beginning of this year there were 82,000 homes in the process of construction, and as the hon. member will see by looking at the figures, the highlights, up to the end of March there were 22,000 homes completed in the dominion all of which created employment. Employment will fall off so far as home building is concerned pretty soon, but in the meantime the predictions are, according to one of the most authoritative journals, the Canadian Bank of Commerce journal, that the only significant decline in construction this year would seem to be that of housing. Other construction, as we have heard predicted, could be substantially up.
It is a very easy thing to keep on pumping one third of a billion dollars a year into the economy. I would be a popular minister with the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) if I repeated that performance every year. We have pumped into housing in less than


three years nearly $1 billion with the result that we made the market a most difficult market in which to borrow money because of the tremendous borrowings necessary to finance housing. In other words, we helped to spoil the lending market. In addition to this, we are now out of the recession and on our way back to prosperity and, as hon. members will see as the weeks go by, unemployment figures will go down in a very radical way. Therefore, where would we find help in the event of another recession?
We should not be able to go back to housing in the same way as we could in 1957. If there was ever a year, as we come out of the recession and as the construction figures in every other part of our economy go up, this is the year to cut back on our housing. I admit that I share the disappointment of other hon. members that the banks have not participated in the program. Last year we had 15,000 loans from this source; this year, so far, they have not provided 25 loans. Of course, the figure of 15,000 was for the whole of the year. However, we have put the question to hon. members of the opposition: would you allow the interest rate to be raised to 6f per cent in order to bring the banks back into this field? The answer has always been, no. Therefore this is a situation which it is difficult to improve on.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


David James Walker: At the end of my speech.
The builders have not had any loans thus far from us. Never in the years 1958, or 1959, have the builders received anything by way of loans from the government of Canada except by way of winter works loans, and that does not happen until the fall. Thus the complaint that the builders are not getting money from us in the spring is not well founded.
It is true we have cut our program from $337 million to $175 million which will enable us to have between 17,000 and 18,000 starts. So great is the demand for direct government loans that we have been forced to find some way of letting out these loans, and the fairest way is to help those who need help most, namely the man of small income and his family. Even with a ceiling of $5,000 for the ordinary man with two children, $5,200 for the man with three children, $5,400 for the man with four children and $5,600 for the man with five children, we are going to have a hard time making this $175 million last. The demand for loans from us is tremendous. We were only open for business from April 6, but we have already received 2,000 applications, and it is going to be difficult to make the

money last to the end of the year. If we were to raise the ceiling to $6,000-and no one would like that better than I would; I hate to hear complaints from the hon. member from Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) and other members, because I know perfectly well that because of the necessity of letting our money out in this limited way certain people are suffering-if we were to raise this ceiling to $6,000 at the present time we would run out of money by the end of June, because it is a fact that the banks are not in this program.


Osias.-J. Godin: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


David James Walker: When I am through. The banks are not in it. They have completely dropped out, and the approved lenders have been very slow in getting in. However, we expect that the conventional lenders will be back just as they were before, and it will please hon. members to know that although I cannot be exact about anything I am going to suggest that the figures I gave several months ago will, even without the banks, be almost achieved this year; that is 85,000 conventional loans or non-N.H.A. loans; 20,000 loans from approved lenders, because as the weeks go by the approved lenders are getting back into the market and we are still hopeful we shall get
20,000	starts from the approved lenders. Thus one arrives at a figure of 105,000 starts. Added to that there are 15,000 starts by way of direct housing loans, and 3,000 starts on limited dividend projects, making another 18,000 and completing a total for this year of 123,000 as compared with my earlier prediction of 125,000.
So to my friends of faint hope may I say: consider, with us, the problem we have to face. Do hon. members opposite want the government to go on lending one third of a billion dollars a year, bearing in mind the difficulty there is in getting money and the fact that money raised by the government means the exclusion of other people from the means of borrowing? We are trying to do the best we can. We are trying to hand out our money to the people who need it most, and if we had more money we would lend it to people in higher income brackets. Let us not be fainthearted. The approved lenders who did not have this matter to consider until the spring are now getting back into the market. For our part we are going to lend every cent we have to those people with incomes of $5,000 or less, and before the end of the year hon. members may be better pleased than they are at the present time. I can also predict that the construction figures in which we are all so vitally interested will be as high, if not higher than in any other 79951-0-223
3, I960	3533
Suggested Increase in Housing Program commensurable year with respect to everything else except housing, and that will take up some of the slack which the slight falling off in housing may cause.


Osias.-J. Godin: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? In stating that he would like to be fair, has the minister given any consideration to establishing a scale for maximum earnings which would vary according to areas and in that way be definitely fair?


David James Walker: That is a very good suggestion. There is a very great variation, particularly in the Nickel Belt where they get such big bonuses. We would like to help them there, and we are saying to the approved lenders: it is your duty to lend up there; you cannot lose; these are wonderful people; you get 6| per cent on the aggregate loan; it is a sure thing. We anticipate that the approved lenders will do business in the hon. member's area and make more loans. At the present time while we have this policy we are bound to take care of the people whose income is $5,000 or less. Does that answer the question?


John Richard Garland: Would the minister permit a further question? I was wondering on what basis he gives the house the figure of 85,000 starts outside N.H.A. lending. What figures has he to substantiate that estimate?


David James Walker: The figures we had last year, what we called conventional loans. Conventional loans are money that comes from all other sources-85,000-and we thought that will be reached again this year, particularly since the banks are out of the market. They made possible 15,000 starts at a reduced rate, and surely - the conventional lenders at 7J per cent and so on will be able to take up a great deal of the bank slack. We might have more than 85,000, but I cannot anticipate that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. McGee in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-
164. Departmental administration, including a grant of $10,000 to Frontier College and the expenses of the international labour conferences, $1,118,255.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS Departmental administration-
187. Administration, operation and maintenance, $860,962.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Customs and excise divisions-
258. General administration, $4,807,852.
Proceedings reported.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what the business is to be tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: For tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, a continuation of the debate on second reading of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, followed by the budget resolutions, followed by the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, which will be called first on Friday.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, we will be on Bill No. C-56 tomorrow and Thursday unless it
is completed, and then we will go on to the budget resolutions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


Mr. Winch:: Can the house leader give us any information yet as to when the promised day is going to be forthcoming for a continuation of the debate on the abolition of capital punishment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I cannot give that date tonight, but I will as soon as a decision has been reached.


[Stage Direction]
At 10.02 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. McWilliam: 1.	Does the dominion bureau of statistics list the Atlantic provinces separately in connection with estimates of retail sales for intercensal periods?
2.	If not, does the department intend to list these provinces separately?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1 and! 2. Yes. The dominion bureau of statistics publishes separate estimates of retail sales for each Atlantic province. Publication began for such separate estimates in 1957 on an annual basis. Publication of monthly estimates began in January 1960. Estimates are given for total retail sales and for retail trade groups where information can be released under the terms of the Statistics Act.
Questions
NATIONAL DEFENCE EXPENDITURES, 1959-60 Question No. 348[DOT]-Mr. Benidickson:
Of the estimated expenditures of $1,505.7 million for the Department of National Defence for 1959-60, what were the estimated expenditures for:	(a)
military personnel costs; (b) operation and maintenance; (c) procurement of equipment; (d) construction; (e) contributions to infrastructure and NATO budgets?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
While the figure quoted in this question appeared in the budget papers tabled on March 30, 1960, a more recent forecast of
DND expenditures for the fiscal year 1959-60 is now available:
1959-60 expenditures Military personnel costs ..$	549,769,000
Operations and maintenance	591,974,000
Procurement of equipment	260,409,000
Construction	 85,600,000
Contributions to infrastructure and NATO budgets		12,900,000


$1,500,652,000 79951-0-2231 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 4, 1960

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. E. Halpenny (London) presented the first report of the special committee on defence expenditures, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.