1962-12-06

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Chaplin.
First report of joint committee on the library of parliament-Mr. Speaker.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked by members in all parts of the house what the idea of the government was with regard to the date of adjournment for the Christmas recess and the date of reassembly in the new year. It will be recalled that only on a small number of occasions has the house sat in the fall and divided the session into two parts. In 1957, as I recall it, the house adjourned on December 21 and reassembled on January 3rd. The same date of adjournment was followed in 1960-61. Following consultation with the leaders of the several parties I wish to announce that on the basis of the progress being made in the program as it appears on the order paper, with only one or two additional matters that may be added, the adjournment will take place on December 20 and the house will reassemble on Monday, January 21, 1963.



DURUM WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
1961-62 POOL ACCOUNT
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I wish to inform the house of an interim payment to be made on Durum wheat in connection with the 1961-62 wheat pool account.
The Canadian Wheat Board Act does not make provision for separate final payments for Durum wheat and spring wheat. However, the act does provide for interim payments to be made when these can be made without loss. Since the Canadian wheat board
has advised that all the Durum wheat delivered to the 1961-62 wheat pool account has been sold, the government has approved an interim payment on the 1961-62 pool account that will apply only to the Durum grades. There will, of course, not be any further payment with respect to the 1961-62 Durum wheat deliveries.
Producers delivered a total of 10,531,113.4 bushels to the Durum account. After deducting the Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy and interim payment costs on the 1961-62 Durum account, and after adding estimated additional interest earnings, the interim payment will be $6,941,397.96, or an average of 65.9 cents per bushel. The payments for the
principal grades are as follows:
cents
per
Grade	bushel
No. 1	Canada	western	amber	Durum	63.113No. 2	Canada	western	amber	Durum	66.083No. 3	Canada	western	amber	Durum	67.320Extra No. 4 Canada western amber Durum 70.290 No. 4	Canada	western	amber	Durum	68.434No. 5	Canada	western	amber	Durum	31.755No. 6	Canada	western	amber	Durum	36.705
I am not in a position to indicate when it will be possible for the board to close the 1961-62 wheat pool account and make the final payment on the other grades of wheat delivered to this pool.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ACT


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-97, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act (salary of President).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is simply to have the economic and financial situation of this country recognized. The explanation is quite clear. The measure provides for a substantial reduction in the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways, by setting the salary of the president at a level more in keeping with the financial conditions we find in this country and especially in the Canadian National Railways. Never, in any organization, would one tolerate-

Proposed Legislation


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that that remark is not in order. An hon. member may explain a bill to the house, but he cannot indicate the motive behind it.


David Réal Caouette: Without attributing any
motives to anybody, here is what the bill amounts to; it is meant to set the president's salary at one dollar, because I think he is not worth more than that at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will no doubt recognize that the last part of his sentence, concerning the explanation of this bill, is not in keeping with our standing orders.


Mr. Gregoire:: But it is in keeping with the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Text):


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-98, to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Arthur Smith: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides authority for the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner whose duty it shall be to investigate any grievance protesting administrative decisions of government departments and/or crown companies which may be registered by a petitioner. The commissioner, however, shall not investigate any decision with respect to which there is a right of appeal to a court or tribunal, and at his discretion may refuse to investigate those grievances which are either trivial or which he considers have not been placed before him in good faith.
The bill also provides that if no action is taken by the administrative head of a department following the recommendations of the commissioner, the commissioner may then at his discretion send a copy of his report and recommendation to the Prime Minister and may thereafter make such reports to parliament as he sees fit, designed to curb any possible abuse of administrative power. This legislation is similar to legislation enacted in several other countries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-99, to amend the Civil Service Act (Remembrance day).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in line with proposals made by the Royal Canadian Legion, other veterans organizations and a number of other organizations including labour organizations. The purpose of this bill is to restore, in so far as the parliament of Canada is legislatively able, Remembrance day to the position intended within the spirit and meaning of the Remembrance Day Act, revised statutes, chapter 237. This act provides as follows:
Throughout Canada in each and every year, the 11th day of November, being the day in the year 1918 on which the great war was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Remembrance day.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I desire to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Having regard to a statement made by Mr. Commissioner Norris during the inquiry into shipping on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river system, as appears at page 8937 of the evidence, volume 59, December 4, 1962-I shall have to read this short sentence in order to bring it to the Prime Minister's attention-
It is not a question of his right at all on this matter. He has the right to have matters translated to him if he wishes in French, that is his right, but I point out to you that if you insist on that I will consider that you are not assisting the work of this commission and I will govern myself accordingly. I think you should be reasonable and the witness should be reasonable. You all admitted he is thoroughly bilingual and Mr. Lalonde knows he is thoroughly bilingual. If he insists on his strict right, I will give it to him, and if you insist I will give it to him, but I will still remember and I remember today the obstruction which you are causing.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Does the Prime Minister intend to draw to the attention of the commissioner the right of all Canadians to testify in either of the official languages, without conditions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that yesterday I adjudicated on a similar type of question in regard to precisely

Inquiries of the Ministry
the same subject and declared that since this Mr. Speaker, I would pray for your indul-was a matter of a judicial body, a judicial gence and understanding to point out the inquiry made outside the house, it was not presence, in the visitors' gallery, of more than within the competence of any hon. member 80 delegates of the junior chamber of com-to ask any minister to comment on the views merce of the district of Montreal, as well as or statements of either a judicial officer con- that of His Worship the Mayor of Montreal, ducting such a judicial inquiry or of any and to wish them the most cordial welcome witness, and I so rule in this case.	here.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if you so rule then I would respectfully rise on a point of order and draw to your attention that the question I posed to the Prime Minister is not one which has anything to do with the internal aspects of this investigation which is before an honourable judge, but that it has to do with the British North America Act by which this parliament is governed, and section 133 of the British North America Act clearly states that it is a right of a witness to choose or select either of the official languages of this country, without any conditions.
That is a right every witness has in court or in any proceeding, and it seems to me I am not attempting in any way whatsoever to discuss what is going on before another commission or before another court of record, because the subject matter is not my concern. It is the procedure, which I say to you respectfully is a challenge to section 133 of the British North America Act, and it is one which I think cannot go unnoticed. I think, sir, you should allow me to put the question to the Prime Minister, and I am sure the Prime Minister would want at once to bring the point which I have tried to make to the attention of the commissioner.


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding the reasoning advanced by the hon. member I think he will recognize that if I allowed his question it would be open to any hon. member to rise in his place in respect to any court proceedings where any judge had indicated any views on the manner of giving testimony, whether those views dealt with language or otherwise. I am still of the opinion that this is not a question that can be asked on orders of the day, in addition to which such a matter dealing with a judicial inquiry or court proceeding also invites entry into controversy.
(Translation):



WORLD PAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence, about which I gave him notice.
My question is in regard to-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member, and I have no doubt he wished to direct a question to the minister, but I feel that in spite of the fact that we have here today the visit of a certain delegation and of distinguished personalities, it is absolutely out of order to draw the attention of the house to the presence of anyone in the galleries, because the tradition of the House of Commons is that no one in the galleries should be mentioned.
The hon. member will perhaps object that, occasionally, the Speaker does point out the presence of distinguished visitors in the galleries, but he will also recognize that the Speaker does apologize for doing so, or does ask the permission of the house.
At all events, under the circumstances, notwithstanding the importance of the visitors who are now in the galleries, I feel we cannot adopt as a principle or as a policy to authorize a member to call the attention of the house to the presence of certain visitors.


Georges-J. Valade: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I should have asked for your permission beforehand.
Could the Associate Minister of National Defence inform the house if the federal government intends to limit its contribution to the 1967 world fair, as was stated in a morning paper of the Canadian metropolis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that if he had limited his question to the first part, without indicating that the matter had been raised in a daily newspaper, it would have been authorized. He is now asking the minister to comment on an article published in a daily newspaper, which is not in keeping with the rules. The hon. member will perhaps care to put his question in another form. In the meanwhile, I recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse.
[Later:)


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, after rephrasing my question, I should like to put it again to the Associate Minister of National Defence.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the minister tell us whether the government intends to restrict its contribution to the 1967 world fair?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for St. Mary, I must tell him that the government intends to make the same contribution to the 1967 world fair as has been clearly stated before.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I should like, on a question of privilege, to object to certain items published in some newspapers and based on mere gossip and unfounded information tending to misinterpret the real facts, with regard to the world fair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The answer to the question of the hon. member is in order, but I feel that the reason given by the minister to rise on a question of privilege is ill-founded, because there is no indication that the items in question refer to him personally. The minister disproves certain reports concerning the government's stand, and this is no question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask following that of the hon. member for St. Mary.
In view of the fact that the Associate Minister of National Defence has stated in the house that a bill would be introduced in the first weeks of December for the establishment of a corporation which would look after the preparations for the world fair, and in view of the fact that the order paper which has been distributed makes no mention of such legislation, could the minister tell us whether he still intends to introduce a bill at that time, in spite of the order paper?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of my good friend the hon. member for Laurier, I should like to say that the lawyers of the three governments concerned, that is the federal and provincial governments and the municipal administration, are presently working on the clauses of the bill. We hope that agreement will be reached as early as tomorrow; in that case, the bill my hon. friend is referring to would be introduced in the house before the adjournment announced by the Prime Minister.
	.	[ |

I know that the hon. member for Laurier and, indeed, all members of the house are anxious for the launching of that fine project, the world fair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The reply that the Associate Minister of National Defence has just given is sufficient.
(Text):



POSSIBILITY OF EXPORTING CANADIAN IRON ORE TO EUROPE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question is based on reliable reports that European steel makers are coming to rely increasingly upon African iron ore. Can the minister indicate to the house whether the government is doing anything to encourage Canadian iron ore producers to establish a Canadian owned steel industry in the British isles or in any other European country?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving notice of his intention to ask this question. During May of this year a Canadian iron ore trade mission visited Europe to assess the competitive position of Canadian iron ore in the European market. On its return to Canada the mission reported that increasingly severe competition was being experienced from newly developed sources of high grade direct shipping ores in Africa. This competition affected factors of both grade and price. Consequently there is no indication that the establishment of a Canadian owned steel industry in Britain or in any other European country would provide an effective solution to Canada's long term problem of exporting iron ore to the European market. This possibility, therefore, is not presently under consideration.



REPORTED U.S. INTENTION TO RESTRICT IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of fhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reply of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a question from me yesterday to the effect that his understanding was that no action had yet been taken by the United States administration regarding the importation into that country of oil, including oil from Canada, is the minister not now aware that a proclamation on this subject was in fact issued in Washington on November 30 by the President dealing with this matter in a way which will have an important effect on the Canadian oil industry?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have been questions may not ask for a detailed, elabo-advised by the president of the national en- rate reply on a number of matters. In effect ergy board, who has followed this matter the hon. member is asking for a rather declosely, that such action as yet does not affect tailed expose on a number of points of foreign Canada, but these are matters which will policy, which is not appropriate for orders be discussed here a week from today.	of the day.
(Translation):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to raise the level of family allowances before the Christmas recess?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that his question concerns government policy and is not in order. I might suggest to the hon. member to comply with the provisions of Beauchesne's citation 171, which deals with the kind of questions that can be asked at this time.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, would that be the French version of Beauchesne's work?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member can understand that citation because it was quoted very often in this house and a translation can be found in Hansard.
(Text):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is, in view of the impending NATO ministerial meeting in Paris and the recent talks in Ottawa of the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs with the deputy foreign minister of Poland, would the Prime Minister tell the house what is the Canadian government's policy concerning the Rapacki plan for a nuclear-free zone for central Europe, the Polish-German Oder-Neisse western boundary and the talked about-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Haidasz: -non-aggression pact between NATO and Warsaw pact countries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In this regard I suggest to the hon. member that he look at


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: That is my ruling with respect to the hon. member's question.


Stanley Haidasz: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Privilege?


Stanley Haidasz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have been denied during this session of parliament a debate on matters of external affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Haidasz: -I think it is quite proper at this time to ask this question of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made certain allegations about the question of debate on certain subjects. I am still of the opinion that in the way the hon. member framed his question it is not acceptable. He may wish to look at the appropriate citation and consider what he wishes to ask; then he may rephrase his question.


Stanley Haidasz: May I rephrase my question at the present moment, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give to this house this afternoon following the talks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with the deputy foreign minister of Poland yesterday?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING CANADIAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister instead. Has the government received any communication from the government of India expressing concern over the continuing volume of trade with communist China?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can speak with regard to the situation only up to yesterday. However, no such message has been received. As a matter of fact Australia is dealing with China, as are the United Kingdom and France, and I have not heard any complaint.

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS BY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a perfectly proper and correct question of the very active parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. Could the parliamentary secretary inform the house whether the public accounts for 1961 are going to be given to the public accounts committee and, if so, when?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is in a position to answer that question and the answer is at the proper time and in the proper place.



REFERENCE TO ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I think probably this matter comes under the heading of privilege. However, I do not wish to call it that. I am referring to the answer by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to my question No. 1,938, which was as follows:
Since November 1, 1962, what is the (a) description of export (b) name of exporter (c) value of export, of all approvals made by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.
The answer to part (b) was as follows:
All discussions and correspondence in connection with policies are to be treated by both sides as confidential

I wish to say that I made the inquiry only because I had read in the press the sums granted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Regardless of what may have been the hon. member's impression or his source of information, it is a well established rule that one does not comment on the nature of a reply. As I indicated the other day, and I think hon. members will agree, if certain questions tend to mislead or are obviously erroneous, they may found the possibility of a grievance on certain occasions. However, they are certainly not questions of privilege and certainly they do not found any questions on the orders of the day.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Rinfrel (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that since 1958 some 15 royal commissions have been
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
established by the government at a total cost of $4,293,000, is it the intention of the government to institute a royal commission to study the advisability of creating royal commissions?


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question?
Is the government considering the possibility of guaranteeing an advance to the hon. members belonging to the Social Credit party who are faced with law suits for non-payment of rent because of the election bets the member for Villeneuve has lost?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would have thought that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, kind as he is, would have looked up paragraphs 1 and 2 of citation 171.
(Translation) :



LACK OF BILINGUAL REPORTER IN RAILWAY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-P. Cook@Monlmagny-LTslei: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell us if he knows why a bilingual stenographer is not affected to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is only as a witness that I appeared before the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not in order to ask such a question. It is a matter-


Mr. Cook:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is a matter that comes under the committee's jurisdiction. I have already indicated that the rules governing the procedure of a committee are that committee's responsibility and not the minister's. The minister goes before the committee as a witness only; he does not head the committee.


Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he knew why. My question had nothing to do with the rules of the committee. The minister got up and I think you should have left him free to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question cannot be asked on the orders of the day.

(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the government has directed that Boxing day be a paid holiday for civil servants, does the government intend to direct that Boxing day be a paid holiday for prevailing rate employees as well?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that the government has declared that it will be a holiday but in any event there has been no consideration given to the second part of the question which the hon. gentleman asks.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house what steps are being taken by the government to prevent further increases in the cost of living, which according to the index announced today has increased substantially for the fifth consecutive month?
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member, has read paragraphs 1 and 2 of citation 171 of Beauchesne.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance.
On many occasions already, we have seen advertised in newspapers an issue of bonds for $500 million on the part of the federal government. My question is this. I would like to know if it is always about the same bond issue and, if so, do these bonds sell well?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since certain detailed explanations are requested, I believe that the hon. member had better put his question on the order paper.
27507-3-151
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



SURCHARGE ON FOREIGN EDITORIAL CONTENT OF MAGAZINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government is considering either legislation or regulations which would place a surcharge or some similar tariff upon the foreign editorial content of magazines printed in Canada, such as Reader's Digest and Time magazine.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the government has given consideration to the report of the O'Leary commission. A resolution was placed on the order paper last spring purporting to implement in part the recommendations of that commission, and the government will be proceeding with this matter in the relatively near future.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Malheson (Leeds):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the government received the report prepared by Stevenson and Kellogg Limited on penitentiaries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a matter of detail. The hon. member knows that he should put that question on the order paper. Certainly he should not ask it on the orders of the day.
(Translation):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the house whether it is possible to obtain, at the Montreal and Ottawa airports, French life insurance leaflets in order to know if people have the right to die in French?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is just a question of detail and I trust the hon. member will be fair and obliging enough to recognize that the questions which are being asked at this time must be of national urgency.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO CONFERENCE TO CONSIDER NATIONAL SYMBOLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister what progress is being made toward the calling of a conference of the provincial governments for the purposes of consulting over a national flag and other national symbols, as was outlined in the speech from the throne.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a number of electoral events have taken place. Early in the new year I hope those electoral events will have been completed, and that it will be possible to proceed as suggested on this matter.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Postmaster General. Will the Postmaster General inform the house if it is the government's intention to reduce the number of postal employees, particularly in the Montreal area?
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must realize that his question is not in keeping with standing orders as far as questions asked at this point of the sitting are concerned.


Azellus Denis: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order.


Azellus Denis: I am advised that the staff is going to be reduced any day now. Therefore in a month it will be too late to ask my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Staff reductions in post offices throughout Canada may be under consideration.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General and ask her if it is the intention of her department to release any employees of the Post Office Department. If so, in what districts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I think the hon. member will recognize immediately, that question asked for particulars as to districts. That is a matter of statistical information which on numerous occasions I have ruled it is not within the expectation of the house that a minister shall have at hand. The hon.

member was asking for particular details. I think he will recognize the fact that this question is out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Speaking on the point of order which you have just raised, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. When there is a report in the press or otherwise that certain employees may be released, surely it is the right and indeed the duty of members of this house to ask the government if there is any truth to those reports, as it concerns a matter of the employment of government officials.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition has said. However, I think he will agree that one could take from any newspaper in the country reports which might comment that in this particular sector or in that particular sector one or more, whether it be two, 500 or 1,000 government employees, may be released. I know the Leader of the Opposition is a very reasonable man in this regard, and in saying this I am not being disrespectful. I submit that matters of this kind are not for questions on the orders of the day. They may be put on the order paper. We could spend our time entirely on these matters. Hon. members on both sides of the house could take one minister after another and discuss whether or not there was the possibility of a reduction of staff in that particular department and in some particular locality. It is the same thing as asking where certain post offices are going to be built.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Very well. In the interval may I recognize the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: It will give him more time in which to rephrase it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the fact that it is the responsibility of ministers of the crown to deal with government policy, my question is rephrased as follows. Is it the policy of the Post Office Department to release a certain number of its employees during the Christmas recess?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked a question of the Minister of Justice as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder ... whether there is any knowledge available as to when we might expect the completion of the report on the drug question by the restrictive trade practices commission, or the former members who are working on it.
At that time the acting minister replied that he would draw the question to the attention of his colleague, perhaps for an early reply. I wonder whether we are able to have an answer to that question at the moment.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Justice):	Mr. Speaker, the question was
brought to my attention by my colleague. There is nothing further that I can bring to the attention of the house on the subject. The indication that I gave several weeks ago was that it was expected that the report could be completed by approximately the end of this year. The information I now have does not depart to any degree from that indication.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my dear friend the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to give us a progress report on the French translation of the Gill report dealing with so important a matter as unemployment insurance in this country?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my dear friend from Essex East I wish to say to him that I have nothing further to report.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-94, to provide for establishment of an Atlantic development board.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South. In the interests of the accuracy of the record and for our own benefit, perhaps the hon. member might defer his remarks for 15 to 20 seconds in order to let those members leave who may wish to do so.


Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take very much of the time of the house this afternoon on second reading of the bill. Rather, I am inclined to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate yesterday when he called for a shortening of the debate on second reading in the hope that we can move this 27507-3-151J
Atlantic Development Board measure into a committee of the house, perhaps the committee on banking and commerce, and deal with it more fully at that particular stage.
I think it is quite apparent that we in this group have approached this measure on a non-partisan basis. We have suggested there was hope that this type of measure might make some substantial and concrete contribution to the curing of the economic ills of the Atlantic region of Canada. We tried to be objective. We pointed out that we were concerned about certain aspects of this legislation as it came forward. We indicated certain fears and certain reservations that we held. At the same time we attempted to fulfil our responsibility as members of the opposition, and we brought forward proposals that I think were to some extent constructive and objective, but apparently to no avail.
I suggest it is not an exaggeration to say, bearing in mind the statements that have been made in this house by members of the government and attempting to relate the legislation before us to the Atlantic provinces, that this bill represents nothing more than a straw in the wind, a leaf on the tidal waters, a measure that is going to be completely inadequate in attempting to cope with the situation in the Atlantic provinces. I suggest that this is a form of political subterfuge. It is a concession to expedience at its worst.
In this connection I should like to indicate that I am amazed at the public statements that have been made by some of the official representatives of the Atlantic provinces economic council now that the bill is before us in all its inadequacy and all its shortcomings. It seems to me it is quite regrettable that in the concern of this organization, APEC, to remain politically non-partisan and in their anxiety and keen desire to obtain at least some concrete reaction from this government to our proposals, they are prepared so passively and so meekly to accept this token recognition of our problems. I sincerely trust that in their later, more formal and more official pronouncements on the specific bill, which they can now study "in all of its detail, they will be less concerned about offending the government and more concerned about pressing for a truly effective board capable of initiating decisive action.
There are many aspects of the bill regarding which we intend to introduce specific amendments at the appropriate time, and I hope the minister and the government will give them due consideration. In its present form and under the proposed terms of reference that are before us, I suggest that the bill is a miserable piece of legislation totally

Atlantic Development Board inadequate for the job it is supposed to handle, and certainly not worthy of being put on the statute books of this nation.


Mr. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I will be very short in order that the bill may be given second reading. I listened to the hon. member speaking on the bill, and I have also listened to other speeches he has made in the house. He says he cannot understand why some of the officials of APEC, a well known body which was referred to by the hon. member for Gloucester as a commendable organization in the Atlantic provinces, are in favour of setting up such a board because in his view it is nothing but a subterfuge.
I have not been in this house long, and the hon. member has not been here as long as I have. May I simply say that he has said some things which are helpful, but he must realize that there are many wise men in APEC from all over the maritime provinces and that they are looking at this matter in an objective manner and giving their opinion on it. I should like to quote from the New Glasgow News of November 15 last in which there is a report on what the new president of APEC had to say about the setting up of the Atlantic development board:
Gerald E. Martin, in his first public address since assuming presidency of the self-help regional organization last month, said creation of the board would mark the first entrance of the federal government into direct area development. He cautioned against thinking the board could do the entire job of encouraging regional development by itself.
The article goes on to indicate that Mr. Martin put forward various matters which have already been mentioned in this house by way of suggestions to be made to the new board by APEC.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate spoke yesterday, and the hon. member for Gloucester spoke on the resolution. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate set himself up as the spokesman for the Atlantic provinces, the one who knows all about these matters. Let me just say there are those of us in the house who are natives of the Atlantic provinces and who feel we can speak as well for this area as the hon. member, who has moved to Newfoundland and has actually been adopted by that province.
During the last few years the hon. member for Gloucester has been the opposition coal critic in the house, but from the speech of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate yesterday it would appear that he and the member for Gloucester are now the friends of the fishermen. Apparently the hon. member for Gloucester is no longer the coal critic
[Mr. Maclnnis.l

but has now moved into another field. The hon. member made quite a lengthy speech, which I do not intend to go into because it was made at another stage of the legislation and was referred to by the hon. member for Cumberland.
I should like to refer to a few of the matters mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I remember as a young boy and probably in later years going to afternoon movie matinees. Yesterday afternoon we witnessed another matinee performance by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He put on quite a show. I listened attentively to all his speech. I think the only thing he said which would be of assistance and could be taken as a good suggestion for the Atlantic development board or to help the Atlantic provinces was when he put forward certain things that the board should study.
He admitted in his remarks that when he was a member of the former government when it was in power more should have been done in the field of defence production, in getting more work from that department for the Atlantic area. We also have been trying to do that and perhaps I could point out a few ways in which the Department of Defence Production, under the able minister, has been able to help out in my own constituency.
For instance, a variable depth sonar has been developed, one of the best known antisubmarine devices in the world. We have not only used this device in our Royal Canadian Navy, but we have sold it to the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy, and I believe the Department of Defence Production is attempting to sell it to the United States. This variable depth sonar is manufactured by
E.M.I. Cossor Limited at Dartmouth, and subcontracts have been let to companies in other communities including Fairey Aviation at Dartmouth and Trenton Industries Limited in my constituency.
As I understand it, since 1957 industries in my own area and undoubtedly in other parts of the Atlantic provinces have been listed with various government departments for material which can be supplied, and have been able to secure contracts. At Trenton Industries they are making mortar carriers for the Department of Defence Production as well as the towing gear for the variable depth sonar.
In my area, and this affects all areas in the Atlantic provinces and the shipyards, the following has been carried out by other government departments during the last five years. For instance, right now a coastguard cutter is being built at the Ferguson Industries

Limited yards, Pictou, Nova Scotia, in my constituency. Tenders were called and the three lowest bids included one from the great lakes yards, one from the St. Lawrence area and one from the maritimes area. I suggested to the Minister of Transport that since these vessels would be used in various parts of Canada the work should be allotted on a regional basis. The Ferguson yard at Pictou, being the lowest bidder in the maritimes, was awarded a contract for one of these craft. The other two contracts went to a great lakes yard and a St. Lawrence yard respectively. This was a big help.
I should like also to refer to the ferry constructed about two years ago to operate between Portugal Cove and Belle island, Newfoundland, in the constituency of the hon. member for St. John's East. The call for tenders was limited to the maritime yards, and this was the case with the new ferry which will be constructed during this coming year at the Ferguson Industries Limited yard at Pictou. This ferry will operate between Wood island and Cariboo. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made the suggestion that we should do more to encourage the tourist industry, and I believe the new ferry will help in that direction because there will no longer be a line-up for the ferry at either Wood island or Cariboo.
Then the hon. member pointed out that the board should study our fisheries. I agree with that suggestion. Subsidies were introduced by the Minister of Transport to pay 50 per cent of the cost of construction of steel trawlers. This will be of great assistance to the fishermen. May I point out, sir, that the fisheries school in the province of Nova Scotia is located at Pictou. During the last few months, in order to enlarge the school and make more facilities available for training young fishermen in the Atlantic provinces, the federal government gave approximately $150,000 to help the province of Nova Scotia with this work. I can therefore concur with the hon. member that our fisheries would be a most important subject of study.
The hon. member also pointed out that coal should be used to a greater extent in the production of power in the Atlantic provinces. May I point out to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that if he had travelled from Stellarton to Trenton while he was in my constituency he would have seen the thermal plant at Trenton. The enlargement of this plant was made possible by the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, and between $2 million and $3 million was spent by this government for that purpose. This power, which is generated from coal, was hooked up to the grid system connecting Nova Scotia and New Brunswick,
Atlantic Development Board which was also made possible by the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. Rates were established for industrial users which were comparable to those in parts of Ontario. Each year these industrial users are given a rebate, which means that at the end of the year they get a cheque for an amount which will reduce their rate to one which is comparable to that of industrial users in Ontario. The plant burns coal from our Pictou county mines.
I believe, therefore, that the board which this bill will establish will help various parts of the Atlantic provinces. Mine is a surplus labour area, but I am not going into the reasons for it being such an area. During the last years some coal mines have closed down, but I am not pointing the finger at anyone for that. Various reasons were behind it. We have a large plant there which makes railway cars. During the last ten years the railways embarked on a program of changes in their rolling stock, and there is not so much need for these railway cars now. However, the plant is going better now because certain branches of the Canada Car Company at Montreal have been moved and now the roofs and ends of these cars are made at Trenton. This plant of the Eastern Car Company gives employment to about 75 men.
I believe that this board, when established, will be able to bring together the various facts and suggestions and give them proper consideration. The provinces in the Atlantic area can get together and make their presentations to the board in the best way possible. It has been suggested that APEC has carried out research in various areas so why go into them again. There are always other things to learn. I feel this board could be a very potent factor in the Atlantic area.
I recall, for instance, that a study was carried out by an official from the Department of Trade and Commerce and an official from the Department of Labour, on my suggestion and the suggestion of the premier of Nova Scotia, in order to try to find employment for miners who have been laid off. A similar study was conducted in the Cape Breton area. I am speaking purely of local conditions at the moment, sir, but it is my hope this board will take the study which was made by these two learned gentlemen and give it proper consideration. I have a copy of that report, which is confidential, and it reveals that in a surplus labour area such as Pictou county there are some of the best workers available. Some of them are trained but others would need training and are capable of being trained.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out many things the former
2382	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board administration had accomplished, such as Camp Gagetown, the Canso causeway and so on. May I point out some of the things which have been accomplished by the present government. One was a measure to assist our working force through the establishment of a vocational training school in our area. It is now being constructed at Stellarton and will be ready around the first of the year, I am told. This was made possible through a grant of 75 per cent of the cost of construction from this government. It is true that we need other types of industry in an area like this which, as I say, is a surplus labour area. We have a heavy steel industry but we need secondary industry, and I think this ooard could look into the matter of enlarging this area of expansion. For instance, in the Trenton plants there is need for a certain type of hammer which will enable the steel works part of those plants to go into other lines of production.
We must keep the industry we have and we must also look for additional industry. We can do this by extra tax incentives and other measures. We have given some already, but more should be done to give further tax incentives and help secondary industry come into the area. This board could examine the work done by Industrial Estates, the crown company set up by the provincial government which has been able to attract two small industries into my area, and work along with it. One is an Italian knitting plant, which is doing very well. The other, the Canada Envelope Company, will be opening early in the new year. They are the type of plants we need, and this is the type of work which the board should tackle first in order to provide employment in labour surplus areas and elsewhere throughout the Atlantic provinces.
I have already referred to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act and the grants which this government has given to help provide educational services and roads in the province where I live. At the present time a trans-Canada highway project is being carried out in the New Glasgow-Stellarton area which will cost several millions of dollars and is providing employment. It should help to attract more industry to the industrial area of New Glasgow, and provide necessary roads.
There is not much more I can say before taking my seat, except that the government has not done everything it could for the Atlantic provinces. I frankly admit that, but I have pointed out certain things that have been done and we must continue to fight for other things. The establishment of this board will help us to do that.


References have been made to the terms of the bill, and I think the terms are wide enough to do the necessary work. Let us forget about the wording. Let us forget about amending it. Let us get the board working. The time has come for action. We have carried out certain projects during the last five years; now let us keep matters rolling along. I commend the minister for introducing this legislation.


Mr. John B. Stewart (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate on the merits of APEC, and accordingly I shall not deal with the remarks, or alleged reaction of that organization to the bill presently before us. I listened very attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Pictou, who has just taken his seat. I found what he had to say very interesting, because what he said was much more specific than what the minister said when speaking on the resolution and on the motion for second reading. I only hope that the kind of projects which the hon. member for Pictou sees hidden in the vague language of this bill are indeed hidden there.
Yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made a suggestion to the government through the Minister of National Revenue. He suggested that there was a general desire shared by all hon. members to get on with the business of the country in this house, and he recognized the general importance of trying to improve the economic position of the Atlantic area. In view of these two considerations the hon. member proposed that after second reading the bill be sent to one of the standing committees, where this legislation, which after all is the government's principal approach to one of the nation's greatest problems, would receive the careful scrutiny that it undoubtedly deserves. In a committee discussions would proceed easily and proposals would be made. I gather the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) would like to move some amendments to the bill, and the virtues of those amendments could be examined in the committee. Indeed proposals, suggestions and amendments might come from all quarters of the house, and I should hope they would. The Minister of National Revenue must appreciate the merit of this invitation, and I invite him, when concluding this debate, to tell us his reaction to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate.
I do not think there is any doubt that hon. members from the Atlantic area propose to support this motion for second reading but, Mr. Speaker, I for one would be less than frank if I did not express the mixture of uncertainty and disappointment which I felt when I first studied the bill. In the first place

the government does not seem to have appraised accurately the seriousness of the problems of the Atlantic area, or to have appraised accurately the scope of action that will be required to deal efficaciously with these problems. It provides for an unpaid board which is to meet once a year. It is true the chairman is to receive an honorarium of $3,000, and it is also true that the board can meet more frequently, but that is what is laid out in the bill itself, and to me this suggests that this board is not expected to accomplish very much.
In the second place, I do not think the board confronts the general problems of our area head on. We all know what those problems are. They are three in number. First there is the matter of our tariff policy. This is a national question; it is not simply a regional one. We all know that since 1879, no matter what government was in office, we have had a tariff policy that has been highly unfavourable to producers and consumers in the maritime provinces. As I say, this is a matter of national policy, so I do not see how this particular board, which is primarily regional in its focus, will be able to cope with all the national ramifications of a change in our tariff policy.
Mr. Speaker, in case you may think this matter is somewhat irrelevant to the motion for second reading of this bill, let me call to your attention a speech made at Kentville by the Minister of Finance last March. The newspaper report of that speech quoted the minister as saying that if Britain were to join the European common market then Sydney or Glace Bay could, within a lifetime, become as large as present day Toronto. This suggests the intimate connection between matters of trade and tariff policy and prosperity in the maritime and Atlantic area of Canada.
Then there is another general problem which is not confronted head on by this board. That is the matter of transportation. Here again we all know what the situation is. We all know that governments over the years have been concerned with this matter, and indeed went so far as to create a royal commission to look into it. The royal commission reported that by reason of the development of competition, particularly trucking competition, in central Canada the railways are having a tough time making ends meet in the extremities of the country. Consequently they apply for permission to raise their freight rates, but this permission they use to its full extent only in those extremities. Therefore the freight rates go up in the east and the west, and they are kept down in the centre of the country by reason of the
Atlantic Development Board competition there. Let me read what the royal commission says on this point at page 19 of its report:
-the most serious regional outcome of the effects of competition upon the railway rate structure arises from the fact that the railways, because they can only be certain of applying their fully allowable increases to a constantly shrinking area where competition is weak or non-existent, are forced to ask for greater percentage increases than they would if the increased rates could be applied more broadly. As a consequence, the regions where pay a larger and larger share of the revenues required to cover railway costs.
A second matter to which the royal commission referred was the nature of the rate structure. The railways use the old value of service principle in determining freight rates. This, as hon. members know, is a principle which says that a valuable commodity when transported shall pay more than a crude and undeveloped commodity; in other words, raw materials are transported cheaper than refined products. This means it is easier to export from the maritime and Atlantic provinces undeveloped raw goods than the products of secondary industries. In other words our present freight rate structure discourages the development of secondary industries in the Atlantic provinces. The matter of transportation is a great problem. I do not see that this board directly confronts this problem at all.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is a third great problem, the geenral problem of a shortage of investment capital. We all know what happens. People in the maritimes have a long tradition of saving. They are very good at buying bank stock, I am told. They put their money in the bank or they buy insurance policies; then that money is invested, perhaps in constructing a large business building in the city of Toronto or in developing some mineral deposit in some other part of the country. In other words there is a kind of magnetic pull which attracts capital out of the maritime area, and it is very seldom reversed to push investment capital into that area.
The problem of capital investment is not simply one of people from outside the Atlantic area not looking for investment possibilities in that area. The problem is one of people in those provinces themselves saving money which is then-I hesitate to say "drained off", because that sounds somewhat subversive or invidious-transferred to other places where there may be more profit to be gained. This is a situation which will have to be corercted by political methods. There are various ways of doing this, as we all know; by low inteerst rate loans, tax nicentives and so on. We have been unable to discover just
2384	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board how effective has been the present government's double depreciation allowance for certain labour surplus areas.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Absolutely ineffective.


John B. Stewart: It may very well have been totally ineffective; we have no information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have.


John B. Stewart: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in so far as general problems which will set the scene for development in the Atlantic area are concerned, this board seems to miss the target almost entirely. It may touch the edge of the target as it whizzes by.
Then it does not confront head on the specific problems of specific localities. Mr. Speaker, I want to put before the house two or three illustrations. Prosperity is not simply a general thing; it is generally a local thing. It has to begin in localities; and I want to mention two or three specific localities, ones with which I am familiar, and ask the question, how does this Atlantic development board confront these specific problems in these specific localities?
First let us look at the little, old town of Canso. Canso used to be a booming place. It was from this town that the transatlantic cables made their departure from the mainland of the continent of North America. But we know that the transatlantic cables have been modernized, and indeed are likely to be rendered obsolete by more modern devices. There is now in that town only one major fish packing plant, operated by British Columbia Packers. This company owns an old factory, and they wanted to modernize it or to acquire a modem plant on the Atlantic seaboard. At this point there entered the picture no other person than that energetic man who presides over the destinies of Newfoundland, the premier of Newfoundland. What did he do? He lured the company away.
Well, we were fair sport for him. The town of Canso now needs another company to come in there. In addition, that company will need financial assistance to build a modern plant; it will need financial assistance to acquire deep sea draggers, which will be assisted by the subvention to which the hon. member for Pictou has already referred; it will need a study of the wharves, breakwaters, and channels in the harbour at Canso. We know that at least two companies are interested in going there. We know that the provincial government is aware of the prevailing problem, and I suppose the relevant federal departments are keenly interested. What is needed is some agency to draw together this interest and all these possibilities.


I had hoped that this agency, the existence of which we are now debating, might be able to provide that focal point which would bring these possibilities and interests together, but I fail to see how a board, meeting by statutory requirement only once a year, is likely to do this.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


John B. Stewart: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am sure the hon. gentleman would want to be fair and accurate in the very excellent speech he is making. I think if he reads the bill he will see that the board is required to meet at least once a year in the city of Ottawa, which is not exactly what the hon. member has said.


John B. Stewart: I know this is what the bill says. But am I to understand that the bill is so vague that it only implies that the board is required by law to meet at least once a year elsewhere than in the city of Ottawa?


James Aloysius McGrath: That is the implication I take from it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not the
implication I take.


John B. Stewart: If that is the implication, I think we will have to have an amendment.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. Has he read the full paragraph?


John B. Stewart: I have indeed.


Hugh John Flemming: Then I would ask the hon. member to read the full paragraph now for the benefit of the house.


John B. Stewart: I am sure the minister will be happy to read his own prose himself, and give it the proper inflection necessary to discover what it conceals.


Hugh John Flemming: I would be very glad to read it, Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me.


John B. Stewart: The minister will have an opportunity. I did not intend to be unfair. I am merely suggesting that all that is required by the bill is that the board meet once a year.


An hon. Member:: In Ottawa.


Hugh John Flemming: It says it shall meet at such time and at such place as necessary.


John B. Stewart: It does not say that it will meet any specific number of times elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, let me give you another illustration. Let me give you as another specific illustration, the town of Mulgrave. Here the

situation is less desperate than the situation prevailing in Canso. In the town of Mulgrave there are excellent opportunities for development; and I think these opportunities should be exploited. For example, there is a first-class harbour there. It is said by many citizens, and I have no reason to doubt their veracity, that this is the best harbour on the eastern seaboard of North America. It is deep, and it is ice-free. It is on the main line of the Canadian National Railways between Montreal and Sydney, and it is on the main trans-Canada highway. What is required for the development of this potentially great harbour midway between the United States seaboard ports and the St. Lawrence seaway is co-operation-cooperation by the government of Nova Scotia, the town of Mulgrave, and Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works, and the Canadian National Railways. I will not mention the number of times that this board is supposed to meet, which is apparently a matter of some uncertainty; but if the board is going to be able to pull together all these agencies, all of which I am sure are willing to co-operate, then I do not find anything in this bill which leads me to believe that that will be the case. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Flemming) is a well-meaning man, and perhaps within his personality I might find some reason to believe that the board would co-operate to this end if he were the minister involved. But we are not concerned with the personality of the minister; we are concerned with the text of this bill.
If I may trespass again on the territory of the hon. member for Pictou, here is an area which has a long and distinguished history of industrial production which, under one government or another-let us not encumber the question by party politics-has been declining, largely for the reasons I mentioned earlier: transportation problems, capital problems, and tariff problems. I would hope that this board would be able to move into that area, and to assist in a very active way the energetic labour groups and management groups in that place. On the face of the bill, which after all is all I can rely on, I can see nothing which suggests to me that the board will indeed do that. Consequently, I find the proposal to set up this board somewhat unsatisfactory.
As I studied the speech of the Minister of National Revenue on resolution stage and what he said on second reading, I was impressed by the prominence he gave, when he described the work of the board, to projects such as the Chignecto canal and the Prince Edward Island causeway. Mr. Speaker, let there be no misunderstanding: we are anxious that those projects shall be proceeded with, if they are feasible. In fact, 27507-3-152
Atlantic Development Board sometimes I think we are more anxious about this than members on the opposite side of the house; but be that as it may.
What I am suggesting to you, sir, is that capital projects of this kind do not come to grips with the fundamental economic problems of our area. This board may be very useful in sorting out the numerous demands for public expenditure on capital projects, and in the ranking of them in some sort of priority, so that a government of any political stripe may not be embarrassed by one area saying to the government that other areas had received benefits while they received nothing. But I do not think that this kind of device is what was conceived by the people of the Atlantic provinces when they anticipated action from this government. Capital projects are but a minor part of what is needed for the development of the Atlantic provinces.
As I read this bill, I begin to think that the ministers have realized that they have not succeeded in devoting enough time and thought to the problems of our area. Like most of us sometimes do, they are setting up a device to do their work for them. If all this board is to be is an advisory board with a very small budget which is to act as a screen for the failure of ministers to find time and energy to do a job, then I am afraid the board will be a failure. I hope that the expectations of the hon. member for Pictou will be realized, but I believe, sir, that he is proceeding largely on his own good nature and on unfounded assumptions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should point out to the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) that at the time I recognized the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) I did not realize that his group had not had the chance to speak at least once on second reading, and I apologize to him. (Translation):


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, a project for the establishment of another board is brought before us this afternoon.
It sure takes a lot of boards of all kinds to operate the economic machinery of this country, and that, merely because the financial gear is unsound. That is how the old Conservative, Liberal and socialist parties try to cure economic ills, not daring to get to the bottom of the problem. They prefer to come out with ready-made plans rather than go to the source of the economic plight brought about by an obsolete financial system which puts up blockades in every segment of the national economy and prevents the Canadian consumer from buying the goods that are produced.

Atlantic Development Board
However, the bill for the establishment of the Atlantic development board, as put forth by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Flemming), commends itself to us because of the goal it seeks to achieve, that is, to promote to the fullest extent possible the industrial, commercial and agricultural development of the Atlantic regions and, consequently, to ensure the well-being of the people and families who live in those great regions, a great number of which are bound to the population of Quebec by their French origin, their French culture and their French civilization. I take this opportunity to pay special tribute to the whole French-speaking population of those provinces, to whom I send a fraternal greeting.
Last summer I had the privilege of coming into close contact with the best people of New Brunswick and, at the same time, to meet many officials of the APEC. This enabled me to grasp the full importance of the serious economic problems our compatriots in the maritimes have to face in the obsolete framework of liberalism where we are all choking as if we were in strait-jackets.
That situation compels us to adopt serious corrective measures in the Atlantic area, as well as in all the regions of Canada, in order to put a stop to unemployment, hardship and lack of security which are the lot of so many Canadians.
During the last 50 years, scientific and technical developments have completely transformed our means of production, thus upsetting our economic and social system, sowing trouble and confusion in the minds of our contemporaries who persist in believing that the capitalist system of debt money has been created by providence to last as long as the solar system and that any other economic system is inconceivable. Mr. Speaker, that is the great error of some official economists who have forgotten to change with the times.
I wish to advise the hon. members of the house that the economic development of the Atlantic region will never be adequately promoted as long as they believe that we need foreign capital to attain that objective, or that all social capital outlays will have to come from money borrowed at high interest rates or from credit created by commercial banks. Let us leave to the Bank of Canada, through a branch that would be called the "municipal development bank", or, in other words, the "social financing bank", the task of providing all the capital needed to meet the public needs of Canada, and at administrative


cost, while respecting the autonomy of each province and provincial-municipal relations, always in relation to our means of production, in such a way that there will no longer be inflation or deflation of our money, as it happened constantly under the old parties, Liberal and Conservative. It will be possible for the Atlantic area to enjoy a tremendous economic development, and the same will apply to all other provinces in this country, when, through the means I have just advocated, we will allow the savings of our citizens and the capital accumulated in finance institutions to play their part to the full, in all security for those savings and that capital, through investment in the industrial and business fields. In that way, Canadians will regain control of their economy and the Atlantic area will no longer have to suffer economic depression in the midst of extremely rich natural resources.
Since the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) advocated the establishment of a department of the Atlantic with a deputy minister and other officials, I suggest that the government should soon consider establishing such a department to look after the economic development of the socialist province of Saskatchewan.
We, of the Social Credit, would like the Gaspe peninsula and the Saguenay area to be considered as being part of the Atlantic area and we respectfully but strongly suggest that a Quebec representative be appointed on this Atlantic development board.
(Text):


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill for it indicates the concern of the present Conservative government for the future well-being of the citizens in the Atlantic provinces. I am sure that all mari-timers were pleased to hear the Governor General read in the speech from the throne the following:
You will be asked to authorize the establishment of an Atlantic development board to advise on measures and projects that will promote the economic development of the Atlantic region of Canada.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a problem that has troubled maritimers and Canadians in general for many years. It is a problem that was recognized by the former Liberal administration during their 22 years in office but unfortunately they did very little about it. I cannot say that they did not do anything

about it, as they appointed a royal commission to bring in a report on Canada's economic prospects. The chairman of this commission is now the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon). I believe his words should be required reading for every mari-timer. I have placed some of them on the record previously. However, a few of them will bear repeating as they form the basis for an Atlantic development board. He states:
About one and three quarter million Canadians, or over 10 per cent of the total population live in the Atlantic region.
He continued by stating as follows:
It is a fact, however, that average incomes in this region continue to lag behind the averages for the rest of Canada. In 1926, for example, the average income per capita in the three maritime provinces was 38 per cent below the average for the other six provinces; in 1955, the average income for the Atlantic provinces, including Newfoundland, was 37 per cent below the average for the other six provinces.
These are interesting figures. I wish that the hon. member for Davenport had more than an academic interest in the problems of the maritimes and were in his seat today as I should like to ask him if it was not a fact that in the years 1939 to 1955 a Liberal government was in power when our income in the Atlantic provinces was 37 per cent below the national average. And what did the Liberal party do about this problem?


James Aloysius McGrath: Nothing.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The answer is nothing, as my friend the hon. member for St. John's East interjects. Perhaps one of the reasons they did nothing is that the hon. member for Davenport was at that time economic adviser to the government. I continue the quotation:
-the fact remains that living standards are lower in the Atlantic provinces than they are in the rest of Canada, and that it is in everyone's interest to reduce this differential, if it is at all possible to do so. It is not suggested that this should be accomplished by ad hoc projects and handouts. Such measures are as unpalatable to the recipients as they are to those who must foot the bills-
If it should turn out that there is not the necessary combination of resources in sufficient quantities to permit a substantial rise in the living standards in the Atlantic region, generous assistance should be given to those people who might wish to move to other parts of Canada where there may be greater opportunities.
This is bold and imaginative Liberal policy. It is typical of the attitude of the Liberal party toward the Atlantic provinces during their 22 years in office. It was a negative, do nothing, move out policy, on a one-way Liberal ticket to nowhere. We in the Atlantic provinces did not take the advice of the hon. member for Davenport. We did not move out and we do not intend to do so, for under the present Conservative government in Nova Scotia and under the present Conservative 27507-3-152i
Atlantic Development Board government in Ottawa we have greater hope for our economic future than ever before in our history. Our policy is in violent disagreement with the policy of the Liberal party. We believe in ad hoc projects to stimulate the economy of an area that has been so long neglected by the Liberal party. One of the first acts of the present Conservative government was to approve the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants to pay $100 million over a four year period. This fact has never been mentioned by any Liberal speakers in this debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: And they have now been increased.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: These adjustment grants have now been increased to $175 million over the next five years. These grants could well be considered the forerunner of the Atlantic development board and they have enabled the provincial governments in the Atlantic provinces to establish industrial estates, to expand their fishermen's Joan boards and to promote much needed industry for the benefit of our citizens.
This is one of the resolutions that was passed by that famous conference to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) likes to refer, which was held in Moncton on May 18, 1957. As a matter of fact, the speech he made yesterday in the house was almost a rebroadcast of a speech he made when he was in Amherst on Friday, June 8 when he stated that "the P.C. pledges are empty". He noted then that our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was in Moncton, the Prime Minister who has done so much for the Atlantic provinces, and what did the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate say? He said that the Atlantic charter was not worth the paper it was written on. That is what he thinks about the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants. That was the first resolution we passed when we met in Moncton, and though these grants have been beneficial to the Atlantic provinces it would appear that they would be the first thing that would be abolished if, heaven forbid, a Liberal government were ever elected to office, because they do not believe in ad hoc projects.
It is evident that the people of the Atlantic provinces lost faith in the Liberal party after they were 22 years in office because they never brought in any measures such as the Atlantic development board.


Mr. Caron:: They did not need it then.


Mr.. Crouse:: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would rise and make his comments rather than making them from his seat. Our party recognized low personal wages of maritimers

Atlantic Development Board as soon as we came into office, and although the hon. member for Davenport stated that if we stayed in the maritimes we would have to accept lower earnings we had other ideas and we implemented them. What has been the result? I hold in my hand statistics as to the average personal wage on a five year basis as produced by the bureau of statistics. For 1955, the last five-year period the Liberal party was in office, the average personal wage in Nova Scotia, for example, was $50.83 per week. By the month of August, 1962, this had risen to $66.34 per week. Nova Scotia today has an income 18 per cent less than the national average, which happens to be $80.85, and this is quite important having in mind the 37 per cent difference when the Liberal party was in office.
Despite these facts and the evident progress that has been made, what do we hear from our Liberal friends? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of November 3, said that his party could give better government, more progressive government at this critical time. At that same time their new found disciple from Antigonish-Guysborough lamented the fact that Nova Scotia had sent nine Conservatives to the House of Commons. He said that Nova Scotia is traditionally Liberal and is now oppressed by Tory protectionism. What did he say today? He said that this board cannot be expected to accomplish very much. This type of attitude was Liberal party policy for 22 years. "We cannot do very much for the maritimes so we Liberals will do nothing."
I submit it is time to get rid of this pessimistic idea. It is time to look forward, to have a progressive twentieth century outlook for the Atlantic provinces. What do the economic indicators tell us? I do not know where the hon. member goes when he leaves here but it is certainly not back to Nova Scotia because if he did he would be aware of the progress that is being made. The improvement in economic activity in the Atlantic provinces since this government came into office in 1957 is almost astronomical. For years we were dependent upon transfer payments and upon social security and defence expenditures for a large part of our income. However, this type of dependency could not go on indefinitely, and immediately upon taking office we recognized these problems and set about doing something about them. Programs were instituted that were not merely a scratching of the surface but which would be beneficial over a long period of time.
As I said previously, the first thing we did was to bring in the adjustment grants. Armed with this additional capital, the provincial


government of Nova Scotia established industrial estates which promoted new industry. Under our roads to resources program we encouraged the provinces to build new highways, and this has assisted in faster delivery of our fish to the markets in the United States. It has also brought in new tourists and last year we had a tourist season in Nova Scotia greater than we have ever had before in our history. This meant that we required more hotels and motels, and these are springing up all over the province. I ask any Liberal member in this house to stand up and deny that this is a fact.
We encouraged the construction of new technical schools. Unlike the Liberals, who gave no thought to the effects of automation upon our youth, we recognized that they cannot continue untrained and we are making every effort to provide facilities for their technical training so they will be in a position to make a contribution to industry in the future. We provided aid to the production and distribution of power. In fact, last year, for the first time in the history of Nova Scotia, we sold power to the United States where a shortage had developed. This was accomplished by transmission via the new interprovincial grid line through New Brunswick. Net generation of electrical power in the Atlantic provinces for the first seven months of 1962 was 3,267 million kilowatt hours, a rise of 9.6 per cent from the previous year. All four provinces participated in the increase.
We provided assistance to maritimers in the construction of new homes under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Some hon. members may say that was not just for the Atlantic provinces alone; but that is the reason why we are here today, because this government is not a regional government. It recognizes the needs of all Canadians.


Malcolm MacInnis: And you are all alone.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No, I am not all alone. I hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) say that I am all alone. I am very much in good company.


An hon. Member:: He is all alone.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I think he is all alone. This assistance to the housing industry has assisted our construction industry and you can see the beneficial effects of this program throughout the entire length and breadth of the Atlantic provinces. In fact, in the past six months new housing starts in the region rose by 15.6 per cent compared with last year.
Without question one of the most outstanding programs we have initiated for the economic development of the Atlantic provinces is the implementation of subsidies to assist
238S

the fishermen in the construction of new drag-gers. At the present time there is a huge new fleet of groundfish and scallop draggers under construction in the 100 foot class and over. This fleet, it is estimated, will create more than 1,000 new jobs ashore and afloat within the next two years and it will also guarantee a continuing volume of work for the province's shipbuilding yards and the ship refitting industries.
Many of the more than 40 wooden shipbuilding yards are booked for a full year or more with orders for the fishing industry. In fact, during the first seven months of 1962 loans in Nova Scotia were approved for 15 new draggers 86 feet and over in length while loans were also approved for the construction of some 84 smaller fishing craft. This program has provided considerable stimulus to all allied industries. For example, gallows frames and trawl doors used by the large draggers, which were formerly imported from Chelsea, Massachusetts, and other American ports, are today being made in Lunenburg and Liverpool by firms like Lunenburg Foundry and Engineering Company, Limited, Atlantic Bridge Company Limited and the Steel and Engine Products plant in Liverpool. This is a new departure. In addition, they are building the scallop rakes. I submit that one of the things this board could study is the possibility of manufacturing more of the equipment used by these large trawlers and draggers that are being built for the fishing industry.
Now, these extra ships landing their increasing catches of fish have stimulated the production of bucket shops along the shore, wooden buckets and wooden boxes. I do not refer to the type of "bucket shop" we have in other sections of Canada. I refer to the construction of wooden boxes, wooden buckets, and wooden barrels in which certain species of fish are packed. At the present time we have under construction in Lunenburg a new plant covering five and a half acres under one roof which will provide a landing base for this new fleet. This plant will be able to produce
80,000	tons of processed fish per year. The plant will employ some 500 people once it gets into production in 1964 and this will add annually to the economy of Nova Scotia some $4 million. This is the type of thing that is happening under a Conservative government. We never had this sort of thing before under the Liberals.
Now, with the new ships being added to the fleet, the value of regional fish landings in the Atlantic provinces rose in the first six months of 1962 by over 14 per cent to $44 million from $38 million last year. In Newfoundland the returns were 16 per cent higher than in 1961 and in Nova Scotia the value of the catch was $15,357,000, up 16.6
Atlantic Development Board per cent. This is not the only area in which improvements have been made. The Bowater's Paper Company at Brooklyn recently completed a large modernization program to the mill's electrical system which will take care of any future increase in the mill's equipment. They have also added a new chip handling system. Years ago, it was customary to throw away the slab waste in Nova Scotia. Today a number of sawmill operators in Nova Scotia now convert their slab waste to chips which Bowater's purchase as part of their wood supply. This brings new money into the province as Bowater's export newsprint as far away as India, Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. At the present time newsprint production is being maintained at very satisfactory levels.
Now, briefly, I should say that our other industries are expanding. For example, pulp-wood production in the Atlantic provinces for the first six months of 1962 was 1,136,000 rough cords, up 29 per cent over last year. New Brunswick had the largest increase, and I am pleased to be able to say this because the bill under debate is being introduced by the minister from New Brunswick for whom I have a very high regard. The province of New Brunswick developed 627,000 rough cords, representing an increase of 43 per cent. Solid gains in output over last year have been made in sawn lumber and production rose 16 per cent in the first six months of 1962 to 356 million board feet.
Even manufacturing in the Atlantic provinces is on the upgrade. During the first seven months of this year manufacturing shipments stood at $534 million, a rise of almost 3 per cent over the same period in 1961. In Nova Scotia, our factory shipments exceeded $200 million, up more than 5 per cent over last year.
You might say, what does all this prove? If those figures are true, why do you need an Atlantic development board? Well, this all proves that, in the first instance, today we have in Ottawa a government which in the short period between June 10, 1957 and the present day has taken action, has made decisions, that have been helpful in correcting the over-all problems of the Atlantic provinces. This is what is proven. Unlike the Liberal government which for 22 years was informed of the problem but took no action, this government has taken action and has shown it is a government of decision. I should perhaps be fair to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), although he is not here. He did have a solution for our problems. He said, move out.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He never said that; you know better.
2390	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: What a loss it would have been to Canada if we had taken his advice.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You know he never said that.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud)-and I listened to his words of wisdom-obviously, has not been back to the Atlantic provinces recently because no one could even fly over them without seeing the neon lights and the blossoming suburbs which indicate that we are forging ahead.
The goal of the Conservative party is to bring about employment opportunities in the Atlantic provinces so that our citizens have jobs at salaries close to the national average. We want to develop our area; we want to stop the drain on our manpower so prevalent for so many years under the Liberals. As I mentioned previously, the measures already enacted have been most helpful. However, I would not have you believe all our problems have been solved. There are still some areas of Nova Scotia that are underdeveloped, areas in the Atlantic provinces that are underdeveloped. This is the result of a lack of employment opportunities.
I would suggest that we might ask this board to give some consideration to the further development of our gypsum deposits, and the processing of them. We can mine two million tons of gypsum per year for 100 years and we would still have some reserves. We have whales going up and down the coast, and we could give some thought to the canning and processing of them. To the best of my knowledge, there is no canning of tuna in the Atlantic provinces anywhere. Now, some hon. member may correct my statement, but I do not believe there is a can of tuna put up in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland today. This is one of the products of the sea that is gaining increasing favour with consumers not only in Canada but in the United States.
I would ask the board to start a search for minerals through the new oceanographic institute that has been located on the shores of Bedford basin. They could search for minerals on the shores of our continental shelf. We must carry out a greater search for oil, for gas and for other minerals and actively process them. There are a multitude of jobs the Atlantic development board, when established, could do. I do not go along with the hon. member for Gloucester or the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) when they criticize this government for not setting the amount this board could .spend. This, I submit, would put a limitation


on the number of projects the board could develop for the assistance of the area. This government will back up the board, I am certain, when the projects it recommends to the treasury board are judged feasible. I am sure this government will back up this board because it has been the intention of our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and of the Conservative government since we were first elected to bring about a better economic standard in the Atlantic provinces. I am sure that we intend to continue bringing this area up to the level of the rest of Canada. However, it is costly to maintain underemployment in any part of Canada, including the Atlantic provinces. It will be the purpose of this board to correct this situation.
What we need are policies which are aimed at the creation of new production, employment and new income. In the long run, this will be beneficial not only to the people of the Atlantic provinces but to Canadians as a whole. Another project to which this board could give consideration would be the production of cranberries. In Cape Cod they have made this a major industry. Here in Ottawa, you buy cranberries packaged and processed in Cape Cod. Cranberries grow well in all areas of the Atlantic provinces. This is a project to which consideration might well be given by this board in an effort to stimulate our economy.
I am in agreement with one thing which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate stated-I note he is not here today-namely his suggestion that we might take a closer look at our traditional markets in the West Indies. I believe the hon. member for Gloucester also mentioned this.
The volume of business between Canada and the British Caribbean is showing a steady growth and our commercial relations continue to be governed by the Canada West Indies trade agreement of 1926 which provides for the exchange of preferential tariff treatment. Our economies are complementary and there is a geographical proximity to the Atlantic provinces. With improved transportation and communications, plus the flow of Canadian tourists, trade missions and our Canadian assistance program there is no reason why we should not increase our long established trade with Trinidad, Tobago, Barbados, Jamaica and the Windward and Leeward Islands.
Last year we imported over $84 million worth of goods from the West Indies while we exported only $56 million worth, so there is quite a difference in our trade balance. Clearly it is up to us in the Atlantic provinces to stimulate further the sales of our fish, lumber, newsprint, tinned milk, potatoes,

onions, apples and paper products, all of which are grown and processed in the Atlantic provinces and which would greatly improve our employment opportunities if we increased our sales.
I am certain the Atlantic development board will be beneficial to our area and, working together with the leaders of our provincial governments and established industries it will bring about a more stable economy and a higher standard of living for all our people. At this point I would like to pay a tribute to Mr. Michael Waddell of the Atlantic Advocate for the time and effort he has put into dealing with Atlantic region problems. I have read his editorials and comments and he has devoted space in his periodical to bring our needs not only to the attention of maritimers but to all of Canada.


Mr. Barneii:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would like to ask the hon. member, in relation to some remarks he was making earlier in his speech in which he referred to the non-accomplishments of the Liberal administration-and I shall not quarrel with his assessment of those-how he reconciles some of the statements he was making in that portion of his speech with a statement which appeared in the July "APEC Newsletter" in which there was reference to the disparity between average personal income levels in the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada. That article states:
Perhaps, however, the most disturbing feature of this situation is that there has been virtually no change in it since 1950.
The statistics they were referring to were those for 1960.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely certain that I get the impact of the question. I quoted figures for Nova Scotia in my speech. They were figures I obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics, and I shall put them on the record again. In 1955 the average personal weekly wage in Nova Scotia was $50.83 and in the month of August, 1962, it was $66.34. While I am not really a good mathematician I compute that to be approximately 18 per cent below the national average, which is reputed to be $80.85.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about the cost of living in the same period?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member for Gloucester talks about the cost of living. Again we get this pessimistic Liberal attitude. Even though we have done these things they cannot stand up and agree that the progress
Atlantic Development Board made in Nova Scotia was on a non-partisan basis. Why not accept this progress? As the minister from New Brunswick stated when he introduced this bill, let us forget this partisanship and go on from here.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit one more question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly.


Malcolm MacInnis: I was just wondering with regard to some of the statements he made- and I agree many of them were true-how he relates them to the dominion bureau of statistics figures which indicate that the average level of unemployment in Canada since 1957 has been approximately 6 per cent or 7 per cent per year while in the Atlantic provinces it has run at about double that figure? How does the hon. member relate this situation to his previous statistics?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I would just like-


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are we having another joint debate on this? A question is one thing but a debate is another.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask, has the Minister of National Revenue any right to terminate this debate? That surely must lie with the Chair.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I would like to answer the question, and for the edification of hon. members I am quoting from a Nova Scotia Newsletter dated November, 1962, that came to my desk this morning. I am not aware if the hon. member for Cape Breton South is on its mailing list.


An hon. Member:: Who publishes this?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is published by the government of Nova Scotia.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Oh.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: And for the information of the hon. member for Gloucester the figures that they receive are from the dominion bureau of statistics. I quote:
tn June there was a 3.1 per cent increase in industrial average weekly wages and salaries. The average was $66.58 up from $64.56 a year earlier.
Unemployment dropped slightly. As of June 29, there were 14,358 unplaced applicants in the province, representing about 6 per cent of the labour force.
Does that answer the hon. gentleman's question? I submit that is not double the national average.


Mr. Carter:: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Be my guest.
2392	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board


Chesley William Carter: Would he say the annual average income depends solely on the weekly wage or whether it depends on the weekly wage multiplied by the number of hours worked, and involves the number of people at work?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I do not have the answer to the hon. member's question.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Bumaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to get into the family quarrel between the various members from the Atlantic provinces on both sides of the house. A long time ago I learned that when you get into a family quarrel you usually get into trouble. For three days I have listened to Liberal members claiming that the Conservatives did not do anything and are largely responsible for conditions in the maritimes, and I have listened to Conservative members blaming the Liberals for their long period of inactivity. I think it is easy for me to keep out of trouble by saying I agree that both are right. The problems of the maritimes, whether they are understated or overstated are due to the fact that both old-line parties, both provincially and federally, have had the responsibility of looking after the affairs of the Atlantic provinces ever since Canada became a nation.
I would like to commend the Minister of National Revenue for introducing legislation to set up an Atlantic economic development board. I do so for two reasons, the first being that I think we recognize today, somewhat belatedly, that economic planning is absolutely essential if our economy is going to get moving and if we are going to grapple with the problems of unemployment and a low standard of living, low compared to the potential which we might enjoy.
I am glad to have this legislation brought down for a second reason, and that is that it is particularly aimed at the problems of the Atlantic provinces and, as I said in the debate on the resolution, those provinces deserve special consideration and need special action. I think the house will generally agree with the minister in having legislation designed to do that; however I want to say to the minister that all the fears I expressed in the debate on the resolution have been more than justified after reading the terms of the bill. Having read the bill I cannot help but feel that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse and that this legislation will not do the things that many of the hon. members have been talking about.
I have listened to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan) talking about the employment which this board will create, and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. 

Crouse), who has just resumed his seat, talking about the new industrial development that could be brought about. But I cannot see anything in this bill that is either going to provide employment or bring into being new industries or a greater development of the resources of the Atlantic provinces. I say that for three reasons, Mr. Speaker. First of all I look at the board itself. Here is a board of five members, of which there is not to be a single full time member. Whether this board is going to meet once a year, quarterly or even monthly, surely no one in his right senses thinks a part time board meeting periodically is going to produce the kind of program that we need to make a massive assault on the social and economic problems of the Atlantic provinces. There is not even a full time chairman. I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill) who suggested, much along the same line as the suggestion I made with reference to the national economic development board, that if you are going to tie this board into the government the chairman ought to be a minister of the crown. If that is too much to ask, then at least he should be a parliamentary secretary.
I am really disturbed by this feeble bow we in this parliament are making to the idea of economic planning. We are now going to have four planning groups. We are going to have the national economic development board, the Atlantic development board, an enlarged national productivity council and an industrial manpower adjustment council, all four of them with terms of reference which are overlapping, all of them responsible to a different minister, and none of them tied in to the government so that their recommendations and programs have any assurance of being considered.
The other thing that worries me about this board is this. With only five members it cannot possibly be representative of (a) regions, and (b) major economic groups. I would like to see a board on which the provinces concerned will be represented by allowing them to nominate someone, and the major economic groups being allowed to nominate someone who will represent them. I do not mean by this, selecting someone from an economic group, but someone nominated by an economic group who will have the authority to confer with that group and, with their agreement, commit that group to certain lines of action. If we are really going to plan the economic development of the Atlantic provinces we will have to have this kind of representation, co-ordination and participation by the various groups concerned. That is certainly not possible with a board of five part time members.

I want to hurry along, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to hold up this bill. The second thing that concerns me about this bill is the limited scope of the board. It has the power to make an assessment of the factors relevant to economic growth; it has the power to decide whether or not certain measures, projects and existing factors may inhibit industrial development; it has power-this is what worries me most-to study particular measures or projects if they are referred to it by the minister. We have heard a great deal about the projects they will discuss, but as I read this bill they cannot discuss or make a study of any projects unless they are projects which have been referred to them by the minister. If I am wrong, or if this requires some clarification, we can discuss it in the committee. But it seems to me that is a limitation which means this board could do virtually nothing, or it could do a considerable amount if projects are referred to it; although what five people meeting several times a year can do is beyond my understanding.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend has read clause 9(d).


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.
-consider and report to the minister upon any other matters that in the opinion of the board may usefully be considered-


An hon. Member:: That is out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know it is out of order for me to be quoting the bill, but the minister asked if I had read it.


Hugh John Flemming: It takes in everything.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They can report to the minister on matters that may usefully be considered, but I take it that under pararaph (c) the actual feasibility and economic studies that are necessary for specific projects can only be undertaken by the board if they are referred to it by the minister. I want to try and finish by five o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I say that the third thing that concerns me about this bill is that neither in the bill nor in the statement made by the minister in introducing the bill has anything been done about an industrial development fund for the Atlantic provinces. All the talk about creating jobs, stimulating oil exploration, bringing into being new industries, means nothing unless very substantial sums of money are going to be available for implementing the recommendations of this board. .This board, as it now stands, without an industrial development fund for the Atlantic provinces will not put a single man to work, will not start a single industry unless the government is prepared to indicate that large sums of money will
Correspondence on Surcharges be available. This is what worries me about all four of the boards to which I referred, the national economic development board, the Atlantic development board, the productivity council, the manpower adjustment council. None of these will create jobs-unless it is exchanging members, jobs with each other- unless the government is prepared to indicate now or at an early date that very substantial sums of capital will be available either for loans to industries or for loans to the provinces for industrial development; or the government itself, on a partnership basis with the provinces, is prepared to invest considerable sums of money to start new industries and create jobs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we in this group, while we are glad to have set up a board of this nature, must point out that its very limited scope, its part time membership and the lack of any announcement of an industrial development fund to finance its proposals make this an extremely disappointing measure in so far as carrying out the very laudable objectives which have been enunciated by the minister.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock. (Translation):


Mr. Laureni Maltais (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry, but it being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business. Therefore we shall turn to page 20 of the order paper in order to resume consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East).
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the crown and officers of the Department of Justice or the privy council or any other government department or agency on the subject of surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-902, dated June 24, 1962, and the amendment to the surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-987, dated July 11, 1962, and the import control list as amended by P.C. 1962-903, dated June 24, 1962, with particular reference to the legality of such orders.
Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize for the moment that we had actually arrived at this order. I wish to say a few words about this rather extraordinary notice of motion.

Correspondence on Surcharges


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not think that if we were to have a vote on this matter now, in view of the protracted discussion which we have had, this would be desirable? We would be agreeable to going on with the government's request to continue with the discussion on the Atlantic development board measure. Let us have a vote now. We have had all the speeches we need. Let the house determine whether or not we should have this legal opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding what the hon. member has said with regard to his own motion, there are a lot of other items on the agenda for consideration under private members business. On the point that the hon. member raised, that we get back to the Atlantic development board, that is a matter for unanimous consent of the house, and there are a number of items on the order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the house must decide these things. We are all aware of what Your Honour pointed out. I ask simply that we dispose of this. Then I am sure that the house would give careful and sympathetic consideration to the proposal made privately by the government that we should go until six o'clock with the Atlantic development board legislation.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman is speaking about. He mentions some private arrangement. If there is one, it has not been brought to my attention. I propose to say a few words on the motion, because as I said a moment ago, it is a most extraordinary motion. So that we can understand the remarks I propose to make, I should like to read this motion. The motion is:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the crown and officers of the Department of Justice or the privy council or any other government department or agency on the subject of surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-902, dated June 24, 1962, and the amendment to the surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-987, dated July 11, 1962 and the import control list as amended by P.C. 1962-903, dated June 24,	1962, with particular
reference to the legality of such orders.
Now, traditionally on any matter of this kind there must be exceptional grounds shown, and certainly so far as this motion is concerned no grounds whatever are shown. My submission is simply this: that seven votes of no confidence have failed, and in essence the hon. member for Essex East is using this order as a political vehicle to renew his round of abuse upon the government and to bring


up again an old debate which has been decided by seven previous votes. The economic position of Canada now as compared to what it was at the time in question here shows that the action taken by the government was abundantly justified.
I should now like to make reference to the statute dealing with the Department of Justice. It is chapter 71 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. Section 1, of course, merely provides that the act may be cited as the Department of Justice Act. Section 2 provides:
(1)	There shall be a department of the government of Canada called the Department of Justice over which the Minister of Justice of Canada appointed by commission under the great seal of Canada shall preside.
(2)	The Minister of Justice is ex officio Her Majesty's attorney general of Canada, holds office during pleasure, and has the management and direction of the Department of Justice.
Section 3 provides:
(1)	The governor in council may also appoint an officer called the deputy minister of justice to hold office during pleasure.
(2)	The deputy minister of justice is ex officio the deputy attorney general.
(3)	Such other officers, clerks and servants as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the department, shall be appointed in the manner authorized by law.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Your Honour earlier in the debate on this motion was very strict in your interpretation of the rules. Surely it is not competent for an hon. member to get up and begin to read a statute concerning the appointment of clerks, and so on, which- I have listened attentively to the hon. gentleman so far-seems to have no bearing whatsoever on the motion before us.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: On the point of order; I very well remember what Your Honour said: that this was a neat, small point dealing with a legal opinion. That is why I am reading the statute, because the next section deals with something relating to that.


Mr. Speaker:: I must confess that I was discussing another matter of business with an hon. member of the house and 1 am not fully aware of what the hon. member said. But I must point out to him, in all fairness to what I have said to the other hon. members in connection with this debate, that there is a narrow point at issue here as to whether or not these documents should be produced, for reasons advanced by either the one side or the other. There is no point as to what is behind the documents or as to what effect they should or should not have. While I am not prepared to say that what the hon. member was citing was out of order, I can assure the hon. member who has drawn this point of order to my attention

that I will follow the remarks most attentively now that I have dispensed with the other matter, and I will ask the hon. member who has the floor to hew to the line very closely.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Speaker, I have just one other short reference to read, perhaps the most important one. Section 4 says:
The Minister of Justice shall
(a) be the official legal adviser of the Governor General and the legal member of Her Majesty's privy council for Canada;
It is to be noted that in this statute the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) is one of three ministers who, besides being a minister, holds an office. Not only is he Minister of Justice, but he is Attorney General of Canada; just as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) is also the Receiver General of Canada and has to lay matters before parliament; and as the Secretary of State (Mr. Halpenny) is Registrar General for Canada and has to lay matters before parliament. But there is nothing in the statute to require the Minister of Justice to lay anything before parliament in the matter of his position as legal adviser. Therefore the hon. member for Essex East is driven to this humble address to the crown in order to try to get a legal opinion.
Mr. Speaker, traditionally opinions of the law officers of the crown are not produced. They have been produced only in very few instances, and then on very sufficient grounds. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member for Essex East has advanced not only insufficient grounds, but he has advanced no grounds at all. His whole argument has been one of renewed abuse on the government for a course of conduct. As far as I can see, nowhere has the hon. member produced any proper grounds.


Mr. Creslohl:: Let parliament decide.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Parliament probably will decide.


Leon David Crestohl: Not by talking it out.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: This point is very well set out in the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's work on parliamentary practice at page 461. There is a paragraph there dealing with law officers' opinions, and we find this stated;
The opinions of the law officers of the crown, being confidential, are not usually laid before parliament or cited in debate; and their production has frequently been refused:
Then if we turn to page 270 we find this:
Parliament is invested with the power of ordering all documents to be laid before it, which are necessary for its information. Each house enjoys this authority separately, but not in all cases independently of the crown.
Correspondence on Surcharges That is the sort of case we are dealing with now.
Accounts and papers relating to trade, finance, and general or local matters, are ordered directly, and are returned in obedience to the order of the house whence it was issued: but returns of matters connected with the exercise of the royal prerogative, are obtained by means of addresses to the crown.
The distinction between these two classes of returns should be borne in mind; as, on the one hand, it is irregular to order directly that which should be sought for by address; and, on the other, it is a compromise of the authority of parliament to resort to the crown for information which it can obtain by its own order. The application of the principle is not always clear: but, as a general rule, it may be stated that all public departments connected with the collection or management of the revenue, or which are under the control of the treasury, or are constituted or regulated by statute, may be reached by a direct order from either house of parliament: but that public officers and departments, subject to Her Majesty's secretaries of state or the privy council, are to receive their orders from the crown.
Then at page 273 we find this:
Returns may be moved for, either by order or address, relating to any public matter, in which the house or the crown has jurisdiction. They may be obtained from all public offices, and from corporations, bodies, or offices constituted for public purposes, by acts of parliament or otherwise: but not from private associations, such as Lloyd's, nor from individuals not exercising public functions. The papers and correspondence sought from government departments should be of a public and official character, and not private or confidential.
"On 3 July 1884, notice having been taken that the order for an address for a copy of Dr. Crichton Browne's treaties on education related to a private matter over which the house had no jurisdiction, and involved a question of copyright, the order was discharged.''
The opinions of the law officers of the crown, given for the guidance of ministers, in any question of diplomacy or state policy, being included in the class of confidential documents, have generally been withheld from parliament.
"In 1858, this rule was, under peculiar and exceptional circumstances, departed from, and the opinions of the law officers of the crown upon the case of the Cagliari were laid before parliament."
I bring this matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the great authorities. This is the edition of 1957. Therefore, in 100 years there was only one instance of this kind.
However ample the power oi each house to enforce the production of papers may be, a sufficient cause must be shown for the exercise of that power; and if considerations of public policy can be urged against a motion for papers, it is either withdrawn, or otherwise dealt with according to the judgment of the house.
In this instance, I would suggest to the hon. member for Essex East that this is or was a matter of state policy; and in this instance it would be in my opinion entirely proper if the hon. member would do as is suggested, namely withdraw the motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that a question?

Correspondence on Surcharges (Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).
It stands to reason that, if steps are taken to impose tariff surcharges in our country, the Canadian people should at least be informed. Even if, in the past, attempts have been made to keep voters in the dark about such questions and what was going on in parliament, I feel it is only normal to tell the public about the steps that have been taken and what has been done in the past.
It gives me all the more pleasure to support this motion that, since the beginning of this session, I have been in a position to admire the conduct of the hon. member for Essex East and to appreciate the fine speeches he has made. I have but one regret, and it is that the Liberals should not have seen fit to choose him as their leader, at their last convention, instead of the one they have now.


Mr. Habel:: Tell us about Mr. Caouette and Mr. Thompson.


Gilles Grégoire: If the Liberals had seen fit to do so at that time, I think the Liberal party would have a better representation. All that, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member for Essex East on his conduct in this house.
As far as I am concerned personally, and without mentioning other members of the group sitting in this corner of the house because each member of our party is free to do the same, I support the hon. member's proposal. But I must tell him that I intend to move an amendment to it because I think the motion for return does no go far enough. In fact, we should ask for the tabling, not only of the documents or legal opinions concerning tariff surcharges, but also of all documents necessary to set out the causes which brought about surcharges on imports. At the conclusion of my remarks, I intend to move an amendment to that effect.
Right after the election of last June 18, our country found itself in such a difficult position that the government was obliged to impose tariff surcharges on some imported goods. But that situation did not arise suddenly. On the contrary, it was due to causes that went back not only three or five years, but 10 or 15 years, to the end of the last war, that is 1945.
I would like to secure the production of all the documents that caused the flow of Canadian capital to foreign countries, that could explain steps taken since 1945, and more particularly in 1952.

Mr. Speaker, when faced with a situation similar to the one that arose suddenly before the Canadian people, last June 24, I cannot refrain from saying that the government was unable to solve the problem confronting it. I recognize also that it was too incompetent to solve it during the five years it has been in power. I recognize all that but, just the same, the underlying reasons for that situation date back to the period after the war, and particularly to the years 1945 to 1952. At that time, the Liberal party was in power and I am convinced and persuaded-because persuasion is stronger than conviction-that if documents were produced we would find that the flow of Canadian capital to foreign countries was due to action taken by the Liberal party between 1945 and 1952, in particular.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am asking that some light be thrown, not only on the present lack of efficiency of the government which is looking after this country's business, but also, and more particularly, on the lack of efficiency and action on the part of the Liberal government which preceded it, and which was the direct and immediate cause of the mess in which the Conservative government now finds itself.
Mr. Speaker, I think some light should be thrown on it all.
What is, after all, the cause of this flight of capital? It is that, for much too long a time, our rulers went outside this country to beg for funds at some time or other, and they now have to pay interest on this money. For much too long a time, also, our administrations, whether they were Grit or Tory -to me it is one and the same thing-acted in one and the same way. They did not carry out their responsibilities and they allowed foreign interests to settle in this country because they did not take the necessary steps to create Canadian capital. Today, when the measure is full, we see Canadian companies pay interest on foreign capital, and our governments, not only the federal government but the provincial governments as well, must, because of a lack of capital in Canada, issue bonds on foreign markets. The same thing applies to our municipal governments and school boards who went outside this country to sell their bonds. At the time, they were able to obtain funds, but come the day when they have to pay interest thereon, and reimburse that foreign capital, they find themselves in the same situation as the Conservative government was after the last election.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking that all those documents be produced, because we believe that those who are chiefly responsible, and who should have reacted before it was too late, because of a lack of efficiency and action-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -are again the members of the government which has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -led us for 22 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
I must tell the hon. member that, in moving his motion, his remarks are limited to the tabling of papers, which has nothing to do with the reasons which have caused a government to act one way or another. I must admit that the hon. member's remarks are not in that line, because in moving an amendment, he deals at once with that matter which is out of order in the course of this debate. Then, if the hon. member can indicate that the government, for the same reasons, should produce the documents he requests, without however stating that some previous administrations have done something wrong or nothing of value- this is of little importance-but he must establish the reasons why the government should produce documents, I do not know what kind of documents-


Gilles Grégoire: I shall tell you what kind of documents, Mr. Speaker.
Now let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I find your remarks fair. As for me, in spite of all the respect I have for the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-and I trust you do believe me-I consider the production of simple legal documents as so much useless trouble. What is really needed is an assessment of the situation, to pinpoint its causes, so as to avoid its repetition in the future.
As I said at the outset, I am interested in the production of those legal opinions. We shall then see if the government was right or wrong in taking the steps it did take. I am interested in this but nevertheless, to my way of thinking, that is not the important point. The important point, Mr. Speaker, is to And out not only who is responsible but, above all, what caused the situation which arose after the election, in June 1962.
Correspondence on Surcharges
Now, as far as this production of documents is concerned, the documents which can establish the causes of the austerity program are those which indicate the principles at the basis of the program, or the actions which have brought it about. And it is important to us to bring those actions to light. They are two sets of actions:	the borrowings on
foreign markets, for want of capital in Canada, and the establishment of foreign companies in our country. Those were the two main causes of the flight of our capital to foreign countries.
Now, which documents are liable to show whether the two causes I have just referred to are really those which are responsible for the draining of Canadian currencies towards foreign countries.
These documents are the following: in the first place, the series of bonds issued by the federal government, various provincial governments, municipalities and school boards, which were sold on foreign markets and bought by foreigners in New York, in Paris, in Switzerland and elsewhere.
Second, what interest was paid to those foreigners on bonds issued by the different levels of government I have indicated earlier?
Third, it would be a good thing to see how much foreign capital has been entering Canada since, let us say, 1945 or even 1942, in the form of investments for the development of:
(a)	our natural resources;
(b)	our industries and manufactures; and
(c)	our financial institutions, that is, insurance companies, finance corporations, loan companies, etc.
When we have all those documents, Mr. Speaker, and if you allow me two minutes, I shall prove my assertion.


Mr. Speaker:: I would just like to ask the hon. member how he can connect his request for that information with the documents mentioned in this order for return.
The hon. member for Essex East is not asking for information but for the tabling of documents which, according to him, truly exist. The hon. member for Essex East claims that those documents truly exist.
Is it the contention of the hon. member for Lapointe that the documents and information he requests exist at the present time?


Gilles Grégoire: Naturally, they exist. I am sure of that, Mr. Speaker.
23S8

Correspondence on Surcharges
I say that if the federal and provincial governments have offered those bonds on foreign markets, there are documents in that connection. Furthermore, those documents must be in the records of the Department of National Revenue, in Ottawa.
Then, they exist there. Let them look in the files under the title "foreign capital invested in Canada" and if they do not find them there, the only solution will be to hire qualified personnel for the national revenue department.
But such documents must exist. I would even say that they do, because there is an awareness in that place of all capital entering Canada, as expenditures or as investments in our country.
That is why I say that those documents exist and they are the ones we want to see placed at the disposal of the hon. members of this house.
Now what are those documents? They are the documents in the national revenue department. Because it is mentioned here:
or of any other government department or agencybe it the customs or the federal income tax department.
What are the amounts of money which have been paid out of Canada since 1942 in interests on bonds issued by: (a) the Canadian government; (b) the provincial governments; (c) school boards; (d) municipal corporations?
What are the interests on all those bonds which have been paid to foreign corporations because those securities have been sold on the foreign market?
That is the first series of documents which we want tabled, and those documents do exist.
The second series of documents which we want tabled in this house are those showing the interest paid to or the profits made by foreign companies established in Canada since 1942-let us forget about those which were established before, to concentrate on those companies established since 1942 in Canada- and the profits which left the country. Such documents exist because all profits on foreign capital are taxable before they are transferred to foreign countries.
When those documents are tabled in the house, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion can then be reached that when the Conservative government came into power, it found itself at grips with conditions which had been brought

about by the previous government. Then, Mr. Speaker, the present government found out that it was in trouble because of the previous government, and it was not competent enough to cope with that situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are suggesting in our amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that his remarks are completely out of order, since he is dealing with a matter which has nothing to do with the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).
Furthermore, even if the hon. member had introduced an amendment, I would have had to tell him that it was absolutely out of order, since, according to standing order 41: "Forty eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address", and we are precisely dealing here with an address to Her Majesty for a return of certain documents.


Gilles Grégoire: You could not have said it earlier?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now asking for the production of certain documents. I do not intend to go into the merits of that request, which I find somewhat strange, but even without considering the nature of such documents, he cannot introduce an amendment unless he himself gives a 48-hours' notice.
I would therefore point out to the hon. member that, under standing order 41, he may table his notice in the clerk's office before 6 o'clock p.m., after which his amendment may be considered.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret, but the hon. member cannot discuss the motion any longer, his time being expired.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I spoke for 15 minutes, and I think there remains several minutes unspent in the period which was allotted to me, and which you have been kind enough to take yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: Not at all. An hon. member cannot require an additional period of time because he has infringed the rules; he certainly cannot be granted any indulgence.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am led to say immediately, "nice try". There was not any doubt in my mind about the course of action which should be followed with regard to this particular motion. If there

had been it was dispelled by listening to the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mc-Phillips), who spoke at the commencement of this hour. His eloquence, his fervour, the intimacy with which he approached this question, convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt that the motion should be voted upon, and we should vote for it.


Mr. R. G. L. Fairwealher (Royal):: I am
glad to contribute to the debate, Mr. Speaker, which I think is related to a fundamental principle. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who just preceded me-no, who preceded me save one: We had a hiccup from the hon. member for Skeena and from the hon. member for Lapointe we had something that reminded me of a child's cough. Once it is wound up it is difficult to get it to stop, the best thing to do is let it unwind.


An hon. Member:: How are we going to get you to stop?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I will stop at the end of my time.
I think the hon. member for Lapointe has misinterpreted the reason for the stand taken by the government. This stand is not based upon keeping facts from the voters as he suggested. The voters have had since September 27 to listen to the facts leading up to the enactment of these orders in council. There is a very important principle involved. It seems to me that to compel the production of legal opinions furnished by the deputy attorney general or by the attorney general, as we have been advised, to his minister and to the privy council, would be a breach, as was suggested by my hon. friend for Victoria, B.C., of the traditions of this house and of Westminster.
The hon. member for Essex East, in proposing the motion was not under the slightest illusion that it would be rejected. Had the situation been reversed, had the hon. member for Essex East who is a master of the rules and a senior member of the house, been occupying the treasury benches, I can well imagine the excellent presentation he would have made, in refusing to make public the information that he now seeks. I was going to say "seeks" with some cynicism but I will not impute motives.
I should like to say a word or two on the related sample cited by the hon. member for Essex East concerning Mr. Guthrie, the minister of justice in the Bennett administration. I submit that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) has given the house exactly the same information about the validity of the 1962 orders in council covered by the motion before us today as Mr. Guthrie gave in that earlier day. The only difference I suggest is that in 1935 it was felt necessary
Correspondence on Surcharges by the administration, presumably because of the somewhat radical and unorthodox statute, to go beyond the lawyers in the Department of Justice in order to seek legal opinions from two of the most eminent constitutional authorities in the country. I submit, with great deference, that was a proper thing for Mr. Guthrie to have done on that occasion because this was outside information or information from an authority outside the ambit of the department. It was quite right that this information become public.
However, in this instance there is an attempt to make public a communication between a public servant and his minister. This attempt is straining the precedent far beyond its fair and proper limits. I could say, with the greatest respect, that I feel the hon. member for Essex East failed to make a full disclosure when submitting examples and precedents to support his argument. I would have preferred a complete exposition of the Guthrie and St. Laurent incidents, rather than his presenting only those parts of the argument which were helpful to his case. After all, this court of parliament demands complete frankness by the advocate, just as it is demanded by the courts elsewhere.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the hon. gentleman trying to suggest now that the St. Laurent case, which was proceeded with pursuant to an order of the house, is not on all fours with the demand now before the house?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I submit that in citing the St. Laurent and Guthrie incidents, the hon. member, who has tremendous experience, did not give a full account-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not my question. Does my hon. friend not think, if he appreciates the value of precedent, that the St. Laurent case is on all fours with the demand made in this motion?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: My interpretation of the St. Laurent case is obviously different from that of the hon. member, and I would hope some day we would have an opportunity in another place for a philosophical discussion about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I never expect to go to the other place.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I continue now, Mr. Speaker, with my modest contribution to this important public issue. It seems to me there are some intriguing features of this debate because while hon. members opposite seek to throw doubt on the legality of the action of
2400	HOUSE OF
Correspondence on Surcharges the privy council, that is, on the orders in council, nowhere in the country has any person or corporation affected sought a judicial interpretation of the statutes, or orders passed by virtue of these statutes.
In his November 22 contribution to the debate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said that the Prime Minister refuses to recognize that the courts even exist. I submit that it could be said, and with equal validity, that the importing concerns directly affected by the surcharges refuse to recognize the existence of the courts. If I could be permitted to venture a conjecture I would suggest there are a great number of legal opinions in the files of commercial firms right across the country recommending against challenging the validity of the orders in council. The statutes have not yet-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is now embarking on a discussion as to whether or not this taxation was legally imposed. His Honour, the Speaker, declined to permit that kind of discussion in the debate up to now, and restricted those of us on this side of the house to the narrow point as to whether a legal opinion given by the deputy attorney general should be produced. I submit that the exattorney general from New Brunswick should be restricted in the same way as other hon. members in the house.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I thank the hon. member for his assistance to me. I anticipated, when I set down one or two notes about this aspect of my argument, that there might be a question of order raised. Therefore I re-read the debates of November 8 and November 22 and found, with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, quite an amount of latitude. However, I am prepared to come perhaps a little closer to the point.
I feel, as one who had some experience in another place-and I thank the hon. member for his reference-that it would be a very grave handicap to place on public servants, if it were known that various aspects of the advice they tendered would be subject to public scrutiny.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the hon. member permit a question, in view of what he has just said? He has referred to his past responsibility in another place. Will he inform the house was he once the attorney general of a provincial government where private members were not allowed to introduce private bills?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot believe that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No wonder he does not want legal advice scrutinized.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I am quite a patient elephant in spite of the interruption of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr Robichaud), who has not had the type of responsibility that both his distinguished colleagues sitting in front of him have had. I think if the hon. member reflected he would be just as concerned as I am about the prospect of advice or opinions tendered by public servants, no matter whether they are at the provincial or federal level, being subject to the scrutiny of the country at large. Surely the hon. members opposite who have had treasury bench experience must know this. They have had opportunities of being presented with various types of advice setting out the different implications of a particular course of action, it then being up to them to make the final decision. That is why I think it is quite wrong for this type of motion to be cynically introduced. If this type of motion were allowed to pass it would be a serious hamstringing of the public servants.
The law officers' essential obligations are to give the ministry the benefit of all sides of an argument, and I would be appalled if that should be restricted by the possibility.-and it would be more than a possibility, it would be inevitable were this motion to pass-that these opinions would be examined by anyone with an interest in them. There is no mystery behind this doctrine. It has been previously supported by distinguished parliamentarians, and it was very eloquently supported by the Minister of Justice on November 8. The yielding of this procedural principle would, I suggest, bring about results far more harmful to our country and its system of government than those who present this motion, so ominously shall I say, might believe possible. On this basis I oppose the motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure now that-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has already spoken in the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, and I am closing now. I have started my speech.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: You have not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am closing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I was momentarily tongue-tied trying to remember the constituency of the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), for which I am very sorry. I had to check the chart to refresh my memory. I saw that hon. member first and I shall give him the floor.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member for Essex East cannot speak a second time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the hon. gentleman speaking, but I would point out to Your Honour that I had started to make an observation and under our practice I would close the debate. As I intended to speak for two or three minutes only we would have a vote on this important matter. I would hope that the Minister of Justice, anxious for orderly procedure, would indicate that we are going to be afforded the opportunity of voting on this matter tonight. The government is anxious to get the business of the house dispatched and proceeded with. I am sure he is not going to stand in the way of a decision in this matter. If he does, then I point out to him that he will be living evidence of the obstruction which hon. gentlemen have charged some other people in this house with having pursued during the past few days.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would remind the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that had I indeed recognized him, which I did not, I would have first cautioned the house that if the hon. member for Essex East spoke he would close the debate. I only mention that point to ameliorate his sensitivity on it. I now recognize the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent).


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Essex East knew exactly how much sympathy his eloquent plea was going to receive from this side of the house-I really am-looking at the way in which this notice of motion is drawn. I am not very optimistic that even when he first put it in he had very much hope, or any hope whatsoever, that it would be passed. In fact, following the course of action which he himself took when on the treasury benches, I am sure he put the objectionable features into this notice of motion to guard even more against that contingency.
On a topic such as this I am always a little disturbed. My immediate reaction to a notice of motion for production of papers is usually that they should be produced. Public business should be publicly done; that is an old maxim that we like to stick closely to. The first reaction to a request for production of papers is to say yes, because the more we can see of what is being done and the more information and background we can get of government action, the better position we are in to judge that action, to
Correspondence on Surcharges judge the course of conduct of the government and the particular consequences of any action at which we are looking. There is, of course, quite a conflict in this case because we do have-this has been recognized over the years-the necessity of seeing that certain parts of government opinions, etc., are not made public. It is not hard to find examples, such as in wartime when government plans on defence and certain other things must be kept secret or lose their value to some extent, or perhaps entirely, because they are revealed. This-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question? Would he include in the category of documents that he feels should be kept secret confidential economic forecasts for the guidance of ministers only?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is irrelevant. Are you trying to delay this?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think the hon. member will see, Mr. Speaker, when I get to that point, that there is no similarity. We have seen over the years that each case is going to have to be judged on its merits, or that if there is a rule, the rule is varied perhaps a little bit when special cases are taken into consideration. I would think that when the case concerns the production of a legal opinion we are treading on very dangerous ground indeed. It is not the same thing as the publication of facts presented or gathered by a department. Any kind of an opinion would, I think, have to be treated in a very different manner than merely factual material.
The importance of the civil servant making sure that he can freely speak his mind, and will have to justify it only to his own department and his own minister, cannot be overrated. Certainly if a public servant is to give an opinion which is going to be broadcast to the nation and which may, in effect, be fought over in the house, where his judgment-not the judgment or the action of the government, but his judgment-is going to be the essence of a debate, then he is going to be very reluctant to give the advice or the opinion, or he is going to be much slower in formulating it. He is going to be very careful before he does anything of this kind and the immediate result would be a great slowing down, I would say, of the giving of opinions by departmental officials.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if he would consider that a course of conduct on the part of the government which was in direct conflict with sections 12 and 14 of magna carta of 1215,

Correspondence on Surcharges and section 4 of the bill of rights of 1689 would not constitute such an exception as to warrant a request for a legal opinion?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to have the hon. member, under the guise of asking a question, put in a partisan speech. The principle we are discussing here is not the legality of the taxation question- if I understood the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) correctly, the debate should be restricted to this-but we are here talking about the production of papers, and I am trying to keep on that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. gentleman has drawn me into this, I wonder if I could ask him another question? Does the hon. gentleman think it is more apt to prejudice the public interest to bring down the decision given to the attorney general of Canada than to bring down the detailed statement of our reserves which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan), showing a regard for parliament that is not shown by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming), did quite recently, although it must be admitted, Mr. Speaker, that he has also subsequently allowed a motion to pass without-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is not going to shout me down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman agreed to a question and I am asking the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to be shouted down by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is well known that it is an offence to the Chair if hon. members remain on their feet while the Speaker is on his feet. First of all, dealing with the question that it was not relevant to the point under discussion, the Minister of Justice had risen on that point of order, I believe.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was rising, rather on a point of order in this connection. The hon. member rose to ask leave of the hon. member who had the floor to ask a question. Having that courtesy extended to him, he did not proceed to ask a question but he proceeded to make a speech in the plainest and most deliberate violation of the rules of the house. That was not the first time it was done today; it was done by the hon. member for


Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I urge, Mr. Speaker, that when that courtesy is extended to hon. members opposite by a member who has the floor, the courtesy should be recognized as one that extends to the asking of a question, and not to the smuggling of a speech into the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us have a vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since the point of order has been raised I would suggest that Your Honour and the member who accords the privilege should be allowed to decide these matters, without the intervention of the self-appointed Speaker who has been somewhat unemployed since he has been Minister of Justice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. At eight o'clock the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-94, to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board.
(Translation):
Lauréat Maltais: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak about Bill C-94, to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board, but since several members who have already spoken on this matter mentioned the area I represent, namely the Saguenay district, I feel bound to make a few comments.
Mr. Speaker, the bill now under discussion provides for the establishment of another board to study the Atlantic area which includes, according to some hon. members, the maritime provinces, Newfoundland and the ridings of Saguenay and of the Gaspe peninsula.
I should like to point out, first of all, that there are already in the areas mentioned of the province of Quebec, two bodies concerned with regional economic studies, namely the

lower St. Lawrence economic council and the gulf and lower St. Lawrence development organization, which perform at present the same duties as the board proposed in the bill now under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I am not against the establishment of such a board to serve the district that I represent; I am all for it. But, although I agree with the principle of the bill, I cannot accept it in its present wording.
It is proposed to create a five member board, only the chairman of which will be paid $3,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider the region that this council will serve, from an economic as well as a geographical standpoint, we realize that it will not be able to be effective, since its means are limited. In my opinion, what should be established is an economic council which would include those who already exist and which would have a budget enabling it to offer adequate salaries to its officials, its chairman, secretary and any other, in order to cover that territory. Because with $3,000, no one would succeed in covering even half of it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while I am in favour of the principle of the bill, I do not agree with its substance, and, on third reading, I might have amendments to submit to make it more efficient.
If the Saguenay, lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe areas are incorporated in the bill, changes which have not been considered by the hon. members will have to be made to the work program of the board.
In the first place, there is the matter of a bridge across the Saguenay river. There lies the greatest obstacle to the development of the north shore. Everybody is of the opinion that such a bridge would cost $25 million. Then, there is the urgent need of a highway between the Saguenay area and Blanc Sablon. Such a road should go straight to Newfoundland by means of a causeway across the strait of Belle Isle.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the development of the north shore is hampered by the lack of communication between the areas. The highway does not go beyond Sept lies and there is another 600 miles to Blanc Sablon, the point nearest to Newfoundland.
It is essential that this board be able to take effective steps to have a road built in co-operation with the Department of National Defence because such a road would be
Atlantic Development Board used for the defence of North America since it would serve the whole eastern part of the province of Quebec.
The causeway to link Blanc Sablon to Newfoundland, advocated by a professor at the agricultural school of St. Anne de la Pocatiere, would improve the climate in the province of Quebec, for as he said, experts have found that if that causeway were built, the temperature would gain a few degrees, which would be an asset for agriculture since the farming season could begin earlier and last longer, particularly in the Gaspe peninsula and on the north shore.
Another undertaking that should be added to the program of that board is the construction of a railway between La Malbaie and Sept lies. At the present time, there is no railway linking that region to the rest of the province.
Mr. Speaker, it might be said in reply that water transportation is cheaper than rail transportation, but it has been proven that railways stimulate the development of underdeveloped regions.
In my opinion, the government must recognize the principle that communications must exist before economic development can be achieved, and that it is not the other way around. The government has to take the necessary action with regard to communications in that region of the province.
Some kind of planning is required within the government itself. I do not know if that is socialism, but as a start there should be planning of the government itself, planning of the activities of the various departments, in the same way as we are trying to plan the economic development of this country.
Governmental activities have always followed the economic development in a given area. The government is forced by companies to establish means of communications, once the industries themselves are established. Both provincial and federal governments are forced to establish communications, so that industries can remain in touch with the rest of the province.
That is the first kind of planning the government should establish. I must say here that we have before us now a government which is trying to set up what I would describe as mitigated planning. It wants to plan and, at the same time, it doesn't want to; it is in favour of the principles of planning without actually planning.

Atlantic Development Board
I should prefer a government which would say exactly what it has in mind. We could then mount a frontal attack against it.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said this afternoon, there are four commissions whose functions are overlapping, while it would be much better to have only one which would direct its activities where they could be the most effective.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I had not prepared myself for a long speech. I do not want to delay the proceedings of the house, but I should like to say that I endorse the principle of the bill. However, I may take the liberty of introducing an amendment on third reading.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Maltais) who just took his seat, and to observe how, with such great affection, he embraced a part of the socialist program. Perhaps he should communicate those ideas to his co-leaders on the front benches in order that they may get on the right track or the wrong track, as the case may be.
I wish generally to indicate our support for the bill itself at this stage. While I come from the other part of the country, namely the Pacific coast, none the less since I have been here not only during these last few days but in previous sessions, as have some other hon. members who are not immediately familiar with the situation in the Atlantic provinces, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the problems which have been related to parliament by members coming from those provinces. While only on three occasions have I had the opportunity to visit two of the Atlantic provinces, none the less I think that all hon. members, although we may not actually have been in contact with those provinces at all in a physical way, appreciate greatly the difficulties which have existed there for a long period of time. We have heard in this house many pleas by members from those areas with regard to the high levels of unemployment which have existed over the past many years, including not only those since June of 1957 but many prior to that time.
We have heard and read a great deal about the so-called runaway industries which leave the maritimes or the Atlantic area in order to relocate or to open plants in southern Ontario, and thus leave behind them a group of people who are unemployed. We have heard a great deal about industries being closed. I refer to the coal mines and the
steel industry. We have heard about the difficulties encountered in the fishing industry and the like. We have an understanding of and a sympathy with those difficulties, if only in a vicarious way, having listened to members in years past and now notably to my colleague from Cape Breton South, explaining the problems which exist there.
Without being unkind in any way I think we could perhaps say that the Atlantic provinces, as a geographic area in Canada, are perhaps, as they have been for some time in the past, the most depressed area in Canada, or the one which has the greatest economic difficulties and the highest continuing levels of unemployment, without the possibility of those people who are unemployed finding gainful employment. Having regard to these conditions which have prevailed and worsened over the years, it is rather sad in one sense to listen to these two old blind parties, one in government and the other hopefully expectant of getting there, rail against each other as being the cause of these economic difficulties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Peters:: It sounds as though a lot of people are mourning.


Frank Howard: Yes; it does sound like that. I cannot think of a party better qualified to be in mourning than the Liberal party. The sad part of it is that for as long as there have been governments in those provinces, they have been either of one or the other party. Unfortunately, also, for as long as there have been governments in Canada, they have been either of one or the other party. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who spoke before the supper hour, said in reference to each blaming the other, each finds itself in agreement with the other. There was recognition-speaking from memory I believe it was perhaps in 1953-when the present Minister of Forestry and Minister of National Revenue was premier of one of those provinces, when steps were taken, exploratory at first, but eventually to establish what is known as the Atlantic provinces economic council which consisted then, as it consists now, of people representing business and industry and with the sanction and blessing of the governments in those provinces. Undoubtedly this step was necessitated by the fact that those provinces and the people in them found themselves in increasingly greater and more difficult economic circumstances. As a result, as economic conditions became so bad, even the governments, reluctant as they might have been, were forced into a recognition of the necessity of

dealing with this question of the economy of the Atlantic provinces by way of government intervention or government activity.
Ever since I heard of it or read of it the Atlantic provinces economic council has intrigued me. I have read something of the studies which it has undertaken and the things which it has proposed. If I may do so, I should like to make a brief reference to one of the publications issued in January of this year entitled, "Incentives for manufacturing industry". Perhaps in that way, using the words of this council itself, I can bring hon. members to appreciate why we endorse the concepts contained within this particular bill. Even though it has failures in it, even though at a subsequent stage we may make specific reference to parts of the bill which we think are a little bit weak, none the less, perhaps by referring to the Atlantic provinces economic council and its proposals we can come to understand why this is in fact a step in the direction of planning, the socialist concept which we in the New Democratic party and those previously in the C.C.F. have advocated for so many years, and which finally is coming to be accepted even by our friends in the Social Credit party who espouse just the opposite point of view. Let me read first from this booklet-and these are not my words, my ideas or the ideas of the New Democrats but the ideas of the Atlantic provinces economic council, the ideas of industry in these provinces, of free enterprise and of the political parties forming the governments in these provinces. They have this to say:
A development program for Canada's four eastern provinces must be bold, massive and well coordinated. Governments must take the initiative-
This is a plea, if you will, on the part of the so-called free enterprisers and free enterprise parties for government control, government regulation, government initiative, government intervention. I continue the quotation:
-and it is imperative that the federal government be active in formulating, financing and administering a regional development program.
It goes on to make reference to the necessity of the federal government establishing a capital fund to assist in making what they call basic improvements in the capital structure both in the public and the private sectors. They make reference to the necessity of having a system of loans and grants for the purchase and acquisition of industrial machinery and equipment. They go into the field of transportation assistance and refer also to adequate vocational and technical programs to equip labour with the necessary skills and the like. Throughout page after
Atlantic Development Board page of this booklet they make such recommendations and plead for government intervention, government regulation and government co-ordination of the activities there in order to provide circumstances as a result of which the economy of that part of the country will be raised again to a decent level.
They talk throughout of the necessity for federal participation and how essential it is for the federal government to participate in financing, research, regional development and so on. Some of the latter words of this booklet have to do with the assessment of situations. They talk about selecting industries for assistance. Let me read a word or two from this part:
In all cases, however, an assessment will have to be made of each applicant industry's prospect for success. Assistance should be restricted to those industries, and those firms, which have reasonable prospects of operating successfully, without assistance, after a period of time.
That is a direct plea for government regulation, government co-ordination. They go on to say:
In addition, assisted industries should be those that would form part of the economic base of the region and should not include service industries, such as retail establishments and financial institutions, and those industries whose growth proceeds automatically with increases in population.
They are advocating a selective program of government assistance and government regulation and intervention. I could read many other quotations from this particular document issued in January of this year, but I think those few should be sufficient to indicate that even the so-called free enterprisers in business themselves, even the political parties in the Atlantic provinces, as reluctant, right wing and reactionary as they may be, have come to the conclusion by reason of terrible economic circumstances that government must get into this particular field and offer assistance. This is precisely what we have been saying for many years, and in the face of the most violent opposition not too many years ago. This appears odd indeed to me; but while, as I said, the bill is weak in some cases and while we will attempt to draw these weaknesses to the attention of the committee when we reach the particular clauses, nevertheless it is a basic step in the direction of planning, co-ordinating and assisting from the government level in the economic development of a section of this country.
When I listened to the Liberals opposing this bill-we will know better whether they are opponents when it comes to a vote-condemning it upside down and this way and that, and condemning the government for bringing it in while at the same time saying that the government stole it from their own program, it makes me wonder how much lack

Atlantic Development Board of truth there can be in one political party. As I said earlier, as far as I am concerned the bill warrants our support and endorsa-tion, and we hope we can correct the weaknesses at a later stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carle-ton) seconded by Mr. Dinsdale, moves that Bill C-94, an act to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker-


Frank Howard: Is the minister not going to speak in reply and close the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on this bill because I am very interested in the subject not only because I have been to the maritimes and have seen some of their problems but because of the larger problems we face in Canada today, in that Canada is divided into two types of economy, that in which the people have too much and that in which they do not have enough. The maritime provinces are one of the oldest developed parts of Canada, a part of Canada that had a history long before most of our other areas were developed. I believe they can be classed as older have-nots, while on the other hand some of us represent areas that can be classed as newer have-nots, and I think I represent one of those areas.
One of our problems has always been the fact that economists have said that trade cannot be east and west from the Atlantic to the Pacific but must flow north and south, and that for some queer reason the economics and the geography of the country indicate that there has to be such a trend. It seems to me that all of a sudden the government has decided to do something about this. I was very interested in the booklet from which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) quoted a few minutes ago, because I feel it could have been written by the former C.C.F. party. I was aware when I was in the maritimes that the people on this council represented business, the universities and the educational field generally as well as all other fields of activity. I was also aware that these people from different organizations were pledged to see how much good they could do with the amount of money available in that area. They have always said as we have said that Canada cannot be divided into parts and dealt with in that way. I really see no reason why the jurisdiction of the national economic development council could not be extended so that body could do for the maritimes what we hope it is going to do for the rest of
IMr. Howard.]

Canada. I expect that the government decided the problem is more immediate in the maritimes than elsewhere. For this reason they have introduced a bill to establish a board which, if successful, will duplicate the work of the national economic development council.
I have been interested in the remarks made by the members of the Conservative party from the maritimes and the members of the Liberal party from that area. I do not disagree with the things that have been said by members of the Liberal party. One of the members of that party suggested a couple of days ago that if this board were going to be any good to the people of the maritimes it would need at least a billion dollars. I believe the people of the maritimes are right and the government has to give some indication that there is going to be this type of money available, perhaps not that much, to stimulate economic development in the maritimes.
When I was in the maritimes I had the opportunity of speaking to several representatives of the chamber of commerce in the town of Springhill. They took me to some of the plants that have been started by this Atlantic provinces economic council. I was surprised to ascertain how much money was involved in several of these plants.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if we are considering divorce bills or are we talking about the problem of Atlantic development?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the reason the maritimes have been that backward. Some, like the hon. member for Saint John-Albert actually do not understand the English language. He would not know whether he was coming or going, whether he was in Ottawa or in the maritimes. He does not know whether we are on private member's business, because he is not capable of making that kind of decision. Frankly, he and a lot of the other members who have represented this area in this house have never known where they are going-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; perhaps under the stress of the interruption, the hon. member has strayed from the subject matter under debate. He might adhere to the rule of relevancy now.


William Arnold Peters: I was just answering a question.
I was surprised to find out how much money was involved in putting a person to work in a plant which has been established by the Atlantic provinces economic council. I agree that under circumstances where you are not tying the industry into any basic

national resource but are taking an industry to people who need employment, the amount of money needed might be quite large. I think this is the problem with which we are faced in the Atlantic provinces. For many, many years, actually for centuries, the Atlantic provinces have been known for their mines, their forest resources, their fruit and vegetable production and the production of fish. Most industries that have developed over the years have been connected with these natural resources. Now that these natural resources have been used up the people in communities dependant on these resources are now faced with the problem of continuing their existence and they cannot do this without government assistance, without the assistance provided by a measure such as we are talking about tonight. It seems to me this is a proper method of handling the problem.
I do believe if we are going to establish this board, then we should be prepared to put the necessary money into it to ensure its success. We have in Canada, and on the North American continent as a whole, developed our industries around two or three major areas. There has been, as a result, a rush to increase the concentration of these industries. This has proven to be detrimental to most of the outside areas of our country. Our country is still a very large, unpopulated nation and because of this it has been difficult to get the consumption of our goods in the areas of production. There has been a tendency, of course, to put our major manufacturing industries into three main centres, and that has been detrimental to the other areas.
I am very interested, Mr. Speaker, in seeing some success achieved in the maritimes. I am interested in this because only then will it be possible to develop the area that I represent. This area now faces a problem which the maritimes has had for many years. We hear a great deal about the displacement of labour in the maritime coal mines and in other industries, and that is what is taking place in many other areas of Canada. In my own riding, we are faced with a large number of lay-offs every year as a result of the closing of some mines. Many of our communities were built upon non-renewable resources, and they are faced with the problem of either becoming ghost towns or finding some form of government assistance that will provide the necessary capital to enable the necessary research to be conducted to develop other industries.
It seems to me that in the maritimes they have waited a long time for this type of development. The maritimes have developed
Atlantic Development Board a new breed of person. I suggest that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming), who is very interested in this problem, is one of that new breed. He has been very interested over the years in the Atlantic provinces economic council. Here, for the first time, we have an organization developed by the people themselves to help themselves. They are now coming to the federal government for assistance. I certainly hope we will give them whatever assistance is necessary.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why we have to have this piece of legislation on a regional basis. I am not sure that the national economic development board could not have provided on a national basis what we are trying to do through this board on a regional basis. We, in the New Democratic party, have always said we could supply the economic planning necessary to take care of all parts of Canada, as well as any other assistance that was necessary for the equal development of all parts of our country. I still believe that this can be done. I wonder why it has not been possible for the present Conservative government to do this, to introduce a measure, national in scope, such as we are demanding for the Atlantic region, so that this type of assistance could be extended to all the underdeveloped parts of our nation. We will build a nation, Mr. Speaker, despite the actions of some of the entrepreneurs in this country, despite some of our governments who are giving away our national resources. I suggest we can and will eventually do this. I further suggest that the establishment of the Atlantic development board will act as a guidepost for other areas, and in fact for all parts of Canada which are faced with problems similar to those found in the Atlantic region. We hope that this board will be a success and bring industries to the maritimes to enable them to establish a healthy economy.
I hope the government will not hesitate to provide the necessary money from the treasury to see that this is done. If it is done then we will build this country from coast to coast, and we will also do what the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Maltais) suggested, namely, increase our transportation and communication systems so that we will have a united nation from coast to coast. If the establishment of this board will in any way hasten the day when all Canada will find itself able to avail itself of the type of resources provided by national governments in most countries of the world, then the house can be assured of our support for this measure.

Atlantic Development Board (Translation):


Mr.   J.-E. Dube@Resiigouche-Madawaska: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on second reading of Bill C-94, an act to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board.
I did not think it proper for some hon. members, when discussing this bill to unearth old political quarrels, buried in the past, in order to blame such and such administration for the unfortunate conditions which are now prevailing in our maritime provinces.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Dube:: Our past should rather be a springboard to the future.
We remember that, at the time of confederation, the maritime provinces had to give up a great part of their sovereignty and of their foreign markets.
Confederation was at that time and perhaps is, even now, an historic structure defying every economic and geopolitical principle of the day. According to geography and economics at that time, a vertical, north-south trade was much more appropriate than a horizontal one from the Atlantic provinces to the west.
The Atlantic provinces therefore sacrificed part of their natural trade to form a great nation.
From the point of view of national pride, that sacrifice had marvellous results. The provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and more recently Newfoundland, are proud of having contributed to the formation and development of our Canadian heritage.
However, from an economic point of view, the maritimes made the greatest sacrifice, and a very costly sacrifice it was. The natural laws of trade gradually channelled prosperity towards the geographical centre of the nation, forsaking the Atlantic area.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that a large part of our population in the maritimes has to find its subsistence in those three marginal activities that are small scale farming, fishing and logging. This means that a great number of our people must be, at the same time, farmers, fishermen and lumberjacks.
In the commercial and industrial fields, lack of capital and distance, which means transportation costs, paralyse our development.
We are familiar with our own problems and the important thing is to find some solution for them.
Though it was ridiculous, yesterday and today, to claim in the house that certain political parties had done nothing for the maritime provinces since confederation, it

would be no less ridiculous to maintain tonight that the bill before us will bring about a lasting, final, total and complete solution of all our problems.
This bill alone is not the key which will open the door to prosperity for us, but it may help us find the way. Therefore, it deserves our consideration. First of all, two principles should be established.
First, the establishment of the Atlantic development board should not be just an excuse to delay basic and urgent action concerning the immediate needs of the maritimes.
Second, this bill should not be just a smoke-screen to hide the activities of the government and get a few more votes at the next election, as seems to have been the case with the construction of the causeway, in Prince Edward Island, which was promised last spring.
A number of questions come to our mind and we should like to have answers from the minister in that connection.
In the first place, we should like to know exactly what authority the board will have. Its terms of reference seem rather vague. Will it be just another board like the others which have been set up from coast to coast, in Canada, to give to the government advice which is disregarded and which does not produce any results.
If this organization is simply going to do research work and give advice to the government, then, we already have one with similar functions, namely APEC.
There is also the matter of salary. It seems to me that in giving a $3,000 salary to the chairman of that board, we do not give a great importance to the said board particularly when we realize that the president of the C.N.R. is paid $75,000. We find it a little strange that a salary of only $3,000 be given to the man who must settle all the problems of the maritime provinces.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister himself referred to the maze of boards and commissions in which provincial representatives from the maritimes find themselves lost in Ottawa, and one wonders if the present administration has the competence to add . yet another board to the present confused set-up. The board envisaged by the bill appears to be only an advisory board. We would have much preferred an executive agency with power to create, with power to suspend, and with

power to act. But politics being the art of the possible, we must accept what is offered now, trusting that a new administration will shortly give teeth to the new-born baby.
Mr. Speaker, there are specific measures that should be given immediate consideration by the board with a view to boosting our industrial capacity and to reducing the tragic unemployment situation now prevailing in our provinces. The board should recommend that the federal government pay 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway through our provinces and the construction of a second trunk of the trans-Canada to link the north shore of New Brunswick. The board should insist that government agencies and our railways decentralize their purchasing policies with a view to placing more orders in the maritime provinces. The board should recommend a reduction in taxes for new industries moving to the maritimes, and other tax incentives for industries already in the maritimes which are desirous of expanding their business.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the board should administer a capital assistance fund to deal with worthy projects and should induce and assist our businessmen to launch new and sound enterprises. The board should, in my humble opinion, insist that the government for the next few years direct a more substantial share of its capital expenditures in public works, harbours, parks and other major projects, to the maritime provinces, including the immediate construction of the Chignecto canal and the Prince Edward Island causeway. Eventually these projects may cost the government less than the heavy payments in unemployment insurance we now have to face.
These, I believe, are constructive proposals and I trust they will be received as such. Should they be carried out in the next four years, then the year 1967 might indeed turn out to be a cause for confederation celebrations in the maritime provinces.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to deal at great length with the subject under consideration. I only want to say a word to suggest to the government, with regard to this Atlantic development board, to take steps which will really give positive results. Most of all, I should like to warn the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Flemming), who introduced the measure, that it must bring a practical solution adapted to our time.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer, as an example, to a measure which could have been favourable to the people and which only turned out to be a set-back.
27507-3-153
Atlantic Development Board This example concerns winter works and it will serve to illustrate the idea which I will then put forward.
When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) brought in his winter works program, it was welcomed by everybody. But when we saw the program actually being carried out, the tune was altogether different. In short, Mr. Speaker, under the winter works program, the power shovels and other machinery are stored in some garage while our Canadian citizens are out in the cold digging ditches with pick and shovel. Then, to illustrate what is being done, the government has pictures taken of the machinery stored in the cosy garages. At the same time, pictures are taken of Canadian citizens at their pick and shovel jobs in the ditches in the middle of the winter. What would you say, Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has wandered as far from the bill as he possibly could in his remarks up to the moment. I wonder if he would co-operate by coming back to the bill under discussion.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, for several reasons, I do not believe I am out of order. First of all, we are in winter and there is some point in dealing with winter works. Second, I was only bringing up that point to show what has been done in the past, when all types of programs have been set up. Later on, I shall use that example in an attempt to make suggestions to the government.
As I said earlier, before giving my example, I feel that a member may refer to past experience to suggest to the government steps to be taken in the future. That is why I should like to go ahead with my example if I may.
On the posters about winter works projects, you see heavy machinery snugly put away in garages, while human beings-


Mr. Boulanger:: Order. Mr. Speaker, are you going to allow the hon. member for Lapointe, I think, to keep on with this humorous, comedian talk? He should come back to the matter under discussion.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Sometimes an example or even an analogy may be carried too far. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is speaking, as he says, by way of an example, but he is speaking at considerable length. I have waited patiently for him to tie

Atlantic Development Board the example to this bill and up to now this has been completely impossible. I would ask him now to come to the point he is trying to make by way of example, then later he can come back and keep on illustrating his example if he wishes.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if I cannot refer to an example to illustrate what I have to say and if you ask me to come at once to a conclusion on what was done in the past in anticipation of the future, then I do not see how I can comply with the rules.
There have been proposed in the past programs that looked good on paper but were not so good when they were applied.
And when I hear the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) say that this is comedian talk, I think he should rather look at his own seat. He would see on it the greatest comedian in the House of Commons, because, in my opinion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -among those who wear out the seat of their pants here, there are some of the greatest comedians.
But if you allow me, I shall illustrate a point.
At the beginning of a bill, proposals and principles are enumerated: that is fine. Attempts are made to improve the lot of a group of citizens or of a specified area; that is still fine. But when the time comes to put those principles in practice and to give real assistance, one finds that action is not always taken according to the principles involved. It can at least be said that, no matter how good the principles, their application is often a step backward.
I am thinking, as an example, of the winter works program. The purpose, there, is to help a certain class of people, to give assistance to a certain type of persons. But how do we go about it? In a way which puts progress in reverse.
Instead of following through the example I just gave, I shall choose another one and deal with its practical application.
What would you say, Mr. Speaker, if, in applying the principles stated in the act to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board, we were to adopt the attitude taken towards the winter works program and put the machinery in the garage and the men to dig ditches instead of power shovels?
What would you say, Mr. Speaker, if tomorrow morning, for instance, a member of this house or the minister who introduced


the bill to set up this development board went home and said: "From now on, we act like the government. We shall follow the government's plans. The washing machine and the dryer are going out. Here is the washboard, the good old washboard women used to wash clothes on-"
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member really is making it very difficult for the Chair to co-operate with him, which is what it is endeavouring to do. He has been speaking now for some considerable time, and I have not heard the word "Atlantic" or "mari-times" mentioned more than once. May I point out to the hon. member that he has an opportunity when clause 1 of the bill is under consideration to broaden the scope of the debate quite substantially compared with what he is able to do now on second reading, when he should be dealing with the principle.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I will deal only with the principle of the bill.
I wanted to give an example in order to establish the difference that can exist sometimes between the application of a principle and that principle itself. Here is what I was driving at. There is talk about a development board, but in an economy, according to the very definition of any political economy program or system, three problems must be dealt with, namely production, exchange and consumption.
I understand that the purpose of the bill under study is to make it possible for the economy of the Atlantic provinces to develop without help. To reach that objective, the production system itself must function. And my example would have shown that in order for the production system to function, there must be also a consumption system. Now, that consumption system can be either domestic or foreign, but it remains that a consumption system is needed next to the production system.
About this bill providing for the development of the maritime provinces, here is my suggestion to the Minister of National Revenue. It is possible to develop production systems in the maritime provinces, but only if a parallel consumption system is also established. There is no doubt that the necessary steps can be taken to develop a productive economy in the maritime provinces, and on a large scale, if you have the consumers.

It is also possible to develop a farm production system in the maritimes along with a consumption system.
Mr. Speaker, any economic system must have three correlated sectors-production, exchange and consumption.
Therefore, if the economy of the Atlantic provinces is to develop at the same rate as in the other provinces, it should also have not only a system of production but also a system of planned consumption as a production factor. And in order for the bill presented today by the Minister of National Revenue to be effective and to reach the intended objective, the board will have to take into consideration, first and foremost, the whole system of exchange of products in order to enable the consumers to get the production which will develop in the maritime provinces. The Atlantic development board will then reach its objective which is to develop the whole economy of the maritime provinces, the economy of production, exchange and consumption in these four provinces, which really need it.
Mr. Speaker, the major problem in the maritimes is consumption. As soon as the consumers in the Atlantic provinces receive help, the production system will become adequate in those provinces. In fact, if we seriously intend to bring about the economic development of the maritimes, and, at the same time, to give prosperity to the consumers, the whole economic system of those provinces will have to be taken into consideration.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, the remarks which I have to make in connection with the second reading of this bill will be as brief as I can possibly make them, because I feel that there have been many and most varied opinions expressed about the bill and about the accomplishments which it is hoped the bill will achieve. I think on analysis, in spite of the misgivings which have been expressed by various speakers, we still might very well consider that the basic reason for this bill, which seeks to establish a board whose activities will be confined entirely to the Atlantic provinces, and the concept of the duties of that board, meet with the approval of all 27507-3-1531
Atlantic Development Board hon. gentlemen in the house, particularly those who have contributed to this debate.
I should like first to mention the fears of the application of this board, the fears of the results of its actions, and the fears which have been expressed in connection with the difficulties under which the board would operate. All of these things perhaps are deserving of consideration, and I find no fault with the fact that they have been pointed out. But it seems to me however, that we are losing sight of the fact that here is a forward step which has been taken, and for which the people of the Atlantic provinces have been asking for a long time. I acknowledge freely that there will possibly be features of the bill which will seem to lend themselves to some improvement; they might even lend themselves to some improvement when the bill is in the committee stage. But I do not think anybody should say that the object of the board will be to sit down and do nothing. It seems to me that is in the minds of some speakers here this evening. My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) was worried about the fact that the board was going to sit in Ottawa only once during the year; but the bill provides that they shall sit at times and at places they deem necessary. You could not get any broader interpretation than that. I suggest to my hon. friend that this board will be anxious to accomplish something. It is going to be his neighbours from the Atlantic provinces who will compose this board. They are going to be every bit as anxious as he is to have something concrete to show for their activity. I therefore submit that his misgivings are not well founded. I submit that the board should be set up and should be put to work. A year hence if it is found that there are some features that might be improved, then we, or whoever happen to be here representing the people, will take steps to effect that improvement. However, let us at least go ahead with this machinery which has been provided and which for many years has been requested by the people of the Atlantic provinces.
I was greatly impressed by the speech this afternoon of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse), because he was full of enthusiasm with regard to what this board might be able to accomplish and what he visualized they would accomplish. I like to see a man who is enthusiastic about anything. Even as to our friends across the floor, I find no particular fault with them for being enthusiastic about that philosophy of theirs, which is really outworn and rather old stuff. However, I find no fault with them because they are enthusiastic about it.

Atlantic Development Board


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman mean those people over here?


Hugh John Flemming: Oh, yes, I quite agree; the people diagonally over there and our friends in the New Democratic party. I think it is a splendid thing to be enthusiastic. I particularly appeal now to members from the Atlantic provinces. I particularly appeal to them as I should like them to be enthusiastic about these possibilities. I fully appreciate, as I am sure we all do, that during our lifetime we are, generally speaking, subject to a degree of disappointment. Nevertheless we must have an aim. We must try to accomplish something. We must keep going. We must live in an atmosphere of expectation and hope if we are to be able to do anything in the future. That is the appeal that I make.
This board was never intended to represent a tremendously large bureaucracy located in the Atlantic provinces. That is not the concept I envisage for the board. I am one of those who feel that it is not necessary to spend a great deal of money in order to get satisfactory results. Very often it is small boards composed of dedicated men and women who are able to accomplish great things in communities even as large as the Atlantic provinces. I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should not be worrying about whether or not they have at their disposal a billion dollars. I do not think we should be trying particularly to make headlines with dollar figures strung across the top. I suggest that what we need to do is to set up this machinery and then to let everyone give to that board the best possible advice of which he is capable.
For many years we have complained that our situation was not being examined, that the things which might be developed in our provinces were not being looked at and that were were being ignored. When we sent some good people up to Ottawa, it was possible to hand them a breakwater or wharf or something like that and satisfy them with it. That is what we are told down in the Atlantic provinces. The time has gone by when we are satisfied with a breakwater or a wharf. We wish the financing of a board consisting of some people set up for the express purpose of looking into the natural resources which exist in our part of Canada, provided that they are economically sound; and 1 suggest that they should not be put even through too careful an examination in that respect. If they are even borderline I suggest that they are deeserving of consideration.
I am not always in complete agreement with my friend from Bonavista-Twillingate.

However, yesterday I was in complete agreement with him in connection with the exportation of pulpwood. It is all right for us to stand up in this house and speak, and it is a fine thing to shout to high heaven that we must process every bit of raw material we have to the ultimate degree. However, Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing as a buyer of products, and that buyer of products has people who must be employed also. I therefore think there is a middle ground here somewhere so far as processing is concerned. As I listened to my hon. friend last year, I found that he praised the government-and that is something he seldom does-however, he praised the government for building a wharf at a certain place. He said he went down there and saw ships loading pulpwood destined for a European destination and without the wharf it would not have been possible. He therefore praised the government. As far as I am concerned, that is a definite achievement as far as the government is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have never hesitated to do that, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, however, there have not been many occasions for it.


Hugh John Flemming: With
great respect to my friend, may I say that I do not think he looks very hard.


Mr. Dinsdale:: He has one blind eye.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I made a great many notes while all hon. gentlemen were speaking. I could probably stand here for the next 15 minutes, 20 minutes or even half an hour and attempt to rebut what they said and could probably-and I say this with due modesty-make a fair job of it. However, where would we be after I got through? We would just be in the same place as we are right now.
I therefore suggest that what we do in connection with the bill is that we pass on to the committee stage. I have at least one amendment to offer. I understand there are quite a few amendments coming from certain sections. I can only say that I do not believe it would not be in the interests of the passage of the bill, neither do I think any great public interest would be impaired if we consider the bill in committee of the whole, and without any reference to any other standing committee. I believe that time is of the essence in connection with this bill. I am anxious to see the mechanics of the bill go through the house, be set up and allow the board to be constituted so that they can get to work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit me to ask a question at this point?


Hugh John Flemming: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister not think that a great deal more time would be saved in the house and that the government could get on with another measure if we could have this measure go first to a standing committee? It would have to go through the committee of the whole in any case, but could it not go first to a standing committee where those of us who are particularly interested in going into the details and seeing that we get the best bill possible could, with the officials, have a real opportunity to go into it and then bring it back here? I am sure it would pass very quickly after that.


Hugh John Flemming: My answer is no, much as I am very anxious to agree, and the reason it is no is that everything about this bill that we could find out in a committee would be a matter of someone's opinion. It would not be technical knowledge. It would not be a case of people who had served on a board wanting to come before such a committee and being able to give the committee the benefit of their experience, because we have never had a board of this sort in the Atlantic provinces before. We have had some boards, and some people are complaining we have too many boards.
If I wanted to be facetious I would say, being in the lumber business, that I do not mind boards. If it were a bill of a technical nature, obviously there would be an advantage in examining witnesses, but I submit that in this instance all we would get would be people's opinions. We have had a lot of opinions expressed in the house this afternoon and this evening and they were not always exactly the same, though I think that generally speaking they were. I am sure that some members who spoke today spoke so that their names and remarks would be recorded in the newspapers at home. I find no fault with them for this. I think it is a laudable thing. But if this bill goes to a committee I fail to see that any great advantage would be gained because all we would be doing would be getting people's opinions. We are going to get plenty of opinions here.
There is one point on which I want to express complete agreement with respect to what the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) said this afternoon. That is in connection with the contribution which has been made to the Atlantic provinces in general by Brigadier Wardell, the publisher of the Atlantic Advocate. Brigadier Wardell has adopted the Atlantic provinces for a matter of more than 10 years. He has been the conveyor to the rest of Canada of the needs of the Atlantic provinces through the medium of a very fine magazine, one of the best in
Atlantic Development Board Canada. Therefore I want to express complete agreement with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg who today paid him a great compliment, and I should like to add my words to those that were so well said by my friend this afternoon in connection with the debt which I feel the Atlantic provinces owe to the publisher of the Atlantic Advocate.
There is one more point I should like to bring out before I conclude these remarks. I would hope that we might give second reading to the bill and go into the committee stage immediately, if we can have unanimous consent to do so. I would hope that we might make some progress in committee and perhaps even finish the bill. It is not long and I feel that in principle it is very acceptable to all hon. members.
That is all I have to say at the moment. I repeat what I said concerning the importance of the disposition of all members to consider that here we have something of a special nature which we have been trying to get for a long time. Regardless of what we may feel about some points, perhaps very minor and perhaps in the opinion of some quite important, let us go ahead and get the machinery set up and in operation so that the things envisaged by many speakers this afternoon and the fears and misgivings that were expressed by some will be met by actual experience. If as a result of that experience it is found that there are some features of the legislation which are not working out as well as we had all hoped, then the power that created the bill and put it in operation can amend it and improve it. That is the last word I have to say to the house on this occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, we have just agreed with the motion to set up an advisory board for the Atlantic provinces and now we have the bill before us in committee where we can make a detailed study of it clause by clause. It is the usual practice on the first clause of the bill to have a general discussion and to raise questions which perhaps could not be raised on second reading of the bill. One question that the bill poses to me at least is the need for advice. Apparently the main purpose of the board we are setting up is to assess factors relevant to economic growth in the Atlantic region. It would seem to me that there is already a great deal of advice available to the government on this particular subject.
As I understand the situation, studies are in progress with respect to the feasibility of
2414	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Atlantic Development Board the Chignecto canal and the feasibility of the P.E.I. causeway. In addition, we have an organization known as the Atlantic provinces economic council which for several years now has been making a special study of the problems of the Atlantic provinces, with particular emphasis on what might be done to improve the economy of this region. Surely there should be a great wealth of advice available from all these bodies. One wonders, therefore, just how much more advice can be had from this special body. One of the things we would like the minister to tell us in this discussion is just what is going to be the relationship between this new board and the Atlantic provinces economic council, and what will be the relationship between this board and all the other advisory boards that have been set up in recent years. For example, what will the relationship be between this board and the national economic council, the productivity council, the manpower council and these other boards? Just how is this board going to fit in with all these other organizations?
I feel, Mr. Chairman, there is a danger that we might be expecting too much too soon from this particular board. It has no money with which to initiate projects. Its functions are limited purely to those of study and advice. I think it would be a mistake if it were interpreted by the people of the Atlantic region that the setting up of this board is going to bring about any substantial change in the economic forces that have been at work in the Atlantic region for so many years. As I see it, the economic problem of the Atlantic region is not an isolated problem. I think it would be a mistake if this board were to approach it in that manner. The problem of the Atlantic region is, in a sense, the problem of Canada. Certain economic forces have produced certain results, and if we are going to get different results, then we must in some way modify the economic forces that are at work.
Now, these forces have been referred to during the debate on second reading and specific examples have been given. One force has been the lack of development of our natural resources. This, of course, is related to the matter of capital investment. If we are going to do anything about this, it does not seem that the government requires any special advice because one of the things that has inhibited the growth of the Atlantic provinces has been the tax policies followed by federal governments over the years. Unless we are prepared to do something about that, then we cannot hope to make any substantial improvement in the capital investment picture so far as this particular region is concerned.

We all know that the problem of hydro power in Quebec was connected with the tax policy of the federal government, which required substantial payments of income taxes from the province to the federal government. Whatever profits were made, therefore, did not benefit the province at all but went to enrich the federal treasury. I think in cases like that, where we have in a province private companies operating power utilities then the federal government, as a general policy, should make the necessary changes to put these power companies on the same footing as the ones that are nationalized. Once these companies are nationalized they do not pay income taxes on profits as the private companies do. Until this situation is corrected, then it will be a handicap that will hinder the development of the provinces.
Another handicap is the lack of communications and the lower standard of public services. Now, these impediments are apparent to everybody. Certainly, it does not need any special board to bring them to the attention of the government. If we are in earnest about this, then the federal government need not wait-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order; I hear a lot of murmuring in the house and I would ask hon. members to be quiet and give the hon. member who has the floor a chance to make his speech.


Chesley William Carter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is not necessary to wait for a board to be set up for the federal government to take the necessary action to improve the system of communications and the public services in the Atlantic provinces, to put them on a level that will make it attractive for private enterprise to go in and develop industries.
Then, too, we can do more than has been done about encouraging the investment of private capital and discouraging the closing down of industries. A few days ago I had occasion to be in the maritime commission with one of my constituents who was interested in getting a subsidy for a coastal ship. The subject we were concerned with was the Canadian content of this vessel. There are very few companies in Canada today making a diesel engine of around 400 or 500 horsepower for marine installations. I made the remark that I recalled a very fine engine used to be built in British Columbia under the name of Vivian. The expert at the maritime commission said, "Oh, yes, I know all about that; that was a wonderful engine". I said, "Why don't we get one of them?" He said what had happened was that a certain company came in, bought this firm up and then closed it down. This has been the experience

in the maritimes over and over again. Our people have managed to get small businesses going. They have built them up into profitable enterprises and as soon as they have become paying propositions, as soon as they became competitive with comparable enterprises in other parts of Canada, somebody buys them up and closes them down. We had a small tobacco factory in St. John's that used to manufacture tobacco and cigarettes. We were not in confederation three months before the plant was closed down. This is the sort of thing that goes on, and it must be stopped.
I do not envisage very many large scale enterprises in the maritime provinces. I think it is sounder economy if we can establish a number of small enterprises than if we have two or three very large ones. I would much rather have 100 enterprises employing 50 people each than have one enterprise employing 5,000 people.
The other problems we have is that of a domestic market. It is something we cannot do very much about. The government can do what it can by way of freight rate subsidies to equalize freight costs, but under present circumstances it is very difficult to work out a system that is very satisfactory. Somehow or another we must make up for that deficiency. This means that if we cannot have a domestic market in our own region, then the logical place to look for a market is overseas.
My colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned the Caribbean, which is a logical market for the maritimes; but there are other markets overseas in Europe and we should try to encourage European firms to establish branches in the maritimes from where they can service the American seaboard. If Volkswagen cars were being manufactured in the maritimes they could be distributed right up to central Canada much more cheaply than they are at present.
In my area we have a large market for small motors. We have a big fishing population and diesel motors are becoming very popular as they are economical to operate. We have trade connections with Japan, Norway, Sweden and Germany, countries which are experts in these fields and surely we could induce firms from those countries to establish branches somewhere in the Atlantic region. We must do something of that nature because the possibility of improving our economy solely by exporting our raw materials does not seem to be very effective.
Underlying the economic causes which we see on the surface there is a more basic and deeper cause which we must recognize if we are to understand the nature of the
Atlantic Development Board problem that faces the Atlantic area. As I said before, the problem of the maritimes is the problem of Canada. The problem of underdeveloped areas everywhere in Canada is practically the same. The reasons for underdevelopment are not greatly different from those that prevail in the Atlantic area, and the main reason is really the human factor. It boils down to the motives that make us do the things we do.
I am not against profits, and any firm in business must make profits. If it does not, it cannot have capital to reinvest and expand. That is imperative; but there is another factor which must come into play and that is the duty of a commercial enterprise to assume certain responsibility for the people of the region in which it is established. We cannot have a better example of that than Cuba. Millions and millions of dollars were invested in Cuba and to all intents and purposes they have now disappeared. The main reason was that enterprises established in Cuba spent so much of their energy in producing better and better balance sheets and paid so little attention to their responsibilities toward the people of that country.
This board must recognize that factor. While the economic factors are important, the human factor is equally important. A little jealousy between members of the board can easily disrupt it, or jealousy between this board and other boards can disrupt the relationships between them and nullify the best of plans.
There is one other point I would like to make and it is that while the economic factor cannot be ignored it should not always be the determining factor. All of us have experienced instances where projects that were not economically sound somehow prospered, and of other cases where enterprises had good economic bases and still did not work out. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of paying a visit to Saskatchewan, through the courtesy of my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar, and the south Saskatchewan development association, and looking at the dam being built there. From an economic standpoint perhaps that dam should never have been built and perhaps it will never justify itself economically, but whether it does or not that is not the point I want to make.


Rémi Paul: Order. The hon. member has a right to speak about the economic problems of the maritimes but not about the problems of Saskatchewan.


Chesley William Carter: I am not talking about Saskatchewan. I am only using that as an example of a project which perhaps was questionable from the economic standpoint but nevertheless was one that possibly should

Atlantic Development Board have been proceeded with long ago. The reason it was not was that we placed too much emphasis on economic factors and not enough emphasis on the actual needs of the people of the area. Therefore I would ask that we should not let ourselves always be guided completely by whatever economic factors may be involved.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I am just a shy, poor old maritimer who has waited two or three days to put a thought on the record and I think it will come under this item, since it has no general application to any of the clauses. This thought comes to my mind. I do not have any amendment to suggest, but it seems important that we have some method of directing the various departments of the federal government to compile statistics and co-operate with the projects that may begin under clause 9 of this bill. I have a very concrete example of this. One of the projects that has been mentioned by others outside this house, and I feel it should have top priority, would be consideration in the future of the ports of Halifax and Saint John in the light of opening up navigation in the St. Lawrence in the winter time. I speak of Saint John from my own personal interest and I am sure the other hon. members from Halifax will agree with me when I say that we are very worried about the future of these maritime ports.
It has been brought to my attention that one of the main difficulties in assessing this problem is the need for co-operation of different departments of government in making available the statistics as to the origin and destination of all traffic in and out of the St. Lawrence system. This is to my mind the main requirement in order to assess the problem in so far as Saint John and Halifax are concerned. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I put that thought forward in connection with the first clause of this bill. I hope the minister will have an opportunity to think about it. As I say, I do not have a specific amendment to put forward. I cannot see how it could be mentioned particularly in the bill. But certainly there will be a necessity as these projects go forward to obtain, not only from the various departments of the federal government but from all other sources, statistics and information, technical and otherwise, that is now available. That is my thought on this matter, Mr. Chairman, and I have related it to a very concrete example.
This project should have top priority in considering the future of Halifax and Saint John in the light of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence and I would hope there would be some method by which those responsible could

direct the Department of Transport and the Department of National Revenue to make available all information provided it was not of a confidential nature. I say that for the benefit of the hon. member for Essex East. I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this information would be of great assistance in assessing our problem.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, at this juncture I only desire to pose a question to the minister, a question which involves someone who I understand is an ally of the minister and of his party, someone who, though being a staunch Conservative may not know exactly what his role is within that party. I would ask the minister whether it is the intention, in view of the presence in Ottawa today of this gentleman, to appoint Brigadier Wardell as the chairman of this board.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that I appreciate the opportunity of making a few remarks on clause 1 of this bill. Before calling the minister's attention to some of the problems which exist in the part of the Atlantic provinces from which I come I would like to make a brief remark concerning his comments on enthusiasm. If I have failed up till now to express great enthusiasm, it is not at all because I disagree with the principle of the bill, but because I began to visualize the government appointing commission after commission, board after board, until a whole host of subgovernments usurped the position of government, and instead of having members elected to the House of Commons computer machines would be installed here to assess the value of the information fed into them by boards. To me that is a horrible thought. Certainly the chamber would not be nearly as interesting as it is today, and apart from that I do not think the public would be too enthusiastic about voting for one or other make of computer machine.


An hon. Member:: It would be an improvement in certain areas.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: No doubt my hon. friend knows conditions in his own district. If I might comment on some of the things the board might consider, I would like the minister to think of the potential in wood in Labrador. I am sure that when I mention forestry I am talking to a minister who is not only knowledgeable but sympathetic to this industry. The huge potential of wood in Labrador is something which should be looked at very carefully, and the possibility of constructing roads through the woodlands of Labrador is one which could bear looking into. The minister mentioned earlier the development of forestry. Here is a huge area of

virgin forests which await development. The same applies to the special needs of the forest industry in Newfoundland, where the forests are beginning to be infected by the woolly aphis insect. This scourge of the forests could very well have dire economic consequences on the woods industry in Newfoundland, and the possibility of the constructing of roads through the forests so as to fight this pest is one which could be considered by the development board.
The fisheries of the whole Atlantic coast certainly need attention, not so much because the fisheries are dwindling as the fact that our competitor nations have advanced much further than we have in the production of fish and have given us the kind of competition in historic markets which has been making it extremely difficult for the fishing industry to survive. That certainly applies to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Some of the problems of the fisheries are such that they can be met with the expenditure of modest sums of money. A board such as the Atlantic development board would naturally look into the possibility of direct financial assistance to fishermen who wish to improve their fishing equipment. They would consider, I would hope, the position of men who used to be fishermen, who have worked at other vocations for a number of years, whose fishing gear is not operable any more and who would consider being re-established in the fishing industry.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what we will do tomorrow, and can we have some indication of the business for next week?
Business of the House


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, as I outlined the other day, we will start with the setting up of the special committee concerning drugs and things of that nature, and if speeches are limited to one per party, we might finish that business by one o'clock. Then I think it would be wise to complete the committee study of this bill and finish it tomorrow, which seems likely. Then the third item will be Bill No. C-87 concerning the national economic development board, which we will discuss tomorrow, and carry on discussion of the bill on Monday.
With regard to the program for next week, all parties have been apprised of a proposed program, and it will depend on consultation tomorrow as to whether that is considered to be satisfactory.


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader how this proposal is going to be considered? Because I had understood from the Leader of the Opposition this morning that, following a discussion with the Prime Minister, the matter was now in the hands of the house leaders, who would be called together; but I am told that that procedure was not followed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was quite prepared to do that, but my understanding of the meeting was that a proposed time table, with allocation of time, would be circulated to the whips, which was done; that they would meet together tonight at 8.15, and if there was any problem arising we would then carry it a step further.


Lionel Chevrier: I am prepared to meet the house leader at any time, and I understood that that was the proposal which we had made in the first instance.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
27507-3-154
﻿2419
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 7, 1962