1961-06-02

[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 2, 1961


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as the lone member who appears to wish to take advantage of this opportunity to ask questions, I wish to address a "simsicle" question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister inform the house whether any organization or person has applied for an export permit for the CF-lOO's sold to Westbourne Supply Company by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of the hon. member's intention to ask this question just as I was coming into the house. I am not aware of any application, but I am having my department check the matter and will advise the house as soon as I have obtained the information.


George Harris Hees: In reply to the question put to me earlier by the hon. member for Kootenay West with regard to export permits for aircraft, may I say that no such applications have been received.



INQUIRY AS TO FLYING CONDITION OF SURPLUS CF-100 PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of press reports to the effect that Mr. Louis Richard, president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, is checking the claim of Mr. James McMaster that the 11 CF-lOO's recently sold to him by the corporation are in condition to be flown, would the minister inform the house later of the result of this investigation?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question should be addressed to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley). However, since I note that he is not in his seat I will take this question as notice, and will also give the required information to the hon. gentleman at a later date.



REPORTED CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I should like to ask a question of the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the announcement of the closing of three United States Pinetree radar stations and six gap filler stations along Canada's northeast coast and in Newfoundland, has the minister any comment to make regarding the closing of these stations?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I will answer this question early next week, Mr. Speaker, and will give precise information to the hon. member.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: If I may do so, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary question. Can the hon. gentleman say whether any increased activity is contemplated in the radar station at Sydney?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I believe that the best answer to the hon. gentleman is the same as that which I gave to the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. I will inform him next week concerning the details.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
I wonder whether the house would permit me to request a correction to question No. 241 which appears at page 18 of today's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. The word "yardcraft" which appears in parts 1 and 2 of the question should be replaced by the words "auxiliary vessels".



REQUEST TO REVERT TO MOTIONS AT NOON THIS DAY

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a simultaneous announcement is to be made at noon today with respect to arrangements entered into at the meeting of the consortium regarding India. I shall therefore be asking, provided that the house will agree, for reversion to motions at 12 o'clock so the announcement can be made. This announcement cannot be made in advance of that hour.
5754	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the house would give its consent now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a press report in the Newfoundland Daily News dated May 31 to the effect that at present there are 150 Russian ships in the fishing zone off the Newfoundland coast? If so, are the fisheries patrol boats keeping the situation under surveillance?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have seen the press report referred to, and it is substantially in accord with information obtained by my department. The ships referred to are well out at sea and none are in or near Canadian territorial waters. Our fisheries patrol boats are active in our territorial waters keeping a constant watch on the situation.
(Translation):



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the census.
In view of the many complaints made by French speaking and English speaking citizens, does the minister not feel it would be advisable to issue immediate instructions in order that every census taker be in possession of French and English forms when calling at our homes?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and answer it tomorrow in French.
(Text)



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister any 

comment to make on the suggestion contained in John Meyer's column in the Montreal Gazette of June 1 that some relaxation is indicated in the conditions for exploration and development of far northern oil and gas resources, for the purpose of encouraging more foreign capital?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been under discussion for some considerable time. When the decisions have been reached I shall be happy to make a statement in the house.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS Dominion coal board-
229. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $126,345.


The Chairman:: This item will be found at page 44 of the blue book, the details at page 313.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, at the close of our sitting yesterday I had commenced to speak on the estimates in reference to coal. Toward the end of the sitting my good friend from Bonavista-Twillingate asked me what this government had done for the coal industry in western Canada. I reminded him that we had come to grips with the situation in that we had sold a considerable amount of coal from the mines in Alberta to Japan. In fact, my exact words were that we had sold some 500,000 tons of coal. I now have the exact figure for the year 1960-61. In that period we exported to Japan from the coal mines of Alberta 677,000 tons of coal.
I mentioned that when this government took office there was unemployment in the coal mines throughout the province of Alberta, and in particular in the constituency of Bow River, Drumheller and Canmore. I also mentioned that this government paid a subvention on the coal exported to Japan, amounting to $3,048,283 and it was because of this subvention that the Alberta mines were able to compete with the coal industry of Australia. It is because this government raised the subvention on coal that we found a new market in Japan and put back to work the miners who were unemployed when this government took office.
I got the impression from the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the situation in the coal industry is very black. I think the Liberal party left a black record as far as the coal industry in Alberta is concerned. In fact if you refer back to

Hansard for 1956, as reported on page 5738 the then minister of mines and technical surveys from the province of Alberta, Mr. Prudham, had this to say:
Alberta has been the most depressed section of the Canadian coal industry but this past year has seen at least a slowing up in that trend, although I am not trying to minimize the seriousness of the situation in Alberta. The bituminous mines in this area have been largely dependent on the railway market. The switch to diesel locomotives and to oil burning steam engines continued, causing some further loss of markets.
The reason I am referring to these words is that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate left the impression that all this had occurred since 1957. I have some statistics to show that the coal mining industry was in a mess when this government took office, and it was because of the steps this government took that in some measure not only the coal mines but also the men who work in them have been rehabilitated so they can live in dignity with their families.
In other words, Mr. Prudham stated in 1956 that there was nothing they could do for the coal mines as far as obtaining a market for Alberta coal was concerned. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as usual, attacked the Prime Minister when he was absent from the house last evening. He said the Prime Minister made certain promises, and broke them. I should like to tell the hon. member now that I was on a platform in 1957 when the Prime Minister made certain promises. One of those promises was that his party would try to get a market for western coal. That is why I brought to the attention of the committee that in one year we sold
677,000	tons of coke and coal to Japan. That was a promise made; that was a promise kept. This was the kind of promises made by this government, and they have been kept.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talks about the coal situation, and I think we should get down to some statistics. Let us look at the figures filed by the coal operators in Alberta before the royal commission in 1947. There were 11,042 men employed in the coal industry. Man shifts worked amounted to some 2,464,931 hours and earned some $25 million. By 1956 the number of men employed had dropped to 4,814. Their wages had dropped to $16 million. If I had time-and I do not want to take the time-
I could show that from 1947 to 1957 while the Liberal government was in office there was a steady decline in the coal industry in Alberta.


Mr. Hellyer:: And a steady rise in gas and oil.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and I intend to deal with that in a few minutes. But the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate placed all the blame on the government, not on the
2,	1961	5755
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys competitive nature of the industry. I want to place the blame on the brigadier a far as that is concerned


An hon. Member:: Lance corporal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to repeat that there were 640,000 tons of coal shipped in one year from Alberta to Japan, coal on which several million dollars of subvention were paid.
Let us look at the situation in 1949. Production in Alberta during that year amounted to 3,484,000 tons. By 1956 it was only 564,249 tons, and that was used by the railways. Man hours had dropped from
754,000	man days worked to 109,000. This was why places such as Canmore, Rosedale and East Coulee were reduced to the poverty I found there when I started to campaign for the first time on behalf of this government.
I should like to describe some of the conditions I found there. I went into homes in East Coulee where they did not have blankets on the beds. The men had exhausted their right to unemployment insurance benefits because, as hon. members know, miners work their shifts in the winter and are laid off in the summer months. Such was the poverty which existed in Canmore and these other places, and it was the step taken by the present government with regard to find a market for coking coal which gave these people employment and a chance to live in dignity with their families.
While I was listening to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talking about the coal situation I found it interesting to recall what Mr. Drew told the Liberal government as far back as 1955. He warned them of what was happening. Here is what Mr. Drew said on July 25, 1955:
Undoubtedly the situation is serious. It is likely to become much more serious unless positive and vigorous policies are adopted by the government. The subventions which have been paid by the government and the increased subventions now being asked for have not prevented a reduction in the use of coal as a result of increasing competition by other fuels.
If at that time, or earlier, the Liberal government had taken positive steps to find a market for our coal, or to encourage industry to move to that area, the coal mines of Alberta would not have been in the plight they were in 1957, and they would not be in the shape in which they find themselves today.
There is no doubt that in making criticisms one should bear in mind that constructive work can be done. I have called attention to what has happened in the past. Now I should like to speak for a few moments on what positive steps can be taken. I remember saying in this house, when speaking in
5756	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys reference to the energy bill, that there is a known quantity of natural gas in the province of Alberta, to the extent of 23 trillion cubic feet. That statement does not mean much until it is broken down. It is estimated there will be a proven reserve of some 30-odd trillion cubic feet. What will be the demand in Canada for natural gas in the forseeable future? I suggest that even with the expansion which has taken and will take place under the administration of this government, the maximum need per year will be in the neighbourhood of 10 billion cubic feet. Therefore we have enough natural gas proven reserve for probably the next 100 years.
As the Financial Post has pointed out, there are many other uses to which coal can be put. It could be made available to encourage the expansion of secondary industry. As the Financial Post reported the situation in an article dated September 27, 1958 coal, which is one of the oldest energy sources in the world, contains all the same ingredients and can be used to produce the same by-products as natural gas. Let us project our imagination and vision in an attempt to see that the coal from Alberta will be piped in the same pipe lines through which natural gas now flows to the industrial centres of Ontario, eastern Canada and the United States. It was through the dynamic steps of this government that development has taken place to the extent it has at this time. We approved the export of natural gas in quantities to the United States for the first time.
When we make reference to broken promises, let us look at the record to see if the statements are true. I remember the Prime Minister saying in the city of Calgary that if his government took office it would set up a national energy board, which was long overdue. The Prime Minister's word was good, and a national energy board was set up. It is that board which assesses the quantities of energy of various kinds that are needed. It is that type of dynamic step which will result in the rehabilitation of this country, and the cleaning up of the mess that the Liberals left. That word "mess" was used by the hon. member for Trinity during a recent speech he made not very far from Ottawa. He suggested that he would like to have someone debate the situation with him. He suggested by doing so it could be resolved that the Diefenbaker government had made a mess of running the country.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I suggest that type of debate should be "Resolved, that the Conservative government has cleaned up the mess in this country left by the Liberals".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have spent the $500 million surplus.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and I have already placed on record what the hon. member for Trinity had to say about the former minister of mines of the province of Alberta. Who were his guiding lights in the province of Alberta? Those guiding lights were composed of Mr. Don Mackay, the former Liberal candidate for Calgary South, and Mr. Hawrelak, the Liberal candidate for Edmonton East. What happened to those advisers to Mr. Prudham in respect of the coal industry following the last election? They had both stated that if the Liberal party was returned to Ottawa in 1957 they would sit in golden chairs on the treasury benches.
It was not long before it was found that they had been sitting in golden chairs. There was an investigation carried out in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. It is true that there has been some compensation paid. I do not know whether it was a subvention or not, but Mr. Hawrelak has returned to the treasury of the city of Edmonton as the result of a recent law suit, some $100,000 which he had accidentally borrowed. Ex-mayor Don Mackay of Calgary, who ran against the hon. member for Calgary South, was found to have borrowed some cement two or three years earlier which he had forgotten to return. Those two individuals were the coal industry advisers to Mr. Prudham. I suggest that represents the situation as far as the Liberal party's stand in respect of the coal industry.
I should not like to place all the responsibility for this situation on the shoulders of the Liberal government, though I place some of it there. I believe that government, if it had worked in conjunction with the Social Credit government of Alberta, could have done something. However, there is a situation that we must somehow correct. I do not know whether I am fortunate or not in having the Alberta minister of highways representing the Drum-heller coal mining area. In 1960 he said that it was open to the federal government to get off their fannies and sell coal. He was reported as having made that statement in a March, 1960 edition of the Calgary Herald. I refer, of course, to Mr. Kovach, the member of the legislative assembly for Pincher Creek, and I know the hon. member for Macleod will be interested in that statement. Mr. Kovach said during the provincial election that he had heard a lot of talk about Japan emerging as a market for Canadian coal but not one ton from southern Alberta had been exported to that country. I put on the record this morning what has taken place and why the men in the Canmore and Crowsnest pass areas have had the kind of employment they have had since 1957.

There is another problem. The Social Credit members of the legislature come down to Drumheller and talk about the coal that is brought in from the United States. They refer to 20 million tons a year being imported. Twenty million tons were imported when the Liberals were in office, but this amount has been reduced because we believe in doing our own processing and developing our own industries. The amount imported from the United States has fallen to 10 million tons.
There is one thing I should like to make very clear. When we are dealing with the Drumheller coal mines we are dealing with subbituminous coal, which is a soft domestic coal. It is not to be confused with the bituminous and anthracite coal that is imported, or the high bituminous coal of the Crowsnest pass. This subbituminous coal is not suitable for coking coal. It is not used in an industrial way. Therefore the coal that does come in from the United States has nothing to do with the market, even if it were economical for this coal from Drumheller to be shipped east. This coal is a domestic fuel. However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, by proper scientific processing it can be broken down into many by-products. In fact all the by-products of natural gas exist in this coal and some day, as I said, there is no doubt it will be used to produce natural gas which can be piped to the industrial centres in the east or used in industry in Calgary and elsewhere in Alberta.
With respect to the development of our resources, and coal certainly is a very important resource from the point of view of energy, I took quite a lot of abuse in the debate on the Aurora pipe line bill. In fact I think the hon. member for Assiniboia, and I am sorry he is not here, said that I was one of the buccaneers, or words to that effect. I should like to say that when you are developing a resource naturally you have to develop corporations if you are going to have industry. That is true of the coal industry also. But when the hon. member talks about buccaneers, may I say that I think there is a new group of buccaneers appearing on the political scene, the buccaneers who are emerging from the province of Saskatchewan.
So far as the encouragement of companies that can develop an industry is concerned, we have heard a lot recently about the Saskatchewan bill that cancelled certain contracts with respect to mineral and petroleum rights in that province. As far as I am concerned the federal government took the right step in that matter, but when you are dealing with these contracts it is interesting to note that these farmers in Saskatchewan, I am quite convinced, were induced to sign them 90205-6-364
2, 1961	5757
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys by duress, but probably because of the processes of law the courts were unable to come to that conclusion.
Of course the courts of appeal are bound by a finding of fact, but it is interesting to note that the syndicate that accumulated these contracts was very friendly to some of these buccaneers. In fact some of these buccaneers were a part of it. As we are dealing with the development of the resources of this country I should like to place on the record a part of the cross-examination-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must say that the hon. member seems to me to be getting away from coal.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Flynn: I am willing to accept the views of the committee, but I would say that if the hon. member continues in this direction he will soon be discussing something else than coal. The item before the house deals only with coal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would ask you to bear
with me. Possibly I came to the facts too quickly. You cannot develop petroleum or coal or minerals of any kind without some promotion, and I am talking about the promoters who endeavoured to develop the mineral resources of western Canada. I want to deal with this matter because I think it is very important, and I would point out that in the same Pincher Creek area where we have bituminous coal we also have gas wells of which one by-product is condensate. In fact every one of the by-products of natural gas is found in coal. In order to promote secondary industry you have to have these promoters and that is why I should like to place this on the record.
One of the promoters of this syndicate was a man by the name of Broughton. I would also point out that Mr. Shumiatcher was well connected with Mr. Fines, the former provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan. I am going to drop that point for the moment, but I should like to refer to certain questions that Mr. Broughton was asked in the action brought by certain farmers who alleged that there had been fraud with respect to these contracts. As found on page 160 of the appeal book filed before the Supreme Court of Canada there is the following passage:
Q. Had you any connection with the government of Saskatchewan at that time?
A. None other than I was living in the premier's constituency and at that time I was his organizer.
I would think that one of the buccaneers tried to bail himself out by means of a piece of provincial legislation with reference to the development of the resources of this country. I do not want to press this too far because
5758	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys I feel the chairman thinks it is slightly out of order. However, I still say to you, Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, that you cannot get coal or gas out of the ground unless you have promotion and the proper kind of promotion established under free enterprise.
That is why I felt I should bring this to the attention of the house, because of the fact that these socialist planners talk about political cleanliness and one thing and another, and working for the average man. I said on one occasion that Mr. Fines had made $1 million since he became provincial treasurer. I may have been in error, Mr. Chairman, because I now believe he made $3 million. When we are talking about industry and the development of resources, I point out that there were some people in the Social Credit government of Alberta who did the same thing with the resources of that province. When we start looking at these great planners who want to take over we want to see who they are and what they might do with reference to some of our secondary industries.
To come back to the subject of coal, I trust that the government will continue to pay a subvention on the export of anthracite coal from Canada so we can continue to find a market for it in Japan and these miners can keep the employment they have had since 1957. I trust, too, that working together with the provincial government a vigorous plan will be set up by the federal government so that thermal plants can be developed throughout Alberta that will use coal with the result that the miners can live in their homes with their families in dignity.
I trust that some positive step will be taken in the future. It is long range planning that counts. If there had been some long range planning when the Liberals were in office many of the things we are concerned about, much of the unemployment about which they babble, would not be with us today. I trust that a system of pipe lines will be developed so that gas produced from this coal can be piped from the source of the coal, and so that the men in the coal mines will be certain they can continue to make a living.
I should like to close on this note. If I am convinced of anything in my constituency I am convinced that coal mining is unique. The farmers have their ups and downs, but when things pick up the value of their land goes up and the prices of what they produce go up. The coal miner dedicated his life to coal mining so that the development of the west can take place. All he is able to accumulate in life is his little home and the belongings he puts in that 

home. When the coal mines are closed he is forced to leave everything he has been able to accumulate.
That took place in Alberta under the Liberals. I have with me the facts and figures,
I will take pleasure in placing them on the record. In 1940 we had 224 mines in Alberta. By 1956 that number had fallen to 91. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate last evening criticized the government for lack of action in the mining industry. During the war men were taken into the mines at Drum-heller and Canmore. Even men who had retired from the job were asked to mine coal for Canada's war effort. When the war was over they were left in those localities with their families to find alternative employment without assistance from the Liberal government.
I am fair enough to say that some of the problems of the coal mines are related to two factors, the competition of petroleum and natural gas and the fact that our railways are dieselized. To illustrate the effects of railway dieselization on coal consumption let me indicate that railway coal consumption in 1949 was 3,484,000 tons. In 1949 there were
754,000	man day-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Port Arthur speaks I should like to take exception to a statement made by the hon. member for Bow River. I did not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman during the course of his remarks. The hon. member for Bow River suggested that he was replying to observations I had made about the decline in coal production in Alberta. I did not at any stage in my remarks yesterday mention the coal situation in Alberta. I was talking about the crisis in Nova Scotia.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, we have been treated this morning by the hon. member for Bow River to a review of political morality in relation to the coal board, which review has touched upon the reputations of people who are reputedly Liberals, Social Crediters and C.C.F.'ers. I feel that since this opportunity has been given the hon. gentleman I should be given an opportunity to review the political morality of some people who bear the Conservative label.
Since the hon. member seemed to link energy with petroleum and by some means or other relate this to Saskatchewan, I thought the best place I could start would be with the Northern Ontario Natural Gas Corporation

and point out to hon. members of the committee in general and to the hon. member for Bow River in particular that there are certain gentlemen attached to his political party, which I think can be said to be a national party, who were very much involved in purchases, to such an extent that they were removed from positions they held in the cabinet in the government of the province of Ontario.
With respect to public morality we had several years ago in northern Ontario an absolute scandal-


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Bow River perhaps did for a moment stray from the subject of coal. At that time Your Honour brought him to order. He related his remarks to coal and quickly returned to that subject. The hon. member for Port Arthur is now not even going through the formality of making any effort to relate his comments to coal. He rose and stated that he intended to talk about public morality in connection with the province of Ontario. I suggest that Ontario is not a coal province in any full sense of the word, and that the hon. gentleman could not possibly relate his present remarks to the item under consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a word on the point of order, in view of the fact that Your Honour made a ruling which was completely disregarded by the hon. member for Bow River who went on, uninterrupted by anyone on this side of the chamber, with his attacks upon public men on matters not even remotely related to coal, the minority in this house should be accorded the same hearing that has been given the majority.


Mr. Graffley:: Why did the hon. member not raise a point of order at the time?


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister is loquacious this morning, perhaps because he got his canoe back. The hon. member had better be careful.


David James Walker: If little boy blue from Trinity would remain quietly in his seat on occasion, we would have more respect for him. Let me tell the hon. member for Trinity that he will have an opportunity to reply if he has the audacity to rise to his feet and speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who is chairman of this committee?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, the point of order that has been raised attempts to correct the situation. If the hon. member for 90205-6-364J
2, 1961	5759
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Bow River was out of order, is that any reason why another hon. gentleman should be allowed to be out of order? If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wanted to make a criticism at the time, I am sure Your Honour would have stopped the hon. member for Bow River and invited him to return to the subject. How can the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur, if he is to continue in the fashion in which he started, be related to the subject before the committee at this time? With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, let me say we are trying to end this session, but we are not going to succeed in our objective if the hon. member for Port Arthur is going to attempt to rise in his place and engage in his favourite pastime of mud-slinging or mudraking or whatever you wish to call it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Competition in muckraking.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is a circus performer at any time.


Jacques Flynn: When I rose during the course of the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River I must say I had difficulty relating his remarks to the item before the committee, but I did not know anything of the background of the contracts of which he was speaking. I had some doubts about the relevancy of his remarks. Hon. members of the committee generally appeared to think I was in error. That is why I did not intervene, afterward. In order to be fair I think I should allow the hon. member for Port Arthur to deal briefly with the comments made by the hon. member for Bow River. I do not think it would be in order for the hon. gentleman to make a speech solely on the subject with which he opened his remarks. I shall allow the hon. gentleman some latitude, especially if he can relate his remarks to the subject dealt with by the hon. member for Bow River. On the other hand, the hon. gentleman must not go too far. I would not wish to have started a debate within this debate.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, do I understand your ruling to be that the hon. member for Port Arthur should confine his remarks to the subject of the bill before the committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are not debating a bill. The hon. member does not even know what business is before the committee.


Mr. Robichaud:: We are on estimates.


David James Walker: I appreciate that we are in committee on estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The chairman has made his ruling.
5760	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


David James Walker: I am seeking clarification of the ruling that was made.


Mr. Tardif:: Oh, oh.


David James Walker: We now hear from the hon. member in the back seat. What has the hon. member to say?


Paul Tardif: Mr. Chairman, I have been invited to speak by the Minister of Public Works-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I am seeking clarification of your ruling. Do I understand that the hon. member for Port Arthur will be allowed latitude in dealing with a subject which has nothing to do with coal and which is not relevant to the estimates now being considered in committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is a well known rule of this house that it is incompetent for any hon. member to put questions to the Chair. I suggest that Your Honour made a ruling that was understood by those who are intelligent enough to understand, and if the hon. member for Rosedale was not able to understand it perhaps he should read it in Hansard tomorrow.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the minister can find time to take some reading lessons overnight.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not think it is necessary for me to say that the rule applying in committee is that debate must be strictly relevant. On the other hand, I think it must be applied according to the prevailing circumstances in order to be fair.
I indicated in what way I hoped the hon. member for Port Arthur would continue, for a while, his remarks on the subject dealt with by the hon. member for Bow River, and I indicated my reservation that he would be permitted to continue subject to the intervention of the Chair if I think he is going too far afield. I trust that after the hon. member has replied to the hon. member for Bow River the committee will be satisfied that this matter has been disposed of and that the whole committee will come back to the discussion of the item dealing with coal.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, it never pays for any of us as individuals in politics to be too sensitive. I do not take objection to being accused of mudslinging by the Minister of Public Works. The purport of my remarks was that the hon. member for Bow River, in relation to the subject of coal, introduced some interpretations about the political morality-we will forget about individuals-of political parties. I felt it was incumbent upon me to rise and say that whether we are talking


about Northern Ontario Natural Gas, highways or Eastview, we can produce lots of scandals and innuendos relating to the political party to which the hon. member belongs.
I do not intend to carry on in that vein, but merely wish to point out to the hon. gentleman that when one ox is being gored it is all right, but when another ox is being gored it is rotten. I think we should all consider that in the whole incident there should have been more fair play than was extended by the hon. member for Bow River.
My remarks on coal board affairs are going to be very brief. I wanted to say to the hon. member for Cape Breton South that I appreciated receiving word from him some months ago that he would like hon. members to use their influence with Ontario hydro in order to see that the thermo plants used Cape Breton coal. I recall that on a previous occasion he insinuated that the Ontario members had not done anything about this matter, or had not replied. I wanted to put on record the fact that I had spoken to several people in hydro, that I had sent a letter to one of the people at the top of hydro in relation to this matter, and that I am extremely pleased that Ontario hydro has given an order for Nova Scotia coal.
I regret that it may be too late or that it may not be big enough to be as significant as it should, however, it certainly seems to me that this is one way in which a provincial institution or corporation can be a big help in a national way. It is all very well for Mr. Macaulay and other people who are experts on energy in Ontario to keep pointing out that Nova Scotia coal does not quite match United States coal not only in price but in certain constituent values. However, it seems to me that in the national interest we should be prepared to work with a product that may be somewhat lower in quality or higher in cost if it really means the lifeblood of an area that buys a great deal from Ontario.
I do not know what role the federal government or the minister's department or the coal board can play in this matter. I imagine it is really one of negotiating and bargaining. However, as far as the hon. member for Cape Breton South is concerned, whatever one may feel about certain statements he has made I will congratulate him on his efforts in trying to get Ontario hydro aware of the fact that Nova Scotia has a coal problem which we can help to solve.


Mr. MacEwan:: I shall be brief in this matter. I wish to make a few remarks on the estimates of the dominion coal board. Last night the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate made certain remarks on which I should like to comment briefly. First of all,

I should like to commend the minister and the government on the continuation of subsidies to assist Cape Breton coal to get into the upper Canadian markets, especially the $1 per ton subsidy which is paid 80 cents by the federal government and 20 cents by the provincial government in order to assist the coal to non-subvention areas.
I noted also-and I was glad to see it- that the hon. member for Gloucester was sitting in the front benches last night, although on the opposite side of the house. Perhaps he was counting his chickens before they were hatched; I do not know. Perhaps he did so in New Brunswick a short time ago also in a recent event but I do not know anything about that.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South dealt last evening with his remarks, and I just wish to comment on a few of the things stated by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Referring back to 1946, and the fact that the hon. member for Cape Breton South placed on the record the closing of the various mines during the Liberal regime, as found at page 5744 of Hansard following an interjection by an hon. member "You could have done something at one time", he stated:
Yes; and in 1946 and in 1956 a miner, if he lost a job in Cape Breton, could get a job in another mine, either in Cape Breton or somewhere else, and he did so because we had full employment in those days.
I do not know about that. I had not lived in Cape Breton at that time. However, I lived in Pictou county, where I was born and brought up. The closing of the mines during that period were as follows. Acadia No. 7, known as the Skunk mine, closed in 1947; Thorburn in 1947; Allan shaft in the same period; the Albion and McGregor in January of 1957; and especially the mine with which I am most familiar, the Drummond mine in Westville, where production was reduced in 1951. In his remarks further on he mentioned this amount of $1.5 million which was put up, as stated by him. As reported at page 5748 of Hansard he said:
"We shall ask parliament to appropriate $1.5 million-
He was quoting the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
"-but we have not the faintest idea what will be done with it-
I commend the government for providing this amount. I just refer to my own area. When these mines closed and Liberal governments were in power in Halifax and in Ottawa, not one 5-cent piece was given at that time by either government to assist the miners of Pictou county to get jobs, and I can tell this committee now that there was
Aid Commitments to India not full employment in Pictou county at that time. That is when the trouble actually began.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to interrupt my remarks in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to make his announcement.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask that we now revert to the order for motions.
Progress reported.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to thank hon. members of the house for agreeing to revert to motions at this time. My reason for wishing to do so is to table a statement which is being released in other countries concerned as well.
The house will recall that Canada has been represented at meetings this week of a consortium of countries and international agencies concerned with the financing of the foreign exchange requirements of India's third five year plan. This meeting concluded successfully yesterday and agreed on the text of a statement, copies of which I shall table for the information of hon. members.
I will not endeavour to repeat the details furnished in the statement. The meeting was attended by representatives of the governments of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and by representatives of the international bank for reconstruction and development and the international development agency. France joined the consortium as a member during the meeting.
At this meeting the members of the consortium undertook commitments of aid to India totalling over $2 billion for the first two years of the five year plan. These large commitments should enable India to launch this plan of economic development with confidence in the ultimate achievement of its objectives. The group recognized that, in order to carry out the plan, it will be necessary not only for India to devote very considerable resources to financing it but also it will have to be supplemented by a very large inflow of capital, both private and public.
The total commitments undertaken for the first two years amount to $2,225,000,000. Included in that is $56 million from Canada. This Canadian figure is at a rate of $28 million for each of the two years. This includes $18 million each year of aid made available under the Colombo plan and $10 million in each of the two years which the government has undertaken to allocate in the form of export credits, contingent upon the approval
57G2	HOUSE OF
Aid Commitments to India by parliament of the amendments to the Export Credits Insurance Act, in anticipation of which there is now a resolution on the order paper.
In addition to these commitments the United States has undertaken to assist India by making available surplus commodities. India is also receiving grants of wheat from Canada.
I point out that these grants are over and above the commitment of $28 million a year for the first two years. Seven million dollars has been set aside this year in anticipation of a request being received from India for wheat. The house will recall that last year the same amount was furnished in wheat in response to a request from India.
I am sure that all hon. members of the house will welcome the successful outcome of this international meeting, which is of vital importance to peace. Parliament will be asked in due course to take the measures necessary for Canada to implement its share in these undertakings. The statement points out that the commitments made in the meetings in Washington in general are subject to legislative authorization.
If I may be allowed to do so, Mr. Speaker, I would table four copies of this statement.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house have listened with interest to the statement made by the Prime Minister. I think I can say at once that we welcome this statement and the successful outcome of the meeting of the consortium to work out arrangements to assist India in carrying out its third five year plan.
It is clear, as indeed it has been clear for years, that if India is to progress or even to maintain stability she will require help from her friends to reduce her dependence on foreign exchange. We think the arrangement to which the Prime Minister has referred is not only a good arrangement in itself from the point of view of helping India, but it has been brought about in a very satisfactory way in that several of those countries, not one or two, that are in a position to help India have got together and have acted on a co-operative basis. The Prime Minister can be assured of support from this side of the house for the kind of Canadian contribution he has mentioned.
I notice from the Prime Minister's statement and from the press release which he was good enough to send over a few moments ago that our commitment in the first two years is $56 million, but that part of that commitment, if I understood him aright, will be made out of the existing Colombo plan appropriations and part will be additional to the existing appropriations.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

No doubt when the time comes to introduce legislation to carry out this commitment we will be able to deal with this matter in greater detail. All I want to say now is that we think a move of this kind on an international co-operative basis is extremely important both politically and economically. There is no country that deserves help more than India, because India is trying to help herself and maintain a strong and progressive democracy in a part of the world where it is vitally important to us all that this should be done.
We are very glad of the action taken by the Canadian government to co-operate in this international undertaking, and it will certainly receive our support.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I must first of all thank the Prime Minister for sending over a copy of the press release. It is of considerable assistance in following the principle and the details of these proposals.
As far as this group are concerned, we are very glad indeed to support wholeheartedly the proposals announced by the Prime Minister for the total investing of some $2 billion of aid to India. We all know that India is very much entitled to it because of what she has tried to do for herself, and we are particularly happy about this proposal because of her relationship within the commonwealth.
This $2 billion of aid to India pleases us very much indeed because it is to be spent on construction for development and for the welfare of human beings. This is the direction in which we like to see our investments going. We are glad to know that Canada is investing in this project a total of $56 million for peaceful purposes in co-operation with other nations, which we hope will assist the Indian people to maintain progress and develop a land of plenty.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Dominion coal board-
229. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $126,345.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, in continuing my remarks on this matter I would refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate at the conclusion of the sitting last evening, when he referred to the proposal in 1957 by the government of the day for the building of thermal power plants and the production of power in the Atlantic area. The hon. member wondered why the premiers of the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at that time did not buy this proposal.

Of course, first the all-powerful federal government of the day, as was stated by the hon. member, was to own the power plants. The provinces were to have no say in them; the federal government was to own them. As I recall the remarks made by various cabinet ministers in the area at the time, they gave no guarantee that coal would be used in these thermal power plants. There was some talk at the time about oil being cheaper, and so on, and that perhaps it would be better to leave coal in the ground.
The hon. member referred to the new act, and of course his reference was to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act which was introduced by this government. The hon. member poohpoohed it and said there was not too much to it. He said finally:
It is true the Trenton plant has been completed but nothing more has been done.
The Trenton plant is a thermal power plant in my area, and I should like to refer for a moment to a few of the figures placed on record by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a few weeks ago on his estimates regarding the amounts paid under this act in the province of Nova Scotia. They refer to the amount of coal used in the thermal power plant at Trenton in the year 1960. According to the minister's figures the following amounts were expended under this act in Nova Scotia to the end of March, 1961: coal subventions, $2.12 million; transmission facilities, that is building lines into New Brunswick and the eastern part of Nova Scotia, $4.22 million; the Trenton plant, $2.86 million, as shown by the estimates of the dominion coal board.
The following estimates are set out for this year for Nova Scotia: coal subventions, 1.7 million; transmission facilities, $6.3 million, and for the Trenton thermal plant a final amount of $363,000. With regard to the Trenton plant I refer to a press clipping from the New Glasgow Evening News of last week, May, 1961. The headline is:
More than million dollars' worth of coal used by power plant in 1960.
The article continues:
I960 was a coal year as far as generating electric power was concerned and the figures of the just released report of the Nova Scotia power commission indicate the Trenton plant consumed more than a million dollars worth of solid fuel.
Actually, 97,309 tons were burned-an increase of 24,000.
Bulk of the extra power produced went over the grid to New Brunswick where the dry spell that dried up Nova Scotia also hit big hydro streams including even the Saint John river.
Electricity continued to be shipped from Trenton to the New Brunswick pool at Moncton right up to the end of March; then the spring melting period started and coal consumption dropped off accordingly.
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
Further on it says this:
Making possible the shift of power to New Brunswick this past year was the new grid financed by the dominion government; and the fact the Nova Scotia government had proceeded with expansion at Trenton.
Coal consumed at the Trenton plant, the power commission's only thermal generating plant was sufficient to earn $163,685 for qualified industrial power users, also a recent development and financed by the dominion government.
The report indicates thermal energy sold to New Brunswick from Nova Scotia sources from August 17 to November 30 alone reached a total of 60,556,000 kilowatt hours.
I quote these figures to show how these measures are assisting all parts of the maritime provinces, and to illustrate the action which this government has taken. This is of particular importance to my own area where there are still mines in operation-Macbean, Drummond and Greenwood-and the measures I have described will continue to help them out, especially the enlargement of the thermal plant.
The question can be asked, what else has this government done for the coal industry? Well, Industrial Estates Limited, a crown company set up in Nova Scotia, has received some assistance from the federal government and has been able to get one industry into Pictou county, with hope of more. Again, a recent measure brought down by the Minister of Labour allowed the federal government to provide 75 per cent of the capital cost of new vocational schools. I am glad the municipalities in my county are getting together; it looks as though they will be able to agree on the construction of a vocational school, 75 per cent of the cost of which will be paid by the dominion government and 25 per cent by the provincial government. In addition, both governments will pay a large amount- I believe it is 60 per cent-toward the operating cost of such a school, which is greatly needed and which will help train many of the young men in this area.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not think very much of the provision for double depreciation set out by the Minister of Finance in the supplementary budget. Perhaps the arrangement does not amount to too much in itself. All I can say is that the former government took no steps to assist in this way by providing tax incentives, whereas the present government has made a move. We shall press for even more to be done to help new industry establish itself in the area.
One of the hon. members who sits on the front bench opposite was in my area lately, and I notice that he designated the Nova Scotia members as yes men. Well, we are yes men when it comes to measures for the setting up of vocational schools, acts such
5764	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys as the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act and provisions such as the Minister of Finance made earlier this year for double depreciation allowance. We plead guilty to that.
As far as the future is concerned, there are two matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and the government. First of all, with respect to the fund set up to provide assistance for the Cape Breton area I suggest that a further amount be allocated and used in the Pictou county area to help our own provincial crown company in its efforts to attract industry to the area. Second, I would ask the minister to give consideration to making available subventions for our independent mines. I do not intend to go into this subject very fully, because the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria has already discussed it at some length. During his remarks he outlined the necessity for granting subventions to independent mines, of which there are two in my area, besides a number in the Cape Breton area, which are in need of such subventions. I should like to ask, further, that the government decline to follow the suggestion or proposal in the Rand report that subventions should only be allowed to mines producing 50,000 tons of coal or more.
I notice that the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate was lately in the constituency of the hon. member for Cape Breton North. I am sure my hon. friend is now even more secure in his seat than he was before. We are not saying that everything which needs to be done in connection with the coal industry has been done. We do not say the problem is not a tough one. It is indeed a tough problem, and we have grown up with it. But I believe this government is making every effort to assist not only in the Cape Breton area but in other areas, and I strongly urge the government to continue these endeavours and, in particular, to take every step to assist the establishment of new industry in the Pictou area so that additional work opportunities may be available for miners and others who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not concluded last evening the things I wanted to say about the situation in Cape Breton. The hon. member for Pictou who has just resumed his seat has made reference to certain things I said last night. I shall say a little more about that later. But I did undertake last night to produce concrete evidence in support of a statement I made, and I think I should begin what I have to say now by putting on the record an advertisement which appeared in the Halifax Mail-Star of Saturday, June 8, 1957. I shall


read it exactly as it appeared. It is headed "The Coal Industry: Action Today or Regret Tomorrow!"
"If coal production is not increased, the services of some four thousand of the eleven thousand mine workers presently employed in the Nova Scotia coal industry will not be required."
That is a quotation from the Gordon report on Canada's economic prospects, section 16, page 103. Another quotation follows:
"... as far as I am concerned, and as far as my opinion may carry weight in the decisions that are taken, we are not going to encourage a substantial increase in the production of coal because I don't think that that would be fair to future generations."
(Prime Minister St. Laurent, Fredericton, May 23, 1957.)
I shall comment on that later. Then in the middle of the advertisement is the quotation, in large print:
"The Prime Minister, as a matter of policy, has set his face against the expansion of the coal industry in Nova Scotia... And on no issue is there greater disagreement than our stand on coal policy and the position taken by the Liberal party".
(Premier R. L. Stanfield, Inverness, June 5)
The advertisement continues:
In these statements above, the people of Nova Scotia may read for themselves and judge for themselves who has the best interests of Nova Scotia at heart.
The question of the federal thermal power proposals is not an issue! Premier Stanfield has insisted only that Nova Scotia coal be used as the fuel and that the cost of power be made cheaper as a result of the thermal program.
But the statements of Prime Minister St. Laurent on the subject of coal production are an issue!
This is the part to which I want to draw particular attention:
Your Progressive Conservative candidates are in favour of a coal policy that will increase coal production!
The word "increase" is underlined. Then it says:
Do a good turn for Nova Scotia-turn out and vote Conservative on June 10!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the bottom of the advertisement there is a postscript which reads:
Don't be fooled by the power play of federal candidates for the Liberal party. Mr. Winters has described the program as "a $200,000,000 program". In Fredericton, Mr. St. Laurent said: ''I can't tell you how much the plant will cost." Nova Scotia and New Brunswick want cheaper power but they want to hear the facts first not political speeches.
It ends:
Vote Conservative June 10th.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, certainly.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member has just quoted a statement made by the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, which I cannot repeat accurately now, but which in effect indicated that he did not advocate an increase in production of coal in Nova Scotia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Donald MacInnis: I should now like the hon. member to qualify his statement, because of the fact that the St. Laurent government had loaned the provincial government $7,500,000 to help improve mechanization in order to bring about increased production.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is seeking to engage in a debate regarding something which took place a very long time before the events which I am now seeking to discuss. Much as I should like to engage in that debate with the hon. gentleman, I think it is preferable that I continue with the subject I started to speak on regarding this Conservative advertisement. This advertisement offered the people of that area-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister had said that-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: -coal production was an issue.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member wishes to continue his remarks without involving himself in a debate with me, and I suggest he will not do so because the former prime minister had-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must remind the hon. member that he is not permitted to interrupt a speaker except on a point of order, and that a point of order does not involve only a disagreement. If the hon. member wishes to debate the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, he will have to do so later on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw your attention, the attention of hon. members of this committee, and the attention of the people of this country, to what has happened during this debate. We know that the hon. member for Cape Breton South is very worried about this problem.
2,	1961	5765
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys When he spoke in this committee he was politely listened to by the members on this side of the house. However, when anyone on this side has attempted to speak during this debate, that member was harassed by phony points of order from beginning to end. I suggest that this crisis in Cape Breton is too important to be treated in so frivolous a manner in this committee. If the hon. member for Cape Breton South does not like what I have to say he has the right to reply, and I assure him that I will then listen politely to what he has to say.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to-


An hon. Member:: There he goes again; sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should again like to refer to the statement made in this advertisement, and the statements made by the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, on the subject of coal production which the advertisement described as an issue. The advertisement states that Progressive Conservative candidates are in favour of a coal policy which will increase coal production. That was stated as an issue in Nova Scotia by the Conservative candidates before the 1957 election. If that was not an inducement to the voters in Nova Scotia to vote for the Conservative candidates, so as to increase coal production, I do not understand the plain meaning of plain English words. They said that was an issue, but the fact is that coal production has decreased ever since that advertisement appeared.
The hon. member for Pictou said, I think with honesty, that the problems in respect of the coal industry started in 1955 and 1956. I think he is quite right in saying that, and I agree with him. The previous government was very concerned about these problems, and very concerned about the fact that because of dieselization, because of the rapid development of the Canadian oil and gas industries, because of other technological changes, and also because of the exhaustion of many of the mines-that is of course why most of the mines were closed-this problem was becoming increasingly difficult.
As hon. members on the opposite side know, or should know, the previous government did pay a subvention in respect of shipments of coal to the United Kingdom, in the hope of developing a continuing market there for Cape Breton coal. That government extended the whole program of subventions in any way that seemed fruitful. In Mr. Harris' budget of March, 1957 a proposal was made which, if it had been carried out, would have resulted in very much greater
5766	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys use of coal for thermal power development than is being used at the present time in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It is very unfortunate that this program was not carried on by the present government.
That proposal, of course, was not the first proposal made to assist New Brunswick in the production of power. As early as 1956 Mr. Lesage, as the minister of northern affairs, had made an offer, which was warmly welcomed by the present Minister of Forestry, the then premier of New Brunswick, to assist in the development of hydroelectric power on the upper Saint John. It was later discovered that there was not sufficient storage space for the water without agreements being made with the province of Quebec and the government of the United States, and the Liberal government decided that if it could not develop the upper Saint John in a reasonable time-I have the documents right here which show that the then premier of New Brunswick, now the Minister of Forestry, agreed with this view-it must assist the province in some other way to develop the power it needed for industrial development.
Mr. Harris in his budget of March 14, 1957 made a proposal for thermal plants to be built by the federal government, to be owned by the federal government, operated by the Northern Canada Power Corporation, and made available for sale to either of the provinces at any time the provinces wanted to buy them, at their amortized value. That proposal was warmly accepted by the then premier of New Brunswick, the present Minister of Forestry, as well as by the premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Stanfield. That was the first reaction from those individuals, but something happened subsequently to change that reaction.
The hon. member for Pictou said a few moments ago that this was another example of the arrogant centralizing attitude of the federal government, which wanted to own those plants. I have not tried to quote the hon. member's exact words, and I am sure he will correct me if I am being unfair to him, but that statement is not true. At that time we took the view that since the federal government could borrow at a much lower rate of interest than the provincial governments, and since these plants might not make any profit for perhaps five years, it would be an advantage to those provinces if the plants were owned by the federal government. However, in order to safeguard the position of the provinces, it was decided that the moment the plants became profitable, the provinces could take them over. I suggest that was a generous offer of assistance,


unlike any offer ever made by any federal government up to that time, which was made to assist in the development of power in those provinces.
The question was raised at that time by Mr. Stanfield as to whether coal would be used in those plants. There was a good deal of debate about this subject, and since it seems to be the fashion for certain individuals constantly to misrepresent the facts, I shall now try to place them very simply on the record as they occurred.
Mr. Stanfield, as I have said, inquired of the federal government as to whether coal or oil would be used in these plants. Mr. Lesage stated that, at that time, coal was cheaper than oil and, therefore, the question did not arise. However, since that question was persistently being asked by members of the Conservative party-and I do not blame them for asking it-the government decided, in advance of any concrete situation arising, and it was formally announced by Mr. Winters, that if oil became cheaper than coal, the federal government would provide a subsidy to reduce the cost to the price of oil, so that coal could continue to be used, notwithstanding the fact that oil was cheaper, and that the subsidy, in such case, was to be paid out of the federal treasury.
That policy was abandoned by the present government when they came into office. That was the Liberal position, and if that policy had been followed by the present government, if the government of New Brunswick had been willing to allow coal to be used in the Saint John plant, coal would be used there now. If there had been a Liberal government in office in Ottawa coal would be in use in that Saint John plant right now. We know what is being used there. It is not coal; it is oil.
I say that the Minister of Forestry, who was then premier of New Brunswick, was so little concerned about the coal problem that he financed and built the Saint John plant as a provincial undertaking so that it could use oil and would not use coal; but in spite of that fact he is embraced by the present Prime Minister and brought into the government as the great champion of the Atlantic provinces. I say, sir, that is quite a record.
I do not know whether it was more in the interests of New Brunswick to use oil rather than coal in the Saint John plant. That is the business of the provincial government and I am expressing no view in that regard. That is their affair. I am not a member for New Brunswick and I express no view. But I do say that if there had been a federal plant as we originally proposed it would have been built with federal money, and it would have

been using coal today rather than the oil that is being used. That was the Liberal policy. It would have meant a very much greater consumption of coal than there is at the present time. Those are facts that cannot be gainsaid.
This is past history, and it is not going to provide any jobs in Cape Breton or in Pictou county at the present time. I agree with the hon. member for Pictou that it is just as important to provide jobs for displaced miners in Pictou county as in Cape Breton. It is every bit as important. They are two areas which, with the town of Springhill, have suffered very seriously because of the decline in the coal industry, and I do not think there is any doubt that some of that decline could have been prevented.
That is why Mr. St. Laurent, with that honesty which was so characteristic of him, refused to say things that he did not believe would happen. He said at Fredericton that he would not say that the production of coal was going to be increased because he did not think it would be possible, and he was right because surely this government would have tried to carry out that promise if there had been any hope of doing so. What the Tory advertisement never gave him credit for saying, and what he did say which was very important, was:
Now will maritime coal continue to be the cheapest fuel for the production of power for all time? I do not think it will. X think that coal is going to become more valuable for chemical, synthetical processes than it will be as a fuel.
I hope Mr. St. Laurent was right. If the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition in the house on July 1, 1958 had been followed and an intensive program of research into new uses for coal had been initiated at that time, we would have been three years further along the road; but like every other suggestion it was ignored by hon. gentlemen opposite. Mr. St. Laurent said:
I think that coal is going to become more valuable for chemical, synthetical processes than it will be as a fuel. In the meantime, of course, we want these coal mines kept in operation-
That is what he said.
-because we do not want the coal mining towns to become ghost towns.
Mr. St. Laurent and the St. Laurent government, of course, had a record. We had faced a similar situation in the gold mines, and we had met that situation and prevented those towns from becoming ghost towns. That was the position of the Liberal party, and it took the same position with respect to the coal mines. Our position was not like that of hon. gentlemen opposite who, when a mine goes out or when there is no longer a market for the production of a mine, let these towns
2, 1961	5767
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys become ghost towns or say "Let the province solve the problem" or wring their hands and say they do not know what to do next. Mr. St. Laurent said, "We do not want the coal mining towns to become ghost towns". Then he went on to make this statement which, as events have shown, was thoroughly justified: But as far as I am concerned, and as far as my opinion may carry weight in the decisions that are taken, we are not going to encourage a substantial increase in the production of coal because I do not think that that would be fair to the future generations of Canadians.
I do not think it would have been fair, as it has turned out, to the present generation of Canadians to hold up false and visionary hopes which obviously could not be realized. I do say that I could not help but be impressed by a letter I read in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald yesterday. A suggestion was made which I put to hon. gentlemen opposite and particularly to the minister and to the coal board. The letter suggested that we should give consideration now to erecting another thermal plant in the coal fields. It is true that there is no great demand for electricity at the present time in the province of Nova Scotia. That is quite true, though there is some demand, because the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company at this very moment is considering a hydro development for stand-by power. That is rather extraordinary in the light of the coal situation in Nova Scotia. I believe consideration should be given to the possibility suggested in the letter I have mentioned.
I am not sure whether it is feasible, but these things have to be studied and explored, and they should be studied and explored before a crisis arises and not afterward. We do know that methods have been devised now for the transmission of electricity over quite long distances, and it seems to me that it would be very much better from every point of view, rather than paying a subvention to carry coal to Ontario to make power there, where there may not be a continuing market, to build a plant right in Cape Breton and develop power there and, if necessary, transmit it by high voltage lines through the system generally.
We know that the present premier of Quebec and the present premier of New Brunswick are now engaged in negotiating for interconnecting lines similar to those that exist between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and when that exchange is completed it will be possible to transmit power back and forth from Ontario hydro to Cape Breton island because it will all be interconnected by a single eastern Canadian grid. That is a great advance, and it is another development of the policy that Mr. Harris announced in his budget speech on March 14, 1957.
57G8	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
I say, let us consider it. I do not say let us do it, because these big projects require some study and consideration; but such study and consideration should be active and dynamic. Let us consider the possibility of building a big thermal plant on Cape Breton island with a view to shipping the power westward and shipping other power westward from New Brunswick, and so on. It does not all have to go the whole distance. We should consider this possibility with a view to providing another outlet for coal in the near future. You cannot build one of these plants overnight, but the building of such a plant would provide a lot of work and thereby provide alternative employment. It would provide cheap power right there in Cape Breton.
If that were coupled with the other suggestion which I put forward last night, and which I should like to repeat, that as a real inducement to secondary industry to come into Cape Breton the government should consider the possibility of providing at no cost, or at very low cost over a period of years, the necessary power to carry on in that area, then this would prevent the area from becoming a whole series of ghost towns. I say these are constructive suggestions that ought to be considered because I do not see how any Canadian, even if he lives in the Yukon, could contemplate the possibility-and it is a possibility today-of Cape Breton becoming a permanently distressed area with no outlet for the people there, no hope for them whatever.
It does seem to me, sir, that it is quite a shocking thing that 15 months after this government knew that at least two of these mines were going to close, no steps have been taken to provide alternative work for these people. We should have had a scheme ready to go into operation. Fifteen months is a long time. As a matter of fact the government has had three years, because ever since the slowdown of 1958 the government has known that there was going to be a decline. It is true that to slow down that decline is a wise thing. As I said last night, we on this side have always supported every effort of the government to spin that out. We supported those efforts because we hoped the government was going to do something constructive, not just sit on its hands.
I did not agree with everything contained in the Rand report. I did not think the Rand report was bold enough or imaginative enough. However, there were a lot of constructive suggestions in that report, and those suggestions should have been put into operation last November. Parliament met last November. We would have passed in one day a bill to carry out any of those constructive suggestions. Instead of following this course an


interdepartmental committee was set up. We are told now that we will not see what this interdepartmental committee has recommended until after these estimates have been passed.
This is no way to treat parliament. This is no way to carry on the government of the country. I suppose this interdepartmental committee was composed of able civil servants. I cannot conceive of them taking all this time to prepare a report. I suspect that in this case, as in every other case, the delay is caused by the constitutional inability of the present advisers to Her Majesty to make up their minds about anything. They just cannot decide on any course of action in any field. They wait until there is a crisis, then they try to start another investigation or vote a little money, not even knowing how they are going to spend it.
I say, sir, that we need a little responsibility in government in connection with this matter. According to the press the minister is chairman of the cabinet committee studying this subject. Of course parliament is not allowed to know this. The minister surely knows what they are going to do with that $1.5 million. He should tell us now. In fact the government should be spending it now. The day before yesterday, when these men came out of the last shift at Caledonia, they should have been offered some jobs resulting from the expenditure of this million and a half dollars. Instead of that we find the government wringing its hands and saying, "We will be interested in receiving suggestions". This is not good enough.
Last night the hon. member for Cape Breton South blamed everybody he could think of; he blamed the U.M.W. and he blamed the company. He blamed everybody except the people who are really to blame, the ministers. We recall that when the hon. member's predecessor, Mr. Gillis, got up to speak about the situation in Cape Breton he always had constructive suggestions to put forward. I admit that they were not always practical, but unless you have suggestions you cannot find out whether or not they are practical. The hon. member for Cape Breton South is suggesting absolutely nothing to deal with this problem. He is just commending the government, stroking them nicely in the hope something may turn up.


Donald MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, certainly.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member admit that the suggestion he has put forward

in relation to thermal plants in Nova Scotia and the transmission of power by wire is a really good suggestion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member think for one minute that I would have put it forward if I did not think it was worth considering? Everybody who knows anything about what is going on in Canada today knows that the greatest possible consideration is being given to the development of hydro power on the Hamilton river and hydro power on the Peace river, which will be transmitted hundreds of miles, in some cases thousands of miles, to the ultimate users. I am not an engineer, so I am not going to say anything about the feasibility of these projects. However, I know this sort of thing is being done in some parts of the world. Surely it is just as possible to transmit power generated from coal as it is to transmit hydro power.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit another question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to carry on-


Donald MacInnis: It is just one short question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would save his question until I have finished, in order to contribute to orderly debate. I am trying to make some points, and I would prefer the opportunity of making them consecutively.
I say that now we have reached this situation, what is absolutely essential is some expedient, some stopgap, something that will give these men who are thrown out of work something to do right away so they can continue to earn a living. We must remember that most of these miners are not young men. Most of them are not trained for anything but mining. Even if there were plenty of jobs in Quebec or Ontario, these men could not go there.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, certainly.


Donald MacInnis: He just said that he would not put forward a suggestion unless he considered it worth while. The hon. member has maintained that I have never put forward any proposal that would be beneficial to the coal mining areas. If the hon. member will look at page 16 of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day for March 20, 1961 he will find a resolution standing in my name which reads as follows:
2. 1961	5769
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of creating a national grid system for the transmission of power produced from coal in order to take full advantage of this natural resource and further assist the coal mining industry throughout the country.
Does the hon. member not agree that this is the proposal he is now putting forward as his own suggestion? He will note that I put forward this resolution on March 20.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would agree with that. I must say I think it is quite a good suggestion. I never pretended there was any originality in what I was suggesting.


Donald MacInnis: There certainly was not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not seeking to disagree with the hon. member. If he had urged that on the government last night instead of attacking the chiefs of the united mine workers who are doing their best-


Donald MacInnis: Are you defending them now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member asked me a question, but he does not seem to want to hear my answer. My answer is that instead of attacking other people who were sincerely trying to solve this problem-


Donald MacInnis: About as sincere as you are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -if he had put this constructive suggestion to the government it would have been a more useful contribution to the debate.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is setting himself up as the champion of the coal miners of Cape Breton. He is the man, according to his own statement, who knows how to remedy the terrible situation we have at home in Cape Breton. Yet I notice that in taking up the maximum time of the committee that the rules would allow last night and again this morning, he still did not find time to deal with any of these remedies. Indeed, he is the man who last night complained that some hon. members on this side referred to the history of the coal industry in Nova Scotia, yet most of the time he himself has been talking about the history of coal and, I may say, I believe most of it was a distortion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about this advertisement?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Let me see the advertisement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a Tory advertisement.


Donald MacInnis: The polite hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
S770	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Robert Simpson MacLellan: The number one distortion of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate is when he says now in this chamber that in the election of 1957 and 1958 the coal issue was whether or not the Conservative party guaranteed increased production of coal. By no means was that the case. The representation made by the Prime Minister, the premier of Nova Scotia and others in Nova Scotia was that they would do their best to face the problems of the coal industry and give them the full attention they deserved. The people of Nova Scotia elected 10 Conservative members in 1957 over one in 1953. Why was it that they turned down the representatives of the previous administration at that time? The reason was that clearly in the opinion of the people of Nova Scotia the Liberal party had turned their backs on the coal industry and had abandoned the miners to any fate that might befall them. However, they now pretend, or the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does so, that if the Liberal government had been maintained in power they would have accomplished great things for the coal industry.
As a matter of fact what the people of Nova Scotia saw in 1957 was Liberal cabinet ministers running around Nova Scotia saying that the mines that could not be continued in operation on an economic basis would have to be closed. What the people of Nova Scotia saw was the then prime minister coming down to New Brunswick and making speeches to the effect that, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate admits, the coal industry was obsolete.
The prime minister of the day came down to New Brunswick without a single suggestion as to what could be done regarding our declining coal markets other than to say that it was hardly fair to future generations of Canadians to be digging coal out of the ground for use as a fuel. His excuse as to why the Liberal party had abandoned these mines and miners was that coal was much too valuable in 1957 to be placed on the fuel market in Canada but must be saved for the future. Now, of course, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate comes here and pretends that the then prime minister was simply against any expansion of the industry.
It was much more than that, Mr. Chairman. In my mind and in the minds of the great majority of Nova Scotians, as that election of 1957 proved, he had indeed turned his back on the Nova Scotia coal industry.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has made a great to do here this morning about the so-called power program offered by the St. Laurent government in 1957. He says "If we had continued in power and if the
[Mr. Maelnnis.l

thermal program that we had set forth had been set up, and if it were in operation today, then there would be no problem with regard to the Nova Scotia coal industry".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: What happened? After neglecting this problem for years; after mine after mine had been closed and the people who worked in the coal mines and their families had been thrown out on the streets in Cape Breton island and elsewhere in Nova Scotia, on the eve of the election in 1957 the Liberals came back to the people of Nova Scotia hoping once more to catch them in one of their pre-election gags. The gag this time was a thermal power program. The figure of $200 million was mentioned. This money was going to be used to capitalize thermal power plants in Nova Scotia. It was going to give us cheap power. It was going to create a great market for coal.
But, Mr. Chairman, you will note that when the hon. member was speaking he referred to the comments of the premiers of the Atlantic provinces on the matter of the power proposition put forward by the Liberal government at the time. I quote from the advertisement which the hon. member has been kind enough to pass over to me. He quoted Premier Stanfield as saying this:
. .. And on no issue is there greater disagreement than our stand on coal policy and the position taken by the Liberal party.
And the advertisement continues:
The question of the federal thermal power proposals are not an issue. Premier Stanfield has insisted only that Nova Scotia coal be used as the fuel and that the cost of power be made cheaper as the result of the thermal program.
What was the offer of the St. Laurent administration? They said they would provide thermal power plants but when they were asked if they would give us subventions on coal to be used within the maritime area in order to provide power at a reasonable cost from those plants, they said no. When the present Minister of National Revenue asked the then minister of northern affairs, Mr. Lesage, in this chamber if the government of that day would consider subventions on Nova Scotia coal to be used in those power plants, the answer of Mr. Lesage was no, because subventions would not be necessary. Why would subventions not be necessary? Even the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should know that residual oil, bunker C oil, was always cheaper than coal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not cheaper at that time.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: The hon. member says it was not cheaper at that time. That is just the point. Why was it not cheaper? It was

not cheaper because the Suez canal was momentarily blocked, and oil at that time could not get through from the Middle East. Because of world market conditions there was a great shortage of oil, and residual oil costs like all other oil prices shot sky high. It was an emergency situation, a very unusual situation. But the Liberal administration at the time hid behind this unusual situation in order to pretend that subventions on Nova Scotia coal would never be necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: If the Liberal government had been re-elected in 1957 there would have been no thermal plants in the province of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, because neither provincial government could have accepted the proposition put forward at that time by the then minister of northern affairs and national resources. They said they would capitalize the plants. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said those plants would be available at any time for purchase by the provinces. Yes, they would capitalize the plants; but the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate now says that they would buy coal for those plants without subventions, that they would buy coal for those plants by making it a self-liquidating proposition. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate even went so far as to state that within five years it would have been an economic operation. The facts of the situation are these. In 1957, at the time this spurious proposal was brought forward to the people of the Atlantic provinces, we knew something of the cost of producing power with coal. We knew it could not be produced at a profit. Indeed, we knew it could be produced only at very high cost by using coal without subventions. Hence the Liberal offer at the time was a nullity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit one question?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member not recall full well that before that discussion was concluded, and before the election of 1957, an undertaking was given by the St. Laurent government that the price of coal would be reduced to the price of oil so that coal could continue to be used?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal party in the house prior to the election in 1957 steadfastly refused to pay subventions on coal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Answer my question.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: On June 6, four days before the election, they did give out a release which suggested that they might be ready to pay
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys subventions. But when the power proposal was put forward they had refused to pay subventions on coal. How could such a proposal be feasible or possible in the province of Nova Scotia or the province of New Brunswick?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I was commenting on the two recent speeches made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with regard to the Nova Scotia coal problem and in particular with regard to the thermal power program of 1957-58. His first point was a suggestion that the Conservative party in the election of 1957 guaranteed an increase in the production of coal in Nova Scotia. Second, he seeks to argue that if the thermal power program put forward by the government of that day had been put into effect this would have been the salvation of the Nova Scotia coal industry.
Actually at that time former premier Flemming of New Brunswick and Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia commented that they accepted the thermal power program suggested by the hon. St. Laurent administration in principle but they would make no definite statement on it until it had been checked carefully by their governments, and for a very good reason. The slogan of the Liberal party at that time was that this power program would provide "power at cost" in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There could be nothing more empty or meaningless to the people of the Atlantic area than power at cost. We already had power at cost. The Nova Scotia power commission, for example, was operating at a substantial deficit, not at a profit, burning coal as the source of power.
What we needed, and what we had been approaching the government at Ottawa for many years before 1957, was a program which would give us cheaper power, and that certainly meant that if coal was to be used as the source of thermal power there would have to be heavy subventions on coal. The administration of the day had categorically refused to consider subventions on coal to be used in these thermal plants. I quote from page 3296 of Hansard of April 9, 1957, just shortly before the election in June of that year and after the proposed power program had been announced. The present Minister of National Revenue put this question to Mr. Lesage:
Has the government given consideration to expanding the principle of subventions on the movement of coal within the maritime provinces to
5772	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys assist in the use of that coal in competition with oil, assuming that the temporary condition may not continue and the price of oil may drop?
Mr. Lesage replied:
If the hon. member will read my statement he will find that I said or implied we did not consider it was necessary to give a subvention on coal so it would be competitive with oil.
In other words, as I said this morning, the government of the day was relying upon the unusually high cost of oil at the time because of the temporary blockage of the Suez canal to pretend that no subventions were needed to move Nova Scotia coal to thermal plants in the maritime area. Furthermore, Premier Flemming and Premier Stanfield both preferred to have their provinces hold title to plants to be built within their provinces, particularly inasmuch as they wanted some say in the cost of construction. At the time the Liberal party made it sound as if there were grants being made available under this thermal power program. In fact, the proposal was merely in the form of a loan to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the other Atlantic areas. These plants were to be built by the federal government and the cost of construction of the plant and the cost of the power, whether produced by oil or by coal, would be paid for in the price of electricity used. There was no gift to the people of Nova Scotia. When we looked carefully at this so-called thermal power program we saw that it was of no use to us whatsoever.
There has been some mention by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate about the fact that the thermal power plant at Saint John in the province of New Brunswick burns oil. He said that if their plan had been put through the government would have owned these thermal plants and they would have seen to it that coal was burned in them. In other words, he was saying that they would have been in a position to force the province of New Brunswick to burn coal or else presumably, to cut off the power generated by the plant.
It was of no use to the Atlantic premiers to have a program where they would not know what the cost of power would be. The cost of construction of these plants plus the price of coal at the tonnage cost at which it was being produced in 1957 would mean that the cost of power would have been prohibitively high. After 1958 and after the power program had been changed to allow the provinces to hold title to these thermal plants, as I believe any province should be entitled to do, after arrangements had been made for subventions to move coal to these plants by the Conservative administration, the Irving Oil Company of New Brunswick decided to build a refinery at Saint John alongside the proposed


site of the thermal power plant. Regardless of subventions that were made available on coal, coal could not under-sell residual oil from this nearby refinery, and the province of New Brunswick felt it was in the best interests of that province to burn residual oil from the Irving refinery in order to provide cheaper power to the province of New Brunswick.
I do not see how any member, let alone the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, can rise in the house and say that if the Liberal government were still in power they would have been able to force the province of New Brunswick to burn coal in that plant. Furthermore, it should be obvious to every hon. member that a plant in the province of New Brunswick would burn New Brunswick coal, not Nova Scotia coal. The undertaking the Conservative party made to Nova Scotia in 1958 was that if any thermal power plants were built to use fuel other than coal they could not be financed by federal funds.
To turn to the second point made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, namely that in 1957 the Conservative party had guaranteed that the production of coal would be increased-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never said that.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: The hon. member mentioned a promise that the production of coal would be expanded, even though he did try to weasel out of the expression-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is usually very fair, but would he use the words inserted in the advertisement? I did not put words into the mouth of the Conservative party. I used its own words.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: The hon. member was taking a straightforward advertisement which told the people of Nova Scotia at that time that the members from Nova Scotia would do everything in their power, if possible, to increase the production of coal. But never at any time did we promise without reservation that we could expand coal production if there were no markets for that coal.


Mr. Deschaieleis:: You were elected on that promise. Do not forget that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I read the advertisement. It speaks for itself.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Had it not been for the action which this government took in 1957 and the increased subventions on coal, the situation would have been infinitely worse. If the policy of the Liberal party as made known by cabinet ministers speaking in the province had been followed through, we would not now be worrying about the closing of coal mines in Nova Scotia; they would have

been closed before 1957 was out. Coal markets were declining and the government, when it came to power, took every step possible to try to save this industry. We must remember that subventions have been almost doubled since 1957. This is the measure of what was done by the government to try to make up for the rapidly declining coal market. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would like to blame the present government for the decline of that market. The increased flow of natural gas into the Montreal area and the disappearance of our natural market there certainly cannot be blamed on this government. An undertaking was made by Quebec Natural Gas Company to buy gas coming through the trans-Canada pipe line at 51 cents a cubic foot. Since the domestic market expected there did not expand as fast as was anticipated, gas was dumped on the market at 28 cents a cubic foot, making the sale of coal more difficult than ever. This was the equivalent of $5.68 a ton for coal. Every effort was made by the government, by special subventions, to meet this competition in the Montreal market but the gas producers were able to offer gas at a price per cubic foot with which coal was altogether unable to compete on a 12 year contract.
Then again, there have been inroads made on the market by residual oil. Every time a gallon of gasoline is produced, 1.75 gallons of residual oil remain for disposal, all lof which is thrown on the market at prices which, very often, are set in relation to the price of coal. The sale of surplus hydro power in the Montreal east area has also made an inroad on the coal market there. No one could have foreseen this in 1957 or 1958; certainly, no one could have done anything about it. By 1959, 450,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal had been replaced in the Saguenay and Three Rivers area by surplus hydro power. In many cases the power was supplied under contractual terms requiring users to change to surplus hydro power at three hours notice if they were consumers of primary power. Neither this government nor any other government has magic means of meeting competition of that kind. I think great credit is due to the Minister of Mines and to the Minister of National Revenue and to Mr. Uren, the retiring chairman of the coal board, for the efforts made to retain what we do have now of our coal market.
I should also like to say that in the three years I have been here I have been pleased to be associated with the work done by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and
2. 1961	5773
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Victoria. They have used great resourcefulness in tackling this problem of declining coal markets, and done everything which could have been done to bring to the attention of those concerned the problem of the mining communities and the coal industry itself in the face of these declining markets, responsibility for which cannot be attached either to the government or to any other person. Everything possible has been done in these circumstances to increase the subventions to Dosco and the independent operators in order to enable them to sell coal. Nothing was left undone in this respect. Long hours of work were devoted to efforts to sell more coal. Sales of coal in Ontario were, in fact, increased last year to almost three quarters of a million tons. These sales involved markets in that province which had not existed before.
Moreover, in addition to its efforts to stimulate markets for coal the government was responsible for measures intended to improve employment prospects in the area in general and to stimulate, by various actions, the economy of the region. The building up of forestry, the tourist industry and the fishing industry in conjunction with the provincial governments has gone a long way toward making the present position easier. If we had had to face the present coal crisis with the resources and degree of development available in 1957 the situation would be very much worse than it is today. Other industries have been growing at a rapid pace and people today have many more opportunities of employment in fields other than the coal industry. In passing, I might say that in my constituency at Point Tupper there are some 1,300 or 1,400 men working now on the construction of a new pulp mill where there was very little demand for labour only two years ago. In all the facets of our economy there has been a general improvement. We are glad that we are saving one of the three mines threatened with closure. Everyone in this area knows that everything that could be done was done. We have worked together with all the organizations and people of the communities concerned, including the clergy and many local organizations in order to take whatever practical steps were possible.
In addition to saving No. 16 mine for the present time, the mine which has the largest labour force of all, the government has been searching everywhere for new types of employment to provide work for miners who are laid off and who are to be laid off. Every avenue has been explored. I would say that the provision of $1,500,000 per annum for the setting up of new employment opportunities
5774	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys in the area represents one of the most generous provisions ever made by any government in a case of this sort. Certainly it is much more generous than anything done by the previous administration which sat by and watched mines close without making any attempt to provide alternative employment.
I should like to repeat that the people of the coal mining areas appreciate very much the many hours of work and the long nights spent by the hon. member for Cape Breton South in his attempt to save the mines in his constituency. The people of Cape Breton North and Victoria also understand how much work has been done on their behalf by the hon. member who represents that riding, and how earnestly the members from the area as a whole, together with other supporters of the government, have sought to meet this particular problem. They also know that if they must choose between the attitude this government has displayed, since it came into power, in trying to do everything it could, and the attitude of the former administration, to benefit they must choose the attitude of this administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take very much longer, but I must take issue with one or two statements made by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond.
First of all, instead of reading the words of this advertisement as they are, he attempted to put a gloss on them, and to suggest that I said something other than the words that are used. I should like to read those words again. I shall not read the whole advertisement, only the relevant parts which have directly to do with coal. Premier Stanfield is quoted in this advertisement as follows:
The Prime Minister, as a matter of policy, has set his face against the expansion of the coal industry in Nova Scotia-


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Is that not true?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The advertisement then goes on as follows:
And on no issue is there greater disagreement than our stand on coal policy and the position taken by the Liberal party.
The hon. member has tried to weasel out of that statement by suggesting they did not promise to increase coal production. However, let me read the following statement appearing in the advertisement:
But the statements of Prime Minister St. Laurent on the subject of coal production are an issue!
Your Progressive Conservative candidates are in favour of a coal policy that will increase coal production!
There is certainly no mention of the words "if possible" in that advertisement, as has been insinuated by the hon. member. There was no question of it being "possible" before 

June 10, 1957. The hon. member has thought of that qualification this afternoon.
The fact of the matter is that they were either so ignorant they made those promises in good faith, or they were perpetrating a fraud. They can take it either way, and I do not much care which way they choose. The plain fact is that the people were led to believe that there would be an increase in coal production.
The hon. gentleman has said that this government has done its best, but I do not think it has done its best. The hon. gentleman also says that everyone knew that coal markets were shrinking. If everyone knew in 1955, 1956 and 1957 that coal markets were shrinking, why did the Prime Minister and the Tory candidates of those provinces promise an increase in production? If they were aware that the markets were shrinking, why did they promise to increase the production of maritime coal? Why did they not tell the people the true situation? I think the difficulty with which we are now faced in this regard has resulted from those promises made at that time.
The hon. gentleman has taken issue this afternoon with what I said in regard to the thermal plant in Saint John. I must say that I thought the hon. gentleman-I do not accuse him of doing it deliberately-did misrepresent what I had said. He also completely misrepresented the position taken by the St. Laurent government in June of 1957.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: What date in June?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest it does not make any difference what date it was in June, so long as it was before June 10, while they were in a position to carry out their undertaking. Mr. Lesage said, quite properly, when the policy was announced, that coal was cheaper than oil and there was no need to cross the bridge until it was reached. However, such a hullabaloo was made about the situation, along with many misrepresentations, that the government made a formal decision in respect of a hypothetical situation.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Yes, and everybody else knew-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to continue and correct whatever he thinks I have said wrong when I am finished.
The Liberal government took the formal position that if oil became cheaper than coal, no matter what price it reached, the government would pay the necessary subsidy so that coal could continue to be used. That was the statement made by the St. Laurent government. I suggest if that policy had been adhered to by the present government, so that

coal could have been used at the Saint John plant, there should have been a larger market for Canadian coal today than there is. The plain fact of the matter is that since the present government got into power, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Stanfield stated that the present Prime Minister had promised to see that coal was used, the government of the province of New Brunswick chose to build a plant designed to use oil, and which is still using oil. I suggest that had that Liberal policy been continued, and if the plant had continued to be owned by the federal government, the price of coal would have been subsidized and brought down to the cost of oil, so that the plant could have used that coal.
I suggest the fact that the policy was not followed by the Tory government represents the difference between Tory policy and Liberal policy.
The Saint John plant was built by the present Minister of Forestry, who was then the premier of New Brunswick, to use oil, which indicates that he turned his back on the coal industry as well as the federal aid offered by his own friends in this house. I suggest that indicates the measure of his interest in regard to the situation facing the coal industry in the maritime provinces. I do not think even the hon. member for Inver-ness-Richmond, who is very skilful at these things, can get around that situation.
I should suggest, however, that the important thing is not really what might have happened, or might not have happened in 1955, 1956, 1957, or even in 1958, but what is going to happen in 1961. I am not surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite continually drag out all these things that happened in the 1940's. I am surprised they do not go as far back as the 1930's, but, perhaps, when they considered doing so, they realize that during the 1930's, when the Bennett government was in power, coal production was even lower than it is now, and they prefer to forget about it.
The fact of the matter is that we are faced with a situation where a mine closed two days ago, and it is expected that another one will be closed on July 1. A lot of individuals are going to be out of work, with the result that two or three communities in Cape Breton island and, indeed, the whole economy of the province of Nova Scotia, is going to be affected if this situation is allowed to continue without something being done to provide alternative employment. I suggest that is the real problem.
The hon. gentleman has suggested everything which is possible to be done is being done to keep the mines open. Of course, that is not true, because the hon. gentleman knows very well when the delegation came up to
2, 1961	5775
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Ottawa from Cape Breton early this month -I do not think the hon. member will contradict Mr. Shea-


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member for Cape Breton South will contradict him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member should hear what he is contradicting before he does so.


Donald MacInnis: I will contradict it in any event.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to refer to an article written by Mr. Harold Shea, an individual who most of us in this house believe to be a very accurate reporter. Mr. Harold Shea had the following to say, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 13, 1961.


Donald MacInnis: That is last month.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: That was last month, not this month.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the hon. member has me there, it was last month. In any event, Mr Shea had the following to say:
Two federal cabinet ministers declared Friday that Ottawa would put up the money to keep three Cape Breton mines in business beyond announced closure dates if Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation would accept.
Those are Mr Shea's words, of course. The article then continues as follows:
This statement, made to a Cape Breton delegation of municipal officials, clergymen and union officials, was regarded as a direct challenge to Dosco to make "a reasonable proposal".
National revenue minister Nowlan, who chaired the meeting of cabinet ministers and delegation, assured "We will not stint on the money-we'll do everything that is humanly possible".
This article then refers to a statement made by the Minister of Labour, and reads as follows:
Labour minister Starr said: "The big problem is to convince the company to keep the mines open. We'll pay the bill."
When I asked the minister whether that was what he said, and whether that was the policy of the government, he weaseled on that statement.


Mr. Siarr:: Mr. Chairman, I must rise on a question of privilege. I cannot accept the description given by the hon. member in this respect. I gave him an answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, the hon. gentleman gave an answer all right and I will put his answer on the record because it really was a classic. It was the kind of answer that you get from straightforward people to straightforward questions.
5776	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Mr. Starr: If they come from straightforward people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a very different answer from the answer he gave to the delegation that he let go home believing that he meant what he said.
Here is the question and the answer. This is on pages 5096 and 5097 of Hansard for May 20, 1961:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Did he recently give an assurance to a delegation from Cape Breton that if Dosco would keep the coal mines open the government would pay the bill?
That is the question and those are the exact words of Mr. Shea's report. Here is the answer:


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, up until now we have been paying subventions on the coal sold in that area by the mines, and my statement related to those subventions.
Apparently the reporter did not understand it that way; apparently the people who were there did not understand it that way. There is nothing at all about subventions in the words attributed to the minister. He said, "If they will keep the mines open, we will pay the bills". The bills are not subventions; the bills are the cost of keeping the mines open. Then I asked this question:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister comment on a statement which appears in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. to the effect that labour minister Starr said: The big problem is to convince the company to keep the mines open. We will pay the bill.
We all remember what happened at that point. The Minister of Finance turned around and glared at the Minister of Labour, and here is what the Minister of Labour then said:


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the keeping of the mines open is, of course, a decision of management. We would like to see the mines kept open if possible. We have paid subvention bills and are prepared to continue to pay them if they keep those mines open.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister mean that the government is prepared to pay the cost of keeping the mines open?
At that point the Speaker intervened and there was no answer given to that question, which was the original question. This, of course, is typical of the way in which this government treat these problems. They give an assurance to the public and get the delegation away out of Ottawa and back to Cape Breton, and then they repudiate it in that indirect fashion here in the house. That is really what happened in this case. Those people went away thinking that if Dosco kept the mines open, the government would pay the bill.


I do not think there is any doubt that the Dominion Coal Company would have kept those mines open if the government had been prepared to pay the bill.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not saying that should have been done, but I am saying that is what they were told. We were told something else too, after the Minister of Finance had glared at the Minister of Labour.
The plain fact of the matter is that instead of making up their minds months ago that they would either let these mines close or that they would pay the cost of keeping them open, this government tried to keep fooling the people and fooling the people, and then finally they let two of the three mines close.
I say it is a good thing they did not let the other one close. But when you compare that with what was promised by the Prime Minister, not in the first election but later on between the elections-no; this was in fact before the first election; this was on Thursday, May 21, 1957. This is from the Cape Breton Post and these are the words of the present Prime Minister:
National leader of the Progressive Conservative party, John Diefenbaker, Wednesday night, told an overflow political rally at the Riverview high school here that a national fuel policy is high on the program of the national policy.
Then later on there is the following paragraph:
Implementation of a national fuel policy and its particular relation to Nova Scotia was discussed by Mr. Diefenbaker who stressed the important need of aid to the coal mines of the province.
That was in 1957, and we are still waiting for that policy. Indeed, the minister told us yesterday-I had better use his exact words -that you could not have such a policy. After four years of promises and evasion the minister says:
In presenting these estimates to this committee,
I regret to report that the coal situation in Canada in the past year has grown more and more difficult as the competition from other fuels has intensified.
Well, that is true; everybody recognizes that is true:
It is becoming clear that the long established policy of providing assistance in the amount necessary to enable Canadian coal to meet the competition of imported coal in the markets of central Canada is no longer sufficient.
That is what we have been saying since 1958. That is one of the reasons why we had this thermal power policy:
The chief competition in these central markets and also in the home markets is no longer imported coal but other fuels.
It is open to question whether under the present rapidly changing competitive conditions a sound basis can be found for a long range basic policy.

In other words, they just throw up their hands and confess that they cannot have any policy. Maybe they cannot have any policy for coal, but surely they could have a policy to provide work for the coal miners who are thrown out of work. That is what they should be doing, and that is what they should have been doing for the last year. That is the real complaint I have been seeking to make all through.
I should like to quote the words of an editorial in yesterday's Halifax Chronicle-Herald, because I think this editorial states the situation clearly. It says in better fashion and more succinctly than I can, improvising here in the committee, exactly what the problem is. The editorial is called:
Cape Breton's Need.
It says:
The plan for meeting the latest Cape Breton coal crisis that has emerged from long and painful consultations between the federal government and Dosco is one of mixed blessings whose full effects will depend upon the type of follow-up action undertaken by Ottawa over the next few months.
That is what we want the minister to tell us. What is the follow-up going to be? We want to know the precise details of that. We do not want to be told, "After my estimates are over we will get up on the orders of the day and state something and you will not be able to debate it". We want to be told now.


Mr. Small:: Something like you did; is that what you mean?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, we always did, because we were capable of making up our minds, announcing our policy and allowing it to be debated. That is why Canada was growing from 1945 to 1957 and that is why it has stopped growing today. I thank the hon. member for reminding me.


Robert Hardy Small: You had no mind to make up. C. D. Howe made it up for you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This editorial continues:
The final closing of the 99-year-old Caledonia mine at Glace Bay and of the north side's Florence and the 12-month reprieve given to New Waterford's No. 16, the best producer in quantity and quality of the three, follows the general pattern of the past in the contraction of the industry- a pattern for which there is, unfortunately, little better alternative in the face of today's stiffening competition in the fuel markets.
The hopes that had been held for a continuation of all three pits were flimsily-based from the start. Caledonia and Florence are classed as uneconomical, and to keep them going, even with the extension of the federal-provincial offer of a dollar per ton production subsidy, would have brought the whole Dominion Coal Company enterprise closer to bankruptcy.
Even with No. 16 kept open for another year through this special type of aid, it will be necessary to resort to short-time work weeks in all but the better metallurgical collieries such as No. 26
Supply*-Mines and Technical Surveys and McBean. The company says it cannot find consumers for much more than four million tons a year without considerably expanded governmental assistance. The remaining mines, including No. 16, to be left in operation after Florence's abandonment this summer have a combined output capacity of almost 4,700,000 tons.
More than 1,200 miners are to be affected by this year's closings. Some will be transferred to other pits and some will be retired on pension. But the net addition to the ranks of the jobless still will be close to. if not more than, 800.
Eight hundred men, practically all of them with families, and most of them with large families:
And when the extra lease on life for No. 16, which contributes almost half of the general income for the town of New Waterford, runs out in August of 1962 another thousand men will be idled. The $1,500,000 which Ottawa is to provide for emergency employment on the island (in addition to the outlay in an extra year's production subsidies) will look after only a few hundred of these dislocated men and that apparently for a limited period in most cases.
Something more-
I draw your attention to these words.
-is obviously needed to avoid a further drastic economic setback for Cape Breton.
Mines minister Comtois has said this long term regional problem will get special federal attention.
We want to know what that attention is.
This consideration must go beyond merely more ad hoc palliatives and get into the realm of fiscal incentives to draw new industries into the region. Similarly, the possibility of Nova Scotia replacing the U.S. as supplier of the half million tons of bituminous consumed annually by Ottawa's own Polymer Corporation synthetic rubber plant at Sarnia should be further explored. Obtaining this market would be just about enough to rescue No. 16 from abandonment next year. Or at least to prevent the closing of further mines.
There is a real danger that, unless we get a good combination of ferreting out new coal markets within Canada and a bold, comprehensive government spearheaded program for revitalizing the entire industrial base of Cape Breton there will be a continuing, and likely accelerating, drift from bad to worse in its economy.
"We cannot cut this island off," royal commissioner Ivan Band has said so rightly. "Canada, acting with Nova Scotia, must provide conditions to enable it to regain confidence and affirm its will to a new vitality".
And that goes for Springhill, Westville, Stellarton and the other mining communities of the mainland as well.
This, sir, is the problem with which we should be concerned, not what happened in 1957, 1947, 1937 or even 1867. The problem is here and now. The minister should get up now and tell us precisely what he is going to do to provide jobs for these men. He should tell us also whether or not he has spoken to his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, about the houses which many of these miners have bought, and for which they are not going to be able to pay. These houses are mortgaged to Central Mortage and Housing Corporation. This is another problem that

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys has to be considered. However, the big problem is to get jobs for these men and stop the decay in Cape Breton.


Mr. Soulham:: Mr. Chairman, before the debate is concluded on this item of the dominion coal board, I should like to say a few words about the coal industry in the riding of Moose Mountain. I think, unknown to quite a few members, we have a very important coal industry in that part of Saskatchewan. It too has suffered from some of the problems of this industry which have been related at this time. It is a coincidence that just about
10	or 12 years ago an oil company surveying this area discovered large deposits of oil and, as a result of the development of that oil gas has been produced, too. It is interesting to note that out of about 4,300 producing wells in Saskatchewan, there are over 3,000 in that riding.
This development has provided our coal industry with very strong competition. I should like to give the committee, for a minute or two, a few facts concerning the lignite coal industry. I am not going to take up very much of the committee's time. Lignite coal is strip mined near Bienfait and Estevan, Saskatchewan. A fairly constant production of slightly over 2,200,000 tons has been maintained since 1950. The principal markets are for industrial users in the Winnipeg area. More than 70 per cent of the coal sold in the Winnipeg area is lignite. Other markets are in the Regina and Brandon areas, and certain pulp and paper plants at Kenora, Dryden and Fort Frances in Ontario.
Lignite coal possesses a substantial market advantage as a low cost fuel located near its principal markets; only 280 miles from Winnipeg and 155 miles from Brandon. There has also been a new market developed just recently as a result of the construction of a $40 million power plant near Estevan. This steam turbo generating plant uses large amounts of coal for the production of electricity.
In the post-war years the domestic house heating market has been pre-empted by fuel
011	and latterly, to a large extent, by natural gas. The industry, by vigorous salesmanship which included assistance to industrial users in the installation of proper heating plants, was able to develop an industrial market more than replacing the lost domestic market. Concurrently, the companies have invested more than $5 million in new equipment since the war. As a result of mechanization and technological improvements, the industry has been able to absorb successive wage increases and has only raised the mine price of coal by 10 cents per ton since 1948. The present mine price averages $2 per ton.

The lignite industry by its vigorous salesmanship and technological initiative has been able to maintain its position, notwithstanding the competition of premium fuels in the postwar years. Its existence has been threatened by drastic increases in transportation expenses which it is powerless to control, and by this latter competition that I have just mentioned.
I have had representations from one of the directors of one of the leading coal companies in that area. We have, by the way, the following companies in that area, the Great West Coal Company; Western Dominion Coal Company; Manitoba and Saskatchewan Coal Company; Northwest Coal Company, and several other smaller ones. I have here a representation from which I am going to read a short extract, prepared by Mr. W. W. Lynd, Q.C., on behalf of Mr. J. M. Brodie, managing director of Great West Coal Company. He is referring to the Rand commission report, and he says:
The report is most disappointing to the coal industry and if the recommendations that are made in the report are implemented by legislation, it will ring the death knell of the coal industry in Saskatchewan and Alberta at least, and I am not familiar enough with the coal industry of Nova Scotia to say what effect it will have there.
Instead of making recommendations that will be of benefit to the coal industry, the recommendations will very substantially take away from the industry what little help it has been getting in the past. The commissioner proposes to do away with subventions, which are simply the payment by the government of part of the freight rates on coal shipped into certain areas in the country to enable it to compete mostly with importations from the United States. The commissioner proposes these subventions be abandoned and in place thereof that a subsidy of 30 cents a ton be given to the companies which would be of far less benefit than the subventions.
Right at the moment Western Dominion coal mines sells about 400,000 tons to a paper industry in Ontario and the competition is very keen and it has only been by cutting the price to the minimum and by the help of subventions that this market has been held and if the subventions are taken away, it means a loss of 400,000 tons to this one mine.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he would give very serious consideration to these representations from the Great West Coal Company which affect this industry.


Mr. Kindi:: During the past day and a half, Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of discussion on the subject of coal. About 95 per cent of this discussion has been related to Cape Breton and eastern Canada. I rise now to say a few words about western Canada and the particular problems associated with the coal industry in the Crowsnest pass area.
For the purpose of orienting hon. members, let me say that there is about 7 per cent of the world's supply of coal in western

Canada. A large proportion of that coal is located in the Macleod constituency. We have the bituminous type, the lignite type, the metallurgical type, and so on. We are shipping about 650,000 tons to Japan yearly. According to reports from the Japanese who are, I might say, very critical and who have the world to pick from, our coal from the Crowsnest pass is tops for steel production. They say it is superior in terms of B.T.U.'s, ash content and many other qualities to any coal coming from other parts of the world. Hence when I rise this afternoon to speak about the coal industry of the west, I am not speaking because I have nothing to talk about; I am speaking because there is a problem there. It is one which is as acute as that in Nova Scotia. I am also speaking to you because the Crowsnest pass of western Canada may be called the Cape Breton of western Canada. I do not mean to say that we have not been doing anything about the matter. That is far from being the situation. This government has initiated a policy of shipping coal to Japan. As I said before, some 650,000 tons are under contract for shipment to Japan this year.
Let me turn to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate concerning his Liberal policies with respect to coal. What the hon. member said may apply to other areas; I have no information in that regard. However, I can speak from the bottom of my heart and with full knowledge about what has taken place in the Crowsnest pass. As the minister has already said, at one time 3,500,000 tons of coal were produced in the Crowsnest pass for the use of railroad locomotives. That production has now dwindled down, if I heard this figure correctly, to some 200 tons; in other words there is no further market. These railroads are all dieselized. It stands to reason that, with the shrinkage of the output down to next to nothing with the exception of a small quantity for domestic use there has been a dwindling of the markets for coal mined in the Crowsnest pass to practically nothing.
These miners who have spent their lives digging coal, have built their homes in the Crowsnest pass, have spent their lives in that area and have reared their families there are left high and dry, stranded and without anything to do. The former government allowed mines to close one after another in that area. The Hillcrest mine closed as did the mines in British Columbia, some of them at Fernie. Mine after mine closed down until only three remained open when this government came into office. If the policy of the Liberals was such as to keep mines operating and to give miners employment, why did they
2, 1961	5779
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys not do something about the situation? They did nothing. They left it to this government. May I say it was myself who recommended to the present government that the Japanese market should be opened for western Canadian coal. That recommendation was heeded and the Japanese market opened by subsidy for our coal. As I have already said, some
650,000	tons are being shipped annually to Japan. That amount of 650,000 tons is doing a tremendous job in helping the miners of the Crowsnest pass. However, there are always problems that one has to contend with.
One of the problems we have encountered within the past three or four months is the failure of the West Canadian Collieries at Blairmore to take any further Japanese coal orders. The coal mining operators in British Columbia have gone back in and have taken orders from Japan for some 300,000 tons of coal. At Michel everything is fine, times are good, the mines are operating and the people are happy. They are all employed in that particular area. Coming back down to Coleman, we find that they have taken coal orders for 170,000 tons from Japan. They too, are now in a very fortunate position and are operating in such a manner as to give maximum employment. However, at Blairmore and Bellevue it was found by the company operating there that it was unable to cover the costs and allow a sufficient profit. In addition, other factors came into the picture and made it such that no additional orders were taken this year from Japan.
By way of further explanation for those who are less familiar with the subject, allow me to say that operators in the coal mining business, like operators in any other field, have different costs of production. The company in British Columbia operates at a certain level, the one at Coleman operates at another level, and West Canadian Collieries at Blairmore operates at still another level. If employment was to be given in each of those areas, the dominion coal board had to give consideration to the costs of production in each of those three mines and the coal subsidy was set accordingly. If they had taken an average of the cost of each of those three mines, the high cost operator would have been eliminated, and there would have been no employment and no orders taken from Japan by one mine at the time when the subsidy was first initiated. But this was not done. The subsidy was set high enough to cover the cost of the highest cost operator.
However, that operator has found that it can no longer take coal orders from Japan and make a profit on the transactions. As a consequence some 350 miners have been unemployed since December in the Blairmore and Bellevue areas. Whenever there is that
5780	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys number of miners thrown out of work, a difficult situation arises. May I say that, as far as I am able to determine, those mines are closed and there is no prospect of their reopening in the foreseeable future. I have talked with one of the officials of that mine, and as a matter of fact he told me that if he was a worker for that company he would take any job that came along. Therefore, when I met all of the unemployed at Blair-more back during the first week of April I was careful to point this fact out to them. To help correct this situation I went to the president of some 10 companies that are now building that $20 million plant west of Coleman and also companies laying pipe lines for the export of gas, and I asked them to give priority to the miners who have been thrown out of work through the closing of the mines at Blairmore and Bellevue. I received very fine co-operation but I find also that most of those companies which are building the pipe line bring their employees in from the outside and that the local people are not getting the jobs. I should like to read part of a letter I have received from the town of Blairmore with regard to this matter.
The council also wish to draw to your attention the fact that very few of the local unemployed persons are being hired by the pipe line construction company or the gas plant construction company and it was understood by the council that the hiring of local labour would be one of the first considerations of these companies, but this does not seem to be the case. Could this matter be brought to the attention of these companies and placement authorities through your office?
1 have brought this matter to the attention of the Department of Labour. I have asked that job requirements in the Pincher Creek area be referred to the Blairmore office so that the unemployed in the Crowsnest pass will receive priority with respect to the jobs that become available.
South of Pincher Creek a $20 million Shell plant will be constructed this summer and a railway line 10.8 miles long is to be built leading to the plant. Then there is the $20 million British American Oil Company plant. I might add for the information of hon. members that from this very area south of Pincher Creek comes a large percentage of the gas that warms the homes of Ontario. The new petrochemical industries are constructing plants in that area for the purpose of separating the gas, separating sour gas, separating methane, which will be transported through pipes to eastern Canada and also exported to the United States. I hope that the Minister of Labour will give every possible consideration to the question of employment in the Crowsnest pass area.
I want to say a few more words about the coal industry. Yesterday the minister said


that the shipment of coal to Japan was an experiment. To be sure, we all recognize that it is an experiment in that $4.50 per ton by way of subsidy is being paid to move the coal. As he told us, work is being undertaken to reduce the mining costs, transportation charges and the loading charges at the bulk loading facilities at Vancouver. All of these attempts to lower the subsidy are very commendable. If it were possible to decrease it to $2.50 a ton I would have every confidence that it would put the coal industry in the Crowsnest pass area on a sound and economic basis in relation to the Japanese market. That is what we want. That is the objective toward which we should be working. These are the points that the coal board and other people who are studying these matters should bring to the attention of all concerned and all should work towards making it economically possible to ship coal to supply the Japanese market.
I know that at the end of April there were some 750 to 800 people still unemployed in the Crowsnest pass area. That is why I am so concerned that, with respect to jobs available in my constituency, the first chance should be given to the people of the Crowsnest pass area. There were three mines operating in that area but the number has now dwindled to two. I hope above all that the minister in his wisdom and the coal board in its wisdom will look with favour upon the continuation of the present subsidy in order to maintain the movement of coal to the Japanese market.
I should like to say a word or two about the Rand report. We in western Canada want nothing whatever to do with that report. I make that flat statement. There is not a thing in it that is of any value to us. So far as we are concerned, you can take it and throw it in the nearest garbage can and you would be applauded by us for doing so. Whoever wrote the report knew nothing of the coal industry in the west and I say without fear of contradiction that he certainly knew nothing about the coal industry in my area.
So far as the dominion coal board is concerned, I understand that the board is going through a period of reorganization and that certain changes will be made because of the retirement of some of the officials. At this time I should like to join the minister in complimenting the late Mr. Uren, the former chairman of the board, and also Mr. O'Brian who has spent much of his fife as a civil servant in the service of the board. These two fine gentlemen are to be highly complimented and they deserve the thanks and appreciation of all members of the house

regardless of political affiliation. In the reorganization of the board and replacement of officials, I hope the time has come when western Canada will have at least 50 per cent of the representation. The chairman of the board should be from western Canada. He has always been from the east and the reason for that is that more vocal people, like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, are always talking about the eastern situation. There are only myself, the hon. member for Bow River and one or two others that stand up and speak for the coal industry of western Canada. Yet we have far more coal in the west than there is in the east.
I am saying that the coal in the west is going to be developed some day and we want proper guidance in its development. We want proper consideration by the coal board given in respect of that guidance. When consideration is being given to the development of our natural resources-coal being one of the most important sources of energy-we want proper consideration given to western Canada. Let there be no mistake about it. As the member for MacLeod I shall not remain silent if that consideration is not given to western Canada.
Finally, I wish to compliment the minister and the government. In my view the government has done more for the coal industry in the three years it has been in office than the former government did during all the time it was in office. So far as the west is concerned, and my remarks in this regard apply only to the west, the Liberals did nothing in the Crowsnest pass area. As I have already indicated, they simply let one mine after another close and left the miners to sink or swim. As a result there is now a cankerous problem in that area so far as labour is concerned. I have made certain suggestions to the department and I know that every effort will be made to try to solve the problem. I want to thank the minister and the government for the efforts they are making, and if there is any way I can assist to improve the position of the coal industry of the west I shall always be ready to do so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Yes, indeed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If I heard the hon. member correctly, he referred to the late Mr. Uren. Are we to understand that Mr. Uren has passed away?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I understand he has retired.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You used the phrase "the late Mr. Uren".
90205-6-365
2, 1961	5781
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I am sorry. I intended to say the former chairman of the coal board.


Donald MacInnis: There are two sides to every coin. Last evening I presented one side and I should like, this afternoon, to give the committee a picture of the other side. Before doing so I wish to refer to some of the observations made by members of the opposition. I do not for a moment think that anything I have to say this afternoon can be very beneficial to the miners of Cape Breton, and certainly not to the colliery where I used to work, which was closed on Wednesday. However, it surprised me that such a great interest has been aroused among opposition members, who in the past, when representations have been made here by delegations and committees coming from the areas concerned, have, whether Liberal or C.C.F., never shown any concern about these meetings and never attended any of these conferences. Indeed, I gave the hon. member for Gloucester, the last time I spoke in this chamber, what amounted to a formal invitation to attend one of these meetings, an invitation which he saw fit to by-pass. In spite of this lack of concern in the past, the members on the other side have suddenly developed a great interest in the plight of the coal miners.
Yesterday the hon. member for Timiskaming found it necessary to make representations on behalf of Elliot Lake. I am sure he must have ingratiated himself with the Leader of the Opposition by doing so although not intentionally, because that hon. gentleman, who represents the town in question, has failed to say one word on the subject during this discussion on the estimates of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. The hon. member for Timiskaming said he did not think political football should be played in the situation which now exists with respect to mines. I have long ago given up any idea that I could go on a public platform anywhere without becoming involved in politics on this question. The hon. member's reference to this subject yesterday confirmed me in his belief. Indeed, I am convinced that this is the case as far as the opposition is concerned. They are making a political football out of this issue. This was clearly illustrated by the question which his own leader addressed to the Minister of National Revenue on March 21 last with regard to a meeting being held with miners' representatives from Cape Breton. The true nature and purpose of the question was revealed when the minister had to inform the hon. gentleman that the meeting with which he was apparently so concerned had taken place the day before the question was asked. That shows where
5782	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the hon. gentleman's interest lay; he did not even know that the meeting had already taken place.
It is usual when a member refers to another member who is absent from the chamber to say he is sorry that is the case. But I am going to reverse that procedure and say I am glad the hon. member for Essex East is not in his place today, because I think that with regard to this coal board item the committee has been getting on splendidly without him. Up until a short while ago the hon. member for Essex East was trying to set himself up as a champion of the coal miner. What put a stop to these activities I do not know, unless it was a front page press release which appeared in the Montreal Gazette a few weeks ago showing that the hon. member was much interested in the stock of the Quebec Natural Gas Company. I suppose he himself realized he could no longer serve two masters.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: Once again we had the opportunity to hear a dissertation from the hon. member who represents Bonavista-Twillin-gate. Apparently the hon. member for Gloucester has been relegated; he is no longer the official government spokesman on this subject of coal because the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has taken up three times as much time as he has been allowed. I should like to make a few observations with respect to what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said. First, I should like to call attention to something which was said by the hon. member last night as reported at page 5745 of Hansard. He said:
I agree with the hon. member in protesting against the conduct of the government and its disrespect of parliament in that regard.
Here he was speaking of the so-called Vissac report. The Vissac report, as I indicated to the committee yesterday, was a report which, according to a letter I received from the then chairman of the coal board, was a report within the confines of the coal board itself. Never at any time was the government aware that this was the product of an arrangement made by the coal board in trying to set down its views on the Rand commission report. I might say that it is more or less a criticism of the Rand report. In the Vissac report there are many criticisms which I myself have made concerning this Rand report. The hon. member representing Bonavista-Twillingate has either misunderstood what I have said or else he is misquoting me when he suggests that the government is in any way associated with the so-called Vissac report. It was supposed to be a confidential document within the confines of the coal


board. At no time was it supposed to be released outside, and I have a letter to that effect from the chairman of the board. If the report was circulated-and it certainly was circulated according to the information received from union executive officials as early as last November-then, as 1 indicated yesterday, the members of the executive were sitting on it, not I. If the report could be of benefit to meeting the situation in Nova Scotia, why did the executive not use it to that end?
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicated a certain date and then stated that coal production had been continuously on the decline since. I take no pride in bringing this to the attention of the committee, but I wish to point out the inconsistency of the hon. member by drawing attention to the fact that coal production in 1960 in Nova Scotia exceeded that of 1959. This in itself is enough to indicate that the hon. member was wrong in his observations with respect to this question. The hon. member was also wrong in applying that observation to New Brunswick where there has been a similar increase. The amount of the increase is not one which justifies continued operation of the coal mines; nevertheless it shows that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was wrong once again.
I do not intend to pursue the argument about what Liberal policy was prior to the election of 1957. I would only point out that if the policy was such as the hon. member indicated, he and his supporters should have got together before they went into Nova Scotia and then, possibly, the cabinet minister who was threatened with a ride on the rail out of a certain town in Nova Scotia might have brought himself into line with the suggestions made this afternoon from the other side of the house.
The hon. member took me to task for one of the observations I made yesterday. I asked him if he supported the attitude being taken by the united mine worker's executive officers. He disclaimed any credit and suggested that I myself had never put forward any kind of worth while suggestions. Then he went on to make the very suggestion which I had placed before the government several months ago. It appears under my name on the order paper as of March 20 of this year. Yet not content with claiming I have offered no solution the hon. member goes on to outline the very solution which I put forward with respect to the coal mining areas of Nova Scotia. The hon. member has claimed that I offered no solution, yet he uses the very solution to the problem affecting the coal mines of Nova Sofia, and has left the impression that this is an original idea. He has not said that he did say it originally, nor did

he lay claim to it being original, but that was the impression he left with this committee.
Regarding the possibilities of a solution to the problem, and at the outset I inform hon. members that it is not my original idea, but was contained in a report regarding the activities of the coal industries of the United States, I suggest that the international leader of my own union has seen fit to promote the idea of coal by wire, in respect of electrical heating for homes, and has committed his support to the extent of $250,000 for the promotion of this scheme conceived of by the electrical contractors' association of the United States.
I suggest there is a great potential in this regard for the coal industry. In order to promote this scheme it will, of course, be necessary to reduce the cost of power greatly. I have been informed that there are at least
10,000	homes in the province of Quebec which are heated electrically. When we are considering the superiority of coal as a fuel, as compared with oil and natural gas, I suggest in respect to this scheme of coal by wire, coal is much superior to the other types of fuel.
I understand this scheme of providing domestic heat through the use of coal as a fuel has been considered seriously in the province of Ontario, and that there is a great potential in this field for the coal industry. The adoption of such a scheme, of course, will not alleviate the situation which exists in Nova Scotia today. However, it will do much to alleviate the problems of the coal industry in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I should like at this point to make representations regarding the policies of the coal company itself. I should also like to refer to statements made during the last coal conference here in Ottawa, as referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate. I have reference, of course, to the statement made by the Minister of Labour, to that conference, that the government would pick up the tab. I suggest the hon. member has tried to leave the impression with this committee that the Minister of Labour has reneged in this regard. That is not the case at all. Up until this time the only formula the government has found, in an attempt to assist the coal industry, involves subventions. There is no other formula which could be adopted, and which would be workable in providing this assistance.
The government has offered this type of assistance to the coal industry, but the coal company, as a result of its own policies, has indicated it will have no part of this assistance. In this regard, I should like to refer to the meeting held in December of last year, at which time it was indicated, by representatives of the coal company, that the Caledonia
90205-6-365J
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys colliery was to be closed on January 14. That meeting was attended, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said, by representatives from Cape Breton, including civic leaders, union leaders, the provincial premier, and representatives from the clergy and municipalities.
At that time the company took the stand that it was not interested in federal aid which the government offered to provide. It was very adamant in its rejection of government aid offered to avert the closing of the Caledonia colliery. I intend at this stage to refer to a statement, which is fully substantiated by remarks made by union leaders from Cape Breton, to the effect that if it had not been for the efforts of the Minister of Labour, the Caledonia colliery closure should not have been postponed from January 14 until Wednesday last. The Minister of Labour brought about the extension of the deadline set for the closing of that mine, and has been properly given credit by union leaders for his efforts in that regard.
I deplore the attitude on the part of the company in refusing to accept federal aid. I have made certain statements regarding union leadership; however, I do not think I can appropriately express here today my abhorrence of that company's policies.
First of all, we must consider the remarks made by Mr. Albert Fairley, the president of the company, during the December conference, to the effect that the Caledonia colliery was being closed because it was an uneconomical operation. I should like to state at this time that I protested those remarks, and Mr. Fairley then denied having made them. Whether or not I now receive any support from any quarter, I am willing to swear an affidavit in this committee, or outside, to the effect that Albert Fairley said he was closing the Caledonia colliery because it was uneconomical. His statement in that regard is absolutely incorrect. I might state that when I protested his remarks I did not receive any support whatever from the executive officers of the U.M.W. Mr. Fairley can be proved wrong in that statement by his own statements made at an earlier conference, when he said that the Caledonia colliery was one of the topmost collieries in an economical sense. Mr. Fairley denied having made the statement regarding economics at all. As a result of criticism appearing in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of the company's policy, the company, as late as December 30, 1960, or January 30, 1961, decided to answer the criticism, and once again put a statement on record to the effect that the colliery was being closed because it was uneconomical. I repeat, that is an absolutely false statement.

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
On another occasion the company made the suggestion that the quality of the coal from the Caledonia mine was not sufficiently high as to warrant its mining. This is a ridiculous statement because the coal now coming from that mine is similar in quality to the coal from the same mine which has been used for years. I should like to suggest that coal some 50 or 60 years old is being dragged from the bottom of the Atlantic and sold to thermal plants. I suggest the coal from the Caledonia colliery is much superior to that coal.
I should also like to refer to a stand taken by Mr. Gordon, the general manager, expressed by his statement in 1947, that the coal operation of that company must stand or fall on its own. My understanding of that view is that he felt the coal operation must be considered by itself, and not as a part of the whole company's operation. As a result of that viewpoint, officials of that company have come to Ottawa in recent years seeking federal aid in respect of the coal industry. In this regard, I wonder whether the company would be able to substantiate each individual operation by itself, and not as a part of the total operation? I suggest if the lucrative federal contracts, provided by this government were withdrawn, many other operations would become uneconomical. I do not intend to take anything away from industries, such as the Halifax Shipyards, in this regard, which enjoys contracts to the extent of some $30 million, but suggest that these industries are dependent upon federal government contracts to a very great extent. I also suggest in regard to these contracts, that the government should have an official acting as a co-ordinator, looking after the interests of the rank and file of these industries, who should see that the industry carries out its policy regarding these contracts in a manner that is in the best interests of the public generally.
I would go further and suggest to the minister that not only should this apply to a company like Avro, which came in here with very little finances of their own and have taken over one of the largest industrial empires in this country, but a co-ordinator such as this could very well serve this country if this policy were applied to every foreign company in Canada to ensure that Canadian interests would best be served. I do not see how they would in any way interfere with these companies, but they would at least protect Canadian interests in connection with foreign companies operating in Canada and their policies. I submit that the Canadian interest must be served in connection with com-
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
panies like Avro and I suggest that all foreign companies should be considered in the same category.
My first experience with Dosco, or Avro, came shortly after Avro had taken over Dosco and they made their first approach to Ottawa for federal assistance. At that time they had a Mr. A. C. McDonald. My first recollection of Mr. A. C. McDonald is when he went into the town of Glace Bay and promised that there would be no cut-backs in the mine's operations. This same Mr. McDonald was hardly out of town when these cut-backs started to take place. This same Mr. A. C. McDonald came to Ottawa, as I say, in connection with the first submission this company made to this government. He was not here very long before it was pointed out clearly to him that some of the representations he was making at the time were absolutely out of line with the facts. Mr. McDonald was then required to go back to Montreal and redraft the submissions they were trying to put before this government.
That was the last time this government or anybody around Ottawa saw Mr. A. C. McDonald to my knowledge. Apparently the company, which up until that time considered him a brilliant man in the field of figures and facts concerning the operations of this company, decided that he had made two mistakes in coming to Ottawa. He made his first and his last mistake in coming to Ottawa and because of the representations, such as they were, we have seen no more of Mr. McDonald.
This company was coming to the government for assistance. As I say, the only formula that could possibly be worked out to further the interests of the Nova Scotia mines was that formula based on subvention payments. The Minister of Labour did not in any way contradict the facts, as they were brought out at the last coal conference, in his answer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
This company has adopted the policy that coal must stand on its own, but I would remind every hon. member of this committee that if the same policy were applied throughout, this company could not stand on its own for ten minutes because they depend almost entirely on very lucrative federal contracts to carry on operations.
I do not ask the federal government to interfere with that policy. They cannot interfere with the policy of the company. The best the federal government can do is offer assistance, which they have done and which was flatly turned down. This statement can be very easily substantiated by reference to

the remarks of the union leaders, who indicated to the rank and file that the government's offer to the company was absolutely refused; that the company flatly refused to go along with it.
They refused in the December coal conference to say anything in respect of continued operations of No. 4 colliery. Yet through the efforts of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Minister of National Revenue and certainly the Minister of Labour they were more or less forced into the position where operation of the No. 4 colliery was carried on until Wednesday last.
This government has consistently tried to do something for this company so that they may continue the operations of this mine, but the government cannot dictate policy to the company any more than a local government of any municipality in this country can go downtown and tell a merchant who wants to close his business, "You cannot close your business; you will have to keep operating". This government is not going to dictate company policy, but I want it clearly understood that every possible effort in regard to financing was made by the government. However, as early as last December the company refused to consider financial assistance to keep Caledonia operating, and once again that assistance has been flatly refused.
A remark was made by the hon. member, and considering his profession I find it difficult to understand why he would make such a remark. He said that the company was dictating to the government. I asked the hon. member to clarify and substantiate this remark but neither he nor any other hon. member can substantiate the allegation that this government has been dictated to by anybody.
At the same time, it would not be fair for this government to turn around and order this colliery to continue operations. They can do no more than offer financial assistance and, because of company policy, the company flatly refused to accept it.
Mention has been made of Polymer corporation. In the past I have made efforts to secure this market, and I will continue these efforts because now the fight to continue the operations of No. 16 starts today. Between now and the time that No. 16 is scheduled to close there must be action taken in respect to the approach to coal and the policy this company has adopted.
Their sales policy is such that I cannot say anything about it here today. There is no such thing as a sales policy in this company. They have allowed themselves to be pushed out of the local market. People in my home town and myself, living within 300 yards of the coal depot, have had a hard time getting
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the coal we require for our own homes; and this experience is prevalent throughout the province.
They must in some way bring about a correction of their own sales policy regarding coal. They must initiate action in this regard that will protect their own markets, and do something in respect to the domestic market which is fast falling away from them.
With regard to markets other than domestic I would once again make reference to this problem in relation to the situation we face concerning Quebec Natural Gas. Again I am very glad to see that the hon. member for Essex East has not been contributing to the cause of the coal miners in Cape Breton, because he has finally made up his mind that he cannot serve two masters. I am very happy about that and I am sure the coal miners in Cape Breton are also happy about it, because we cannot stomach this kind of representation.
What has happened with Quebec Natural Gas in respect to coal? They have come forward and offered on a number of occasions firm contracts for a period of five years to coal customers. They have offered contracts for seven years, nine years and they finally reached the stage where they were offering 12 year firm contracts to industrial users of natural gas. As the hon. member for Inver-ness-Richmond mentioned, they are offering natural gas at prices far below cost.
It is in this situation we feel there should be some sort of federal legislation to prevent this action, because while they are offering this natural gas at these prices it is undermining the industrial coal market. Natural gas is offered at below cost and with a 12 year firm contract. It is a most ridiculous situation because the same company is appearing before the Quebec utilities board and is asking for an increase in domestic rates. They were broke; they were in a very bad financial position, and being in such a position I think there should be some sort of legislation which would prevent them undermining other fuels on the industrial market when at the same time they are asking for higher rates from domestic consumers.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate said this government has done nothing in this respect. This government very recently announced assistance in this regard, and once again this caught the opposition members napping. They did not even realize that this announcement regarding the coal situation was separate and apart from any other policy.
I refer to the announcement of assistance in the amount of $1,500,000 annually to provide alternative employment for the miners
5786	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys in the Cape Breton area. The opposition members thought this was another political move and they made representations to this effect; they thought this would only prolong the situation. They did not have the interest or knowledge to realize what the situation was. They just made this a political football. I do not object to that; I will kick a football around with the best of them.
In respect to this $1,500,000 I should like to offer a few suggestions. It is my hope that this $1,500,000 will be used in a way which will in no way affect the everyday or ordinary expenditures of the different departments to carry on what might be considered federal projects. It is my hope that this type of fund will be set aside to be used exclusively for the purpose of establishing other industries and providing more permanent work than would be provided by ordinary federal projects.
I do not wish to take away from the importance of the recommendations of the Rand commission. They recommended the spending of $1,500,000 on the fortress of Louisbourg over a period of 15 to 20 years. Nevertheless I feel quite strongly that any federal money spent on the fortress of Louisbourg should be spent on the merits of that fortress as a most important historical site in the country. I feel that the money necessary for the reconstruction of this fortress should- be appropriated through regular channels and should not be related in any way to the special amount which has been set aside by the federal government.
I would go further, Mr. Chairman, and suggest that it might be a good idea to have this sum of $1.5 million set aside annually for such special projects. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has implied that the federal government has set aside money without knowing what to do with it. After all, it is partly the responsibility of the provincial and municipal authorities to bring forward projects which would qualify for funds from this amount. I would suggest that it might be cheaper in the long run were the government to set up a much larger fund for the purpose of enticing industries into this area. The fund would be called upon to help them get started. A fund of this kind, if it were provided annually, would be, from a political point of view, very difficult to discontinue. I would very respectfully suggest that the government should take a second look at the amount that has been set aside because as I see the situation in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia generally, it is going to require $1,500,000 to be spent on an annual basis over a number of years.
Perhaps a revolving fund could be set up from which new industries could borrow at
[Mr. Maclnnis.l

a very low rate of interest, and then eventually repay the fund. A fund of from $25 million to $50 million could be set up for this purpose. Then, too, in addition to the vocational training and trade schools in Cape Breton, the government might take a look at the possibility of extending assistance to the academic field. In this way, many young people could be kept off the labour market and at the same time given training in some of the professions, as teachers, dentists and so forth, of whom there is a shortage. This course of action would serve the dual purpose of keeping these young people off the labour market and at the same time providing the country with teachers and other professional people.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: I am
sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before the minister replies I wish he would consider certain statements which have been made by both the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond and the hon. member for Cape Breton South. When the minister made his announcement on Tuesday, May 30, with regard to the continuation of subventions for Cape Breton coal, he had this to say and I quote from page 5567 of Hansard:
The government considered, however, that as miners are displaced from employment with the corporation this season, other special steps should be taken at this time to assist in the provision of alternative employment. Parliament will therefore be asked to provide an amount of $1.5 million which will be set aside for approved projects to provide alternative employment this year in the Cape Breton area.
Now, both members have stated, and have repeated, that this amount would be set aside annually. I wish the minister could tell the committee whether or not this statement is accurate.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 229 carry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Chairman, the minister should reply.


Mr. Comtois:: I am sorry, but would the hon. member repeat his question because I was talking to the men in front of me.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The minister is aware, if he has listened to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond and the hon. member for Cape Breton South, that both members have stated the amount of $1.5 million will be set aside annually to provide employment on approved projects in this area. The way in which the minister's announcement reads in Hansard, this amount was set aside for this year.


Mr. Comlois:: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the tact is that it is $1.5 million for this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Only.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I did not say "only". I said for this year. Do not go adding other words.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: At no time has the minister stated this amount would be set aside annually?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: No.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I think the minister should answer the definite questions I asked of him yesterday before we allow this item to pass.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are a few questions that were raised by the hon. member for Gloucester. I have taken some notes on them.
The hon. member asked for information on the number of men employed and the number of days worked per year in the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick mines over the last 10 years. These figures are taken from the dominion bureau of statistics and are as follows: The number of employees in Nova Scotia in 1950 was 11,712, representing 274 days' work; in New Brunswick, 1,034 employees for 257 days' work; in 1959, Nova Scotia, 7,535 employees and 214 days' work; New Brunswick, 913 employees and 272 days' work. I have the figures for the intervening years between 1950 and 1959.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Does the minister have the figures for 1960?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: No, the dominion bureau of statistics has not reported as yet, so I do not have them. I would certainly have produced them if I could have obtained them.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Perhaps if the minister finds the report too long, he could give the number of employees only year after year, leaving the man hours aside.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Just the number of employees?
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
1955		 901
1956		 949
1957		 909
1958		 781
1959		 913
Is the hon. member satisfied with these figures?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: The hon. member also asked the following question. What is the reason why there may be an increase in metallurgical coal? It appears reasonable to assume that the steel industry in Canada will continue to expand with increasing population and demand for goods. That is the normal forecast. Another question he asked was this. What proportion of this increase will be supplied by mines in the maritime provinces? It is not expected that there will be any substantial increase in the supply of maritime coal. The amount of coal produced in Nova Scotia for this purpose is very limited and New Brunswick coal is not suitable because of high sulphur content.
The hon. member for Gloucester also asked for information on the imports of heavy fuel oil in the eastern provinces. The dominion bureau of statistics reported as follows:
Imports of Heavy Fuel Oil into the Maritime Provinces
1958	
732,400	barrels1959	
1,583,700	barrels1960	
1,704,400	barrelsThe hon. member also asked about the changes in production in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick between 1950 and 1959. The production in these years has been as follows: Nova Scotia 1950,	6,478,000 tons; 1959,4.391.000	tons. In New Brunswick, for 1950,607.000	tons; in 1959, 1,003,000 tons. These figures represent a decrease of some 33 per cent in Nova Scotia and an increase of some 65 per cent in New Brunswick. I think those are the figures for which the hon. member asked. Is he satisfied?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The number of employees.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: This is the number, and I am speaking of Nova Scotia:
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
11,712
11,952
11,602
11,231
10,637
10,073
9,983
9,181
8,892
7,535
In New Brunswick:
1951
1953
1,034
900
916


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to thank the minister for these figures which I was anxious to have on the record. I will not elaborate on the figures which have been given by the minister. However, I will bring to the attention of the committee the fact that in Nova Scotia alone the number of employees in the coal mines decreased by 700 during the last seven years of the previous administration while it went down by 1,600 during the first two years of the present administration. I hope the hon. member for Cape Breton South will not say that I am again trying to misinform the committee as he did last night when I quoted the figures from the dominion bureau of statistics.

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Donald MacInnis: Perhaps the hon. member would like the figures of the united mine workers which show that between 1946 and 1956 there was a decline of 5,000 at that time and that the mine workers, district number 26, did not get work as implied by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
230. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $13,244,900.
John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister on May 30 said that this $1,500,000 which he has now told us is for one year only is for approved projects to provide alternative employment. Will the minister tell us who is going to approve those projects and who is going to recommend them?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I presume and I am quite sure that the decision upon that subject will be taken as arranged between the federal government and the provincial government. They will have to meet together and work jointly on such projects.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this to be a joint decision? The minister said that parliament was going to be asked to provide this money. In his statement on May 30 he did not say anything about the government of Nova Scotia having anything to do with it. Surely, in this national emergency this government can do something on its own.


Paul Comtois: Yes, that can be the case but we do not know right now. It depends on the arrangement that will be made eventually with the government in question. These matters will be settled and the house will be informed when we come to some agreement with the provincial government in Nova Scotia. As I said the other day, a statement will be made at that time so that the house will be fully informed of the agreement we have come to on those projects that will be approved jointly with the province of Nova Scotia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, although Caledonia mine closed two days ago, the government still has no project at all on which to spend this $1,500,000?


Paul Comtois: I would not say that, I cannot agree with that statement. There are some projects that are actually being studied and very serious projects which cannot be explained right now or upon which no statement can be made because they are not completed. Many efficient people are working on them, including technicians. As soon as we can inform the house, I will do so or some

member of the government will make an announcement as I told the house the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, after 15 months of knowledge that this mine was going to close, the government has allowed the mine to close without having a single project for alternative employment. That is what the minister is saying.


Paul Comtois: I would not say that. I will not let the matter pass like that. Probably the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate refers to the Rand report-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I am talking about your $1,500,000. What are you going to spend it on?


Paul Comtois: You will be informed in due course, as soon as a statement can be made on the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the whole point. These people were thrown out of work two days ago and the minister says "in due course" he is going to tell us what he is going to spend this money on. After 15 months they have not got one single project. The minister says he will not accept my statement. Let him name the project if they have got one. I am sure that if the government had a project they could name they would name it, but they have not.


Paul Comtois: The $1.5 million will have to be voted in the supplementary estimates. At that time the hon. member will be allowed-


Mr. Denis:: It is a blank cheque.


Paul Comtois: No, it will be in the supplementary estimates. This vote is for the regular subsidies. The amount of $1.5 million is not mentioned in this vote. It will be included in the supplementary estimates. Perhaps the hon. member just wants to have the final word. I will let him have it if he wants it, but the truth is that the $1.5 million will be asked for in a vote and at that time he will be able to put every question he wants to put. The item in question concerns only the regular estimates of the dominion coal board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am well aware of that-


Paul Comtois: I knew you were.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but the minister made this announcement on May 30, the day before the mine closed, and offered some hope of alternative work to these miners who are being thrown out of work. He says to them that $1.5 million will be spent. He also tells us now that after 15 months the government has not got a single idea as to how this money

should be used and that some day, if this session goes on until Christmas, he may bring in a supplementary estimate. In the meantime these men who have no jobs can just wait, hope and pray that the government will provide something.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in order that we will have this matter straight, can the minister assure the house that the $1.5 million will be provided from the federal treasury and that the provinces, especially the province of Nova Scotia, will not have to share in such projects?


Donald MacInnis: The province of Nova Scotia wants to share.


Azellus Denis: You are not the minister and you never will be.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I will have to check the statement. I believe the full amount will be paid by the federal government but arrangements might be made with the provincial government as to administration and so on. I think that administration would represent the contribution of the provincial government in that regard. The statement is very clear. It would seem these two members are fighting to have the last word. Who is going to have the last word, Bonavista-Twillingate or Gloucester?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I want to make it clear to the minister that we want this matter set straight. In the first place, two members from Nova Scotia have stated that this amount is to be voted annually.


Paul Comtois: There is no reference to it being voted annually here and I never mentioned that. In my statement on May 30, as found on page 5567 of Hansard, I said:
Parliament will therefore be asked to provide an amount of $1.5 million which will be set aside for approved projects to provide alternative employment this year in the Cape Breton area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This year only.


Paul Comtois: I did not say "only". I insist on that. This is the third time that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said that. As the last word, does he want me to say "only"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I think you should take the help that the hon. member for Inver-ness-Richmond is offering you and say that you will do it annually.


Paul Comtois: I hope it will be annually but right now it is $1.5 million for this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
90205-6-366
Supply-Secretary of State
231. Subventions In respect of eastern coal under agreements entered Into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $1,700,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister tell the house what amounts were paid last year to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick under this item?


Paul Comtois: Payments to the New Brunswick electric power commission to date under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act amount to $593,623.04 and in the case of the Nova Scotia power commission the amount is $1,102,792.47. That is the final amount.


John Whitney Pickersgill: For last year.


Paul Comtois: As of April 30, 1961.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister inform the committee whether any payments have been made to any other public utilities in addition to the New Brunswick power commission?


Paul Comtois: No, it is all paid to them by mutual agreement.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: To the power commissions of the respective provinces?


Paul Comtois: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: That completes the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. We will now turn to the estimates of the Secretary of State.


[Stage Direction]
Office of the chief electoral officer-
46. Salaries and expenses of office, $83,685.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the first matter I should like to touch on in relation to this vote is a very up-to-date news story in the Toronto Star today, Friday, June 2. It is headed, "No Issues, No Election this Year". It reads as follows:
The national president of the Progressive Conservative party declared firmly last night there would be no general election this year. Senator Gunnar Thorvaldson, Prime Minister Diefenbaker's closest political associate, told the Star that only a major issue for which the Prime Minister felt he needed a mandate from the people might force an election. "I see no such issue on the horizon", he said.


Mr. Brunsden:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member in order in quoting from today's issue of the Star with respect to elections? I submit that we are discussing the estimates of the Secretary of State, and may I respectfully suggest that the hon. member is out of order.
5790	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State


Gordon Campbell Chown: It is
very difficult for the Chair to decide whether or not the hon. member for Port Arthur is in order until he has progressed to the point he is trying to make.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We are now dealing with the office of the chief electoral officer and if this is not when we can talk about elections I do not know when we can.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are going to abolish elections.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I imagine there is always that tendency. I continue with the report:
The Senator's statement confirms Ottawa reports that the Prime Minister is satisfied the recent Conservative by-election victories indicate widespread approval of this policy and he sees no reason to go to the polls this year. The government has completed three years of a five-year term. The latest Gallup poll, on May 31, also indicates Conservative popularity is on the rise.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, here is the relevant point. If we are not going to have an election this year, then we need to do something about redistribution and how we handle redistribution. This matter comes very much under the chief electoral officer. Even though the actual task of carrying out redistribution has been performed by a parliamentary committee, the point remains that he is the adviser. He is the gentleman who provides all the information, background and history to the parliamentary committee. I have a number of questions I want to raise concerning redistribution. I must say I was stunned that Senator Thor-valdson would come out with a statement like this.


An hon. Member:: You were stunned by the election results.


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, I was not stunned by them. If the hon. member wants to know, I think that if there was an election soon the government would be returned to power. That is why I cannot understand why Senator Thor-valdson, who does not have to contest a seat in an election, should be sounding off and saying there is not going to be one. He is certainly seeming to limit the authority of the Prime Minister. The situation is, however, that we are not likely to have an election if we believe Senator Thorvaldson. As anyone knows, redistribution is based upon-


Mr. Churchill:: On a point of order. I think it is important to settle this point at once. We are on an estimate with reference to the chief electoral officer under the Department of the Secretary of State. However, the chief electoral officer has nothing whatever to do with redistribution. That is not within his field. If the hon. member wishes to discuss a question of this kind he had better


do it when some other motion is before this house, not on an item of this branch of the Department of the Secretary of State.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On the point of order, I know I am correct in saying that the chief electoral officer is the adviser to the government on all matters relating to redistribution. He is the man who has the information and the background concerning the whole set up in Canada. If the minister is denying that he is called in when redistribution takes place, if he is denying that he gives advice-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am denying it. He is not asked to do any of those things. He is asked to supply statistical information but not to give advice to the government. The hon. member is wrong.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was not suggesting he gives advice as to how the redistribution was to be done. I said he advises the parliamentary committee about the background, the position and the statistics. If I am not correct about that I am completely haywire, because I have followed the topic of redistribution for a long time. To say that the issue of redistribution is not related to the functions of the chief electoral officer is almost silly. Is this not the No. 1 item at elections-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think this has to be settled, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Port Arthur is going to insist on discussing this subject of redistribution, and he is making statements which are entirely incorrect. The chief electoral officer does not advise the government with regard to redistribution. He is only asked to supply statistical information. Nor does he advise the parliamentary committee with regard to redistribution. I am asking, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration of this point of order. We are dealing now with the estimate relating to the chief electoral officer, a branch within the Department of the Secretary of State, and those estimates have nothing whatever to do with the question of the redistribution of constituencies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to say a word on this point of order because, unlike the hon. member who raised it, I have had some experience in this field. I was once secretary of state. I belonged to a government which did not seek by constantly raising points of order to restrict debates in a committee on estimates. This seems to be a systematic policy.
Mr. Pallet!: Tell us about closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will tell the hon. gentleman about closure, whether closure of mines or closure of debate. I did not interrupt the

hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and I suggest that the hon. member for Peel possess his soul in patience.
The point of order raised by the leader of the house is that redistribution in no way affects the estimates of the chief electoral officer. Nothing could be more nonsensical. If there is a redistribution before the next election there is bound to be an entire recasting of this estimate because there would be different borders between the constituencies. Expenditures of all kinds would have to be incurred. This is so obvious that one wonders why it should not be clear to anyone except, perhaps, to someone deliberately seeking to restrict debate. I suggest there is no other opportunity under our rules except that provided by the estimate of the chief electoral officer to discuss this matter which is one which must arrive in the very near future. It is going to affect the estimates now before us, and hon. members should have the right to discuss this question. After all, what is the committee of supply for? It is for the exposure of grievances before money is voted. This government seems to think that no member of the opposition should be allowed to express his views on anything, but that the money should be voted blindly. I suggest that this further attempt to restrict our freedom in committee of supply is ill advised and contrary to the rules.


Mr. Dorion:: I should like to recall to the hon. member, first of all, that question of redistribution is provided for by clause 51 of the constitutional act.


Douglas Mason Fisher: And the Representation Act.


Noël Dorion: Yes, but the basis is clause 51 of the act I have mentioned. If hon. members would look at that clause they would see that redistribution is based on the result of the census. The responsibility for the census is that of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Secretary of State has nothing to do with that. The Secretary of State is only the channel of communication between the House of Commons and the chief electoral officer. My responsibility is only to ask, for that officer, the moneys needed for the accomplishment of this work.
Moreover, if hon. members would look at these estimates they would see that there is nothing provided in them for the expenses of elections, properly speaking. Those expenses are paid from the consolidated fund. I believe, therefore, that it is improper to discuss this point, it being one upon which I personally, or as minister, have no competence to speak.
90205-6-366J
Supply-Secretary of State


Douglas Mason Fisher: Might I just add this, Mr. Chairman? This is the only estimate of which I am aware, among all the estimates which the government has put forward, which relates to the electoral officer. His job is to prepare for elections, to be in charge of the whole framework of machinery. I do not know any single thing which relates more to the machinery than does redistribution. I have on the order paper a bill relating to redistribution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was your opportunity, then.


Douglas Mason Fisher: No. It is a very simple bill seeking a change in the British North America Act. I was not going to deal at all with that point. Perhaps if I could set out for you, Mr. Chairman, what I had intended to deal with, it might be helpful. I had in mind the changes which were impending and I had thought to make some suggestions which in my opinion we should be considering at the present time in order to handle the redistribution. For example, it appears at the present time as if Nova Scotia is going to lose a seat, and Saskatchewan three seats. We have discrepancies between the rural areas and the industrial areas, between the country and the city, and so on. If this does not relate to elections, I do not know what does.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, the hon. member for Port Arthur has clearly set out what his intentions are. The hon. member for Port Arthur has very clearly stated that it is his intention to have a full debate in respect of redistribution. He has already suggested that it is his idea that certain provinces will lose seats while other provinces will gain seats. That is the type of subject he wishes to discuss, and I suggest such a debate could range for days. The hon. member will have the opportunity of debating this subject during the consideration of his own bill, which is presently on the order paper, as well as opportunity of discussing the subject during a supply motion, or when a committee of this parliament is set up to consider redistribution.
I was present in this house some years ago when a committee was set up to consider redistribution, at which time opportunity was provided for a complete and thorough debate of every facet of redistribution. To attempt to discuss this subject at a time when the committee is dealing with the expenses of the chief electoral officer and his officials, in a discussion regarding the duties of that branch, I suggest is completely out of order.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two regarding this point of order.
5792	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State
First, I should like to ask who is responsible in respect of delimitation of the different counties when a redistribution is made? If hon. members are faced with problems as a result of a redistribution, should they present those problems to the chief electoral officer, or to parliament itself?


Gordon Minto Churchill: To parliament.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If a redistribution has taken place, how then can individual members effect any change? Where do individual members of parliament present these problems?


Mr. Thrasher:: Those problems should be presented to the committee when it is set up.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The difficulty I am suggesting is, following a redistribution, individual members of parliament can do nothing to effect a change, but must wait until a new redistribution is made to find a solution to the difficulties. There was a redistribution made in 1952, but the problems and difficulties arising as a result of that redistribution cannot now be dealt with. As a result of that situation, I should like to be informed how to go about presenting these problems, and to whom they should be presented.


An hon. Member:: They should be presented to the chief electoral officer.


Alexis Pierre Caron: There has to be a certain amount of latitude allowed in regard to a redistribution, but certain difficulties then arise. I should be the first to admit that our present chief electoral officer is the only expert in this field in Canada. If we are expected to go to him to find out something about redistribution, how can we make representations to him to change the delimitation in respect of the proposed redistribution? I realize we must apply to him, but how can the errors made during the last redistribution be corrected before a new redistribution?


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Surely the hon. member does not expect any change in the delimitation of his district until after the census has been completed and the change in population is known?


Alexis Pierre Caron: The specific problem I am faced with results from the fact that the city of Hull, from a representation point of view, has a good deal of territory which lies in the Gatineau area, and I am wondering how this situation will be dealt with? How am I going to be able to prepare my suggestion regarding the correcting of the present delimitation before the new redistribution is made?


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, perhaps in answer to the hon. member, I could be allowed to suggest that this will


have to be done by an act of parliament and, therefore, it seems to me that the results of the census presently being carried out- which will take several months-must be acquired so that a committee can be set up to consider the whole question of redistribution. All matters connected with a redistribution will have to be considered by such a committee, which will in turn report to the House of Commons, following which a bill will be introduced to give effect to the law in this regard, as it is at present.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I think I have heard enough now to allow me to decide this point of order.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member worried about losing his seat?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Is the hon. member for Medicine Hat rising on a point of order?


Edwin William Brunsden: No, Mr. Chairman, I was just asking if the hon. member was worried about his seat in this house.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no, not even if that hon. member was a candidate there.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Hull, by indicating to him that the boundaries of the electoral district were set up by the Representation Act of 1952, and can only be changed by parliament itself.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. Chown): The
point of order is a little difficult because, in respect of item 1 of the estimates of any department, fairly broad scope is allowed in terms of the debate. However, I cannot help but consider the fact that the chief electoral officer is an officer of parliament who follows the instructions of his minister, and whose general administrative responsibility is the administration of the Canada Elections Act. His responsibilities, by and large, are confined to that narrow sphere. Historically, the consideration, in regard to redistribution following the taking of a census, is the responsibility of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, while the financing of elections is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. For those reasons, I feel that a discussion in respect of redistribution cannot be relevant to the consideration of the estimates now before us and, accordingly, I rule the hon. member for Port Arthur out of order and disallow any further discussion in this regard.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to quibble with your ruling, but I should like to draw the attention of this committee to the fact that on previous occasions there has

been considerable discussion and debate in respect of this subject, while the electoral officer's responsibilities and estimates were before the committee.
I should also like to make reference to one or two other points regarding the chief electoral officer. I should like to ask the minister whether he is provided, by the chief electoral officer, with estimates in this regard, based on increased population estimates, provided by the dominion bureau of statistics? Does the chief electoral officer supply the minister with such estimates which are, in essence, estimates in regard to redistribution in terms of population changes?
May I call it five o'clock?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can be allowed to answer at this time. The chief electoral officer does not make any official estimates in that regard.


Douglas Mason Fisher: He does not make official estimates?


Noël Dorion: That is right.


Gordon Campbell Chown: It
being five o'clock, in order to permit the house to deal with public and private bills, pursuant to standing order 15 (3), it is my duty to report progress and request leave to sit again later this day, or next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence.



CRIMINAL CODE


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: the second reading of Bill No. C-32, to amend the Criminal Code (Nuisance).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise with very high hopes of success in speaking to this bill this afternoon because I am following in the Prime Minister's footsteps. Quite recently we were all advised to "Follow John", and in this respect I am following John.


An hon. Member:: You will not go far.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In explaining the purpose of this bill I cannot do better than read the illuminating words used by the Prime Minister when he introduced and spoke to an identical bill in this house on February 28, 1955. I quote what the Prime Minister said on that day:
Mr. Speaker, as provincial legislation has proven ineffective to control the wanton pollution by
Criminal Code
municipalities and industrial concerns of interprovincial rivers, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide punishment for the offence of water pollution.
This amendment is demanded by tens of thousands of people, literally hundreds of thousands in this country, who are asking for some action on the part of the federal government to protect them from the cupidity of those who, because of their power, believe they can with impunity deny the use of these waters to present and future generations.
I wholeheartedly support the words used by the Prime Minister in introducing his bill on that occasion and I think they are still very appropriate. This has been a long time problem facing the Canadian people, and owing to the intensification of our processes of industrialization it is becoming more acute from day to day. This is not just my opinion but it is recognized across this country by people who give some consideration to these problems and reflect public opinion.
I might say that the bill I am introducing is not a cure-all; it is simply a first step in the legislative field in which the federal government has some authority, as mentioned by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. I might say it is an example in a limited field; it is a remedy, as a matter of fact, in one sector of this problem.
What are people saying about this problem of pollution? I wish to quote from a few editorials and other documents to indicate the widespread interest and not just indicate my own opinion. I quote from an editorial in the Family Herald of May 28, 1959. This is what the editor has to say about this problem. He writes very well on the problems affecting the farmers of this country and he is writing from an agriculturalist's point of view:
Water That Carries Death.
Civilization, advancing into the wilderness of North America, has carried with it its own peculiar paradox. Wherever it has gone, it has dumped into the streams, rivers and lakes of the continent a continually increasing load of pollution. It is well past being high time that something was done about it.
Canada is fast approaching a situation-if we have not, in fact, already arrived at it-where there is no open water near any major inland community which is safe for either drinking or swimming. Wild life, particularly fish, are suffering seriously, and in some cases disastrously.
The situation is serious enough in practical terms, but what shames us is to think that white men took over this continent without any sort of invitation and, having done so, have failed to assume full responsibility for the guardianship of the land and all it contained. In some respects they have done well, but not in all, and the condition of our inland water bodies and waterways is one adequate and rather revolting proof of this fact. Of course, the country looked inexhaustibly big to our forefathers and we have not outgrown that impression. We have been a long time realizing that enough people and industry is all that is required to foul up even the gigantic network of streams and rivers and lakes that mark

Criminal Code
Canada with scenic areas as beautiful as any in the world. The truths that we have failed to realize are now confronting us, and something must be done to observe them.
I have another quotation here from the Ottawa Citizen of December 30, 1959, dealing with a conference in Chicago with respect to the pollution of waters. This article is entitled:
Hundreds of chemicals pollute drinking water.
Dr. H. W. Poston of the United States public health service's water supply and control division said at that time:
"We do not have reliable methods for predicting their effect on man. We don't know how to remove viruses from treated water. We don't know the effect on the human system of the constant accumulation of small increments of present-day chemicals".
Poston called for immediate and expanded research to find ways of assuring safe, plentiful water, in a report to the American association for the advancement of science.
Then I have a very interesting editorial from the Gazette of February 13, 1960:
Man the Great Contaminator
Man has always been a great contaminator and despoiler of the places in which he works, lives and plays.
And, according to scientists gathered in Chicago recently for the annual meeting of the American association for the advancement of science, he has not mended his ways.
One of the most important events at the Chicago meeting was a symposium by a group of biologists, engineers, conservation experts and land and water development experts on the use and abuse of the great lakes of North America.
And speaker after speaker stressed the fact that in the past 50 years or so man has succeeded in contaminating and despoiling this vast body of water-over 95,000 square miles touching eight states and two Canadian provinces-to such an extent that vast areas of it are useless and even dangerous.
And the tragedy is, they said, that there seems to be no over-all planning, no co-ordinated effort on the part of the various states and provinces and the two federal governments concerned, to stop the relentless process of erosion and contamination which is ruining one of nature's greatest gifts to her ungrateful children.
I think the writer of that editorial explained the situation very clearly indeed. I have another quotation here from the proceedings of the national conference on water pollution in British Columbia; it is a quotation from the remarks of Mr. P. A. Larkin, chief fisheries biologist, B.C. game commission. This is what he had to say:
We feel that there should come a day, if we plan properly, when it is accepted that no pollution will exist without the permission of a responsible authority and that such permission has been given in the public interest in accordance with sound principles of resource use planning...
-I have taken these excerpts from what has been said on this subject by well informed persons. Then he goes on to say:

The existing legislation consists of a number of federal and provincial statutes which are designed to serve special interests of a particular resource. As such, while they are effective to a certain degree as preventive measures, collectively they are overburdened with overlapping provisions and they are completely inadequate as instruments of achieving our objective of planned water use. They should be replaced by broad legislation which would observe the necessary dual purpose of protecting special interests where it is desirable to do so, and at the same time, assuring the general purpose of proper water use.
Then he goes on to say:
The panel has noted the trend in most advanced countries and states toward the creation of a single agency to control and abate a particular type of pollution, for instance, water pollution, in a geographical area.
That is one thing that we must develop in Canada as the result of a public understanding of this question, of research and legislative action on the part of the federal and provincial governments.
I have one more quotation, Mr. Speaker, to indicate the current and almost daily interest in this problem. This is an article written by Mr. Walter Gray, that elegant, effulgent, erudite writer on the effluvium of polluted water, in the Globe and Mail for yesterday, June 1. This is a most interesting article entitled:
A perfect example of pollution.
This Globe and Mail reporter deals with the problem generally, but he mentions Ottawa in particular in the first paragraph:
It is to the nation's shame that swirling about the foot of parliament hill, the focal point of Canada's capital, is one of the country's most highly polluted rivers. The Ottawa river, rising fresh and clear in the forest lands of northern Ontario and Quebec, surges through this city choked full of wastes left by this day and age.
In my opinion, the present polluted state of the Ottawa river results from the ignoring of this problem on national and provincial levels of government. Before I proceed, I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, the text of a speech entitled, "Water, a Resource for Tomorrow", by the Hon. Walter Dinsdale, Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, to the Ontario conference on co-ordinated water pollution control, Toronto, November 30, 1960. I might say this is an excellent speech, and I read it with interest. I am sure the minister has a keen interest in this question. Indicating to the assembled gathering the interest of the government in this matter the minister said, and I quote from the text of his speech:
Four years ago in the House of Commons Prime Minister Diefenbaker, then a member of the opposition, spoke on water pollution. He said in part:
"I believe that in the realm of God's richest bounty, clean river water should have a high place,

and ought not to be allowed to be sacrificed to private greed or wanton and wilful pollution."
This attitude was not left behind when Mr. Diefenbaker and his colleagues moved to the Speaker's right.
This is the sentence that makes me most hopeful in the introduction of this bill in the identical terms of the one introduced by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition and spoke so eloquently on this problem.
Then, Mr. Speaker, one comes to the organizations across Canada. Many organizations have indicated great interest and petitions have been sent to members of parliament. I have one here signed by many people. It reads, in part:
The undersigned want immediate steps to be taken to stop pollution of the waters of the Grand river by the Naugatuck Chemical Company of Elmira, Ontario.
Any fish caught in the Grand from West Montrose to lake Erie is not edible because of the taste of the flesh caused by the effluent of the above named plant.
I can only submit that this shows the people are becoming very concerned about this serious problem. Then, too, municipalities have shown a growing interest but, unfortunately, their resources are limited. They are only able to deal with this on a piecemeal basis and it is for this reason that I believe leadership has to be given by the federal government. The interest of some people has been indicated by correspondence.
Scientists have taken an interest in this problem, too. I have here a study of the use, conservation and pollution of water resources by A. L. Van Luven. The author of this paper presented a brief to the Minister of Justice in July, 1959. He is the head of the waste treatment division of H. E. McKeen and Company Limited, Lachine. This is a very impressive document and shows this gentleman has given very close study to the problem and has not overlooked the difficulties. He deals with it from a number of points of view. He deals with some conservation concepts, our water resources, water supply problems, ground water problems, surface water problems, industrial water problems, water rights and water laws. Then, he goes on to deal with the pollution picture, industrial waste problems, standards for sewage effluent and government activities.
The author says, in part:
The government must consider, that left to their own devices most municipalities, large and small, fail to develop a sensible water or sewage policy until it is too late to avoid hurting themselves or their neighbours. Often the delays result from lack of financing. Sometimes communities could join forces on these projects if senior governments made this possible.
Sometimes, when several authorities have water and pollution control powers that overlap in a given watershed there will be differences in the ordinances or in the administration that tends
Criminal Code
to nullify the efforts of all. Considerations such as these plus a sound research and development program are quite properly the work of the dominion government, even if some constitutional problems must be solved first.
This is not only a problem in Canada, it is a problem facing the whole of the North American continent. I have here a copy of the proceedings of the national conference on water pollution, issued by the United States department of health, education and welfare. It is a very illuminating document and I want to quote two or three sentences from a speech made by Dr. Leroy E. Burney, surgeon general, public health service. I suggest that hon. members get this publication from the library because it is very interesting. This is what the doctor has to say in part:
In doing so, I should like to develop four principal points:
First, that water pollution control is an integral part of the broader problem of water resource development and use:
Second, that water pollution control is an inseparable part of the broader problem of environmental health protection:
Third, that an impressive amount of productive activity is already under way in controlling water pollution;
And fourth, that the problem demands a still stronger effort on the part of federal, state and local authorities, industries and all others concerned.
That is exactly the same situation as exists in Canada; it demands a much stronger effort on the part of the governments concerned. I am delighted to see the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) has arrived. No doubt he will be interested in what I have to say. I have been quoting him at some length and have referred to the very interesting speech about water resources he delivered in Toronto.
What has been done about it in Canada? There has been some noteworthy and interesting work done by the international joint commission which had a reference made to it with respect to the connecting channels of the St. Lawrence. In that connection the commission made recommendations and has received the co-operation of municipalities and industries surrounding the areas with which they are particularly concerned. As a result of this co-operation, there has been a slow but gradual improvement in the situation, with which the commission had been asked to deal. The federal government has passed legislation this session which will provide financial assistance to municipalities for the building of sewage disposal plants. This is a limited approach to the question, but it is very worthwhile, and necessary. Various provincial governments are now getting concerned and various provincial boards are evidence of concern and activity on the legislative level in Quebec, British

Criminal Code
Columbia and some other provinces. Conservation districts in some provinces have given this problem some study and have taken some local action, particularly in the province of Ontario. Great credit is coming to these local boards, organizations and people generally for doing something to try to help themselves under very difficult circumstances at this time.
As I said before, the municipalities are showing increasing concern and so are our scientists. However, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, all these activities are too unrelated for the problem to be satisfactorily solved. I see that my time is going rapidly, so I should like to quote again from the Prime Minister. I relish having the opportunity of quoting from the Prime Minister's former speeches and agreeing wholeheartedly with what he had to say when speaking on his measure, which is now my measure, or perhaps I should say our measure. I should like to quote from his remarks as found on page 2172 of Hansard for March 18, 1955:
The federal government accepts the responsibility under the Fisheries Act of punishing the wrongdoing of those who dump sawdust into rivers and thereby detrimentally affect or even cause the asphyxiation of fish. The dominion government accepts the responsibility of punishing under law anyone who dumps waste into navigable streams. But in regard to the health and comfort of human beings who depend on these streams for their water supply the attitude is taken that there is no right or responsibility in the federal authority to act within the provisions of the criminal law.
I find it difficult to understand why the dumping or throwing of sawdust, slabs, bark or rubbish into a navigable river is an offence when it is not an offence for municipalities or industrial concerns to use the waters of an interprovincial stream to free themselves of what they do not want, the effluent from their operations, by the simple expedient of throwing it into the river, and thus confer that pollution and its effects upon others. I do not wish to say more at this time but I point out that there is no action that can be taken other than an amendment to the Criminal Code.
That is just exactly what this bill proposes. Then the Prime Minister spoke later in the debate when the bill came up again for consideration during another private members' hour, and he had this to say as found at page 3184 of Hansard of April 26, 1955:
The opinion of counsel-
He is dealing with the problem discussed in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
-was that such was not the fact, and that the unlawful act as comprehended by the section in question must be an unlawful act within the meaning of the Criminal Code itself. Indeed, counsel gave legal precedents to support that viewpoint, and gave us their opinion that there was no right of criminal action to prosecute the wrongdoers-
That is under the law as it existed at that time.
[Mr. Herridge.l
-who, for a period of three months, flouted the comfort of tens of thousands of people. I mention that not in order to bring forward this amendment as a means of protecting only the people of Saskatchewan along the North Saskatchewan river alone but the people of several provinces along the course traversed by that river.
Then later he goes on to say this:
It is a crime to place in rivers anything that will interfere with the lives of fish. Under the Fisheries Act that is set out as a pseudo-crime; but, as yet, it is no crime to put interprovincial rivers and waterways in a condition whereby they cannot be used by humans. It is because of that, sir, that this amendment was drafted in a form that the law officers of the crown believed would cover the situation, a form which in my opinion places in the hands of those who are wronged the power to launch prosecutions against those interests, however powerful they may be. It provides suitable and heavy penalties against any industries or other bodies anywhere that would flagrantly destroy the water resources of the nation in interprovincial streams.
After considerable debate on the private member's bill of that day, which was the same as the one I have before the house on this occasion, the bill was voted down. At that time the opposition consisting of the Progressive Conservatives and the C.C.F. members supported the measure and the Liberal members of the government opposed it. We now have the Prime Minister's party in the seats of the mighty and we are looking for a majority when the vote comes on second reading of this bill.
I know that this problem of pollution is on the agenda of the resources for tomorrow conference which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is doing his best to promote and to make a success of. I presume there will be some very interesting discussions on this problem from the constitutional, scientific, technical and, shall I say, people's point of view. At this conference I hope there will be agreement between representatives of the federal and provincial governments, industrial and all other bodies and organizations in Canada. I hope there will be such agreement that the government of Canada in co-operation with the provinces will soon be introducing legislation to meet this situation.
What is necessary in order to meet this problem of pollution effectively in time to save the situation is, first, co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in meeting what is the common enemy to us all, namely, pollution of our rivers; and second, legislation by federal and provincial governments to complement their agreement on a national policy to overcome pollution. After we have this co-operation and the required legislation, then without a doubt research on a very wide scale will be necessary in order to plan effectively to deal with the problem because there are local situations and local

conditions to be considered, just as there are with regard to the conservation of national resources. It is not a problem that can be met on a set pattern. It is a problem which can be met only with an understanding of local, district and area conditions. Then after we have the co-operation, the legislation and the research, it is up to the governments of this country, federal, provincial and municipal, to take action to preserve our waters and to hand on to future generations a resource that we have no moral right to contaminate.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the last speaker had to say. I must confess that I agree with him in the attitude he has adopted. If this earth should survive for a thousand years and our civilization should persist for that length of time, it seems to me that the people who come to write history will wonder at the reckless disregard with which the people of this generation have ignored the factors so essential for the continuance of our civilization; the fashioning of the weapons of self-destruction and the apparent willingness to use them; the abuse of our national resources; and this particular act with which the hon. member has dealt in his bill, namely the poisoning and polluting of pure water which we inherited in this continent and which we are so blithely willing to poison and eliminate in that sense.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) referred to a discussion which took place in this house in 1955. I think I should point out that this discussion took place in three consecutive years. It took place during the session of 1953 and 1954 when the Criminal Code was in the process of a complete overhaul and revision. At the time the section which is now section 165, and which I propose to deal with later, was up for consideration the then hon. member for Prince Albert, the present Prime Minister, introduced, to the section and to the section preceding it, an amendment which would have had precisely the same effect as has the bill which the hon. member has now introduced. Again in 1955 and again in 1956 bills were presented and each time in the three years I believe the bills-or in one case the bill and in the other cases the amendments-came to a vote and were defeated. This was not a case of the bills being talked out. The government deliberately interposed. The then minister of justice spoke against the amendments and the bills were defeated. I propose to deal briefly with the reasons advanced by the then minister of justice, Mr. Garson, for his opposition which I presume will represent the opposition of the then government.
Criminal Code
The present government has considered this problem. Last year there was a most interesting series of meetings of the committee on mines, forests and water which dealt with this question of water pollution very extensively, heard a great number of witnesses and in its recommendations dealt with the subject matter. On one or two occasions the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) has spoken on this matter as have other hon. members. The bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), namely Bill No. C-77 which has now been passed, dealing with rehabilitation of agricultural lands, has to some extent, by section 4, subsection 2, dealt with the question of water conservation and pollution. I think to every extent this government has recognized the problem and is dealing with it. I am quite sure that the resources for tomorrow conference which was mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West and which will be held in Montreal this fall will also concern itself with this very serious difficulty. I think it is most essential that this should be done.
This problem must be viewed against the background of the expansion of population. Severe as were the consequences brought about by the situation a generation ago, what will be the situation 20 years from now or 40 years from now when, according to the statisticians, our population will be double what it is now and when, because of the consequent increase in industrialization, there will be an increase not only in the number of plants but also in the type of plants which will require the consumption of a great deal more water than at present? It is absolutely vital to our continued survival that we look at this problem and do something about it.
I have not only an academic interest in it. In the region from which I come there flows a great river, the Peace river which rises west of the Rocky mountains. It is the only river I know of that goes right through the Rocky mountains, flows several hundred miles to the east and then through Alberta into the Northwest Territories. It flows through two provinces and one territory.
At this time there is no suggestion of pollution of that river but there is in contemplation the construction of a gigantic power project, the Peace river dam. This matter is subject to the vicissitudes of political consideration, but as I speak here I am satisfied it is no longer a question of "if" but a question of "when" the dam will be constructed. When the dam has been completed an industrial complex will arise on a tremendous scale. At the present time that area is emerging from a purely agricultural state. We now have two refineries, a pulp mill and a sulphur plant, and this is just the beginning of

Criminal Code
what is bound to emerge when the dam is completed and cheaper power is available to the people of our region.
I believe the people of this country are determined that there will not inure that situation about which the hon. member for Kootenay West has spoken, about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has spoken in years past and which we see as one representing a tremendous problem in Canada and in many parts of the United States. It is a situation where prevention is far better than cure. Now is the time to see the problem and deal with it.
I agree with the last speaker that the bill he has presented to the house is by no means a cure-all. There must be a varied approach to the subject. There must be an approach by industry. There must be an approach on the part of the various provinces. There must be an approach by a combination of provinces and there must be an approach by the federal government. I think none of this will be effective unless and until public opinion is aroused, until the people became aware of the dangers and are prepared to support legislation and the measures which are essential for the problem to yield to solution. Although this bill probably will not pass at this session, its value in developing discussion here and elsewhere, I hope, will be very considerable.
The minister of justice in the last government said that legislation such as the bill before us was not effective and that this matter was already covered by existing legislation. With this statement I take issue. The very fact that the offence covered in the bill would be designated as a criminal offence in the Criminal Code would add a stigma which it would be hard to escape. When we have once taken what we admit to be a moral wrong and say that it is also a criminal wrong, I believe it will then be difficult for those who are now in breach of the moral law to continue in breach of the criminal law in the light of the consequences that will follow upon their failure to do what we think should be done. We will be giving statutory recognition to a moral wrong.
Time is going on and I do not want to prevent others from speaking, but I have several comments I should like to make with respect to the objections which were taken to a similar measure brought before the house in 1954, 1955 and 1956. At that time the then minister of justice said that we did not need such legislation, that we already had in the Criminal Code section 165 which deals with common nuisances. To refresh the memory of hon. members, I should like to read section 165, which is in these words:
Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby

(a)	endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b)	causes physical injury to any person, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
That is the punishment provision. The definition of "nuisance" follows:
(2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public ...
The then minister of justice, and I assume that he represented the views of his party, said that this section provided ample protection for those who suggested that they had suffered because of the discharge into the waters of rivers throughout the country of effluent or waste from industrial plants and municipalities. It may be that the Liberal party, now the official opposition, still holds that opinion. I hope not. I hope that by reason of the various vicissitudes they have suffered since then they have come now to take a different attitude toward this subject.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that that point of view as presented by Mr. Garson was not correct. The key words are the words "unlawful act". I will read the provision again.
. . . every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act...
Mr. Garson took the view then that because there was a provincial prohibition which to some extent prohibited the discharge into these rivers of certain waste from industrial plants that was thereby an unlawful act and was prohibited by section 165. I think I can meet that objection very simply because the words "unlawful act" as used in the Crim-minal Code have a special connotation. They are also used in connection with the definition of homicide. A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being by means of an unlawful act, according to section 194 of the Criminal Code. In a number of cases it has been held by courts of appeal and judges of the supreme court that "unlawful act" as used there, and I assume any other place in the Criminal Code, means an unlawful act which is criminal in its nature, not one that is prohibited by provincial statute or regulation.
There are a number of cases on the point. I have appeared in one myself involving a person who was engaged in hunting out of season. He was hunting illegally according to the provincial statute and he shot a man by misadventure. It was established that the actual shooting itself was not negligence, and it was also held by the court and upheld on appeal that simply because the individual

charged with this offence was doing something which was unlawful according to provincial law it was not thereby an unlawful act within the meaning of the Criminal Code.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, the argument advanced by Mr. Garson at that time falls by the wayside. Consequently there is no protection at all in the Criminal Code as at present constituted which in any way permits people who come within the four corners of the bill proposed by the hon. member to seek and secure some remedy. Therefore it is my specific submission that this legislation not only is sensible but is also necessary because no protection exists today under the provisions of the Criminal Code.
There is one other point I might make concerning the value of this legislation. It has occurred to me, considering what might flow from the bill if passed, that there might be various benefits to people who suffer hardship, because of the fact that this is being established as a criminal offence. It occurs to me that they might have the right to seek an injunction in the civil court. I believe this point was raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West when he referred to an opinion given by a former president of the Canadian Bar Association who suggested that as the law stood it would not be possible for people, say, in Saskatchewan to go into Alberta to seek an injunction against the continuance of the state of affairs of which they complain. I throw this out as a suggestion, but this bill, should it become law, would establish a criminal offence and consequently any individual or company, or, possibly any municipality which sustained private damage might well be able to secure an injunction, bearing in mind that the act complained of would be against the law of the country inasmuch as it would be designated a crime under the Criminal Code.
Finally-and this was one of the points raised at the time of the interesting debates in 1955 and 1956-it might have the effect of permitting a person in one province who suffers damage there to press a prosecution in the province where he lives rather than in the province where the actual discharge takes place. This might require some amendment to the bill as introduced by the hon. member but since he has described the advantages of the legislation in such lyrical terms and told us so sternly of the dangers which would flow from failure to pass it I am sure he would have no objection to an amendment of that kind being considered. It may be that the particular situation in Saskatchewan which led to the Prime Minister and other members from Saskatchewan pressing for a measure of this type has in part been abated but this is a situation which could arise in any other
Criminal Code
part of Canada at any time. I support the proposed legislation. I hope it will have the effect, first of all, of arousing public interest, and that in due course it will become part of the law of this country.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The house must have been utterly dumbfounded this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West claim that the passage of this bill would be the first step in combating the pollution of our rivers and streams in this country. I can only wonder where he has been this session to make such a claim and such a statement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I gave the government credit for what it had done later in my speech. This is the first amendment of the Criminal Code.


Henry Frank Jones: That certainly was not the message which got across to my ears. Anyway, such a claim, advanced in this way by the hon. member for Kootenay West, would seem to give the impression both to the house and to the country that the tremendous program undertaken by the present government under the inspiration of the Prime Minister to combat the problem of pollution, the $100 million program being carried out across the country, had never been initiated.
The Prime Minister brought this whole matter to the attention of the country as long ago as 1955 and even before that time by his speeches, by his method of presentation and by his introduction in the House of Commons of the measure on which the legislation now put forward by the hon. member for Kootenay West is patterned. More than any other person the Prime Minister focussed the attention of the country on this problem of water pollution. We have only to look at some of the results of the program undertaken by the government in this field to see what the record is. Every hon. member in the house will recall

at least, everyone save the hon. member for Kootney West-that certain amendments were introduced this year to the National Housing Act to provide for loans to municipalities in respect of sewage treatment, the provision of new schemes and assistance in the prevention of water and soil pollution. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was authorized to make loans under part 6B of the National Housing Act to municipalities or corporations to assist in the construction or extension of sewage treatment projects. At that time in the House of Commons the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) explained this proposal in detail. The minister said, for instance:
A sewage treatment project, for purposes of the Act, is a project consisting of a trunk sewage

Criminal Code
collector system, a central treatment plant or both for the collection and treatment of sewage from one or more municipalities, and includes the expansion of an existing plant or existing trunk collector sewer. A municipal sewerage corporation is a public body incorporated on behalf of and controlled by one or more municipalities for the purpose of constructing and operating facilities for the collection and treatment of sewage from one or more municipalities.
Every attempt was made to make these amendments as broadly applicable as possible in order that the desired stimulation could be given to municipal corporations to take action to deal with water pollution. What has been the result of this program to date? Only a few months have passed, yet we And that as of May 26, 45 loans have been approved to municipalities for the construction of the sewers under the anti-pollution measure, totalling $27.4 million. In addition, there have been 25 formal applications, received by May 26, totalling a further $4.5 million. In addition, there have been 121 preliminary inquiries concerning projects amounting to an estimated expenditure of $68.6 million. In further addition to this are another 71 inquiries from municipalities concerning which details have not yet been given to the federal government, so it is impossible to estimate the cost of these projects being contemplated by those municipalities.
As to those projects for which we have the figures-the first three groups to which I have referred-they total over $100 million in loans approved, in formal applications made and in preliminary inquiries directed to the C.M.H.C. What has been the result of this tremendous program of anti-pollution? Some of the large projects which have already been approved in the few short months and in connection with which construction has already begun is a project in Vancouver to the value of $7.4 million, a project in Ottawa, to the value of $10.2 million; in Toronto, to the extent of $1.9 million; in Belleville, projects totalling $1.5 million; another project in Sudbury totalling $1.1 million; another project in Fort William, totalling $884,000; another project in Peterborough amounting to $593,000; and so on. I suggest those projects have been the result of this tremendously imaginative program undertaken by the government.
I suggest one has only to refer to the Ottawa Journal of today to see what has been done as a result of this program in this city, which has been cursed by a sewage problem for many years. I should like to read from an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal of today, which reads as follows:
Twenty five million gallons of raw sewage a day pour into the Ottawa river from Ottawa, its suburbs and federal government properties. This 	,
is soon to be remedied. The city hopes to have its $20,000,000 sewage tareatment and disposal system in operation by April 1, 1963. The project, which had been talked about since 1944-
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the fact that this project is to be in operation by April, although it has been considered since 1944, is an indication of the favourable results of the Prime Minister's efforts to bring this problem to the attention of the people of Canada.
The article then continues as follows:
-the federal government, which is lending the city two thirds of what the city will pay for the project, offered to forgive 25 per cent of the loan if the work were done by April 1, 1963. That means a saving of more than $2,500,000 for Ottawa.
How does it all work? Sewage from this area now enters the river from 23 outlets, on mainland and islands, between Nepean bay and the eastern city limits. When the new system is working the only outlet will be from the sewage treatment plant at Greens creek. Flow to outlets west of John street, which is just east of Rideau falls, will be intercepted by an interceptor sewer laid from Nepean bay to John street.
I point this out as an example of the practical results of this program which has been undertaken. The article then continues as follows:
The interceptor sewer will empty into an outfall sewer, which is a sewage expressway, from John street to Green's creek.
I should like to refer, as an example, to the effects of this program in my own municipality. The city of Saskatoon laid a program before the federal government involving a plan to put in an anti-pollution measure, calling for the construction of a trunk sanitary sewage disposal location, at a cost of some $420,000. A few weeks ago that city passed a bylaw requesting approval for the construction of a sewage trunk along Preston avenue in the city at a cost of $1.6 million. Perhaps I should state that I make mention of this Preston avenue sewage program as an example of what this government has done, by the adoption of another program in this regard.
The construction of that Preston avenue sewage system will not come within the terms required by the C.M.H.C. loans. However, the city of Saskatoon, as other cities across this country, will bring at least part of that program under the winter works program, which has been of tremendous assistance to municipalities across the country.
I did not want to allow to pass the opportunity of remarking in respect of statements made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. That is why I have intervened at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member realize that when I said this was a first step, I meant a first step to amending

the legislation providing a punishment tor those individuals who pollute rivers? Later on, I gave this government full credit in respect of legislation in connection with loans to municipalities for the building of sewage disposal plants.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the hon. member in that way.


Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, I regret there is so little time left for the debate in respect of this bill, because I feel it is important that I disagree with the purposes and intent of it. The purpose and intent of the bill have been eloquently described by the hon. member for Kootenay West. However, I do think it is possible to argue against the passage of this bill at this particular time because, as the hon. member has said, this is only one stage of a necessary comprehensive program embodying regulations and legislation attacking this whole problem in Canada.
When another bill, similar to this, was introduced at an earlier stage, there was not then any indication that the government of the day was interested in a comprehensive program covering every aspect of pollution control in respect of Canada's rivers and streams. There is evidence now that this is a major problem, which the government of the day is at present considering in full.
In October of this year the resources for tomorrow conference, to be held in Montreal, will deal with this problem, as well as with other related problems. As a result of those discussions, and hearings of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters of last year, as well as independent, non-governmental studies, which are taking place in every province of Canada at the present time, it should be possible to frame a completely comprehensive approach to the problem of pollution control in this country, at which time it may be found that the introduction of amendments to the Criminal Code will be required. It may, however, be found that because of the widespread interest, and steps that the government has taken to encourage wide study across this nation regarding the need for pollution control, the day is now past when a Criminal Code amendment forms a vital part of such a program.
For those reasons, I feel that there should be more and closer study proposed, with a greater opportunity for debate in this house, considering alternative measures which should be considered before amendments to the Criminal Code are proposed.
May I call it six o'clock?
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, perhaps the house leader could give us, as he indicated he would last night, the government's plans for next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will carry on with the estimates of the Secretary of State, followed by the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, in turn followed by the estimates of the Department of Public Works. In regard to next week, it is expected that Monday, Tuesday and possibly Wednesday, will be devoted to legislation, preceded by an interim supply motion, as the first item of business on Monday.
May I just say at this stage that in years gone by, interim supply motions were passed rather quickly. A few years ago the opposition of the day used motions for interim supply for the purposes of rather lengthy debates, on at least one or two occasions. The opposition of this day has paid back that old score, so perhaps we can now treat this interim supply motion as such motions were treated some years ago.
If the interim supply motion is completed in good time, we will carry on with the following legislation: Bill No. C-92, which is a bill dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code (capital murder); Bill No. C-97, which deals with an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code; and third, a resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice, dealing with amendments to the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act. The fourth legislative item will be Bill No. C-99, which we almost completed a day or two ago, dealing with amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, followed by the fifth item, being Bill No. C-100, to provide for the control of narcotic drugs.
Other items which are available, not necessarily in this order, are as follows: Bill No. C-98, concerning the Canada Shipping Act; a resolution concerning export credit; a resolution concerning the Financial Administration Act; a resolution concerning the Farm Credit Act. Then, depending on the progress we make on Monday, we can determine the items which will come up on Tuesday, and perhaps on Wednesday.
I can, however, be quite definite with regard to the estimates to be dealt with during the early part of next week. We will start off on either Wednesday or Thursday with the estimates of the Department of National Defence, followed by the estimates of the Department of Defence Production.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government stockpiles of cobalt, antimony, and tin?
2.	Is there a world short supply of these metals?
3.	For how long, and in what quantities, has the government had these stockpiles?
4.	What have been the storage charges, by year, for each of these metals?
5.	In what manner, if any, is it planned to dispose of these metals?
6.	If any quantities have been disposed of in the open market, has there been a profit or loss per basic unit?
Answer by: Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	6,085,255 lbs. of tin and 2,158,695 lbs. of antimony were acquired in 1949, and 343,522 lbs. of cobalt were obtained during the period from 1951 to 1954.
4.	Cobalt is stored at the producer's plant on a no charge basis. Tin and antimony are
stored in a crown owned warehouse. The storage cost for tin amounted to $3,483 per annum up to March 31, 1960, and $1,797.12 per annum from that date. The storage cost for antimony is $636.36 per annum.
5.	It is planned to dispose of the tin and antimony through recognized Canadian metals brokers, at a rate designed to limit any serious dislocation of the Canadian market or injury to the economic interests of producing countries.
6.	110,000 lbs. of tin have been disposed of at a loss of approximately 1 cent per pound, based on the average invoice cost plus accumulated storage and handling charges.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS

[Stage Direction]
B-Dominion coal board-
229.	Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $126,345.
230.	Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $13,244,900.
231.	Subventions in respect of eastern coal under agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $1,700,000.
[Stage Direction]
Saiurday, June 3, 1961