1963-06-18

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that has to do with the relations between the executive and parliament and therefore is of concern to all members of this house.
On Friday last the Minister of Finance informed the house that certain gentlemen had been appointed on a temporary basis to the Department of Finance. The minister gave the number and date of the treasury board minute which was supposed to have effected these appointments.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance if this treasury board minute, and another one, had been validated by order in council. He expressed the opinion that this had been done, but said he would look into it. My searches have revealed no such order in council. I was in communication again today, as is my right, with the privy council office, and I was informed then that there still are no orders in council supporting either of the treasury board minutes to which reference has now been made by the Minister of Finance.
My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is twofold. On the one hand, we were misled by the Minister of Finance when we were told that these gentlemen were appointed to the Department of Finance, because their appointments are completely irregular. On the other hand, we have a point of privilege in that a section of the Financial Administration Act has been violated. I refer, as I did yesterday, to section 5, subsection 2, of the Financial Administration Act which reads as follows:
The governor in council may authorize the treasury board to exercise all or any of the powers other than powers of appointment-
May I repeat those words, which are very clear:
-other than powers of appointment, of the governor in council under the Civil Service Act, the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Act, and parts II to VI of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that one power the treasury board does not have, a power that cannot be given to it even by the governor in council, is the power of appointment; yet by treasury board minutes T.B. 610618 dated May 2, 1963 and T.B. 610952 dated May 17, 1963, first three and then a fourth person were presumably appointed to the Department of Finance on a temporary basis. In view of the fact that the treasury board had no such authority, and in view of the fact that appointments could only be made by the governor in council, this means that when these four gentlemen were working with the Minister of Finance on the budget they were not properly attached to the Department of Finance because the treasury board had no authority to make any such appointments.
As I have indicated, my point of privilege is twofold. First, we have been misled in being told that these gentlemen were attached, even temporarily, to the Department of Finance. Such was not the case. They were complete outsiders, just as anyone else might be, because their appointments were not regular.
The second aspect of my point of privilege is that just as in the last session the Financial Administration Act was misused-and hon. gentlemen now on the government side complained about its misuse-so it is now again being misused because the clear provisions against the treasury board making appointments have been violated.
If an order in council is now produced trying to make this validation retroactive it will not change the fact that during the time these gentlemen were assisting the Minister of Finance in the preparation of the budget they were complete outsiders.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I certainly had no intention of misleading the house, nor do I think I did so. If I did I apologize, but I do not think I did.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me the other day what authority there was for the appointment of the special consultants in question. In my reply I said the treasury board minutes are submitted to council in the normal course, and I promised to look into the matter and to report what had actually taken place. Now, very little time has elapsed. I looked into the

Question of Privilege
matter this morning, and this is the answer I was going to give to my hon. friend on orders of the day.
The answer is that the special consultants were employed by service contract, approved by the treasury board, pursuant to the government contracts regulations. These government contracts regulations were themselves established by the governor in council under the authority of section 39 of the Financial Administration Act.
The government contracts regulations require that service contracts in excess of $1,000 be approved by the treasury board. I am informed by the secretary of the treasury board and by the solicitor in the Department of Finance that section 5(2) of the Financial Administration Act, to which my hon. friend referred, does not apply in these cases, and that no other authority was required other than the treasury board minutes referred to previously. I am informed that this is the practice that has been followed by successive governments for many years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the Minister of Finance that every previous statement he has made to the house about this matter has included the word "appointment". He has told us these gentlemen were "appointed" to the Department of Finance. Now he shifts his ground; now he plays with words and tells us they were employed under contracts of service. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this playing with words is not an answer to the affront to parliament.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: With great respect, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -I suggest it is the hon. member who is playing with words.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege that has just been raised-


An hon. Member:: Another forged letter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: -on page 1200 of Hansard for June 14 the Minister of Finance is reported as saying:
As I said in my statement, they were officials of the department; they were appointed by order in council-
If that is not misleading the house, in view of the statement just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I do not know what misleading the house is.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance indicate to the house how, 
under section 39 of the Financial Administration Act which has to do only with contracts, persons can be engaged or appointed?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if there is any doubt in the hon. member's mind about this matter, the Department of Justice be asked for an opinion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -on the legality of the appointments, and the opinion be tabled in the house.
(Translation):




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), rising on a question of privilege, told the house yesterday about the publication, in a Montreal magazine, of a message bearing the signature of Rene Tremblay, minister of agriculture for eastern Canada.
I have been in touch with the Minister of Agriculture to find out what had happened. It is obviously by mistake that such a message was published. It was to be held back until the act regarding the department had been approved by the house and the office of the second minister of agriculture had been entrusted to me, as stated by the Prime Minister in a press release dated April 22, 1963, which read as follows:
The government intends to ask parliament to approve the appointment of two ministers of agriculture, one for eastern Canada and the other for western Canada, and His Excellency has accepted and sanctioned the proposal that Mr. Tremblay, new Minister without Portfolio, become one of the two ministers of agriculture when covering legislation has been adopted.
If in your opinion, Mr. Speaker, such a message violates the privileges of the house, I beg you to accept my apologies.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Maurice Sauve (Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
presented the first report of the special committee on defence, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposilion):: I would direct a question to

the Prime Minister and ask him whether, with a view to securing the facts connected with the extraordinary and dubious action of the Minister of Finance and the government in bypassing the highly trained officials of the Department of Finance and securing the services of persons outside the civil service in the drafting of the budget; and, in the light of the contemptuous disregard revealed today for the house when it asked for information, the right hon. gentleman would consider having a preliminary investigation made into the whole matter by submitting the question to a standing committee of the house or to a special committee to be set up for that purpose so that the minister and the said three persons and other witnesses might be called to give evidence, including the firms with which the three selected individuals are now, or have been, connected.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. gentleman used adjectives in the course of his question which were altogether out of order and improper, we shall naturally give consideration to the suggestion he has made. Making that statement does not mean any decision has been taken by the government on this matter. I hope if the right hon. gentleman has any further questions to ask on this subject he will put them in a more proper way.


John George Diefenbaker: My question was put in perfectly proper language having regard to the contemptuous attitude shown by this government toward the house.

Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of
Finance): I wish to take this opportunity to reply to a question asked last night by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I should like to state I have now verified the fact that Mr. Anderson, Mr. Conway, Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Stanley were born in Canada and are Canadian citizens.
I should also like to take this opportunity to answer a question which was asked yesterday, I think it was, by the hon. member for Peace River with regard to the statutory authority for the administration of the oath of secrecy. I stated at the time that I would be glad to make inquiries and answer the hon. member's question today.
Section 66 of the Civil Service Act requires:
-that "every deputy head and employee shall, before any remuneration is paid to him, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance and the oath set out in schedule B" (the oath of office and secrecy).
Inquiries of the Ministry
Section 75 of the same act states:
The governor in council may authorize any person to administer oaths and take and receive affidavits, declarations and affirmations for any of the purposes of this act or the regulations.
Order in council P.C. 1680 of November 4, 1953 gave treasury board the power to authorize, on behalf of the governor in council, any person to administer oaths. In respect of the Department of Finance, treasury board minute T.B. 594178 dated March 22, 1962 authorized the personnel officer and the chief administrative officer to administer oaths for any of the purposes of the Civil Service Act.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. How could these oaths be administered to these gentlemen if they were contractors rather than appointees?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the oaths were administered to these gentlemen. They took them, and as I have said before I have every confidence in their integrity and their honesty.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. A few minutes ago the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to request a legal opinion as to whether persons could be appointed under section 39 of the Financial Administration Act.


Mr. Howard:: Which provides only for contracts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This section, I understand, provides only for contracts for the purchase of goods.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is wrong on two counts. I did not make the statement he has indicated, and he is wrong about the act. I said we would be glad to get a legal opinion from the Department of Justice as to the legality of the appointments in question, a suggestion which seems to have been sneered at by the other side.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am now asking the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to secure a legal opinion as to whether under section 39 of the Financial Administration Act it is possible to make appointments such as those made by the Department of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to ask for a legal opinion on this matter and to table it on the terms indicated by my hon. friend. Indeed, I am glad to go further than that.

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the extreme hardship which has been imposed upon building contractors, manufacturers, and suppliers of building materials by the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax on all building materials, will the minister give consideration either to the waiving or the refunding of the sales tax on all building materials involved in contracts let prior to midnight, June 13?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of his question. Generous provision has already been made in paragraph 17 of the excise tax resolutions for relief for persons who are unable by reason of fixed price contracts signed before June 14 to add the amount of the tax in question to the selling price.



PROTESTS AGAINST APPLICATION OF SALES TAX TO BUILDING MATERIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in response to questions from various members the minister indicated that he had received telegrams from a number of builders' groups across the country outlining the dangerous effects on the building industry of the 11 per cent tax, and he said then that he hoped to be able to reply to all those today. Is the minister in a position now to so reply?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I meant that I would reply to the wires individually. When I went back to my office last night I asked for a draft to be prepared. It has not yet gone out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister said in connection with this matter that exemptions or rebates would be granted with regard to contracts entered into prior to June 14. Many of the companies who are sending telegrams are complaining that applications for rebates will present accounting problems. Would the minister give consideration to granting exemptions rather than rebates for completion of contracts which were entered into prior to June 14?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I hesitate to raise the question of accounting skills and problems, but I do not seriously believe that this will create any great accounting problems.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Finance intends to answer personally the telegram of protest, can I send him the telegram of the Saguenay house builders' association, in order that he may answer both at the same time?
(Text) :


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If he wishes to, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance a question in connection with this matter, and pointed out that very strong representations were being made by building organizations across the country as to the very detrimental effect of the application of the sales tax on building materials. As found on page 1244 of Hansard I concluded with these words:
If so, is he now giving consideration to withdrawing the measure?
In the course of his reply the minister said that he had not personally received the telegrams and went on to say:
At that time I will be able to decide what course of action should he taken.
In view of the very widespread nature of the objections being taken and the very cogent arguments that the application of the sales tax on building materials will have the effect of reducing building and reducing employment, has the minister given final consideration to whether he intends to pursue this detrimental course?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was not too clear whether that was an argument, a speech or a question.


John George Diefenbaker: It was not an order in council, anyway.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: However, the proposals presented in the budget on this matter were designed for a variety of excellent reasons, and there is no suggestion of changing them.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance if he will agree to accept another telegram, one which came from the builders of the Grey North society back home, and give it the same treatment as the others he has on his desk?



PROTESTS RESPECTING IMPOSITION OF SECURITIES TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for

the Minister of Finance. Did the Minister of Finance receive from executives of the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver stock exchanges representations protesting against, and demanding clarification of, the 30 per cent securities tax included in the budget speech and, if so, what action does the minister intend to take in this regard?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question. To the second part of the question may I say that the budget proposals will be debated starting tomorrow and, as far as the government is concerned, we propose to go ahead with that tax. (Translation):


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Finance tell us whether he is going to meet with the president of the Montreal stock exchange, Mr. Kierans, who expressed that desire?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker; at 5.30 this afternoon.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be wise to warn the finance minister against the false theories of the president of the Montreal stock exchange?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member well knows that is not the type of question that we enjoy at this time.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance said earlier that he would meet w-ith Mr. Eric Kierans at 5.30 p.m. today, and in view of the fact that Mr. Kierans is seeking to have abolished the 30 per cent tax on sale of Canadian shares to foreign interests, could the minister tell us whether he is ready to confer with any individual who would like to make representations about the present budget, or whether he only welcomes those who come to protect substantial foreign interests?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have been receiving representations from anybody who wanted to see me over the last two months to the extent of the time available and I shall be glad to continue that practice.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Finance be
Inquiries of the Ministry willing to confer with Mr. Lesage if the latter expressed such a wish?


Gilles Grégoire: A further question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Finance tell us whether other persons interested in the present budget have asked to meet with the minister?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Plenty of them, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have tried to be generous to the hon. member, but I do think the wishes and time of other members in the house should be considered.



INQUIRY AS TO TAX ON MANAGEMENT FEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house how many management consultant firms there are in Canada, what revenue he expects from the taxes on the help that was coming from the United States consultant firms-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: -and whether he will extend this privilege to other companies in Canada which are providing a similar service?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the hon. member is referring to the proposed tax-


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Section 12.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -on management fees. That does not include fees paid to outside consultants.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I was referring to those in the United States.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC  REQUEST FOR DELAY IN CONVENING CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's answer to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Royal, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether he has accepted Mr. Lesage's request to delay the enactment of the municipal loan fund legislation until it has been examined by a federal-provincial conference?

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in reply, the letter from the prime minister of Quebec is now under consideration.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State. Some of us saw last night an interview with the Minister of National Health and Welfare being filmed for the C.B.C., in which a C.B.C. reporter said that he too was definitely going to stop smoking. That statement did not appear on the national T.V. news. My question is, Mr. Speaker, was this omission or deletion due to concern by the network over the possible reaction of cigarette advertisers?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not imagine that the hon. member for New Westminster, having regard to the views about broadcasting, which have been expressed by the members of his party over the years, would expect a minister of the crown to be a censor of news broadcasts of the C.B.C., but I will be very glad to direct the question to the attention of the C.B.C. and no doubt they will be willing to take proper note of it.
(Translation):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he noticed that all Social Crediters here present are wearing a green boutonniere? If so, does he know that it is a symbol of the overwhelming victory of the Social Credit in Alberta?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that, and I am surprised that some of them have not turned red.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he 
can unveil a mystery concealed to date by the water resources branch. In view of national interest in the development and renegotiation of the Columbia river treaty and the particular interest in the technical details on the part of numerous engineers and technical people, can the minister inform the house of the latest official estimate with respect to the construction of the high Arrow dam and all related costs?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, some information with regard to the cost estimates for the high Arrow dam and other Columbia treaty projects was supplied in a reply to question No. 875 in the last session of parliament, and appears in Hansard for December 3, 1962 at pages 2226 and 2227. The answer was given by the then minister of this department, the present member for Brandon-Souris, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I might tell the hon. member that within our department we have no official estimates that would in any way alter the figures then supplied.



PEACE RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he is in a position yet to answer the question I asked on Friday last with regard to the Peace river dam, to which he said he would reply yesterday.


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I was about to answer this question. On Friday the hon. member for Peace River asked if an official application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for leave to proceed with the Peace river dam had been received by my department. The answer to this question is no.
In reply to the second part of the question, I pointed out the other day that this was a hypothetical question. However, if it should occur, the act provides for a 30 day public advertising period by the applicant of intent to apply to the minister for approval of plan and site. Any objections or representations received during this period would be thoroughly investigated.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that work is actively proceeding on this project, would the minister seek advice from the Minister of Justice to ascertain whether this work is proceeding in contravention of the act and, if so, would he consider taking suitable action?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the matter has already been referred to the Department of Justice for an opinion.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry. In view of the urgency of putting men to work, can the minister advise whether an agreement has yet been reached between the Department of Forestry and the government of Nova Scotia in regard to the forest stand improvement program in Cape Breton?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. Technically I could answer by saying no, but I think a word of explanation is in order. There has been a useful and constructive exchange of ideas between officials of my department and the department of lands in Nova Scotia. Conclusions have been reached, and as other departments of government are affected these conclusions are being studied. I hope to be able to make an announcement at a very early date.



RUSSIA-INQUIRY AS TO RENEGOTIATION OP TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have any difficulties arisen in the renegotiation of the trade treaty between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman is probably aware, this treaty expired during the term of the previous government. It was extended at that time, and the extension continues in effect.



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has he a statement ready for the house on the negotiations with China concerning grain sales, or can we expect one in a few days?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As the hon. gentleman knows,
Inquiries of the Ministry and I know the former minister of agriculture knows very well, these negotiations with China are carried on by the wheat board. All contracts with China are signed by the wheat board.
I just want to say that these negotiations are now proceeding. I am sure it is the wish of all hon. members that we should sell as much wheat to China as is possible on the best possible terms, and that being so I really think it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the terms that are now under negotiation.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Following that answer by the minister, I should like to ask him whether he, on behalf of the government, has still the same policy about making public contracts signed by the Canadian wheat board.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think it would probably be inadvisable to reveal these contracts, because that might interfere with negotiations for sales.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tell that to your colleagues.


Mitchell William Sharp: But I do believe, sir, that it should be possible, after the contracts have been made, to reveal as much information as would not in any way inhibit the activities of the wheat board or their successful negotiations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister how soon he hopes to be able to announce whether the balance of the contract which expires at the end of this year for sales of wheat to China will be filled?


Mitchell William Sharp: Although the terms of the contract have not been revealed to this house, there has been enough information made available in one way or another to indicate that the minimum quantities China had undertaken to buy have now been purchased.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are still, however, some 40 million bushels of wheat, 20 million bushels of barley, and 1J million bushels of wheat flour which could be sold under that agreement within this year. Is there any announcement likely to be made regarding that sale in the near future?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is possible to sell a good deal more wheat than that to China. What the hon. member is referring to are the maximum quantities. The undertaking of the Chinese government to purchase has been fulfilled. We will be doing our best to sell as much wheat and as much flour as we possibly can.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: May
I ask the minister what concessions the government of the day is making to the Chinese people's republic in order to induce them to continue with this wheat purchase contract?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: No concessions have been made, because we have not yet entered into any new contracts.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I ask another supplementary question. Have the Chinese asked that Canada accept more Chinese textiles and rubber goods, as reported in the newspapers?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in answer to the first question, I really do not believe it will assist Canada to sell wheat to China il I discuss, in the course of negotiations, the particular positions that the respective parties have taken.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Macarthur Horner: As a
member from the province that recently elected a Social Credit government on the admission that they were sorry they had helped to defeat the Conservative government in Ottawa, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport which is concerning a lot of us right across the country. Has the minister had any discussions with Canadian National concerning the master agency plan, which will cause so much economic hardship in the small communities across Canada?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister ask the Canadian National to withhold the implementation of this master agency plan until after the select committee has met and discussed this matter with the officials of the Canadian National?


George James McIlraith: I would want to give that matter some consideration because, as the hon. member probably does not know, at the start of this session I put forward a proposal that membership of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be reduced to the same number that is usually decided upon for the select committee established each year. This proposal, for one reason or another, was not acceptable to the opposition, and this is of course a matter for them. I did indicate at that time that there was a great deal of business to be referred to the committee, and I had given some outline of what it was.
Now, that course not having been followed, and there being a tremendous amount of business now before the house, I am not sure
[Mr. Mandziuk.l
whether the matter could properly and appropriately be delayed until there is an opportunity to set up a committee to deal with these matters. In any event I will take this suggestion under consideration.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: May I ask a
further supplementary question. Can the minister tell us when we can expect the select committee on railways and steamships to be set up?


George James McIlraith: The short answer to that would have to be no, but perhaps that is too short an answer. As I indicated, the scheme I had put forward was not agreeable to the opposition. It is in the hands of the opposition.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE    REQUEST FOR COPIES OF REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I hope the government will not faint if, before I put my question, I extend congratulations to the government on the reception accorded this morning to the delegation from Manitoba with respect to the retention of the T.C.A. maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg. I am sure all members from Manitoba appreciated the attendance of the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet forming the subcommittee on transport. The Prime Minister's statement was also most welcome.
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has been able to ascertain, since this morning, whether it would be possible to make available to those concerned the report of R. Dixon Speas and Associates, when it is obtained?


George James McIlraith: No; I regret that I have not had an opportunity of considering the matter further since this morning.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which arises out of a statement in an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Friday, June 14, to the effect that oil and gas pipe line companies will be allowed to deduct from income expenses incurred in drilling for

oil and gas. This proposal would be backdated to April 10, 1962, according to the newspaper statement. Is this true?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This provision, Mr. Speaker, is set out in paragraph 4 of the income tax regulations on pipe line companies and exploration extensions. The proposal that companies whose principal business is operating a pipe line be allowed to deduct drilling and exploration expenses is a logical extension or rounding out of provisions in the Income Tax Act concerning the deduction of exploration expenses. Some of these existing provisions of the act have been there for many years; others were added only last year.
In 1947 provisions providing tax credits on account of exploration and drilling expenses were changed to the present method of allowing these expenses as a deduction from income. Since that time this right of oil and gas companies to deduct exploration and drilling expenses has been gradually broadened.
In March, 1957 a change was announced, effective for 1957 and subsequent years, which permitted companies whose principal business is processing mineral ores for the purpose of recovering metals therefrom, or processing metals from the ores so processed, to deduct all expenses incurred in searching for minerals in Canada or exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas in Canada. The purpose of this amendment was to permit companies engaged in processing ores into metals, such as steel companies, to deduct the cost of exploring for supplies of the raw materials used in their business.
In June, 1961 the budget speech announced an extension of this provision to include companies whose principal business is fabricating metals. This permitted companies that take prime metal, such as copper, and manufacture or process it into finished goods to deduct the expenses of exploring for minerals or oil or gas in Canada.
In April, 1962 the budget speech announced further concessions for the oil and gas industry and for those interested in exploring for oil, gas or minerals. These concessions included a provision which permitted any individual or company to deduct expenses incurred in drilling or exploring for oil or gas in Canada from the income of that person from the operation of an oil or gas well in Canada. These concessions were made available to all individuals whether or not they were residents of Canada, and to all
Inquiries of the Ministry companies irrespective of any degree of Canadian ownership or control. These 1962 concessions probably benefited foreign owned and controlled companies to a much greater extent than Canadians.
In May, 1963 representatives of six pipe line companies made representations to the government urging that pipe line companies be allowed to deduct from income the expenses they incurred in drilling and exploring for oil and gas reserves in Canada. At this meeting I was represented by Mr. Benson, parliamentary secretary to the Department of Finance, and a permanent official of the department.
These companies already were permitted under the 1962 legislation to deduct exploration and drilling expenses from any income they had from the operation of an oil or gas well in Canada, or from royalties in respect of an oil or gas well, but they pointed out that they had very little such income. They also pointed out that the existing law denied the same right of deduction as oil and gas companies only because of a technical interpretation of the law which held that transportation of oil or gas did not qualify as marketing of these products.
It was pointed out on behalf of these companies that they are virtually dependant upon a supply of oil and gas to keep them in business, and it was represented that they had as good a reason to be allowed to deduct the cost of hunting for the raw materials upon which their business is based as companies engaged in fabricating metals.
These representations appeared to the government to be reasonable and worthy of favourable action. Most important of all was the fact that the majority of the companies to benefit from this further concession would be Canadian residents, and have a high degree of Canadian ownership.
The representations made in writing by the pipe line companies did not ask that any legislation be retroactive, and so far as those who represented the government at the meeting can recall this matter was not discussed. It was the general understanding that the companies were looking forward to the deduction of expenses they planned to make in the future and that they had no expenses incurred in the past which they hoped to be able to deduct. The decision to have the proposed amendment date from April 10, 1962 was made following a recommendation made entirely on technical grounds by those engaged in drafting the resolution.
Because of the nature of the extensive amendments made in 1962 to section 838A of the Income Tax Act to implement the 1962

Inquiries of the Ministry budget proposals related to the oil and gas industry, it was necessary to divide exploration and drilling expenses into those incurred before April 10, 1962 and those incurred after that date. The division is made in subsections 3, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 5c, and 6a of section 83A. It was believed that to add a new date from which exploration and drilling expenses would be measured would seriously complicate an already complex section of the Income Tax Act. For this reason, and for this reason only, paragraph 4 of the income tax resolution proposes that the change related to pipe line companies date from April 10, 1962.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the minister's interest in the oil industry and pipe line companies and, as a supplementary question, could he tell the house the names of the six companies which made representations in this regard?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to do that, but I will have to get the names.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Acadia. When the minister is giving a list of those who were present would he advise whether Mr. D. C. A. Stanley was also present on that occasion?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, I certainly will.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If I may reply now to the question put by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, I am informed by Mr. Benson, who conducted these discussions, that Mr. Stanley was not present.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow the line of questioning that the hon. member for Acadia started with a question to the Minister of Finance. Has any action been taken to deal with the national energy board to ensure, once you give this new right to the pipe line companies, that the right of ordinary producers of gas to these pipe lines as an ordinary common carrier is protected?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into it and answer the question when this matter is up for debate.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give

the government's answer to the motion which appeared on the order paper of Wednesday, June 5, 1963 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the reservation thereto.
In accordance with the undertaking given, without commitment, in the house to give careful consideration to the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others, the government has re-examined the documentation in question. As a result the conclusion has been reached that the answer originally given must stand, namely that the documents relate to the security of the state and to that of allied countries and cannot be produced in whole or in part without prejudice to national and allied safety.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the remarks he just made? Will the government consider permitting the special committee on defence, perhaps in camera, to examine these documents so that members of this house can determine for all of us whether or not the commitments and the documents referred to actually exist?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I have already said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the house is left with privy councillors on both sides of the chamber saying opposite things, how are we going to find out, as members of this house, what is the truth?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I say to my hon. friend that the answer to his question is clear. That is, to do what the Canadian people will do, that is, to accept the statement of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman should not get into the field of fiction when we are trying to obtain information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the prime minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -of the period before the last general election-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but if he has
any doubt about the correctness of my reply a few moments ago to the hon. member for

Winnipeg North Centre, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would consult the former minister of national defence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The house passed a motion to table these documents. The minister at the time indicated there would be a possibility of taking extracts from the documents and tabling them. Now he tells us that he cannot even table the extracts or a summary of them. I think, far from the Canadian people accepting this, they will come to the conclusion which many of the rest of us are being forced to come to, namely that these documents are non-existent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, since you have allowed the hon. gentleman to make his observations and I do not quarrel with this, perhaps I may be permitted to say in reply that the motion was accepted by this house without any commitment being made, there being added to the motion a reservation that the request made by hon. gentlemen opposite would be looked into. That request has been looked into and the government, on its responsibility, now affirms that it is not in the interests of the security of the state to divulge this information. Under our practice, and having in mind the interests of this nation, I believe that answer must be accepted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That does not apply to the defence committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his line of questioning is taking the form of a debate, and this is the question period. I think we have gone far enough. The hon. member has had a long answer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I think the matter should be left there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he consider having extracts of these documents submitted to the defence committee in camera, if the committee decides that is the best way to have these documents examined?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will not do anything which will violate my oath of secrecy, the security of the state or the inviolability of cabinet conclusions.
28902-5-82J
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the new complications arising from the budget, does the minister intend to withdraw his offer of a $500 subsidy in exchange for the withdrawal of the 11 per cent tax on building materials, with a view to reducing the administrative and collection costs of taxes which fall on the shoulders of the Canadian citizens? Giving with one hand and taking away with the other; why not take everything away? (Text):


Hugh Macarthur Horner: You voted for it.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the particular incentive payment to which my hon. friend refers is intended to encourage winter construction of houses, and nothing has happened since the original announcement was made to alter that particular objective.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: It will cost twice as much.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Labour tell the house approximately how much that subsidy of $500 will cost the present government for the building of houses in winter?
(Text):


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It certainly will depend on the response to the incentive payment and the number of houses that will qualify.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Finance expect that the cost of the $500 subsidy for home construction will exceed the $170 million which the Minister of Finance expects to gather from the tax on building materials? Which one will be higher? (Text):


Hugh Macarthur Horner: You voted for it.


Gilles Grégoire: No answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. gentleman insists on an answer he can make ordinary calculations and discover the total cost of this winter incentive program by multiplying the $500 by his estimate of the response to the program.
1284	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. With respect to the subsidy of $500 for the building of houses during the winter, is the minister aware that it may cost up to $2,000 more to build during the winter season?



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the world fair? Could the minister inform the house whether the works on Notre Dame island will amount to approximately $80 million or whether that is merely a figure that has been arrived at by engineers and architects?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the question should be directed to His Worship Mayor Jean Drapeau since the city of Montreal has taken upon itself to provide an island within a year and to bear the cost of all related works.
(Text):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the general public is having difficulty obtaining sleeping accommodation between Toronto and Ottawa, I wonder whether the minister could tell the house why they took two sleeping cars off that pool train.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of that having been done, but I will bring this matter to the attention of the railway concerned and obtain the information.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY   B.C.-DESIGNATION OF NO. 3 HIGHWAY AS PART OF SOUTHERN ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the eulogies being showered on the head of the Prime Minister by the premier of British Columbia, I do so in a very hopeful mood. Has the government of British Columbia requested the federal government to designate B.C. highway No. 3 as a section of the southern


trans-Canada highway. Also, have any discussions been held by the minister or officials of his department with any minister or officials of the government of British Columbia with respect to this proposal?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The answer is that the province of British Columbia has for several years been requesting federal participation in the cost of constructing highways other than the present trans-Canada highway. However, no provincial government request to designate No. 3 highway as a southern trans-Canada highway has been received. Therefore the answer is no.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works, one which I overlooked asking at the time he replied to my question. Can the minister inform the house whether any arrangement has been made, or whether he has made any arrangement, to meet any minister of the government of British Columbia with respect to highway problems?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Not yet, but it is my intention to make arrangements for a meeting in the very near future.



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF VOTE ON JUNE 17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order with regard to the Journals of the house in order that a matter which has already been drawn to Your Honour's attention may be cleared up. The Journals are in conflict with Hansard with regard to the vote which took place yesterday. As will be seen from page 1240 of Hansard for yesterday, Mr. Speaker made two rulings. With regard to one of Your Honour's rulings the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) appealed. I refer to the ruling that there was no urgency of debate with regard to the matter then before the house. Subsequently Mr. Speaker said:
*-I refer hon. members to a ruling made by my immediate predecessor on January 31, 1963, which appears at page 3297 of Hansard. Therefore, 1 am making a similar ruling.
If one looks back to January 31 of this year one sees that a very similar type of motion and discussion was being dealt with. The question put by Mr. Speaker, as the Journals for that period state on page 462, was this:

Shall the decision of the Chair, on the appeal to the house of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), be sustained?
The hon. member for Essex East appealed to the house from the ruling that there could be no appeal from a ruling by the Chair under standing order 26.
I do not wish to labour the point, but the Journals do not indicate the subject matter on which the house made its decision. I myself thought it was similar to the point raised by the hon. member for Essex East last session. I wonder whether Your Honour could clear that up for the record.


Mr. Speaker:: In reply to the hon. member may I say at the outset, especially with regard to this final point, that the Journals reflect what took place in the house yesterday. However, I realize the general interest in this matter and I should like to make a short statement which I hope will be of interest and of use to the house.
It has come to my attention, especially through the hon. member who has just spoken, that some doubt has arisen with respect to the terms of the question upon which the house divided yesterday. Obviously we cannot turn back and alter any proceedings that took place yesterday, nor should any discussion in relation thereto be permitted at this time. However, as mentioned in paragraph 4, citation 70 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
A point of order against procedure must be raised before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
And further on, standing order 35 states:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
However, by consent of the house I could say a few words in an effort to dissolve any confusion with regard to yesterday's proceedings which may now exist in the minds of some hon. members; that is, if the house so desires.
Yesterday, as hon. members will recall, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 and stated the matter which he proposed for discussion.
A discussion then arose with regard to the urgency of the matter to be discussed. After contributions from several hon. members the Chair decided, in effect, that, as the matter could be discussed and voted upon in the course of the budget debate which would begin Wednesday next, the proposal was not a matter of urgency of debate under the terms of standing order 26 as understood and accepted by the practice of this house.
Inquiries of the Ministry
At this point in the proceedings the following is recorded at page 1240 of yesterday's Hansard:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I must regretfully appeal from your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the ruling is appealed, may I make one further short comment? My predecessors have many times in the past expressed the view that there is no appeal of a decision taken by the Speaker under standing order 26.
In this regard, I refer hon. members to a ruling made by my immediate predecessor on January 31, 1963, which appears at page 3297 of Hansard. Therefore, I am making a similar ruling.
It is at this stage in the proceedings that the difficulty arises.
It was my opinion that I had given a second ruling, namely, that there was no appeal of a decision taken by the Speaker under standing order 26. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as recorded at page 1240 of Hansard, then used the following words:
That ruling to which you have just referred, Mr. Speaker, was reversed by a vote of the house, and I submit that a decision of the house stands over the decision which was made by Mr. Speaker Lambert.
Since it is a well established rule that no debate is permitted on any ruling, the Chair interpreted the interposition of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as an appeal to the house from the second ruling.
It would appear to me that, in effect, the house yesterday was confirming a ruling that there could be no appeal of a decision taken by Mr. Speaker under standing order 26 and that such a decision of the house would be valid for the duration of the current session. However, in putting the question to the house the Chair stated that the appeal was from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and thereby hangs our difficulty.
Some hon. members may feel that they might have voted otherwise had the question been stated in other terms and, in reviewing the records, there may be justification for the taking of that position. Notwithstanding the fact that it is not open to the Chair or to any other member to review, alter or even to interpret any prior proceedings, I would like however to proffer a suggestion for the consideration of the house at this time. Since the question, as put from the Chair, may have been interpreted differently, it is my suggestion that yesterday's vote be considered as not being binding should a similar situation arise later in this session.


Robert Norman Thompson: Are we
to interpret your remarks then, Mr. Speaker, as meaning that the division yesterday was taken upon the second aspect of the matter rather than on the original one as to the urgency of the question?

Atlantic Development Board Act


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might suggest to the hon. member that he read the statement I have just made. I think the situation would then be clear. I do not think it would serve any purpose at this time to make a further explanation.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him what the hold-up is in providing us with the report of the commission of inquiry into certain labour troubles on the great lakes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The short answer to that question is that the delay stems from the fact that Mr. Justice Norris has not yet delivered the report to the Minister of Labour. It had been my information, based on a conference between the officials of the department and Mr. Justice Norris some two weeks ago, that the report would be available at an early date, but the latest information I have is that the report is not ready and the judge is still working on it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does the minister intend to make himself privy to the report when it is presented in order to be in a position to initiate legislation or take regulatory action before the report is actually distributed to us from the printers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will take that matter under consideration when the time comes for the judge to present the report to the Department of Labour.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 17, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act to increase the number of members of the Atlantic development board from five to eleven; to establish as a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund an Atlantic development fund to which shall be credited the sum of one hundred million dollars to be used for the purpose of financing or assisting in financing programs or projects that would contribute to the growth and development of the economy of the Atlantic region and for which satisfactory financing arrangements are not otherwise available; and to provide that the said act shall expire on the 24th day of January, 1969; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the said act.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act. Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, the resolution now before the committee is one in which we who are here representing various communities in the Atlantic provinces have a great deal of interest. It was my understanding-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am finding it difficult to hear the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. I wonder if we might have order in the house.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps hon. members would hasten their departures from the chamber and those remaining would observe silence so that we can hear the hon. member.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, all could hear if the Secretary of State would only exercise a little more discipline over on his side. I was observing that this was a resolution in which we from the Atlantic provinces have a tremendous amount of interest. Prior to the speech of the Secretary of State yesterday I was under the impression that some phases of it, for instance the increases in membership of the board, were contemplated for the purpose of securing representation for groups of people who, in the opinion of the government, might not be represented. However, since his speech yesterday I find that it is contemplated that the present membership are not to be continued in office for any great length of time. The members of the board are going to be continued in office for the period of one year. The chairman presumably will be demoted to member, and he is going to be continued for two years; and that will be the end of his actions and function as a member of the board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent the situation. The situation is that their present terms, if the house accepts the bill, will be continued by legislation for that period, and they will be eligible for reappointment in all cases.


Mr. MacEwan:: What a chance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite clear, I think.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that we are going to find that this is a gimmick to get rid of the present members of the board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what it is.


Hugh John Flemming: I think in that connection it might be well if we examined the present personnel of the board.

As was pointed out yesterday, very properly, by my hon. friend from Royal this board has been set up. This board is prepared to function. This board has a full membership. This board has a membership representing every province of the Atlantic provinces. This board is composed of men who are outstanding and who were selected for that particular reason and not for any narrow, partisan consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: Hon.
members may laugh but they do not understand that language. Our friends opposite, Mr. Chairman, do not understand it, especially those from the Atlantic provinces. We have on the board an outstanding executive director from the civil service of Canada, a most outstanding man. The selection of official personnel for this board, which was not large, was an attempt to get a representative from each province, and as my hon. friend the Secretary of State knows, that was done. I am sure he will be the first to agree that the officials of the board are very capable people. I submit that the members of the board are also outstanding in every respect. There is no need for any resolution to come before this committee to introduce a measure to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act, because the Atlantic Development Board Act does not need any amending. The Atlantic Development Board Act should be continued in the form passed by the previous government last December. It should be allowed to function.
In the course of some remarks, a few weeks ago I made this observation: why does not the government allow the Atlantic development board to function for at least a year, and then if the government find there is something which might be improved they could bring forward legislation and ask for an amendment, but, Mr. Chairman, the government are asking us to amend something which has not even started, which I submit is a ridiculous situation.
Coming back to the personnel of the board, we have as its vice chairman Mr. Frank Sobey, of Nova Scotia, one of the most outstanding industrialists not only in Nova Scotia but all Canada. I might call the attention of the committee to an article written in the Montreal Gazette of May 24, which was only a few days ago, by Mr. John Meyer, the financial editor, in which he compares the Industrial Estates, of which Mr. Sobey is president, with the proposed set-up for the Quebec government. Then Mr. Meyer goes on to say:
Industrial Estates, in the six years since it was set up by the Nova Scotia government, has assisted
18, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act in the establishment of 31 new industrial plants in the province. Seven of these have been established since the beginning of the year. They include Volvo, the Swedish automobile manufacturer, J. F. Cross-ley, the British carpet manufacturer, and, the most recent, the aluminum can plant for Reynolds International. Negotiations are in process with a number of other companies-
-for more industrial establishments. Those last four words are mine. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the gentleman who, according to this legislation, is going to have notice served on him that his services are required only for a period of a year and then he is through. That is what is contemplated by the resolution, as explained by the Secretary of State yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have already contradicted that once. Does the hon. gentleman not accept my word that Mr. Sobey will be eligible for reappointment for another three-year term?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Eligible. The people of Nova Scotia will love to hear that.


Hugh John Flemming: I will
tell you what will change my attitude towards this resolution. If the Secretary of State wants to get up and say that Mr. Sobey will be continued for his full term, all right. I am surprised that members on the Liberal side from any part of the Atlantic provinces would ever subscribe to this type of resolution. If it went through the caucus of members on the government side representing the Atlantic provinces, then I am very much surprised. I am quite surprised that the Secretary of State would sponsor it. After all, he does represent an Atlantic province. He has adopted one of the Atlantic provinces. Therefore I am surprised that he should bring this resolution forward because it contemplates that six new members will be appointed to the board. At present there are five.
I have referred to Mr. Sobey, the outstanding contribution he has made and the high respect in which he is held in the Atlantic provinces. No one will dispute that, I am sure. The government apparently has decided that it does not want his services for any length of time. With that I do not agree.
Let us go to some of the others. When I occupied a position of some responsibility in connection with this matter not once did I hear any criticism of Mr. McQuaid of Prince Edward Island, the former attorney general. Oh, some of my hon. friends may say that he is a defeated cabinet minister. In my book that is a compliment so far as his performing service is concerned, and if he was unsuccessful in one election I am sure there are many of us who will understand that that is no particular disgrace. It is simply a trend of political fortune. But never once did I hear

Atlantic Development Board Act from anyone any objection to him from the point of view of his ability. Quite the opposite was the case. Every comment in connection with Mr. McQuaid's appointment was complimentary, and I might say that even in such a happy family as the Conservatives comments are not always complimentary. There never was any objection to Mr. McQuaid.
The same thing applies to Mr. Fred Ayre, the representative from Newfoundland. I have heard no adverse criticism of his appointment from my friends from the province of Newfoundland who sit in this House of Commons. He is an outstanding man in every respect. The gentleman who represents New Brunswick, Mr. Lalande, enjoys a tremendously good reputation in that province. The only criticism I have heard of him is that he comes from the province of Quebec. That is the only adverse criticism, if it is a criticism, I have ever heard in connection with Mr. Lalande. He is a banker. He is a supervisor for the Provincial Bank of Canada located at Moncton and he enjoys a most excellent reputation.
These are the gentlemen who are affected by the resolution which says that we should amend the Atlantic Development Board Act by increasing the number of members from five to eleven. I have said that I consider this to be a gimmick by which the government is going to put an end to the services of the people now occupying these positions. The Secretary of State takes issue with that statement. He says they are eligible but he does not say they will be reappointed. He does not say they will be continued in office. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, if the government wanted to do what is best for the Atlantic provinces and for Canada they would let the membership of the board continue as it is for a certain length of time anyway, because they cannot get better men. I am one of those who do not say that one man is better than another. I say you would not get better men than those who have been selected.
The publisher of the Fredericton Gleaner and the Atlantic Advocate is a personal friend of mine. There is no question about that. I have great personal regard for Brigadier Wardell. Over the last 11 or 12 years he has adopted the Atlantic provinces. He has proclaimed the gospel of the Atlantic provinces from one end of Canada to the other. He has carried the torch. If you will refer to previous copies of the Atlantic Advocate you will find that he suggests that his interest is entirely unselfish and objective and that he is simply anxious to make a contribution to our part of Canada. I do not believe anyone will take exception to that proposition. I think we in the Atlantic

provinces are anxious to have influential people from all over the world come and take an interest in our part of Canada. I am sure that is the feeling of most of us. This is what we have in the person of Brigadier Wardell.
Those are the members of the board that this legislation is designed, I say, to get rid of. I do not think there is any need for this resolution. All that the government needed to do was to continue the board in office and allow it to function as it was intended to under the direction of a minister, of course. So far as the selection of a minister is concerned I find no fault with the selection of the Secretary of State. As a matter of fact, I was quite happy when that selection was made because I felt that he would bring to the four provinces a somewhat detached interest of any one province compared with another. I hope I am right about that.


An hon. Member:: The height of optimism.


Hugh John Flemming: Perhaps it is the height of optimism. A question was asked in the house before as to the disposition of the money. I will come to that in a few minutes. So far as the official duties of the Secretary of State are concerned, I suggest to him that he extend his horizon beyond the narrow partisanship of the Liberal party. I would ask him to look towards development and progress in the Atlantic provinces and accept his new responsibility as an instrument by which he can render a tremendous service to those provinces and the region which has adopted him. He has been re-elected time and time again and I find no particular fault with that. That is the right of the people of every community. But I do think it brings with it a degree of responsibility not only to his constituents but also to the region which in this case the minister represents. Therefore I ask him to use his position not in a narrow and partisan way but for the general good of that part of Canada. May I say that I think he is probably somewhat less partisan than some of his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: Some
members may laugh but I still think that is the case. I refer now to the board, its personnel and the first few words of the resolution which say that "it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act". I am opposed to this. I do not think it should be amended. I think the board should be continued as is. Even if the members of the board to whom I have just referred continued in office any length of

time they would be outvoted for sure and it is my opinion that they would be voted out.
I have said that the board is just getting started and there is no record to discuss. There are no actions to examine. There are no results to analyse. However, there has been a change in government and someone has decided to make a change in the board. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is not in the best interests of the Atlantic provinces, nor is it in the best interests of Canada as a whole.
Now, perhaps they think that this is a politically expedient thing to do. I submit they are wrong if they think it is politically expedient. It is not the politically expedient thing to do. The political expedient thing to do is to have this board function in order that it can perform the services for which it was established and clothed with the legislative authority by the previous parliament. The board should be allowed to examine things.
May I, at the risk of being repetitious repeat what I said in this house a few months ago when the board was set up? These remarks applied then and they apply now. I am quoting now:
So I point out, Mr. Chairman, the need of addressing ourselves to the problem of creating job opportunities in our own region-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. member give the page in Hansard?


Hugh John Flemming: This is not Hansard, it is the Atlantic Advocate and contains a condensation of Hansard. I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is a correct report. I am sure it is, and I am sure he has no reason to believe otherwise. It is much easier to get at, and our research facilities are somewhat limited. If I quote incorrectly I will be the first to acknowledge it.
-and then, looking at the transportation problem and also paying some special attention to the possibilities of cultivating markets where we may have natural advantages compared with other parts of Canada by reason of our location on the Atlantic seaboard.
Anything wrong with that, Mr. Chairman? Is this not what we have been harping about ever since this session started, job opportunities?
The Atlantic development board will inquire into and report to the government suggesting measures with respect to projects which promise to accelerate the growth of the area's economy.
Anything wrong with that, Mr. Chairman?
It will consider and report after investigation on projects suggested by provincial governments and other parties. This is in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister in April last.
Atlantic Development Board Act
The reason I mention these things, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: That was the concept of the Atlantic development board, and in my opinion that is still the concept in the hearts and minds of the members of this house.


An hon. Member:: What about the money?


Hugh John Flemming: My hon. friend talks about money. He sold the people of his constituency a bill of goods on that proposition. Since he has reminded me of this aspect in the matter, I may say there never was any question about funds being available to this board. During the election campaign our opponents tried to convince the public that there was no money. Well, the whole resources of Canada were behind this board. I have just read from my own remarks, and it is clear that after investigation the board, under the old legislation, made its report to the minister responsible. In this case, it would be the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State were favourably disposed towards the recommendations, he carried them to his colleagues in the government. I submit, therefore, that the whole of the resources of Canada were behind the board as it was constituted under the legislation.
There was no limit; but there is a limit now unless the minister will tell me that this $100 million fund that has been set up is only a beginning. I submit that there are many situations in the Atlantic provinces deserving of examination and investigation. These investigations could result in the processing of raw materials presently imported into the country. From the point of view of our balance of payments position, therefore, this plan has a good deal of merit. In so far as the $100 million is concerned, I want the minister to say that the $100 million is mentioned purely as an amount to draw against. The time allotted for this board to be in existence under this legislation is six years. After that, it is going to die. We have four provinces, so the unit is 24 and if we divide that into 100 we find that there will be $4 million per year for each province.
I am one of those who believes that the Atlantic provinces, or for that matter any other province, do not want to build up their economy at the expense of the rest of Canada, except in unusual circumstances. These unusual circumstances might be the securing and processing of certain materials which are strategic and which are presently being imported.
Let me come back to the question of the amount of money that will be available to the board. It seems to me that we are rather attaching altogether too much importance to figures. The Secretary of State answered a

Atlantic Development Board Act question yesterday from the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria and said that the $100 million is much better than nothing. It has been suggested that there was no money available. I am suggesting now, in all seriousness, that that is not a proper inference because all the resources of Canada were behind this board. They would be under the present government too, I am convinced, if they would just allow the board to continue.
You recall what happened, Mr. Chairman, in connection with the legislation which was passed by the federal government to assist in the Beechwood development. I have mentioned this before. The previous parliament was only asked to vote the amount necessary to pay for the project, but that is being repaid each year. It makes no difference what government is in office in New Brunswick, the money will be repaid. This was the concept at that time, and still is the concept so far as that is concerned. We needed someone to endorse our note, and it was as simple as that. Then, we were able to borrow the money on a more attractive basis, thus enabling us to deliver electricity at a cheaper price to the public and attract industry into that part of the country.
Let us take the Atlantic provinces power development program, a measure adopted when a good many hon. members were here. They voted for it. I suggest there has been something like $25 million to $30 million spent on transmission lines and in building plants in the Atlantic provinces. The electric power commissions purchase them and have a 30-year period to make payment for plants and a 40-year period in connection with transmission lines, so in the long run it costs the federal government nothing in so far as these two projects are concerned.
I am sure every hon. member from the Atlantic provinces will agree with this. They have contributed tremendously to the economic development of our part of Canada.
The reason I mention these things is simply because this is what we envisaged when the act was passed, and we received support from the then opposition. We appreciated that support at the time, and still do; but why our hon. friends opposite should now do a right about face, and first of all provide that they are going to nullify the work of these able people I have mentioned, then, second, provide that the act go out of existence on January 24, 1969, is surprising. Why they set a date for this act to die is something I cannot understand. That is something they should leave to the next parliament to decide. This parliament should not be legislating categorically for something that is going to come up in 1969. That is basically wrong, particularly


when it affects the lives, activities and the general standards of people in one part of Canada. However, that is what the resolution calls for and I am sure, you, Mr. Chairman, can quite understand my objection to it.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton but his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. gentleman is the main spokesman for the opposition I hope unanimous consent would be given to him to say what he wishes to say at this time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh John Flemming: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also wish to thank the Secretary of State. I am sure the things I am saying are so pleasant that he would want me to continue. Surely those of us in this house who represent the Atlantic provinces should be able to agree on objectives. We might disagree on the way to achieve those objectives, but surely the objectives must include the betterment and improvement of all the citizens of the Atlantic provinces who have honoured us in electing us as their representatives?
I wonder if the Liberals have had a caucus on this matter. I wonder if they all voted for this resolution which is going to sound the death knell of the Atlantic development board. Yes, Mr. Chairman, this resolution sets the date when it is going to die.


Mr. Rideout:: Gloom and doom.


Hugh John Flemming: They do need to shake their heads. All they need to do is read the resolution. On January 24, 1969 it dies. There is no question about that. Yesterday we had an explanation given to us by the Secretary of State in connection with this matter, but rather than reassuring me it disturbed me. He said that the suggested change would have significance on the effectiveness of the board for the short duration of its lifetime. The short span that is contemplated is six years and the resolution then provides for the death of the board. If the government gives the matter second thought I do not think it will continue with a resolution such as that.
I would also like to ask what are to be the qualifications of the six additional members? Last year hon. members who now sit on the government side were very worried about whether or not some defeated Conservative candidate might be appointed. Well, Mr. Chairman, to me a defeated candidate

is a man of ability. He just has not been able to get enough votes, and that is all. It could be a temporary situation.


Mr. Lambert:: The Minister of Labour subscribes to that.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That will be his position in the next election.


Hugh John Flemming: Will these six men to be appointed be employers of labour, manufacturers, industrialists, representatives of organized labour or representatives of the provincial governments?
The chairman of the Atlantic development board has said the members will carry on with their work. I am not going to transgress on the good will of the house by dealing at length with the speech which he made the other day, but in that speech he said he had been in consultation with the Secretary of State and he proposed to carry on. He also said that the job they had to do was greater than any personal attributes of any kind. I submit that is a very fine, broadminded attitude to take.
Before this debate finishes the Secretary of State might tell us whom he proposes to put on this board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In making that suggestion is the hon. gentleman suggesting that I follow the precedent he set last December?


Hugh John Flemming: With reference to what?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who was to be put on the board.


Hugh John Flemming: Well, it would be all right, if you can get men as capable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the same request was made of the hon. gentleman last December when we were debating the bill in the house and the hon. gentleman said, I think quite properly, that until parliament had passed the legislation it would not be proper for him to make any suggestions as to who would be appointed. I think I should follow that precedent and take the same position he took.


Hugh John Flemming: I hardly expected the Secretary of State was going to suggest they come from the Conservative party. With regard to the $100 million, I am one of those who are very jealous of the rights of parliament. I understand that this $100 million will not be automatically placed in an account for the board to throw here and there to provide some jobs, so that the defeated candidates might get elected at the next election and those of us who are here 28902-5-83J
18, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act now may be left at home. I think the board has to come back here for final approval before the money is spent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is quite clear in the letter.


Hugh John Flemming: As I
say, Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who is jealous of the rights of parliament and I think when the taxpayers money is going to be spent it should be voted by parliament, and when there are a few million dollars to be spent in my constituency I would expect the board to come to parliament to get authority before starting a project.
I have one more point to make, and perhaps we may get a chance to have a few words on the bill itself in committee. But at this stage, I would like to speak about the need for those of us who come from the Atlantic provinces to indicate to the rest of Canada that we are no longer going to be subject to the rule of divide and conquer. For years they have taken very outstanding people from the Atlantic provinces and brought them to Ottawa. This applies to both sides of politics, and for years they threw an odd breakwater to us, and an odd wharf to Newfoundland. They made us smile and like it, and that was about all we ever received prior to 1957. But, since 1957 a new dispensation has been ushered into the Atlantic provinces and no longer is the uniform application of an over-all principle considered good enough.
The principle of the Conservative party is that special situations demand special attention and consideration. That is something I hope we could all agree on, and so I am going to make an appeal to those on the opposite side who represent the Atlantic provinces, and especially to the Secretary of State, that they just forget about this whole question of making changes to the act; that they just allow it to stand as it is, and let it succeed or fall on the things that it is able to accomplish for the Atlantic provinces.
But give it a fair chance and do not condemn it immediately by an amendment that would really put it out of business so far as the original board is concerned. Let us go ahead and try it out. If one year hence it is decided that some improvements can be made, well and good; let the minister bring it back to this parliament. But to condemn something that has never yet had a chance to function or perform any service for this part of Canada is, in my opinion, unfair and getting quite close to being absolutely dishonest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Atlantic Development Board Act


Hugh John Flemming: Just
look at your dictionary and see what "dishonest" means.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question. Would all the members from the Atlantic provinces on the government side of the house please stand up?


Some hon. Members:: Order.
(Translation):


Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, last year I took part in the debate on the legislation concerning the creation of the Atlantic development board, and it is with pleasure that I now find myself, once again, on familiar ground. I have always taken a keen interest in the maritime provinces, partly because of the spiritual bonds which tie us to the maritime provinces, and partly because those provinces carry the burden of an underdeveloped economy.
On the other hand, the people of Saguenay region are closely linked with the Acadians. After one of the first Acadians was deported, his son left Philadelphia and crossed the border to found the colony around lake St. John. His name was Nicolas de Tolentin Hebert. So that we have yet another reason to think of the future of that part of Acadia and of the maritime provinces.
In addition, the people of the province of Quebec recently subscribed $150,000 to save a French newspaper, L'Evangeline, from extinction. I made a contribution and I am glad I did because we wish to maintain French culture in that part of the country.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, when I think that the government is considering an amendment to the legislation we adopted last year to increase from five to eleven the number of members who sit on the board, I wonder if that is not merely to check the action of the five Conservatives-if they are all Conservatives-who were appointed by the previous government. If that were the case, it would be petty politics, and I hope that is not the government's aim when it proposes to increase the number of commissioners from five to eleven.
I do not want to impute motives to anybody but I find this attitude of the government rather odd. Of course, without knowing personally the present members of that board, I do believe they were appointed because of their qualifications and I think they should be able to do their job.
[Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) .1

However, if the number of commissioners is raised to eleven to allow for a more efficient representation of each of the Atlantic regions, that is of each county in particular and especially those which are the most economically affected, the idea might have some sense.
Last year, we set forth definite ideas on the matter in this house, and I am pleased to call the attention of the house to what our national leader, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) stated, as shown in Hansard. I quote:
(Text):
One word that Social Credit will never use in connection with its policy for the maritimes is the word "welfare". Nor will it refer to the eastern provinces of Canada as a "depressed area". The truth is, and all of Canada should realize it, that the maritime provinces are potentially the richest and the most prosperous in the whole of Canada. The maritimes are not a "depressed", they are an "emerging" area.
If one looks, not at the problems of the Atlantic area, but at its resources, these are amazing. Prince Edward Island is one of the richest farming areas in the dominion. Nova Scotia has big reserves of coal, is excellently placed as a centre for shipping, and for the fishing industry. New Brunswick is not only the centre of a new base metal mining industry, and a major source of timber, but it is the site for some of the leading universities on the North American continent-an asset without price in an age where the "baby boom" coupled with a growing demand for higher education has put a premium on higher learning. Newfoundland and Labrador have immense and undeveloped potentials in hydroelectric power, fishing, lumbering and mining. All this is without mentioning the possibilities of the area for tourism, and the fact that the vast market of New York state is highly accessible by land and sea.
The basic problem of the Atlantic area is not one of resources; it is one of markets. Particularly, it is one of trade to the natural outlet of the area-the eastern United States, hampered by Canada's high tariff policy ever since the end of reciprocity in the years before confederation. Were this barrier removed, iron ore from Labrador would be smelted in Nova Scotia before being shipped to New York-instead of going directly and filling the furnaces of the middle west. Prince Edward Island farm products could break in on the American market-something that might also make undertaking the Chignecto canal worth while.
Power and raw material resources could be developed. In terms of development, the Atlantic provinces could become the British Columbia of the eastern seaboard.
(Translation):
Those are the very sensible words that were spoken here by our national leader, the hon. member for Red Deer, and I am pleased to endorse them at this time.
Now, Mr. Chairman, on reading the resolution, I note that the government intends to establish a $100 million fund in order to foster a real development in the Atlantic area. Of course, this is a most commendable and

realistic purpose, because it is not with next to nothing that the development of the maritime provinces can be promoted, but with capital. But, Mr. Chairman, what good can $100 million do for the development of the Atlantic provinces when one considers their needs? In my opinion, an amount of $100 million is only a drop in the ocean.
In order to develop the maritime provinces, at least $1 billion is needed, that is, at least $100 million every year. Therefore, $100 million are not enough. Provision should be made for that when the bill itself is introduced so that a worth-while program may be established in that regard.
I also noticed that this government is again considering, as it does for other projects, taking this money out of the consolidated revenue fund, which comes from taxation. I wonder how anyone can have such old-fashioned notions in 1963 and how anyone can, from an economic point of view, want to establish anything by taxing individuals again.
We already know that the people in the maritime provinces, as those in other areas of Canada, are overtaxed. It is no use taking money from Joe to give it to Henry. New capital must be created, as we explained during the debate on a measure concerning the municipal development and loan board. We need new capital to satisfy the needs of Canada. We cannot be satisfied with old capital that is capital already existing. We do not have enough capital. Therefore we must create new capital. Now, the Bank of Canada is the only organization capable of creating such capital, because it is the people's bank, the bank of the Canadian people, and consequently the bank of all the people in the maritime provinces. The people in the maritime provinces expect their government, if it really wants to make an effort to be of assistance to them, to participate in a vast maritime development, so that these provinces may have their own industry and keep their population at home.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to create new capital, and this new capital will have to be supplied by the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada will have to be entrusted with the responsibility for creating this capital to finance the expenses necessary for the development of the Atlantic provinces.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the few remarks I wanted to make in this debate. I hope that the government will consider them, because if we take the trouble to make suggestions or
Atlantic Development Board Act comments, it is because we wish to play a part in the preparation of the government legislation. In fact, we are all members of this government, each and everyone of us, and when we make suggestions, they should be considered.
(Text):


Mr.   Siewar@: I want to begin by reiterating a statement made by my hon. friend the Secretary of State concerning the amount of money which it is envisaged would be expended on the rehabilitation of the economy of the Atlantic provinces. The Secretary of State certainly did not wish to imply, and neither did any other member of this party wish to imply at any time, that the $100 million set forth in the present resolution would be the total sum to be expended for this purpose. As the Secretary of State said, rather repetitiously, I thought, this was merely to be a stopgap fund. Various departments of government were to be especially active in relation to the Atlantic provinces. This particular fund would be supplementary to the increased activity of the ordinary departments of government.
My main purpose in rising is to make a comment on the basic argument put forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. As I understood it, this argument was: we have before us an act of parliament, an act which was passed in the last parliament, and the present parliament should give that legislation a trial run. That was the plea made by the hon. member. Well, he was here in the last parliament and he knows what took place. He knows that those of us who were then on the other side of the house believed that though the program embodied in the act which is now under consideration moved in the right direction, it did not move far enough or emphatically enough in that direction. We argued that it was not strong enough. We argued that the board should be strengthened. However, in that parliament, our arguments did not prevail.
Then an election took place, and in the course of the campaign leading up to April 8, certain persons now members of this house delivered speeches which were made seriously by them, and taken seriously by many of their constituents. For example, in my own constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough I occasionally made reference to a pamphlet entitled, "A Better Break for the Atlantic Provinces". From that pamphlet I read a paragraph stating that Liberal policies would include "providing a stronger Atlantic development board with a capital assistance fund to promote basic development projects and to encourage the expansion of industry to provide jobs and income".

Atlantic Development Board Act
I am sure the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton can scarcely object to my taking the position in this parliament, which meets here as a result of the election of April 8, that the commitments made during that election should be honoured.
After all-and I say this without boasting -the electorate of the Atlantic provinces elected 20 members, out of the 33 from those provinces, to support the policies of the present government.
It would seem to me to be something of an affront to the electors in those provinces if those policies were now forgotten. I think the argument put forward by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton simply will not stand up. In the Atlantic provinces, we have had a decision of the supreme court of public opinion; and it is a pretty emphatic decision. I think that the resolution placed before this house by the Secretary of State will have to be supported.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask my hon. friend one question. Would he permit a question?


Mr. Stewart:: Yes, of course.


Hugh John Flemming: The
question is: Did he promise to his constituents in the election that the board would die on January 24, 1969?


John B. Stewart: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not discuss that particular point. I did discuss ways in which the board could be strengthened. As the Secretary of State pointed out, I thought rather persuasively, one of the times something never gets done is when you have an eternity in which it can be accomplished. As I understand it, the purpose of the Secretary of State and of this government in setting a terminal date is to give the board a deadline in which to produce. I think that is a salutary measure with regard to most individuals and organizations. I certainly find that I work better when I have a deadline; and I suspect that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton finds the same true in his own case.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to detain the committee very long, as I am sure hon. members will be pleased to hear, but I do wish to say that we in this party support, in a general way, the resolution before the house. We think the proposed amendments are in the right direction, perhaps hesitant steps but nevertheless going in the right direction; and as they tend to follow suggestions made in this house in the last session by members of this group, we are in favour of them.
Before I proceed to make the few observations I intend to make, perhaps I should say


something about my status, even to discuss questions which affect the maritime provinces. My constituency is in the middle of the industrial section of Toronto and it might be doubted that I should even dare speak on this subject. However, I learned to swim at the age of four in the bay of Fundy and I have vivid recollections of that. My grandfather happened to be the prime minister of one of the maritime provinces, so I think I should speak. I regret-and I say this without any disrespect to the present member for Cape Breton South-that the former member for Cape Breton South is not here so that his stentorian tones could be heard in this debate.
To return to the resolution: as I say, I think these are steps in the right direction. For example, the enlargement of the number of the members of the board was moved as an amendment in the last session of parliament by the former member for Cape Breton South and was opposed by all members of the house then present, with the exception of the members of this party. I am very happy to see that the government have studied what was then said and have adopted this suggestion. I commend to them that process as a general way of improving their legislation.
I think the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is wrong in suggesting that the proposal to enlarge the board in some way destroys its usefulness or significance. The purpose of enlarging the board, as we suggested in the last session, was to make it more representative not only of the different provinces but of the different economic groups in the maritime provinces. We are not particularly interested in whether the members are Liberals or Conservatives. All we hope is that they will be representative of business, labour, the professions and other groups who will be able to do an effective planning job. That is why we welcome this particular measure. We criticized the last bill because there was no capital fund made available. It is true that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said that the whole resources of Canada lay behind the implementation of the last bill, but we think it is a step forward to ensure that at least some of the $100 million is set aside for the purpose of seeing that this board can function effectively. Because it is absolutely ridiculous to talk of planning boards and to give them no means of operating. I heard the Secretary of State and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough point out that this $100 million is only supplementary, but we feel that it is inadequate in any event.
I should like, Mr. Chairman, to refer to what my leader said in the last parliament

when this suggestion was made. He said that if expenditure of money helps to provide full employment and take people off the social welfare roll and off unemployment insurance, it will be the best investment the people of Canada ever made; so let us not begrudge expenditure of money like this. Those sentiments were expressed in answer to the suggestion that there be a fund of a billion dollars for the next five years. We suggested that that might not be adequate. What we fear is that the funds available to carry out the planning proposed under this board will prove to be inadequate to carry out the task.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I have any more time before five o'clock-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.


Donald MacInnis: As the member for Cape Breton South, just to identify myself, I should like the hon. member to be aware of the fact that I recognize a needle when I see it, and I would be only too happy if he took the time to explain the activities in toto of the former member for Cape Breton South when he was in this house.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will leave that to you. As far as the former member for Cape Breton South is concerned, if the present hon. member does half as good a job as he did he will do a lot better than the other members of his party.


Donald MacInnis: I asked the hon. member whether he would take the time to explain all his activities within this building.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It would not take long to explain yours.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Greenwood, but it being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-13, to incorporate Standard Trust Company.
Private Bills


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, does the sponsor of this bill not intend to indicate something about its nature? As I understand it, there should be some explanation given as to why this bill has been brought before parliament for the second time.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate Standard Trust Company. As has been indicated by the hon. member, Standard Trust Company was incorporated by parliament several years ago. Under the law a company so incorporated is required to commence business within two years. Standard Trust Company was not satisfied that it had been able to find within that period the management which it thought was desirable for the company and accordingly it did not commence business. It is now satisfied that it has both the capital and the management which are required and accordingly it is necessary to apply for the incorporation of the company again.
The bill has passed through the Senate and, of course, is now before this house. These trust companies provide a wide range of useful services to the community. They are subject to public regulation and control under the very detailed conditions and restrictions set out in the Trust Companies Act. The provisions of the bill now before the house are the usual. I believe they are selfexplanatory and require no detailed explanation. However, if there are any questions I will be happy to do my best to answer them.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it appears that in 1959 this bill, or a similar one, was introduced and we were led to believe that some of the problems to which the hon. member has referred were resolved at that time and the company was not only prepared to start operations then but was anxious to do so. We have noted that since that time the company has not begun operation and we also notice that there are a number of changes in the bill now before us from the one that was previously brought before parliament.
Before we go into some of those changes, and whether or not they are advantageous, I should like to refer to a broader matter that has to do with companies of this nature. It is one that has been widely discussed by the Liberal party in recent months and has to do with the Canadian composition of such companies and the Canadian element, so far as the shareholders, directors and money involved in the operation are concerned. You

Private Bills
will note, Mr. Speaker, that in this case the company incorporated in 1959 had two directors on its board who are not among the board of directors set forth in the bill now before us incorporating Standard Trust Company. They were Mr. Harry Willis residing at Belfountain, Ontario, a lawyer, and Mr. Murray Axmith, an executive, chartered accountant and director of a number of companies in Ontario.
I would presume that these two people were the executive officers who were going to administer the company and I am surprised that they have been removed without any replacements being suggested to us. We agree with those in the Liberal party, and I think they are in the majority, who believe that there should be greater control of a Canadian companies by Canadians, that we should have available to us Canadian trust companies that will provide the services this company is seeking to provide and that we should be assured that the shareholders and directors are Canadians and that the shares are owned by Canadians.
I am aware of the fact, of course, that the statutes of Canada make it mandatory that in any company of this nature incorporated under the Trust Companies Act the majority of the board of directors must be normally resident in Canada and be either Canadian citizens by birth or by naturalization. I suggest that we should be assured and that it should be set forth in the bill that all the directors of this company must be Canadians normally resident in Canada. I suggest we should also go further and ascertain whether or not the shareholders are Canadians and whether or not the stock is under the control of Canadians.
I question that this is true in this case because I am aware that one of the proposed directors of this company is also a director of a number of companies whose shares are widespread, and it is difficult to ascertain from a quick perusal of these companies whether or not they are actually controlled in Canada. If we are going to do as the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and former adviser on the economic development of Canada has said, and buy Canada back, I suggest it is essential before starting to do so that we direct that any company incorporated under the Trust Companies Act should meet these requirements in the initial stages. I suggest that we should be told, not only with regard to this company but other companies as well, that this matter has been considered with the result that these companies are truly Canadian.
We should like to suggest to the members of the other place that when these bills are referred to their committee a great deal of

advantage could accrue to this house if their proceedings were recorded. In that way the discussions and deliberations of the banking and commerce committee of the other place would be made available to members of this house. It may be repetitious for us to have to ascertain facts that may have previously been made known in the other place, and for what it is worth I make the suggestion that the banking and commerce committee of the other place keep a record of its proceedings so that this information will be available.
It will be noted from the bill that the company will have a capitalization of $5 million whereas in the 1959 bill the amount sought was only $3 million. This money will be contributed by subscription, I presume, and no doubt very large sums will come from some of the companies with which the proposed members of the board of directors of this company are connected. This raises a very difficult problem. I will only refer to the director who I know is connected with the mining industry. Many of the mining companies are holding companies which delegate their authority down the line and as a result it is very difficult to ascertain where the ownership of this company will really lie.
I suggest that the committee should give very serious consideration to ascertaining the facts in relation to the Canadian composition of this company before we give any consideration to the passing of the bill. I am sure that other bills of a similar nature will be brought before the house in which similar powers will be sought. Parliament in the past has seen fit to enact the Trust Companies Act and I should like to refer particularly to section 19 where I find these words:
The majority of the directors of the company shall at all times be persons resident in Canada and subjects of Her Majesty by birth or naturalization.
In my view this was a very forthright and forward step, and having in mind that we are having difficulty in controlling our own economy from the point of view of the companies that operate in Canada I think that this kind of commitment should be made to the house when the incorporation of any such company is sought. I think the sponsor of the bill has an obligation to the house to give us some information with regard to why this company did not proceed to operate. The bill incorporating this company was passed in 1959, and I feel there is an obligation on the sponsor of the measure before us to tell us why the company did not proceed to operate in the normal manner during the last four or five years.
A limitation of two years was set by parliament as the time within which such a company should commence operations. This

provision was enacted for the protection of the general public. I believe that there has been a circumvention of this provision and the members of the house should be made aware of the reasons this company did not proceed with its intentions. I believe that in setting up the original board of directors there was an attempt to obtain men with business administration ability. There was a lawyer appointed; but it may be debatable whether or not this is any protection to the shareholders of a trust company in the province of Ontario. However, I believe that was the intention. Then, too, there was the appointment of an accountant to the board of directors, a man of whom it was said at the time that he was a chartered accountant, an executive and director of a number of companies in Ontario and a resident of the township of Etobicoke. These two gentlemen, it would seem to me, formed the business side of this trust company. The other people were well known figures, including several cattle breeders, a well known grain operator in the province of Ontario and a well known real estate operator in the city of Toronto, as well as a former member of the Ontario legislature and a former cabinet minister.
These people are members of the new board of directors, and personally I can see nothing wrong with that. I do believe that these people may lack the business sense that was associated with the establishment of the original board of directors. However, on the earlier occasion a point was made of establishing a board containing people of administrative ability such as a chartered accountant or practising lawyer.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these are questions that should be answered. Why was this company unable to raise the necessary money to commence operation? We were told that they would be able to do so in the very near future. A statement to this effect will be found on page 863 of Senate Debates for June 18, 1959. I quote:
In the bill it is proposed that the capital stock of the company shall be $3 million, which may be increased to $5 million if such an increase is found necessary.
It is interesting to note that before this company ever starts operations, the new company has found it necessary to ask for $5 million, even though the old company did not obtain the $3 million necessary to commence operations. I continue to quote:
Honourable senators will note from clause 4 of the bill that $500,000 must be subscribed before the provisional directors can call a general meeting of shareholders for the purpose of organizing the company. This, I understand, conforms with the provisions of the Trust Companies Act.
Private Bills
Furthermore, the bill provides that even after the sum of $500,000 has been subscribed the company shall not commence business until $1 million of capital stock shall have been subscribed and at least $1 million paid thereon.
From information furnished to me I understand that it is the present intention of the sponsors of this bill to provide that $1,100,000 shall be paid for the first $1 million of capital stock which shall be subscribed for and issued, the purpose of this being to immediately provide this company with a capital surplus of $100,000. As all honourable senators well know, a trust company loses money when it first commences to do business, and the sponsors feel that rather than have the capital of the company impaired by a loss which the company will incur when it commences business, the company will be provided with a capital surplus of approximately $100,000, and any loss which may be incurred can be charged against the capital surplus account.
I understand from the sponsors that they are in a position to immediately provide the trust company with stock transfer business which should produce an annual income of approximately $100,000 for the company.
This statement, Mr. Speaker, was made by the Hon. Senator Brunt during his remarks when he introduced the bill which was subsequently passed by the Senate and this house. However, four years later this company has not been able to raise the original million dollars. They have not been able ta form the company and an indication has been given to the house that they have not even raised the $500,000 necessary before a meeting of the shareholders can be called.
I feel these matters are of prime concern to the house in the establishment of a trust company. It would seem to me that, if this company cannot live up to the trust we have already put in it when the bill was before us in 1959, then it should not be called a trust company at all. There is an indication that if the name of the company is not suitable to government officials and the banking and commerce committee decides to change it, the company would be agreeable. If that is so, we could call it something other than a trust company.
I believe that this is a matter of great importance. If we are given to understand that certain things will be done, certain responsibilities carried out in an area over which we have complete jurisdiction, then I believe we are entitled to a full explanation as to why these things have not been possible. We should be told why the company did not proceed as it originally intended, why certain people have been dropped from the board of directors, why the board of directors does not now contain persons of recognized ability in certain fields such as accounting and law.
I should like to see the house consider this bill, if that is its wish, but I should like to see the bill considered on the basis of the fact that the company has already failed

Private Bills
to live up to the obligations it assumed upon obtaining its original charter. Then, too, we should give consideration to the argument that a trust company incorporated in Canada should have a provision in its charter to the effect that Canadian ownership of that trust company will be maintained. This provision should apply not only to the board of directors but to the shareholders as well.
Certainly the day has now arrived when we are in a position to do something on our own behalf about some of these companies. I believe there is a growing desire for us to have companies that are completely Canadian, that will concern themselves with Canadian problems and with meeting Canadian conditions. I suggest this will not happen if the majority of the money is brought in through mining companies that may not be controlled in Canada, or through other organizations most of whose stock is held outside Canada.
There can be an acceptance of the principle of Canadian ownership and operation of companies only when we in the parliament of Canada are willing to amend our own legislation to that effect. I suggest that the bill be not read now and that it be referred back, not to the committee but to the sponsor himself, so that he can give further consideration to some of these problems, and later present it again to the house, having taken into account some of the problems that are very important to the passing of this particular bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Frank Howard: Before we proceed to come to a conclusion about this bill there are some points I would like to mention, following along the general tenor of the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). We believe that all necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the corporate structure in Canada is Canadian owned all the way across the board and all through its operations, and that lip service alone is not sufficient, such as has been the case in the past few years.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) introducing the bill indicated that this company is different in so far as the members of the initial board of directors are concerned, and different in one other aspect about its capitalization; but he also said the company was in fact incorporated by private bill some four years ago in 1959. So far as the Senate was concerned it was incorporated again during the last session of parliament, but with the intervention of dissolution it did not proceed through this chamber.

I gather that the persons who are listed as being the petitioners, and who in fact will be the provisional directors of this company, are at the moment Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada. Their names are given in clause 1 of the bill, and also their occupations and addresses, which I understand are all in Ontario. This in itself is laudable. This is something we all like to see, Canadian citizens participating in the formation of companies and the development of our industries. But while they may be at present Canadians there is no guarantee anywhere in the bill that such will always be the case, except in so far as the provisions of the Trust Companies Act apply, which requires that all such companies shall have Canadian citizens as the majority of their directors. Actually "British subjects" I think are the words in the Trust Companies Act, and this has been dealt with by the hon. member for Timiskaming.
To us this is the key point we should be looking at in so far as the incorporation of this particular company is concerned. We should be looking at this and other similar companies from the point of view of Canadian ownership so far as capital is concerned, and as members of parliament we should be seeking to give full effect to the desire that rests in all hon. members to develop and promote Canadianism, and Canadian ownership and control of corporations in Canada, using our resources and finances.
Two years ago we had quite a lengthy debate in parliament concerning a similar subject matter. It was a pipe line company, Aurora Pipe Lines Limited, and at that time it took a considerable amount of discussion, debate, crossfire and argument to get the sponsor of the legislation and the company which was to be incorporated to agree that all directors of the company should at all times be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada. It took many weeks of debate to achieve that, and I hope such will not be the case in this parliament. I hope that principle and concept will be readily agreed to by the people who are petitioning for the incorporation of this company, and that they will be agreed to by the sponsor of the bill.
For many years our predecessors in politics, the C.C.F. party, advocated and campaigned on the concept and principle of Canadian ownership and Canadian control of our industry. It was not too many years ago when that idea was ridiculed and pooh-poohed by other political parties, and especially by people in the business world. But gradually, arising from the principle advocated by the C.C.F. party, there has come to be an understanding and appreciation on the part of all

political parties that we must do something to regain control of our own industry and our [DOT]own economic destiny.
Ours is no longer a lone voice arguing this particular principle of Canadianism. Four or five years ago we were joined by the Conservative party. Admittedly at that time it was bent solely and simply on getting into [DOT]office, regardless of how it got there through promises; but nevertheless in 1957 it did embrace the concept of Canadian ownership and control. It is true also that following its attainment of office it did not do very much to put that concept into effect. Now we have the Liberal party in office. At one time it objected strenuously to the ideas we expressed and which we promote now. But we do have articles written and comments made by the present Minister of Finance, before he became minister, about the objectives we must have and the steps we must take to develop Canadian ownership of industry and other economic activities in this country. In fact, there appeared in the Weekend magazine published during the election campaign a very extensive article written by one Walter Gordon. The article was entitled "We must buy back Canada", and the subtitle was, "The Liberals' expert on business gives his recipe for independence". I might add as an aside that it did not give his recipe for independence from Toronto businessmen and financiers, but none the less I presume it gave his recipe for the economic independence of Canada. The article indicates who Walter Gordon is; it gives his background in so far as being chairman of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects is concerned, and similar information.
In this article the Minister of Finance- of course, he was not then the minister- goes into great detail, although not as great as one would wish, about the degree of foreign investment in Canada dating back to 1900. He shows the tremendous growth, in billions of dollars, of total foreign investment in Canada since that time, from just a little over $1 billion in 1900 to something more than $22 billion in 1960. He indicates the percentage of foreign ownership and control of selected industries in Canada, going back to 1954 in this instance. But throughout this article-and I do not intend to quote sections from it-the person classified as the Liberals' expert on business who is giving his recipe for Canadian economic independence, presumably, talks about the degree of foreign ownership and control of Canadian industry, the damaging effects this has upon our economic growth and the steps which are necessary to overcome this situation. We agree with what the Minister of Finance
Private Bills
wrote in that article in so far as the damaging effects of foreign ownership and control upon Canadian industry are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief reference to a governmental publication in support of the attitude expressed by the Minister of Finance in that article. The publication from which I quote was referred to in a previous parliament. It is the Canadian Balance of International Payments, 1960, and International Investment Position, a publication of the dominion bureau of statistics. I quote from page 58 of this official government publication on the growth of foreign control and investment in Canada:
Perhaps the most striking feature of these series,-
This is referring to the series of statistics:
-viewed in the perspective of a third of a century, embracing depression and boom, war and peace, is the consistency of the direction of the changes. Foreign ownership of Canadian manufacturing has inched up from 38 per cent in 1926 to 51 per cent in 1959 and control has gone from 35 per cent to 57 per cent. Foreign ownership of mining and smelting has also reflected an almost uninterrupted growth from 37 per cent in 1926 to 59 per cent in 1959 and control has risen from 38 per cent to 61 per cent. Apart from these industries there has developed a substantial petroleum and natural gas industry which is 63 per cent foreign owned and 75 per cent foreign controlled.
The dominion bureau of statistics figures are from 1926 which, as I understand it, was the year the d.b.s. started to compile statistics of this sort. These statistics show that from 1926, at least, until 1959, which is the last year for which I have the figures, there was a steady, uninterrupted, year by year increase in the degree and percentage of foreign control and ownership of Canadian industry. What it does not say, and what I am sure everyone realizes, is that from 1926 until this very day, unfortunately, we have had either a Liberal or a Conservative government in office in Canada and it did not particularly matter in those years who was in and who was out, the growth was the same; the give away of our resources to foreign interests was identical whether there was a Liberal or a Conservative government in office. It was during the later years to which these statistics refer that, as I said earlier, those in the C.C.F. party were campaigning both at election time and in this house-I refer to my predecessors here in the C.C.F. party-for a return into Canadian hands of the control of our economic destiny. It was during those years that the Liberals and the Conservatives, whether in government or in opposition, turned a deaf ear and refused to listen. This was the situation up to a couple of years ago. As a result, we are now stuck with the inheritance of the blindness of each of these old line parties on this

Private Bills
question of owning and controlling our economic activity and destiny. This economic independence is what we are trying to accomplish.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, at one time both the old line parties objected to this course of action. At one time they refused absolutely to concern themselves with whether the growth of foreign ownership was damaging or otherwise to Canadian interests. They refused absolutely to even study the question, and only in the last four or five years were any public pronouncements made by either the Liberals or the Conservatives about this all important question which now confronts us. It confronts us in the bill that is before us; it does not only confront us as a general proposition. It does not only confront us in so far as our manufacturing industry is concerned, the mining and smelting industry, the petroleum and natural gas industry or any other industry. This question of foreign ownership and control confronts us perhaps even more in the field of finance, in the field of control over interest rates, the operation and issuance of currency, credit and the like. I refer to the field of banking, the financial structure of Canada, the trust and loan companies field, the mortgage field and the like.
We have before us just one small part of the problem which concerns us. That small part is Standard Trust Company, an act to incorporate this body. While it may be a rather small company, only one company, and some may consider that it is just a small part of the total trust and loan company picture in Canada and an even smaller part of the total financial interests in Canada, nevertheless we must start to deal with this problem at some point. I suggest this is the point at which to start, when the issue comes before us.
The capital stock of the company is established as being $5 million. I have here the report of the superintendent of insurance for Canada for the year ending December 31, 1961. In it there are listed 15 trust companies in Canada. I presume there are only 15 trust companies in Canada, although I may be inaccurately informed-I may have been misreading the information in this report. The report is not particularly voluminous, it is true, but none the less it is filled with statistics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret I must interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I have to advise him his time has expired.


Reid Scott: I should like to say one or two words on the bill. We certainly do not wish to hold the bill up in any way because we think it should go to the

committee where it could be studied in detail and where the interested parties could appear and give evidence.
We want to get on with the business of the house so that this measure may be referred to the appropriate committee for more careful consideration. I understand, in any case, that in sending such a bill as this to a committee we are not, really, endorsing the principle of the measure; I think we were told that in the last parliament. Bills such as this are allowed to go forward on a second reading for a more detailed study. However, there are some doubts I wish to express at this stage in order that the sponsors may give consideration to them before the bill is considered by the committee.
Previous speakers from this party have stated that our main concern in these matters is to try to build into the bill itself sufficient safeguards to ensure that these various financial companies which we are incorporating shall not at some later date pass into the hands of people who reside outside Canada. I have read over the names of the provisional directors. These are, of course, only provisional and they will change at a later date. Some of these names are familiar and they appear to belong to excellent individuals. At the same time, it is not sufficient to have as a majority of the directors people who are normally resident in Canada. This ensures, of course, that the Canadian point of view is available to the company at all times. We are more concerned however with the idea of Canadian control, and this does not necessarily follow merely because the majority of directors will be people resident in Canada.
It is more important to build into the bill some safeguards attached to the actual stock of the company, its eventual distribution and the hands into which it will finally pass. We are making these observations at this point to suggest to the sponsors of the bill that some consideration be given to revising the capital stock of the company so that the majority of the common shares will always be held by Canadian citizens. If this is done we need never fear that control of the company will pass into hands outside our borders. This is in no way discourteous or unfriendly to people outside Canada. They are probably all good businessmen. But we feel that as a matter of the good, practical running of the country, institutions of this type should always remain under Canadian control.
As other hon. members have pointed out, these institutions are often small in the beginning-though I notice that this one has a capital of $5 million. As they continue to

operate in the community they acquire substantial assets. Trust companies, in particular, are now spreading out into the banking field in Canada and taking deep root in the monetary community. I recall that in the last parliament we had a measure before us seeking to incorporate the Allstate Life Insurance Company. Objections were raised then to the effect that this company, from its inception, would be 87 per cent owned by a United States company. We objected to this at the time and asked that consideration be given to revising the capital set-up so that the controlling shares would remain in Canada. This suggestion was enthusiastically received by the sponsor of the bill, and I understand consideration was being given to that proposal. However, parliament dissolved and we were not able to revive that measure. I know this is a reasonable proposal, and perhaps it would find favour with sponsors of the present measure.
What we are discussing here goes to the root of the Canadian economy and to the main problem facing it, which is the continuing drift of Canadian resources into hands outside our borders. It is not necessary, I am sure, to repeat the difficulties which this creates for a community-the problems of planning and the handicaps to the intelligent running of our economy. I think it is true to say there is no country in the modern world which has permitted as large a proportion of its natural resources to be controlled from outside its borders as has Canada. That is why we are trying to serve notice that in all these bills we are anxious to see that safeguards are built in to see that at some time in the future control of policy and shares will not pass into hands outside Canada. It is often said that by taking this attitude we are limiting the desire of people outside our borders to invest in Canada. Of course, no one wants that to come about, because capital from outside sources is still needed. However, examination of the capital available in Canada indicates that this fear is exaggerated. Many sources of development capital are available within our own borders, but no real attempt has been made to marshal this capital. We are told that a measure will be brought before the house designed to meet this difficulty. If that is true, and if the necessary capital funds are made available, we need have no fear about building into measures of this kind the safeguards which spokesmen for our party are suggesting this afternoon. If the capital is available in Canada there need never be any fear of getting into difficulties with groups outside the country.
These are all the observations I have to make at this time. As I say, we do not want to delay the measure unnecessarily, though we
Private Bills
do wish to emphasize to other members who are sponsoring these pieces of legislation that we intend to do every thing we can within the rules to ensure that financial institutions and corporations set up by this parliament will be so established that the control of their policy and assets will remain in the hands of Canadian citizens in perpetuity.


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


Reid Scott: Certainly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In line with the principles he has been enunciating, would the hon. member favour the control which prevents international and United States trade unions controlling Canadian locals by way of the trusteeship provisions in the constitutions of these international trade unions?


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I trust that if I can take half an hour to answer this question you will not rule me out of order on the ground my observations are not pertinent to the bill under discussion. It is another question entirely.


Mr. Cashin:: I suggest that the hon. member would not be able to last half an hour, as it is now eight minutes to six. I think that is obvious.


Reid Scott: If the hon. member is challenging me to do so I will certainly make the attempt.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Reid Scott: No, Mr. Speaker, I am answering the hon. gentleman's question.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Hurry up; time is running out.


Reid Scott: The hon. gentleman asked me some time ago, having regard to our submissions on the bill, whether I would comment on the degree of control exercised over Canadian unions by United States counterparts. In answer to him my first submission would be that this degree of control is greatly exaggerated; that Canadian unions over the years have increasingly developed their own autonomy within the international structure; that the actual degree of control exerted over Canadian unions is exaggerated out of all proportion to the true situation. There are, of course, some international unions which exercise a very marked degree of control over their Canadian counterparts. Speaking for myself, I would be just as opposed to that as I would be to Canadian companies being controlled by outside companies. I do not think you can blow hot and cold; if you are asking that the business community be freed from exterior influences, I think it follows

Private Bills
that other sections of the community must similarly be freed from exterior influences.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have spoken in the house. I will dispense with the usual formalities; you can take them as read.
I have listened with great interest to preceding speakers talking about something which I am not too sure they know anything about. When they were pinned down on the difference between unions and private business they were not too sure of themselves. A budget has been put before this house and in the budget we have control over foreign investment. I suggest we report the bill, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak on this bill to incorporate the Standard Trust Company, but sitting here and listening to the lucid arguments of the handsome members for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and Skeena (Mr. Howard), and the very intelligent presentation by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), I am moved to speak on the bill. It is not good enough for the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), in introducing the bill, simply to say that he is willing to answer questions, or to sit there with a bland and beatific expression on his face while debate takes place on this bill. This bill is of such importance-it is only a small bill but we are discussing a principle-that the members of this house are entitled to a full explanation of the historical background, which was dealt with at some length by the hon. member for Timiskaming, the developments since, all the circumstances surrounding the incorporators of the company, and the ownership, the purposes and the motives behind its incorporation. I am sure we are not going to be satisfied until we have had a complete explanation from the hon. member for St. Paul's with respect to all the problems and questions raised by the preceding speakers from this group.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who preceded me is looking in this direction, and I thought I heard him say something to the effect that we did not know what we were talking about. I am a little under the impression that at this time the hon. member himself does not know quite where he is.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to withdraw that remark, but you cannot stop me from thinking.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, Mr. Speaker, I had not concluded. I have not had my 20 minutes yet.

This is an important bill. Mr. Speaker, T looked up the record-I got some material hurriedly as the debate went on-and I found that this company, if it is incorporated, will have the third largest capital of any trust company in Canada. The bill provides for $5 million, and there are two other companies which have a capital of $10 million. This sum represents a very considerable corporation which will do a considerable amount of business if its incorporation is secured.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to make certain that all is in order with this incorporation and that we in this house begin to practise what we preach, which is to make certain that there is Canadian ownership and control over this corporation. In this connection I want to quote from a book I have been reading recently called: "How they sold our Canada to the U.S.A.", written by Mr. Andrew Lamorie. On page 49 I find a very interesting comment. Paragraph 12 says:
Newest American device is to set up "investment trusts" in Canada. Such a trust does no real investing or developing itself, but purchases large blocks of stock in Canadian producing companies. American owners of the trusts, no matter how much profit they make, pay no taxes. They are even permitted to take their profits and buy up more Canadian holdings-on and on, indefinitely, building a pyramid of Canadian wealth owned entirely by Americans.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act to increase the' number of members of the Atlantic development board from five to eleven; to establish as a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund an Atlantic development fund to which shall be credited the sum of one hundred million dollars to be used for the purpose of financing or assisting in financing programs or projects that would contribute to the growth and development of the economy of the Atlantic region and for which satisfactory financing arrangements are not otherwise available; and to provide that the said act shall expire on the 24th day of January, 1969; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the said act.
Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.



AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, before the house took up private members' business at five o'clock I was explaining the reasons why members of this party support the resolution and why they will be particularly interested to see the actual legislation proposed. I explained that the first amendment to the act provided for by the resolution followed in effect an amendment proposed by this party in the last parliament, and that in our view the increase in the size of the board from five to 11 members would enable the board to be more representative and therefore a more effective planning instrument.
I also said that the other proposal in the resolution, namely that a fund of $100 million be used for financing projects approved by the board, in our opinion filled a gap in the former legislation. I pointed out, however, that even though the Secretary of State and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough both said that the fund of $100 million was only a supplement, we in this party seriously doubted its adequacy. After all, this sum of $100 million apparently is to be spread over approximately six years and to cover four provinces and we think the amount is small enough.
It is our view, Mr. Chairman, that adequate capital expenditures are essential if the economic planning for the maritimes is to be on a scale that will enable these provinces to reach permanently a situation of economic welfare on a parity with the rest of Canada. To put it another way, what is needed is not just a minimum sum for some sort of bailing out operation but a considered estimate of the full resources needed to finish the job. Perhaps the board itself in the course of time will make a report to be brought back to this house showing what the scale of such capital expenditures should be in order to do the job, because it is our view that it just is not good enough to do half a job. Half a job is very little better than no job at all and we want to ensure that when this economic planning is carried out it is carried out on a scale that will be genuinely effective. If we are not going to do a real job, let us not even pretend that we are going to do it at all.
In our view there are other gaps in the resolution that we hope will be repaired in the legislation or in the course of the passage of the legislation through the house. For example, we feel that there should definitely be a full time chairman at least, and perhaps other members of the board should be full
18, 1963	1303
Atlantic Development Board Act time. The proposal to have a major planning instrument composed of, be it five or 11 or 15 busy men who only meet occasionally, is in our opinion to ensure-and this, I think, was the view expressed by the member for Antigonish-Guysborough in the last session -that the board will not accomplish very much. I have a passage in Hansard where he expounded his views on this matter and I should like to read it, because his views then express the views that we have now. I regret that he does not seem as yet to have persuaded the government to accept them. He said, as found on page 2382 of Hansard for December 6, 1962:
-1 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-
He was referring, of course, to the previous 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.
It is still our view, Mr. Chairman-whether it is still the view of the member for Antigonish-Guysborough I am not sure-that it is essential if this board is to function effectively that at least the chairman and probably some other members should have full time jobs. I recall that in the last house the former member for York South referred to another planning measure that was introduced, and which provided for part time voluntary membership on the board, as a cocktail time planning board. We feel that if this task is to be tackled seriously, then indeed it should be a full time board; or if not all of the 11 members, then at least a substantial number of the members should be on the job full time and devoting their whole energies to it.
I more or less apologized, Mr. Chairman, when I started to speak on the resolution this afternoon for getting into the debate when I do not represent a maritime constituency. If I did apologize, I wish to withdraw any such apology because my constituents, although they are in Toronto, are deeply concerned about the economic welfare of all Canada, and I think we have to look at this matter as Canadians. We have to be ready to take whatever effective steps by way of economic planning are necessary, and I may say that we in this party will do all we can to ensure that the legislation when it is brought in is given

Atlantic Development Board Act effective consideration. We will very likely suggest amendments to make it more effective, and we hope that it will turn out to be a worth-while planning instrument in order to give a long overdue measure of fairness and economic justice to the maritime provinces.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks may I say to the hon. member for Greenwood that as a member from the Atlantic provinces I certainly welcome any remarks he may wish to make that may be of assistance in making our area a better place in which our people can live. Certainly we welcome remarks by any member from any part of Canada. We hope that all Canadians are aware of the problems of our area and are interested in eliminating them as quickly as possible.
In this regard I think you have to look at the proposed amendments to the Atlantic Development Board Act very carefully. I may say that I looked forward with anticipation to the remarks made by the Secretary of State last evening, when he outlined in his short dissertation what he felt would be the result of the amendments to the Atlantic Development Board Act.	*
May I say that I was amazed, truthfully amazed, when the Secretary of State put on Hansard last evening the letter he had written to Mr. Wardell, the chairman of this board. It was, in my opinion, a tremendous affront to the chairman of a board established by the government of this country during the last parliament. Even more than that, Mr. Chairman, I was amazed, knowing the great ability of the Secretary of State when it comes to political strategy, at the inept effort to destroy the effectiveness of the outstanding men we appointed to this board during the last parliament. Usually one of the great tributes paid to the members from the Atlantic provinces is their ability to know practical politics as well as any group of members in *any part of Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, one did not even have to be a member of this house to see through the amendments the Secretary of State has placed before this house. All one has to do is to read the article by Charles Lynch in tonight's Ottawa Citizen which carries the headline, "Atlantic board chairman gets ouster with finesse". Well, I do not know how much finesse the Secretary of State used, but I thought it was about as blatant an act as could possibly be perpetrated on a citizen who is so highly regarded in the Atlantic provinces, a man who has given his all and who has asked for nothing from our area.
I understand that there are some members of the Liberal party who are not very happy with Mr. Wardell. They say that he is a

political partisan. Well, Mr. Chairman, here is the latest edition of the Atlantic Advocate and all may see the picture of the gentleman on the cover. He is sitting in the gallery now, and I do not believe he could be pointed out as a Conservative.


John B. Stewart: Could we have the name of the publication and the date?


An hon. Member:: What is the name of the person?


Robert Carman Coates: It is Premier Smallwood. When you look inside, you find a very lengthy story about this gentleman from Newfoundland.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, there must be some other reason the Secretary of State wants to cut off the head of the chairman of the Atlantic development board. It cannot be merely because he is a partisan Conservative. I am sure he would be willing to recognize that. Perhaps the reason can be found in the article, something that Brigadier Wardell had to say about the former government and what they anticipated when they appointed him. Perhaps it was this expectation that was the reason for the suggested enlargement in the membership of the Atlantic development board. This is what he had to say:
Indeed, I always felt that the very fact of my appointment was evidence of the previous government's intention to go the whole way in the application of the remedies-
The remedy he is talking about here is not this $100 million. He is talking about $4 billion. I say that $100 million is a piker's approach to the problems of the Atlantic provinces.


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: Why did you not say so last year?


Robert Carman Coates: Because I did not have to say so; we had the treasury of Canada behind us. Brigadier Wardell went on to say this:
I have campaigned for years to demonstrate the formidable scale of attack. I, and the publications I control, have always been completely independent politically. I should have been the last person the government would have chosen if they were not meaning to carry the policy through to its ultimate conclusion.
What better evidence, Mr. Chairman, than the words of the man we appointed to be the chairman of the Atlantic development board that we were going to spend a billion dollars in the next ten years if we had remained the government?


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: Why did you not put it in the bill?


Robert Carman Coates: We did not have to put it in the bill. We had the federal treasury available to the Atlantic provinces, all the money for all the projects that you could possibly anticipate. Since the hon. member is talking

about money, I might ask him: what is $100 million going to do for the Chignecto complex when it would take $350 million to build the dams alone? Are you willing to support the construction of the Chignecto complex and the Chignecto canal? The hon. member is shaking his head. He does not support the construction of the Chignecto complex.


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: Not out of these funds.


Robert Carman Coates: I am glad to hear the hon. member for Westmorland say he does not support it.


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: Not out of these funds.


Robert Carman Coates: That is quite a revelation; it will be quite a revelation to the people of Westmorland. This is all the more reason for feeling that the Chignecto canal committee should meet, and meet early to find out what this government is going to do with this project, now that Liberal members are standing up and saying they are opposed to it.


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: Why did you not do something about it?


Robert Carman Coates: I should like to know what more I could have done, unless it was taking a spade and going out and digging the ditches myself. I would have been willing to do that if I thought it would have accomplished anything.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have had some very helpful remarks from the members on the opposite side. I hope we will have some more. I look forward-


An hon. Member:: Speed it up a little.


Robert Carman Coates: The gentleman says, "Speed it up a little". I say to him that he will not say, "speed it up a little"-


Sherwood Hayes Rideout: Yes, we will.


Robert Carman Coates: If you can speed up anything that would accomplish something for the Atlantic provinces, rather than the destruction of the Atlantic development board, then I will be happy to hear from you. Until then, I suggest perhaps you should stand on your own two feet, do your own talking and put your own proposals before this house.
Now, I should like to make a few comments on this letter the Secretary of State wrote to the chairman. I quote from it, in part:
The board will have the responsibility of recommending the expenditure of this fund and of supervising such expenditures, but the final approval of each capital project rests with the government.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State just how these projects will finally be approved? Will it be by the cabinet or the House of Commons, or by the premier of
Atlantic Development Board Act Newfoundland? If it is to be by the cabinet, then let's face it: all we are doing is providing a patronage fund of $100 million for the Liberal party in the Atlantic provinces, and I do not think anybody in the Atlantic provinces wants that sort of set-up.
There are other questions I would like answered. I would like the Minister of Labour to say whether he approves of the demotion of Frank Sobey, who was vice-chairman with a four year appointment, to an ordinary member for one year? I would like to know whether the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough approves of Frank Sobey's dismissal from the board, because that is what it is. I would like to hear from the other members from the Atlantic provinces to know if they approve of such actions.
This is the lowest type of political partisanship that could possibly be found anywhere, and I feel that the Atlantic provinces deserve something better than that. If that is what we are to look forward to receiving from the Liberal government then, while the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough pointed out that they had 20 Liberals from the Atlantic provinces last time, I venture to say they will have none when the next election comes around.
There are many other aspects of the measure that are of particular importance to hon. members from the Atlantic area. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State has consulted and personally written the various members of the board to tell them their term was going to be reduced to one year. I realize he has written the chairman, and the chairman is aware of this, but I would like to know if the other members have been advised.
I would also like the Secretary of State to inform me whether he is planning on advising the provincial governments about the six further appointments that are to be made to the board, something which he suggested in the last parliament we should do. I would also like to know if the Secretary of State really believes the gentlemen we appointed, the ablest men available in the Atlantic provinces, are not just remaining on this board because they do not want to get into a public fight with the government of the day over its political partisanship. I believe they are too fine a group of gentlemen to say to the government just how contemptible an act this is. You, know, Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to think of a word sufficient to describe how low an act it is and still use parliamentary language.


Mr. Bell:: How about the word "Liberal"?


Robert Carman Coates: The word Liberal probably describes it just as well as any that could be

Atlantic Development Board Act found. Fifty or sixty years ago this type of attitude might have been acceptable, but it is not the type of approach we look forward to in the Atlantic provinces now. We look forward to the type of approach that will get us the ablest men it is possible to find, no matter what their political beliefs might be, and band them together to do the very best they can for the area. And, Mr. Chairman, it is quite a job, even when we do find the ablest men.
We have a big task before us. It has been indicated it will take $4 billion to bring the Atlantic provinces even close to the level of the richer provinces of the country. It is felt that $1 billion should be injected into the maritime economy within the next 10 years, and if this $100 million which the Secretary of State suggests as a fund were available each year, then I would say we would have a pretty satisfactory fund and we could not do very much arguing about it.
I do not like the principle of giving moneys to boards. I do not like the principle of taking the power away from parliament, of selecting the means by which public money is spent, even if it were $100 million a year. But, Mr. Chairman, it is not $100 million each year for the next 10 years. It is $100 million for six or seven years, and it will probably be five years by the time they get the board working. After that time the government will kill the board, as the former minister of national revenue said. The Liberals are going to bury it, and now they will have six Grit pallbearers to go along to the funeral.
One hundred million dollars is an infinitesimal amount of money when one looks at what the former government did when it was endeavouring to lift up the economy of the area. In Atlantic adjustment grants alone we provided $275 million. There were many other acts by the former government. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton mentioned the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, and there was the Beechwood act. There are many examples where we poured millions of dollars into the economy of the Atlantic provinces, but it still requires hundreds of millions of dollars more. It will not get them from this board.
There has to be some other approach to this matter if we are really going to get the type of incentive, the leap forward, which the Secretary of State spoke about last night. "We are in low gear with $100 million, and we will never get out of low gear if we only have $100 million. Last night the Secretary of State told me that the government is providing more money under the Trans-Canada Highway Act. I think that is just great. Certainly I am not against it in any way, shape or form.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not think you would be.


Robert Carman Coates: But at the same time, Mr. Chairman, this is available to every other province in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it is not. The hon. gentleman surely knows that the 90 per cent is available only to the four Atlantic provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: What about B.C.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is available only to the four Atlantic provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: What about B.C.?


Robert Carman Coates: He says no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Evidently hon. gentlemen opposite did not even bother to read the supplementary estimates that they passed a fraction of the other day.


Robert Carman Coates: It has always been my understanding that there were other provinces that were going to receive this assistance other than the Atlantic provinces, but I am very happy to hear this, and I am very pleased to hear it. I only wish that the Secretary of State would come in and make concise statements to the house on these matters, rather than having to provide the information through interjections.
This is wonderful. We will accept the assistance no matter how it comes. But it would be much better if the Secretary of State made statements that were not so mixed up and people could understand them. Certainly British Columbia is going to be surprised at not obtaining this assistance. If this money is only available to the Atlantic provinces, that is wonderful; it is another example of the way in which we are going to be helped. But what province is really going to be helped? We all know the answer to that question. It is the province for which the Secretary of State happens to be a member. Is it also going to be that way with the Atlantic development board? Is all the $100 million going to be funnelled into the province of Newfoundland? Is the minister going to see that this money is broken down on a per capita basis? Perhaps he could answer that question later. I hope, since we were able to work out a very amicable agreement between the four Atlantic provinces with regard to the distribution of the money under the Atlantic adjustment grants, that similar grants will be forthcoming which will be helpful to all four provinces on a per capita basis.
I think the Secretary of State owes the Atlantic provinces an explanation with regard to these six new appointments. The hon.

member for Greenwood mentioned the fact that last year the Secretary of State and the Liberal party voted against an amendment proposed by his party to enlarge the Atlantic development board. He says he is glad to see they have come around to his party's way of thinking and are going to enlarge the board. Let me inform the hon. member for Greenwood, if he is so naive as to think that the suggested amendment of the last parliament is the reason for the amendment that will now enlarge the board, that the only reason for the proposed amendment is that the Liberal party is the government of the day and they are going to look after six of their followers. There is no better reason than that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman seems to have patronage on the brain.


Robert Carman Coates: There is a very good reason for my having patronage on the brain, because I know who will appoint and who is going to be running the Atlantic development board. There is no better reason in the world than the examples we have had that the hon. member has patronage on the brain and is in a position to do something about it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where is the brain?


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert is less kind to the Secretary of State than I am. I think he has some brains, but he thinks the people in the Atlantic provinces have fewer brains than they in fact have, otherwise he would not have brought in this type of resolution to enable him to do his political partisan work. I think I have said enough on this occasion, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: I can well understand that they do not like it when they hear the truth. It is too bad the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here to lead them on another crusade for the truth, but unfortunately it is the type of truth that has the political partisan bias that we are getting in sufficient amounts in the legislation that has been proposed today.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Chairman, during the debate this afternoon and again this evening a number of official opposition members have challenged Atlantic provinces members to make known their position on the proposed amendments to the act which established the Atlantic development board. I trust that in making known my position I can do so with the dispatch that I am looking forward to and that I am sure all hon. members would like to see attend the passage of these amendments in order that we may get on with the
Atlantic Development Board Act job. My opinion can be expressed in this way, and I think it is one that is widely shared in the province of Nova Scotia. The composition of the present board does not provide the practical representation of areas and skills-* despite what hon. members opposite may have stated in this house today-essential to a balanced development program throughout the entire Atlantic region. By increasing the number of board members we provide an opportunity to correct this existing weakness which is apparent to anyone who is knowledgeable about the skills available in the Atlantic provinces. Indeed, it is only making invidious comparisons, which contribute nothing to this very essential undertaking at this time, to indulge in loud protestations about the skills of this or that individual.
We know how Industrial Estates operate in Nova Scotia; we know it is supposed to be and is in fact a non-political organization. We would like to see this board maintain itself in the same way. I think we can ensure this by increasing the number of members on the board. The provision of funds is the other essential feature of these amendments. This action inspires confidence that the social capital investment recommended by the board from time to time will not be sidetracked or delayed for some alleged austerity program or some other reason. The $100 million fund is a bond of good faith to encourage the maximum effort of the strengthened board in accomplishing its objectives within a reasonable time, and I trust that time will start within a few minutes this evening.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to speak on this measure, the first move designed and put forward by this government to cope with the special problems of our Atlantic region. I am happy to have heard those who have spoken. I would like to say to the hon. member from Greenwood that we maritimers welcome very much the contribution he made and the interest he showed. I welcome, too, the penchant for alacrity which the hon. member for Halifax has displayed this evening. Knowing his party, and being one familiar with its dealings with the mari-times for a quarter of a century, I find this a wholesome change.
I think the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton this afternoon, set a fine tone for this debate. He avoided partisanship, and indeed I think he went to extreme lengths in revealing the faith which he held for some of his fellow men who were not of his political party. I refer to his statement about the nonpartisanship of the Secretary of State and his confidence that he would not even be partisan in a geographic sense, let alone a political one. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is

Atlantic Development Board Act older and wiser than I. He may even be right. But I still commend him tor his faith. If any argument had to be advanced to indicate that the maritime region was grossly and shamefully neglected by the party in power between 1935 and 1957 in this country I would call as my first witness the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Prince Edward Island, a former premier of that province, who said "The St. Laurent government did not give us half a deal; Prime Minister Diefenbaker could do it. Why couldn't he?" Premier Matheson will remember very well the time when our little province was facing acute problems. The legislature was adjourned to allow him to come up to Ottawa to talk to his friends in the Liberal government and appeal to them for aid. He found that aid was not forthcoming. It would not be accurate to say he returned empty handed, because he did not. He returned with a bill for something like $1,250,000 which our little province owed to the dominion government because of some miscalculation in the dominion bureau of statistics-they had predicted we would be more fruitful and prolific than in fact we proved to be. The generosity of the dominion government was shown to this extent-that instead of having to pay the $1,250,000 in one fell swoop they allowed our little province to pay it back in five instalments. It reminds me of the farmer who, when advised by a veterinarian that he must cut off his dog's tail said he could not bear to do it all at once but would cut off a little bit every day.
Through the years this house has heard the pleas of the maritime representatives calling for a better deal. At times some of our political leaders became extreme in their views. They became so disturbed by the injustice of the situation that they suggested a political course of action which would have brought about the departure of certain parts of the country from confederation had that been possible. A notable example was when a former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. W. S. Fielding, rose to power in a repeal movement in 1886. He ended, of course, as a member of the dominion cabinet.
We in the maritimes have seen the fulcrum of economic power and advantage move ever further from us. I agreed with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton when he said this afternoon that we do not want anything at the expense of the rest of Canada. I think, however, we can say that the prosperity of other parts of this country has in some measure at least, been derived from the disadvantages which we have had to endure for so long.
One has but to look over the record of the debates of this house and to have a mere

nodding acquaintance with history to know that on many occasions the needs of the maritimes have been bypassed. I was reading not long ago the record of the debates of 1912 when there was a great discussion about the northern territories, the resources of those territories and the extension of the boundaries of certain provinces. And Mr. Robert Borden, the leader of the Conservative party, reminded the house that there were other provinces which did not have northern territories but which had rights and claims.
We know how down through the years we have educated our youth and they have gone elsewhere. The story of maritime rights and maritime claims is not a new one. I shall not put it on the record again tonight. It is not for us here to relive past agonies and rekindle old grievances. Positive action and advancement to redress old wrongs is what is needed. I say with the greatest sincerity and with the greatest pride that no government ever moved so swiftly or so effectively to strengthen the maritime economy as did that government which took office in 1957. The Atlantic Provinces Adjustment Act was the first measure of aid and it was enacted within months and followed a commitment given by the Conservative candidates of the Atlantic provinces when they met in May, 1957, in Moncton. These commitments were honoured by the government in power. It is little wonder that at that time the leading Liberal organ of the province of Prince Edward Island, The Patriot, said about the adjustment grants:
The truth of the matter Is that this belated recognition of this island's fiscal need was long overdue by the government of Canada and that this province and the other Atlantic provinces as well are only now being treated a little more like the part of Canada that they are and less as poor relations.
This, I think, expressed the sentiment of the whole region.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What about term 29?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If the hon. member on my extreme left wants to look at the history of Newfoundland he will find that it was well treated by that same government.
After this measure of redress, and many others, the former government set up the Atlantic development board. There were improvements in our transportation system, new developments in our national parks and many other aspects of justice-I will not say generosity-on the part of a sympathetic and understanding government. We were given a new opportunity to engage in a program of self help. This was accomplished especially through the Atlantic development board, a fine piece of legislation which greatly cheered

the people of the Atlantic region and offered us new hopes and brought before us new vistas of opportunity.
I am not one who will say that because of the great things which were done between 1957 and 1963 all the ills of the maritimes have been cured. Far from it. We still have grievances. We have an average income lower by one third than the rest of Canada, double the unemployment and half the capital investment per capita. Therefore it is not surprising that even this government should take a special look at the problems of the Atlantic region, the oldest part of the dominion.
Someone said tonight that it was vain and futile talk to be assessing the personalities on the board. Leadership in the maritime provinces as elsewhere results from the human potential. The board which was set up was a fine board. For years, we in the maritimes have exported our able people. We have educated some of the finest scholars in the world and because of the lack of opportunity at home they have had to go elsewhere. It used to be a saddening exercise to look over the calendars of the universities in this country, in the United States and Great Britain and find hosts of maritimers there. A short while ago we had a reversal of the process. In Brigadier Wardell we found a man who came into the Atlantic region, saw these problems were solvable by united and vigorous action, and used the power of the press and the power of his own magnificent command of language to galvanize the thinking of people in the Atlantic region. And when he found a sympathetic response in a government which saw the facts of the maritimes clearly and was prepared to do something about them, he was given an opportunity to render great service. Now we discover that this man with his great comprehension of our problems, with his dedication to the solutions of these problems, is to be allowed to stay on the board as a member of the board for a couple of years. The hon. member for Cumberland, one of the outstanding members from the Atlantic region, referred to this famous letter from the Secretary of State. I will not read it again but I should like to refer to just one sentence:
The effective use of the fund will clearly require a close harmony of view between the government and the board and especially the chairman.
Thinking back, Mr. Chairman, over some of the events of the last few years I say that that is an ominous sentence, not only for Brigadier Wardell but for the Atlantic region.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think that a lack of harmony between the board and the government would be a good thing?
18, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, knowing the Secretary of State I would be very cautious of the suggestion that a lack of harmony would be innocent. 1 will read the sentence again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is always a good idea.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If I were commanded in such a way as to the virtues of close harmony between the Secretary of State and myself I would be very leery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can promise the hon. gentleman that if he will resign his seat I will be delighted to recommend to my colleagues that he be appointed to the board.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If the hon. gentleman is after my seat I think he would have to offer me at least a senatorship. I thought he was going to say that if I resigned my seat he would contest it, and I think without the protecting armour of the premier of Newfoundland he would not do too well. If he wants to make the try I will make the resignation.
We have also on the board, Mr. Chairman, a distinguished representative from Prince Edward Island, Mr. Melvin McQuaid, the former provincial treasurer. When it is considered that he became provincial treasurer of a government which followed 24 years of Liberal administration and made a magnificent job of his task, I would say that he is pretty special and that a man like that would be a distinguished member on any such board. Mr. McQuaid would have to be classed, I would think, as a Conservative. The rest of the members of the board are Conservative appointees, that is true, and for this sin they are to be overwhelmed and smothered by six others. I will not refer to Mr. Sobey. His reputation in the industrial field and the progress achieved in Nova Scotia needs no adornment from any orator in this house or any member of either side of it. We are very proud of the director, the economist from Prince Edward Island who was brought in, Dr. Weeks.
You will have heard, Mr. Chairman, in recent days about the Bay street irregulars who have been assisting the Minister of Finance. I have not heard any mention of a specialist in the Atlantic economy or its problems being brought in, and having read some of the writings of the Minister of Finance I would have thought that this was the very area in which he most needed assistance and guidance. Having read the budget I am more convinced of that than ever. However, it is not for me to discuss the budget tonight. I will say only this, that the type of people appointed to the Atlantic development board did not deserve the kind of treatment they

Atlantic Development Board Act are about to receive through the enactment ol the legislation, the resolution of which is before us.
I do not think anyone will be greatly comforted by the assurance of the Secretary of State that Mr. Sobey, and I presume even Mr. McQuaid, will be eligible for reappointment under the tender mercies of this government. I should have thought that such able men who were prepared to take on this important duty on behalf of the Atlantic region should have been encouraged and told to carry on and go forward in their good work regardless of the political complexion of the government which appointed them. These men are taking on, and were prepared to take on, a major task, a task which has been challenging the Atlantic region for years and years, and I deplore this eager anxiety to smother, not a Conservative board because you could not call it that, but a Conservative-appointed board. And no one has yet advanced an argument which has convinced me that six more will make the board more representative. It will, I admit, make it larger, but not necessarily more representative.
My colleague from Cumberland and others have discussed this figure of $100 million. This sum of $100 million is offered as against nearly 100 years of neglect and injustice. If anyone feels that this will make a monumental impact upon the shrewd people of the Atlantic provinces, he is harbouring a dangerous delusion. A more realistic figure would be $4 billion. The former government was realistic and so deeply interested in the region that they did not lay down any ceiling on the amount. Not only is there a ceiling on the amount but there is a limitation on time as well. The limit is 1969, which gives five or six years to do the job. I do not think anyone will be taken in by this. I do not think anyone seriously believes that the great problems of the maritime provinces can be met, even if all these six people came from Bay street, in so short a time with so small an amount of money. All I will say-and like the Secretary of State I like to be nonpartisan about these things-is that while I am deeply disappointed, and I am afraid the people I represent will be discouraged, I will have to concede, considering the record of this government when it was in office before, that this is better than nothing, that is true. But it is not as good as was done before, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is not nearly good enough.
This strikes me as further evidence of the approach to great problems in this country which has already begun to characterize this government. It is a mere tinkering with the problem. The budget which will be discussed
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
is another exercise in tinkering. A tremendous facade is built up suggesting that a great new Atlantic board is being set up. I predict that after careful examination it will not only be revealed as tinkering but as bothersome and unhelpful tinkering as far as the economy of the maritime and Atlantic provinces are concerned.
Perhaps this is not too surprising. We never expected too great a kindness in the Atlantic region from this government because we remember some of the books written by the Minister of Finance and the statements he made before he wrote "Troubled Canada". We remember his recipe for maritime prosperity in those days-a little assistance to move us up to some other part of Canada. That was the recipe for the maritimes. This is not, nor never was, the attitude of this party. In 1956 the problems of the maritimes were discussed in this house. The leader of the Conservative party said at that time that "a full recognition of the moral obligation due to the Atlantic provinces, and a just arrangement with those provinces, is long overdue merely as a recognition of what was said at the time when those provinces came into confederation." This is where we stand, Mr. Chairman, and while I have no intention to obstruct, delay or hamper this tinkering effort, I will say again that in order to come close to their predecessors the government of the day will have to do much more.
(Translation):


Mr. Ouellel:: Mr. Chairman, in the speech from the throne of September 27, 1962, we find on page 8 of Hansard a paragraph which reads:
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.
On November 19, 1962, the minister of national revenue of the day moved:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an Atlantic development board and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the board and for the payment of certain expenses of the members thereof, to provide for the appointment of an executive director of the board and for the payment of his remuneration, to provide further that the board may engage the services of such advisers and staff as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its duties and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
And in December 1962, Bill C-94 received royal assent and became the Atlantic Development Board Act.

The resolution before us today is the sequel of appropriate legislation passed during the last session. This provision was invoked at the time as resulting from the report of a commission of inquiry on the economic prospects of Canada, which had been submitted in 1957. This was followed by five years of indecision, or even resistance, with regard to the protection and welfare of the Atlantic area.
Under defining clause 2, the term "Atlantic region", means the region comprising the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
I admit that this area requires special attention and study, particular measures and care. To this end, every one of us must give conscientious thought to the projects needed to increase, as far as possible, the standard of living of the people of that area which has been neglected for too long. I feel bound to point out at this time that the population of the lower St. Lawrence river, of the north and south shores and of the Gaspe peninsula should be considered without hesitation as part of the Atlantic area, when Bill No. C-94 is being amended and when some changes are being made in the administration of that act.
We, on this side of the house, do not believe in and are not obsessed with out-and-out industrialization. However, our area is considered by too many as a mere supplier of labour for industrial production.
Mr. Chairman, I endorse the words used by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) at the close of the speech he made in the house in that connection on December 4, 1962. Here is what he said on that occasion:
I would say again that the greatest need of this Atlantic area is for public capital that will bring to pass those particular public development projects which are necessary and which will assist in laying the climate and clarifying a situation that will attract our own capital in order that this country can go forward and that this area will not remain the depressed area, not the area which is the recipient of charitable welfare from the rest of Canada but the area which can and will lead the economic recovery our nation needs as it goes forward to fulfil our obligations not only to ourselves but to the generations which are to come after us.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that some day, the Bank of Canada will have a social capital service to provide, to supply the capital necessary to meet the requirements of the Canadian people, and in such a way that there shall be no inflation nor deflation and that unemployment, which is the lot of a startling proportion of our labour force in the lower St. Lawrence, in the Gaspe penin-
18, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act sula and in the maritime provinces, shall be done away with forever through the good will of Canadian legislators. Do you not think that an economic problem, resulting from political policies, can receive a solution from the action of men animated by a constant desire to settle that problem?
The government has thought it necessary to raise from five to eleven the number of members on that board. I hope that all reasonable and equitable means will be taken to maintain the best men in their positions and that the increase in the number of members on that board will prove to be a refutation of political interference in the discharge of duties which go far beyond the temptation to make a political body out of such a board.
I wish that in the end we may come to a sound and healthy alliance between the various social elements in order to raise the people of the Atlantic area above their present financial and economic situation. It is our responsibility-all of us here share that responsibility and are aware of it-to change, transform or eliminate situations which aggravate the local people.
For a long time, as we all know, a complaint has been coming from the Atlantic area addressed to those who look after the business of the nation, and it is time now to act and to achieve the purpose of confederation.
As far back as 1926, the average income in the Atlantic area was 38 per cent lower than in the other Canadian provinces.
In 1955, our average income was still 37 per cent under the average for the other Canadian provinces.
To this date, in 1963, this problem has not yet been solved, even though I must admit that some individuals and institutions have to be commended for their efforts to solve it.
Is the economic development board determined to find a solution to those aggravating problems?
We certainly hope so.
(Text):


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I can think of no better occasion on which to enter the debates in this chamber in this twenty sixth parliament than this one, when consideration is being given to a resolution providing for amendments to be made to the Atlantic Development Board Act. As a member from Cape Breton island, the industrial heart of the Atlantic provinces, I may say that we looked upon this board as holding forth the promised stimuli that the economy in our area must

Atlantic Development Board Act have if we are to maintain that degree of growth that will provide sufficient employment for our citizens.
I listened with interest last evening to the explanations of the Secretary of State as to what he hoped the proposed amendments would accomplish. He did this in a very nice way, I must say, but I can only assume from his explanations that we will materially impair the operations of the board if the amendment to establish a fund of $100 million becomes a reality. One must compare this proposed fund with what is available to the board today. What we actually would be doing by establishing the fund is selling the resources of the federal treasury now available to the board for a maximum of $100 million, which is in effect placing a ceiling on the amount of federal participation in the Atlantic provinces over the next six years.
Even more alarming is the fact that the board is to expire forthwith on January 24, 1969, as has been mentioned by previous speakers and as indicated in the resolution. It is to expire, regardless of the fact the moneys in this fund may not be expended. This, however, is not a real danger. It is quite obvious that the funds that would be made available would easily be expended in a year and still not make the impression on the economy which, in the words of the Secretary of State, would result in a great leap forward. Indeed, experts who have made a close study of the needs of our area estimate that $4 billion would be needed over a period of ten years, with the federal treasury responsible for $1 billion of that amount.
If we were to use these figures as a guide-post, we would conclude that $100 million would be sufficient really for about one year. Instead, we find that the board has a fund of $100 million which will have to do for five years. Since it will take a period of time to determine which project should be proceeded with, and then a further period of time for this government to decide which project should be undertaken, we do not feel very hopeful.
The enlargement of this board obviously indicates a partisan approach to the selection of the members on the board. It can be expected, therefore, that this same partisan approach will apply in deciding which project will be approved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Robert Muir: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman, like his predecessors on the other side, has made a great play of this partisan approach to the


appointments to this board. Is this a reflection of a guilty conscience? Surely, the hon. gentleman would admit that if he thinks the appointments made by the previous government were not partisan there is no more reason to think our appointments will be partisan. What is more, I can assure him that they will not be.


Robert Muir: Actually, the very brilliant and amiable member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not ask a question, he made a statement. Certainly, I have no guilty conscience, and I am sure the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton who guided this legislation through the last parliament has not a guilty conscience, either. Could it not be that there was a little urge pushing the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate? Could it not be that his conscience was bothering him? No, we do not have any guilty conscience. However, I was glad to hear from the minister that there will be no partisan appointments. This is a good commitment, coming from the Secretary of State.
If I may continue with my remarks, I should like to say that we can look forward to the $100 million as the maximum amount to be spent in the Atlantic provinces over the next five years. This will mean about $20 million per year divided amongst the four provinces. Compare this, Mr. Chairman, with the Atlantic adjustments grants which provide $100 million over a four-year period and will provide $175 million in the next five years. This program was instituted by the previous Conservative administration. The Atlantic provinces finally received some recognition after 22 years of neglect. We hope this recognition will continue unless the present government reduces or eliminates the assistance now available to this area from those grants.
The other day we heard comments in this house from the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister which indicated that perhaps we can look forward to a reduction in the subvention on coal. I hope there will be a clarification of this situation in the near future. I do not wish to go into that tonight, but I will deal with it on another occasion. Incidentally, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly that the subventions paid on coal by the Liberal administration during the fiscal year we came into power were in the vicinity of $8 million or $9 million. This year they will be $17 million. We have a little bit of stability in the coal industry today as a result of what has been done in that field by the previous Conservative administration.
Compare what you plan on doing with the announcement by Industrial Estates and the

Stanfield government a few days ago concerning the location of a $12 million cement plant in Nova Scotia. Compare it with the $40 million pulpwood operation located in Nova Scotia. I wish the hon. member for Halifax would speak a little louder if he has anything to say.


John Edward Lloyd: May I direct my question to the hon. member? I thought the Industrial Estates was cited as being associated with Mr. Sobey and a non-partisan board. What has this got to do with the subject under discussion?


Robert Muir: What has this interjection got to do with it? Is not Mr. Stanfield the premier of the province of Nova Scotia, or are you aware of that? Is not Industrial Estates Limited a board set up by that government?


John Edward Lloyd: That is where it stops so far as the government is concerned.


Robert Muir: Oh, yes, but there has been great co-operation between this independent board, Industrial Estates, and the Stanfield government. They have done an excellent job. I will go on to explain to the hon. member for Halifax, who apparently has not got his hearing aid turned up or apparently is not getting through, that he should compare this with the Volvo car manufacturing plant located in Nova Scotia by the Stanfield government or the carpet factory which was mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton this afternoon. One certainly does not have the feeling that the injection of this small amount of money is going to work economic miracles in the Atlantic area.


John Edward Lloyd: We compared these.


Robert Muir: The hon. member for Halifax made his great contribution for about two minutes, so I should like him to now sit on his brains and relax a bit.
I should like now to refer to Nova Scotia's representative, the vice-chairman of the board, Mr. Frank Sobey. I wonder if the hon. member for Halifax has anything against Mr. Sobey? I am glad he has nothing against him. If that is so, why did the hon. member not object in caucus to the Secretary of State because this legislation is practically giving this great man a year's notice, giving him a kick in the bottom. This is about the size of it. Why did the hon. member not object? Mr. Sobey is a man who has a deep love for his native province, Nova Scotia? Here is a man who is dedicated to advancing the economic interests of Nova Scotia. He is giving freely of his time and his great ability 28902-5-84
18, 1963	1313
Atlantic Development Board Act to promote industry for that area. He was successful in his own business, and has used a businessman's approach towards encouraging the establishment of new industries in Nova Scotia and the expansion of existing industries. This man is a member of the Atlantic development board, but if this legislation is implemented we are going to get rid of him. He has made a tremendous contribution to the welfare of his native province. Without any doubt, he undertook his duties as a member of the Atlantic development board in order that he may, in the future, give even greater service than he has in the past. The very fact that this man was a member of the board gave the people of Nova Scotia confidence that its operations would be a success.
Now, however, the services of this eminent Nova Scotian will be dispensed with. I can tell the government that this will not only mean a loss of confidence on the part of the people of Nova Scotia, but this board will be severely shaken. I have no doubt that if it were not for Mr. Sobey's dedication to the area he would have rejected, and with scorn, the proposal to limit his tenure of office. To the people of Nova Scotia this proposed action is contemptible and cheap.
Last night the Secretary of State, in his own inimitable fashion, spoke in grandiose terms of what the different departments of government will do in the Atlantic provinces over and above what the Atlantic development board might do; but, Mr. Chairman, for 22 years the provinces by the sea were neglected by a Liberal administration. However, after 1957 we were given greater attention than ever before, by a Conservative government. More expenditures by all departments of government were carried out in our area than ever before, and let me serve notice on the present government that we expect this to continue, and in fact increase, in addition to what the Atlantic development board may accomplish. To use the vernacular of the Secretary of State, that is to be a great leap forward. I did not know he was such an admirer of Mao Tse-tung until he used that phrase, but if this is not done it will not be a great leap forward. Rather it will be a great leap backward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have been watching the clock and I realize that if I do not say something now it will be at least a week before there will be an opportunity to do so. Some things have been said this afternoon that I think deserve a reply, and there are one or two questions to which I want to make a reply.
With respect to the first point made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton I want to

Atlantic Development Board Act say with respect to the device used by the government-which of course I need not have revealed until the bill came up had I not wanted to be completely frank with hon. members at the start by making my letter to Brigadier War dell available to the committee -if the government had been so minded we could have done what the previous government did with the federal district commission when they substituted the national capital commission for it, and that was to legislate the old commission out of existence and the members with it, and appoint an entirely new slate. I may say no more partisan appointments were ever made by any government in the history of this country than were made to that commission by the right hon. gentleman who is now Leader of the Opposition.
Or, we could have done what the government did in 1960 at the time of the revision of the Canada Elections Act when, by a complete revision, it got rid of every returning officer in the country. But we did not choose to do that because we did not want to make this a partisan issue. We wanted to preserve continuity. I am sure the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton would admit at once, that when he came into the house and announced the appointment of the board in January, I welcomed the appointment of that board and I have never said one word at any time in criticism of any member of that board; and I have no criticism whatsoever to offer of any of them.
It is true that they were appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite; but that, in my view, is nothing against them and I would not hold that against them at all.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I have answered the questions I have already been asked; but I have things to say and I would like to say them with a certain continuity, in fairness to the hon. gentlemen who have already spoken.
I have never at any time made any adverse criticism of any of the members of the board. The hon. member for Cumberland, who seems to be even more obsessed with this matter of partisanship than other hon. members opposite, asked me whether I had communicated with the other members of the board in addition to Brigadier Wardell. I have not communicated with them directly by letter, but I did give the letter I quoted last night to Brigadier Warded, the chairman of the board, whom I have seen several times since I became minister and whom I have tried to keep completely informed of what was going on. I may say, Mr. Chairman, I was very careful to observe the proprieties.

I did not discuss what we were proposing to do until the resolution was put on the order paper, but as soon as it was, I saw Brigadier Warded at once and told him precisely what we were planning to do, because I thought it was only proper, fair and courteous to do that.
I read my unsigned letter to him, and after he had read it I signed it. If Brigadier Warded had taken any exception to that letter I am sure any exception he would have taken would have been reasonable, and I would have done my best to modify it to suit him. Now, Brigadier Warded has spoken publicly, and the hon. member for Cumberland has quoted an article in a recent issue of the Atlantic Advocate. Brigadier Warded was good enough to let me have a copy of the speech he made to the maritime board of trade on June 4, before it was dedvered. He discussed the speech with me before he delivered it, in a general sort of way, but he never showed me the text until just before it appeared, and I made no suggestion as to what he should say in any way whatsoever. I think we can fairly assume Brigadier Warded, being an adult and a highly respected member of society and a highly self-respected person, meant what he said in what he said; and I would like to put on the record what he said in part:
First, let me summarize the resolution placed before the House of Commons on May 21 by Mr. Pickersgill.
This announced that the board's members would be increased from five to eleven; an Atlantic development fund of $100 million would be created for financing or assisting to finance programs or projects that would contribute to the growth and development of the economy of the Atlantic region and for which satisfactory financial arrangements are not otherwise available; that the board's life would end on January 24, 1969; and that the administration of the act would be changed.
Then he went on:
To comment briefly on these proposals, and 1 believe that I speak for the other members of the existing board-
I shall say a word about that in a moment.
-we shall warmly welcome the new members, and we shall do our utmost to work with them to the limits of our powers and in furtherance of the aims of the board.
As to the new terms of our appointments, we shall be glad to fall in with the government's proposals, whatever they may be, in substitution of the act of parliament by which we hold our appointments today. Personal considerations have no place in our minds. We are ready and happy to serve in any capacity.
I think I should pause here to say that when I gave my letter to Brigadier Wardell I asked him if he would send copies to other members of the board and point out to them I did not mark my letter confidential because

I thought I would want to read it to parliament; but I said in fairness to me as a member of parliament and so that I would not be accused by any member of contempt of parliament, I hoped he would not make it public until the matter came up for debate. He agreed to that very readily, and I said it was only fair he should send copies of the letter to the other members of the board so that they would know precisely what the conditions were, and I felt sure that if any of them wanted to communicate with me through him or directly they would do so.
The only member of the board I have met apart from Brigadier Wardell was Mr. Sobey, who called on me at my office in the House of Commons, and we had a very frank conversation indeed. He had not got the letter from Brigadier Wardell, and in fact I read it to him in my office and he said-you know he is a very frank fellow-"Would you like me to resign?" I said "No, I would not; I would like you to stay on the board; I want to preserve continuity. I want to keep this thing above partisanship. However, if we find at the end of the year that we do not like one another we do not need to continue this arrangement. If we do, we will."
He accepted that in the same spirit in which I gave it, and I do not think there was any misunderstanding of any kind between us. As the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton very properly pointed out, we as ministers have to take the responsibility for the expenditure of this $100 million, and whatever other hon. members think, such as the honourable and wealthy member for Queens, I still regard $100 million as a very large sum of money indeed, and I think most Canadians do. When we have to take the responsibility for the expenditure of $100 million it is absolutely essential that the agency through which it is expended shall have a harmonious relationship with the government. I am sure the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton would feel exactly the same way if he were standing in this position.


Hugh John Flemming: Yes; but may I ask the minister a question, Mr. Chairman?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Hugh John Flemming: Does my hon. friend have any doubts about the harmonious relationship that this group of men would have with the present government, if they were continued in their present office?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubts at all at the present time. But, as every hon. member knows, and certainly every hon. member who has served in a 28902-5-84J
18, 1963	1315
Atlantic Development Board Act cabinet, one may have the greatest possible feeling of respect and regard for another person and it may turn out that you cannot work well together. That often happens.


Mr. Crouse:: Would the minister permit another question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Is this to be the attitude of the present government toward all boards?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I would not think so. In the case of boards which have a statutory and quasi-judicial function. I would not think so. But this board is to exist for the purpose of spending public money for which the government in general, and I in particular, have to answer in this house. I think if anyone understands responsible government at all, it is essential that there be a relationship of harmony and confidence, and continuing harmony and confidence between the board, and particularly the chairman, and the government. I have no reason to think that this will not exist, none whatever. I am not suggesting there is any reason not to think so. There was the most complete frankness between myself and Brigadier Wardell, and a thorough understanding about the matter.
As to the question-and I might just as well deal with it now-of the additional membership on the board, Brigadier Wardell is a publisher. Mr. Sobey is fundamentally, as I understand it, a merchant, though he has many other interests; he is the director of a number of companies and is a man of very great substance and obviously of very great ability. The member from Prince Edward Island is an enforcedly retired politician, and I am sure all of us would feel sympathy for him. He was the provincial treasurer for a while until the electors decided they would rather have someone else for that particular seat. That is a risk we all run, but I do not think it makes him any less competent to serve on the board.


An hon. Member:: That has happened to members from that side too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were a number of people in the party opposite who are not here now. They fall in the same category.


Norman Platt Lambert: Then let us not be so pious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The member of the board from Newfoundland is a merchant in Water street. But when one looks at the economic complexion of the Atlantic provinces I do not think I could agree with hon. gentlemen opposite who say that the board should not be enlarged. I might mention that the fifth member is a banker. When you look at them, I do not think this group is very representative of the whole economic spectrum. There is no one

Atlantic Development Board Act from the fishery; there is no one from the great timber industry, which is the biggest of all the industries of the Atlantic provinces; there is not a coal miner or anyone representing the mining interests, and there is no one representing agriculture.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, would the minister accept a very small question on that point? I would like to ask him whether he would appreciate receiving recommendations from members of the opposition. For instance, would he like to have a member from Cape Breton island? Would he be prepared to accept such a recommendation ?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have always prided myself on having an open mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that if the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria recommended a person who was in his opinion the best qualified person in Nova Scotia to serve on this board, he would be a person of eminence, integrity, and a good citizen. I do not think the hon. gentleman would recommend anyone otherwise, and I would of course be glad to have a recommendation from him. I cannot promise that I would accept it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but I would be glad to have it. However, I can assure all hon. members that in the recommendations I make to my colleagues and in the appointments, my colleagues see fit to make this board, the political complexion of the persons appointed will not be a factor at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What we will seek to do is get people who are representative of the main economic groups in the Atlantic provinces who are, in our opinion, best qualified to assist in the very important work of this board. I hope that the work of the board, notwithstanding some of the things that have been said this afternoon and this evening, can be lifted above partisanship and kept above partisanship. That is what we have every desire and every intention of striving to do.
I was asked whether we would communicate with the provincial governments about the persons to be appointed. I made a suggestion of that sort, perhaps a little sceptically, to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton when he was piloting the original legislation through the house. Perhaps this will be another precedent set by him that I will be inclined to follow. He is a pretty good example of the constitutional proprieties

in these matters. But there are, of course, four premiers in the Atlantic provinces; two of them are political friends of ours and two are political friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. I hope this board will work just as well with the Conservative governments as with the Liberal governments and that the cooperation will be just as good with the one as with the other. It is my intention, just as soon as the legislation has been passed, to write to the four premiers of the Atlantic provinces and ask them whether they would designate someone in the provincial administration, either a minister or an official, to act as liaison with the Atlantic development board, precisely so there may be that cooperation which we believe will be essential to the proper functioning of the board.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton in the main objected to any amendment being made to the existing legislation. I can understand that position being taken by the hon. gentleman because he was the sponsor of the present act. It was his act, and I do not blame him for having pride of authorship. I think there is a lot of good in the act, and I said so at the time. We did not think it was as good as it could be and we said in opposition and during the election campaign that we thought we could make it better. As my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough pointed out before dinner, we said we would do two things, strengthen the board and give it a capital fund. That is what we went to the people and asked them to support us on. Does any hon. member on either side of the house expect us, having been elected and having elected 20 of the 33 members from the Atlantic provinces, to ignore that undertaking, not to carry out that commitment, to break that promise? We intend, if the house will agree-and of course we are in the hands of the house-to do precisely what we told the electors we would do, and we intend to do it in this session of parliament.


Hugh John Flemming: Whether it is right or wrong?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, we thought it was right or we would not have advocated it, and we advocated it in this house at the time the original legislation was put through. We considered it a deficiency, as the hon. member for Greenwood indicated he and his friends did, when it did not do these things. I feel sure that the hon. member for Greenwood is perhaps approaching the measure more objectively and in a less partisan spirit than are some hon. gentlemen opposite.
I say we are doing this in 1963, right after the election. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton was not elected to this house in 1957

but many of his friends were here. The hon. member for Cumberland was here. They were elected on a promise made at Moncton. In those hopeful days in May or June of 1957, the spring of the great promises, they promised a capital projects program to provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area. That was in 1957. Three elections later, in 1962, as a deathbed effort they produced the Atlantic development board bill, without any capital fund. We do not intend to follow that example. As soon as this parliament will agree to it, we intend to do what we undertook to the electors to do. It seems to me that that is the only honourable course to take in the matter.
There has been a good deal of talk about a hundred million dollars being inadequate. The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria said it was a ceiling. It is the exact reverse. It is a floor. I think I should go back and quote Brigadier Warden's speech further on that precise point-his speech to the maritime board of trade.


Robert Muir: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he mean that if the hundred million dollars is used up in ten, 12 or 14 months parliament will provide another $100 million or $200 million?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I am not parliament. I would not attempt to substitute myself for parliament. But I would hazard the guess that if we could get a board which was so dynamic and which could find enough projects to use this hundred million dollars up in six months it would be a lot better than the hon. gentlemen opposite did in six years. What is more, if the projects on which it was being spent were of the kind which this house and the people of Canada felt would contribute to the raising of the whole level of the economy of the Atlantic provinces, no government would have any trouble about getting more from this parliament, if more were needed to carry on that task. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. But $100 million, I suggest, is $100 million more than nothing, and it is a good start.
Here is what Brigadier Wardell said on June 4 on this point:
As to the $100 million fund and the limitation of the life of the board to five and one half years, the amount is but a tenth of the billion dollars previously envisaged for a ten-year period, but which, of course, was never actually specified.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I will read on.
Mr. Robert Coates, member of parliament for this constituency, has drawn attention to these facts in the House of Commons.
18, 1963	1317
Atlantic Development Board Act
As a matter of fact, in the same speech the hon. gentleman talked about a funeral. He talked about a funeral again tonight. He seems to be the new apostle of gloom and doom.
Brigadier Wardell went on to say:
The tidal power element in the Chignecto project alone, so near and dear to this area, would cost $350 million and take ten years to complete. The $100 million fund would only provide $4.5 millions per province per year during the life of the board.
I might say that as far as the Chignecto project is concerned, I do not think there is any doubt that this particular project of what the hon. gentleman calls the complex, will be investigated by the board, but I do not think for a moment that a project as large as this will be undertaken by the board in the ordinary course of its operations. An undertaking of that magnitude would be so important that I am sure any government wishing to support it would want to go to parliament to ask for authority on its own merits as a separate undertaking. I can envisage the board investigating the feasibility of the undertaking, but the board itself, with the capital fund available to it, could not possibly attempt a project of that magnitude, nor is there any thought that they would.


Robert Carman Coates: Would the Secretary of State give an assurance that the board would carry out an investigation into the feasibility of the scheme?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will give an assurance that the minister will suggest to the board that this is a project which should be investigated if the members of the board, having looked into such evidence as is already available, think, it merits the further expenditure of public funds on a more detailed investigation. I will certainly see that the matter is drawn to their attention with a view to a serious examination of the matter. I say that without hesitation.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask a question about the Prince Edward Island causeway? Does the hon. gentleman think the board will be involved in a study of the feasibility of that project?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am astonished to think that the hon. and learned member for Queens must have been asleep, like Rip Van Winkle, for these last few years, because his own leader announced that the feasibility studies were all over and that the causeway was being built. Surely, the hon. member for Queens is not going to say his leader was talking through his hat when he made that announcement.



Atlantic Development Board Act


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Did not the hon. gentleman's own leader speak about this feasibility study continuing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We can have a debate on this on some other occasion but I must remind the hon. member not to repudiate his leader, fashionable though that is becoming on the other side.
Brigadier Wardell went on, in his letter, to say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Secretary of State permit a question? My question is based on my desire-and I have maritime antecedents -to see this bill. I wonder if the speech which the hon. gentleman is now making is designed to get this resolution through before ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I am willing to make a deal with the committee. I will sit down right now if the resolution can pass immediately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will take the minister up on that.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh John Flemming: After a speech such as we have listened to from the Secretary of State, he need not think he is going to get this through on that basis.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that is the situation, I would certainly prefer to talk the resolution out rather than permit someone else to talk it out.


Donald MacInnis: I was just going to ask if the minister would stop practising discrimination long enough to let me ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: It is no wonder; the monkeys are noisy enough. I just want to make sure the minister can hear me. I would ask the minister if he could vouch for the earlier remarks he made in regard to the national capital commission and the election act. Yes or no is all that is necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Chairman, I made certain statements believing them to be true. I have never made a statement in this house which I did not believe was true and I hope I never will, and if it should prove that anything I said was not true I think hon. members know well enough that I have always been willing to make amends. I do not see that I can go beyond that, and the hon. member's question does not seem to me to be very relevant to the debate.


Donald MacInnis: I wonder if the minister would check the accuracy of his remarks before he makes them in future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I will leave that to the hon. member. I think my remarks were accurate and I think the ordinary principles of British justice should operate and that I should be considered innocent until I am proven guilty.


Donald MacInnis: Does the minister think I would bring the matter up if I did not think I could prove him wrong?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago I was about to read a further paragraph from Brigadier Warden's letter, but before I do so I do not think I can let pass the observation made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. I do not think it was characteristic of the hon. member, who is usually not among the more partisan members opposite-I reciprocate the compliment he paid me earlier today-but who I think in this case was really extraordinarily unfair. There seems to be an impression in this house that anyone on the opposite side of the house is able to make as partisan and strong a speech as he likes, and that everyone on this side has to sit and like it and enjoy it without complaint, and if any reply is made in kind hon. gentlemen at once suggest that is unfair and is an excuse for prolonging a debate which they would not otherwise prolong. I am sure that on reflection the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton will realize that the purpose of debate is not to run a sort of Sunday school; that the purpose of debate is to debate, and that surely we should be able to debate in this house like adults without getting sore about it.


Norman Platt Lambert: Your memory is too short.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should just like to read this one other paragraph from the letter of Brigadier Wardell because it seems to me it should be part of the record.
But my understanding is-


Norman Platt Lambert: Are you looking for inspiration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the former Speaker has called me to order once more perhaps I may proceed.
But my understanding is that the $100 million does not at all limit the special aid to the Atlantic region to that amount in the next five years.
I would draw that to the attention of hon. members. This is Brigadier Wardell speaking.

The qualifying phrase in the resolution is in the following words: "financing or assisting in financing programs or projects .. . for which satisfactory financing arrangements are not otherwise available."
The Atlantic development board's special fund will be used as a special supplement to the funds provided by the activities and programs being carried out, or to be carried out, in the Atlantic region by other government departments and agencies. It will be used as a stopgap to fill needs which could not otherwise be provided for.
That is exactly what I said last night.
The special fund will not be used for financing projects which would be the normal or general responsibility of an existing department or agency. In every case, projects to be assisted or financed by the fund will require the approval of the governor in council. In this the working of the new board will be identical with the old.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I wonder if I could give the minister a moment to catch his breath, although I doubt that he needs it. I recall in the last parliament that he stated the Atlantic board was not going to report to the public, and also that it would be a lot closer to parliament if a minister of the crown were appointed chairman of the board. I wonder if it is the intention of the government that a minister should be chairman of the board and if so, will it be the Secretary of State?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think on reflection I came to the conclusion that it would be harder to get my legislation through the house if I made that suggestion. I was a little afraid that hon. gentlemen opposite might be a little inclined to suggest that if such a recommendation was made the board would not have that non-partisan character which I am very anxious it should have and, what is more important, that it would not appear to have the non-partisan character I want it to appear to have as well as to have.


Thomas Miller Bell: What about the Minister of Agriculture?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Russell MacEwan: May I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Very well. I have only a few remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Pictou is the only other speaker, I wonder if
18, 1963	1313
Business of the House hon. members would agree to hear him so that we could see the bill. We cannot come back to this for at least a week and I think it would be a great help to have the bill available for study in the Atlantic provinces and elsewhere.


Hugh John Flemming: If I
might say a word on that, we on this side have various speakers who want to contribute to this debate. Before I sit down I want to say, in connection with the observations of the Secretary of State about Sunday school that when a man implies to this house that the previous government did so little in six years, then we submit we need a chance to present the facts to this house and the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could not the hon. gentleman do that just as well on the bill as on the resolution, and not hold up the resolution just for that? The hon. gentleman would have unlimited time on the bill, not just half an hour.


Hugh John Flemming: We have two speakers at least who want to contribute to this debate.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, everyone is aware that the budget debate commences tomorrow and lasts for six sitting days without interruption unless some unforeseen emergency occurs. I was wondering if the house leader, the Secretary of State, would just like to record the fact in Hansard for the benefit of hon. members who may not be here tonight?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has stated the position correctly.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 19, 1963