1963-07-09

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and I assure the house it will take only a moment. It seems to me there is a caveat that some member of the house should enter at this point. My point of privilege relates to the way in which certain resolutions which were tabled last night by the Minister of Finance are identified in the notice paper attached to Votes and Proceedings for yesterday.
You will recall, sir, that we had a bit of discussion last night on a point of order, and I think there was general consent that we could reach agreement about this matter. I for one am quite satisfied with the way in which the matter is referred to in today's order paper. On the order paper, item No. 15 under government business reads:
June 26-House again in committee of ways and means-the Minister of Finance.
Note: For texts of ways and means resolutions, see notice paper of Votes and Proceedings of June 13 and July 8, 1963.
In my view this is quite appropriate for it tells us that when we get into committee of ways and means we can look at these two places to find the budget resolutions and proceed from there.
I am concerned about the way in which the same resolutions are identified in the notice paper attached to yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. The identification reads "Ways and means resolutions-revised budget resolutions". I do not wish to be a stickler unnecessarily about a word, but it seems to me that the word "revised" could carry the implication that the resolutions presented on June 13 have already been revised. I think we are agreed that is not the case, but that we still have before us the resolutions presented on June 13 and that the committee of ways and means is seized with them. This can be handled, I am confident, in committee of ways and means when we get there.
However, I feel that if a caveat were not entered at this point, we might then be told we accepted this wording, and the only
resolutions with which we could deal would be the revised ones. It seems to me the proper course would be to go into committee of ways and means, when the time comes, and start with the resolutions with which the committee is already seized and to go on from there.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: I do not want to enter into any discussion, but I would recommend to the hon. member that he look at page 705 of May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, where there is a citation that bears on the point the hon. gentleman has introduced. I am just entering a caveat, too.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the house leader, together with the other party leaders, may be getting together later this day to discuss the exact procedure to be followed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right, sir. (Translation):



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
(Text):

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) presented the second report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is mounting concern among the farmers in western Canada over the possibility of a strike by longshoremen in Vancouver, is the Minister of Labour in a position to report on the present situation, and can he tell us with some hope that the strike will not take place?
1972	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the right hon. gentleman I am able to tell him that negotiations are still continuing today, as they have for the past several days. The negotiations have been very lengthy, and such intensive negotiations indicate that both parties are searching carefully and in good faith for a solution to their difficulties. While the negotiations are continuing in that manner I think there is some hope to be expressed that a solution will be found.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has an agreement been negotiated between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada in connection with the Columbia river treaty, as reported in a C.B.C. newscast last night; and if so, will the Prime Minister table a copy today?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be making a statement on this matter in the house, I hope tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he would inform the house what action Canada is taking respecting the announcement by the United States that she is freezing all Cuban assets, especially bank deposits, and the possibility of using Canadian banks to transfer these deposits.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the department have been looking into the Canadian implications, if any, of this action by the United States. Perhaps my hon. friend is in a position to make a statement now.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government received a short advance notice of these new United States regulations which were announced and which came into effect on July 8. The government is now examining these regulations to ascertain whether any Canadian interests might be directly or indirectly affected.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he make available to the house the report to be given to the member governments of NATO by Mr. Spaak, foreign minister of Belgium, who has recently had what may be regarded as an important interview with Mr. Khrushchev?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the house are interested in the important talks which have taken place between the foreign minister of Belgium and Premier Khrushchev. Whether the nature of these talks can be disclosed is, of course, a matter that does not depend on action by this government. I should point out, however, that reports to the NATO council by member governments are confidential, and the hon. gentleman will understand, I am sure, that nothing should be done to impair the valuable process of consultation in NATO. I am sure we are all grateful to the distinguished and experienced foreign minister of Belgium for having accepted the invitation of Chairman Khrushchev to discuss with him important matters involving east-west relations at this very important time in world history.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Following the numerous changes in the budget, is the Minister of Finance in a position to tell the house what the budget deficit will amount to next year? (Text):


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I think I made that clear last night, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question, still on the same subject. When the Minister of Finance speaks of "schools, universities and similar educational institutions", does he include churches, monasteries, and presbyteries among those "similar educational institutions"?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think any further clarification or definition of these resolutions could better be dealt with when

the resolutions are before the house, which as far as I am concerned cannot come too soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. (Translation) :


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell us why, in preparing his baby budget submitted last evening, he did not consider advisable to exempt from the tax on building materials those used by provincial governments and their agencies, namely Quebec hydro?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I suggest that that question might be put to me during the debate on the resolution.



PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY TO FLOUR MILLERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on the promise to implement a two price system for wheat by paying a $50 million subsidy to the flour millers of this country. This is the amount experts have estimated it would cost to prevent a rise in the price of bread. Since no allowance of $50 million was made in the budget, could the minister inform this house how he proposes to arrange for this subsidy?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am sorry; I have no comment to make on that question.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Was yesterday's action by the Bank of Canada in withdrawing its support bid of 98J for Dominion of Canada 4J's due in 1983 made after consideration as to how this move would increase interest rates and tend to cause tighter money?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the day to day conduct of the Bank of Canada's market transactions in government securities is of course a matter for the bank, and I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to answer his question in detail. The government does, however, accept the ultimate responsibility for monetary policy, and I can assure the hon. member that it continues to be the aim
Inquiries of the Ministry of the government and of the bank to provide the maximum encouragement to domestic economic expansion compatible with the maintenance of a sound external position and the avoidance of exchange difficulties.
With regard to its day of day purchases and sales of securities, the Bank of Canada has made it clear that it ordinarily operates by responding or not responding to bids or offers for particular issues of government securities made to it by others in the market. In determining how to respond to such bids and offers the bank bears in mind a variety of considerations, including its view of the appropriateness of credit conditions to the state of the domestic economy, developments in the capital market, and trends in the balance of international payments including the effects of the differences between interest rates in Canada and abroad on capital flows into and out of Canada. It may sometimes happen that as a result of these considerations the bank will be a buyer of a particular issue of government securities at the same price over a period of time, but this does not mean that the bank assumes a commitment to maintain any particular price. Changes in the bank's response to market bids and offers must be expected to occur from time to time in the light of developments.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A supplementary question. Could the Minister of Finance give us any indication just what the reason was for withdrawing the bid yesterday?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think I made it clear in the answer I have just given, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO REFUNDS OF SALES TAX ALREADY PAID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I want to address a question to the Minister of Finance. How soon will refunds be payable to individuals and companies who have already paid the 11 per cent sales tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I cannot give a categorical answer to that question, but I am sure my colleague the Minister of National Revenue will do his very best to expedite these refunds, some of which will not be able to be made until the resolution and the bill have been passed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question. To whom should an individual who has paid, for example, $300 or $400 for lumber to repair his cottage, apply for the refund; to the retailer who sold him the lumber or to the Department of National Revenue directly?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I expect the hon. member knows very well, there is no price control in

Inquiries of the Ministry this country. I expect he knows also that this is a manufacturers' sales tax and not a retail sales tax. And I expect he knows, in the case of the hypothetical customer to whom he has referred, that his best course is to appeal to the retailer in question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A further question to the Minister of Finance. Do I understand that individuals who have paid the 11 per cent sales tax have no means of recovering this money, and that the only people who can recover it are the wholesalers who paid it to begin with?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will try to make this as clear as I can. The customer who paid for the lumber to which the hon. member referred in his example paid a certain price for it. He did not pay a tax. If he paid too high a price, I have no doubt he and the retailer will get together and work it out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask another question. Has the minister not contemplated any means by which people who have paid this tax will have the right to recover it? The hon. gentleman is trying to put the onus entirely on the wholesalers and retailers rather than making it the responsibility of the government which made the error to begin with.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It seems to me we are engaging in what is to some extent a debate, but as I said earlier, anybody who has paid the tax could apply to the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue following the announcement just made by the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister of National Revenue advise the house as to the procedure an individual would follow to obtain a refund in excess of the 4 per cent rate, as announced last night?


An hon. Member:: Hire a lawyer.


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member who has asked the question will appreciate that as a federal government we cannot enter into the relationship between the vendor and the purchaser, but I did rather anticipate that a question along this line might be asked today and I would be happy to tell him this, if I have permission.
Last evening the Minister of Finance indicated that refunds would be made to those who during the period from June 14 to July 9 have actually remitted sales tax at the full rate on goods they had sold or imported that

were previously exempt. When refunds are-made to the manufacturers, importers or others who have remitted the tax to the department, or where they have made deductions from the tax they would have had to pay and thus achieved the same result, it will, of course, be expected that they will pass on these benefits to those to whom they sold goods during this period. In fact it is expected that these benefits will be passed along to the final purchaser. The extent to which this will happen will depend to a considerable degree on the legal and even the good will relations between the vendor and the purchaser.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Finance assure the house that he will not, as was done last year in the matter of surcharges, pass a law with retroactive effect, because he is unable to determine who in fact paid the 11 per cent tax? In my opinion, we are faced with a similar situation.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that he has just stated that the government is relying on the good faith of both buyers and sellers in regard to the refund of the 11 per cent sales tax, could he tell us what steps the government intends to take to do justice to the taxpayers in cases where there would be lack of good faith?
(Text):


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a question that I can comment on, on orders of the day.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a question to direct to the Minister of National Revenue related to the statement he just made. Are we correct in assuming that an individual who has purchased a can of paint since June 13 is now entitled to ask the retailer for a refund of the amount of tax in excess of the 4 per cent rate announced last night?


John Richard Garland: I am reluctant, Mr. Speaker, to discuss these things on orders of the day. However, I can tell the hon. member that this tax is collected at the manufacturers' level and not at the retail level. Now whether or not the retailer has paid the tax on this particular piece of goods or item of merchandise, no one would know except the dealer himself. Surely the hon. member can appreciate the difficulties connected with a federal

government getting involved in a relationship between the vendor and the purchaser.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of National Revenue realize the Minister of Finance just told us this is what we should do?


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the Minister of National Revenue for clarification. Have I understood it properly that the only position this government takes in relation to the ultimate consumer of goods in the recovery of the tax is caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware? Has the government no other solution for them to recover it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Minister of National Revenue could give some consideration to the various questions that have been asked here today. On the basis of a rough computation it means that the wholesalers will have collected about $350,000 a day more than the tax will now be. Will he not do something to bring about an arrangement with the wholesalers whereby refunds will be made? Otherwise it is going to be a tremendous windfall to the wholesalers in this country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about the surcharges?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, there is no justification for accepting the position which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has just indicated. There is no justification whatsoever, and on that basis there will be no reply.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the minister is not required to answer, but in what respect is there not justification, leaving in the hands of the wholesalers-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been howled down before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. It is that there was another item of business set down for debate this afternoon, and it seems to me that if the question period is to be turned into a debate we will never reach the orders of the day-


Mr. Churchill:: Grit closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and that the rules with respect to questions should apply equally to all hon. members of the house, however
eminent.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: There can only be a debate when there are two sides to a question. In this case the government is refusing to take action, which means that the wholesalers of this country will be able-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -to have collected-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I won't be howled down again.


Mr. Chevrier:: You have howled down everybody else.


John George Diefenbaker: The wholesalers of the country will have collected the difference between 11 per cent and 4 per cent, which amounts to about $350,000 a day collected on behalf of the federal government. The government has now changed its attitude, and surely the minister will say that something is going to be done in order to arrange for refunds, as suggested by the opposition?


John Richard Garland: I simply answer by saying that I do not for a moment accept the assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. McIntosh:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer back to the answer I got from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the house leader say his reply did not agitate debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that we make a little progress now.
(Translation):


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answers given us by the Minister of National Revenue and also in view of the requests we have been receiving regularly for a few days, that is where to go to be reimbursed for the tax paid, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he can tell us how he will reconcile, in the province of Quebec, the fact that when a consumer has paid the tax he will have to ask to be reimbursed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gérard Chapdelaine: -by the retailer, the retailer will have to call on the wholesaler as a guarantee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the same
thing-


Gérard Chapdelaine: -the wholesaler will have to call on the manufacturer as a guarantee and the manufacturer will have to claim-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gérard Chapdelaine: -his right, in his turn, from the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking exactly the same questions put by other hon. members.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, it is just to give an answer to those in my county who are asking where they should go.


An hon. Member:: Answer them directly in writing and not here.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: If I could count ten I would do so. May I suggest we get off this subject on to something much more pressing and urgent, as should be the case in the question period.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagof):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister tell the house whether necessary measures have been taken in order to prevent possible abuses by the wholesalers when the rate of tax passes from 4 per cent to 8 per cent, and so on?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can go beyond the answer I have made, on orders of the day.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES PROVINCIAL REPLIES TO LETTER RESPECTING ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the premier of British Columbia has as yet made a written reply to his letter of May 15 on the question of the royal commission on biculturalism.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge. I will inquire when I go back to my office, but one had not arrived up to this morning.



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF BURSARY PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: In
view of the fact that many students in Canada are making plans for the next university year, can the Prime Minister inform the house when the bursary program announced by the government last April will be implemented?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be able to announce that when we get through the business now on the order paper.
TMr. Chapdelaine.]



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport when he expects to have a clear response to the request put to him more than three weeks ago by the joint running trades committee regarding the need for executive action to postpone the C.N.R. run-throughs in western Canada.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I prefer not to accept the premise of the hon. member's question; but as to the latter part of the question, I will take it as notice and try to give him an answer tomorrow.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a supplementary question Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if there was any premise in my original question. I would ask the minister whether he remembers giving an undertaking to this group, which was presented to him by members of all parties, that he would give them a reply to their request?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I remember meeting with the delegation, but I would not describe the delegation as the running trades of the railway unions; that was the point I was wishing to make.
(Translation):



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can he inform the house of the results of his meeting this morning with the mayor and a delegation of the city of St. Laurent concerning contracts to be obtained for Canadair?
(Text):


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: As a consequence of the efforts of my colleague the hon. member for Dollard, I did have a meeting with the mayor and some of the members of the council of the city of St. Laurent apropos the possibility of continuing a high level of work at Canadair. I was able to assure the mayor and the members of council that their interest and that of the government, namely to continue to see a high level of employment at Canadair, was the same, and we are both working toward the same end.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: My
question is one for the Minister of National Defence. In view of wire service news stories on Monday that three former nazi espionage agents claim they were tortured by Canadian troops in the Netherlands in 1944, has the department of defence any information about the accuracy of the reports-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a question for the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO EXPORTS IN CURRENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) McIntosh: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister care to comment on informed forecasts that Canadian exports of wheat for the year ending this month will reach a maximum of not more than 328 million bushels and may be as low as 312 million bushels?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this seems a curious sort of question. There does not seem to be any urgency to it, but if the hon. member wants to know my guess it would be that our exports will be of the order of 325 million bushels. How much they will actually be we will find out at the end of the crop year.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that exports last year were over 350 million bushels, what special efforts has the minister or his department made, if any, to accelerate wheat sales for the year ending July 31, 1963?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have explained to hon. members opposite on several occasions, when we took office there were complaints from farm organizations, who are the people most concerned, about the drop in export sales. This was unfortunate, but it was the situation that we had to cope with when we took office. The wheat board are very well aware of the necessity of maintaining, and indeed increasing, exports of wheat and flour. I was with them last week. I do not think we could do anything more at the moment to support their efforts than we are presently doing. I expect this will be on the whole a fairly good year in spite of the poor situation which we inherited when we took office.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question.
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: So long as it is a question and you are not entering into debate.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am not entering into debate. I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is not aware that the elected members of western Canada represent the wheat producers, and not the farm organizations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, I am sure the farm organizations of western Canada feel that they speak for their members.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce relating to an earlier statement he made in the house. Is the minister aware that according to dominion bureau of statistics figures, exports of Canadian wheat and wheat flour to the end of April, when the Liberal government took over, totalled nearly 250 million bushels, the second highest figure on record and much higher than the ten year average 1951 to 1961?



RAPESEED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reynold Rapp: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning a matter of urgency. The minister is aware of the fact that Japan ranks No. 1 in dollar value as a user of rapeseed. Can the minister arrange with Mr. McNamara, chairman of the Canadian wheat board, who is at present in China, to visit and negotiate with Japan for the sale of rapeseed? Information coming out of the west indicates a bumper crop of rapeseed this year.


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman knows, the Canadian wheat board does not handle rapeseed. However, I shall see that the trade commissioner in Tokyo is made aware of the hon. gentleman's interest, and he will do his best to dispose of the rapeseed.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada given or when will she give formal recognition to the state of Malaysia, formed as the result of an agreement signed yesterday by the countries of Malaya, Singapore, British North Borneo and Sarawak?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, Canada has enjoyed close relations with the commonwealth entities of Malaya, Singapore, British North Borneo and Sarawak. Yesterday in the United Kingdom an agreement was concluded, and this must be related to the events which we all anticipate will take place on the 31st of August with the formation of the new federated state of Malaysia. There is no question about the continuation of the most cordial relations between this new state in the commonwealth and Canada.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING PURCHASE OF MEDIUM RANGE JETS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is in a position at the present time to indicate to the house whether Trans-Canada Air Lines are going to have their medium jet replacement built at Can-adair, and when we can expect a final decision on this matter.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect a final decision on this matter for several weeks yet. There has been no decision as to what plane will be procured, and it is too early to give any indication at all in the matter.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO POSTPONEMENT OF MUNICIPAL LOAN LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has house discussion of the municipal loans legislation been indefinitely postponed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. As soon as we get ahead with the business now before the house we will proceed to discuss this important measure.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question with regard to the statement he has just made, according to which the government, in spite of Mr. Lesage's protests, has no intention of reconsidering its proposal for the tabling in the house of legislation respecting financial assistance by way of municipal loans and also a measure concerning old age pensions.

Must we conclude that the Prime Minister is reverting to the theories of his predecessors of the Liberal party?
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no justification for the deduction contained in the hon. gentleman's question, which itself was out of order.
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the statement made by the President of the Privy Council the day before yesterday to the effect that an agreement is always possible between the federal government and the provinces with respect to the program of loans to municipalities, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to propose an option formula likely to meet the objections of the province of Quebec?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is one matter that will be discussed at a meeting before long with all the provinces including Quebec, and they will be given the opportunity to express their views on this particular piece of legislation.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question? Does the Prime Minister intend to reply shortly to Mr. Lesage's letter, considering the latter's impatience?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I intend to reply to that letter in due course. I would also be interested in receiving the views of other provinces on this matter. I have not received any from any other province.
(Translation):



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice? Could he tell the house whether his department has given up the idea of building a medium security penitentiary at St. Pie de Bagot as was announced in 1961?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, a question on this matter was put on the order paper and the hon. member received an answer.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, in the initial question I asked whether his department would carry on the maximum security project. My question today is on a medium security penitentiary.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as far as the maximum security project is concerned, it will be built in the St. Vincent de Paul area for reasons already given. As for the other project, it is postponed for the moment. (Text):



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question, notice of which I sent to his deputy minister. Can he tell us what is causing the delay in implementing the two applications approved by the board of broadcast governors, for a radio station in Winnipeg and a television station in St. John's, N ewf oundland?


George James McIlraith: The B.B.G. recommendation regarding the St. John's, Newfoundland C.B.C. station proposed a number of conditions for inclusion in the licence. The department was of the opinion that these conditions needed clarification, and has requested such clarification from the B.B.G. The matter cannot be dealt with until a reply is received from the B.B.G.
As to the other case, the Winnipeg station, that matter is presently under ministerial consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. It is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur of the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the board of broadcast governors, for whom the Secretary of State speaks, has approved the application for a radio station in Winnipeg, will he see that the applicant has an opportunity to be heard before the cabinet turns down the application?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the board of broadcast governors was established for the purpose of hearing applicants, and that this function should not be usurped by anyone other than the body given the responsibility by parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the reports correct, that
Inquiries of the Ministry if this recommendation of the B.B.G. is turned down it will be the first such instance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I think, sir, there was an occasion recently when the cabinet saw fit not to authorize the issue of a licence that had been recommended; and I assume that when parliament gave that power to the governor in council, it was intended to be used.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of questions that were asked last week about Mr. Lesage's letter concerning the federal government's proposed pension legislation, a letter which we were told was being considered, can the Prime Minister now assure the house that the proposed legislation concerning the Canada pension plan will be proceeded with at this session of parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is a resolution on the order paper dealing with this matter, and we propose to proceed with this resolution as quickly as possible.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA  INQUIRY AS TO SECOND HIGHWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works which is based on curiosity. Can the minister inform the house if there have been any recent discussions between the members of his department and representatives of the government of British Columbia in respect of the location of a second trans-Canada highway in British Columbia?
(Translation):


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minisler of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the Minister of Public Works got in touch with the ministers of highways of all provinces including British Columbia. A meeting with the representatives of the department of highways of that province will take place within two or three weeks, but at the level of departmental officials only. When we have received the reports of the officials of the federal Department of Public Works and those of the province, then it will be appropriate for both ministers to get together.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Is the Minister of Labour in a position to report on meetings that were held between several members of the cabinet and officials of the united mine workers union within recent days, at which meeting he was the chairman, I believe?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Officers of the united mine workers of America, district 26, met with a number of members of the government on Friday last, including the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Minister of Forestry, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance. The officers of the united mine workers dealt with a number of problems of interest to them, and in particular with the recent announcement of the government extending the subvention policy for a period of five years. They expressed gratification with this. They raised also the employment policy of the government in respect of joint programs, forestry programs with the provincial governments, and also the employment policy followed at the Louisburg development. The president of the united mine workers was especially interested in the new training program and the adjustment program for new entrants to the labour force, and in respect of future employment displacements and the efforts that might be made to deal with them.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: May
I ask a supplementary question. Did the officers of the united mine workers request any budget modifications on coal mining production machinery in so far as the 11 per cent, 4 per cent or 8 per cent sales tax is concerned, or whatever it is?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The members of the united mine workers met separately with the Minister of Finance, and I am not able to report to the house on those discussions.


Mr. Fairwealher:: May I now ask the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are entering into a debate.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour when we can
expect legislation covering the amendments promised to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have answered a number of questions on this particular point, and the situation has not changed since my last reply. At present the report of the Gill committee is under study and consideration, and when that study and consideration has been completed the government will be able to take a decision that might later be reflected in proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Who is making this study of the Gill report at the moment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. gentleman knows, there is an interdepartmental committee of senior officials engaged in a continuing study of the Gill committee report. This committee has not as yet completed its study. Following receipt of these studies, the government will be in a position to deal with them.


Edward Nasserden: As a supplementary question, could the Minister of Labour indicate if there is any target date when these discussions are to come to a head?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry but I did not hear the hon. gentleman.


Edward Nasserden: I wonder whether the
minister could indicate if there is any target date that has been set when these discussions should come to a head?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is really out of order, and I am sure the hon. member realizes it.



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT OF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture but since, as usual, he is not here I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what provision is being made for the carrying out of his election promise to provide $3 per bushel for the initial 300 bushels of wheat delivered, and a price of $2 per bushel for No. 1 wheat based at Fort William?


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member, but I do believe that question has been asked once or twice before.


Some hon. Members:: But never answered.


Edward Nasserden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, while this question has been asked it has not been answered.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member well knows that this question has been asked once or twice, if not three times, and if the minister wishes to reply he may. If he does not wish to reply he is not obliged to do so. There is no point of order.


Edward Nasserden: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has anything new to contribute, then of course I will hear him.


Edward Nasserden: This is an urgent matter, as the crop year is about to end and the initial prices for grain for the new crop year will be set in the very near future.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be very true, but what is the point of order?


Edward Nasserden: The matter of urgency is the point of order that the Prime Minister should recognize.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question of
urgency or lack of urgency is the responsibility of the minister.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to introduce soon a new budget with the same Minister of Finance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That question is characteristic of the hon. gentleman's intelligence.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance can give the house the assurance that the latest draft of his budget is the definitive one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I had put a question to the Minister of Justice when he was Acting Prime Minister regarding a statement made by Mr. Burnside when he appeared before the royal commission on pilotage, to the effect that the seaway authorities had asked Ottawa that the French language be banned in pilotage manoeuvring-
9. 1963	1981
Atlantic Development Board Act (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no urgency in that question, even though it is a very important one.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I directed a question to the minister and I would ask him to supply me with an answer.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that he is asking, on the orders of the day-which is his right-not less than five, six or seven questions a day, and I must consider the rights of other hon. members in the house.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of privilege. As a member of parliament, I have a right to ask any number of questions I feel appropriate as long as I do so in accordance with the standing orders.


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: As a member of parliament you have no right to act as an imbecile.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I do not have to take orders from anybody.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, may I be allowed to point out that the parliamentary secretary's remarks are out of order.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I said that a member of parliament had no right to act as an imbecile. If the hon. member feels the hat fits him, I am very sorry for him but he can wear it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, again on a point of privilege, I feel that the language used by the hon. member is not in accordance with the traditions of the house and that any hon. member who uses such language is not worthy of sitting in this chamber.
(Text):



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-80, to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, before making any remarks I wonder whether the minister who is respon-

Atlantic Development Board Act sible to parliament for this bill is not in the position where he would like to make an opening statement on second reading?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer, sir, is no. I was advised by hon. gentlemen opposite that I spoke too much on the resolution. Therefore it seems unnecessary for me to repeat on second reading of the bill what has already been said.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State does not appear anxious-in fact he does not even appear willing

to make a statement on second reading, I might say I can quite understand his reluctance to speak because it involves the question of the principle of the amendment. The principle involved in the bill is to amend the act which was passed last autumn by a previous parliament. There is no reason for amending it; consequently I can understand the minister's reluctance to defend it in any way, shape or form. However, as he has decided that he does not wish to speak at this time, there are a few observations which I should like to make.
I should like first of all to call the attention of the house to the fact that there is an amendment before us, and I believe we should think of the original act which was passed last autumn, as well as the amendment, when making the observations which we will make on second reading of Bill No. C-80. I think we have to go back to the original act which it is proposed to amend by Bill No. C-80 and ask ourselves this question. Did we or did we not agree with the principle of the setting up of the Atlantic development board? If we did, I think we should keep that fact in mind as we speak to this bill at the present time. I expressed my opinion at the resolution stage of the bill, but having now seen and read the bill I cannot agree with the principle that a bill which amends an act which has never yet had an opportunity to function is a proper bill. I cannot accept that principle, and I do not think this house should accept such a principle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: This is the case with the Atlantic provinces development board, and it is my opinion that these amendments are made for political reasons and political reasons only. The word which has come out of the province of New Brunswick is, I believe, "Wardell must go".
Now what do we ask ourselves when we are discussing the whole principle? Do we not ask ourselves the question, are we anxious to do in this House of Commons the things

which will benefit the Atlantic provinces? To my certain knowledge this was the approach of the previous government, and I hope it was the approach of the present government to the same problem. The measure was designed originally to be an instrument which would lead to progress and development in the Atlantic provinces, and I have no reason to doubt it would have fulfilled that general intention had it been allowed to function. Has anyone ever proven that the original bill would not have led to the progress and development of the Atlantic provinces? I submit no one has done so.
There are certain aspects of the amendment which we cannot possibly accept. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough in his remarks on the resolution said that promises made during the election campaign rendered a change imperative. I do not agree that this is a good enough reason for taking the action now contemplated. If the hon. member made some promise that he is perhaps ashamed of now, there is no reason why he should not acknowledge what has taken place instead of trying to inflict this amended act on the people of the Atlantic provinces. He says he promised certain things during the election- a better break for the Atlantic provinces, as I recall his words. In particular he spoke of providing a stronger Atlantic development board with a capital fund to promote basic development projects, to encourage the expansion of industry and to provide jobs and income.	.
I submit there is nothing there which wa: not contained in the original measure. Hon members opposite have argued that there was not a specified amount of money at the disposal of the board. I said a few weeks ago when this measure was before the house, and I repeat this afternoon, that all the resources of Canada were at the disposal of the Atlantic development board. It was only a matter of determining what was economic, what was justified, what would lead to the development of this part of our great country. At that time the entire resources of all Canada were at the board's disposal. It is all poppycock to say there were no funds at the disposal of this board as it was originally conceived.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough said also that there had been a decision from the supreme court of public opinion in the Atlantic provinces. I asked him at that point whether he had promised his constituents that the board would die on January 24, 1969. He replied by saying it was a good thing to have a date on which the board would die because it would then have an objective for performance. I think that is a reasonable paraphrase of what the hon. member said; I assume it is, because he is not disputing it. He told us that individual

organizations work better when they have a deadline. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that the party which he supports was here for 22 years. I should like them to point to any great, outstanding accomplishments which they achieved to their credit during that time as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman want me to tell him one right away? I would mention the Canso causeway, a pretty big operation. Then there is Camp Gagetown.


Hugh John Flemming: Yes, it is true that for the defence of the country they established a camp at Gagetown. I suppose it was put there for defence purposes. I am not saying anything in criticism of the camp. It is a splendid thing for that part of our country to have the defenders of Canada located there. But I do not think one could put the label of sound economics on it as the reason. My hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings says "And closed the one in Nova Scotia". Well, I am not standing here to argue the point. I am simply calling attention to the fact that it is nothing short of preposterous to expect this board to accomplish in five and a half years what previous governments-oh, yes, Conservative and Liberal alike; I admit that-have been working on for nearly 100 years. It was only during the period from 1957 to 1963 that we saw definite and great accomplishments as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned.
So I hope the hon. member will agree on reflection that the clause to which I have referred should be deleted. At any rate I would expect the government to introduce an amendment to that effect, because I am unable to agree in any way that the board should be allowed to die after five and a half years. Indeed, it seems ridiculous to me that anyone could keep a straight face and say the board could possibly accomplish all its objectives within such a length of time. I urge the Secretary of State that when the proper time arrives he should accept an amendment deleting that particular provision.
I also question, if I may have the temerity to do so, our right to say that such a body as this should die at some future date so far ahead, a date beyond the life of this parliament. Who are we to say what conditions will be in January of 1969? Why should we anticipate the future in this way, especially as it appears to me such a provision is likely to do a great deal of damage to one part of our country? What is to be done in January of 1969 will be recommended to parliament by whatever government will be in office at that time. It is something for them to deal with.
I should like to return for a moment to the subject of the personnel of the board.
9. 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act The minister has stated that they should be strengthened. Well, we have five men named to the board, men whose gifts and qualifications cannot be improved on. I do not say it would not be possible to find five men who would be as good, but they would not be better. I will not be satisfied unless they serve the term for which they were appointed. If the present government, in its wisdom or lack of it, decides it is going to appoint six more people so that they may outvote the five, I think those already appointed should serve out their terms. I think if the government of the day decides that it should appoint people for an equal length of time, possibly, from the point of view of one hon. gentleman opposite, there may be some justification for this idea, though I cannot understand it myself. Their qualifications were examined in detail not long ago. Never in this parliament will the question of ability in this regard be doubted. I hope that an amendment will be prepared and presented accomplishing the continuation of the present board members in office for the period of time for which they have been appointed. I suggest to the Secretary of State that he use his influence to continue in office the present chairman of the board for the period of time for which he was appointed.
I have here a letter written by the Secretary of State to the present chairman. The part to which I wish to draw attention is this:
The effective use of the fund-
That is the fund provided.
-will clearly require a close harmony of view between the government and the board and especially the chairman.
I ask, what is meant by "harmony of view"? I think the Secretary of State owes it to the house to tell us what he means. Does he mean "harmony of political view"? I would not have thought so.


Mr. Robichaud:: That is what existed before.


Hugh John Flemming: I might say to the hon. member for Gloucester that he should be an expert on harmony of political views, because he has been working at that for a long time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is true with you.


Mr. Caron:: You did also.


Hugh John Flemming: In my
opinion, the present chairman of the board will work in harmony with anyone wanting to work toward an improvement in economic conditions. This is what he said in his speech at Amherst, and the Secretary of State quoted him in detail. I will quote Brigadier Wardell also, and from the same speech:
As to the new terms of our appointments, we shall be glad to fall in with the government's

Atlantic Development Boat'd Act proposals, whatever they may be, in substitution of the act of parliament by which we hold our appointments today.
I would draw attention to the next sentence, which reads:
Personal considerations have no place in our minds. We are ready and happy to serve in any capacity.
But this government decides that the man who is willing and anxious to work in any capacity shall be given a minimum of two years notice and told to get out. That is what it amounts to.
We are here, so tar as this legislation is concerned, with one object in view-the betterment, improvement and advancement of all people in the Atlantic provinces. Surely this is conceded on all sides. The Liberals of New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces have, I suggest, put partisan considerations ahead of the good of the Atlantic provinces by agreeing to these amendments. I think history will record that they are wrong if they think petty politics should be played at all times. In my opinion they will not-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: We never played them.


Hugh John Flemming: Well, let us not get into that argument, because there are so many things about which I could remind my hon. friend from Gloucester-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And so could I.


Hugh John Flemming: -that we would get away from the subject matter of the Atlantic development board. The people of the Atlantic provinces will not forget the attitude of this government toward the Atlantic development board, which could be so important for improvement and progress. If they would only indicate interest in that phase instead of providing for its death and funeral, then it would have much more prospect of accomplishing what it was intended to accomplish. As I said, I hope an amendment will be prepared in connection with this particular phase of Bill No. C-80.
Some hon. members have said that the $100 million is an amount which has been specifically put forward. Some hon. members have said, although the Secretary of State has not, that the $100 million was the minimum. It can, of course, be increased, but the Secretary of State has not said it will. He has said that he cannot bind future parliaments to any additional amount. Someone on the government benches must tell us that the $100 million is the amount just to get the board started; because if that amount of money is divided among four provinces over a period of six years only $5 million per year per province is provided, which
[Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) .1
does not fill the bill or meet the situation at all. If the government really want to relieve the doubt existing in many people's minds the Secretary of State, I think, should not hesitate to sponsor an amendment to the effect that it shall not be less than $100 million. Those words if inserted in the bill would be a tremendous improvement as far as we are concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Hugh John Flemming: Yes,
indeed, though the clock keeps turning.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How does he reconcile his earlier statement that he disapproved of a fund altogether with his present statement that he wants a bigger fund?


Hugh John Flemming: Just a minute; I think the Secretary of State qualifies under the heading of what is called a tricky debater. And that is said as a compliment. All I said was that the $100 million should be the minimum and we should not be tied to that figure. May I remind my hon. friend from Gloucester that he was the man who stood here last autumn and asked where had the $1 billion got to.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Where is it now?


Hugh John Flemming: We had
it in the resources of Canada before the Minister of Finance got to work and brought in a $700 million deficit last night. There is plenty to take care of all those commitments.
These are the three phases which I submit must be changed to some extent when we reach the committee stage on this bill. I want now to say a word or two in connection with some remarks made by the Secretary of State when he spoke last on this matter. He indicated that my hide, you might say, was a little too thin, and he said that I should not have got annoyed. He said, as reported on page 1317 of Hansard:
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.
He implied that in that period of time nothing had been done for the Atlantic provinces by the government of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not imply any such thing. I hope the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I merely said, and it is perfectly evident, that that promise had not been kept.
198S


Hugh John Flemming: I have read what the Secretary of State said and I submit that the implication is that nothing had been done to fulfil the promises which were made. I have them all here, and may I say that there are seven promises in all and the two hon. gentlemen behind me were co-authors of them. They have been fulfilled to the letter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: They have been fulfilled to the letter and I can prove it to the satisfaction of anyone whose eyes are not clouded by political bias. Let us go back and see what took place in that period. In the last year during which the government of which the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) was a member was in office, the province of Newfoundland received in unconditional, conditional and other grants, as found on page 3089 of Hansard of 1962-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What does the hon. gentleman consider the last year? Perhaps he would identify the year.


Hugh John Flemming: 1962.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the year about which he is going to give figures.


Hugh John Flemming: I have not got to it yet. If the minister will possess his soul in patience I will be glad to give it to him. This is 1956-1957, the last year in which the government of which he was a member was in office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, that was not the last year we were in office. We were in office part of the year 1957-58. The hon. gentleman knows well that these payments were very substantially increased in 1957-58 by Mr. Harris' amendments of 1956 and that the figures he is about to give are not the final figures for the Liberal government at all. They are Tory misrepresentations that have been made over and over again, and I protest.


Mr. MacEwan:: Make your own speech.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I hope you are taking note of the time consumed by these interruptions. That was the last full year his government was in office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not the last year the government was in office.


Hugh John Flemming: The last full year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question?
28902-5-126
Atlantic Development Boat'd Act


Hugh John Flemming: I say that
1956-57 was the last full year your government was in office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. I am sure he does not wish to misrepresent the facts. Is it not a fact that the act of 1956, which the hon. gentleman remembers well because he said it was not enough, only came into operation on April 1, 1957, that the Liberal government was responsible for it and that the proper year to give figures for what the Liberals were responsible for is 1957-58 and not 1956-57? There is a difference of about $100 million in the payments to the provinces between those two years.


Hugh John Flemming: All right, let us take the facts. All I am trying to do-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let us take the facts.


Hugh John Flemming: Let us
take the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But not the facts for another
year.
Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-Carleion:) The year for which the minister wants to have credit is a year in which his government was only in office from the 1st of April until June 20 or thereabouts. I am prepared, Mr. Speaker, to give the figures for both of these periods if it will make him feel any better.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would make me feel a lot better because it would be honest.


Hugh John Flemming: I have that kind of nature that is anxious to please, so I will give the figures for both years and see how we make out. First of all, let us take Newfoundland. I was not here in that period when he implied that our members had done so little. Perhaps it was a good thing that I was not here. I am quite prepared to admit that there was a better man representing my constituency. Nevertheless, here is what the Liberal goverment did. In the year 1956-57 the province of Newfoundland received $24,826,000. In 1957-58 Newfoundland received $25,707,000. The figure for the year 1962-63 is estimated because it had to be estimated at the time these figures were prepared, but I think it is substantially correct. In that year Newfoundland received $68,205,000. That is Newfoundland alone.


An hon. Member:: He would not know anything about Newfoundland. He does not live there.


Hugh John Flemming: Well, the people there sent him to parliament to represent them. Taking Prince Edward Island:

Atlantic Development Boat'd, Act In the year 1956-57 that province received $5,048,000, in 1957-58 $7,072,000 and in 196263 $14,560,000.


An hon. Member:: Double.


Hugh John Flemming: More
than double. Let us take Nova Scotia. In
1956-	57 Nova Scotia received $31,336,000, in
1957-	58 $39,613,000, but in 1962-63 $78,515,000, or practically double.


An hon. Member:: Good members.


Hugh John Flemming: Good
members; that is right. In 1956-57 New Brunswick received $29,505,000, in 1957-58 $34,058,000 and in 1962-63 $68,200,000, again roughly double and much more than double the 1956-57 figure. I have made a rough addition of the figures but I did not take 1957-58 into account because I did not anticipate that I would need to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It makes a material difference.


Hugh John Flemming: In 195657 the total amount for the Atlantic provinces was $90,700,000 while in 1962-63 the total was $229,408,000. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that I stood up here a couple of weeks ago and said that we could not allow this measure to pass without having an opportunity to set the record right for this house and for the country? I am sure you will agree that remark was entirely justified in the light of the information which has been given this afternoon. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to have the time to talk about the seven Atlantic resolutions which my friend sponsored.


Mr. Cashin:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Hugh John Flemming: I will when I am through. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it was a most unfortunate result when the supporters of the previous government from the Atlantic provinces were reduced in number in the recent election. I said that on election night and I repeat that it was most unfortunate because in my opinion-I can prove this, I think, to the satisfaction of anyone who is willing to accept logic and facts-the previous government which held office was the most considerate of and sympathetic to the needs of the Atlantic provinces of any government, Liberal or Conservative, that we have had since confederation. That is my opinion and I believe it is justified by the facts.
I will not weary the house by speaking at greater length. I have indicated those amendments that I think should be considered by our friends opposite. I know there are many
(Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) .1
members here from the Atlantic provinces and elsewhere perhaps who want to have something to say on the bill. Therefore, as I say, I will not weary the house longer at the moment.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the hon. member. He quoted two figures, approximately $25 million and $68 million. Is he aware that only $13 million of the $68 million paid to the province of Newfoundland was paid as the result of laws passed by the Conservative administration from 1957 to 1963? In other words, approximately $55 million of that total amount was paid under the provisions of laws passed by the previous Liberal administration.


Hugh John Flemming: I am not
going to get into an argument with the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin), but I do want to say to him that his premier was the man who said it was a great thing for Newfoundland when the Diefenbaker government came into power because they had done more than had been done previously.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not say it after term 29.


Hugh John Flemming: He said it.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter this discussion because of its importance to the Atlantic provinces. In doing so, I should like first to comment upon statements made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming). The hon. member contends that it was solely for political reasons these amendments to the Atlantic Development Act have been introduced. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to all sections of the public that nothing could be further from the truth. The provisions that give the board a specific amount of money bring this legislation down into an area of realism in approaching the problems of the Atlantic area, instead of being something floating around in the clouds, which would result in nothing more than another report on the problems of the Atlantic region.
Not only do these amendments provide for giving a specific amount of money to this board but they provide also for broadening the representation on the board. This enables the Atlantic development board to work effectively for the Atlantic region. The hon. member suggests that there is nothing but political reasons for the new appointments. He says that the former administration gave long and serious consideration to the make-up of the board. In doing so, they came forth with appointments which do not present a broad representation of the various aspects

of the Atlantic economy. There was no representative of heavy industry and no representative of labour.


Mr. Maclnnis:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: With reference to the statement the hon. member has just made, is he prepared to stand up and say now that the future make-up of this board will include a representative of labour, the fishermen, mining, farming and lumbering?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Well, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) well knows, I do not speak for the government. However, I will certainly be urging, in my remarks, that a representative of labour be included. I wonder if last year the hon. member made representations along the same lines in favour of all these types of people he now mentions?


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit another question? The five categories which I named were those indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) as being represented on the board. Is he prepared now to stand up and say he wants representatives from these five areas?


Gerald Augustine Regan: If the hon. member for Cape Breton South does not mind, I will make my speech. I certainly do want to see a representative from labour on the board at any rate.
Then, the hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton said that under the Conservative regime the Atlantic provinces received more in the way of specific grants than they had under any government in the past. He used impressive statistics to illustrate this fact. However, Mr. Speaker, the test of a government is the manner in which it faces the problems existing and the way in which it comes to grips with them. I say this, that whatever the previous administration did for the Atlantic region, it did not do enough because during the years it was in office the Atlantic provinces fell further behind the rest of Canada than they had been previously in industrial growth; they fell further behind the rest of Canada during those years than they had been previously-


Hugh John Flemming: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would mind proving that statement?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would be happy to do so upon a subsequent occasion if the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
28902-5-126i
Atlantic Development Board Act


Gerald Augustine Regan: -if the hon member seriously takes issue with it.


Hugh John Flemming: I do
take issue with it. If the hon. member wants me to comment upon the statement, he Is saying that the rest of Canada advanced at a greater rate in that six-year period than did the Atlantic provinces. Perhaps it did, but it is my profound impression that we did gain some ground.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Look at the unemployment figures.


Hugh John Flemming: We are
talking about per capita income.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Hon. members on the other side will tell us that there was no unemployment during that year. However, we found a great many voters in the Atlantic provinces who thought there was. For this reason, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton has had occasion to regret the fact that Conservative members were not returned. During the years the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton was the premier of New Brunswick, he did not feel the same way. Although he indicated he was pleased with the new grants, he did not indicate he was completely satisfied with the amount that had been given to the maritimes at that period.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that at the moment we have a situation where the Atlantic development board can do something. We have no assurance it will be successful. In the past many attempts have been made to help the maritime economy, but they have failed. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house know full well that some of the present members of the board have, for years, been violently partisan supporters of the Conservatives. These appointments by the former regime were of a partisan nature.


Hugh John Flemming: Name them.


Robert Muir: Name them, and what did they do?


Gerald Augustine Regan: However, I would be the first to say that some of these men are men of considerable ability, men who I am confident are genuinely dedicated to the improvement of the maritime economy, as are most Canadians. I believe it is noteworthy that this government has not just displaced these members of the board, but has proposed rather to broaden the make-up of the board to make it more representative of the economy and make it a more effective board. Surely, the supporters of the former government cannot seriously object to this unless they are complaining, as I suspect is the case with the

Atlantic Development Board Act hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, that the members of that side of the house will not have such partisan influence upon the board after the new appointments as they may have had in the past.
I note that objection is made to the fact that the appointment of new members to the board may change somewhat the character of the board. I want to say this, that if we are to work for the improvement of the Atlantic economy, for the welfare of that economy, then let the voice of the faction be hushed. I would urge the government to consider making appointments to this board on a non-partisan basis. It is my hope and expectation that the additional appointments to the board will be of that nature. There has been some criticism also of the length of the appointments of the present members, and the fact that their terms would be shortened. My opinion is that the new legislation makes provision for reappointment, thus a member can be reappointed if he shows he has a contribution to make. If he has no contribution to make, someone else can be appointed. Surely this ensures that members will use greater energy in their attention to their duties; surely it discourages procrastination.
I should like now to deal with some questions concerning the actual role of this board. The economic problems that promoted the establishment of the Atlantic development board have existed in varying degrees since the first days of confederation. In my province of Nova Scotia, these problems first erupted when the tariff policies of the new dominion required us to change our trading patterns of 150 years standing. We found ourselves at one extremity of the new nation; and then, as now, the cost of transportation made it difficult to adjust to the new trade lines. These difficulties were not unforeseen, and as a result there was such a body of opinion against confederation that the provincial government of the day did not dare submit the issue to the public. Thus, Nova Scotia was the only province in which the people had no opportunity to vote on the question of entering confederation.
It was, however, an inherent consideration of confederation that a railway would be built uniting us with Quebec and Ontario, thus enabling the ports of Halifax and Saint John to become the major ports of the fledgling nation. Interior circulation is always more difficult in the extremities, but this use of our ports was to offset some portion of our disadvantage. We have such a railway today, as a matter of fact we have two of them, but these railways are not being fully utilized and the splendid port facilities of the maritime harbours are often unused while a shock-

ing portion of Canada's imports and exports are passing through United States ports.
I am not now dealing with competition from winter navigation on the St. Lawrence, or indeed competition from the seaway; but the freight handled over the docks of New York helps no part of the Canadian economy. The same freight handled over the docks of Halifax and Saint John would put dollars in the pockets of our workers and help bolster the martime economy. How ironic, how insane, for a nation which recognizes the unhealthy nature of the maritime economy by the establishment of this board to allow foreign ports to benefit from Canadian overseas commerce when the full use of maritime ports would lessen the amount of aid our area requires.
I have a few d.b.s. statistics in this regard, prepared by the maritime transportation commission, and these show that in the year 1960 42 per cent of engine boilers and locomotives exported from Canada were exported through United States ports. They show that 42 per cent of farm implements and machinery were exported through United States ports to a value of $2 J million. They also show that 122,000 rubber tires and inner tubes were exported through American ports, while only 137,000 were exported through Canadian ports. When it comes to Canada's export of automobiles we find that 74 per cent, or a total of 15,153, were exported through United States ports as against only 5,000 exported through Canadian ports. The same thing holds true for electrical apparatus. Some 40 per cent, to the value of over $8 million, was exported through American ports, and indeed all Canadian overseas exports via United States ports amounted to $143 million worth of goods in the same year. I suggest this would give a lot of employment on our waterfronts.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: A little later. I would like to finish these statistics.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is right on this matter.


Gerald Augustine Regan: During the same period we imported from overseas, through American ports, $241 million worth of goods. What I say is that a substantial change in these statistics would be one very valid and immediate way in which the economy of the Atlantic region could be helped.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: At the conclusion of my
remarks.


Hugh John Flemming: Has the
hon. member brought this to the attention of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I think I am doing it most effectively at the moment.


Malcolm MacInnis: Make sure he reads it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am very gratified that the Atlantic development board was established by the previous government. I am more gratified that the present government has given it funds to carry out its work. That these types of equalization assistance will be given by the federal government to areas that need assistance, is a basic part of our confederation.
There are in Canada today those who say that the shape of confederation must change, that the provinces must gain more autonomy] that Canada must become a group of loosely federated states, with each province retaining most of its own taxing power and the field of operations of the federal government severely restricted. I want to say I am distressed at this conception of confederation. There are many in Nova Scotia who say that we could not and would not stay in that type of confederation.
The proper and original concept of confederation envisaged a united nation in which the outlying provinces would receive some form of equalization assistance in return for being subjected to the tariffs which protected the industries of the central provinces.
It has always been the case that we could buy almost any commodity from the United States or from abroad rather than from Quebec and Ontario, were it not for the protective tariffs. Some consideration must be given in return for making us a captive market. This Atlantic development board is such a consideration; but these acts of assistance or equalization could not be granted by a federal government which had given away most of its taxing powers to the provinces.
So, I say again that in any reform of confederation the federal government must be left in a position that will enable it to carry out its historical and constitutional responsibilities; otherwise, through retrogression we may move to the status of a group of divided, Balkan type states.
We have a great need to develop a new type of biculturalism in Canada. We must rectify the cultural and commercial inequities that exist between the French and English speaking races, but we must not allow this to be used as an excuse for the shifting of power from the federal government to provincial governments. The federal
28902-5-127
Atlantic Development Boat'd Act government must be left the necessary powers and taxing authority to carry out its proper role.
I suppose there are a number of different opinions on the role that the Atlantic development board should carry out, and I should like to give my concept of the board's function. 1 submit that the board should proceed with the expenditure of the allocated funds only after thorough research. Too often in the past attempts to prop up the economy of the maritime region have failed, with ad hoc expenditures resulting in no permanent improvement. We wonder today if this latest effort to alleviate our economic problems will succeed where others have failed. To this end I urge that the board undertake no capital expenditure until research has clearly shown that the expenditure will in turn produce lasting improvement to the economy, commensurate with the amount of the expenditure.
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) who is not in his seat at the moment, strongly advocates the building of the Chig-necto canal. I am not sure this is economically logical. At least one member of the present board has indicated he is in favour of it but, using this as an example, all I ask is that the board thoroughly determine whether such a project, after completion, would have any marked effect upon our economy, and whether any improvement it did spawn would bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of the expenditure. If not, then the canal should be rejected in favour of some other project capable of more significant, lasting effect.
I submit that the board should not rush into a rash of quick expenditures for political reasons, because of an election coming on in three years time, or anything of that nature. Let us have the initial emphasis on research. I am not at all sure that the board should do the research itself. In many instances I think it should be done by outside consultants. Then I am sure that when the board can present well documented results to Ottawa and show it has sound proposals, its thinking can be marketed here in Ottawa. That is the most important role the board can carry out, and if it shows good justification for the expenditure of $400 million rather than $100 million, I am sure the government will be ready to spend that amount.
The 11 members who make up the board have the function of riding herd on the operation, but obviously because of the part time nature of their services the research, as I have said, should be done by outside groups.
The board has aready indicated that it would study the effect of winter navigation

Atlantic Development Boat'd, Act on the maritime economy. I think this is a study that badly needs to be done. I think it should be done by outsiders, as I have said; they should not be civil servants and they should be from outside the Atlantic region. But above all, this study should project future effects of increasing winter navigation on the St. Lawrence as well as current effects on the seaway.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that this board has been constituted by the former government, the fact that it has now been given funds by the present government, does not mean that its success is assured. Previous attempts have been made at solving the problems of the Atlantic region, and they have not been successful. This board has a hard job, and I am sure we all fervently hope it will succeed. I do know that if the services of this board and some of its funds are used in Nova Scotia in conjunction with the tax exemptions outlined for new industries by this administration, and if the board works in co-operation with our provincial crown company, Industrial Estates and with the area development agency of the new department of industry, then the prospects of success look brighter than ever before.
With reference to Industrial Estates, it is my hope that the Atlantic development board and this company can co-operate in bringing new industry into my province without being concerned as to whether the provincial or federal government will get the political credit. If these things are done, and if the documented recommendations of the board are carried out by Ottawa, then the results may carry animation and vigour to areas of the Atlantic provinces where stagnation and unemployment have been prominent.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member a question. He spoke about the large capital projects, and particularly with reference to the Chignecto canal. Is he not aware that under the original bill all recommendations had to be approved first by the minister and then by the government?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and I do not see that it is any significant drawback at all. Perhaps I did not hear the question properly; I did not hear it too well. However, as I understood the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, he asked whether I am aware of the fact that expenditures have to be approved by the government before they are actually made.


Hugh John Flemming: The
minister first, and the government second.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Because of the dedication of the minister in charge of this board to the interests of the Atlantic provinces, I cannot think of a more worth-while clause.


Howard Russell MacEwan: He is dedicated to the Liberal party.


Hugh John Flemming: I am
giving him the benefit of the doubt.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak briefly on the bill to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act. According to the bill, it is proposed to increase the number of members from five to eleven, and to establish a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund, called an Atlantic development fund, to which shall be credited the sum of $100 million. This is to be used for the purpose of financing or assisting in financing programs or projects, instead of measures and projects as in the original bill, 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. The bill also states, among other things, that the said act shall expire on January 24, 1969.
I was very much interested in the remarks made by the last speaker. He questioned the growth in the Atlantic provinces, especially in Nova Scotia. While he was speaking I happened to look at "The New Nova Scotia, an Industrial Review and Forecast for 1963" as put out by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. I would like to read from this publication an unbiased account. Certainly the president of the Halifax board of trade could not be accused of being political in his remarks. He stated in that account:
The year 1962 has witnessed unprecedented growth for our city,-
-that is, the city of Halifax-
___new shopping centres, additional office buildings, private and public housing, and the establishment of a substantial number of new businesses.
In the same industrial review the mayoi of Dartmouth said this:
In one major step in 1962 we have seen Dartmoutt become Canada's hydrographic and oceanographic research centre,-
I would add my own interpolation there Mr. Speaker, that this was as a result of the Conservative government and the fact tha we put the oceanographic base in Dartmouth The mayor of Dartmouth continues:
-there has been consolidation and moderniza tion of the naval air arm installations locally groundwork has been laid for a million dollar hotel fitting a city of the 21st century; industrial growtl has been substantial and diversified-

Atlantic Development Boat'd Act There is even one comment here that one problems, and in my opinion the board as might excuse as a political comment. It is presently constituted was quite capable of made by the present senior member for analysing and assessing the needs of our Halifax, (Mr. Lloyd).	area.


Hugh John Flemming: The white haired one.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: This is what he said:
In fact", said Mayor Lloyd "there was new construction all around the city, with indications of more and more to come-new apartments, hospitals, office blocks, government buildings, etc".
This was ^ the most tangible evidence of the sweeping private and public enterprise redevelopment taking place now.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Is he aware that this growth which occurred in the Halifax area during the past year was primarily due to the efforts of the other hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd), the mayor of the city of Halifax, his council and indeed the municipal authorities of Dartmouth, and Industrial Estates, which is an independent, non-political, crown corporation in the province of Nova Scotia?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I will not go into that matter, Mr. Speaker, because it is not part of my speech; but the mayor of Halifax gives full credit to the federal grants in this article. Those federal grants were awarded to the Atlantic provinces by the Conservative government.


Hugh John Flemming: You had
better get together with the other member for Halifax.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We on this side of the house, especially the members from the Atlantic provinces cannot help being concerned over some of the aspects of this bill. After all, the Atlantic development board is a new board and, as introduced in this house only last December 4, 1962 by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), was a creation of the Progressive Conservative government when it was in office. This board was in keeping with our program of instilling confidence in the Atlantic provinces, a program that started at that famous meeting in Moncton in the spring of 1957, when the Conservative candidates for the Atlantic provinces met and drew up the Atlantic resolutions. When selecting the membership of the development board, due consideration was given to each Atlantic province, and the men appointed, together with the chairman, Brigadier Michael Wardell, are men of integrity who have made outstanding contributions to the economy of the Atlantic provinces. They are men who are familiar with our
28902-5-127J
The present government has condemned the original board before it has had a chance to function. There is an old saying, I believe, by Abraham Lincoln, that you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. That is exactly what this government is doing. These men have already been appointed; they have already gained knowledge of our province, and if we allow this measure to pass we will only weaken the present board.
The board as constituted by the Conservative government has not had a fair trial. This action on the part of the present government is similar to the lawless rule of pirate days, when the victim walked the plank and the merits of his case were discussed at a later time. How did the present administration know that the board as presently constituted would not work? When I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) whether this was to be the action taken with all boards, he replied no, apparently this action is to be taken only with this board. How did they know it would not work. There is no concrete answer. The allocation of a fund of $100 million is also in question. In the opinion of many Atlantic province members in the house, it is insufficient to cover this huge area. When the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) spoke on the resolution to set up the original board he asked if he was correct in assuming the board would channel $1 billion into the region in the next ten years. This, I submit, would be a much more realistic figure. If we look at the bill, we see that clause 6 provides for a new section, section 16 (4) as follows:
The total of all amounts that may be paid by the Minister of Finance to the board under subsection (1) and credited to the Atlantic development fund is one hundred million dollars.
Is this double talk, or is that the total amount which will be paid to our area through this board between the present date and the death of the board? As hon. members know, it was our intention to back up the recommendations of this board in connection with all suitable projects with the vast resources of the federal government. By making the partisan changes proposed in this bill, by killing the original measure on January 24, 1969, the present administration is not building up the confidence in this board required by the investing public who, in the final^ analysis, must help develop new secondary industries in the Atlantic provinces.
I think it was fitting that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) should have introduced this bill at the resolution

Atlantic Development Boat'd Act stage on behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). I say this because there are very few ministers in the present government who did more to destroy investor confidence in our area and, in fact, recently, in the entire dominion of Canada, than the present Minister of Finance. For example, in the preliminary report, dated December.. 1956, of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, he quotes chapter and verse in illustration of our low average income per capita between 1935 and 1957 during the 22 years of Liberal government. Why did those men of vision not do something about those problems during that period? He said, and I quote:
Living standards are lower than they are in the rest of Canada, and it is in everyone's interest to reduce this differential... It is not suggested this should be accomplished by ad hoc projects and handouts; such measures are as unpalatable to the recipients as they are to those who must foot the bills.
That was not very encouraging, but the hon. gentleman continued by saying-and this is the part to which I take exception-
Even if assistance is provided for those people who might be willing to move elsewhere, many people undoubtedly would prefer to remain where they are despite the handicaps referred to. People who so choose should at the same time be prepared to accept a different kind of life, or certainly life at a different tempo and lower levels of income.
It is evident we did not choose to follow his advice. In any event, this is not the kind of language which builds investor confidence. The hon. gentleman carried the same theme into other fields. For example, on page 103 of the same report he had a similar solution for the difficulties of our miners.
We believe, however, that generous assistance should be provided for the mine workers who will be displaced as a result of the difficulties which we foresee. Special measures will be needed for looking after these people and for re-establishing in other industries those who may be interested in such an alternative. It may be that such measures could be included under a broad national scheme referred to in the discussion about agriculture in section 3 for relocating people who may wish to abandon submarginal farms and be reestablished in other industries. But the problem of the Nova Scotia coal miners and their families is a particularly difficult one which will require both a sympathetic approach and special treatment. We suggest that on economic grounds alone, having regard to the amount of the present subsidy, there would be every justification for paying the full amount of the transportation costs of all the members of any families who may be willing to move to other parts of Nova Scotia or elsewhere m Canada; for assistance in the provision of housing; and for training for other occupations, possibly in co-operation with industry.
In view of the statements made in the past by the present Minister of Finance, and in the light of his recent fumbled, bumbled budget, the house will readily understand our concern over any proposals he or his
government may make with regard to our future government. In my opinion, his statements destroyed investor confidence in the Atlantic area, and the present bill to provide the Atlantic development board with $100 million is only a form of mild compensation on the part of the Liberal party in an effort to make up for 22 years of neglect. It is window dressing. I submit it is not enough.
Contrast the statement made by the hon. gentleman with the action taken by the Conservative government when it came to office in 1957. One of our first acts was to approve Atlantic provinces adjustment grants amounting to $100 million over a four year period-a fact seldom mentioned by Liberal speakers. The impact made by these grants has been referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming). They were later increased to $175 million to be paid over a five year period between 1962 and 1967. Armed with this extra money from the federal government, the provincial governments were in a position to expand their fishermen's loan boards, to create industrial estates and to provide capital for the much needed expansion of industry. It was a Progressive Conservative government under the leadership of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) which for the first time in 22 years said to the people of the Atlantic provinces: We have faith in you; we put our trust in you; we have confidence in your ability to grow and develop in your own area, and we are going to provide you with help from the federal treasury.
When these promises were put into effect by the Conservative government, investor confidence was restored in the Atlantic provinces: And we needed to have confidence restored. After being told there was no help except a one way ticket to some other part of Canada, the Atlantic adjustment grants shone like a beacon through the fog of despair created by the Liberals. In 1957, there were few new industries being established in Nova Scotia and the pledge for federal help was like a spur to our people similar to the words of Winston Churchill on June 4, 1940 when he rallied the allies to the defence of freedom by his statement:
We shall defend our Island whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight In the fields and in the streets; we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!
That was also the battle cry of the Atlantic provinces-"We shall never give up".
This new approach on the part of the Conservative government completely changed the outlook in the Atlantic provinces. There are others here from the Atlantic provinces who, no doubt, intend to speak, so I shall deal only

with Nova Scotia. By any standard of measurement, industrial development in Nova Scotia since 1957 has been outstanding and spectacular. A new, aggressive spirit has been demonstrated by business and industry. More than 31 new plants have located in our province during the last six years. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald, printed a special edition on January 8, 1963, called "The new Nova Scotia" and its industrial review and forecast gave an encouraging outline of the development which has taken place. Since that date, a new automobile manufacturing concern which will initially employ over 250 people has been opened in Dartmouth-


An hon. Member:: What did the federal government have to do with that?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The federal government provided the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants. If the hon. member had been listening he would have heard me say that Industrial Estates was set up by the use of some of this money. In addition, the federal government, represented by my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), made concessions to this plant so that it could ship its products right across Canada. This is an entirely new development, something which never happened under a Liberal government.


An hon. Member:: It could have been done anywhere in Canada.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly, and under another government it would probably have been done somewhere else. But under a Conservative government it was in the Atlantic provinces.
A $6 million fish plant is under construction in Lunenburg; a new carpet factory is planned for Truro, and a new aluminum can company for Kentville. On Friday, June 14, a $12 million cement plant was announced for Truro. When in operation, this plant will employ 100 men, and fuel consumption will be between 40,000 and 50,000 tons of coal per year. No less than 15,000 tons of limestone will be required annually. This indicates the type of industrial revolution which is under way in Nova Scotia. When one adds to this the continued boom in our shipbuilding yards as a result of our shipbuilding subsidy program, plus other concrete achievements such as the restoration of Fortress Louisbourg and the notable expansion of our fishing fleet, it is possible to realize the progressive impact which Conservative legislation has had on Nova Scotia since 1957.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) has told the house it is his intention to show the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschate-lets) the new structures required by the fishermen of Newfoundland. I hope in paraphrasing it that I have quoted him correctly.
Atlantic Development Board Act Certainly no one familiar with the industry will deny that wharves and breakwaters are a necessity so far as fishermen are concerned; but I hope that the increase in the membership of the board from five to 11 will not mean that partisanship considerations will overrule economic necessity. We already see this partisanship attitude at work in clause 4 of the bill, whereby the existing members will be continued for one year instead of three, and the present chairman will be continued for a period of two years as a member of the board. This board is now top heavy with Liberals-or it will be, with the governor in council appointing a new chairman. Although Brigadier Michael Wardell has ample qualifications for the position of chairman, I predict he will be replaced on the coming into force of this amended legislation. This change may not have too serious an effect on the operations of the board, provided the new chairman is a man holding an unbiased interest in the development of the entire Atlantic area.


An hon. Member:: Like the present one.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Secretary of State, I submit, should use his influence to help retain its present chairman, who has made such an outstanding contribution to the development not only of New Brunswick but of the entire Atlantic area. However, in view of the partisan attitude already evidenced in this debate, I express the hope that the two Atlantic provinces governed by Conservative premiers will be given equal consideration with the two provinces governed by Liberal premiers, when important development projects are under review. Personally I will not be satisfied until I hear that the original members of the board are permitted to serve the term for which they were appointed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I express my concern over the fact that the bill states the act will terminate on January 24, 1969. At this time we have no yardstick to enable us to determine the rate of development of the Atlantic provinces between the present date and the date in question. If the growth under former Liberal governments is any indication of the progress to be expected, it may well be that our development will be rather slow. I also wonder whether the provincial premiers were consulted on this point. In view of the concern the premier of Newfoundland expressed over the transition grant, he may take similar exception to the termination of this bill on a fixed date, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State has in fact consulted with him on this point. When the premier of Newfoundland visited Ottawa recently the Secretary of State kept looking at the gallery as he spoke, and it reminded me of the

Atlantic Development Boat'd Act psalmist who said "I looked unto the hills, from whence cometh my help". As I say, this is a point on which he could consult the premier of Newfoundland.
In my opinion, the growth of industry and population in the Atlantic area will be the determining factor when considering the extension of the Atlantic development board act, and the clause terminating the act should be deleted from the bill. The board will have plenty of work to do from now until 1969, and well beyond that date. We are only now beginning to modernize our fishing industry and further development along these lines is required. We are finding new uses for our coal; one which I mentioned was in helping manufacture cement. But still further progress must be made if we are to raise the levels of income in our coal producing areas.
Transportation is an age old problem in the Atlantic provinces, and we need a second ferry between Nova Scotia and New England to help increase our tourist industry and provide a new outlet for our expanding fish production. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) stated that this could not be justified economically; but I submit that a new ferry could be built, and that while in the summer months it would serve the tourist industry and our fishing industry, it may well serve as an icebreaker during the winter months when additional ferry service may not be required between Nova Scotia and New England. By 1967, when celebrating confederation, each Atlantic province should have at least one section of highway 100 miles in length built entirely by the federal government at the direction of the provincial premiers, to be called "confederation drive". The more highways we build the more we can hope to expand our tourist industry. The more we develop this country the more we strengthen our industries and the entire economy of the nation.
The Secretary of State, (Mr. Pickersgill) speaking at the resolution stage, quoted from a reprint of the Atlantic Advocate, in which Brigadier Wardell stated that he and the other Conservative appointees were ready and happy to serve in any capacity on this board. Being men of integrity and good character, as well as good Canadians, they would say no less. However, the Secretary of State did not quote the entire speech. Here, in my view, is the most important part:
The four provinces have many needs in common. The question is whether or not their disabilities are to be swiftly remedied. An immense effort is necessary if the economic lag is to be overcome. Only money can supply it. Massive investment over the next decade is the essential requisite. Of course, many human qualities must be added, qualities of judgment, industry, enterprise. These cannot succeed without the money.

In assessing the scale of the effort, I have repeatedly used the figure of $4 billion to measure the total of public and private investment necessary in the area between now and 1980.
We have average incomes lower by a third than in the rest of Canada, with double the unemployment and half the capital investment per capita. We have a growing labour force, and everywhere mechanization tends to reduce the number of jobs available.
It must be our task to provide the necessary number of jobs at the requisite rate of remuneration to replace our existing substandard employment areas and to create opportunities for the unemployed as well as for the new entries into the labour force. The task is a formidable one. Our first duty is to face it and publicly to declare its scale.
This is the task, Mr. Speaker. But the scope of development that was planned by the Conservative party is of too great a magnitude for this Liberal administration. This is the reason that these members are being replaced and a cut-off date established. I hope that the government will reconsider its stand, recognize the magnitude of the problem and extend the termination date until at least 1980. We have seen what 60 days of indecision did to Canada, and especially to our construction industry. Let us not be indecisive where the Atlantic provinces are concerned. Let us use this bill by extending its expiration date until at least 1980. By increasing the amount of money available and by making the amount of $100 million the least amount to be expended by the board, we could use the bill thoughtfully to develop and expand the opportunities in the Atlantic provinces so that our people may enjoy a standard of living and incomes comparable with other Canadians.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. member spoke of the industrial expansion of the area. During the past six years what industry was brought into the province of Nova Scotia which employed as many people as Fairey Aviation or Cossor, which were brought in under a Liberal administration? Would the hon. member also indicate what new industries were established under the Conservative regime in industrial Cape Breton?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: This is typical of Liberal thinking. It is going backward. We looked at the problem and said that the Atlantic provinces needed development. We convinced the former prime minister to make available $100 million and then an additional $175 million. I suggest that all the junior hon. member from Halifax has to do is to fly over Nova Scotia and look at the expanding suburbs and he will see the development which is taking place.

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



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. B. Morison (Wentworth) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-22, to incorporate Fidelity Mortgage and Savings Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate under federal charter Fidelity Mortgage and Savings Corporation or, in French, Compagnie d'Hypotheque et d'Epargne Fidelite, so that they may engage initially during the development stage in the conventional mortgage field in my area, and later when the company has established itself it will expand geographically both in the mortgage field and in its operations, with the permission of the insurance department, and then commence to take deposits and savings from the public. The petitioners are not inexperienced in this field. They are essentially the management of Fidelity Management Limited. This company was chartered provincially in 1958 and since that time has conducted a successful and useful function in the area extending from Oakville through the golden horseshoe to the Canadian border. Their business has been the administering of mortgage investments owned by financial institutions and individuals and as such they have handled 400 conventional and N.H.A. mortgages in 1962. The total value of these mortgages was just over $9 million.
Additional experience has been gained through a further company, Wenagara Corporation Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fidelity Management Limited. This company was incorporated in July, 1961, was appointed and approved under the National Housing Act in September of that year and commenced operations in the spring of 1962. Since that time they have processed 150 N.H.A. mortgages totalling approximately $2 million.
The petitioners are all Hamilton and area men. To allay the fears of some hon. members, I might say that to live with these men is to know them and with this knowledge I can assure hon. members that they are not the type of people who would easily allow control of their company to pass into foreign hands. They are Canadian for generations and have contributed to our community growth over many years. If we are to have growth in this country and if this growth is to be promoted by Canadians, I ask hon. members to encourage and help these petitioners in their efforts by supporting this bill.
Private Bills
The bill provides that the capital stock of the company shall be $1 million, which may be increased to $5 million. The provisional directors may not call a general meeting until $500,000 of the capital stock has been subscribed and may not commence business until $500,000 of the capital stock has been subscribed and $200,000 paid thereon. The head office of the company is to be in the city of Hamilton and the company will have the power to conduct business under the provisions of the Loan Companies Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquetie) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-21, to incorporate Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the second effort by this foundation to receive incorporation. In the last parliament a like bill was passed in the other place. It received second reading here but bogged down in the miscellaneous private bills committee. Before the difficulties were ironed out parliament had been dissolved. Hence the foundation has started the same procedure again and I hope with better success.
I crave the indulgence of the house to make a brief reference to the promoter of the foundation and the name which it carries. The promoter of the foundation is the Ukrainian Canadian committee which was organized in 1940 by Canadians of Ukrainian origin for the purpose of promoting the war effort. They did a creditable job. I might add that there are no communist elements in this committee.
After the war the committee proceeded to assist the Canadian government in settling refugees or taking care of them when they came to Canada. As a further project it initiated a fund to build a monument to the memory of Taras Shevchenko, a poet and martyr for freedom of the Ukrainian race. The monument was unveiled several years ago and stands in the legislature grounds in the province of Manitoba.
The unveiling of the monument gave the committee the idea of incorporating a body politic which, according to the terms of the bill, would receive donations, contributions and legacies from donors. That is the main purpose of the bill. These donations and legacies are to be invested and the income from the investments is to be used for the promotion of Ukrainian culture. Lest there

Private Bills
be any confusion in the minds of hon. members, let me say briefly that according to the definition in the bill Ukrainian culture means the culture of the Ukrainian people in the fields of letters, fine arts, literature and science. This, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of the bill, and I am honoured to have the opportunity of moving second reading.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was considered in the miscellaneous private bills committee last session it bogged down a little because of a misunderstanding as to what powers the foundation would have in dealing with donations, contributions and legacies from donors. I do not wish to engage in a long debate or a repetition of what took place at that time, but my understanding then was that there was some confusion whether the foundation would have the power to use the actual moneys received in donations, contributions and legacies or whether it could use only the income derived from investing these moneys. In looking at clause 4 of the bill I see the same wording and I am wondering whether it is now definitely the objective of the foundation that it will be restricted to using the income from its investments.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member remembers the difficulties-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must point out that if the hon. member for Marquette speaks again he Will close the debate.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am just answering the question, but if there is any further debate I do not think it should be restricted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I would suggest to the hon. member that he might wait and see if there are any other speakers on the bill. The hon. member for Marquette.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member remembers the difficulties we had in the miscellaneous private bills committee in the last parliament. I do not want to go into the changes in this bill compared with the bill introduced in the last parliament. Changes have been made to meet certain objections. I believe the objections have been met and I suggest that if the bill is referred to the miscellaneous private bills committee the situation will be clarified. I do not think we should take too much time of the house on this particular point.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-24, respecting the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, you will note that there are two bills on the order paper in respect of the Lutheran church. This bill No. S-24 is followed by No. S-23, and the latter bill is contingent upon the passing of Bill No. S-24. Both of these are very simple bills, but they would have a tremendous effect on the organization to which reference is made. I might say that I am honoured and privileged to have this opportunity of sponsoring both of these bills, and of having the support of the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg (Mr. Crouse), because they concern this organization of which I am a member.
Bill No. S-24 simply gives effect to an agreement of consolidation within this body, effective as of July 1, 1962, whereby four different branches of the Lutheran church in the United States and Canada, namely, American Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Augus-tana Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the United Lutheran Church in America agreed to consolidate under the name of Lutheran Church in America. This bill gives such title to this consolidation. I ask that it now be given second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-23 respecting the Canada Board of American Missions of the United Lutheran Church in America-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-16, to found and constitute the western Canada veterinary college.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I realize that our time is somewhat curtailed this afternoon, and I realize also that quite a few of the members of the house wish to take part in this debate. I shall, therefore, state my case as briefly as possible. However, before initiating the discussion of the bill, I should like to express my appreciation to my colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) for his timely intervention last Thursday, which prevented this bill from being put to the bottom of the list

of these bills. I should like also to thank the house in general for allowing Bill No. C-16 to stand until today. In view of the difficulty which was experienced in getting a bill acceptable for presentation to the house, it would have been most unfortunate if these efforts had been in vain.
This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a discussion relating to the establishment of a western veterinary college. The same bill, designated as Bill No. C~~6, received first reading during the twenty fifth parliament. Up until that time, there had been no definite plan to relieve the shortage of veterinarians, although considerable discussion had taken place at the provincial level. Before proceeding further, however, I note that it has been suggested that the founding of a western veterinary college by the federal government in general, and by the Department of Agriculture in particular, is an intrusion of the provincial educational field. It is difficult to accept that as a legitimate reason for the lack of action by the federal authorities, because there are already many precedents which indicate the federal government is well established in the field of education. First of all, the Department of National Defence supports our military colleges. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration provides educational opportunities for Indians, and the Department of Labour makes a contribution towards technical and vocational training. As a matter of fact, sir, information contained in the Glassco report indicates that 10 per cent of all public moneys spent on education in Canada is provided by the federal government. This participation would certainly indicate that there is nothing new or original in federal support of specialized education.
In the explanatory notes for Bill No. C-16 an effort has been made to bring into focus the great need for another institution in this country to produce graduates in veterinary medicine who will be required in ever increasing numbers as our livestock industry expands. In 1958 an analysis was made by the western Canadian veterinary study group concerning the requirements in western Canada for the 20-year period 1960 to 1980. It was found that while there was an estimated shortage of 164 veterinarians in 1960, this figure might well be doubled by 1980.
This situation is recorded very factually by the publication "Food in Canada" in the issue of December, 1962. The editor, Mr. Philip V. Moyes, brings to light some interesting information when discussing Canada's tragic shortage of veterinarians. In this comparative study, Mr. Moyes points out that in the United Kingdom there is one veterinarian to every 2,300 livestock units, to every
28902-5-128
Western Canada Veterinary College 3,000 in Belgium, to every 5,600 in France, and yet in all Canada there is only one veterinarian to every 8,000 livestock units. In western Canada the figure rises to an astronomical 13,000 livestock units. In other words, there are almost five veterinarians in the United Kingdom to every one in Canada on a comparable livestock unit basis.
Then, Mr. Moyes goes on to ask about increasing the facilities for training veterinarians. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Japan, Korea, U.S.S.R., India, Pakistan, South Africa and many European countries have increased their veterinary facilities in the past decade. The United States had 12 schools in 1945, and now has 19. It has set aside $5 million for expansion and $10 million to help establish new veterinary schools over the next ten years. The disturbing factor, Mr. Speaker, is that Canada has not started a new college of veterinary medicine in over 100 years. Existing facilities have been stretched up to and beyond the danger point where efficiency must suffer. Mr. Moyes goes on to say that a recent report prepared by the Alberta veterinary medical association points out that of 68 students registered in the first year veterinary science course in the four western Canadian universities in the fall of 1961, only 11 could be accepted in the second year due to the limited facilities of the Ontario veterinary college and the large number of applicants from other parts of Canada. Then Mr. Moyes continues:
This year 64 have registered in the west; probably fewer than 10 will be able to continue in veterinary medicine.
Their conclusion: a western Canadian faculty of veterinary medicine is urgently needed now.
Finally Mr. Moyes says:
Currently before the House of Commons is a private member's bill "to found and constitute the Western Canada Veterinary College." This bill C-76 deserves close attention-
This was in 1962.
from all sides of the house. Whatever may be its fate as a private member's bill, it should serve to focus attention on the need and on a practical method for meeting it.
While the feasibility of a western veterinary college has now been accepted by officials of the governments of both Saskatchewan and Alberta, there is naturally considerable rivalry regarding the site of any proposed college. On this whole matter there must have been considerable soul searching because, prior to the introduction of Bill C-76 on November 7, 1962, there was not the enthusiasm for a veterinary college which developed later. As a matter of fact the Lethbridge Herald of Tuesday, October 12, 1962 records that Premier Manning of Alberta rejected the idea of

However, in the interim it has become obvious that since both the provincial and federal governments will be willing contributors toward the construction of a veterinary college, the imposition of this levy may not be necessary.
There are many other aspects of this bill which I would like to discuss, but this is neither the time nor the place for a clause by clause analysis. Suffice it to say that finding personnel to staff a college will be much more difficult than finding the money to build it. With the additional facilities contemplated across the border, it will become increasingly difficult to procure the necessary teachers, already at a premium. In order that justice be done to both the veterinary profession and the livestock industry I would urge that the government give this bill what it has given to many other urgent requests, its active and full consideration.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on this bill I would first like to explain to the house why, having worked in the west and knowing some of the problems of the western farmers, and also being a farmer myself in far western Ontario, agriculture is not exactly a stranger to me. The Minister of Agriculture has made an announcement in the house, and according to the Calgary Herald of June 28 and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of June 26 the provincial ministers of agriculture for both Alberta and Saskatchewan have condoned this, although at the same time expressing some disappointment with the federal government in not going further.
I would like to review some of the things in agriculture pertaining to veterinarians in this country. Farming in Canada, including the raising of livestock, was not looked upon as the original value or use of this land when first inhabited by the earlier settlers, but it dates back to 1606 when Louis Hebert, an apothecary, or druggist, from France came to Port Royal and started an experiment in farming, mainly for the development of herbs for his druggist interest. Mr. Hebert subsequently moved to Quebec in 1617 and started farming on land granted to him in 1623 by the French government at what is now known as Sault au Matelot, and in 1626 he received further land grants on the St. Charles river in Quebec where he started livestock raising. Mr. Hebert is recognized as the first farmer and livestock man in Canada. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Hebert is recognized as the first schoolteacher in Canada.
Government in Canada became interested in agriculture as early as 1790 when legislation was passed giving aid through agricultural societies. One of the earlier pieces 28902-5-1281
Western Canada Veterinary College of agricultural legislation was passed on March 5, 1803 when it was enacted that swine could not run at large in the towns of York-that means "hogtown"-Niagara, Queenston, and my own home town of Amherstburg, Sandwich which is now commonly called Windsor, and the town of Kingston. Owners letting swine run at large were to be fined 10 shillings. Since this time the livestock industry of this country has continuously grown in size and value until today it is one of the largest and most important sectors of the Canadian economy.
I would like to give the numbers of livestock in Canada and to emphasize the value of this industry. With regard to milk cows, in 1962 we had 2,955,500, with a value per head of $203, giving a total value of $600,616,000; calves, 3,407,000, with a value per head of $65, giving a total value of $222,936,000; other cattle, 5,712,500, at $157 per head, giving a total value of $896,907,000; hogs, 4,973,000, with a value of $28 per head, giving a total value of $139,822,000; sheep and lambs, 1,433,000, a value per head of $16, giving a total value of $22,158,000; horses, 477,200, value per head $139-I do not think they are speaking of race horses-giving a total value of $66,095,000. The combined total of the livestock in Canada at the end of 1962 amounted to $1,948,534,000.
Total farm cash income including livestock sales has now reached the record high figure of $2,958,545,000, which together with supplementary payments of $35,766,000 brings the total of cash farm income for 1961 to $2,994,311,000. This has steadily risen from $940,936,000 in 1927, as indicated by a table that I will now read. These figures are large also. I am giving these figures to the house, Mr. Speaker, in order to bring to the attention of hon. members the importance of the livestock industry in Canada. I do not know how many hon. members are aware of this fact, but as I said earlier the livestock industry is one of the most important in this country and if the whole agricultural industry were disbanded tomorrow, 40 per cent of the people of Canada would be unemployed. This may be difficult for many people to realize, but that is the effect it would have upon our economy. I am trying to point out the importance of protecting the livestock industry as part of our agricultural industry.
Cash incomes from the sale of livestock in Canada were as follows for 1955-59 and 1960-62. I will just read the totals for 195559 and 1962. These figures go from $502,843,000 in 1955-59 to $677,915,000 in 1962. They are for cattle and calves. For hogs the figure for 1955-59 was $310,016,000; it was $328,985,000 in 1962. For sheep and lambs,
2000	HOUSE OF
Western Canada Veterinary College in 1955-59 it was $10,255,000 and lor 1962 it was $10,666,000. This gives a total lor 195559 ol $823,114,000, and lor 1962, $1,107,566,000.
I would like to point out one ol the important matters regarding what could happen to the value ol livestock in Canada il there were an outbreak ol a serious disease and how this could affect our economy. There was a fantastic drop of $648,278,000 in livestock values in 1952 following a foot and mouth outbreak in this country. This is something that I do not believe many people fully understand and realize. Exports are essential to the well being of our livestock economy.
I think we all realize that the export ol livestock is one of the important and fundamental parts of the economy of this country. The cost of eradicating the 1952 outbreak of foot and mouth disease was $1 million; this is just in respect of veterinarians' fees with regard to destroying the livestock. It is a very conservative figure, with a small "c". The loss of cash inventory in livestock for that year was $648,278,000. The trade loss in livestock and livestock products amounted to $100 million. The cost to the government of price support to assure livestock owners of reasonable income amounted to $100 million. The total cost to the economy of this country in 1952 because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease amounted to $849,878,000.
I think we should realize that if there had been more veterinarians in this country at that time we would have achieved a tremendous saving to the country. However, I am not saying this would necessarily have been so had there been extra help at that time, because I think the veterinarians in government organizations at that time deserve a great deal of credit for the swift action they took in handling this problem.
The total slaughtering of beef and veal have increased yearly. Slaughterings of lambs are steadily decreasing, while the slaughterings of hogs vary depending upon a wide variety of conditions. I think we realize that in this country sheep raising is on the decline and we cannot compete with countries such as New Zealand and Australia. I should like to give hon. members some figures on the export of cattle in 1962. In that year we exported 17,128 pure bred cattle. This is to the United States. The total of cattle other than pure bred cattle was 15,603. The total number of cattle exported in 1962, cattle over 200 pounds, came to 448,471.
We heard a great deal about the effect of devaluation on cattle exports. It is interesting to note that 654,944 were shipped to the United States in 1958. The total shipped to all countries does not change a great deal. The difference amounts to several thousands -not a great many, actually. The value of
[Mr. Whelan.1

exports of beef and veal to the United States in 1962 was $7,918,000. In 1961, it was $10,005,000. Exports to all countries in 1962 amounted to $8,603,000 and in 1961, $10,656,000.


Edward Nasserden: On a point of order, I know we all find these statistics interesting and we are interested in the hon. member's review of the entire agriculture industry. But this bill has to do with the establishment of a veterinary college in western Canada. If the hon. member would keep a little closer to the question his remarks would be more applicable to the problem we are dealing with at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the point is well taken and I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to limit his remarks to the scope of the bill.


Eugene Whelan: I was merely trying to indicate to this nation the importance of the agriculture industry and what it means to our economic life. Perhaps this is not the appropriate time at which to do so.
I only wish to point out that our veterinary colleges are one of the most important ways we have of maintaining cattle exports at a high level, by ensuring that our beef reaches the high standard which has been developed over the years. I think there is a shortage of 170 veterinarians in western Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and this government have shown good faith in their attitude to this problem. I understand that Manitoba and British Columbia have accepted the fact that the college should be either in Saskatchewan or Alberta. The former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) wrote that there was no justification for establishing a second animal disease laboratory in Alberta. This seems to make it more likely that the college will be located in Saskatchewan. It is recognized that this question will have to be settled by agreement between the ministers of agriculture in western Canada. We in the federal parliament can make advice and assistance available but we cannot dictate where the college should be set up.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member a question. I feel it would be most helpful if he would indicate to us whether he was speaking in favour of the bill or against it. I feel his other remarks would be more helpful if we could get that point cleared up.


Eugene Whelan: I am speaking in favour of setting up of an agricultural and veterinary college in the western provinces. I am not an expert in oratory. I am just a farmer from

Essex South, but we do recognize the need for a veterinary college in the west, and I am speaking in support of that project.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 
John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member from which article he is quoting?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am quoting from a publication put out by-


John (Jack) McIntosh: The Alberta chamber of commerce.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No-the Alberta veterinary
medical association. The Edmonton campus of the University of Alberta is surrounded by a concentrated livestock industry which would provide adequate clinical material for teaching purposes. Fourth, Edmonton already has a large well-established diagnostic laboratory which could provide teaching material.

Fifth, the university faculty in Edmonton has recognized the need and expressed the desire-and I should like the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston) to take note of this-for a faculty of veterinary medicine. And sixth, the Alberta livestock industry and other responsible organizations want a veterinary college in Alberta. I will not go into that, but I have a very long list with me this afternoon.
The last point, which is a very important point, Mr. Speaker, is that Alberta can least afford not to have a college. I see that it is very close to six o'clock, and I want to close by saying that I hope there will be co-operation among the four western provinces, both in providing the balance of the capital requirements to build the college, and also in operating the college after it is built. I say this because it is certainly not fair for one province to be expected to pay the costs of training the veterinarians of other provinces.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, and it being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pickersgill for the second reading of Bill No. C-80, to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act.
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it may seem somewhat strange that I as a member from the extreme western part of this nation should rise to speak on a measure that has to do particularly with the maritime region.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We are surprised.


Alexander Bell Patterson: But I should like to assure hon. members that we from the west coast are vitally interested in the problems of our fellow Canadians no matter where they may reside. I intend to be very brief in my intervention because-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Hear, hear.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The hon. member is applauding but if I took as much time as he does in the house I would acknowledge the rebuke.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I do my duty. We represent Her Majesty the Queen.


An hon. Member:: Poor Queen.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I could make a response to that but I will not. I want to assure members from the maritime area that my intervention will be brief because, having regard to the fact that they are as close to the problem as they are and that it affects their area as it does, I am sure they will want to take considerable time on this measure.
Over the years the members from the maritime provinces representing various parties have done a splendid job in acquainting the house with the problems facing their area. I would think that the reason these problems exist to the extent they do at the present time is the failure of successive federal governments to give consideration and assistance commensurate with their needs, even though it was within the power and capacity of the nation so to do.
While the debate was going on this afternoon I thought for a while it was going to degenerate into a purely political wrangle with charges and countercharges, claims and counterclaims as members tried, to use their own words, to set the record straight. However, rather than setting the record straight I think they were tending more or less to confuse the issue and making it more difficult for people to understand. I would suggest that the magnitude of the problem is such that perhaps we could forget political considerations and get ahead with the job before us.
It would seem to me that the board as now constituted probably finds itself rather handicapped in carrying on its work, in that it realizes that amendments are currently before the house which will no doubt affect its work and operations in the future. The suggestion has been made that the appointments suggested now will be purely political. I would venture to say that perhaps even in the initial stage when the board was set up last year political considerations may have entered into the picture when the Progressive Conservative government was dealing with the matter of appointments.
I rose solely to support the principle of the measure to the degree that that principle is required to make the necessary amendments to the legislation, so that the board will be more able to fulfil and discharge its responsibilities effectively. My colleagues no doubt will be participating in the detailed discussion when the bill is in the committee stage but I wanted to make these few brief observations.
Atlantic Development Board Act


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter this debate very briefly. I have no intention of delaying its completion, but to those of us who come from Atlantic Canada this is a most important subject that deals with a most important part of Canada. A few years ago I read a work on Atlantic Canada in which the author said, to use his words, that the maritimes were a poverty stricken land that occasionally sprouted a millionaire. I do not agree with this sentiment. Perhaps our land is not as good as most, but we are extremely rich in our human resources. We have given to this nation four prime ministers of Canada and one of Great Britain, as well as men like Beaverbrook, Dunn, Cyrus Eaton and many others.
We know, of course, that in 1867 when confederation was formed crepe was hung on many of the doors in Saint John and Halifax. I have always felt, and I think others do too, that those who took part in bringing about confederation made a great mistake in 1867 when the three maritime provinces were not united into one province. It would have been preferable if Newfoundland could have been included, too. However, that is all in the past and nothing can be done about it now. So we drifted for almost 90 years; but there is no question that in the last four or five years there has certainly been a tremendous awakening in our provinces by the sea. We have only to look at some of the legislation passed by the House of Commons in the last four or five years to recognize that fact. I refer to the power development act, the adjustment grants and all the other things that have been mentioned so often.
As other speakers have pointed out, this has culminated in the Atlantic provinces development board established by the previous administration, and with respect to which amendments are now being made to the act. I promised to be brief but there are three things I am concerned about in connection with the amendments to the act. The first one is the limiting of the funds. As I understood the original act it was open-end legislation, so to speak. In other words, the board would have unlimited power to recommend. We talked, and I hoped we were talking with some substance, about envisaging $1 billion being expended in the next 10 years through the Atlantic development board. Now we find that the funds are to be limited to $100 million and this money is to be spent for projects for which other financing is not available.
We might say that there would be public funds for practically all projects that might be recommended by the board; in other words, the ministers of transport, public works

Atlantic Development Board Act and so on would have no difficulty in obtaining the finances required. I cannot subscribe to this view. We know, of course, that every dollar spent in this nation by the government must first of all be voted by the House of Commons. We know that ministers must ask the House of Commons for the money they need. We know that treasury board can occasionally be very difficult. So I am afraid that the $100 million will perhaps just provide an opportunity to sidestep further pressure by ministers for funds they may want to have for expenditure in Atlantic Canada.
I should like to quote very briefly from a very fine editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 7. It has this to say, which is in line with what I have been saying:
Would a parliament which had granted $100 million to the Atlantic development hoard be all that willing to vote additional sums to the departments of transport, public works, justice, and the like, for regional programs recommended by the board? It might be extremely keen to do so, but we nevertheless fear that the most elementary knowledge of human nature suggests the contrary.
If a reluctance of this sort developed, the pressure on the one hundred million dollar fund would mount: more and more programs would be deemed those "for which satisfactory financial arrangements are not otherwise available." Soon, the need either to increase the fund, or to make sure that other departments and agencies were not being relieved of their due responsibilities to the region, would become apparent.
Even if the latter course were taken, who is there who can say with assurance now that, even under the best of conditions, $100 million is sufficient for undertakings without the hope of public or private backing?
One factor I should like to discuss very briefly is the time limit which is put upon this board. If the government, in its wisdom, had suggested 20 years, I think they would have been closer to the mark. I am afraid that at the end of five or six years we will probably just be getting going on the projects which this board will recommend.
Then, there is the question of the additional members to the board. I understand the amendment would increase the members on the board from five to 11. I believe someone quoted Abraham Lincoln this afternoon, and the reference I am about to make may well be attributed to him. It is suggested that the best committee to get a job done is a committee of three, preferably with one member sick and one out of town. Then, something can be accomplished.
I should like to say a word about the present members of the board whose term of office is being changed. I feel that in Brigadier Wardell we have an excellent chairman. He has been in this country perhaps a shorter time than most of us but he has devoted a great deal of his time, energy and substance to raising the economic level of his adopted land. Then, there are men like Frank Sobey
[Mr. MacRae.l

and others, excellent men, who have already been successful in attracting to the board men of high calibre such as Mr. Weeks. I say that at this particular point a fair trial should be given to these men.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, our basic problem may be summed up in a very few words. Our basic problem in Atlantic Canada is the need for more industry. The whole problem it seems to me, in a nutshell, is the need for industry based on our own resources. I suppose that all of us have had a great many public buildings erected in our constituencies. I have always felt that I would rather have one plant that would employ 500 or 1,000 men located in my own constituency of York-Sunbury than all the public buildings that have been constructed there since confederation. I think of the small town of McAdam, which is a railroad junction. A few years ago it was a thriving community, but as a result of dieselization on the railroad, this community has been having difficulty. Here, they have the buildings located right on a rail line, they have an excellent labour force, and yet there is no industry. We cannot seem to get industry to locate in this particular area.
I feel that those of us who come here to this House of Commons have a job to do. It is a job that can be very simply expressed-to raise the economic level of our part of the country. This must always be our major objective as long as we are here. For that reason, I would ask the government to give very special consideration to any amendment which they may choose to make in this legislation concerning what could be a very fine agency for the uplifting of our maritime economy.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I intend to follow the admirable example set by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson), and confine my remarks to three or four minutes. I do however wish to express, on behalf of the members of this party, our support for this particular bill. It is a support that is rather less than enthusiastic, but still we do support it. During the resolution stage of this discussion, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) became poetical and described this bill as being a big leap forward. His language reminded me of another famous but very different speaker, Mr. Mao Tse-tung who had a great leap forward in China.
This bill we are discussing does only two things. It increases the number of members on the board, and in so far as that enables the board to be more representative we approve of that. At the time this bill was before the last parliament, we approved of it. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is a serious deficiency and that is that all the 11

members are expected to undertake this very important and serious task as a part-time activity. We regret that the government has not seen fit, although during the resolution stage the Secretary of State said he would be ready to consider proposed amendments, to consider the suggestion that we made that at least some of the members of the board should be on a full-time basis. Then this board would not be needed on an occasional basis, but as a regular, full time occupation.
The other step that is taken by the bill before us is to provide for a fund. We think that is a step forward, and an important one. We have already indicated our view that the amount of $100 million is inadequate. However that may be, it is well that this board should have authority in its planning to spend money, and have money allocated for this purpose. We welcome that.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) took what to me appeared to be a very strange attitude. He said the improvements in this bill are very small, but it should not be improved at all. He said, in effect. "We brought it in, and it has not been properly tried out; therefore no one should try to improve it." I fail to follow that point of view. Of course, one can differ as to whether the proposed changes are in fact improvements, but the theory he advances that this government should not attempt to improve on the efforts of its predecessor seems to me a very remarkable one to advance in this house. I certainly could not agree with that particular theory.
I said I would speak for only three or four minutes and I shall, therefore, try to live up to that promise. We think that this is a hesitant and inadequate step forward; but, hesitant and inadequate though it may be,' we think we should get on with it. We should pass this bill and let the board try to do its job. If in a few years it is seen that because of a lack of a full time board or because of a lack of adequate funds, the real job of planning the economic future of this very important section of Canada is not being adequately undertaken, then the matter can be and should be reviewed. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we will support the principle of this particular measure.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I have listened with a certain amount of interest, and perhaps even a little amusement, to some of the remarks made during the course of the debate on the matter now before the house. The latest comment we have heard has been from this far corner of the house. Of course,
I do welcome support from the corner to my right, but I would say it is very easy for my hon. friends in that party to criticize because
Atlantic Development Board Act they have never enjoyed, if that is the correct word, the responsibility of governing the country. And I think it is highly unlikely that they ever will.
However, I do share their attitude towards some of the remarkable things that have been said by my hon. friends in the official opposition. I noted that the closing remarks of one Conservative speaker this afternoon followed the traditional Conservative pattern of looking over the shoulder, looking backward. When they were in opposition six years ago they talked about the Liberal government, and when they became the government they still talked for six years about the 22 years of Liberal rule. Now that they are in opposition again, they continue to talk about those 22 years. No doubt there may have been one or two shortcomings during those 22 years, but in their first couple of minutes talking about them the opposition must have exhausted all the shortcomings. Yet they continue to reiterate them day after day, year after year. The result is that such talk has ceased to be annoying and has become amusing.
With regard to the measure before us, I think we might be a little too optimistic in putting a deadline of 1969 on the life of the board. It may well be that when 1969 comes around we will find it has not accomplished all we expected it to, or alternatively we will find it has accomplished those things but that other things have arisen in the interim that should properly come under its jurisdiction.
Boards such as this, and our approach to what is generally regarded as planning, are relatively new to this country. But in the course of years we may find this to be a very useful exercise, and the role of the board in the economic life of eastern Canada may assume larger proportions than we now imagine, so that it should become a permanent part of the life of the Atlantic provinces. If this board is to do all we hope it will, it may have to play things a little by ear.


William Heward Grafftey: Like the Minister of Finance.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I am always very glad to hear interjections from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). He is one of the more entertaining members of the house, and I am only too pleased to relegate the drone of my voice to the background, thus making way for his.
As I have said, planning is relatively new in Canada, and I hope as time goes by we may find it a very useful development. It would be wise for the board and the government to look closely at what has taken place in other countries which have similar boards. It would be a good idea for members of the board to acquaint themselves with similar activities in Europe. In such a

Atlantic Development Board Act way it could prove of permanent advantage to the economic growth of what, up to now, has been referred to as a slow development area.
One of the most important things in the development of any slow development area is the attitude of the people in that area, and I feel that this bill, plus other action taken by the government, including incentives to industry, are a sign that the government is aware of the problems facing the Atlantic provinces. Our willingness to move in this direction will accomplish two things. The positive steps we take will in themselves have an effect, and secondly the doing of these things will create a favourable atmosphere among the people of the Atlantic provinces.
I think it is true to say that the people in this area have for long felt that, because they have not developed economically so rapidly as the rest of the country, the people in the rest of Canada regard them as permanent drags on the economy. Indeed the attitudes of governments in the past, both Liberal and Conservative, were not always what they ought to have been. We cannot have a continuous program of handouts, and any government expenditure in the area should be in the form of investment to expand the economy. This board is a step in the right direction; but in conclusion I suggest we should be prepared to realize that the functions of the board may change and may become larger than those we now envision.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I was privileged this afternoon to hear, for the first time, one of the members across the aisle speak on this Atlantic development board. I must congratulate him. It appears he spent some time putting his speech together and quite some time reading it, but he said that the previous government had done nothing for the Atlantic area. I take exception to that remark. The record of the previous government in the Atlantic area is one of which all members from that area can be proud. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd), who is the only hon. member for Halifax now in the chamber, was placed on record this afternoon as supporting this contention of mine.
What concerns me most is that the government was elected on the premise that unemployment was the greatest problem facing it, but since the budget was presented it has found bigger problems. This is something that concerns me, aside from the fact that there is one hon. member in the house from Halifax; and what concerns me further is that
[Mr. Cashin.l
the board comes under the jurisdiction and guidance of a minister representing Newfoundland.
I would prefer to see a local Atlantic province minister guiding this bill. For instance, the Minister of Labour, who comes from my own area, would be the most ideal and best suited minister to guide this legislation through the house. I say that, because he could in a way kill two birds with one stone. He could take care of a number of the unemployed in extending the membership of the board, and to this I have no objection despite the fact that some hon. members think I had something to say about it last year. Again I would remind them that I was absent from the house then at the request, as I said before, of my constituents. Anyway, I would prefer to see a native minister from the Atlantic provinces guiding this legislation.
One of my reasons for saying this is that the minister who represents Newfoundland indicated on one occasion that he even hates to campaign in that area. I am further concerned with the fact that the purse strings are controlled by a minister of finance who never in any way showed any concern for the people of the Atlantic area. This, Mr. Speaker, is down in writing, and to the extent that he was offered a ride on a rail out of my province. I am sure there are nine other provinces that would want to join with mine today.
There was a very worth-while point brought out earlier today when it was shown with regard to the guessing-with-Gordon budget-when the taxes were cut back to 4 per cent-that there is a possibility here for great profits to be made. I might say, on the other side of the question, that a great advantage is also given to big business, which can afford it, to stockpile and make further profits. It is getting to the point, with the type of budget that has been brought down-


Mr. Greene:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are we discussing the Atlantic development board, or the budget?


Malcolm MacInnis: In discussing the Atlantic development board we are discussing matters of finance, which are of great concern to the maritimes. I might point out that in addition to the possible profits which have been made, the type of financing arrangements with which we are faced today will provide big business with an opportunity to stockpile and make further profits when the taxes are increased at a later date. It is getting to the point where big business does not even have to speculate to make a profit.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member to be allowed to discuss the budget in

this debate, or is he going to be called to order on the question before the house?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I would hope that the hon. member from Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) would confine himself as closely as possible to the bill on the setting up of the Atlantic development board.


Malcolm MacInnis: I accept your ruling Mr. Speaker, it gives me an opportunity to raise a point that I think the Chair should examine quite closely. An occasion arose in the house the other day when I asked a very specific question concerning a problem in the mines in my own area. I was asked by the Chair to repeat that question and, follow with a supplementary question, because a sign or something was given in the house and my question was declared to be out of order because the original question was not in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: Every time a member of the opposition rises on a point of order, it should be recognized. This type of signal passing must be stopped. The hon. member representing Halifax, and the minister piloting this legislation through the house who is also representing his constituency, said that the previous government had done nothing for the Atlantic areas. I would ask them to consider a few of the proposals put forward by the previous government, which were supported by them in this house, in assisting the Atlantic area. There are, of course, the coal subventions, which proved very beneficial to the people of the area and met the desires and representations which had come from the United mine workers in my area. There is the Beechwood project, a $29J million project that assisted the province of New Brunswick. There is the Atlantic power development program and the interprovincial grid. I might say here, Mr. Speaker, that over a year ago this interprovincial grid had realized the participating provinces over $60 million in savings. These are not my words; they are the words of Arthur Johnson, former president of APEC and now a deputy minister in the government of Mr. Smallwood.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: I will tell the hon. member representing Halifax what he told me this afternoon: When I have finished. They said nothing was done by the previous government to assist the Atlantic provinces. What about the Volvo Corporation which was recently established, at least temporarily, in
Atlantic Development Board Act Halifax? This is the only example of federal-provincial co-operation of this kind in our country. There are further examples, such as the assistance given to coal companies to extend the operation of those collieries which were about to be closed. Here I do not hesitate to mention the fact that we had mine closures under the previous government. But I do bring to the attention of hon. members opposite that at least that government in its assistance went a great deal further and accomplished a great deal more than was the case between 1946 and 1956 when hon. members opposite were on the treasury benches. If the minister from Gloucester and the minister who represents Bonavista-Twillin-gate want to take exception to those remarks, I can put them on the record again to put this matter straight.
In assisting in this way the government has undertaken to re-establish Fortress Louisburg, which in itself has proven to be a very desirable and worth-while project in our part of the country. I might say also that the previous government was willing to cooperate with the provincial government in a forestry program which provided work for displaced miners. This co-operation was forthcoming without any delay. I notice that one of the projects the executive of the united mine workers have put before this government seeks the same type of co-operation.
The talk about delay. Where is the delay? Where is the action promised for the miners in Cape Breton who were taken care of in this forestry program with the co-operation of the previous federal and provincial governments? They were being looked after before, and they are still seeking this type of assistance from the present government.
An hon. member has made a remark, Mr. Speaker. I would like him to rise and record that question, if he would. I will give him a chance to get to his feet and ask that question, if he wishes to do so. I would like to see who asked that question so we can have it on the record.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, my question was-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member goes any further, that is not the member who made the remark.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. gentleman completed his remarks? May I suggest to the hon. member that he continue with his remarks, and I am sure there will be no interruption.


Malcolm MacInnis: There are those interruptions which I do welcome; that was one of them. In respect to the board itself, $100 million has been made available. I am very

Atlantic Development Board Act glad to see that the minister representing Bonavista-Twillingate has made it quite clear to the house that this is only a floor; so this opens up possibilities to the organizations throughout the Atlantic area to make sure that this $100 million plus is used up. However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned with the fact that in the past, when we were in opposition a great deal was said about the representation on this board, and the fact, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has just mentioned, that they were only part time and the remuneration was not what it should be. I would be most anxious to hear now from hon. members who had something to say on that matter some time ago. Now that their party is in government, I would ask them to rise to their feet and repeat those remarks.
I am concerned with the make-up of the board because I go along with the commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) while in Fredericton that this board would have a representative from labour, fishing, a mining man, a man from agriculture and somebody from lumbering. I would say that is a very good cross-section and I would welcome representation on the board from these particular fields.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: Since the hon. member representing Halifax (Mr. Regan) finds reason to applaud, I would remind him that this afternoon, when I asked if he would support the commitments made by the Prime Minister, there were five categories and he saw fit to support only one. He can applaud that one if he wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: All you have to do is ask for it. As the hon. member for Greenwood was saying, while in opposition the opinion was that this board should be composed of full time representatives who should receive more remuneration for their efforts. I take no objection to that. I take no objection to the fact that $100 million has been established for the fund because, as the Secretary of State has said, it is only a floor. However, I would be anxious to know just what projects they would consider. I would like the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) to tell us, for instance, if he has any intention of building the Chignecto canal. I am not at this time advocating this project. Nevertheless, I would remind the hon. gentleman that on one occasion at least he did say he wished it were built. Since he is on record as having said this, I suppose the money to be allocated to the board will be spent on the Chignecto canal project, though the $100 million he has mentioned will hardly leave much to be

spent on any others. I would also be interested in finding out whether the Secretary of State would consider the Newfoundland fisheries as constituting a project which could be developed by this board. The fisheries industry is all important to Newfoundland and I feel this board could go a long way in assisting a scheme which the premier of that province got under way some time ago. Later he came to Ottawa for financial support. With a friendly government in office and a friendly Secretary of State representing that province I am sure the premier will have no difficulty in securing the finance he needs. We in the maritimes had understood, following a television broadcast in Sydney, Nova Scotia, that the minister of transport would have been chosen from members representing the Atlantic region. I do not say this was a commitment, but the inference was left with the people of Nova Scotia that the minister of transport himself would come from one of the Atlantic provinces.
I feel it is necessary that everyone should be aware of what the potential projects are so that the house may have an opportunity to make sure that any worth-while projects from the maritimes would receive assistance and be the subject of action as promised by the government, at least before it took office.
I realize there are others who wish to say something in respect to this proposal. I only hope the people of the Atlantic area will make members of parliament on all sides of the house aware of their wishes so that representations may be made on their behalf and the necessary action taken.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Is he satisfied with the percentage of new industries established in Nova Scotia during six years of Conservative rule that were placed in Cape Breton?


Malcolm MacInnis: No, Mr. Speaker. That was a very simple question to answer.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: The hon. members who preceded me said they would be brief, and they have been brief. I am always brief. I should like to say I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South in what he said about the value and importance of the citizens of Atlantic Canada. I agree with the views he expressed as to the types of development which might be pursued by this board which has been altered, enlarged and established, or reestablished by the present government. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) who appeared to be amused at some of the observations which are being made. I believe he expressed the notion that today's discussion of the shortcomings of 22 years of Liberal

rule had exhausted the subject. He must be a very young hon. member if he really thinks that. Any maritimer would find it easy to list a catalogue of the years of neglect by the party which he supports.
However, it is not my intention to pursue a partisan approach to this most important matter. I share the view of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). I had thought that the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) might be heading this board because I know of his long standing interest in and knowledge of the economic problems of the region. However, this course was not followed, so we must make do as best we can with the leadership of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill).
I have only one subject I wish to raise at this time. I was not entirely happy with the response which the Secretary of State gave me some time ago when we were discussing this topic on the resolution stage at nearly ten o'clock. As is his wont, he threw some barbs and some quips. He referred to me as "the wealthy member for Queens". At another time he said I had been asleep. Each of these assumptions was as preposterous as the other, but neither surprised me. I was concerned about the manner in which he shuffled off my inquiry about the Prince Edward Island causeway. He did not say, as did the former minister of national revenue, that the causeway was a subject upon which a government decision had been made and a firm commitment given and that, therefore, the question of feasibility would not be the subject of consideration by the board. He just suggested that I should not repudiate my leader.
There is no need to worry about that, but I am a bit worried about his government repudiating my leader's firm commitment on the subject of the causeway. I have been looking forward to a firm statement being made in this house by a member of the government respecting the building of the causeway on the same lines as was made by the former prime minister speaking in his place, when he made a firm commitment about this matter. We shall feel a little easier then about the allocation of this $100 million. I still say this is not enough to cover up a century of neglect of the maritime region. I hope that during this discussion we shall get something approximating a recognition that the course which the previous government undertook will be followed by the present government. The people of my province expect this, and it is my duty to ask for such a commitment. The Secretary of State used to be very interested in the Prince Edward Island causeway.
I remember that when he came to Prince Edward Island he called it "the pauseway". This was the first time he came to Prince
9, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act Edward Island, and the premier of that province was so delighted to have him because in every community in which he appeared Conservative support rose to unprecedented heights. I hope he will come down again when next we go to the country, which may be very soon: One never knows. However, we always welcome him.
With regard to the composition of the board, I am hopeful that the non-partisanship which distinguishes the Secretary of State will be revealed in the selection. I am not going to discuss the question of politics at all. I should just like to say that in my opinion it would be a mistake to take too narrow a view of the concept of industry. In the Atlantic region it is extremely important that we look into a rationalization, a renovation and a rejuvenation of our ancient industry of agriculture. Much remains to be done in that field. Coming from the leading agricultural province, not only in the region but in the country, I hope that we will get a prominent agriculturist on the board. According to the newspapers I have read, from which I get a great deal of information about the present government, I have learned that we will get two members out of the 11 from Prince Edward Island. I hope one of them will be an agriculturist. Much can be done to update and to upgrade the ancient industry of fisheries. In the province of Newfoundland much good work has been done by the provincial government, of course with great assistance anticipated from the dominion government. I suggest that these two aspects be not overlooked, and I am not ignoring the industries which were mentioned earlier by my colleagues, those of lumbering and mining.
May I reiterate, Mr, Speaker, what I said before. I think it would be far better had the board, which was so well constituted, been given an opportunity to do some work. I regret that the men who were selected, having such tremendous capacities and capabilities, will now be relegated, and I am sorry that the government has decided on limitations both of time and of finance. I have expressed that point of view before and I feel that many people in the Atlantic provinces are also concerned about it. But we want to make the best we can of what the government desires to do for the Atlantic region. I should like to commend the government for doing more than it did earlier when it was in office for 22 years. Perhaps in its short tenure of office it may accomplish more than it did in 22 years, and with all the compass points showing now, their present tenure will be rather brief.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on Bill No. C-80 which is before us. First of all,
2010	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board Act I want to put a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) which he could perhaps answer later. It concerns the question of the tie-in between the Atlantic development board, the area development agency in the new department of industry. I do not want to refer at length to the previous debate, but I asked this question of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) when Bill No. C-74 respecting the setting up of a department of industry was before the house. Then later on, in debate on clause 11, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) repeated the question. The Minister of Defence Production said, as reported on page 1864 of Hansard:
While I have not entered into the duties and had an opportunity to explore the problem, I would think the Atlantic development board, with the particular responsibilities it has, is, in a sense, the area development agency for the maritimes-
So they appear to be one and the same thing. I think this question should be straightened out. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald for July 6, 1962 headlined the following: "Minister assures miners forest program will continue". A meeting was held at this time, to which reference was made in the house today by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen), attended by himself as chairman, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Nicholson), the minister of northern affairs, the finance minister, and the minister of mines. According to the Chronicle-Herald, the Minister of Labour was quoted as saying:
Concerning his own hopes of setting up machinery to provide financial assistance for studies to determine likely employment changes, Mr. MacEachen said that this was discussed in conjunction with means whereby the area development agency in the new department of industry, and the Atlantic development board, could assist along these lines.
I hope this is not another case of what we have seen happen before, where the Minister of Labour says that $500 will be given to purchasers of homes built in the winter time, and then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) comes along with a different line. I should like this point clarified, because it is a most important matter: Is the area development agency the Atlantic development board under the department of industry? We do not want too many boards or agencies. What we want primarily is to assist in getting industry into the Atlantic area.
I am not sure whether this is the best legislation, and until the committee stage I will not refer to any clauses. But on reading the bill I am wondering whether the present members of the board, who are now given a term of only one year, can be reappointed. One clause of the bill says that after two terms a member of the board cannot be reappointed. I do not know whether


the present members of the board are presently in their first term and "reappointment for one year" covers their second term. If that is the case, the Secretary of State definitely said on the resolution stage that these members were eligible for reappointment, but they would not be. That is another matter I would like cleared up.
The Secretary of State is the minister in charge of the Atlantic development board. During the budget debate I said that I hoped either the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) or the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) would head the board, being native born. But that is not the case. However, it is better than the proposal put forward in the last session by the Secretary of State, that a minister of the crown should be chairman of the Atlantic development board. When I put a question to him on resolution stage he said that he had thought it over, given the matter second thought, but that it would be rather difficult to get legislation of this type through-and certainly his deductions in that regard are correct.
The amount of the fund has been brought up by other hon. members on this side of the house. The danger, as far as I can see, is that this amount could be used in one area or on one project only, leaving nothing for other areas. This point has been made by others, also. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) who spoke this afternoon, and I enjoyed hearing from him. I noted that he spoke generally on a number of topics, among which was the matter of research. If I did not hear him correctly he will certainly correct me, but I think he stated that he thought that quite a bit of research could be done by the Atlantic development board and that if it was necessary that outside industry and firms be brought in to do research. I believe he stated that he thought quite a bit of research should be done by the Atlantic development board and that outside assistance and outside firms should be brought in for this purpose. If he had read the original act closely he would have seen that research is included among the terms of reference of the board. Perhaps he should look at the act again and go over its terms a little more carefully. He is one learned in the law, and I would have thought he would have paid more attention to the original act even if it was brought forward by the former government.
Tying in with the suggestion and request I made first regarding the area development agency and the Atlantic development board, I think the clause in the bill which will terminate the Atlantic development board in 1969 is more important than ever. If the

answer to the question I asked is in the affirmative, namely that the area development agency and the Atlantic development board are one and the same thing, certainly there should be no expiry date for the Atlantic development board. I think this provision should be deleted even if they are two different things. As to the amount of $100 million which is being provided, I have stated that so far as we on this side of the house are concerned it is insufficient to carry out the objects of the board as set out in the act.
Finally, may I say that when speaking last session on the Atlantic development board I put forward a recommendation that the first thing the board should do is to look into the matter of assisting labour surplus areas. My own area is one of these and there are others throughout the Atlantic region. I would hope that this would be the first thing that would be done. I quite understand that full cooperation with the various provincial governments will be necessary. I further understand that the premier of Nova Scotia, who is a Nova Scotian first in his visits to Ottawa, came here to see the Secretary of State recently and put forward the proposal that areas such as the one I represent should be carefully investigated first by the Atlantic development board. I should like to bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State again. It is a most important submission.
I know that in the province of Nova Scotia Industrial Estates Limited, which was set up by the Tory provincial government, has done a lot of good work. It needs to be tied in with the Atlantic development board. I was speaking a year or two ago to a member of the Atlantic development board who is the president of Industrial Estates Limited. I discussed with him the matter of bringing industry into certain areas. He told me that he believed there were some cases in which it was quite difficult for Industrial Estates Limited, to provide the necessary funds to bring industries into certain areas and he thought there should be some effort on the federal level to cope with this situation. I believe the Atlantic development board is the answer to this problem.
I have nothing more to say on the bill at this time. In due course it will go before the committee and I may have something to say then. I believe that the board can be of a great assistance and will be of help to the Atlantic area through achieving the objects for which it was created.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken
before in this debate and I do not wish to take up too much time at this juncture. However, there are one or two points I wish to bring out and a couple of questions I wish to
Atlantic Development Board Act ask. In a previous debate the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), in reply to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), said that the Atlantic development board and the $100 million constituted a gap filler. He also went on to say, as found on page 1270 of Hansard:
I have mentioned various departments, and I probably did not mention all that I should have, because there are other projects-
And then he specifically mentioned his colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing).
-and my hon. friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, through the national parks and in other ways will, I hope, be contributing very materially to that capital investment in the Atlantic provinces.
The Secretary of State nods his head in agreement. I am very glad that while we started off in the debate with an amount of $100 million the Secretary of State has said that is a floor rather than a ceiling. We are very pleased and happy to know that, because we have nowhere else to go but up. I am sure that a great deal more than $100 million will be required. As I have already said, the Secretary of State agrees with me that there will be massive spending on capital investment by the different departments. I believe he mentioned the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) and other ministers who would be doing a lot of spending.
I am sure we on the opposition side will be most happy and contented if the government will carry on the spending by the different departments that has taken place since 1957 in various constituencies and throughout the Atlantic provinces generally. We would like a little more spending, but even if it remains at the same level I am sure we will all be rather happy. If hon. members will check the figures they will find that in public works and in the development of our national parks in the east there has been more spending and capital investment than in any other previous comparable period. The Secretary of State agrees with me, and it would appear that we are going to have the spending.
I am happy that is so, but will you tell me why in heaven's name I should be advised by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that the parks branch is not going to go ahead with a small project involving the construction of a golf clubhouse costing approximately $150,000 in Cape Breton Highlands national park? It would provide employment for people and would assist in encouraging more tourists to come to the area. The tourists would spend more money and the project would help in the long run. I am sure we can look forward to the assistance of my colleague from Cape Breton, the Minister
2012	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board Act of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), in whose constituency part of the park lies. Since I am aware of his great interest in getting everybody to work as soon as possible I trust that he will appear before treasury board and insist, plead, direct, order, or what have you, that they reconsider this small project in Cape Breton Highlands national park. If they do they will be in conformity with what the Secretary of State has said in eloquent and grandiose terms, that they are going to go right ahead and are really going to spend more than $100 million. Let us hope that something will come of this.
The other point I want to mention is the expiry date which has been referred to by a great many hon. members. The Secretary of State stated, as found on page 1269 of Hansard:
This was not with the idea of having a new, permanent agency of government, hut really to take a big leap forward quickly.
I referred to that in my previous remarks.
It is that concept that we are seeking to embody in this amendment. It is for that reason it was thought that a six-year period would be an appropriate one.
I ask the Secretary of State: Deep in his heart does he honestly think that the Atlantic development board should expire and die on January 24, 1969? Does he really think that? In all sincerity does he feel that enough will have been accomplished in that short period of time to bring the maritime region closer to the economic level of other parts of Canada? If he does, it is difficult for me to understand. I note that the expiry date is January 24, 1969. Being a Scot I recall that January 25 is the birthday of Robert Burns and I would think that would not be an appropriate time to have the Atlantic development board die. I do not think any day would be an appropriate day.
Having said these few words, I hope the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) will reply to what I have said. In view of what the Secretary of State has said on the one hand is actually taking place, and in view of my reference to Robert Burns, may I commend to him this quotation:
Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I should caution the house that if the Secretary of State speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Before the minister closes the debate, there are one or two comments I should like to make. I do not intend to make a speech. I understand that this afternoon one of the members from Halifax referred to an investigation that the board is conducting into


winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. I merely want to indicate my interest in this subject and to say that I hope the minister, when he is replying tonight or at a later stage, will give us an up to date report on how far they have proceeded with this project. It is one which is very important. I know that the members from Halifax are interested in it, just as I am.
I do want to reiterate the thoughts of my colleagues on this side of the house. I agree, of course, with the principle of this bill, but I subscribe also to the reservations my colleagues have put forward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) for raising the question of the projects that were put through the board by the previous administration. These are being carried out. I gave directions that they were to continue with the work that was started. I think it would be a little early for me to attempt to give any progress report on this investigation, but it is going forward. It was initiated by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) when he was responsible to parliament for the board. The board has done some preliminary work, but it is quite a big subject and I would not expect that in a great hurry we would have the kind of investigation that would impress anyone very much, particularly since the subject is slightly controversial.
I do not believe that the amiable member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) really expects me to run the department of northern affairs. I will let him continue to deal with the minister and I am sure, since he is a persuasive member, he will get his way.


Robert Muir: Would you speak to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen)? I understand he is on the treasury board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is nothing that gives me greater pleasure than to speak to the Minister of Labour. I do it almost hourly.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Mac-Ewan) made about as constructive a speech as I have heard for some time from the Tory benches. I should like to thank him for giving me a chance to say something about a question which I believe does merit some attention in the debate on the second reading of the bill, namely the relationship between the area development agency of the department of industry and the Atlantic development board. The department of industry bill has been approved by this house and, I believe, this evening is probably starting its way through the other and more difficult branch of parliament. I hope this department

will soon be established. The area development agency, as I conceive it, is an agency tor the promotion of actual, individual industries in areas in Canada in which there is a labour surplus and where there is some prospect of industry being successful. I would put Pictou county very high on that list. As the hon. member knows, I mentioned it a good many times when I was on the other side of the house. I feel that Pictou county and the Cape Breton area are two areas in which we should make a Herculean effort to get new industries established.
It is quite obvious, I believe, that the area development agency is going to operate all over Canada. This does not mean it is going to operate in places where it is not needed. However, in those areas where a lift to the economy is needed industrially, it will operate I assume, on the same principles everywhere. The Atlantic development board has to do something that I conceive to be rather more fundamental. I do not see it dealing directly with this or that individual industry, promoting an industry. This, I think, would be the function of the minister of industry and his department. I think the Atlantic development board is going to be concerned primarily with improving transportation, improving power and other facilities which would make an area more attractive to industry.
In this context I hope-and I have discussed this already with the president of Industrial Estates, and more recently with the premier of Nova Scotia-there will be the closest possible co-operation with Industrial Estates in Nova Scotia, with the department of economic development in Newfoundland and with similar agencies in the other two provinces. I feel that the Atlantic development board must, if it is to be successful, co-operate with all the agencies for development, both provincial and federal, that exist. I agree with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton that the function the board already has of promoting all kinds of economic development is more important than the spending of the fund. Of the two, it is the more important. I do believe the fund is also needed because there are projects, as every hon. member can see for himself, that are not undertaken directly for a specific industry. I am not going to attempt to describe what they are because I know what would happen if I did; I would be accused of leaving this one or that one out or favouring one, and just get myself into a lot of unnecessary trouble and unnecessary debate. I refer to the things that will make it possible for an industry to flourish in an area rather than stagnate; it is that kind of thing I mean.
9, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act
There were some questions raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). Many of the things he said were irrelevant, but he said some quite sensible things, too. One of the things he said was that he welcomed the increased membership in the board. I am glad he does, and for the reason he gave. We want to make the board more representative of the economic character of the whole region than it is at the moment. This is in no way a reflection on the existing members of the board.
The hon. member asked me about the Chig-necto canal. The Chignecto project is far too big a project to be undertaken by the Atlantic development board. The investigation of it could be done by the board, and I am not thinking now of the canal but of the whole power-canal complex. This is something that the board may very well do. However, if a project as large as that was going to be undertaken, I think it would be done in the same way as the Canso causeway was done, in the same way as I conceive the Prince Edward Island causeway would be done, and in the same way as any other big project is done, that is by bringing forward a special measure for that purpose or including an item in the estimates of one department, as was done in the case of the Atlantic power development. The Chignecto project is not the kind of thing the Atlantic development board would do out of the capital fund. If it did it would mortgage all the fund for one project, or practically for one project, and that is not the idea at all. If one of these really big projects is promoted by the board, then the government will have to see it initiated and piloted through parliament in some other way.
So far as fishery development is concerned, it is primarily in the hands of the federal Department of Fisheries and the departments of fisheries of the provinces. We have in the present Minister of Fisheries a man who has spent his whole lifetime in the fishery and knows perhaps more about the fishing industry than anybody who has ever occupied the portfolio he holds. I do not think he is going to need the Atlantic development board to do more than give him encouragement to do the things we all believe he is going to do anyway.
I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis), and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) who spoke at the resolution stage, that it is not just in Newfoundland that the fishery needs to be modernized and brought into the second half of the twentieth century. We want the fishery to develop. We want it to provide more employment through all the Atlantic region, and we want all the historic

Atlantic Development Board Act industries to provide better opportunities throughout the region. But we also want new industry, especially secondary industry; and the board, if it is to be a real success, must stimulate these developments in all directions.
I could say a great deal more about what is hoped, and could make many more comments on the speeches made by other hon. members, but time is marching on. I just want to thank the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for the interest he has taken in this area as a result of the urge from his ancestors. Even though he is a couple of generations away from the Atlantic area he is still interested, and it makes me feel that perhaps someone who was born in Ontario and brought up in Manitoba might still be reasonably acceptable in the Atlantic region, if he tries sufficiently hard. After all, it is not really my fault that I was not born there.
I feel a little like those several hundreds of thousands of immigrants that I encouraged to come to Canada when I was a minister in the previous Liberal government. I feel that someone who takes the trouble to go to an area and take an interest in it may be just as deserving of being given an equal chance as the people who were born there. This is not a special plea. I think the house knows I do not make many special pleas, but since the matter has been referred to, I do not think that I really need to apologize for occupying the position I occupy, after five general elections when I could have been thrown out of this house.
There was one other point mentioned that I think deserves a little special mention, and that is the date the act is supposed to expire. The reason that was put in the bill, as I said at the earlier stage, was that it was thought if a time limit was put on the operation of this legislation it would constitute an incentive to make a really big effort to try to do the job all at once; and this job was described, in November 1957, in words that I think ought to be put on Hansard. I am going to put them on Hansard.
There is, then, a need in the Atlantic provinces for considerable expenditures of capital on basic public facilities designed to encourage development of the resources of the region. These would include, but should not be limited to, the provision or reconstruction of adequate power and co-ordinated transportation services. The cost involved in providing these needed services, however, would seem to be beyond the financial competence of the provincial governments concerned. In view of this, we suggest that the federal government agree to contribute a substantial sum for capital projects in the Atlantic area to be spread over a relatively short period of years. The purpose would be to cover the costs of necessary capital investment, some or all of which would normally be the responsibility of the provincial governments. To this special contribution might be added during the specified period some or all of the considerable
(Mr. Pickersgill.]
sums now being spent in one or other of the Atlantic provinces each year by various departments of the federal government on such things as docks and wharfs, transportation including ferry and coastal shipping subsidies, the development of marshland areas and the construction of public buildings. The objective would be to co-ordinate all capital expenditures and subsidies in the area other than those on projects which are national in their scope and application such as the proposed land use classification scheme, the trans-Canada highway and assistance to people who are unable to make a reasonable living where they are and who wish to be relocated elsewhere. In this way, such capital expenditures, including the proposed capital grants, could be allocated in a co-ordinated manner designed to strengthen the basic economic structure of the area as a whole.
The expenditure of federal funds in this way should of course be made and supervised by an appropriate agency of the federal government. With this in mind, we suggest that the federal government establish a capital projects commission for the Atlantic provinces, or some other appropriate agency. We do not suggest that the proposed commission or agency be a permanent addition to the existing governmental machinery. On the contrary, we believe the needed facilities should be provided over a reasonably short period and that the capital expenditures involved should not be regarded as a permanent addition to the revenues of the Atlantic area. Accordingly, we suggest that when the proposed commission or agency is established it be given a limited life and be disbanded at the expiration of that time. However, inasmuch as some of the capital expenditures in question may be self-liquidating in whole or in part, it would be necessary to make provision for the continued administration of projects initiated by the commission or other agency.
I am not going to quote the whole of the extract, and I am sure all hon. members have guessed the author. The author was my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) when he was chairman of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. It is this pattern, this idea, that we need to infuse into this area, federal capital out of the federal treasury on a scale that is not needed in any other part of Canada-and I emphasize that: On a scale and of a scope not needed in any other part of Canada- to give a permanent lift to the area and to bring it closer to the level of the rest of the country. That was the reason why this whole project was conceived.
It was conceived six years ago by my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, and the commissioners associated with him, and I am sorry we have lost those six years. I am sorry it was not done right away after that report was made, but there is no use worrying about what was not done or what was done in the past. I could refute a lot of the arguments made this afternoon, but I do not intend to, about who did this and when. It does not matter much to the people in the Atlantic provinces what was done. What they are concerned with is what is being done and what we are going to do in the future. I suggest that, for the rest of the consideration

of this bill, we forget whether the previous government, which made a good start in this matter, should get the credit, or whether it should be the present government, which is trying to carry out to the letter what we promised the electors to do, for which we elected 20 members out of 33 members in the Atlantic provinces in the last election.
Surely if there is to be good faith in public life at all, when you give undertakings to people and they vote for you, you should carry out those undertakings. We gave two specific undertakings about this board. We said we would carry it on; we did not say we would abolish it. We said we would strengthen it, and I believe when hon. members see the kind of persons who will be appointed they will have no doubt that the board will have been strengthened. That is no reflection at all on the existing members. We also said it would be given a capital fund, if parliament approved of this, of course, and that is what we are asking parliament to do. I do not think there is anything more I need add to what I have already said, sir, and I thank all hon. members who have participated in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows: Mr. Pickersgill, seconded by Mr. Robichaud, moves that Bill No. C-80, to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act, be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-"Fund".
Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, clause 1 has to do with the establishment of the capital fund and I think this clause merits a little attention from the committee before it carries. A moment ago the Secretary of State spoke of the lost six years. By that reference he of course spoiled his usual non-partisan approach to matters of this type. Then, of course, he gave a moving and heart rending apology for not having been born in the Atlantic provinces. I found this so moving that it makes speaking difficult. All I can say is that I am as sorry as he that he was not born amongst us.
When one speaks of six lost years one reverts to the partisanship which makes all of us on this side of the house concerned about the future of the board. I am one of those who believe that many things were accomplished
9, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act between 1957 and 1963 which benefited the Atlantic provinces. But I agree with the Secretary of State that it is a futile effort to start cataloguing the various achievements, one side against the other. Therefore I am not going to bore the committee with any such catalogue. The capital fund is, of course, nothing more than, shall we call it a Pickers-gillian exercise in words, because it has to be referred to the minister and then to parliament, which is exactly what the former statute would have had us do. But when we consider-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I would be delighted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say it had to be submitted to parliament? That, of course, is not correct. The money is being voted in this bill and will be available to be spent on the approval of treasury board.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for correcting me. Of course he has caught me out in an incorrect statement. It is the government, I meant to say. I sometimes confuse government and parliament. This is a backbench problem. Some writers, of course, have also discussed this question. There are other times when we can go into the philosophy of government and parliament. But while we are discussing the $100 million fund I am going to make a statement that I think is entitled to be made quite emphatically. I promise not to catalogue. However, I am going to say that to the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker must go credit for giving this problem special recognition. It was the first time in the history of this country, and here I pay tribute to the other governments from confederation. He, for the first time as a government leader, recognized the special problem and faced this problem with special remedies. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say he is going on up the ladder; but the ladder was put there by the former government as a special means of assisting this area.
This was done, of course, by recognizing the basic facts of life with regard to the Atlantic provinces. The first was the compelling need for an abundant supply of electric power, and in the first throne speech of the former government there was contained the provision for this to be achieved. Then that phrase became a statute which permitted the loan to the Beechwood power development, and from there we went to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. Right in my own constituency today I see evidence of the working of the power development

Atlantic Development Board Act act through a federal loan announced the other day by the distinguished Minister of Fisheries as an achievement of his. He forgot to mention in his press announcement who instituted the legislation. However, there we have a coal burning thermal plant providing the extra energy needed to bring about some improvement in the economic situation in the maritimes. These were special statutes specially designed to meet special needs.
Then, of course, we had the massive outlay of capital through the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants. This matter has been discussed over and over again. However, I think that when we consider an amendment to this statute we must keep the matter in its fair and proper perspective and remember, to use the phrase of the Secretary of State, the ladder which was put there, I suggest, by the former government. If the Secretary of State wants to climb the ladder, God bless him; I hope he has a pleasant trip to the top.
Of course, on budget night the $100 million fund had a serious blow because the producers of coal and lumber and those concerned in secondary industry in the Atlantic provinces were faced with an 11 per cent sales tax, which last night was up and down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I think he realizes that on clause 1 we cannot have a discussion as general as that which we had on the resolution stage of the bill. The discussion should be limited, at least, to the bill. I realize-and I am not making a ruling on this point-that these matters are of concern to the hon. gentleman, but I would suggest to him that as far as possible he should try to limit his remarks to the bill which is now under consideration.


Mr, Fairweather:: I thank you, Mr. Chairman; but we were discussing the fund, and I was trying, no doubt in a general way, to suggest that on budget night the fund was solvent, but that a fund which might have been adequate on June 12 is, of course, insufficient now because the cost of whatever we do in the Atlantic provinces has gone up. I was about to suggest that the fourth chapter of the gospel according to Gordon, whatever reading it was last night, has placed a serious dilemma before those people who are now making up the Atlantic development board because what was once an established fact has become a Liberal fantasy. However, if that is not in order I shall try to direct my attention more specifically to the fund. That was the general line of the idea, though. I was about to suggest that the fund for the

next few months should not be $100 million but that 4 per cent should be added to it up to March 31 next, when, I understand from last night's announcement, we shall have to add 8 per cent to the $100 million.


Lucien Lamoureux: I can understand the hon. member wishing to try to bring into his remarks material which I consider does not really belong to a discussion of the principle of this bill. However, I would ask him to limit his observations to the subject matter before the committee.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: If the added cost of the budget, Mr. Chairman, is not applicable to this fund I will direct the remainder of my remarks to the fund itself. But perhaps the point has been made.
I am one of those old fashioned people who believe the voting of money should be a parliamentary prerogative and that is why the setting up of a fund is viewed by myself and,
I think by many others, to be mere window dressing. I am deeply concerned lest the $100 million should, in fact, become a ceiling, an excuse for going no further. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton neatly divided the fund this afternoon in an arithmetical way. I shall not try to copy him, but when one does divide such a fund between four provinces for five years, even a backbencher would hardly consider such a sum as being adequate. This causes me to worry about the size of the fund and to hope that the Secretary of State when we proceed to the further stages of the bill will agree to add some such phrase as "no less than" before the amount so that we in the Atlantic provinces will not have to be concerned that this is a confining figure. I think that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, because of your admonition which has corsetted me.


Hugh John Flemming: In the
course of my remarks this afternoon I did make some reference to the fund and the amount of the fund. It seems to me that the points made by my hon. friend from Royal in connection with the reference of this expenditure again to parliament, or at least to the government, is well taken. I doubt the wisdom of placing as much money as this in the hands of any board, even though the government of the day might consider there was ample protection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would not this particular discussion be more appropriate on clause 16 which sets out the safeguards and precisely meets the point raised by the hon. gentleman, because the board cannot spend this money without the approval of treasury board, which is the government?


Hugh John Flemming: Surely, we can deal with virtually any of these clauses on the first clause, by custom. Is that not correct? I would prefer to make the observations which I have to make at this stage because I have prepared an amendment which I would like to send over to the Secretary of State in case, after consideration he should decide it merited adoption. With that in mind I would prefer to make these somewhat rambling remarks at this time. I suppose we all have peculiarities. I would be the first to acknowledge that I have my full share.
I think the delegation of authority to spend public money in large amounts is a step which merits a tremendous amount of caution. Even though, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, we have the protection of treasury board-and I can say from experience that sometimes I felt this protection was a little too strong for my liking-I feel we should exercise a great deal of care before delegating the spending of $100 million without further reference to parliament. After all, this is money which is raised through taxation of one kind or another, and it seems to me this is a point which merits serious consideration as far as the principle is concerned.
Opinions have been freely expressed in connection with this $100 million. As I said this afternoon, I do not want to misquote anybody. I did not say the Secretary of State had ever said the $100 million was only a minimum amount. I think he said he would not be presumptuous enough to bind further parliaments regarding what they might do when the question arose, if it ever arose. However, I think some of his colleagues have been more careless and said right off the bat that the $100 million was merely a token amount and that after it had gone there would, presumably, be another $100 million placed at the disposal of the board. I do not think the Secretary of State will tell us he subscribes to that view at the moment.
I do not know how it is contemplated that the board will function with respect to guarantees. I can see a situation arising where a guarantee for a large development might be necessary. But that would not be contemplated. It would actually not cost the board or the government a five cent piece.
I do not mind saying that in the constituency I have the honour to represent there exists near Woodstock a large deposit of manganese, unfortunately of quite low grade. The gentleman who was head of the corporation there had a personal interest in it and an urge to do something, but unfortunately passed away within the last six or eight months. I have been told that one of the reasons this has not been given more examination is because it is only by disposing of the
9, 1963
Atlantic Development Board Act equity shares, which means the control, that the proper financing may be arranged. The people who have studied the situation are reluctant to do anything in that connection, and I am sure we are very pleased they have that hesitation. I can see the board stepping in here. The Minister of Finance will be very much interested because the finished product which would be produced is a product which is being imported at the present time. I am sure all hon. members would agree this is a matter deserving of a good deal of attention, not only because of its location-which I hope would be one reason because it happens to be in my own constituency-but because it would be for the general good of the country as a whole. I do not think anyone would want to see the board hamstrung or circumscribed in any way.
I will send this little piece of paper which I hold in my hand over to the Secretary of State for his perusal. All it does is to add before the amount of $100 million the words "not less than". It puts the $100 million as the minimum amount. I assure the Secretary of State that he has full authority to delete my name and insert his own if, in his judgment, he feels that that is a wise course to take.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the rules would permit that, but I can probably insert the name of my hon. friend from Gloucester.


Hugh John Flemming: That
would be quite acceptable. My main interest in the matter is that strength will be lent to the instrument so that it may be possible to secure for the Atlantic provinces an additional opportunity for development of resources which hitherto have remained undeveloped. That is my complete interest. I think that is all I have to say along that line. While I would be the first to agree that perhaps clause 16 might have been the more appropriate place to make these remarks, I am sure that under the circumstances-


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact I am very grateful to have this notice.


Hugh John Flemming: In case the memory of hon. gentlemen, especially the Secretary of State, is not too clear on what I have said in expressing the opinion that the government might consider some other amendments, I suggested the complete deletion of the expiry date of January 24, 1969. I share the view expressed by the Secretary of State with regard to the remarks made by my hon. friend from Pictou this evening in connection with the part the Atlantic development board can play in the newly-created department of industry as far as area development is concerned. I am sure that the Minister of Defence

Atlantic Development Board Act Production, who I have no doubt will be the new minister of industry, would be one of the first to say he does not favour any unnecessary duplication. It is my opinion that if this board were constituted and had the information which is desired, it would be unnecessary duplication in many phases and respects to set up another body simply to duplicate what had already been done. I am one of those who feel that resource development of the Atlantic provinces has not been carried out to the extent it should. We have in the constituency of my hon. friend from Charlotte, I am told, a tremendous deposit of tin. This will undoubtedly receive a great deal of investigation by the board also. Incidentally, I believe it is also a commodity imported into this country, and so our balance of payments position again comes into the picture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to interrupt for a second to see whether it might be the sense of the committee to sit for a little longer this evening to deal with the non-contentious sections and to hear any amendments which might be suggested by others, so that we might make a little more progress tomorrow. I put that forward as a suggestion. Since most of the hon. members from the Atlantic provinces are here perhaps the committee would not mind going on for a little longer.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fleming (Vicioria-Carleton):: I have no special objection, but at the moment we have a request from a very distinguished mari-timer that he would like to see clause 1 left open.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then we could have it stand and go on with some of the others. I have no thought that we could complete this work tonight, because I know that one or two clauses will have to be held over for tomorrow; but if we could make progress by getting through the non-contentious clauses it would be of help.


Hugh John Flemming: If I can
complete my remarks about what the hon. member calls the non-contentious sections then, perhaps I am at this point the most disagreeable person in the chamber as far as the bill is concerned, and if he got rid of me perhaps he would be satisfied that tomorrow the going would be quite smooth. I was referring
to the question of area development under the new department of industry. I am wandering around a bit.
My colleague the hon. member for Royal might not care for this, but I am one of those who feels that the department of industry can perform a function. However, I am a little worried that they are going to usurp the functions of private business. I believe that private business should be co-operated with rather than that the government enter into competition with them. Having said that I will leave it, because I have got by with the chairman pretty well on that one.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Hugh John Flemming: There is just one other point I wish to make.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I had understood there was agreement a few moments ago.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, apparently it was a misunderstanding. I am sorry, sir.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader to let us know the business for tomorrow and perhaps Thursday. I realize there are consultations going on and he will not want to go beyond those two days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is quite correct. We had some consultations today and I do not want to project the business beyond tomorrow and Thursday at the moment. Tomorrow we would hope we could get through the committee stage of this bill and if possible make a start on the second reading of the economic council bill, which would be continued on Thursday. If it should be completed on Thursday we would then make a start on the resolution preceding the Department of Agriculture bill. I do not think it is realistic to suggest more than that at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.