1960-05-02

WELCOME TO HON. MEMBERS RETURNING TO HOUSE FOLLOWING ILLNESS

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I draw attention to the fact that two members are with us this afternoon who have been prevented by illness from attending the sessions of the house. I refer to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I am sure the house is, to a man and to a woman, glad to welcome the two members back to our midst in good health, and will trust that good health may attend their efforts in the house.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted in my turn to welcome back to the house the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) who has been away for some weeks now and I understand has had a serious illness. He is a member who has won the respect of all members of the house, to whatever party they may belong, both as a member of the house and as chairman of the committee on external affairs. We are delighted to see him back in such good health.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on Wednesday, April 27, at a time, sir, when I was not in the house or I would have answered it at that time. The Prime Minister had this to say, as reported at page 3335 of Hansard:
When about two weeks ago I spoke on this subject and referred to the possibility of there being a debate, my natural view was that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), having regard to Monday being the last private members' day, would have permitted the clearing away of a number of cases on a subject that is receiving general attention from members of the C.C.F. party.
I want to make it perfectly clear that this suggestion was not made to me nor, as far as
I know, to any other member of the C.C.F. party. On the basis of our attitude on this question in the past, on the basis of proposals we have made about bringing on such a debate, I would suggest that any proposal for unanimous consent to have the subject of apartheid brought forward on Monday would have received our consent. The Prime Minister went on to say:
If that had been so, we could have placed on private members' motions a motion similar to the one indicated by the hon. gentleman-
That is, the Leader of the Opposition.
-and with consent could have proceeded to discuss it.
I want to point out that if such a private member's motion, not a government motion, had been placed on the order paper it would have been No. 53 and could not have been debated at that point except by unanimous consent. My question of privilege is that I was not asked on behalf of the C.C.F. group to agree to any alteration of business, and I would point out that anything that could have been done by consent on Monday could have been done by consent on Wednesday.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
That the special committee on defence expenditures, appointed on March 18, 1960, be composed of Messrs. Baldwin, Carter, Chambers, Fairfield, Forgie, Halpenny, Hellyer, Lambert, MacEwan, Parizeau, Pratt, Roberge, Smith (Calgary South), Webster and Winch.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:: That items numbered 217 to 237 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates of 1960-61, relating to the Department of National Defence, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the special committee on defence expenditures, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister, with regard to the motion he has just moved, how it will be possible to refer these estimates to a committee which, by its terms of reference, will be prevented from

Motions for Papers
dealing with them? Before the motion is adopted would the minister deal with that question?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I am informed that the motion is not debatable. It may either be accepted or rejected.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: In that case perhaps I might raise a point of order with respect to whether the house should entertain this motion to send to a committee, which has specific terms of reference set out by the house, a reference which, under those terms set by the house that committee would not have the power to deal with. Perhaps the house leader could deal with the point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The point of order would be decided by standing order 57, which reads as follows:
A motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, may be made without notice during routine proceedings by a minister of the crown withdrawing any item or items in the estimates from the committee of supply and referring the same to any standing or special committee and, upon report from any such committee, the said item or items shall stand referred to the committee of supply.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is any substance to the point of order I suppose it would be that this motion is in conflict with a previous motion of the house. But I would think the house is free to enlarge its reference at any time by adopting this motion. There is really no point of order arising from this motion which is now before the house.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That items Nos. 66 to 74 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates of 1960-61, relating to the Department of Defence Production, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the special committee on defence expenditures, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 92-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any agency or branch thereof, and any provincial government, person, or organization

since January 1, 1957, dealing with amnesty, pardon, parole or remission for any inmate in the British Columbia penitentiary.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: spoke to the hon. gentleman about this motion, and I think I should point out to the house that the subject matter dealt with therein, amnesty, pardon, parole or remission, it seems to me is one dealing with the prerogative powers of the crown, with the exercise of which the government is specifically charged, and as such it has always been a principle of this house that such a matter should not be inquired into by the house and that the documents relating thereto should be treated as confidential. It would not be in the public interest to make them public.
On this ground I suggested to the hon. member that he might agree to drop the motion. I also pointed out to him that the number of files involved would be enormous, within the terms of the motion as framed, and I indicated to him that if he had an interest in any one particular file I would be prepared to consider, on a personal and confidential basis, an arrangement that would allow him to look at the file. Under those circumstances I understand the hon. member will agree to allow the motion to be dropped.


Mr. Howard:: That is quite true, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the motion has not been put I presume it may be withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR LEGISLATION, NFLD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Winch:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged, during the past twelve months, between the federal government, or any agency or branch thereof, and the province of Newfoundland; and any interdepartmental correspondence and documents, dealing with disallowance or otherwise of labour legislation passed by the legislature of Newfoundland.
Edmund Davie Fulton: When this motion was first called a week or so ago I pointed out that it seemed to be divided into two parts, one asking for the production of correspondence between governments and the other asking for the production of interdepartmental correspondence. Since that time the hon. member and I have bad a discussion, and he pointed out that what he really had in mind in the words "interdepartmental correspondence" was a copy of any order in council or similar document dealing officially with the matter of disallowance.
He also pointed out that previously there had been a number of occasions when such

documents of the class I have just mentioned were produced. On that basis, if the words "interdepartmental correspondence", were to be interpreted as meaning the official report of cabinet decisions regarding disallowance, I would have no objection.
With respect to the first part of the motion, then, I would ask that it be accepted, subject to the usual arrangement that the consent of the provinces be sought.


Mr. Winch:: May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister of Justice includes in what he is prepared to file under the latter part of the question what has been filed on occasions in the past, and particularly in 1938; the report of the minister of justice on the question of allowance or disallowance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not the case of 1938 but I have one in 1945 with regard to the possible disallowance of certain Saskatchewan statutes, in which case the then minister of justice tabled in the house his report to council and the council minute. With respect to these Newfoundland statutes I would be prepared to table similar documents if they exist, but it is my recollection that my report to the council was oral. We will certainly produce any such minute of council that exists with respect to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether what has been said will give any different effect to the motion from that which the words impart. Perhaps if the hon. member who moves the motion is satisfied with the proposed interpretation of it and the house is willing to deal with it on that basis, it may be so dealt with, but I should think it would be preferable to have the motion amended.
Hon. J. V/. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gaie): Since this is a motion which the house is being asked to adopt, it seems to me it would be preferable to have the motion in the form in which the government intends to comply with it.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears to me that it would be more satisfactory if the motion said what it was intended to say. I suggest that it stand, be reworded and brought forward again. Is it agreeable to the house that the motion stand? Is the hon. member for Vancouver East agreeable?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.
79951-0-218
Inquiries of the Ministry



SECTION 64, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 95*-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all orders in council made since January 1, 1950, which altered the remuneration payable under section 64 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I wonder whether the hon. member would be agreeable to allow this motion to stand.


Frank Howard: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable that this motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he will comment on reports attributed to him over the week end to the effect that the whole question of Canada's part in air defence policy is to be considered at the next meeting of the United States-Canada joint cabinet committee.
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): At the next joint meeting between ministers from Canada and from the United States, scheduled to be held on July 11 and 12, next, the air defence policy of Canada and the United States, as far as defence of the North American continent is concerned, will be reviewed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As a supplementary question may I ask whether the minister intends to introduce his estimates into this house shortly so there can be a review of defence policy in the house?


Mr. Pearkes:: I understood that my estimates had been referred to a committee, the members of which have been announced to the house today.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the
minister say whether it is the intention of the government to have Canada's air defence policy, and particularly our expenditures on the Bomarc missile, considered by this committee?


George Randolph Pearkes: The committee has every right, if it sees fit to do so, to examine any expenditures of the Department of National Defence of any kind during the period which

Inquiries of the Ministry was indicated by the Prime Minister. As far as the estimates for this year are concerned, there are in those estimates amounts for the construction of the Bomarc sites. Therefore it would be perfectly within the right of the committee to examine those expenditures.


Hazen Robert Argue: A further supplementary question. I appreciate the minister's answer but would the committee, in his view, have the power to recommend the deletion of the item in the estimates covering the Bomarc missile?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that is a proper question. It is a matter of the interpretation of the references to the committee which have been made on two occasions by the house, and it certainly is not the administrative responsibility of the minister to interpret the committee's power.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to provide an opportunity to discuss the whole question of defence policy in this house before this particular committee has reported back to the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the estimates of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year 1960-61 have been referred to the committee-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Saving our right to discuss them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, of course, saving the right of the committee of supply. That means that when the committee reports back to the house the estimates must come back before the committee of supply, and full debate may occur in committee of supply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then we will be discussing defence expenditure before the committee, but not defence policy until that committee has reported back to the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, I think the hon. gentleman is not quite right. Certain functions were assigned by the house to the committee with respect to defence expenditure. The house also referred to that committee today certain tasks with respect to the defence estimates for the current fiscal year. As the Minister of National Defence has already pointed out, included in the estimates for the current fiscal year are sums proposed with respect to the development of the Bomarc sites. Therefore in the committee there will be full opportunity for any hon. member to make inquiry on this matter, and then when the committee chooses to report to the house there will be the usual opportunity for debate in committee of supply.
[Mr. Pearkes.l


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister. Does he not believe that in view of the great developments in the United States with regard to the Bomarc missile and the very important fundamental changes in policy of one of Canada's major partners, the United Kingdom, the time has arrived in this country when the earliest opportunity ought to be provided for the fullest discussion in this chamber of national defence matters?


Some hon. Members:: Today.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the house has referred the matter to a committee, and as I understand it the committee will meet as soon as the members so decide.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Finance if he does not appreciate that only the estimates have been referred to this committee, in connection with which there could be a limited discussion of the expenditures of the department. Will the Acting Prime Minister arrange for the earliest discussion of the department's estimates?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Supply motion today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of the department's estimates. When will the minister be in a position to make a statement on policy, not merely to answer specific questions but to make a statement on policy which at this time the newspapers clearly indicate is the wish of the Canadian people?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member asked for a review of the estimates. That is precisely what the house has provided for in this reference of the estimates of the Department of National Defence for 1960-61 to the committee. I do not know whether the hon. member is a member of that committee-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -but surely nothing could be done to offer fuller or more effective opportunity for detailed review of estimates than that they should be referred, as they have been by the house this afternoon, to that committee. It would then rest with the committee to report back to the house as soon as it chooses.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether it is his intention to appear before this committee to state government defence policy.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall make myself available to that committee whenever it is possible.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, may I make a correction to a statement I made earlier. The dates for the meeting are the 12th and 13th, not the 11th and 12th, as I stated.



BOMAHC MISSILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence which arises out of the far-reaching developments in the United States with regard to the Bomarc missile. Has there been any change in the policy of the Canadian government toward the Bomarc missile as the result of these developments?


George Randolph Pearkes: The developments to which the hon. member refers were a recommendation of the appropriations committee to the House of Representatives. As far as the government of the United States is concerned there has been no change in its policy regarding the Bomarc. As the hon. member knows, after the matter has been considered by the House of Representatives the report of the appropriations committee of the Senate will then have to be considered, and the final decision in this matter is not expected until the end of June.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to press the minister too hard, but my question was this. In view of developments in the United States has there been any change in the policy of the Canadian government toward the missile?


George Randolph Pearkes: The Canadian government entered into an agreement with the United States government 18 months ago to construct two Bomarc missile bases in Canada as part of a chain of Bomarc missile bases across parts of the North American continent. Until the government of the United States changes its policy, notifies us of a desire to change it or consults us regarding a change, Canada intends to live up to this agreement.



ELLIOT LAKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether his department proposes, as reported, to set up a training establishment at Elliot Lake.


George Randolph Pearkes: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the government as a whole has been investigating various means by which it could
79951-0-218J
Inquiries of the Ministry help to rehabilitate Elliot Lake, and the Department of National Defence has been making inquiries as to the practicability of establishing a training centre there.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, notice of which I sent him, and ask whether he could inform the house what steps are being taken to put into effect the recommendation of the royal commission on food price spreads for a federal fish marketing act which would enable the provincial governments which wished to do so to pass their own legislation and thus regularize the negotiation of prices to fishermen.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minisier of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The report of the royal commission on price spreads on food products is under study by the government at the present time, and has been for some time. No action or decision has yet been taken with regard to the recommendation in the commission's report referred to by the hon. member.
Because of the need for thorough study and consideration of this section of the report, as well as the other recommendations, it is unlikely that legislation will be introduced at this session dealing with the subject of a federal fish marketing act.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When this takes place will it be as a result of discussions between representatives of the industry and organizations in the fishing industry as well?


John Angus MacLean: Before a decision is taken to introduce such legislation the industry would certainly be consulted.


Frank Howard: And the union?



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF COASTAL FISHING RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the failure of the United Nations conference to set new limits for territorial waters and coastal fishing rights, will the minister inform the house when Canadian fishermen can expect the abolition of the twelve-mile limit and the extension of fishing rights in

Inquiries of the Ministry Canada's coastal waters similar to those enjoyed by fishermen in all other countries?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to clear up a point that is implied in the question which I know is not intended to be misleading. With reference to Canadian fishermen it is only large Canadian trawlers, over 65 feet in length, that are excluded from the area between the territorial waters of Canada and nine miles beyond, and that is only true in certain parts of Canada and does not apply in Newfoundland, for example, or on the Pacific coast.
I think it would be too early to say what action may be taken by the government, or what proposals the government may make by way of amendment to the appropriate acts, but the matter is under close consideration at present in the light of developments which took place at Geneva.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate addressed to the Minister without Portfolio and then to myself on Friday last, as reported at page 3398 of Hansard of April 29 in these words:
May I ask the Minister without Portfolio whether he is in a position to make a report on the proposed housing development in metropolitan St. John's, about which he made a public announcement some time ago?
In reply, Mr. Speaker, let me say that preliminary work in connection with the investigation of the proposed land assembly project is proceeding. The work includes such matters as the carrying out of boundary surveys, the preparation of contour plans, and investigations into the cost of acquiring the land as well as the cost of installing such services as sewage, water mains and roads.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister give an assurance to the house that the government is taking the necessary action to avert the closing of coal mines in Nova Scotia this year, as contemplated by certain coal operators of the area?


Hon. Paul Comfois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, in answering this question I think it would be well to inform the house that around April 20 last, we were notified by Mr. A. L. Fairley, Jr., president of Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, Limited, that seven of their nine collieries would not be in production for five days commencing Monday, April 25. This is the first of a series of temporary shut-downs that will be scheduled during the summer months of this year. They are caused by a shrinkage in coal consuming markets due to competition from secondary power, natural gas and oil. It is not possible at this time to state the total number of non-producing days that will be in effect this year.
The total production of the seven collieries for a five day period would average approximately 85,000 tons. The two collieries which will continue in full-time operation are No. 26, Dominion Coal Company at Glace Bay, Cape Breton Island and McBean, Acadia Coal Company at Thorburn, Nova Scotia mainland.
At the same time I should say that last week the fact-finding committee held a sitting here in Ottawa attended by the Minister of National Revenue and myself, Premier Stanfield, representatives of the united mine workers association and the provincial minister of mines, Mr. Manson and also the chairman of the coal board. They have produced their report and conclusions based on the hearings they held, and we are actively studying those conclusions and recommendations. Everything is now before the government, and when I have a statement to make I will inform the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house whether any action has been taken not only to prevent a cut-back but to avert the complete closing of certain mines?


Paul Comtois: I should say, Mr. Speaker, that there were no closings at all during the whole winter. The only thing that is contemplated at this time by the company is a temporary shut-down during the summer months. As far as complete closings are concerned, no decision has been taken, even by the company.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on April 28 last the hon. member for Laurier made some inquiries about the new hopper dredge on the

west coast, two of which questions I answered and the third of which was:
-will he inquire from his departmental officials whether it is a fact that the laying of the keel of the dredge was postponed?
The reply is that there has been no delay in the laying of the keel. The contract for the construction of this new dredge was signed by the contractor on March 16, 1960. The keel is expected to be laid some time in the latter part of May.
As the hon. member would know, before the actual construction of the dredge could be commenced, working drawings had to be prepared by the shipyard and approved by the department. There has been no delay in the laying of the keel, as it would be impossible for the contractor to have taken any action toward preparing working drawings before December 29, 1959, the date on which he was advised by registered mail that he had been awarded the contract.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he can say how soon he expects to be able to table the documents with reference to the St. John's land assembly project, which was ordered by the house before the Easter recess.


David James Walker: Oh, yes; I think by tomorrow I shall be able to table the documents. I thank the hon. member for asking the question.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I ask the
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he is able to reply to the question I directed to him on March 30 last, in his absence, concerning the flying of supplies for the construction of the Old Crow school.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Yukon, the decision to fly certain supplies into Old Crow was taken because of the inability of the transportation services available on the river to carry the full amount of freight that would have to be carried in if the school were to be opened this fall.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister check with the officials of his department? In view of the information I have recently received, is it still the intention of the department to fly in those supplies for the construction referred to?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was checking with the department on Friday on this subject, and the decision is still the same.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister able to give the house any information regarding the reported slaying yesterday of an inmate in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The
information is much the same as reported in the Gazette this morning to the effect that the warden of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary has reported that while the inmates were returning to their cells following the church service on Sunday morning, May 1, at approximately 10 minutes past 10, inmate Laurent was observed to fall while proceeding with the other inmates along the second gallery of the dome toward his cell on the third level. The officers on duty immediately went to his assistance and found that he had been stabbed in the back with a sharp instrument. The physician and chaplain were summoned immediately, but inmate Laurent died shortly afterward. The homicide squad of the Quebec provincial police took charge of the investigation, which is still under way.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question The minister may not have the information readily available, but can he indicate just where the physician was at the time the man fell? Where did he have to be called from?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will get that information, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED AGREEMENT FOR SALE TO INDIA BY UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arises out of a report in today's press that the United States and India will sign this Wednesday an agreement by which the former will sell to India over four years more than $1 billion

Inquiries of the Ministry worth of surplus wheat, to be paid for in rupees. Will the minister advise the house what effect this agreement may have on the sale of Canadian wheat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt very much whether it will adversely affect the sale of Canadian wheat. Our commercial market in India is limited, but we are watching this development very closely and we will have more information later on concerning this agreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether the Canadian government was consulted before the agreement was made, and also whether the Indian minister of agriculture, who is now in Washington, is to visit Ottawa?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The information was made available on the official level, Mr. Speaker. The United States has been very co-operative in keeping us informed with regard to their surplus disposal program; and Mr. Patil will be here in Ottawa this week.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the
Canadian government given any consideration to the adoption of a similar policy so that we may have a greatly needed expansion in Canadian wheat exports?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The government of Canada has been pursuing this policy for the last three years in regard to giving assistance to countries like India, which are in need of food.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has any consideration been given to the provision of Canadian funds for wheat in exchange for Indian rupees in anything like the size of the United States deal?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a difference in the size of the countries, our population, the wealth of Canada and the United States; but the hon. gentleman knows that counterpart funds have been set up in India when we have made gifts of food to that country.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: On February 24 last, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport told us that it might be possible that changes in the Canada Shipping Act, which have been pending for two years now, would be introduced at this session. Can he give us any more information as to whether those amendments are to be put into effect this session?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to introduce this session amendments to the Canada Shipping Act affecting pilotage on the great lakes.



MANITOBA-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT ON RED RIVER CONTROL PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question. Does the government expect to reach an agreement with the government of Manitoba during the course of the present session of parliament concerning flood control in the Red river valley?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not able to say with certainty that the agreement will be reached, but proposals have been put forward and are now under discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are the negotiations continuing?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My question is based on a publication of the Indian affairs branch entitled "A Handbook for Indian Band Chiefs and Councillors". On pages 14 and 15 reference is made to the waiver forms of the Canada Elections Act, and the right of Indians to vote. Will the minister undertake to have this revised in order that no confusion will exist in the minds of the people who are circularized?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
am sure that will follow in the normal course of events after action has been taken.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Agriculture what protests he has received from charitable and welfare organizations in Saskatchewan arising out of
34S1

his announced decision that free canned pork will no longer be provided to that province.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no protests. I should like to make it clear that Saskatchewan has received a very much larger quantity of this free pork than any other province. From information which has come to light during the past week it would appear that they have received all the pork required for the purposes for which it was made available, that is for the relief of needy cases, people on municipal relief and so forth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the minister not received protests from at least three of the hospitals in the province of Saskatchewan?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker.


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



FEDERAL AID TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there are a good many subjects on which the opposition might, with profit to the Canadian people, express grievances against the administration of the country by the present incumbents of the treasury benches; but we have felt that it would be indelicate at this particular time, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) absent from the country on the nation's business, to introduce a motion which would be in any way controversial. Therefore I have been chosen, for obvious reasons, to introduce a motion- which I intend to do before I resume my seat but not immediately-which we believe will commend itself to every hon. member; which will not express any condemnation whatsoever of the present administration, but will instead make an appeal to the administration to undertake certain things which we believe, and which we feel some of their supporters will also believe, would be in the general interests of Canada.
This, of course, is not an unprecedented use of the right of the opposition on a supply motion. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fleming) will, I know, well recall several occasions on which this course was followed when he was over here and the opposition invited the government and its supporters, perhaps its supporters more particularly, to join in a unanimous expression of the views of the house. I do hope that when the vote comes tomorrow it will be possible to have the somewhat rare spectacle on supply days of such a unanimous vote.
2.	1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
What I am going to talk about is the present position of the Atlantic provinces. This will not surprise the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) or the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) or the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) or the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne), all of whom are here today. We can only commend them for being here, unlike some of their colleagues on some previous occasions, and for anticipating that such a course would be followed. I said that I thought the government would perhaps be more apt to listen to this kind of appeal at this particular time. I do not propose to elaborate on that statement. I think it will be understood by every hon. member who wishes to understand and not misunderstand me.
It is just three years since the people of this country were engaged in listening to the candidates in an election campaign which some of us on both sides of the house are not apt to forget for a considerable time. In the Atlantic provinces the people were told by some hon. gentlemen now opposite that they were going to do something in the Atlantic provinces to increase the economic activity of that area, to increase the welfare of people in that area, to give it a closer approach to equality with other parts of the country than had been the case during what they were pleased to describe as the 22 years of Liberal neglect.
I want to say a word or two very briefly about those 22 years of so-called Liberal neglect in the Atlantic provinces. First of all I should like to recall to the minds of hon. members one of the best of all indices by which one can judge the effects of that neglect. Hon. members will recall that during the war it was necessary for the government of Canada to enter into agreements with the pro-vinical governments-with all of them, I might add, because all of them did enter into these agreements at that time-for the renting of the direct tax fields, income and corporation taxes, that were occupied at that time by the federal government and by most of the provinces, though not by all of them.
In the year 1945, at the end of the war, the Atlantic provinces were receiving by way of rental payments-I should rather say the maritime provinces, because at that time Newfoundland was not a part of Canada-* $7J million in lieu of the exercise by those governments of their taxing powers in those fields. That was in 1945. In the year 1956-57, the last full year the Liberals were in office, as the Minister of Finance is so fond of describing it, the three maritime provinces- here I am deliberately leaving Newfoundland out so the comparison will be exact-were

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces receiving $43 million from the same taxation fields in lieu of the exercise of their rights of taxation, that is to say, about five and a half times as much as they had been receiving in 1945. In 1957-58, the year in which this government came into office, without any thanks whatever to this government because, as the Minister of Finance pointed out the other day, he voted against this legislation about which I am talking, the three maritime provinces were receiving under the taxsharing arrangements $52 million. The increase made by Mr. Harris' legislation of 1956, which came into operation in the year 1957-58, was $9 million, and this was in the last year of our so-called neglect.
What does this mean, sir? It means that in only the last 12 years out of the 22 years what these provinces were receiving in the way of tax-sharing payments or equalization payments had risen from $7.75 million to $52 million or had been multiplied, as hon. members can very well see, something like seven times. Now, that is a very considerable increase indeed.
If other evidence were needed or desired as to the way the maritime provinces fared during this period that has been described as a period of Liberal neglect, there are two or three rather striking statistics that I can cite. In the first place, between 1936 and 1956 the population of greater Halifax rose from about 75,000 to 165,000. The number of motor vehicles registered in the province of Nova Scotia rose in that period from 45,000 to 150,000. The provincial revenues of Nova Scotia rose from $10 million to $57 million. This does not suggest, sir, that there was no advance in that area. In New Brunswick the population increased even faster than it did in Nova Scotia. The population of the whole province rose from 428,000 to 565,000 during those 20 Liberal years. The number of motor vehicles in New Brunswick rose from 31,000 to 116,000. I do not say that the motor vehicle is the only measure of the wealth of a community, but it is certainly a measure and perhaps, in our kind of society, not an altogether inaccurate measure.
I have had some calculations made and to the best of my ability I have based those, so far as possible, to take account of the fact that a certain thing did not appear at the end of a calendar year or at the end of a fiscal year. A certain very important event, for instance, happened on June 21, 1957, and this makes it a little difficult to measure these things precisely. However, it does appear that during the three years Mr. Harris was minister of finance of this country the personal income, the real income-here I am making due allowance for the change in the value of


money and for inflation so the figures will be comparable-of the people in the Atlantic provinces increased at a very much more rapid rate than has been the case since. There has been some increase since, but the increase during the last three years the Liberals were in office was very much more marked.
When one turns to employment, the situation is even more startling. I am not saying anything about whether or not these figures are an accurate measure of unemployment; that is another matter. But certainly if you take the figures for one year and compare them with another year they are a pretty accurate measure of the change. When we were appealing to the people in the spring of 1957, or at the available date closest to that for purposes of comparison, and this is the poorest date I could take from our point of view, there were registered at the unemployment offices and looking for work in the Atlantic provinces, nearly 95,000 persons. On March 20, 1958 there were 135,000 and on March 19, 1959 116,800. This year there were 116,500. When you make allowance, sir, for the fact that in the last year the fishermen were treated as though they did not exist and' were deducted from the figures, it will be seen that unemployment is very much more considerable in the Atlantic region now than it was when we went to the country.


Mr. Browne (Sf. John's West):: Are these figures for the four provinces?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, for what is called the Atlantic region. I must point out, of course, that when we went to the country in 1957 there was a considerable amount of seasonal unemployment and had been during that past winter, as everybody on the Liberal side of the house admitted. In contrast, we have been told by the Minister of Labour and by other hon. gentlemen opposite that the recession is now over; that we are at the beginning of a year in which they expect a very substantial improvement, if not a boom.
When you look at certain of the key industries in the Atlantic area you can once more make a comparison which is not very flattering. A few moments ago the hon. member for Gloucester asked the minister of mines a question about coal. Of course we remember the advertisements, and we remember those pictures that appeared in the newspapers of Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Stanfield side by side on the public platform in Nova Scotia during the June election campaign of 1957, promising to increase coal production. Our leader during that election campaign told the truth. He said he would not promise to increase coal production, but he would

promise that we would not allow the coal towns to become ghost towns. He was pilloried by hon. gentlemen opposite all over the maritime provinces for that truthful, straightforward statement. I think today, when you compare the two of them, you would rather have been responsible for making the one statement than the other, because coal production has declined steadily ever since that statement was made.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: At that time did not his leader, Mr. St. Laurent, suggest that coal was too valuable to be burned and should be kept in the ground?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very grateful, as I always am, to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), who has just asked me a question. He has given me an opportunity to state what Mr. St. Laurent said. I was there and I heard what he said. I have in my files the text of what he stated, although I have not got it right here. I will not guarantee to reproduce every word, but I will guarantee to give the correct sense of what he said. What he said was this. He believed that the time would come before too many years when coal, as a chemical and as a source of other chemicals, would be much more valuable than it would be as a fuel, and that apart from any other consideration he believed that was one reason why it would not be desirable to increase the production of coal. But he went on to say and to make very clear that what we intended to do-as we had been doing, I might say, up to that time-was to see that the coal industry was not allowed to decline to the point where these towns would become ghost towns. That was our position, and it was honestly stated.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Donald MacInnis: Is the hon. member now saying that the Fredericton Gleaner incorrectly reported what Mr. St. Laurent said at that time, or is he now prepared to make an apology as called for in the front page editorial?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a certain non sequitur in the hon. member's question which I shall deal with a moment. I believe the Fredericton Gleaner reported quite accurately what Mr. St. Laurent said, but I also believe that it misinterpreted what he said. About that particular matter I have no
2, 1960	3453
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces apology of any kind to make. I am sorry- and the hon. member knows this as well as I do-that I have not been able to find that particular copy of the Fredericton Gleaner. I have really made a thorough search. I even went to the length of asking the hon. gentleman to lend me his copy so I could refresh my memory as to precisely what it said.


Donald MacInnis: I will see that it is made available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad at any time to deal in detail with the point. But after all, whether I apologize or do not apologize to the Fredericton Gleaner is not going to change the fate of this country very much. I do not think the hon. gentleman and I want to get into any controversy just now about this matter. However, if I said anything that was inaccurate, I think hon. members know well enough that I have always been willing to admit an inaccuracy and correct it whenever it was drawn to my attention. I hope I shall always continue to do that. Whenever I find one myself, as hon. members will recall from certain experience in this house, I have not hesitated to do that either.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me the time has clearly now arrived when we cannot go on contemplating much longer this steady decline in the coal industry without doing two things. The first is to try to arrest that decline to the limit that it is possible to do it, using every reasonable device; but also certain other devices should be used for putting something else in its place in that area, something which I think is perhaps even more important.
The situation in the fisheries is not as serious as it is in the coal industry, but it is serious. The output of the Atlantic fisheries is nearly all sold outside of Canada. The fisheries industry is, to a much more substantial degree even than the wheat industry, dependent upon export markets. I think that fact is not nearly as widely realized in Canada as it should be. Like all our primary export industries the fishing industry has suffered in the last few years from the cost-price squeeze. The price of the product has not gone up or has not gone up substantially in most cases-in some cases has not gone up at all and in some cases has gone down -while the cost of production has gone up and the cost of living of the producers has also gone up. You can make almost a complete parallel between the cod fishery and the wheat industry from an economic standpoint, except in one respect. While the government once in a while, seems to be aware

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces of the wheat industry-although they are less and less aware of it as time goes on-they seem to be totally unaware of the plight of the fishermen.
Agriculture in the Atlantic provinces is unquestionably very much worse off than it was three years ago. Perhaps relatively it is not much worse off than is agriculture in the rest of Canada which, after the false dawn, has been overcast by the clouds emanating from the government rain-making machine so far as the farmers' hopes are concerned. Farmers often hope for rain at the right time but unfortunately the rain from this government always seems to come at the wrong time, namely at the time when the crops are ready for harvesting and not at the time when the crops would be improved.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I had better drop that figure of speech before it drops me. However, there are among my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces others who have a much more intimate knowledge of this subject than I. It is true that I have in my constituency two of the best agricultural areas in the whole of Newfoundland, but even when I have said that I could be accused of exaggerating if I said that agriculture had the same importance in Newfoundland that it has in any of the three other maritime provinces, because up to now it has not had the same importance.
What about provincial finances? I say something about this because, as I said, I am seeking to be absolutely fair about this whole matter. I say there is no question but that in one or two respects the governments of the Atlantic provinces are better off than they would have been if no change had been made in the law since June 21, 1957. I at once admit that fact. I have never failed to admit it in any circumstances. I think the adoption by this parliament, at the request of the present government, of the Atlantic provinces grants was a beneficent measure which I was pleased to support and for which I have always given this government credit.
I think we must also give this government credit-and perhaps they will not be so anxious to take this credit as the one I have just given them-for the fact that when Mr. Harris was minister of finance it was possible for all the Atlantic provinces to float loans in Canada at rates of interest which were considerably below those which have been prevailing in the last year or so. What is more, Mr. Harris was paying off the national debt. In the last year he was in office he paid off a billion dollars of the national debt, a fact which left a great deal of room for other public borrowers to go to the market. In his day the provincial governments were not [Mr. Pickersgill.l
facing from the national treasury or from the minister of finance the kind of competition which they have faced in the last year and which has driven them to borrow in New York, with consequences which it is not easy to foresee but which could be quite serious.
As to these Atlantic provinces grants- and I say this because I anticipate that the matter will be raised by some hon. gentleman opposite-I want to say a word or two about their earlier history. The idea of something more than tax rental or equalization was first proposed by Mr. Henry Hicks when he was premier of Nova Scotia, at the preliminary meeting of the federal-provincial conference of 1955, on April 26 of that year. The proposal will be found set out at pages 22, 23 and 24 of the proceedings. I do not intend to say anything beyond drawing attention to the fact that it was made in terms which were of universal application to every province of Canada. What Mr. Hicks suggested was really carrying out the idea of fiscal need as set out in the Rowell-Sirois report and providing a formula to meet somewhat different conditions.
In the autumn, at the main conference on October 3, 1955 Mr. Hicks elaborated his proposal and Mr. Flemming, the premier of New Brunswick, also made a proposal which was somewhat different in character. At that particular time those proposals were very seriously considered by the government of the day; I say that of my own knowledge. The government of the day had already in its proposals to that conference suggested making another $100 million a year available to the provinces under the new legislation, over and above the old. It was a little over $100 million. Hon. members will see that by looking at Hansard for last Wednesday, when the Minister of Finance replied to a starred question of mine and indicated that in the last full year the Liberals were in office the provinces received or were given abatements equal to $523.3 million, and in the next year, 1957-58, these payments and abatements amounted to $628.9 million, that is to say an increase of nearly $106 million. Then I asked if any part of that increase was the result of legislation passed since June 21, 1957 and the answer was no.
Therefore the whole of that $100 million increase, which I may say parenthetically, and only parenthetically, hon. gentlemen opposite from the Prime Minister down constantly claim in their speeches as something done by the present government, was in fact entirely the result of legislation which the Minister of Finance told us, in a candid moment the other day in the house, he voted against and opposed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is right, because of its inadequacy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not at all what the hon. gentleman said at that time. The hon. gentleman said that the scheme was too complicated for him to understand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was true then and I am not sure it is not true still.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not true now and never was true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the hon. gentleman can tell us the truth when he gets up to make a three-hour speech a little later in the debate.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Will the hon. gentleman tell us on what page the budget of Mr. Harris shows this amount under the Atlantic adjustment grant; in what year and in what section of the budget?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure I understand the hon. gentleman's question, and I suspect that he did not hear what I said. I said that we were not able to accede to the request of Mr. Hicks, and we did not accede to it for this reason. I was quite candid about this; it is well known because, after all, it is part of history, and I am not revealing any great secret when I say this. The reason was that we had already offered to increase the payments to the provinces out of the national treasury by $100 million. In other words we were going to reduce the amount of income tax and corporation tax which would go into the federal treasury and put it into the provincial treasuries to the extent of $100 million, which we thought at that time was a very substantial increase indeed. It was an increase from a little over $500 million to a little over $600 million, in other words an increase of 20 per cent. We simply did not believe that at that time, having regard to all the other demands on the treasury, we would be justified in reducing the amount in the federal treasury by a still greater amount because that would have affected the balance [DOT]of ways and means.
That was the position we took. Whether we were right or wrong, it was the position we took. I have always said that, notwithstanding the fact that we took that position, I would give credit to this government for taking a different position and for accepting Mr. Hicks' suggestion which we did not accept. I do not think I can make it any plainer than that; we did not accept it but this government has accepted it.
2. 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
However, they did accept it with one modification, which I must say I do not think was an improvement. Mr. Hicks himself said this in the legislature; it has been said by me in this hosue before, and I say it again. My own opinion is that the position of the Atlantic provinces would be stronger if these Atlantic provinces grants were not called Atlantic provinces grants and if the formula was applicable to all the provinces if they found themselves in a similar position.
Now, if I understand the formula aright there is no other province at the present time which would find itself in that position, and we would hope there never would be. But there was a time during the thirties when Saskatchewan, and to some extent Manitoba and Alberta, were in just as bad a position as any of the maritime provinces. We do not believe that will ever happen again; but after all the taxpayers all over Canada pay the taxes which go into making these payments, and we should not forget them. I believe that if the government had gone the whole of the way Mr. Hicks suggested and had adopted a formula which, while in fact it would only have provided funds for the Atlantic provinces, would have been applicable in like circumstances right across the country, that would have been a better way of doing it. It would have accomplished the purpose just as well, and it would have created a better impression. I may say that this view was also taken at the conference in 1957 by Mr. Douglas Campbell of Manitoba and by Mr. T. C. Douglas of Saskatchewan, and I am not sure that it was not taken by some of the other premiers. I happen to remember because I went as a spectator at that conference, and I heard them take that position.
There was another feature of the arrangements which were made by the Liberal government in the tax-sharing plan, which I regret to say was not continued, with respect to the increase made by the present government, and that was the stabilization feature. The stabilization feature, of course, was a feature which it happens to be a matter of history was suggested by Mr. Hicks at that conference in October, 1955, as hon. members will see from looking at the proceedings at page 47. There is no doubt that, at that time, most of the provincial governments were not much interested in the stabilization feature. They were not much interested because-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The hon. gentleman is launching into a discussion of financial relations between the dominion and provincial governments. He is speaking now of certain features which are written into the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces There is before the house at the present time a bill dealing with this very subject. The debate on the motion for second reading of that bill has already had one day devoted to it, and it seems to me with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman is now giving us the speech which evidently is intended to be a repetition of what has been said or what he may intend to say with respect to the amendments to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.
He is questioning now the fact that, with regard to the increases made in the provincial share of the personal income tax, the stabilization principle is not applied to the 3 per cent increase in the provincial share. This takes us right back into the middle of the debate on the bill to amend that act. You will find it in item No. 9 on today's order paper, Bill No. 56.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on that point, I have no intention of continuing in this vein. I simply made that as a single isolated statement.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is coming back to the Atlantic provinces I shall not need to deal at length with the point of order. I felt myself that, although he had been within the scope which he had set for himself when he was talking about the Atlantic provinces particularly and their dominion-provincial relations he was getting into a broader field which gave rise to the objection which was well taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope there will not be any suggestion that I cannot say anything I like about the federal-provincial conference of 1955 or the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act of 1956 neither of which is before the house and both of which happened before the present government came into office, but I agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that to the extent I talked about the extra 3 per cent which is all his bill dealt with it would not be proper to go on and I yield at once. Since I have not moved an amendment or anything else, surely I can discuss the federal-provincial conference of 1955 or the statute which is on the statute books and is now the law of the country and so as long as I do not discuss the amendment to that statute which is before us it would seem to me that I would be quite in order.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question which is right on the point he is now talking about. He is referring to the general abatements to the provinces across Canada constituting a total of $405 million between 1956-57 and


1957-58. The hon. member did not make any reference to what the effect was in the maritime provinces or the Atlantic provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I gave the figure for the three maritime provinces earlier in my speech.


William Joseph Browne: That was for three years, was it not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no. I have the figure right here somewhere and I placed it on Hansard a few minutes ago. The figure for the three maritime provinces was $43 million in the last year of the old tax rental system and $52 million in the first year of the taxsharing arrangements. That would be a difference of $9 million.


William Joseph Browne: For two
years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the hon. member does not seem to understand. In the fiscal year 1956-57 the three maritime provinces received $43 million by way of tax rental payments in lieu of these taxes and in the subsequent year, 1957-58, under the new statute they received $52 million, an increase of $9 million. The increase in Newfoundland was in proportion. I do not have right under my thumb the exact figure but the total increase to all the four provinces was between $11 million and $12 million, as I remember it.


John Ferguson Browne: Was it not
$9 million?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it was $9 million for the three maritime provinces and the Newfoundland increase has to be added to that.
As I was saying there is one other aspect of this matter beside the question of stabilization which seems to me to be of great importance. It was also pointed out by Mr. Hicks in 1955 that there should be-and again I may be criticizing the former administration when I say this but I am seeking, as I pointed out at the beginning, to make a non-partisan speech-


Donald Methuen Fleming: How extraordinarily you are succeeding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there was a great deal of merit in the contention of Mr. Hicks that equalization and stabilization and the whole basis of these payments including the Atlantic provinces arrangement which I hope could be generalized should all be put into the constitution, and that instead of having these five-year agreements which there is no real certainty of having continue it would be preferable to include them in the same way

as, at the original confederation, statutory-subsidies were included, without which there would have been no confederation.
I would not have thought this argument half as important two years ago as I do today. And why? I regret to have to say it and I do not intend to make any issue of this for obvious reasons, but we have witnessed a repudiation of the constitution in this very field by the present administration with respect to term 29 of the terms of union with Newfoundland. That makes it all the more important that all of the provinces should know exactly where they stand in matters of this kind.
There is another thing I want to say about the Atlantic provinces grants before I leave the subject. When they were brought forward by the Minister of Finance in this house in January of 1958 they were described by Mr. Kirk, then the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, as deficiency payments and that is, of course, precisely what they are. They are payments made because the income and the taxable capacity of these provinces is below the national average, and substantially below it.


Mr. Phillips:: How did that happen with you in office?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am pleased to answer that question of the hon. member. If you had gone back to 1935 and compared their position then with that of some other parts of Canada you would have found that there was a vast improvement in the period we were in office. I can tell hon. members that there are lots of people in the Atlantic provinces somewhat older than the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) who are old enough to remember that.


Mr. Simpson:: Do you remember?


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I am afraid that if we are not careful this may-in the words of a distinguished friend of mine-degenerate into a debate.
These deficiency payments are needed and there is no one who would question that in the light of the experience of the three years. I do not believe that any government even if it wanted to would dare to terminate these arrangements. But I do say that what we really want to do, what should be the aim of all of us and what I really believe is our aim -although perhaps some of us have a better aim than others-is to end the deficiency so that the payments will not be needed to correct a basic weakness in the economy of the Atlantic provinces.
How is that going to be done? That is the problem. I have already alluded to the weak position of agriculture, to the coal industry
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces and its serious plight, to the relative and absolute decline in the fisheries. About all these things I believe a good deal could be and should be done and on various other occasions suggestions have been made. If some of the suggestions, for example, made in another debate the other day by my friend the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger) were carried out they would be a step in that direction.
Even if the fisheries were restored, even if the coal industry employed as many people today as it did in 1956, even if agriculture was on a much sounder foundation than it is at present, with the population and the number of young people there are today in the Atlantic provinces those industries could not possibly provide the employment that is needed in that area in order to have a healthy expanding economy.
What about the other industries? There are some healthy industries. On the whole the forest industries are in a very healthy condition. They have their ups and downs from year to year, but happily this is one industry that gives signs of having a somewhat better year than last year; at least that is true of some parts of the forest industry. The long term future of the forest industry in the Atlantic provinces is probably better than any other industry.


Mr. Speaker:: I am troubled by the time of the hon. member who has the floor. I understood him to say at the beginning of his speech that he did not propose to move a non-confidence motion. It is only if he is making such a motion that he would have more than 40 minutes; at least, that may be one interpretation of the rule. I just raise it because we do not want to let the procedure be altered by default.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I intend, sir, to move an amendment and what interpretation is put upon it is not for me to say. Of course I suppose the rules govern. I say it is not going to be in the language of a non-confidence motion, but from my past experience I may say it might be so interpreted.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose it is not really for the hon. member to say whether the government will accept his amendment as a want of confidence motion. I raise the point because I had some doubt about it. The only reason the hon. member would be permitted to speak beyond 40 minutes would be to introduce a non-confidence motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Moving it and indicating it as such.


Mr. Speaker:: I raised the point because I was not sure whether the rule would go that far.

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
Mr Martin (Essex East): What other intention could a reasonable man have?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate not a reasonable man in view of his colleague?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is exactly what I said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is exactly the opposite of what the hon. member said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If this matter is quiescent for the moment, sir, I would go on to say that there is no doubt in my mind-making the very big assumption that was made by the Gordon commission and that in discussing any domestic issue we always have to make-if there is going to be any future and we are not going to face a nuclear war, about which, of course, others are more competent to speak than I am; but assuming that there is going to be a future, I do not think there can be any doubt that one would predict that the future of the forest industries of the Atlantic provinces is probably better than others in the long term, because happily the forest is a continuing crop and happily in the main it is being well cropped. I am sure there is room for some improvement there, too, as there always will be, but great steps have -been taken in all the provinces to see that this most valuable of all the crops in the Atlantic provinces is maintained as a continuing crop.
There is no doubt there will be some expansion of the industry but the area of the provinces is not going to be expanded. The accessibility of the forests may be somewhat improved, as it is being improved by the spread of roads, particularly in Newfoundland, where it has been so marked in the last few years. But this is not the whole answer. This industry may, with increased fabrication, provide a somewhat expanded employment, and particularly perhaps in Newfoundland which is at an earlier stage of development than the other provinces.
The mining industry, of course, apart from coal mining, is happily showing signs of improvement. I see the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) smiling and about this he can smile. This is particularly true of the iron mines of the Labrador, and I am sure the minister will be the first to admit, that they are expanding even more rapidly in Newfoundland than they are in his province. There is no doubt that one of the biggest sources of immediately increased employment will be the development of the iron mines of the Carol lake and the Wabush lake areas, and all the development ancillary thereto.


Undoubtedly, too, as the demand for power becomes greater and the possibility of its economic exploitation becomes more real, the development of the vast hydro electric resources of the Hamilton river will also give a stimulus, I would hope, not only to the province of Newfoundland but also that all the surplus power would not be sent westward into Quebec and Ontario, but that some of it would go eastward and in a southerly direction to supplement the less extensive power resources of the other Atlantic provinces and that technical advances would be such in the next few years as to make that possible.
One of the industries which I believe will expand the most in the next few years is the tourist industry. I believe we are not doing nearly enough to accelerate that expansion which is one direction in which we could move more quickly and get immediate results; but, when all is said and done, sir, if we are to have a development at all comparable with that of the rest of Canada there must in addition be the development of secondary industries in the Atlantic provinces, not on the scale of Ontario and Quebec-I do not think anyone would expect that-but on a very much greater scale than exists at the present time.
This area is dependent, far more than the Canadian average on trade. If between one quarter and one third of our population is dependent on trade for their incomes, it must be over half in the Atlantic provinces and far more than half in the province of Newfoundland. That is why it is very hard even for Tories in the Atlantic provinces to be protectionists and it is perhaps-


Mr. Nowlan:: The only Tories there are the hard-shell Grits.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One sometimes wonders about the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) who brought certain legislation in here a couple of years ago which most people in the Atlantic provinces did not think much of.
It seems to me, that in addition to the general development of trade, and in addition particularly to the development of trade in the whole Atlantic area-and I use "Atlantic" now in another and much wider context- there is one area which is naturally complementary to the Atlantic provinces, and that is the whole Caribbean region, and particularly the British West Indies federation and British Guiana, those areas with which there has been a traditional trade. It does seem to me that here we could do a lot more than we are doing. I should like to see a free trade area between Canada and the West Indies

federation. I should like to see a study made, at any rate, of the possibilities of bringing this area within the ambit of the Canadian monetary system, as Newfoundland was before confederation, and I should like to see a much more vigorous development of the technical and other assistance which has already been started in that area, really a development into something like a Colombo plan for that area.
But there is another thing. I am one of those who believes that a fundamental mistake was made in the development of Canada in 1878 when the national policy was adopted. I believe that that has had the effect of concentrating, of centralizing industry and wealth in the area of the lakes and the upper St. Lawrence valley to an inordinate degree, but no one in his senses-I include myself in that category-would say that we could wipe out the tariff and undo the results of those 50 or 60 years of development. We, when we were in office, pursued a line of policy which it is calculated had the effect of reducing the effect of the tariff by about 50 per cent in 22 years.
But to wipe it out suddenly would, of course, create dislocations of a kind that no government, and I would hope no political party, in its senses would contemplate. The Gordon commission did estimate, and they had very competent people to do it, that the effect of the tariff upon cost to consumers was about $1 billion a year and that the cost was very inequitably distributed across the country. It does seem to me that if the people of Canada are going to pay that kind of price for the tariff, the price that the experts have estimated, we should have more say than we do now in the location of industries that are protected and in the national interest an effort should be made not to establish rigid controls and decide that this industry must be put here and that there, but to create certain advantages and inducements that will overcome some of the disadvantages that otherwise exist in certain areas.
I am not going to take a lot of time to deal with these points. I have taken things that have been endorsed not only by the Liberal party but also, in words at any rate, by hon. gentlemen opposite in their presentations to the electorate, and I am simply going to say that one way in which what I have suggested could be done is by capital grants and another by fiscal incentives. It would, of course, be against the rules if I were to read this passage since it is from another debate in this session but I will take the risk of giving the page reference. If hon. members will look at page 1693 of Hansard for March 3, the second column, they will see that the
2,	1960	3459
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) indicated the kind of way in which this could be done and the kind of way in which it is done in the United Kingdom.
Then there is another very serious question mark hanging over the whole of the Atlantic area. It was underlined the other day by the closing of Fort Pepperrell in Newfoundland, for which, of course, no Canadian government had any responsibility. But we have seen what the cancellation of the Arrow contract did even to the great and resilient economy of one of the two leading metropolitan centres of this country. We have seen what another shift in defence requirements of another country has done to a great new settlement in northern Ontario-I refer to Elliot Lake.
I am sure that there must be members of the government who sometimes wake up early in the morning or lie awake at night wondering what disarmament would do to Halifax or to the Annapolis valley, to Cornwallis, to Greenwood, to Chatham, to Sum-merside, to Gagetown. The concentration of defence expenditures by the previous Liberal government in the Atlantic provinces has had the effect of acting as a cushion against recession in that area, and a very badly needed one it has been in the last couple of years. But what would happen if peace suddenly broke out, as has sometimes been said? What would happen if even a lesser thing occurred, if there were some important change in strategy or weapons without alternative plans having been prepared?
What would happen to that great metropolitan area which under Liberal neglect grew in population from 75,000 to 165,000? I refer to metropolitan Halifax. We do not want to hold up disarmament to keep Halifax going. No one in his senses would want to do that, but if there are going to be changes we want to be prepared with alternatives that will meet the situation and make the transition possible.
Then, of course, there is transportation about which I could say a great deal and about which I said something and the Leader of the Opposition said something in a debate the other day. I think our views on this subject are very well known. Not only are our views well known but our actions have spoken louder than some words have spoken. In 1957 we increased the effective subvention under the Maritime Freight Rates Act by 50 per cent. The present government permitted the railways to increase their rates by 17 per cent and then took off 10 per cent of the 17 per cent so that there has been an increase of 7 per cent. That has been the difference. We did something to alleviate the

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces situation and the present government has permitted something to be done which has made the situation worse.
We believe that there should be a highway program specifically for the Atlantic provinces as an offset to what is done to provide railways in the other parts of Canada. I said one day that it was really too bad that the trans-Canada highway had not been decided upon two years earlier, before the negotiations with Newfoundland were started, because undoubtedly it would have been written into the terms of union. I think it is perhaps too bad in a way that in 1864 at Quebec nobody foresaw that a trunk road from Halifax to Montreal would be just as important as the intercolonial railway and perhaps ultimately a great deal more important.
This is a favourite theme of mine and I could go on and on but particularly in the light of Your Honour's qualms I do not intend to do so. I had hoped to recall to hon. gentlemen's minds, with a few comments, that famous advertisement which they will all remember much better even than I do and which is headed, "Before You Vote Read the Atlantic Resolutions". I hope that a lot of people in the Atlantic provinces before they vote in the next few weeks will read the Atlantic resolutions over again.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: That is why you are making your speech. It slipped out.


Mr. Ricard:: The cat is out of the bag.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) every so often suddenly becomes aware of the obvious and thinks he has made a great discovery. This has happened again. I said at the beginning of my speech that I was making an appeal to the government at a time that I thought was propitious, at a time when I thought they might be more apt to listen than at other times, and apparently I am right. But notwithstanding the great temptation, sir, I shall not read the Atlantic resolutions. I would also commend to the attention of hon. gentlemen, as I did once before in the house, the document entitled, "A Blueprint for the Atlantic Provinces" which is a reprint of articles in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald in March, 1959, articles which in their basic structure bear a striking resemblance to the Atlantic resolutions. This is a very well written series of articles and I think they set out aspirations that extend far beyond the editorial offices of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, aspirations that I believe are widely shared by the people of the Atlantic provinces regardless of party.
I could also read some of the aims of the Atlantic provinces economic council. I have

them here but again I am not going to do that. But I do want to read one other thing before I conclude if I can find it. I want to read a statement which I commend particularly to members on the other side of the house and in the rump here who were elected from the Atlantic provinces. I am not speaking these words. This is a quotation I am reading and it begins as follows:
I do not want to involve myself in any maritime argument, but I would say this. There is one difference between the members from the mari-times and those from the western provinces, and it is this. While we from the western provinces do disagree, sometimes on the basis of partisanship, none the less when the welfare of the western provinces is being discussed and in particular when our major subject, agricultural production, is being discussed, we bury our disagreements and unite for the common benefit of the western provinces. Sometimes, as I listened to my hon. friends from the maritimes upholding those things which they themselves assuredly cannot support other than vocally, I wonder whether a similar united front analogous to that being formed today by the premiers of the maritime provinces would not have a most beneficial effect upon the economy of the maritimes, especially if that analogy were continued and extended into the House of Commons.
This statement was made in the House of Commons on July 24, 1956, and will be found on pages 6368 and 6369 of Hansard. It was made by the hon. member for Prince Albert, who a few months later became leader of the opposition and within a year was Prime Minister of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: And elected by the people of the maritimes, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, exactly. This is the advice he gave to members from the maritimes. Perhaps I should repeat the last paragraph for the benefit of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert:
Sometimes, as I listened to my hon. friends from the maritimes upholding those things which they themselves assuredly cannot support other than vocally, I wonder whether a similar united front analogous to that being formed today by the premiers of the maritime provinces would not have a most beneficial effect upon the economy of the maritimes, especially if that analogy were continued and extended into the House of Commons.


Donald MacInnis: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Donald MacInnis: Does he realize that at the time about which he is speaking most maritime members were Liberals?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I realize that very well. I do not imagine that the hon. gentleman would suggest that his leader, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), would have given one kind of advice to one kind of member and another kind of advice to another. Although he might think that, I would not suggest it.


Donald MacInnis: The members now are
different.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The members now are different, and there is one very great difference to which I was just coming when the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) asked me the question, and it is this:	This advice that the present Prime
Minister was giving to members of parliament from the maritime provinces-


Donald MacInnis: Given to the Liberal members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would not mind if I said what I have to say. This is advice which the Prime Minister was giving to the members from the maritime provinces. Since that time a large number of members have been elected from the maritime provinces, and two from the province of Newfoundland, to "follow John". I commend to those members the advice they were given by their leader. I suggest when they come to vote on the motion which I am now about to move that they do precisely that, that they follow the advice given to them by their own leader.


Donald MacInnis: It was not given to us, but to you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In order to make it that much easier for them to follow that advice of their leader I have couched my motion, as nearly as is it possible to do in three out of four particulars, in terms that will be found in those Atlantic resolutions. In other words, I am not asking the hon. members elected from the Atlantic provinces who support the government to support anything in the Liberal program that is not also in their program. I am not asking them to support even the language of our program but their own, and the program upon which they were elected.
There is one part of the motion I am going to move that is not in the Atlantic resolutions, but it relates to something that the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are very anxious to have done at the present time, so anxious that they are willing to spend provincial money and to go outside the country to get someone to do it. I am suggesting that they be spared that expense, and that this be done by the government of their own country, inside the country. I cannot believe that hon. members, particularly those from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, will want to vote against what the premiers of both of those provinces very urgently desire.
2. I960	3461
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
This house is of the opinion that immediate steps are required to strengthen the basic economy of the Atlantic provinces through a comprehensive and planned program of federal assistance: and urges the government to give consideration to the following proposals as elements in any such program.
1.	The establishment of an Atlantic capital projects program for the purpose of assuring the financing of projects essential to the economic development of the Atlantic provinces.
2.	The provision of special fiscal incentives to private enterprise for the purpose of encouraging industrial growth and the processing of natural resources in the Atlantic provinces.
3.	The institution of an immediate enquiry to determine the effects of national monetary, fiscal and economic policies on the development of the Atlantic provinces and to make recommendations on desirable changes in the application of such policies for the benefit of the Atlantic provinces.
4.	The adjustment of freight rates and the provision of transportation facilities to overcome the handicaps of the geographic position of the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I present the motion, does any hon. member wish to speak to its content, from the point of view of its having been dealt before.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, because of the presence in Ottawa today of some of the leading Canadian labour leaders I had expected the Liberals would decide to raise the issue of unemployment, particularly as it affects the province of British Columbia. However, the members of the C.C.F. group are very happy that the official opposition has raised this issue of the need for action on behalf of the four Atlantic provinces. We readily admit that we have here a real national problem. The economy of the Atlantic region has been ailing for a number of years now, and I believe that no one in Canada would be prepared to lay all the blame for the ills of the Atlantic economic community on the Conservative government today. The ills that exist may, in certain aspects, have worsened within recent years. However, in the main, the ills that are now obvious were especially obvious to the people of the Atlantic area long before this Conservative government assumed office. I believe that was one of the major reasons why most of the people in the Atlantic area decided to vote against the Liberal government back in 1957, and with even more emphasis in 1958.
I am very pleased to see that the Liberals, at least at this late stage, recognize that we have on our hands a problem that is not only of local significance or responsibility, but that we have a difficulty that has to be faced up to by the national government in Ottawa.

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
The people down there expected a great deal when they upset the Liberal governments within their provinces and the Liberal government at Ottawa. I am afraid that the people there are rapidly coming to the conclusion that they may be waiting in vain for a solution to their difficulties because after this government has been in office now for practically three years there have been extremely limited indications that the government of the day is looking at the problem of the Atlantic region with any more serious concern than that which was evidenced by the Liberal government.
The people of Canada owe much to the people of the Atlantic region. They are people who, along with those of Upper and Lower Canada, founded our nation. Their sons and daughters emigrated and were largely responsible for the development of the larger areas of Canada. Especially did they make a tremendous contribution in that they educated so many of their sons and daughters before they saw them emigrate into other areas of Canada. Many of the western and central Canadian leaders of today were educated at the expense and sacrifice of their parents in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island. These people supplied much of the money that was necessary for the opening up of our nation. They were taxed for our development. A great deal of the investment capital that was originally created in this region was invested in other areas of Canada rather than in the maintenance of its own economic health and welfare. In that regard I feel that any investment on the part of the national government in the Atlantic region is merely paying off the obligation we owe.
I cannot ignore the tremendous contribution they have made to the rest of Canada in the development of the co-operative movement and the credit union movement. However, Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated, the people in the Atlantic region of Canada are not being allowed to enjoy their full share of the blessings that accrue to Canadians as a whole. They are denied equality of opportunity to share in the development of Canada. Many of them are even unemployed. Certainly, as the statistics have indicated over so many long years, they are not allowed to receive an equitable amount of the riches that are produced in the nation as a whole.
The whole nation is their heritage, as it is of all other Canadians. However, they are being denied their proper portion of that heritage. We note this fact when we look at the levels of wages that exist in this part

of Canada, in four out of our ten Canadian provinces. Their cost of living is almost equal to the cost of living anywhere else. For instance, I am told that in Halifax rents are higher than they are in many other major urban areas of Canada. Nevertheless, wage levels throughout New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are, by a considerable degree, lower than they are in the other parts of Canada. The fishermen there have never had a standard of living that was anywhere nearly equal to that which obtains for the fishermen of British Columbia. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agriculture does not receive the same per capita income that it receives in other areas of Canada; and even in the other areas it is low enough indeed, far lower than it ought to be. This Atlantic area has more than its proper share of the unemployed in Canada. There are particular areas in which as many as one half of the able-bodied men are unemployed. Many of them have been unemployed not for half a year but for a year and in some cases for a goodly number of years.
The Atlantic area is not obtaining its portion of the industrial development that is taking place in Canada. As a matter of fact many of their industries are losing out and are having to close their doors, thereby adding to the already aggravated unemployment problem. In this regard I note the great regret that was expressed-and aptly so-by the newspapers in the Atlantic region when the estimates for the present fiscal year were laid before the house in that they noted a large reduction in federal capital expenditures. I believe the Halifax area alone this year can expect some $8 million of a reduction in federal capital expenditures as compared with the amount a year ago. All the statistics are borne out when we look at the per capita income. I note with regret that the people in Nova Scotia, for instance, receive only one half of the per capita income received by the people of Ontario or British Columbia. To me this situation is a violation of one of the concepts of nationhood, when for their work the people of one region of one and the same nation receive a per capita income that is only one half of what is being received elsewhere.
In the field of education I notice that the income of the school teachers is roughly half of what it is in many of the western portions of Canada. In the matter of health services, the governments in the Atlantic region are simply unable to supply the residents with the level of health services existing elsewhere. The Canadian boy or girl has the

same rights to health services and to education, whether that boy or girl is living in Halifax, Toronto or Vancouver. The object of the government ought to be to undertake measures that will ensure equal rights of citizenship to every Canadian, no matter where in Canada he may live.
In looking at this amendment offered by the Liberals I am pleased to note that the Liberals realize that in order to help the Atlantic area to any significant extent the government must embark on a planned program of federal assistance. I think the Liberals are now beginning to move a little way in the direction in which I am sure political needs will make them move much more yet before the next federal election rolls around. In a major undertaking of this kind they are now willing to adopt the idea and the concept that effective help can only be given if it is being given on the basis of a planned program.
We hear a great deal about the prosperity of the nation this year. However, the conditions as they exist in the Atlantic region once again indicate that the so-called prosperity which we have is far too narrowly based in that more regional problems are arising on the Canadian national scene. The Atlantic area is possibly the largest and most needy region with regard to aid in Canada today. As between different parts of Canada, once again the rich are getting richer at a much more rapid rate than the poor are getting less poor.
The recommendations that we see in the amendment calls for the establishment of an Atlantic capital projects program for the purpose of assuring the financing of projects essential to the economic development of the Atlantic provinces. In our opinion this is only the Liberal name for the old C.C.F. name for a national investment board. However, we believe that they now realize the need for the establishment of what would in effect be a national investment board because this Atlantic capital projects program is intended, they say, for the purpose of assuring financing. To rely on the whims of private investors to resolve the capital needs of the Atlantic area would not be very realistic and I am very happy to note that the Liberals realize that action on the part of the federal government toward the raising of the necessary money is necessary.
It is my opinion that for this proposal to be effective a lot of money will have to be spent. I would advocate that the federal government begin initially with an investment in the neighbourhood of $500 million. That may sound like a lot of money, but when we consider that four of the ten Canadian provinces are involved and when we
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces look at the needs of this area of Canada I think the amount I have mentioned of half a billion dollars would be a modest yet effective beginning. Agriculture alone in the Atlantic area can absorb hundreds of millions of investment capital in order to consolidate existing uneconomic units into efficiently operating economic units. Industrial development would be able to absorb at least as much as agriculture.
I would like to underline that an outlay of $500 million for aid in economic development in the Atlantic area would not be a net expense. There would be returned to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlanj a hefty proportion because of added revenue emanating from income tax and the general 11 per cent sales tax. I believe that if an undertaking of this magnitude were launched the people who now live in the Atlantic region would supply a considerable amount of this money because of their own belief that this area needs this assistance.
We are a little worried about the next recommendation which we see in the amendment, the provision of special fiscal incentives to private enterprise for the purpose of encouraging industrial growth. We have noted the encouragement of private enterprise in the investment field, especially as it applies to natural resources in many areas of Canada, and our experiences in this regard have not always been happy. We want to be very careful that when we undertake measures of this kind-and we as a group are not opposed to this recommendation-when this recommendation is implemented, if it is, there ought to go along with it ample protection of the resources for the people to ensure they will not be plundered away from the people. The workers and the farmers and everyone within the area should reap some of the blessings of the exploitation of what is their own heritage. We do not want any Wenner-Grens in the Atlantic area, for instance, and we note with utter dismay how the people of Newfoundland are being exploited and their natural resources used to make multi-millionaires in other areas of the world.
I hope that if the government undertakes incentives to encourage more private enterprise to invest its capital it will also encourage the democratic movements within the area-I have particular reference to labour unions, to farm organizations and to organizations of fishermen-so that the men and women who do the work will receive an adequate return from their resources. Unless there is this kind of economic democracy at the grass roots level whereby people are

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces able to obtain a larger share of their heritage then I am afraid exploitation and regret many years later will be the order of the day.
I noted the omission of many specific recommendations which might have been made in an amendment of this kind. However, I realize that the obvious intent of the amendment is not to clutter it up with too many specific recommendations. I notice nothing which calls upon the government to ensure the survival of the independent small businessman in the Atlantic region. I notice nothing in here for the inclusion of coal as one of the responsibilities of the national energy board. I see nothing for the need of the people of that region for an aggressive policy of vocational training with pay so that the many unemployed would more likely be provided with employment. I notice no reference to the need for education.
On the question of unemployment mention has been made of the coal industry, and I would like at this time to propose that the steel industry which exists in the Atlantic region be not permitted to move out of that region. I think it is simply scandalous that such a great proportion of our iron ore, when we have our own energy in abundance, especially in Nova Scotia, has to be taken right past the door of the Atlantic provinces, down the St. Lawrence seaway. Our energy is exported out of western Canada and iron ore is exported out of eastern Canada to the heart of the United States of America, supplying employment to the United States instead of supplying employment to Canadians. I believe that action on the part of the government may be necessary to ensure the survival of whatever steel industry exists, not only in the interests of those who work in that enterprise but also in the interests of continuing markets for Nova Scotia coal; and because we in Canada are, on balance, even yet importers of steel, I believe there should be established in the Atlantic region additional steel facilities.
It is for these reasons that at this time I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the amendment be amended by adding thereto:
5.	The maintenance of the present steel industry in the Atlantic provinces, together with the expansion of the steel industry by every appropriate means including the provision of a publicly owned steel mill.
6.	The active encouragement and strengthening of such peoples' organizations in the Atlantic provinces as farm, fishermen, and labour unions, and the co-operative and credit union movements.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has submitted an amendment to the amendment which seems to go into the provincial field


whereas the initial amendment relates entirely to federal assistance. I raise the question of whether he is not doing more than submitting an amendment but rather submitting what in effect is another motion because, as I understand our practice, the subamendment should come within the scope of the initial amendment.


Erhart Regier: I assume you have reference to the latter clause?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Erhart Regier: May I point out that while in the main these are responsibilities of provincial governments there is also federal responsibility and indeed there exists federal legislation with respect to most of these items. There has been federal participation in respect to all these items. Labour is not exclusively a provincial matter nor are agricultural organizations.


Mr. Speaker:: May I read the clause about which I have doubt. It is item No. 6, in these words:
6. The active encouragement and strengthening of such peoples' organizations in the Atlantic provinces as farm, fishermen, and labour unions, and the co-operative and credit union movements.
Generally speaking, those organizations in the Atlantic provinces are the subject of provincial jurisdiction although there is to some extent co-ordinate jurisdiction of the federal government.


Erhart Regier: In that case, if you so rule, I will omit the last clause.


Mr. Speaker:: I would certainly feel that it would remove the very strong doubt which I have that No. 6 does not come within the scope of the initial amendment. If the hon. member wishes to submit his amendment limiting it to item No. 5, I will accept it.


Erhart Regier: I so move.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the amendment be amended by adding thereto:
5. The maintenance of the present steel industry in the Atlantic provinces, together with the expansion of the steel industry by every appropriate means including the provision of a publicly owned steel mill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, in making a few brief remarks on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), may I first of all commend him for bringing this matter concerning the Atlantic provinces to the attention of this house. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate enjoys a very good

sense of timing and has displayed it on many occasions. I do not know whether he realizes that today, May 2, has some significance for the maritimes in that it is the birthday of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) and also of my young son, and in a few minutes we would have been toasting this fact. I mention this because the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is a great maritimer. My son, unfortunately, was not born in the maritimes and will go through life with that handicap.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Just like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes. As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) has said, this is the same disability under which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate operates. I do feel, however, that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has some right to speak on matters relating to the Atlantic provinces because recently a meeting of Conservative members elected him as the man they would most prefer to have speak in their ridings at election time, having realized that in the past election, in every constituency in which the hon. gentleman spoke the Conservative government member was returned. Everyone is aware that provincial elections are coming up and while the federal members may be limited in their participation I do hope that if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does decide to travel east and participate in the provincial elections he will make my constituency of Saint John-Albert the very first on his list.
Before the supply motion was brought forward today there was a great deal of speculation as to what would be the subject of the motion. This always occurs on these occasions but I believe that today over 95 per cent of the hon. members of this house would have thought that the Bomarc or national defence would have been the subject of the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question. Does he think that would be a suitable subject for a want of confidence motion?


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member has many subjects which he feels would be suitable subjects for want of confidence motions but I do not think anyone in this house or in the country worries about them to the same degree he does.
As I mentioned, I believe there were very few hon. members in this house who did not expect that the Bomarc or national defence would be the subject of today's supply motion. But there was one fellow in this chamber, my friend the hon. member for Prince (Mr. 2, 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces Phillips) sitting behind me, who thought differently. I asked him what he thought might be the subject and he said he felt that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-to use the more impersonal, than affectionate term-was probably going to bring forward an amendment concerning the Atlantic provinces. I admit that this thought had not crossed my mind but as I glanced across the aisle and saw the determined, supercilious and perhaps even courageous expression on the face of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I knew we were in for something today.
Perhaps I use the word "courageous" advisedly because I think it took a great deal of courage on the part of the hon. member to stand up in this house, knowing a bit of the background of this subject of the maritime provinces, and speak on it. He knows, as we all do, the history that goes back over a period of 22 years of absolute neglect of the maritime provinces. When he makes a statement that the time has now arrived for action, that is when I say he certainly deserves full marks for courage because he knows that the time arrived in 1957. He knows, as does everyone in this house and in the country, that we constantly pressed the previous administration in an effort to have it pay some attention to the problems of those provinces by the sea, but we met with no success.
One could mention many matters, but the subject that I feel the opposition party, the former government, is most vulnerable on is the matter of Beechwood. After the second world war we realized in the maritimes that our main difficulties were power and transportation. We had not shared in the federal war contracts and we had gone even further behind at that time. We said that we would come to Ottawa and make approaches regarding our power situation. The former Liberal government of New Brunswick came here without any definite proposals but they did talk about power. What did they get? They got no attention whatsoever from their fellow members here at Ottawa.
History began, Mr. Speaker, in 1952 when we changed to a new Conservative government under Premier Hugh John Flemming of New Brunswick. He, realizing the great need for power in our province and in the maritimes, at once began his campaign to bring this matter to the attention of the powers that be at Ottawa, the then old, tired Liberal administration. It was not a case of merely receiving a no answer, Mr. Speaker; it was not a case of indifference; it was a complete cold shoulder on every single occasion that this matter was mentioned on the many trips of Premier Flemming to Ottawa.

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
I could also mention the indifference of the former minister of finance, Mr. Harris, who on every occasion not only said "no", but would not even discuss the various thoughts that we had about power and other financial matters. Yes, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate certainly deserves a lot of credit for courage in bringing this matter forward today, knowing the background of his party on this subject of Atlantic provinces' assistance.
We also note that when this government took over in 1957 one of its first acts was to deal with this matter of Beechwood. Today we have in New Brunswick on the Saint John river an everlasting monument to the promises made by this government.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the hon. member permit a question? In what year was Beechwood built?


Thomas Miller Bell: Beechwood was completed last year and we were all down at the ceremony; hon. members from the opposition were present as well.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the hon. member tell the house at what stage Beechwood was when this government came into office?


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not certain of the date, but the point is that the old government would have nothing to do with the financial arrangements for Beechwood. I sat in this house, when the former member for Charlotte, a member of the Liberal party, got up at that time and said he was definitely opposed to Beechwood in every aspect. This government definitely financed, in every way that they had promised, the Beechwood project in New Brunswick and that is the significant part. We did something about the power problems at Beechwood and in our later power assistance for the mari-times and the Atlantic provinces.
I come now to the second matter that I mentioned. One does not have to be an historian, like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, to know that one of our other difficulties was transportation. We acted, on transportation. After many cries while in the Conservative opposition we set up a royal commission to deal with the freight rate problem, and that commission is now sitting and has been sitting for many weeks. It is considering our problems and I hope something will come forward that will assist us in the future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question at this point? Will the hon. member recall that while this government set

up a royal commission we increased the subvention under the Maritime Freight Rates Act from 20 per cent to 30 per cent, that is by 50 per cent?


Orville H. Phillips: And also increased the freight rates by 20 per cent.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member mentioned that in his speech and it is quite true. But he did mention in connection with the freight rate increase that the 7 per cent applied only to the Atlantic provinces. The 7 per cent is a horizontal increase across the country. I do recognize that part of it, anyway, Mr. Speaker.
The Chignecto canal project has been talked about for many years but the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate shied clear of that even though he did mention it once or twice in questions on the orders of the day. But the present government on coming into office, and in connection with promises that were made, set up surveys, both engineering and economic, to deal with the Chignecto canal. This is something again that I say makes me wonder about this courage that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate shows in bringing this forward today when he knows that for at least 22 years they failed to act in this regard.
I now want to deal with my constituency of Saint John-Albert. I do not wish to indicate great knowledge on the various subjects of fish, agriculture and power. This reminds me that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate sat in this house and opposed the federal power proposition last year. Now he has enough nerve to get up and quote speeches advocating unity amongst the maritime members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I know the hon. member is allowing his enthusiasm to run away with him but if he will examine the votes he will find that I supported and voted for the Atlantic power legislation of this government, which carried out the policy announced by Mr. Harris in 1957. My only complaint was that it did not apply to Newfoundland.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not a question of privilege.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to apologize for my enthusiasm in so far as the maritimes are concerned. I think quite modestly that it is a better type of enthusiasm than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate displays. Incidentally, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), in speaking about this matter, said to me he was glad to see that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was now back in
34G7

the maritimes and might leave the matter of the station at Flin Flon, Manitoba alone for a while to some people who know something about it.
I do wish to refer particularly to my constituency of Saint John-Albert, and it is an occasion I have been waiting for for some time, to mention the great prosperity that we have in Saint John. While I may not be qualified to speak with great knowledge on financial matters, I do feel that I can speak as one from an area in the maritimes that since 1957 has prospered and has gone forward under this government to the nth degree. We had our problems of power and of transportation, as I have mentioned. I feel that the prosperity that the city of Saint John is now enjoying-and one that will be welcome by everyone in Canada-is due definitely to the actions that have been taken by the new government. It may be that certain matters of direct assistance have not been given but after all we are living in a private enterprise economy and it is the duty of the government to provide the means for private enterprise to go forward, and I say that this government has given this means, particularly to Saint John.
I wish to quote from an editorial in the Saint John Tele graph-Journal of February 9. It is a reliable editorial. This is a newspaper, that has lately been criticizing this government in many respects but in straightforwardly telling this case I feel that we will have the answer as to the status of a certain area in the Atlantic provinces. I quote:
Saint John, 175 years old and long the Industrial centre of the maritime provinces-
I do not know whether my friends from Halifax will agree with that but proportionately we have always had a great deal of industry
-entered a new era of booming expansion in the late 1950's, an era which is destined to see the city reach an unprecedented level of prosperity in the decade ahead. Never in her long history have prospects been so good for this seaport city, transportation centre and hub of industry. Never before has this proud loyalist city had reason to flex her muscles with such commanding authority. Never, in fact, has the mushrooming area of greater Saint John experienced such a period of boisterous expansion and optimism. Major capital expenditures of the last three years far exceed $100 million and many, many more millions are to be spent on expansion in the years immediately ahead.
The whole metropolitan area is riding the crest of a wave of construction never matched since the United Empire Loyalists set foot on the peninsula in 1783 and founded the city two years later. All over greater Saint John-Saint John, Lancaster and Simonds-a wealth of new building is evidence of the new prosperity. Industry and government are spending many millions in long term projects. Businesses are expanding and adding
2, 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces new plants and equipment. Communications are multiplying, with new roads either just completed or under way at every city approach-
The special article goes on to tell the story of Saint John and explains in better words than I could use Why I feel that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does not know what he is talking about and should make the visit to Saint John which I mentioned a moment ago. To be more specific, I should like to outline some of the private enterprise capital projects that have been completed and are listed here. I will start by mentioning those that are of a private enterprise nature.
First, we have the $50 million Irving Oil refinery in Simonds. May I say that in reading an article this morning in connection with the Encyclopedia Britannica I noted that the city of Calgary has a new oil refinery that will deliver 14,700 barrels a day and that it is the greatest capital project they have ever had in their city. The refinery we have in Saint John will deliver 43,000 barrels a day.
The second project is a kraft mill, lumber mill and pulp mill extension by Irving Pulp and Paper Limited, with a total investment of $40 million. The third is the new $7 million paper mill of Kimberly-Clark Limited. The fourth is a new steel works and foundry built for Ocean Steel and Construction Limited. Then there are several new plants on Lancaster's Fairville boulevard, now known as the golden mile. There is a long list of about 10 other items involving capital projects of a nature that I feel will be envied by every member of the house.
There has also been a tremendous development so far as government projects are concerned. New government buildings and wharves, for which we waited 22 years under the old Liberal government, have been constructed. In 1957 when we took office these projects were commenced and now they are ready for business.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did make some very good points in his so-called non-political speech. He made certain remarks about the West Indies to which I feel attention should be called. Having just returned from a commonwealth parliamentary association meeting there over the Easter recess, I recognize the need for greater attention to that area. Efforts should be made to strengthen our traditional ties and to foster greater trade expansion. In so far as our connections with the West Indies are concerned, we miss the C.N.S. ships. It is true that our trade with the West Indies has been going ahead but it has been more of a natural growth. I would certainly want to be associated with the remarks of the hon. member
3468	HOUSE OF
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces for Bonavista-Twillingate about paying more attention to the West Indies federation.
It may be that we should put forward some proposals regarding free trade. Having been there and talked to many representatives of the West Indies federation, I do not have the answer, but I do know that it is in Canada's interests not only from the point of view of trade benefit but as a commonwealth country to give all aspects of the situation in the West Indies even closer attention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do want to say that there is a lesson that the new West Indies federation has to learn. We made reference to it in our speeches there and in our discussions about the difficulties of the federation. We pointed out the fact that Canada had poor and rich areas and that a great deal of consideration had to be given to those areas which do not come up to the national average economically speaking. In Canada we have some areas that are not as wealthy as others. In its very early stages the West Indies federation is beginning to realize that there will be great difficulties in that some of the islands will probably never be as wealthy as the large ones such as Jamaica and Trinidad.
I mention this merely to point out that this is a problem we have recognized in Canada and it is one that they must recognize. It is a problem that we must always be watching here. In the speeches that were made at the conference reference was made to the fact that our central provinces continually have to be making what they call concessions to the poorer areas in order to bring up the average. I am one who feels that by some method greater concessions will have to be made.
But I do want to say that so far as the new government is concerned, by Beechwood, by federal power assistance, by transportation investigation and by fiscal measures such as the special adjustment grants we have gone forward and done many of the things we promised, things that were not only forgotten for 22 years but were given the cold shoulder completely.
With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I want to say that there is a gross inconsistency in it. In his speech he referred to the fact that he was against the principle of the special adjustment grants. I am surprised to hear anybody representing the Atlantic provinces stand up in the house and say that he is against the special adjustment


grants, particularly a member from Newfoundland which, pro rata, gains a little bit more than the other Atlantic provinces from the adjustment grants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, once more the hon. gentleman's enthusiasm has outrun his accuracy. I said no such thing. I said and I have always said that I was in favour of them and I only wished that the principle could be extended so that it would apply to any province in need.


Thomas Miller Bell: Unless I
heard the hon. member incorrectly, Mr. Speaker, he stated that the former member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare said that this was a form of deficiency payment and he went on to derogate the adjustment grants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Thomas Miller Bell: Whether he said he was opposed to them, I do not know. As far as I am concerned, if this principle does not meet with the approval of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate then his amendment does not agree with his thinking because the whole amendment is full of special considerations. As a member from the Atlantic provinces, from the constituency of Saint John-Albert which is doing well, I want to say that while I go along with special adjustment grants and some other special considerations I certainly would not want to be associated with them to the degree that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has put them forward today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are exactly as in
the advertisement containing the Atlantic resolutions, in which advertisement your picture also appeared.


Thomas Miller Bell: You may say
so, but I do not take a back seat in supporting the Atlantic resolutions. We have fulfilled many of them and many more will be fulfilled before the hon. member knows how to say Jack Robinson.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or Jack Pickersgill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Jack Pickersgill, as the Minister of Finance has said.
I also want to say that in this amendment put forward by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mention is made of transportation difficulties. We are dealing with the transportation difficulties now, after having waited 22 years for the Liberals to do something about them. We have undertaken surveys of the Chignecto canal and other matters. There is a royal commission sitting now on

all our transportation difficulties. The commission deals particularly with rail transportation, but its terms of reference also have other implications.
The C.C.F. party has moved a subamendment, and as usual it is so involved in-I do not know what you would call it-state enterprise, that it is impossible to figure it out. Someone said that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) likes to chide Conservative members by saying that the only part of Canada in which the C.C.F. party has no representation is the most backward part, that is the maritimes. All I can say is that we do not want the C.C.F. party, anyway. If they show themselves in these two provincial elections, which have prompted the speech by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I am sure they will again get a goose egg.


Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: The amendment which I had the privilege of seconding deals with a matter of far-reaching importance, not only to the Atlantic provinces but also to all parts of Canada because, as has been said so often, no nation can flourish to the extent it could and should flourish when any segment of it is a depressed area. This is the situation with respect to the Atlantic provinces in the Canadian nation. This situation is more disturbing because at the time of confederation this was a flourishing community which joined this nation to make a bigger and better nation. This action brought about the direct opposite over the years.
The retarded economy of the Atlantic provinces is a subject which is receiving many comments in periodicals all across Canada, a subject which has been brought to the attention of the government and the public through many channels, by editorial comment, by speakers in chambers of commerce, boards of trade, service clubs, and by other means. Lately there has been a strong awakening amongst the people of the Atlantic provinces as to their present position in the Canadian community, and keener concern as to their future. This stronger awakening and keener concern has brought about more serious thinking and action on the part of groups and individuals, with the Atlantic provinces' press urging government action, with timely and well considered planned programs of action aimed at bringing about these things that are necessary to ensure that the Atlantic provinces' place in our confederation is close to the Canadian average.
The adverse position of the Atlantic provinces is being recognized more and more by Canadians in the other six provinces. The Canadian press of central and western Canada have also taken up the plea for an improved 79951-0-219
2, 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces economy for the provinces on the Atlantic coast. With the widespread movement for concerted action to bring about an improvement in the Atlantic region it is timely that this amendment to the supply motion be placed before the House of Commons because it provides an opportunity for a two-day debate on a matter which is one of the most important facing Canada on the home front.
Many appeals have been made, and from many sources, for unity amongst all Atlantic province members of parliament in the matter of aid to the Atlantic region. A prominent Canadian journalist expressed the view that the problems of the Atlantic provinces should be aired vigorously, and the only effective place in which that could be done was on the floor of the House of Commons, where every voice raised strengthened the case and pricked the conscience of those who forgot the Atlantic provinces. The case is for unanimity on the part of all Atlantic provinces members. Neglect of this region cannot continue if all members from the Atlantic provinces with one voice call for a program of required assistance. I should like to add that this view was expressed by a journalist from central Canada.
This unanimity should be expressed by all Atlantic members, without reservation, in the initial stages of the planning. When the necessary data has been compiled it is conceivable that there will be internal disagreements which will have to be worked out, if a program is to be developed that will bring about the over-all desired result without having a serious adverse effect on any area. Action cannot be postponed much longer without a still more serious situation developing. Whatever is done must be done without further delay. The action taken will, of necessity, have to be something exceptional, something never undertaken before.
The Gordon commission, in its supplementary report on the retarded economy of the Atlantic provinces, stated as a general conclusion:
The long term and ultimately effective solution of the problem must be expected to come from further resource development. The core of the problem is the creation of conditions which will attract capital into such development.
It was unfortunate that the solemn pledges made by Conservative federal candidates in the 1957 election campaign and repeated in the 1958 campaign, called the Atlantic resolutions, died a hurried death. I feel that I should express the view that probably some of those candidates who were in the political arena for the first time felt that those promises and pledges would be as vigorously promoted in parliament as they were on

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces the hustings, in government as well as in opposition. The candidates who were not successful at the polls have not the same onus, or the same opportunity, to promote these pledges. It is the duty of those elected, who so pledged themselves-and there are 21 of them-to vigorously promote the solemn promises made.
No doubt many of the Conservative members from the Atlantic provinces elected for the first time in 1957 and 1958 felt that all the things that were promised would materialize. They probably waited for their senior colleagues to lead the fight, particularly their four senior colleagues who became cabinet members representing the four Atlantic provinces. These same members who cried out when in opposition for the very things they later promised to do in the Atlantic resolutions have failed to promote any action toward bringing about those things that are recognized as essential for the improvement and future stability of the Atlantic provinces.
Let us take a look at the pledges made in the Atlantic resolutions, a charter drafted by the 31 Conservative candidates in the Atlantic provinces during a meeting and released to the press in the form of large advertisements on June 4, 1957, just six days before election day that year. These advertisements were headed, "Before You Vote Read 'The Atlantic Resolutions' A subheading in the advertisement states that the promises were endorsed by every Progressive Conservative candidate in the maritimes. I wonder why this subheading did not include the Newfoundland members? The opening paragraph, following the subheading entitled "Atlantic Resolutions", included the names of all 31 Conservative candidates in the Atlantic provinces.
The most significant heading in the advertisement, most significant in view of the fact the action promised has not been taken in the three-year period, is the heading entitled "A Call for United Action at Ottawa".
In view of what has taken place since June 10, 1957, one is led to believe that the Atlantic resolutions were drafted with the view held by the Atlantic Conservative candidates that the Tory party would still be in opposition.
The seven resolutions were entitled: National resources development program, Decentralization of industry, Atlantic provinces power development, Transportation, Capital projects program, Fiscal needs of the Atlantic provinces and Canadian coastguard.
I hasten to give credit to the government for the financial assistance rendered in

special grants to the Atlantic provinces. It would be unfair not to give credit for this action as it materially assisted these provinces.
What has taken place in respect of some of the other Atlantic resolutions has been put into proper perspective by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). Other hon. members speaking for this party will deal with the Atlantic resolutions and with other matters of vital importance to the other Atlantic provinces.
Let me bring to the attention of the house a few of the statements contained in the Atlantic resolutions advertisements beyond the headings and subheadings I have listed. I believe that the vast majority of the hon. members of this house are not familiar with the document which is under discussion and I suggest they read the resolutions and decide where the onus lies. I quote from the leading paragraph:
We-
Which means the 31 Conservative candidates.
-are resolved to stand together in support of these measures-
The measures being the ones which I have just enumerated under the seven headings.
____which will help to overcome the historic disabilities which have limited and even denied opportunity to this area.
The same leading paragraph states:
We the Progressive Conservative candidates from the 31 federal constituencies in the Atlantic provinces, believe the Just demands of the Atlantic community for recognition of their economic problems and special needs urgently require more united and forceful representation in the parliament of Canada.
Let me repeat the latter part of this quotation:
-urgently require more united and forceful representation in the province of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is being done today by the official opposition and in view of the statements in the Atlantic resolutions it is hard to conceive that the amendment will not receive the support of all Atlantic provinces members. I feel sure that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) will support the amendment as he has been the only Atlantic Conservative member to demand action for the Atlantic provinces from the government on these resolutions.
The Atlantic resolutions is a good document. What is unfortunate is that it was never put into effect, that it apparently was used for a particular purpose at a particular time and then was forgotten about. It certainly had a great appeal to the voters in the maritime provinces and was an instrument by

which a very large measure of party support was secured at the polls. When solemn promises are made to the electors in a public document, those who make the promises and are elected have a solemn duty vigorously to demand in parliament and outside parliament that the promises be implemented. These demands have been found wanting.
The onus for bringing about the Atlantic resolutions rests primarily with the four Atlantic provinces cabinet ministers. They are members of the group that decide upon government policies. They are the four representatives to whom the people of the Atlantic region look for, and from whom they expect-yes, demand-leadership in the promotion and enactment of the Atlantic resolutions, in the drafting of which they played a major role. If the four Atlantic cabinet ministers lead in these demands on the floor of this chamber I am sure they will receive the complete support of all Atlantic provinces members of both parties and, I venture to say, the support of the majority of the hon. members of this house.
What contributes to the present economy in the Atlantic provinces? Federal government projects that contribute to the economy of the province of New Brunswick were all established by the former Liberal government and the same statement applies to the other Atlantic provinces. The large military camp at Gagetown is an important factor in the economy of the Fredericton-Saint John area. The Department of National Defence is by far the largest single employer of civilians in Northumberland-Miramichi and together with air force personnel is the backbone of the economy of this area. The R.C.A.F. jet operational and training base at Chatham, the R.C.A.F. radar station at St. Margarets and the naval ammunition depot at Renous were all established by the former government as was the army ordnance depot at McGivney in the adjoining county of York.
This government has not placed a single labour-employing establishment in the province of New Brunswick. A comparison of Department of Public Works and other departmental estimates for the past three years, with those of previous years under the former government shows drastic cut-backs in expenditures for New Brunswick.


Mr. Montgomery:: Where did the hon. member get those figures?


George Roy McWilliam: They are in the book of
estimates.


Gage Workman Montgomery: No.


George Roy McWilliam: The hon. member can check the matter and he will find that what I have said is correct.
79951-0-219J
2, 1960	3471
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
A realistic approach has not been taken by this government toward long awaited adequate economic and engineering surveys of the Atlantic seaway and the Northumberland strait causeway. I say that a realistic approach has not been taken and it is evident, from the answers to questions as found in Hansard, that the surveys are more or less of a superficial nature, despite the promises made in 1957 and 1958 that full scale surveys would be carried out immediately.
Members of the Liberal party have listed for government action, as can be found in Hansard, many proposals considered to be for the benefit of the Atlantic region. One of these proposals is improvement in the highway transportation system. The Liberal party at its last convention endorsed a policy of an adequate highway system for the Atlantic provinces.
An adequate highway system is a dire need for the north and east area of New Brunswick. In this area where lumbering, fishing and farming are the chief industries and where there is a potential base metal mining industry there is a vital need of good roads for the development of these industries and the facilities with which to transport the products to distributing centres and on to their markets. Toward this end the government should promote a second trans-Canada highway, together with a network of connecting highways, needed to give incentive for investment of capital with a resultant expansion.
In the 1860's railways were required to open up the maritime provinces. In the 1960's the requirement for industrial and tourist expansion is highways. Today the maritime rail passenger services are being curtailed. Many of these services have been or are about to be eliminated or reduced. Highway transport has taken over the bulk of transportation, with the exception of carload lot shipments. Railway employees are continually being laid off, a fact which is indicative of the trend to highway transportation. Mail and express shipments are being transported over highways. All of these things point to the need for a better system of highways and connecting roads.
The foreseeable economic future of the Atlantic provinces gets more disturbing as time goes on. More and more of our young people are leaving the area in search of employment. While many are returning because they cannot find employment elsewhere, still many more never return a loss that cannot be reconciled. This exodus is due to the alarming unemployment situation in most parts of the Atlantic region. This situation is most acute in this area. It creates

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces a problem that affects the very root of family existence. It is a problem that is crying out for remedy and a problem that must have adequate action and co-operation at all levels of government.
Despite the exodus from the Atlantic provinces the unemployment situation has reached alarming proportions. The "Do it now, don't wait for spring" campaign met with no success in most areas of the Atlantic region. The present situation in many parts of this area is that hopes are dim for even a fair scale of employment this summer, the results of which will not reach their full impact until next winter. Is the next campaign slogan to be the opposite: "We didn't do it this year, wait until next year"?
The future economy of the Atlantic provinces looks bleaker as time goes on. More people are wondering if joining confederation was as good a move as was anticipated. It has not brought about the improvements that were envisaged, improvements that would compensate for some of the losses. The situation today reminds us of the misgivings voiced by men in public life at the time of the conference preceding confederation. No Canadians are more loyal than maritime Canadians. Our forefathers played a great role in making the Canadian nation and their descendants are proud of the contribution. Will the generation to come hold that same pride? I trust that action will be taken to preserve this pride for all time.
The maritime provinces area at the time of confederation was a flourishing community with good future prospects. It had a high Canadian average of income and standard of living for that day. Today the average Atlantic family income is away below the Canadian average and the per capita income is also away below the Canadian average. In 1955 the Gordon commission report compiled the family income at 31 per cent below the Canadian average and the per capita income at 37 per cent below the Canadian average.
The people of the Atlantic provinces are bearing their share of the Canadian contributions to underprivileged areas of the world and are pleased, I am sure, to have a part in this great humanitarian work. The Atlantic provinces are Canada's own underdeveloped area. The development of the Atlantic provinces is a national task calling for the application of national policies designed and tailored for this specific purpose and not merely the application of policies which are applied uniformly across Canada.
Much is heard these days about the best way to celebrate the one hundredth birthday of confederation seven years away. Surely
tMr. McWilliam.i
the best way would be to take measures to make sure that by 1967 the people of the Atlantic provinces will have equal reason with residents of the other six provinces to rejoice, to be proud and to be fully satisfied to be a Canadian.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate on this most interesting subject. I certainly appreciate the broad line of non-partisan motives which inspired the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) to bring forward this resolution at this time. I would say it is only a mere coincidence that an election was announced in Nova Scotia last week and that it is rumoured in various newspapers and elsewhere that there may be other elections forthcoming in the maritimes in the immediate future. That, as I said, is one of those mere coincidences which only happens in the politics of the maritime provinces.
I also appreciate the broadminded and nonpartisan speech, which went a little further to emphasize its non-partisanship, which has been delivered by the hon. member for North-umberland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam). It certainly was one of the most non-partisan speeches, and so non-partisan that I think it was a preliminary warm-up to a statement to be read on every platform in his constituency during the provincial election when he goes down to take part in it.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred to the Atlantic resolutions, and he inferred, of course, that hon. members on this side of the house would naturally give support to a motion which included in it part of the language of those Atlantic resolutions. Naturally we on this side of the house and our friends on the other side will always give support to the Atlantic resolutions. As has been said, we drafted and prepared them; we have largely implemented them and we are going to stay in office until we conclude the implementation of them. The hon. member is perhaps laying a little land mine there in order to say that these terrible Tories said something one day, and then some time later he will point out where we voted against it in the resolution now before the house.
Everyone can read and everyone knows that this is a vote of non-confidence. What-every language may be included in this resolution immediately before us, the resolution is one which we cannot accept, because if we did accept it as a vote of non-confidence it would result in the defeat of this government. Of course, it would only be defeated in the house because when we went to the

country we would be re-elected. But the result of any action which would restore hon. members opposite to the seat of power is such that we could not even continue our support of such a motion. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who had read these Atlantic resolutions of two years ago with shocked surprise and who should know how little had been done, reminded me very much of the tale of Rip Van Winkle who slept in peace for 22 years and then came out of his sleep and suddenly realized what should have been done and what had not been done during the time he was asleep.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, when the
house rose at six o'clock I was making some casual reference to my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate having had an experience comparable to that of Rip Van Winkle who wakened after his long sleep and expressed surprise at what had happened in the meantime. Perhaps it would be equally accurate to use Saul of Tarsus as a simile because on the road to Damascus he kicked against the pricks and saw a great light. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate after having spent three years in opposition has now undoubtedly seen a great light and speaks and acts far differently from those days when he sat on this side of the house.
Whatever may be the merits of any case the hon. gentleman presents in this house one always admires his skill as a debater in presenting the facts as he would like to have them presented, minimizing those things he does not want to be recognized and magnifying those things that should not be magnified at all. Never is he better at that than when he makes reference in fair terms-he always wishes to be fair-and then pays his respects with a slight tone of praise in his voice to the Atlantic provinces adjustments grants which he says are a good thing and then proceeds immediately thereafter to exaggerate many other matters and attacks the government for all the things it has failed to do. The hon. member reminds one in some ways of the doctor who had been dismissed by a patient who was dying of leukemia. A new doctor was summoned, diagnosed the illness, prescribed treatment and soon had the patient well on the road to recovery. When the patient had his health restored the old doctor who had been dismissed came along, examined the
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces patient who was recovering, and said: "Your doctor did not do much for you; it is true that you are looking well and have regained your health and strength but you are not as big as Goliath; if I had been able to recognize the illness you had and prescribe treatment I would have been able to restore your health and make you well and strong again."
The economy of the Atlantic provinces has not yet attained the status of a Goliath but it is well on the way to recovery. There are many things which need to be done in those provinces. The Conservative members on this side of the house and the four cabinet ministers from that area to whom more than one reference was made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate are fully conscious of the fact that there is much left to be done but we also recognize that a great deal has been accomplished during the last three years, very much more than had been accomplished in any comparable period in the history of those provinces.
I wish to refer to the maritimes adjustment grants to which the hon. member pays such slight praise. After all, they represented only a grant of $25 million a year for four years, or $100 million in all. I realize that $100 million is not a staggering sum of money these days but it is a substantial sum of money for the economy of the Atlantic provinces. This year the province of which I am proud to be a native son had a slight surplus. I have forgotten the exact figure but it amounted to a few hundred thousand. Also, it is budgeting for a surplus of a very few thousand next year. In the meantime, it has increased its payments to municipalities by several millions of dollars, and it has embarked on various other services. Where would those government services be today were it not for the Atlantic provinces grants which have been received by that government from this government?
The same thing can be said, of course, for each one of the other Atlantic provinces. All of them have been able to improve the standard of services, maintain that standard, and balance their budgets. Without those grants they would not have been able to carry on at all, let alone introduce improvements. From the political and fiscal standpoint the grants have represented the difference between life and death. That is what this government has accomplished in that field in a very short time.
I do not propose tonight to clutter up the record with a lot of figures. We all realize that figures can be used in various ways, always fairly of course, but that various interpretations can be placed upon them. I also realize that this is probably only the

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces overture to what will be said time and time again during the next few weeks in at least some of the provinces in the Atlantic area, and I expect that I may be called upon on one or two occasions to make some slight contribution to the ensuing argument. I therefore do not intend tonight to go into detail in this respect nor to build up the record as it will undoubtedly be built up during the next few weeks at least in so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned.
There are facts, however, that are worthy of mention. Not only were these adjustment payments made of $100 million but there were increases in revenue in other ways. There were unconditional payments made to the Atlantic provinces to which I think attention should be drawn. For a moment or two I should like to put some of these figures on the record. I am now going to cover the four Atlantic provinces with respect to the amounts of these unconditional grants.
Unconditional payments to Newfoundland in 1957-58 amounted to $19 million; in 195859, under this government, they had increased to $41 million. Unconditional payments to Prince Edward Island in 1957-58, in the budget which was the last budget brought in by our friends who were then the government, were $4.8 million; in 195859 they had increased to $7.5 million. Unconditional payments to Nova Scotia which in 1957-58 were $29 million had jumped in 1958-59 to $37 million. Unconditional payments to New Brunswick which in 1957-58 Were $23 million had jumped in 1958-59 to $32 million. In the aggregate the total of these unconditional payments to the four Atlantic provinces amounted to $76 million in 1957-58 and had jumped to $117.5 million in 1958-59. The increase amounted to $40.5 million or 58 per cent; I repeat that, 58 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question just about the figures? Does not the figure for Newfoundland include two years' instalments of the Newfoundland adjustment grant paid in that particular year?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think that is probably right and so the figure should be adjusted accordingly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, downward.


George Clyde Nowlan: I thank the hon. member for bringing that to my attention. The increase was 58 per cent taking cognizance of the fact which the hon. member drew to my attention. On the other hand, the increase in the unconditional grants to the other six provinces amounted to only $33 million or 10 per cent. That is the rather striking figure to

which I wanted to draw the attention of this house, a 58 per cent increase in unconditional grants to the four Atlantic provinces as compared with a 10 per cent increase in the unconditional grants to the other provinces of Canada.
Of course, we must also consider the conditional grants. In 1957-58 these amounted to $26 million and in 1958-59 they jumped to $49 million. In the year just closed they amounted to something over $68 million. This is an increase of 160 per cent in a two-year period.
These are some of the figures to which attention should be drawn, when my hon. friend asks, or other hon. members ask, what have you done? I ask them to look at that record. When one considers the period through which this country and this government were passing, a recession, and all of the other problems, the record of this government with respect to the Atlantic provinces is something which no one needs to apologize for when an attack is made. I am sure it is something that the Atlantic provinces can look at with a great deal of pride.
Those are the purely fiscal payments; there have been many other payments made as well. Much has been done in other fields. Something was said about industry. I am not going to embark now on a discussion which my hon. friend and I have entered upon from time to time in the past and perhaps will again as to what was proposed by the former government shortly before its demise with respect to assistance to the coal industry and the establishment of industry in the Atlantic provinces, and as to what was done by this government. Suffice it to say that under this government a system of moving Nova Scotia coal, maritime coal but primarily Nova Scotia coal, by subventions, to industrial sites in the maritimes for the development of power was inaugurated, and those subventions were fixed at a level which it is estimated would enable power to be produced at a seven mill rate, and I am advised, without being an expert at all on engineering matters, that a seven mill rate would compare favourably, if not very favourably, with the power rate in Ontario from thermal sources. That should go a long way toward meeting one of the demands which has been heard in the Atlantic provinces for a long time, namely the necessity of getting lower cost power so that industry could be attracted there.
This government, under the legislation and coal subventions, up until this year has paid out over $3,540,000 for the movement of coal for industrial purposes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that within the Atlantic provinces?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, within the Atlantic provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not outside?


George Clyde Nowlan: No. Also, in the construction of power lines, transmission lines, a grid system which is envisaged within the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, millions of dollars have been paid out. This money has been paid out in the establishment of those transmission lines so that all of the sources of power on the mainland from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick will be linked together in one grid system, enabling power to flow from one source to the other as it is required.
Last year my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), placed some figures on the record. I am not going to weary the house with figures tonight, but anyone who is interested will find them in Hansard of June 10, 1959, at page 4507. It is a long list of figures showing what this government has done in the establishment of various projects such as I have referred to, and particularly the transmission lines. Over $6 million was spent on this last year and a further $13 million has been pledged. Of that $13 million I understand that now the expenditures, although not complete, have run up to about $12 million. That system consists of the establishment of those transmission lines throughout the maritime provinces so that power can be transferred back and forth, thereby helping to establish an industrial life in those provinces which has not been possible before.
One could go on and develop this argument at great length but I know there are many other hon. members who wish to take part in this debate and I do not wish to interfere with them by dealing with matters that some of the others would like to deal with.
This afternoon the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam) referred to highways. He made a good provincial speech, outlining the need for more highways in New Brunswick. Undoubtedly, highways are necessary, Mr. Speaker; perhaps more money should be spent on highways; but in addition to the moneys which had been promised under the Trans-Canada Highway Act this government has also established a system of building highways to resources in the various provinces of Canada. Of this amount the maritime provinces, regardless of their size, the fact that they are very small in area and in population, are receiving the same grants as are the larger provinces of
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces Canada. Each province is receiving $7,500,000 from the federal government, and an equal amount from the provincial government, the money to be spent over a period of years. The period was originally fixed at five years but at the request of the provincial governments this period has been extended to a time agreed upon among the various provinces. Although it will not result of course, in all of the highways being reconstructed or built, it is a substantial contribution toward the solution of a problem which the provincial governments have not had the means to deal with adequately. When I hear someone talk, as the hon. member did this afternoon, about the need for highways, I think we should indicate here again the amount of money we shall be getting in the maritime provinces within the next five or six years for the construction of highways and the reconstruction of highways, without which money it would have been impossible for the provinces to have dealt with those problems.
One of the great problems of my province in so far as its industrial life is concerned- not only of its industrial life but its agricultural life as well-is wrapped up to a great extent with the industrial area of the eastern part of the province, the coal fields and the steel mills of Cape Breton island, or the steel mills of Cape Breton island and the coal fields of Cape Breton and of the eastern part of the province.
Much has been said in this house about what has happened to coal during the time this government has been in power. Questions are asked from time to time as to when mines are going to close, and a picture has been painted of the coal industry of Nova Scotia being in a very deplorable state indeed, and the inference is left that the responsibility for this to some extent, at any rate, or to a large extent rests on the shoulders of the governments, provincial and federal. The truth of the matter is, of course, that the coal industry all over the world is in a very bad shape. Coal is being supplanted by other forms of fuel and, particularly in this country, by oil and gas which are natural Canadian products and which are entitled to a share of the market. The fact remains that despite the competition of those fuels it can be safely said that the coal industry of Nova Scotia has come through this period in a better way than have the coal fields of any other part at least of the North American continent.
We also, of course, had the problem aggravated in the last year or two by high water levels and an increase in hydroelectric development and various other factors which have depreciated the market for coal in some

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces ways on a temporary basis and in other ways on other than a temporary basis. These figures are rather interesting. The coal consumed in Canada during the fiscal year just ended amounted to 22,495,000 tons, the smallest tonnage of coal burned in this country since the industrial revolution took place. While the imports of bituminous coal fell from 20,180,000 tons in 1956-57 to only 11,-
800.000	tons last year, the production of Nova Scotia coal increased-I want the house to get this-from 5,701,000 tons to 5,806,000 tons, not a very substantial increase, it is true, but an increase of 105,000 tons when markets for coal were shrinking and falling all around the world and imports of coal into Canada were falling by this substantial amount. Is it any wonder that the market fell? Five years ago the domestic market consumed
6.700.000	tons of bituminous coal; in the year just ended it consumed only 4,600,000 tons. Five years ago the railways consumed 5,-
850,000	tons of coal but in the year just ended they consumed 750,000 tons, a drop of over five million tons. The total consumption of bituminous coal five years ago was 33 million tons and last year only 15 million tons.
There has been a falling off in the demand for coal but in the face of this collapsing market this government, with the assistance and co-operation of the government of Nova Scotia in providing subventions to a certain extent, by the provision of increased amounts of assistance, has managed to provide a remarkable degree of protection for the maritime coal industry. This has largely been established by the assistance of the movement of maritime coal into the province of Ontario. Three years ago, when the severity of the competition from other fuels was first felt, there were 109,000 tons of coal moved into Ontario at a cost of $167,000. In the year just ended markets were found in Ontario for
806.000	tons of coal at a cost of $2,786,000. At the same time imports of coal into Ontario fell by 4,670,000 tons.
One could go on dealing with figures in this manner but, as I promised the house in the beginning, I do not want to bore the house with too many figures at this time. However, perhaps I should put this on the record. I am referring now to the report of the coal board for the year 1958-59, with the figures added in pen for the year 1959-60, the one just closed. In 1958-59 Nova Scotia coal moved under subvention amounted to 2,238,104.13 tons and the total amount of subvention paid was $8,257,741.93; in the year just closed, 1959-60, Nova Scotia coal [Mr. Nowlan.l moved under subvention amounted to 2,414,786 tons or an increase of about 175,000 tons of coal compared with the year before despite falling markets.
Look at these figures, Mr. Speaker. The opposition says, "What have you done?'' This is what the taxpayers of Canada have done under the leadership of this government and co-operating with it. Last year, 1958-59, subventions amounted to $8,257,741.93 as I said a moment ago. In the year just closed subventions provided by the government from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada amounted to $13,518,396.11, and the same subvention has been provided in the estimates for the year on which we have now entered.
It is due to measures such as these that we have been able to give to the coal industry the degree of support which we have, a degree of support that I am sure is a surprise to the corporation, a surprise to the union and employees, and a very pleasant one indeed. At this juncture I think it is only fair to say that we cannot help but be impressed with the degree of co-operation of the union and the men working in these coal mines who have carried on their employment without seeking increases in pay. As a matter of fact, the corporation, the union, this government, and the government of Nova Scotia to the extent to which it has contributed, have been working together as a team and as a result of that team play the industry has been kept in this relatively strong position.
That is the present. Of the future what can one say? The future certainly is not one to cause great joy. The coal industry is facing increasing competition and undoubtedly solutions to problems will have to be found. The government, realizing that, has appointed a royal commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Rand to study the problems of the industry and, we hope, to come up with suggestions and solutions for at least some of its problems. Mr. Justice Rand has had a distinguished record on the bench and in the public life of the country. He has enjoyed the confidence of labour and of all the Canadian people because of his qualities of mind, his integrity and his judgment. Although no one man can accomplish miracles, I think everyone interested in the Nova Scotia coal industry is highly appreciative of the fact that the government was able to persuade Mr. Justice Rand to enter upon this task and we are very hopeful of the results which will flow from it. Those are the problems of the future.
As far as the amount of work is concerned, there will not be any greater "down time" than last year but it is expected that there

will not be as much "down time" as there was last year. The union was perfectly satisfied with the results that were achieved last year. It was not happy, of course, but very much surprised that they were as good as they were. The union representatives who were here last week met with my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), the Prime Minister (Mr. Die-fenbaker) and myself and expressed their great appreciation of the effort that this government and the government of Nova Scotia have made in trying to cope with the problem which they admitted was one of the most serious with which any economy could be faced.
Reference was also made this afternoon by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to transportation problems, and we were somewhat chided because we had not solved all the problems set forth in the Atlantic charter. I was one of those who had something to do with the drafting of that charter and I am rather proud of it. Together with members of the House of Commons from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland I worked to draft that charter. We did not expect that we would solve all the problems in a day. We never suggested we had ready-made answers at all times to all problems. I have said enough to indicate that we have found answers to many of the problems which were confronting us when we wrote that charter. If on the afternoon and evening when we were working on the charter we could have looked forward three years and could have seen that we would have accomplished as much as we have, we would have been very pleased with ourselves indeed.
Transportation is a deep-seated problem, a deep-rooted problem, a problem of geography, a problem of history. We have a railway running in a round-about way through northern New Brunswick. It reminds one of the changes that take place in defence policy from time to time. When the British built the Rideau canal so as to be able to send troops down to the St. Lawrence it was the early D.E.W. line of Canada. In the same way, because of the danger of war with the United States, the railway was built through northern New Brunswick so as to keep it as far away as possible from the United States boundary. We are paying the price for that today with the long haul although we are assisted to some extent by the Maritime Freight Rates Act. My hon. friend spoke of the increases they made in the payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. That is perfectly true, but I think my hon. friend would be the first to admit that changing economic conditions, the inauguration of truck 79951-0-220
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces competition and of agreed charges have to a large extent minimized, although not entirely wiped out, the very substantial benefits envisaged by the Maritime Freight Rates Act when it was first introduced. We have at least reduced the increase this year to a reasonable degree.
In addition to that, we have appointed a royal commission, headed by a western maritimer or a maritime westerner, whose work, unfortunately, was delayed as a result of the illness of the first chairman, but which is conducting an exhaustive study of the freight rate problems of Canada and certainly the freight rate problems of the maritime provinces will receive very special attention. When that commission reports I hope we will have a charter before us on which we can proceed with confidence to the solution of that problem, in so far as the transportation problem can ever be solved in a country thousands of miles in width and on a very narrow basis in so far as the depth of population is concerned.
I have outlined very briefly, and very succinctly, only touching some of the highlights, what has been accomplished by this government in three years. Despite the Jeremiah wails of my friends opposite, which I suppose are natural when one is sitting in the opposition and one feels like Jeremiah that the situation is hopeless, and they undoubtedly feel more like Jeremiah than ever now, I think the greatest accomplishment is the changed outlook, the changed attitude, of the people of the maritime provinces. There is a new confidence, a new hope that was not there a few years ago.
As I have said, the problems are far from solved. However, the people today realize that they have a government in Ottawa, and governments in the provincial capitals, which are interested in their problems and are determined to find solutions in so far as solutions are possible. Despite anything that my hon. friend may, in his political enthusiasm, say about these matters, I would ask him to go back carefully over the record of his government or any other government and find accomplishments in dealing with the problems of the maritime provinces in any period of 10 years which would compare with what has been done by this government during the last three years.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest this afternoon to the speech which was made, and the amendment introduced, by my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), and seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Northum-berland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam). I have
3478	HOUSE OF
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces also followed with great interest the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Saint-John-Albert (Mr. Bell) and by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), who has just resumed his seat.
The minister said it could be a mere coincidence that such an amendment was introduced at this time. I should like to tell the minister that it is not a mere coincidence, but is the result of the unemployment situation and other conditions in the Atlantic provinces. The minister referred, in a very mild manner, to what he called the political speeches made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland-Mira-michi. All of us who have been in this house for a number of years know that it has not been the practice of the minister, especially when he sat on this side, to make what he would call a political speech.
The minister referred us to the grants that were paid to the Atlantic provinces. It is true that the grants which will be paid this year and which were paid- last year were bound to be higher than those that were paid in the years 1955-56 or 1956-57. We must take into consideration the increase in revenues in this country and the increase in population. I join with my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in recognizing this special grant of $25 million which is now being paid to the Atlantic provinces.
The minister referred to the coal problem in the Atlantic provinces, and particularly in Nova Scotia. He more or less intimated that we in the opposition are saying that the responsibility rests on the provincial and federal governments. I should like to say at this time that we in the opposition have not forgotten the promises made by the Conservative candidates prior to the last two federal elections, especially those from Nova Scotia. These promises were not only to maintain production and try to keep the coal mines of Cape Breton open, but to increase the production of these mines.


George Clyde Nowlan: We have.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I question some of the
figures that were cited by the minister. The records are there to show that in the last two years the production of the coal mines of Nova Scotia has decreased by over one million tons or 25 per cent. Now, the minister may have used two specific years for comparison, but if he takes the production figures for the last two years I believe he will have to admit that the production is down by over one million tons or 25 per cent. In so far as the unions in the Cape Breton area are concerned,
I think I have enough correspondence in my 

office to show that they are not satisfied, and they are certainly not happy about what is happening in their area.
I should like now to say a few words about the Atlantic charter. The minister stated that he had taken part in the framing of this Atlantic charter. I have here in front of me the Atlantic charter. The minister said that this government had found an answer to many of the problems. Earlier in his speech, before the dinner recess, he stated that most of the problems mentioned in the Atlantic charter had been taken care of by this government. I should like to know-


George Clyde Nowlan: I think I said an approach had been made to taking care of them. I do not believe I said they had all been taken care of.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Did I hear the minister say an approach had been made?


George Clyde Nowlan: I said that approaches had been made to the solution of many of them. I did not say that they had been solved.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is quite a difference between an approach to a problem and the solution of a problem. What we in the mari-times are interested in right now is the solution of the problems which are facing us. It is the implementation of what is mentioned in the Atlantic resolutions in which we are interested.
What is mentioned in the Atlantic resolutions? I have here a copy of these Atlantic resolutions, with pictures of the candidates in the province of New Brunswick. I know this is the same as the charter which was approved by the Conservative candidates in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. As was said this afternoon, this resolution says:
we are resolved to stand together in support of these measures which will help to overcome the historic disabilities which have limited, and even denied, opportunity to this area.
Resolution No. 1 is:
National resources development program.
Here is what it says:
We emphatically endorse John Diefenbaker's policy calling for a national development program;-
Well, I would ask the minister, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and other members from the Atlantic provinces, what has been done to endorse the policy of John Diefenbaker calling for a national development program? What has been done to develop the economy of the Atlantic provinces?

No. 2 reads:
Decentralization of industry
By united and resolute representation from the members of parliament from the Atlantic provinces, we believe that all Canadians will support a federal program of industrial decentralization.
We will urge that: 1. The Atlantic provinces receive a more equitable share of defence contract expenditures.
I should like the hon. member on the government side to produce the figures on that particular item.
2.	That crown corporations be established in the area.
I should like to have named any crown corporations that have been established in the Atlantic provinces since June of 1957.
3.	That special fiscal consideration be given to private enterprises which will encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic area and, further, encourage the processing of our natural resources here.
Here again I should like to know what special fiscal consideration has been given to industries in the Atlantic area. The answer would be absolutely none. No. 3 is:
Capital projects program
We favour the immediate institution of an Atlantic capital projects program which will provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
But the facts are-and I will come back to this matter latter-that since this government has taken office, no capital projects of any nature have been introduced in the Atlantic provinces. No. 4 is:
Atlantic provinces power development.
Here I will admit that a bill has been passed having to do with Atlantic provinces power development. I am sure this point will be dealt with in detail by other members on this side of the house before this debate is over. No. 5 is:
Fiscal needs of the Atlantic provinces.
On this point I would say that I agree with my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who recognized the fact that additional grants are being paid to the Atlantic provinces in the amount of $25 million a year. No. 6 is:
Canadian Coastguard
We will press for a Canadian coastguard.
They have been pressing and we are still waiting for the coastguard.
I should now like to refer for a few moments to some of the points which have been made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. The hon. member questioned the courage of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) in speaking at this time on the maritime provinces.
79951-0-220J
2, 1960
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces He referred to what he called the 22 years of absolute neglect from the Liberal administration. But just a few moments later, in referring to an editorial in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of February 9 of this year, he stated that in his own county of Saint John there has been a boom that started in 1950. I would ask the hon. member who was in power here from 1950 to 1957.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise on a point of order, the editorial I read this afternoon distinctly stated "the late 1950's".


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1 note that the hon. member has rather changed his point.
The hon. member referred to the loan for Beechwood. What did New Brunswick really get in this loan from the federal government to finance the Beechwood project? It is true that the loan of $29,500,000 was made to the province of New Brunswick at a rate of interest of 3.78 per cent. However, at the time the bill was introduced I remember objecting in this house to the fact that the loan was granted for too short a period, namely for eight years only. The facts today show that I was right in objecting to that term of the loan. Only a few months ago the province of New Brunswick was obliged to issue bonds in New York, in the United States, where they are paying close to C per cent interest. What for? They are doing it in order to pay back to the federal government the payment of $4,358,983.39 a year which they are bound to pay according to the terms of this loan.
The facts are that the province of New Brunswick would have been better off if in 1956 or early 1957 they had gone ahead on their own and issued 40-year bonds at the current rate of interest which was then in the vicinity of 4.25 per cent or 4.50 per cent and had financed the project on their own in preference to financing it on the terms of the loan made by the federal government. That is the case of Beechwood.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert referred to the prosperity of his area and he took pride in it. I do not blame him for that. I agree with him that in the Saint John area conditions are probably much better than they are in many other areas of the Atlantic provinces. But what has this government done? What did it have to do with the conditions which exist today in the Saint John area? He himself admitted what is the fact when he gave the list of the private enterprise projects which are at present under way in his own constituency. The prosperity in his area is due not to this government's intervention, not to the policy of this government but to the courage of private enterprise

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces
He referred to new projects by this government and when referring to this matter he had to say, in a very mild manner, that wharves, et cetera were commenced by the Liberals and were completed under the present administration. But I would ask him again what new capital projects of importance have been initiated in the province of New Brunswick or anywhere in the Atlantic provinces since 1957.
Reference has been made this afternoon to Camp Gagetown in the Fredericton area. If conditions have picked up in the Saint John and Fredericton areas it is owing mainly to the construction of Camp Gagetown which was built under the previous administration.
References have also been made to the proposed Prince Edward Island causeway. I know that this was an extremely important project prior to the provincial election in Prince Edward Island last year, just as the Chignecto canal is extremely important now prior to a provincial election in New Brunswick this year. We all know that in the
1958-	59 estimates there was a sum of $360,000 for a survey for the Prince Edward Island causeway. An election was coming in Prince Edward Island in the following year. In the
1959-	60 estimates there was a sum of $250,000. This year, now that the election is over, this amount has been reduced to $50,000.
We know that the Conservative government is now in power in Prince Edward Island, and this government has been called the causeway party. But after the election was won on the island, what did we hear? We heard from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) a statement giving the objections to the construction of the causeway. They were objections which did not exist prior to the September 1 election last year on the island. What were his objections? They were that the cost was much higher than he expected; that the tide was much Stronger than anticipated; that the ice was much thicker than he had ever thought; and that it would affect movement of fish through the Northumberland strait. Those were objections which we all knew were there prior to the provincial election. But now that the election is over, now that the causeway cause has worked well, the minister can come out and give these objections.
What do we see now? We see the kind of shemozzle there is between the premier of Prince Edward Island and Premier Flemming of New Brunswick, each wondering which should get priority, whether it would be the causeway or whether it would be the Chignecto canal. However, we can be sure that, owing to the fact that the election is over, the Chignecto canal will likely get priority.


I would like to deal with the amendment which was introduced this afternoon by my colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. We recall that in "The Nation's Business" T.V. series on Wednesday, March 2, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said:
The responsibility of the federal government extends to every part of Canada. We believe in the development of Canadian resources for the benefit of all Canadians and the processing of more and more of these resources in Canada. We shall never be satisfied to see one part of the country develop and another lag behind.
I hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) will not be all upset and scandalized if I try to picture some of the conditions which do exist in our own province of New Brunswick today. The Prime Minister was right, he may even have been sincere, in saying "We shall never be satisfied to see one part of the country develop and another lag behind." But the question today is the following: What has the present administration done to take care of regional problems, to solve or remove the inequalities of opportunities for Canadians living in the Atlantic provinces? What has the present administration done to implement in full, or even in part, the promises, the solemn pledge, made by the Conservative candidates prior to the 1957 election? The people of the Atlantic provinces were given, as was mentioned just a few minutes ago by the Minister of National Revenue, great hope for the future development of our area by those Atlantic resolutions which were dealt with in detail by the speakers who have preceded me in this debate and to which I referred a few months ago.
The failure of the present government to implement its election promises is clearly shown not only by its omissions in its policy toward the Atlantic provinces but also by its disregard to adopt a national development policy which would ensure and preserve for the Canadian people and future generations of Canadians the control of economic destiny.
I have here a pamphlet which outlines the highlights of Progressive Conservative policy which was published by the Progressive Conservative party of Canada prior to the June 1957 election. On pages 4 and 5 are outlined the five points of the new national policy which would ensure national development, as it says, for the benefit of all. The first paragraph reads as follows:
National development. To assure economic development in all parts of this country the Conservative party will offer a new national policy founded on a renewed sense of national purpose.

Now that is very clear-"a new national policy founded on a renewed sense of national purpose". It goes on:
Whereas Sir John Macdonald was concerned with opening the west, we shall be concerned with the developments in the northern frontier.
How can we reconcile this statement of the national policy of the Conservative party with the Atlantic charter, which reads:
We emphatically endorse John Diefenbaker's policy calling for a national development program.
There is quite a difference between the program for the Atlantic provinces and the national program of the Conservative party where the Atlantic provinces are not even mentioned.
Further on in the pamphlet are stated the five points of the Conservative policy which reads as follows:
A P-C government will
1.	Adopt a national development policy in co-operation with the provinces which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, anyone would support such a policy, but we all know that this policy has not been implemented by the actions of the present government.
2.	Encourage more processing of Canada's resources in Canada.
What has this government done to encourage the processing of Canada's resources in Canada? In my own constituency of Gloucester where we have huge deposits of zinc and lead which have been dormant since March 31, 1958, a day which is familiar to hon. members on the government side, an announcement was made a few weeks ago that those minerals will be transported to Belgium in order to be processed, to be smelted. I wonder if this is to encourage the development of our natural resources in Canada.
3.	Correct the present unfavourable trade balances.
I do not have to elaborate on that because we know what the unfavourable trade balance has been in the last two years, over $1.5 billion.
4.	Foster wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources.
Here again we know that the actions of the present government in this instance are almost negligible.
5.	Promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
If I were discussing the unemployment situation in detail at this time I know I would be called to order, but we must all admit that now, even after the snow has gone and after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his budget speech said that unemployment
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces would go with the snow, the snow is gone and unemployment is still at an all-time high in this country.
What is the economic position of the Atlantic provinces after three years of Conservative government in Ottawa? I regret that on this point I cannot agree with the Minister of National Revenue. Where are the improvements promised by the present Prime Minister and by the Conservative candidates as outlined in their Atlantic resolutions? What is the situation in my own province of New Brunswick?
We all know that the number of manufacturing establishments in New Brunswick, which had risen from 889 in 1945 to 1,077 in 1952 had decreased to 975 in 1958 after six years of Tory administration in our own province. We know that notwithstanding the promises made by the present government the number of registrations for jobs in the Atlantic region now exceeds 125,000. In my own constituency of Gloucester over 40 per cent of the labour force is today without a job and a large number of those unemployed have exhausted their unemployment insurance stamps and are without unemployment insurance benefits.
As long as I am Prime Minister, this government will not rest while one Canadian remains out of work. No one will be allowed to suffer.
Those are the well-known words of the Prime Minister. I would ask through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, what about those 840,000 Canadians today seeking jobs, a number of them suffering from hunger and privation? In my own constituency of Gloucester I know of hundreds of children who have to attend school without proper food and in many cases without adequate clothing.


An hon. Member:: Do they pay family allowances there?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, they do pay family allowances and if it were not for those family allowances and other social securities introduced by the Liberal administration those poor children would be starving today. I would ask the Prime Minister to come into my province, in my constituency of Gloucester, to come up to Sormany, Val Doucet, St. Sauveur and many other villages in my constituency, and see the misery and hardship which exists today after three years of Conservative administration. If it were not for social security benefits those poor children would be starving to death.
I do not share the views of some hon. members on the government side who take some satisfaction from the fact that such

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces a large number of our unemployed are able to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits during the winter months.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are rejoicing about it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No. I am one who views with great fear and anxiety the perilous state of the unemployment insurance fund. The sum of $917 million to the credit of the fund when the present government took over had shrunk to $359 million on March 31 and will be in the vicinity of $300 million or less by the end of May this year. This decline took place in spite of the 30 per cent increase in contributions which has now been in effect for the last eight months.
, With seasonal unemployment at such a high level how can the government justify its present advertising policy abroad which was referred to in this house a few weeks ago? How can the government justify its advertising such as appeared in the Belfast Telegraph of December 6, 1959? An advertisement in that newspaper read:
Share in Canada's great future-
Immediate opportunities-
Assisted passage loans (interest free) can be arranged as required.
This advertisement appeared in the Belfast Telegraph December 6, 1959 at a time when there were over 800,000 unemployed in Canada. Notwithstanding this fact the government was advertising job openings in [DOT] Canada in these words:
Immediate opportunities for-
Bakers, bookkeepers, bricklayers, carpenters and joiners, cooks, farmers, farm workers, furniture upholsterers, hairdressers, motor mechanics, repair men, painters, plasterers, mechanic repairmen, salesmen and shop assistants-
-and others. If such immediate opportunities are available the maritime papers, I am convinced, would offer free advertising space for such jobs as I have just referred to. If the government would put the same ad in the Atlantic provinces newspapers I know that it would get all the bricklayers, carpenters and other skilled workers it needs right here in Canada.
I recently received a letter from one of my own constituents in which he asked if I could lend him $50 so he could go to Seven Islands and get a job. I did not have $50 to lend him but if I had been convinced that he had a job to go to I would have gladly borrowed the money and loaned it to him so he could have found work. The government is prepared to make interest-free loans to assist in the passage of immigrants to Canada. Why does the government not offer the same thing in Canada? Why does the government not offer to pay the passage or transportation costs of workers to areas where employment is available in Canada?


If the time has come for a change in the human outlook to improve the world we live in, the time has also come for the redeployment of some part of the huge defence expenditure this country has been called upon to undertake in order to maintain its enviable position as one of the leading nations of the world. I ask the government what steps or new measures have been introduced to take care of eventual reductions in defence expenditures, particularly as they may affect the Atlantic provinces? Reference was made to that this afternoon. Has not this government learned from its experience with the Arrow? Has it not taken a lesson from its failure to act in connection with the situation at Elliot Lake? Is not the government ashamed of its failure to provide adequate assistance to the population of Springhill following the unfortunate calamity of October, 1958? The people of Spring-hill deserved much more than the establishment in the area of a penal institution.
This government has in mind the reduction of defence expenditures. Again I ask the members of this government, particularly the four cabinet ministers from the Atlantic provinces-three with responsibility and one without responsibility-what will happen to the city of Halifax when defence establishments curtail their operations? Again I ask what provisions are being made by this government to rectify the disparity which exists in the Atlantic area and which the Atlantic resolutions, it was promised, would help?
This is the time to establish a capital projects commission as we in the opposition have been suggesting for some time. The people of the Atlantic provinces are fed up with promises, fed up with hope and vision. What they want is action and they want it now and not tomorrow. A capital projects commission for the Atlantic provinces, we know, will not suffice in itself. It must be supplemented by a tax incentive program similar to the measures introduced in England and in Belgium where they are being used to attract industries to areas hard hit by the closing of existing industries.
How can this government and the Prime Minister justify their position toward the Atlantic provinces when, at a time of unprecedented unemployment, public works projects are being drastically reduced as so obviously shown by the estimates for the current fiscal year? As I said in this house only a few weeks ago, the estimates for harbour improvements alone are cut by $3 million in Nova Scotia and by $2.5 million in New Brunswick. What major capital project was initiated in the Atlantic provinces since this government took office two years ago? Where is the $1,800 million public works program

that was supposed to take care of the unemployment situation? It has remained in the vision stage and our unemployed are given the hope-yes, the hope-of better days to come, the hope that some day, the sooner the better, a Liberal government will again take over the administration of the affairs of this country.
The people of the Atlantic provinces have not forgotten the Atlantic resolutions. They were given the hope of better times and more employment. What did they get? The highest unemployment rate on record.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) said this afternoon that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate went further than the Atlantic resolutions.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, no.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I ask hon. members on the government side from the Atlantic provinces how they can vote against a motion that calls for the establishment of an Atlantic capital projects program for the purpose of assuring the financing of projects essential to the economic development of the Atlantic provinces?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member has included everything in that amendment except the kitchen sink.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just confirmed what I mentioned his having said this afternoon. I challenge every hon. member on the government side and particularly those from the Atlantic provinces to vote against the second point in our amendment which calls for:
The provision of special fiscal incentives to private enterprise for the purpose of encouraging industrial growth and the processing of natural resources in the Atlantic provinces.
I challenge them to vote against the third point of our amendment which reads as follows:
The institution of an immediate inquiry to determine the effects of national monetary, fiscal and economic policies on the development of the Atlantic provinces and to make recommendations on desirable changes in the application of such policies for the benefit of the Atlantic provinces.
Before voting against this part of the amendment, I invite hon. members opposite to contact Premier Stanfield and Premier Flemming of New Brunswick. Here is point No. 4 of our amendment:
The adjustment of freight rates and the provision of transportation facilities to overcome the handicaps of the geographic position of the Atlantic provinces.
We had in our amendment, Mr. Speaker, the four points which are mentioned almost word
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces for word in the Atlantic charter, and the basis used by the present members of the government from the Atlantic provinces in their plea to the electors of their respective constituencies before the general election. I ask again, Mr. Speaker, can they vote against such an amendment?
In concluding my remarks I would suggest that a new APEC be formed. We know of the good work which has been done by the Atlantic provinces economic council; but if this government cannot find a solution for the Atlantic provinces, then I would suggest that an Atlantic provinces economic commission be appointed, having on its membership the members of the present Atlantic provinces economic council, representatives of the provincial governments, representatives of the different municipalities and federal officials. Such a commission, be it a royal commission if the government so desires, could make straightforward recommendations to the government which it would have to follow. Such a request of the Atlantic provinces cannot be denied.
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 I noticed that the car at his door was manufactured in Ontario. When I opened the door I noticed that the door knob came from Peterborough. When I walked into his house I saw that the carpet came from Ontario, the furniture came from Quebec. When I went into his kitchen I saw that the washing machine, the refrigerator, the toaster and everything were manufactured in Quebec or Ontario.


Mr. McGrath:: How about the lawnmower?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The lawnmower was certainly not fabricated in the Atlantic provinces. The cereals came from western Canada. Even the meat came not from the Atlantic provinces but from some of the other provinces.
In the Atlantic provinces we have an outlet of 1.5 million people to offer to the central provinces. We are an outlet for the central provinces. When we ask to be considered we know that we have to pay additional freight rates in order to get those goods. In return, what do the central provinces buy from us? Our pulp and paper are exported to the United States. Seventy five per cent to 80 per cent of our fish production is exported to the United States or to South America.
I again emphasize the fact that we are not asking for hand-outs; we are just asking for the rights of the people of the Atlantic provinces.
3484	HOUSE OF
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, whenever the hon. member tor Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) makes a speech in Newfoundland-


An hon. Member:: A rare occasion.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -it is customary for the chairman of the evening to invite the audience to rise and to sing: "Jack was every inch a sailor". This practice has diminished somewhat in recent years since his schooner, the Millie Ford, which foundered in a breeze and came up hard on the shore, took him out of the nautical business. This afternoon, in listening to his dissertation in the house- and I shall have something to say about it-I was reminded of the first two lines of this memorable Newfoundland anthem, "Jack was every inch a sailor". You will recall it goes like this:
It was 25 or 30 years since Jack first saw the light,
He came into this world of woe one dark and stormy night.
We have witnessed today a very remarkable performance. Let us be quite clear on what it is we are asked to observe today. What we have heard from the opposition today have been very clearly provincial election campaign speeches. I for one say that this is a misuse of the time of the House of Commons at this point in its proceedings.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Since my time will run out at the end of this sitting, I wonder whether I might go on? Therefore, audacity is certainly not lost in this realm. Here we have a group of embittered, lost souls, cast adrift in two federal elections, cast out by the Atlantic provinces, all but a shattered remnant cast out. They come in here tonight and they say, "What have you done?"


John Whitney Pickersgill: What have you done?


Edmund Leverett Morris: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman from Bonavista-Twillingate is aware of the little mannerism he has recently adopted in the house which I for one find-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He is not against the Chignecto canal.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -not very impressive; that is, this mannerism. Whenever we on this side of the house interject something with which he is not presently inclined to deal or capable of dealing with, he turns to us and refers to us as young members, or some such phrase, or "when you have been here as long


as I have been here", and so on. This afternoon he referred to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) as a young man. It turned out, of course, that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert had not made the interjection; it was made by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Phillips).


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not confused about it at all.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I have long since stopped looking for gems from that corner of the house.
I looked up the Canadian Parliamentary Guide during the supper recess to find out some of the antecedents, the genealogy of this self-appointed champion of the Atlantic provinces; born in Ontario,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -educated in Winnipeg, married to a British Columbian, sprung into the Atlantic provinces on the 12th day of June, 1953, after a long career under that government. He had all that night and part of the next morning, when the house was dissolved and an election called. So we get in the house repetitious views on the Atlantic provinces from a man who was himself imposed upon his constituency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest possible reluctance I raise a question of privilege. I was elected by my constituents on three occasions. On the first occasion I got 80 per cent of the vote; on the second occasion, 87 per cent; and on the third occasion I got more additional votes than my opponents got votes. I was not imposed at all; I was elected, and I was elected by as substantial a majority as any member in this house.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the Liberal zeal for parliamentary practice. There is no point of order at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said it was a question of privilege.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The point I make is this. The hon. gentleman may ask me to withdraw if what I say is incorrect, but I am of the opinion that not since June 12, 1953, when he was appointed, has a convention been held among his followers in his contituency. If that is incorrect he can ask me to withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Forgie:: You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Halifax to come back to the subject matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am going to raise a point of order. Since the hon. member for Halifax has lectured us on parliamentary procedure, I do raise a point of order seriously. I have examined carefully the C.C.F. subamendment as well as the amendment I moved and I find nothing in them that has anything to do with my career before I came into the house. Interesting though it is-


Mr. Monieith (Perth):: Your qualifications are very interesting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and flattered though I am to have all this attention bestowed upon me, I think it would be more in keeping with the rules of the house if the hon. gentleman would not seek so obviously to evade debating this important resolution which sets out the Tory policy on which he was elected.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, if hon. gentlemen opposite will contain themselves long enough I will get to the subject matter of the amendment. We have had a remarkable performance in the provincial campaign field from gentlemen who make a habit of ridiculing us on this side about the vision and whose own vision is limited by the green carpeting down the centre of two legislative assemblies, one in Fredericton and one in Halifax. That is the vision of their party.


James Moffat Forgie: I have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the hon. member how he would know what an hon. gentleman would be like.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. gentleman's friends in the house on that side were making such a noise in their enthusiasm for his interesting interjection that I could not possibly hear it.


James Moffat Forgie: No, you would not answer it.


Edmund Leverett Morris: We have had today a further demonstration of the self-dictated piety of opposition members about the Atlantic resolutions. This is a carefully nurtured propagandist weapon in connection with which they always say before mentioning these resolutions, "Of course, Conservative members will not mind repetition of these Atlantic resolutions". This is intended to inculcate among unsuspecting people of the country the idea that we have something to be ashamed of. Let this be perfectly clear. The Atlantic resolutions to which I signed my name-I notice that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate smiles but I find this a very serious subject-were in my view the most high-minded statement of public purpose by
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces devoted young men in contemporary Canadian political history. The resolutions were and are and will remain a beacon of light after 20 years of darkness for the people of the Atlantic provinces.
I have said before, and will say as long as the electorate and breath allow me, that the Liberal party is doing the Atlantic provinces great harm by insolently repeating over and over again the most depressingly black picture which they can manage to portray of the Atlantic provinces. What are the facts?


Mr. Deschateleis:: Unemployment.


Edmund Leverett Morris: In the publication, Private and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook for 1960, Regional Investment, issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, the investment intentions of the province of Nova Scotia are given as these. Total investment intentions of primary industry and the construction industry, manufacturing, utilities, trade, finance and commercial services, housing, institutional services and government departments are given as $184.2 million in 1958, $205,800,000 in 1959 and $219,500,000 in 1960. What is backward about that?


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Good intentions.


Edmund Leverett Morris: If you go forward the opposition says you are going backwards. The total of all capital and repair expenditures in 1958 was $258,400,000, in 1959, $284 million and in 1960, $299.5 million. We have here the highest capital intentions of any year in Nova Scotia's history, which betokens the degree of optimistic faith our people have in the province of Nova Scotia.
I am sure that the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, who introduced the amendment, will not say that I am out of order if I mention his beautiful constituency, the entrance to Notre Dame bay and the port of Twillingate. In listening to him this afternoon. I thought that the way you get into Twillingate is between two dangerous headlands. One is called Hell's gate and the other is called Paradise and down the middle is Twillingate. We have to be very careful going down the middle of the remarks which we heard this afternoon.
Let us contrast the health and welfare programs in Nova Scotia with those of the last year of Liberal rule, 1956. The province now pays the cost of the care of all tubercular mentally ill people. Because of federal financial assistance the province is able to pay one third of the operating cost of municipal hospitals for the mentally ill which meet the minimum and desirable standards of professional practice. The province has now agreed to raise its share of these costs to one half. In 1956 the Liberal government

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces paid nothing. Already half of the mentally ill under municipal care are in hospitals which have qualified for provincial assistance.
The province is able now, because of its financial situation, to supply helpful new drugs to municipal institutions. Psychiatric clinics have been opened. They had to be opened. More people became mentally ill under the Liberal government than ever before in our history. Over $3 million has been spent to improve the Nova Scotia hospital. A new nurses' residence is to be built. The hospital plan has been instituted and outpatients' service has already been expanded.
There is a shortage of hospital beds in Nova Scotia today because in the years from 1951 to 1956 the Liberal government of Nova Scotia discontinued matching federal grants for new hospital bed construction. The consequence was that nothing could be given, and that brought new hospital construction virtually to a halt. One of the first things the government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker did on assuming office was to increase the federal grant to $2,000, and the Stanfield government put up an extra $3,000, so that the Conservatives, who we are told have no regard for the average human being, made possible grants of $5,000 for every new hospital bed in Nova Scotia.
But hon. gentlemen will recall that as early as 1919 the government of Mackenzie King promised hospital insurance in this country, and yet 37 years later a Liberal government in Nova Scotia was not paying anything for new hospital beds.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Edmund Leverett Morris: We now have an extension to the Halifax infirmary because of the zeal and vision of the Sisters of Charity. A $8 million treatment centre is being planned for the Victoria general hospital, a provincial institution. A contract has been let for a new hospital at Yarmouth. In Nova Scotia, the local Liberals tried to diminish the fact that the provincial government concluded an agreement for a chemical pulpmill on the strait of Canso costing $40 million. The Liberal members say, "We wanted the pulp-mill, but we did not want them to take any land on which to build it."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I must say that the hon. member is worrying me with his remarks now. I think he is straying a little too far from the motion before the house. The terms of the motion are very wide indeed, but I think there has to be a relationship between his remarks and federal policies or federal administration.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I, of course, bow immediately to your ruling. I was tempted to cite those

things because the last gentleman who spoke dwelt at great length on his own constituency. At least I am talking about provincial government. However, if the rules are such that I must refer to federal activities, let me refer to the federal activities in my own riding which has been mentioned. I noticed a great deal of concern about Halifax in the house today. For instance, there was the repetitious Liberal argument, how will disarmament affect Halifax? One wonders whether this party, devoted to peace, is interested in disarmament as a means of contributing to the spiritual development of man or as a means of trying to embarrass the Conservatives. I am not afraid of disarmament, not in Halifax or anywhere in the world.
Let us look at what has taken place in a replica area of the maritime provinces under this government. In the city of Halifax we are completing a $4.5 million addition to the Nova Scotian hotel, promised by the Liberals for 20 years. We bailed out the bankrupt contractor of the former Liberal administration and completed the Ralston building. We have nearly completed a $1.5 million Bank of Canada agency building. Tenders have been called for a major addition to the federal building in Halifax. Work is already under way on a quarter of a million dollar addition to the federal building at Dartmouth. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), who is sometimes asked, what are you doing for the maritime provinces, has helped us to secure a $6 million oceanographic research station near Halifax. Tenders have been called for the approaches and for the piers and jetties for that great institute.
There has been an investment of $4.5 million in the Mulgrave park housing development; that construction job is already under way and will shortly be joined by another public housing development. A $16 million federal investment, commenced by the former administration and added to and improved by this administration for the Halifax international airport, is shortly to come to fruition with operational flying to commence on July 14. We have put up numerous new buildings in defence installations such as H.M.C. Dockyard, Shearwater, Beaver Bank, and a naval armament depot. The Fairey Aviation Company, one month ago, had the highest employment in its history at Eastern passage, largely because of the federal government's procurement practices. The Halifax shipyard in recent months has incurred the same fate as shipyards throughout the world. However, it now faces a period in which re-employment will take place as a new destroyer

escort and a new Department of Transport ferry will be in the slips for construction. We now have four new industries in the industrial estates park at Woodside.
Not all of our people are employed. The hon. gentleman who preceded me talked about a reduction in the amount of money for harbours and rivers. There are 86 fishermen's wharves, public wharves, in my constituency, and 59 of these have had to be repaired in the last three years. Some of these were in despicable shape. As recently as this morning we had to call tenders to remove the outside end of one at Sheet Harbour where the Liberals had helpfully taken out the crib which lay between the outside end and the shore. How can fishermen use a wharf which is wharf here, the open water, and then shore line? I suppose it was built by one of their friends.
If the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, had been interpreted more generously I might have had an opportunity to refer here to some remarks made about Liberal leaders in the Atlantic provinces. Mr. Hicks says that he would like to come up here and have a heart to heart, man to man talk with Mr. Diefenbaker. The man with whom he should have had the heart to heart talk was Louis St. Laurent, or is it possible that he did?
The present federal administration pays the province of Nova Scotia over $10 million more than did the previous Liberal government. I walked into this house tonight, as one of the two members for Halifax, to say how grateful my people are for the fact that this new money is coming into my riding and into the ridings of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Legere), and all the other great constituencies in Nova Scotia. These additional federal moneys have made possible new schools, new roads, new housing and a new life of hope for our people.
I want to say this: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has had a little less than seven years of durability in the Atlantic provinces. The rest of us in the Atlantic area do not always regard age as synonymous with wisdom, but it is certainly a good primary basis. Some of us have been there a few years longer. Perhaps the hon. gentleman has not been a resident of Newfoundland long enough to know some of the delightful phrases. One of them that I like, for obvious reasons, is a saying they have in Newfoundland, "It is not every day that Morris kills a cow". This means to say that it is not every day that you get an opportunity to tell what
Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces is in your heart, and when you get it, tell it. There is another classic one, "Your tauts are too far aft". The word "taut" is Newfoundland for the word "thwart". It means the cross seat in the boat. When your tauts are too far aft, it means you are so mixed up that your opinions are not worth listening to.


Chesley William Carter: I had an
opportunity to listen to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) for only a short while, Mr. Speaker, but what little I heard convinced me that his thwart is far too far aft. He asked for that. He chose the simile himself. If I were in the boat with my hon. friend, I think I would keep him as far aft as possible. In fact, I think I would put him overboard and tow him along.
I rose to support the amendment made by my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). I think it was Lincoln who said that no nation can survive half slave and half free. I believe that statement is true in an economic sense as well. The problem of the Atlantic provinces is not a regional one; it is a national one. Just as no nation can exist half slave and half free, so also a nation like Canada cannot exist if one region is condemned to be permanently hewers of wood and drawers of water for another part. Canada belongs to all Canadians. Every Canadian, no matter in what part of Canada he lives, is entitled first of all to equality of opportunity and, second, to the enjoyment of a minimum level of public services.
The problem of the Atlantic provinces has not come about as a result of an economic accident. The position in which the Atlantic provinces find themselves today can be traced directly to three main causes. In the first place, it is a direct result of the step the maritime provinces or rather-I think I can include Newfoundland and say this-the Atlantic provinces took when they joined with the central provinces to make the nation of Canada.
In the second place, it is the result of the failure of the central provinces to live up to their part of the bargain; their part of the conditions undertaken; or their part of the terms of the union.
In the third place, it is the result of federal policies which have been developed since confederation mainly to suit the economic conditions of the central provinces. If the maritime provinces had chosen not to join with the central provinces but to federate among themselves and to form a sort of Atlantic union and if they had survived as a political and geographic unit, as I think was quite probable, there is no doubt that today they would be far better off

Federal Aid to Atlantic Provinces than they are at the present time and that they could very well be as prosperous as other parts of Canada.
Prior to confederation the Atlantic provinces were far better off than were the central provinces. They had lower taxes. They had very small provincial debts. Their prosperity was due mainly to their own enterprise and initiative but also to the external trade which was a natural development of their position on the Atlantic seaboard. Their very low tariffs enabled them to trade in the world markets and to sell their own products, to carry them in their own bottoms to all parts of the world and to buy necessities from other countries at the lowest cost. That sort of situation encouraged the shipping industry and it was the shipping industry which produced the greatest revenue to the maritime provinces. The shipping industry, of course, is allied with the shipbuilding industry and that afforded them on outlet by means of which to utilize their forests and skills in shipbuilding and their skills which they developed in managing and sailing ships to every part of the world. They were able to turn all this to very good account financially.
There was great scope for the small enterpriser who was not hampered too much with tight money and who was free to produce any product he could sell. He knew that he could produce it at a low cost, that he could sell it at a low cost and that he could usually find a very good market for it.
When they joined up with the central provinces to form Canada the maritime provinces lost those great advantages. Instead of their own tariffs which could be suited to their own particular needs and to the needs of their own particular industries they became the victims of tariffs which were set up mainly for the protection of industry in the central provinces.
In other words, they became a captive market to the central provinces and that is the very identical situation in which Newfoundland finds itself today. Under that situation when they were forced to buy in the domestic market it was natural that the external trade, their great source of prosperity, would decline, and along with that decline in trade there must of necessity come a decline in the shipping industry and in the shipbuilding industry.
Part of the inducement held out to the maritimes to join with the central provinces was that they would ship their products through maritime ports, but after confederation this did not happen. The central provinces still continued to ship their goods through the United States ports of Boston


and New York. They did not ship to Halifax and Saint John as had been promised. The great emporiums and manufacturing centres which had been envisioned as springing up on the sea coast of the Atlantic provinces did not materialize. At that time they had thought that as the result of confederation the maritime ports would gradually take on the same function as the United States ports in the state of Maine and the state of Massachusetts which had become the manufacturing centres for the hinterland. But this did not happen. The promised railway which was to link them up with Montreal was ten years in coming, and when it did come, as the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) pointed out this evening, it was built for military purposes and followed a route determined by military requirements rather than by economic considerations.
As a result of all this, maritime industries have been handicapped by excessive transportation costs, and instead of being the most prosperous part of Canada they have now become something akin to the poorhouse of Canada. In late years they have found themselves in the position of having to accept handouts in various forms, like tax rentals, stabilization grants, subventions and other forms of payments.


Orville H. Phillips: Who started the tax rentals?


Chesley William Carter: I am not worrying about who started them, I am referring to them as a condition resulting from the failure to live up to the obligations undertaken which were accepted at the time they became part of Canada.
Now although they have suffered those handicaps they have still seen their taxes used to build great national projects like the St. Lawrence seaway, which will be of great benefit to the central provinces but has not proved to date to be of any great benefit to the maritimes. We hope that the time will come when that condition will change, but experience to date has not tended to give very much encouragement.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) paid great tribute this afternoon to the contributions which the people of the maritimes have made to the development of the rest of Canada. In fact, without the maritimes there could never have been any Canadian nation. The central provinces were too vulnerable to exist by themselves and would certainly have become a part of the United States economy many years ago. Since then the maritime provinces have for many years been bearing almost alone the full cost of making Canada a nation and enabling Canada to exist as a nation. That cost should not be shared by the maritime

provinces alone. It is cost that properly belongs to all Canadians and to all parts of Canada.
Therefore the payments which have been made to the Atlantic provinces should be viewed in that light, not as handouts or as generous gifts but as a national obligation. In fact, I think one could almost use the word restitution.
We cannot begin to cure the ills of the Atlantic provinces without understanding the causes and either removing them or offsetting their effect. The Atlantic charter-I mean the political one in 1957, not the historic Atlantic charter-was merely a statement of goals. But what is needed is a planned policy to implement these goals, such as some sort of five-year or three-year program or some other fixed period of priorities and progressive development.
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, sir, I wonder if the house leader could give us some idea of the business for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, if it is at all possible, for convenience in arranging for speakers in debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, for Wednesday the main item will be the second reading of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. If that is completed, budget resolutions will follow. I cannot give the items for Thursday and Friday tonight.


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