1956-01-25

ADDRESS TO BOTH HOUSES BY PRIME MINISTER OF GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the house whether or not the Prime Minister of Great Britain will be addressing the joint houses of parliament and if so at what time?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to inform the house that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has accepted an invitation to address both houses of parliament here on February 6 at 2.30 in the afternoon.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: There is a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which I have not yet answered. It has to do with the qualification of certain claimants for unemployment insurance following upon the application of the provisions of the new act. Other members have referred to this matter in speeches and otherwise and I hope that this statement may serve to clarify the matter for them.
The new act was not long in force when the commission found the rate of disqualification for regular benefits under it exceeded the rate experienced under the old act. A survey was undertaken by the commission and it was found that the interpretation which had been placed on section 119(b) was the cause of the disqualification in a substantial number of cases.
Section 119 (b) reads in part as follows:
119. For the purposes of establishing a benefit period and calculating the rate of benefit . . . under this act . . .
(b) Six days in respect of which contributions were payable and paid under the old act shall be deemed to be a contribution week . . .
The narrow view given to the subsection was that six daily contributions, regardless of whether they were earned in one, two or three weeks, would count for no more than one weekly contribution under the new act, and nothing less than six daily contributions would count as a contribution week.
As a result of the survey the commission reconsidered the subsection and came to the conclusion that the view was too restrictive and was not in accordance with the spirit and intent of the new act.
Here, in a few words, is what the commission proposes to do. The ordinary provisions of the present act concerning the computation of the number of contribution weeks will be applied to all calendar weeks occurring before the act came into effect. In order to do this, the earnings of an insured person during the calendar week must be known; if they were $9 or over, the week would count as a full contribution week under the present act, and if they were less than $9, the week would count as half a contribution week. However, for the calendar week under the old act for which the evidence necessary to establish the earnings as above is not available, the statutory week provided for in section 119 (b) of the present act will be applied. This consists in dividing the total number of daily contributions for a period by six, and counting the result as so many contribution weeks for the purposes of the present act.
I am further informed that the commission is giving instructions to their field offices to expedite the review of the claims on which entitlement was not established, and to ensure prompt readjudication and retroactive payment to those who will be relieved as a result and who have proven, or can now prove, unemployment since the commencement of their claim.
The great majority, if not all, of those who were not qualified for regular benefits during October, November and December, are now in receipt of seasonal benefits which now provide benefits at the same rates as those established for regular benefits.
We all know that the local offices of the commission will be encountering, in a few weeks, their peak load, and I am sure that hon. members will realize that these readjudications and retroactive payments cannot be accomplished in a day. However, they

Inquiries of the Ministry can be assured that everything in the commission's power will be. done to expedite the matter. Since claimants in this category are already registered at their local offices, I can give assurance on behalf of the commission that such claimants will be notified direct by their local offices to call.
I must thank all the hon. members who brought the situation to my attention and that of the commission. This is an expression of our common solicitude for those workers who stand in need of all the protection which last year's revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act was designed to afford.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Are we correct in assuming that this reinterpretation that has been made by the commission is not made under the transitional provisions of the act but is rather a permanent reinterpretation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is made under a reinterpretation of section 119.
[Later: ]


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of his earlier statement today. Could the minister explain what relation the reinterpretation of section 119 will have to the application of section 45 (2)?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it would take too much of the time of the house if I attempted to explain it this afternoon. I tried to cover that point in the latter part of my statement. It will apply in a different way to different claimants. Our local offices know who those claimants are and, in the light of the activity in those offices, they will immediately, as from today, call the claimants in, talk to them individually and deal with them as such.



STATEMENT ON REPORTED ROBBERY AT OSHAWA OFFICE OF COMMISSION

Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to answer a question from the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White), which he asked some days ago. His question concerned a robbery at Oshawa involving unemployment insurance funds. The replies to his two questions are as follows:
1. The unemployment insurance commission has received a report which is being studied. This shows that two employees of the commission were held up on their way from the bank to the local office and robbed of $6,000.

Investigation by the Oshawa police is proceeding and the commission feels that any further statement at this time might impede the progress of that investigation.
2. Two methods of payment of benefit are used: (1) by warrant; (2) by cash.
Where the volume of claims justifies it, payment is made by cash and this practice is followed at 90 of the 192 places at which local offices are located.



REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFITS WITHOUT REGARD FOR TYPE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: May I direct another question to the Minister of Labour. Will his department also consider the payment of benefits under the scale in operation under the new act without regard for the type of contributions that were made?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I would be glad to take my hon. friend's question as notice. In answering it briefly now, however, it will be remembered that the provisions of this new act have been in effect now for less than four months. As it has gone along* the commission, under the powers granted it for the making of regulations by order in council or by the commission itself, has taken steps consistently each month to achieve those smaller adjustments which have been indicated as essential. As I said the other day, the new act has worked out very well on the whole. Following this interpretation I have given today, I should like the commission to have eight or ten months or a year in which to-observe its further operations, after which they will be in a position to iron out any further difficulties that may remain.



REFERENCE TO SALES TO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: In
view of the statement of the Minister of Agriculture last week in Winnipeg, as reported by the Canadian Press, that there is no surplus of butter-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Earl Rowe: -and that we are now facing: the danger of a shortage, I should like to ask this question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture: Why have we recently sold eight million pounds and why do we propose to sell an additional four million pounds to communist countries at 40 per cent less than, the price the Canadian taxpayers paid for it?


An hon. Member:: Are you against it?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be very glad to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the question, and I am sure he will be glad to answer it upon his return.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement he made yesterday concerning shipments of arms abroad? In the spare parts of world war II type tanks which he said were included in the shipments to Egypt, are any breech blocks included?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thought my hon. friend would have remembered what I said yesterday in giving the details of shipments in regard to particular countries in the Middle East; that I was inhibited by the reluctance expressed by one government to have a disclosure made of all the details because of the security and intelligence considerations involved. There is no reluctance on our part, and there would be no hesitation in making every single detail available. But the reluctance of the government concerned, in accordance with considerations of international courtesy, has to be taken into account.
By correspondence with that government, oral and written, we are attempting to convince them that the security considerations in this matter are not as important as are those considerations which would indicate that all these details should be released. As soon as we have completed those discussions I may be in a position to make a further and more detailed statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask a supplementary question? In approving the sale of spare parts of world war II type tanks to Egypt has the government taken into consideration the fact that the British tanks which recently found their way to Egypt via Belgium were complete except for breech blocks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should also have thought my hon. friend would have remembered that yesterday in regard to this matter I said that in respect to this particular kind of shipment we have an assurance, written and official, from the government in question that these spare parts were to be used only in connection with tanks which already belong to their armed forces.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is for that reason that I ask my question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's statement
simply leads me to repeat my question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can answer that particular question by saying yes, all relevant factors were taken into consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What then is the fact in this regard?


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER EXPORT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question concerning a proposal I put forward yesterday? Is the government willing to have set up a committee of this house to inquire into arms shipments abroad?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given to the suggestion the hon. member made yesterday about setting up a select committee to inquire into that matter.


INQUIRY AS TO SHIPMENT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO SOUTH AMERICA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister the following question? Has any military equipment been supplied by Canada to any South American countries within the last two years?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am afraid I will have to take the hon. member's question as notice. It goes back over quite a long period. I am quite sure nothing of importance has been supplied to any South American country, but in making an answer in the house I would want to be perfectly accurate and I should like to review all that has been done during the period mentioned by the hon. member.


SHIPMENT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has any military equipment been supplied by Canada within the last two years to any of the 34 sensitive areas mentioned yesterday by the minister, exclusive of Israel and Egypt, and if so to which areas?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I had better not rely on my recollection in respect of that very involved and all-embracing question. I shall look into that matter and give an answer in due course.


CONTINUED SUSPENSION OP ARMS SHIPMENTS TO SENSITIVE AREAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of what was said yesterday about sensitive areas, may I ask the Prime Minister if the assurance he gave the house a few days ago in regard to no further shipments to those areas still stands?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it would be fair for me to consider that the debate in the house on that matter has ended.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice relating to the situation resulting from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which was announced yesterday in respect to the Coffin case. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation or other appropriate provisions to amend the rules of the supreme court regarding applications for leave to appeal in murder cases, and is this among the amendments contemplated in the announcement contained in the speech from the throne?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The announcement contained in the speech from the throne refers to amendments to the Supreme Court Act generally, and among those were amendments of the character referred to by my hon. friend. Upon these no decision has yet been reached.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. Taking into account our occasional [Mr. Churchill.!
problem with regard to butter surpluses, is it true that margarine has been or is being extensively used in our military establishments?


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, may I take this question as notice.



LONG BRANCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence? Has the Department of National Defence ever ordered the demolition of the shacks on its property at Long Branch, Toronto? If so, have these orders been carried out? If not, why not, and what use is now being made of these shacks?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, may I take this question as notice?



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the matter of flood loss assistance to Saskatchewan been settled? If so, can the Prime Minister say on what basis settlement has been made? Was it on the same basis used with respect to the Red river flood and the flood in the Fraser river valley in 1950? If not, why not?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the first question is yes; the federal government made proposals of assistance to the province of Saskatchewan last October. This contained an offer to share the cost of repairing homes and associated structures damaged in the floods of last spring. It was a proposal similar to the arrangement made in the case of the Ontario floods in the fall of 1954.
Under this arrangement, which has been accepted by the province, although the premier has expressed some disappointment about it, the federal government has agreed to assume 50 per cent of the expenditures in those cases where the provincial government has rendered assistance along the following lines.

The first $100 of damage to be met by the owner with the provincial government making reimbursement of 80 per cent of the balance of the assessed damage up to a maximum payment of $5,000 for any one establishment. This would cover the repair of homes and associated structures. Naturally this does not limit the extent of the assistance the provincial government may see fit to provide but fixes the proportion in which the federal government would share.
As to the second question, the form of assistance is not identical with that given in respect to the Red river and the Fraser valley floods where in both instances the damage caused was of much greater relative magnitude. Moreover, since those earlier events parliament has passed legislation which had to be taken into consideration when the Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan flood situations were being studied.
This legislation, the Canada Water Conservation Act, passed in 1953 takes into account the responsibility of the provinces in the control of floods, but at the same time makes federal assistance available in connection with major projects upon the application of any province. I may say that no proposals have been submitted by the government of Saskatchewan under this legislation.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Could he inform the house of the amount of contribution the federal government will pay under this agreement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
have that amount. The arrangement provided that there would be co-operation between the officials of the finance department and officials of the appropriate department of the government of Saskatchewan to determine what the amounts would be. I shall ascertain whether the matter has been completed and as soon as possible give the hon. member the total of the federal contribution.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister say what consideration was given to paying compensation on account of damage to municipal roads? This damage was very extensive.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That matter was very carefully considered, and the premier of Saskatchewan was informed that the federal government could not undertake to share in the repairs to municipal works.


Edward George McCullough: I should like to ask another supplementary question.
67509-34J
Inquiries of the Ministry Could the Prime Minister inform the house whether consideration was given to those individual farmers who will not be compensated under any other legislation for complete crop loss owing to flooding?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, consideration was given to all the representations-and I can assure you that the premier of Saskatchewan did not omit any of them- that were submitted to the government. This was the answer that we finally gave to the government of Saskatchewan.



INQUIRY RESPECTING IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any information as to whether or not there are likely to be any imports of New Zealand cheddar cheese into Canada during the next six months?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I have not had advance information, either through the spirits or otherwise, of the intentions of the New Zealand government. I shall be glad to make inquiries and see whether anyone in the department knows anything about them.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As shown on page 484 of Hansard, in a speech by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), he stated:
My statement is supported and borne out by a letter written by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, and published in the Vers Demain, a paper which is supported and published by the Social Credit party.
My point of privilege is this. While Vers
Demain is published by the union of electors in Montreal, it is not published by the Social Credit party with which the Social Credit members in this house are affiliated.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. As a result of the reports made

Inquiries of the Ministry available some time ago with respect to the serious airplane crashes at Moose Jaw and Brampton, has the minister made a decision as to any changes which might be made in the air regulations to provide greater safety in the air?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take my hon. friend's question as notice and see what reply I should make to him tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for York West? Have representations been received by the minister or by the air transport board asking for any change in the matter of flight hours and hours between flights for air-line pilots? If so, has consideration been given to any such representations?


George Carlyle Marler: I am quite unable to recall, offhand, whether any such representations have been received by officials of the department. I shall have tomake inquiries.


John Borden Hamilton: May I ask a
supplementary question? Has the minister received representations on a wide basis from all interested parties, both air lines and other operators, in connection with any proposed changes?


George Carlyle Marler: The minister, Mr. Speaker, has not received any such representations, but representations may have been made to the officials of my department. I would have to make inquiries.



REPORTED MOVEMENT OF EMPTY BOX CARS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: I should like to reply to a question asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Saskatoon. He asked, speaking of box cars, if empty cars were being moved by the Canadian National Railways from Edmonton to British Columbia. The management of the Canadian National Railways advise me that the railway is not shipping empty box cars west from Edmonton into British Columbia.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.


Has the Prime Minister received a request from Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan that a new federal-provincial conference on taxation be convened this spring? Is the Prime Minister prepared to have such a conference called?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will have to reread the numerous letters I have received recently from Premier Douglas to be in a position to make an accurate reply to the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the Prime Minister prepared to have a new federal-provincial conference on taxation called this spring? That is the question.
[Later:!


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising out of the answer he gave a moment ago to the hon. member for Assiniboia. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the house how many of the other provincial premiers requested that such a conference be convened?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have no recollection of any request from any of the provincial premiers for a new conference. I think there is a suggestion in a letter from the premier of Saskatchewan that there should be a resumption of the conference on dominion fiscal matters to continue the discussions we had last October, and to give further consideration to the proposals to the provinces, a copy of which I tabled in the house the other day.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: As a supplementary question, may we take it from the Prime Minister's answer that his latest offer is not the final offer the government is making?


Mr. SI. Laurent (Quebec East):: It is the last offer that the government has made, sir.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kamloops asked me the following question:
Has the Department of Fisheries, or the government as a whole, received any representations from the government of British Columbia, or any other body, regarding the proposed Moran dam on the Fraser river? If so, are discussions under way as to ways and means by which the interests of fisheries and power would be reconciled?

The only representations to the federal government regarding the proposed Moran dam have been in the form of a request from an engineering consultant of the Moran Power Development Limited to A. J. Whitmore, chief supervisor of fisheries in British Columbia, to meet for the purpose of discussing the project and to consider the problem of providing facilities to meet the fisheries needs. The first meeting took place on November 17, 1955, in the Department of Fisheries offices in Vancouver. Another meeting took place on January 13, 1956. Discussions will continue in an effort to reconcile the interests of fisheries and power.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. gentleman to say again from whom the invitation was received? I did not catch it.


John Watson MacNaught: The invitation was received from an engineering consultant of the Moran Power Development Limited. This engineer's name was Russell E. Potter of Victoria, B.C.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that the company which we understand has been formed in New York?


John Watson MacNaught: I have no information on that point.



WAR ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production. When mutilated gun barrels or breech blocks are sold as scrap, as mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday, is evidence produced to show that such barrels and blocks are beyond repair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The instructions to the disposal corporation are that before guns are scrapped, and before they leave the possession of the corporation, the breech blocks are to be demolished. In other words, they are mutilated beyond repair.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Yesterday the hon. member for Regina City asked a question regarding the interest rates under
The Address-Mr. Hees the National Housing Act. In reply I would point out that whether or not the various interest rates under the National Housing Act will be changed is a matter of government policy upon which an announcement would be made at the time of the making of the change.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 24, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Shipley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Like very many other members who have risen in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by complimenting the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address. I should like particularly to compliment the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) on the very able address she gave, and also the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) on the good job he did in his first speech in the house.
From the line-up of business that appears before us, it would seem that this is going to be an interesting session. First of all, we are going to start on Friday examining the government's wheat policy in order to try to find out why the government has made such a colossal failure of that policy. Back in the forties this government assured the wheat farmers of Canada that if they would accept a price considerably lower than the world price for their wheat, this government would always guarantee that it would sell their wheat for them at good prices. During the past two years it has become evident the government has failed dismally in doing this, yet it has the colossal effrontery to ask the wheat farmers of Canada to pay 5 per cent on the money which the government should have paid to them, and which should be in their own bank accounts drawing interest or invested in government bonds which would yield a much greater rate of interest.
So far the government seems to be relying on its old policy of hope and grope. There is no indication it has any plan for improving the situation. It appears that when the crop comes in next year the situation will get worse. On Friday, therefore, we of the opposition will look to the government to hear some plan for improving the situation which has been so bad for the past two years.
Then, we are going to discuss the pipe-line policy. I think it has become evident to anyone who has examined this situation that

The Address-Mr. Hees there is only a very slight hope the federal power commission in the United States will grant Trans-Canada Pipe Lines' application in time for it to meet the deadline of April 30. There are considerable forces arrayed against Trans-Canada's application in the United States, and they have available to them what are known as due processes of law by which they can hold up an application by anything up to two years. It appears certain that those due processes of law are going to be applied against Trans-Canada's application. Towards the end of April we are going to learn this government has no alternative plan to the present Trans-Canada plan. We are going to see this government once again start floundering around in a morass of uncertainty and indecision such as has characterized so many of its deliberations and operations during the past few months.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall examine some of the matters that came up for discussion during the by-elections. For instance, in the Spadina by-election one matter which was of great importance to the people there was the question of immigration. I talked to many people in that riding who came to Canada many years ago. They had settled down, had become citizens, and had established themselves in business and in the professions, and had become extremely good citizens of this country. They told me that recently they had applied to this government for permission to bring friends and relatives to Canada. They had offered financial guarantees and guarantees of jobs, but on many occasions they had been turned down without any explanation, and that is most infuriating to people who feel that at least they are entitled to an explanantion of government action of that kind. Those people resent very strongly a government program which appears to have no direction, is guided by no policy, and is operated simply through the whims of individual bureaucrats. They resent very much the arrogance of a government that appears to have forgotten that it was elected to serve the people and not to rule them.
The government was surprised on that election night when a previous majority of
9,000	votes, received only two short years before-and it was much more than that because in the 1953 election the Liberal candidate received two and one-half times the Conservative vote, 15,000 against 6,000-was turned into a Conservative majority. This time we won by a very comfortable majority. If the government was surprised at that result, then it would do well to talk to the people in areas like Spadina and find out why
IMr. Hees.]
they resent the arrogant treatment that this government is handing out to the people of Canada today.
In the constituency of Restigouche-Mad-awaska there were two very important matters which caused the government once again to receive a stunning defeat at the hands of the electors in the by-election. First of all, the people of New Brunswick feel very strongly about the production of power. They need power, as do most provinces of this country, but particularly New Brunswick, which does not have very much manufacturing industry and which needs it. They need power to attract industry to their area. New Brunswick desperately needs power, not only to attract industry, but also to make it possible to smelt the new-found ores which are being discovered every day in that area.
After seventeen years of procrastination by the Liberal government, in 1952 a Conservative government was formed and Premier Hugh John Flemming set to work to give New Brunswick power which had been so long denied to it. He asked the government in Ottawa to help him in one way, and in one way only, by simply backing his power bonds so that he could obtain the money he needed to go ahead with his project at a lower rate of interest. This would not have cost the federal government one penny; it would not have cost the federal taxpayer one penny. It would simply have required the confidence of this government in the province of New Brunswick in its desire to help itself to produce power to attract industry and smelt its own ores and generally help itself. But what did this government do? It turned them down flat, in exactly the same way as it turned down the application made on several occasions by the province of Saskatchewan for assistance to build its very much needed and very practical South Saskatchewan dam, which would provide much needed irrigation and power to attract industries to that province.
The people of New Brunswick resented the attitude of this government, and they showed that resentment very clearly at the polls on election day when a former Liberal majority of 6,000 was turned into a Conservative majority of 2,200.
Another matter which annoyed the people of New Brunswick very much, and quite rightly, was this government's potato marketing program, or lack of it. The potato growers of New Brunswick have to contend with a high United States tariff against the potatoes that they would like to sell in the United States. We allow United States potatoes to come into Canada free of duty. Those

potatoes are permitted to come across the United States border free of duty; to be loaded on freight cars in New Brunswick; and be shipped to centres like Toronto and Montreal under the preferential maritime freight rates, and be sold in competition with New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island potatoes.
The potato growers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island ask simply that they be given the same advantage in the United States as United States potatoes are given in this country. But this government refuses to stand up to the United States government and ask for what is nothing more than a fair and even deal. The government should ask for the same kind of treatment for Canadian potatoes as we give United States potatoes, but this government has become accustomed to being subservient to the United States government, and it has not the courage to stand up to it. The result is, our growers are at a very severe disadvantage when compared with the growers in the United States. As I say, these matters are causing the people of Canada to develop a rising resentment against this dictatorial, arrogant government. If the by-election reverses which the government has received have not convinced it that it should pay more attention to the wishes of the people, and less attention to how they think the people should be treated, then perhaps it should examine the last three Gallup polls which have shown the political trend of the federal parties in this country.
The Gallup poll is not something to be taken lightly, because during the past several general elections it has been demonstrated to be surprisingly accurate in forecasting the results of those general elections. In each case it has never been farther out than 2 per cent, and in most cases not more than one per cent; therefore, it is something to be considered very seriously.
During the past six months three Gallup polls have been taken, and in every area of Canada the people selected by the Gallup poll canvassers have been asked this question: "If there were an election held today, which party's candidate would you support?"


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was the answer to that question?


George Harris Hees: I am just going to give it. During those three successive polls, the Liberal party has dropped five percentage points, or 10 per cent of its former strength in a short six-months period.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is its strength?
The Address-Mr. Hees


George Harris Hees: Your present strength is 46 per cent; it has dropped from 51 per cent in six months.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is yours?


George Harris Hees: Our strength has risen from 26 per cent to 32 per cent, 6 percentage points, or an increase of 23 per cent, in the six-months period.


Mr. Dickey:: A policy of scarcity again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A very close race.


George Harris Hees: What makes those figures particularly significant, Mr. Speaker-and we like to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce ignore these things because it is the kind of thing that causes a government very easily to find itself out of power after a general election-


John Horace Dickey: Thanks for the warning.


George Harris Hees: What makes these figures particularly significant is the fact that it is very rarely that you find people changing their political allegiance during a period of high prosperity, and there is no question that we have a period of high prosperity today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Not through action on the part of this government but simply owing to the hard work and ingenuity of the Canadian people, and in spite of the fact that this government's policies are not conducive to producing a high level of income.
As I say, during periods of high prosperity it is very strange to find people changing their political allegiance. Most people will say at a time such as that, "Well, I have a good job, so why should I pay attention to whaj the government is doing"? When during a period such as this you find that the people are paying a great deal of attention to what the government is doing, and are expressing their opinion very keenly and sharply in by-elections and in Gallup polls, it is something to which any sensible politician pays a great deal of attention. But you can see that these figures are going right over the heads of the Liberal party because they have been in power for a long time and, in their usual casual and arrogant fashion, they think they are going to be in power for a long time to come. I can tell them, however, that the figures indicate that the people of Canada are getting fed up with this tired, arrogant Liberal government, which has been here too long, and are getting very close to a change.
I should like now to deal briefly with a statement which was made in Montreal a week ago by Mr. R. M. Fowler, president of

The Address-Mr. Hees the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, when he appeared before the Gordon commission. During that interview he expressed the opinion that he thought it would be better for Canada to remain primarily a hewer of wood and a drawer of water rather than, as he put it, "to become busily engaged in taking in each other's washing." I think that most Canadians were rather shocked at an expression of opinion of that kind by a man high up in the ranks of industry. But, after all, when you look the thing over a little more carefully, it is perhaps not surprising that Mr. Fowler made this statement because he is the government's latest appointment to head one of its royal commissions. In voicing the opinion which he expressed, he was simply echoing the opinion which this government has made it very clear during the past few years, is its opinion, namely that it would sooner have Canada remain a hewer of wood and a drawer of water.
By examining Mr. Fowler's statement, we can perhaps get to understand what makes the government pursue such a short-sighted policy. For this reason I have decided to deal for a few minutes with this statement, and to see if we can make some sense out of it. Mr. Fowler reported that in his opinion it would be better to have a smaller population working primarily in primary industry, rather than to have a larger population, as he put it, "busily engaged in taking in each other's washing." Mr. Fowler obviously considers that manufacturing finished products by Canadian workmen, using Canadian raw materials and working in Canadian plants, and deriving the additional employment and wealth which the processing of our own raw materials would provide, is something which should be avoided at all costs. He would obviously prefer to have us continue to ship most of our primary products out. of the country in their raw state, to provide jobs for workmen in other countries, and then turn around and buy back many of those finished products for our own use here in Canada. That is the kind of thinking which unfortunately is close to government thinking. That is the reason why the industrial expansion of this country has not been nearly as rapid as it could or should be.
No sensible person would suggest for one moment that we should not sell to other countries the primary products which we ourselves cannot process. We derive much needed and welcome wealth and employment from the production of primary products which we sell to other people. What we in this country need is for this government to

encourage the development of secondary industries so that, in addition to selling primary products outside of the country, we may benefit as well from the additional employment and wealth which would result from the processing of a much larger proportion of our raw materials right here in Canada.
Judging from his remark about taking in each other's washing, Mr. Fowler is obviously under the impression that additional manufacturing in Canada would be limited to production for the Canadian market alone. Most industrial nations derive additional employment and wealth from manufacturing for export markets as well as to supply their own needs. There is no reason in the world why Canadian workmen in Canadian plants and using Canadian raw material should not compete just as successfully for world markets as do our competitors. We have here in Canada everything that is needed for a great industrial expansion. In fact we are far more richly endowed than are many of our competitors who are competing successfully for the world market today.
Let us have a look at what we have. First of all we can produce enough food to feed several times our present population. Secondly, we have almost limitless supplies of timber and iron ore, which are the two basic requirements of any industrial program. We have tremendous resources of every kind of power, including hydro electric, coal, oil, gas and uranium. We have tremendous resources of nickel, copper, lead, zinc, and almost every other metal used in industry. We have capital, and we have proved that we can attract it from outside. We have the brains necessary to direct an important industrial expansion in this country. However, we must realize one thing. If we are going to produce more, then of course we must be able to sell more; and we are going to be able to sell more only if we can attract additional customers through better designs or lower prices or a combination of both.
One step I suggest we could take in the direction of improving our designs and lowering our costs would be to follow the excellent example of Great Britain and the United States in undertaking greatly expanded industrial research programs. These programs have been aimed at developing new and better designs and more efficient methods of production, and they have paid off handsomely for both countries in the way of enlarged sales.
Another way of making our products more competitive by reducing prices, would be to reduce our present high commodity taxes, which are today helping to price many of

our products out of the market. I believe a thorough examination of the possibilities that could be obtained in the way of winning new markets by lowering prices through lower commodity taxes, is something which is long overdue. In order that we may examine all possible means of obtaining additional markets through better designs and lower prices, I believe the government should set up a committee of this house just as soon as possible, with power to call industrial and labour leaders, economists, and others with special experience and qualifications, to examine three things. First of all, it could examine what might reasonably be expected in the way of developing new products and better means of production through a greatly expanded research program. Secondly, it could examine and give a thorough revision of our industrial taxation policies, and could examine any other suggestions which would be brought before that committee.
The results which have been obtained through expanded research programs in other countries are available for examination. There is no problem there. I feel confident that the submissions which would be received before the committee would convince the government that any initial tax revenue losses would be quickly made up by the additional taxes which would be borne by the additional production made possible through more competitive prices. If our production increased rapidly, and I believe it would, the additional taxes which would accrue to the government would be found revenue, and there would also be the additional income taxes which would be paid by the many additional thousands of workers who would find employment through a program of this kind.
I am sure that many other suggestions will be brought before the committee for improving the competitive situation. I think a thorough study of these suggestions would give the government the information it requires on which to base the necessary action to encourage a great expansion of industry in this country. If the proper economic atmosphere is created by sensible and farsighted government action, new industries will be encouraged to start up, and present industry will be encouraged to expand. This will mean jobs for many thousands more Canadians, at increasing rates of pay. It will mean less dependence upon the production of primary products, which will mean a more stable economy. It will make possible increased social security measures, by increasing the sources which pay for social security. It will mean lower taxes, because the tax base will be constantly broadening owing to a rapidly
The Address-Mr. Garson increasing population. It will mean the development of this country to its full potential.
And so, for the reasons I have mentioned,
I urge the government to set up a committee of this house as early as possible to study this vitally important matter, and when that has been done, to bring in legislation which will encourage new industries to start up; present industries to expand; and enable this country to develop industrially as our tremendous supplies of raw materials, power, brains, manpower and capital undoubtedly merit.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, in rising I share the privilege of those who have preceded me of offering my very sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) will agree that we could describe her efforts in no more complimentary terms than to say they were what we would expect from one who thinks, acts and speaks as a true citizen of the north. When I listened to the hon. member for Belleehasse (Mr. Laflamme) seconding the motion my mind carried me back to the time when I had a similar task to perform and indicated the great contrast there was between the competence and sangfroid with which he delivered his speech and the high state of nervousness in which I was on a similar occasion.
I rise to take part in this debate for one purpose and one purpose only. For some time now since the recent outbreak of sex offences we have been receiving from worried parents throughout the country large numbers of letters which make it very clear that a great number of them are under a misapprehension as to the law which is applicable to these offences at the present time. I appreciated the reference of the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) yesterday to my feeling of sympathy with those who write these letters and with all those who as parents are worried about the situation that exists. I too am a parent and not only do I feel sympathetic with them, I am sympathetic with my own worries as a parent. In our family we instructed our children about the dangers of having anything to do with strangers long before we were able to explain to them what they might fear from having to do with strangers.
However, when we find that this widespread misapprehension as to the law concerning sexual offences is shared, not only by the general public but by members of the House of Commons and by some of the best editors in the country, I think it is definitely in the public interest that we should put on
530	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Garson the record what is the law at the present time. Perhaps we should have done this before now.
One of the best editorials that I have seen upon the subject is one which appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 12, 1956. In many respects it was an admirable statement. It started out in these terms:
A new outbreak of sex offences, some of them involving young children, has again roused public concern. The problem is not simple and no wholly satisfactory method of dealing with it has been found. There is still a great deal to be learned about the psychological aspects of sex deviation, and even well-informed specialists in this field are inclined to be cautious in prescribing remedies.
I think those sentences constitute an intelligent opening statement with which most responsible people agree. The editorial goes on:
Nevertheless, it is becoming clear that some action will have to be taken, and a far more earnest approach by the public authority is called for.
The government-
I think it is obvious from the context that the government referred to is the federal government.
-is not without appreciation of its duty and a royal commission is at present studying the problem with a view to making recommendations for more effective legal treatment of the matter. Following a similar outbreak of sex offences which shocked public opinion seven or eight years ago, parliament did strengthen the law relating to "preventive detention" of several types of sex offenders.
That statement is also quite correct and to the point. The law in effect at the present time is in the consolidated criminal code. Hon. members of the house will recall that the provisions in the consolidated code in relation to sex offences are almost a verbatim re-enactment of the legislation which was introduced by this government in 1948 to deal with this same subject matter.
The suggestion is made-perhaps not always made, but sometimes implied-that the law is not sufficiently severe, but I should like to list the punishment provided for various sex offences. These are all maximum of course and the judge or magistrate sitting on the case can impose a lesser penalty if he thinks the circumstances warrant it.
Rape-life imprisonment and whipping.
Attempted rape-imprisonment for ten years and whipping.
Carnal knowledge-that is sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 14 years-life imprisonment and whipping.
Indecent assault on a female-five years' imprisonment and whipping.
Incest-14 years' imprisonment, and in the case of males, whipping.
Bestiality

14 years' imprisonment.


Indecent assault on a male-10 years' imprisonment and whipping.
Acts of gross indecency-five years' imprisonment.
Peeping Tom-six months' imprisonment or $500 fine or both.
I was rather glad to hear the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke) express the other day, in as masterful a speech as I have heard upon a legal subject by a layman, appreciation for the presence of this provision in the new consolidated code. Members of the committee which considered this will remember that when we were discussing it there were a few who poked fun at the idea of creating any such crime as that.
Persons previously convicted of serious sexual offences found loitering or wandering at or near a school ground-just loitering or wandering-a playground, a public park or a bathing area-six months' imprisonment or $500 fine or both.
Surely no one will argue in the face of these maximum sentences that the court which convicts the accused lacks the power to impose really severe and deterrent punishment.
But that is not all. Yesterday the hon. member for York-Humber stated in her speech that there must be a revision of part of our Criminal Code to provide for the holding of offenders, or even suspects, indefinitely, whether they be held in prison for crimes they have committed or whether they be held for psychiatric treatment. The plain implication there is that that provision is not in the code at the present time. That impression, which unfortunately is also shared, as I have said, by some editors and by the general public, is quite incorrect. If one looks at part 21 of the new code, which deals with preventive detention and which covers both habitual criminals and criminal sexual psychopaths, one will find in section 661:
"Where an accused is convicted of	"
-and then are listed the various sexual offences to which I have referred.
.	.	. the court may, upon application, before
passing sentence hear evidence as to whether the accused is a criminal sexual psychopath.
. . . On the hearing of an application under subsection (1) -
-which is, by the way, the subsection I have just read-
-the court may hear any evidence that it considers necessary, but shall hear the evidence of at least two psychiatrists, one of whom shall be nominated by the Attorney General.
The attorney general there referred to is not the attorney general of Canada but the attorney general of the government which

under our constitution has the responsibility for the enforcement of the law and the administration of justice, namely, the provincial government. The attorney general there referred to is the attorney general of the province.
(3) Where the court finds that the accused is a criminal sexual psychopath it shall, notwithstanding anything in this act or any other act of the Parliament of Canada, sentence the accused to a term of imprisonment of not less than two years in respect of the offence of which he was convicted and,-
I bring this specifically to the attention of the hon. member for York-Humber.
-in addition, impose a sentence of preventive detention.
Under subsection (c) of section 659, which is the interpretation section of this part, "preventive detention" means detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. In that context "an indeterminate period" means for all practical purposes a sentence for life, subject to release on parole by the Minister of Justice.
In the face of these provisions, I think it is quite impossible for any one to be under the fear, as so many people in Canada apparently are, that there is no way in which these criminal sexual psychopaths can be permanently put out of circulation. Some may argue that it would be difficult to satisfy the onus which would rest upon the crown in this case of proving that the accused was a criminal sexual psychopath, but the definition of such is also, it seems to me, fairly clear. It says:
. . . "criminal sexual psychopath" means a person who, by a course of misconduct in sexual matters, has shown a lack of power to control his sexual impulses and who as a result is likely to attack or otherwise inflict injury, pain or other evil on any person . . .
I believe the answer as to whether this section is enforceable is to be found in the fact that we have in penitentiaries at the present time at least 20 criminal sexual psychopaths who are there because of the fact that the provincial authorities charged with the administration of justice have invoked these sections and have had these men incarcerated in the penitentiaries for an indeterminate period.
I do not know how many other applications have been made which were refused. Since these are entirely under the control of the provincial authorities, we do not get to know at all about their efforts unless and until a conviction is registered and the criminal sexual psychopath is sent to us with the necessary papers for incarceration in one of our penitentiaries.
The Address-Mr. Garson
When I call attention to this number of 20, which is not a great many over a period of eight years, I want to make it quite clear that I am not in any way implying or stating any criticism whatsoever of the provincial authorities of Canada. I believe any fair-minded person would agree that only those who have the same knowledge of the circumstances of each case that the crown prosecutor has are really in a position to make a just criticism of what he is doing or to have an opinion as to whether he is right or wrong in applying or not applying for committal for an indeterminate period. The fact that these men who are now in the penitentiaries under this legislation are there is, in itself, a rather conclusive answer to the question of whether or not the legislation, if properly invoked, can take these men permanently out of circulation.
The fact is that in this whole matter we are dealing with a subject which all those people who have given it the most studj are convinced is an enormously difficult subject upon which to reach final conclusions The hon. member for Hamilton South, ir speaking the other day, quoted a man foi whom I have a good deal of respect anc admiration, the attorney general of Ontario the Hon. Kelso Roberts, Q.C., in these terms:
"We are concerned about these cases and we an studying the problem but we have got to mow slowly. I sympathize with the people who an angry over these recent assaults on children. Bu we cannot just go around locking up each ani every sex deviate. We are not behind the iro curtain. We have got to try and understand eacl individual problem."
We share his view and the view of others for example the editor of the Globe and Mail who has also stated that this is a very diffi cult matter. Even after we had in 1948 se up what we think is an up to date an< thoroughly modern code of law with regari to sexual offences; and even after that hai been considered for three years by the roya commission that was charged with the con solidation of the Criminal Code, and consid ered again by both houses of parliamenl and, in spite of the fact that, during the pro gress of that legislation enacted in 1948 am re-enacted finally to become part of the con solidated Criminal Code coming into effec on April 1, 1955, no member of this chambe or of the other place criticized in any degre whatever this law with regard to sexus offences. Notwithstanding the fact that sine this law became effective in 1948 we hav not received any representations from an provincial government anywhere in Canad as to the inadequacy of the law or that : cannot be enforced; notwithstanding all t'nes facts, but having regard to the inherent dii ficulty of the problem itself, we set u
532	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Garson another royal commission under Chief Justice McRuer of the province of Ontario to investigate this whole matter in the hope that we may possibly get more light upon a subject which is one of great difficulty.
This problem is not peculiar only to Canada. It occurs in almost every country in the world, in some countries to a greater extent than others. The picture is not all bad. If one goes back through the history of music and literature and the arts one will find that some of the greatest masterpieces in hese fields have been achieved by sex deviates ;o whom we are in fact greatly indebted lor what they have created and handed down ;o their fellow men.
There is one criticism I should like to make 3f another excerpt from this same editorial n the Globe and Mail, and perhaps I will lot be expected to agree as wholeheartedly with this excerpt as I did with the first selection I read therefrom. The excerpt reads is follows:
It would appear that indefinite sentences, related >n the one hand to the need for prolonged treat-nent in so far as this is a practicable measure, md on the other to some form of occupational ictivity in custody, would be a decided help. At present, sentences for these offences are in general >f mandatory length.
In other words, they are for a definite leriod.
The offender serves all or part of the sentence md is then turned loose on society to commit urther offences. This is discouraging to the police, t is alarming to society and it totally fails to nect the problem in any practical fashion.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the impression vhich these remarks create is quite incorrect, ill that the crown attorney or the prosecut-ng authorities in a province need to do in elation to a given offender is to decide /hether upon the evidence available in that ase they can establish that in addition to aving committed the crime of rape, let us ay, with which the offender is charged in fiat particular matter, they can also prove fiat he is a criminal sexual psycopath. If with fiat evidence in their possession they charge Am with rape and he is sentenced to five ears and then gets out, the excerpt from re editorial will apply to him. But if after is conviction for rape the prosecuting author-;ies apply to the court for an examination nth respect to whether he is a criminal sxual psychopath and are able to adduce vidence, expert and otherwise, to prove rat he is, then the results I have already idicated will flow. He will have a deter-linate sentence of two years and an in-eterminate sentence over and above that. 

There is one other part of the editorial Upon which I should like to comment, and. it reads as follows:
One important reason for the reluctance of the courts to use this power is the failure to establish. clinics in the penitentiaries for the treatment of such offenders. Prison sentences alone, while they do prevent the offender from endangering society* are in no degree remedial.
Here again the editor is, I think, wrong in his facts; but may I say that I have quoted from the editorial because I think that upon the whole it is excellent and one of the very best I have read. It is because an editor who will write such an an intelligent, humane and sensible editorial entertains these wrong ideas, as to the facts that I think it is important that the real facts should be put upon the record.
What are the facts? The facts are that when these men go into our penitentiaries to serve there these indeterminate sentences- and no parole has been granted to any one of the 20 who have been incarcerated; they are still all in penitentiary-we have available in every one of our penitentiaries with one exception, namely Dorchester, part-time psychiatrists to provide psychiatric diagnosis and treatment for these imprisoned criminal sexual psychopaths. One might say that if these psychiatrists are only giving part-time care not enough time is being spent on treating these criminal sexual psychopaths. However, we only have 20 in the whole penitentiary system and not all of the 20 will accept treatment. The members of our committee will recall that on one occasion we had before us Dr. Gendreau, who is assistant commissioner of penitentiaries, and a distinguished psychiatrist of many years' experience who is largely in charge of this program. He said that one of the characteristics of some of these psychopaths is that they will not admit there is anything unusual about themselves at all. He said that unless they are prepared to make that admission and are prepared to receive treatment and cooperate, then the treatment is bound to be quite ineffective.
Therefore after making allowance for those who will not take treatment we have, not clinics, but ample facilities, for the giving of psychiatric treatment to these psychopaths who are incarcerated.
I give this reassurance to all throughout the country who are labouring under this fear, to which I have referred; and one has only to read the letters we have received to realize how great this fear can be. I reassure them that Canada does have a severe law against these sexual offenders, and it is a law which can be enforced. But, of course, and I think this is the point, and it is a very difficult point to get over in some cases, it does not

make any difference how good a criminal law is. The police must first arrest the offender. Then they must secure evidence against him to prove that he has committed the offence and that he is a criminal sexual psychopath before they can secure a preventive detention order which will take him out of circulation for an indefinite period.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two aspects of the speech just delivered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that call for comment. I shall be dealing with some other statements and activities of that hon. gentleman a little later in the course of my remarks in any event, but I think 1 should deal immediately with what he has just said. For that reason, if I merely express my very sincere congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I trust they will realize that my sentiments are not the less sincere because I do not further elaborate on them. Perhaps the greatest compliment I can pay them is to proceed immediately to deal with the address which forms the subject matter of their motion.
What I should like to point out first, in connection with the remarks by the Minister of Justice, is that I could not help feeling what I have felt before in listening to him, that once again the hon. gentleman was, perhaps unintentionally, taking refuge in his belief that all this parliament has to do is pass a law, and that then there is no further responsibility here. He feels that if any unsatisfactory situation in connection with the administration or application of that law should arise, then we can wash our hands of it by saying that is the responsibility of the province, since, under our constitution they have to administer the law. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is shirking the responsibility which this parliament and this government cannot avoid with respect to the field of criminal law generally.
It is not enough to say that we have passed sections 659 and 661, which the minister read. After all, there is always room for the possibility, and I suggest it is more than a possibility in this case, that the provisions of the law itself are not adequate. It is for that reason I regret that so often the minister seems to approach these things in the frame of mind that we have passed a law; we have discharged our responsibility, and now it is up to the provinces. I suggest to him that in connection with this matter of sex deviation, in the light of the remarks he has just made, there are two things which should be borne in mind.
The Address-Mr. Fulton
First, incidentally, a correction should be made. The hon. gentleman pointed out in one or two places that the facts mentioned by the speakers and in the editorial to which he referred were not strictly accurate. In passing I should like to say that I believe the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken), and others who have alluded to this matter in the house, have done a great service in bringing it to the attention of the government. The hon. gentleman himself was not strictly accurate when he said that during the course of the passage of the new Criminal Code through the committee and the house there was not a single member who made a reference to the question of sex deviation or criticized the law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I may correct my hon. friend, I said that not a single member had made any substantial criticism.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I accept the minister's correction, but I think he in turn overlooked the fact, as I am sure he would not have done had he given it more reflection, that the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) dealt with it at some length when these sections were under consideration. That hon. member suggested that because of certain things that were taking place it might be appropriate to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the adequacy of the law and the methods of administering it. As I recall it, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) supported that suggestion. I have not had time to check these things, and I rely upon the statements made by the hon. member for Oxford, who is sitting beside me. As I recall, the minister's attitude was rather to make light of the situation by saying that the law seemed adequate and he did not see what good a royal commission could do.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member is not suggesting that the hon. member for Oxford was opposing the legislation, is he?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; the hon. member for Oxford suggested there should be an immediate inquiry into the adequacy of the legislation. At that time the suggestion was belittled by the minister. Notwithstanding that fact, our recollection is that it was not more than four to six weeks later when the minister accepted the view of the hon. member for Oxford and announced the appointment of a commission.
The other statement which should be made in connection with the minister's remarks is that it may well be suggested that the definition of a criminal sexual psychopath in section 661 does leave something to be desired. It is because of that definition and its implications that there is a great deal of

The Address-Mr. Fulton concern as to the adequacy of the law. I am sure the minister will agree with me that, by definition, an application to have a person declared a sex deviate can only be made in court if the accused has, by a course of misconduct in sexual matters, shown a lack of power to control his sexual impulses. I am not qualified, nor do I wish to appear dogmatic in these matters, but I do suggest there is room for the belief that that definition is too narrow. It requires that the person should be guilty of a course of misconduct in sexual matters; in other words, that there should be more than one offence before he can be declared a sex deviate.
I believe there is a substantial body of medical and psychiatric opinion to the effect that one offence of a particular nature may be sufficient, coupled with the necessary medical and psychiatric examination which would take place, to establish that a person is a sex deviate. However, an inquiry cannot be made now under the terms of the definition, unless there has been a course of misconduct, so there is plenty of room to suggest that the law does require amendment. In any event, the matter is under study by a royal commission and one would hope that the commission, as it undoubtedly will, would take that point under consideration.
This is the last day of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker. The government must be glad this debate is drawing to an end and that it is going to be delivered from a further recitation of its long catalogue of sins of omission and commission. Many of these weaknesses and omissions on the part of. the government have been referred to already in the course of this debate, so I shall endeavour not to repeat what has been said. There have been other shortcomings on the part of the government affecting the life and welfare of everyone in every part of Canada that have not been touched. I should like to deal with these in the time at my disposal.
We saw one of them exposed yesterday, and that was the oft repeated offence of the government in its disregard of parliament. The subject was dealt with fully and effectively by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). But one point he touched on requires further emphasis; that is, that the speech of explanation made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) left more things unanswered than it answered. The hon. gentleman did not offer to the house any explanation of why it was, if things were decided at cabinet level, he and his colleague denied all knowledge of them for approximately one week. The


effect of that denial under those circumstances was to suggest to the house and the country that no such shipments were taking place.
The minister's explanation also left complete dissatisfaction, I am sure, in the minds of all hon. members who are really concerned as to the moral propriety of Canada profiting by the shipment of arms to these two countries in an area where there is grave tension, a tension which involves the whole world in the danger of armed conflict. I am at a loss to understand, and I am quite satisfied the people of Canada will be at a loss to understand, this attitude. In fact, the people of Canada will vigorously condemn the callous attitude of this government that they are justified in profiting by the shipment of arms to these countries under these circumstances.
Then there are other respects in which we see, as we review the situation today, examples of the long history of government weakness, contradiction, and vacillation; a lack of leadership in almost every field. In the field of dominion-provincial relations, the government has shown lack of certainty and a lack of policy which has continued to aggravate and disturb this country. We see the dissatisfaction existing in the majority of the provinces, judged by the statements of their premiers, with the course outlined by the dominion government.
With respect to the administration of justice, there is deep concern on the part of the people of Canada not only over this matter of sex deviates which we have just been discussing, but in connection with the situation of the supreme court generally and relations between that court and the government as exemplified in the Coffin case, which I am confident can be described as one of the most seriously bungled and mishandled cases in the history of the administration of justice in this country.
There is dissatisfaction and concern over the question of the shipment of arms to the Middle East; weakness, vacillation and contradiction in connection with our agricultural policy; denials that there is a butter surplus; confusion, uncertainty and dissatisfaction in connection with the policy on the shipment of feed grain, and freight assistance on those shipments. There is contradiction in the positions taken by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to marketing generally.
In the field of immigration we find that above all the government policy is characterized by lack of certainty and vigour, and its administration is shot through with uncertainties and injustices. The department

is led by a minister whose greatest concern is not to remedy the defects that have become obvious but rather to find alibis and scapegoats for his own shortcomings.
That is a short review of the situation which I shall endeavour to show in a few moments is amply substantiated by reference to detail. For all this, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that the Prime Minister must accept responsibility. He is the head of the government. If there is lack of leadership, if there is confusion, if there is contradiction, if there is division of policy, the Prime Minister must accept the responsibility for that situation.
I suggest to you, sir, the fact that attacks vith respect to policy may be directed at ndividual ministers should not blind either :his house or the country to the fact that the ultimate responsibility for the situation rests with the right hon. gentleman who is head of the government. The situation we see today is one in which this house is faced with the spectacle of a government led by a group of older men who have lost their drive, their imagination and their initiative, who are working at cross purposes, who are in fact stultifying the younger men, of whom there are some in the administration. Since the party line is laid down by the hard rock core, a statement which we have on the best authority, these younger men must serve in frustration and silence while they toe that line.
Now I should like to turn to some of the details which support the general criticism which I have made of the administration in office today. I base my case first on certain activities of the Minister of Justice. I have had occasion in the past to point out how that hon. gentleman follows tactics which he hopes will result in profit to his party but which, if successful, can only result in misfortune to the country. These are the old Liberal divisive tactics of seeking to set one section of the country against the other. I refer specifically to the conduct and the statements of the minister in connection with the field of dominion-provincial relations and the tax agreements which have been recently the subject of conferences between the dominion and provincial governments.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to look at statements made by the Minister of Justice in Manitoba at the end of 1954, when he went out to follow this line, which he had laid down himself, of trying to divide the west from the east. He said, as hon. members will recall, that the Conservative party and its leader were seeking to put an end to the tax agreements. Incidentally, he said that was being done in the interests of eastern Canada. He said that only the Liberal party
The Address-Mr. Fulton could preserve and perpetuate the tax agreements. He said the Liberal government had put them into effect, and the Liberal party was the only party in the House of Commons at the present time that is able and willing to defend and perpetuate them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hear the minister applauding his statement. Of course, all the ministers are so used to contradicting themselves and being at cross purposes that he does not realize they are contradicting the statements made by the Prime Minister. That is, in fact, what the Minister of Justice has done. He repeated himself in another speech made in Manitoba in October of 1954. I will not read a quotation from his remarks on that occasion except to say he said once again that the enemies of the tax agreements were in eastern Canada and it was in the interests of western Canada, therefore, to support a government which would perpetuate them.
The minister decried the efforts and the position of those who were recommending at that time that a dominion-provincial conference be called. The minister is on record as opposing any substitute for the tax agreements, and as opposing a dominion-provincial conference to discuss those tax agreements or to discuss any substitute or alternative to them. He placed himself on record for political purposes in Manitoba last fall. What happened? His leader, the Prime Minister, called a dominion-provincial conference. Then an extraordinary situation arose. The Minister of Justice attended that conference, for the purposes of discussing fiscal relations and finding an alternative to the tax agreements, as a delegate of the dominion government. At that conference, in his opening speech, at page 14 of the record, the Prime Minister said this Liberal government-he did not use those words; he used the words "federal government"-is not wedded to the tax agreements. Here is what he said:
The federal government has never contended that these agreements were a final, or a perfect, or a permanent answer to the problems in our fiscal relationships. I could quote, but will not take time to do so, Mr. Ilsley, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Harris all to this effect, as well as my predecessor and myself. We are quite prepared to see these agreements modified, improved, or even superseded by something better-if it can be found.
He went on to say:
We in Ottawa have been exploring various possible modifications in our tax rental agreements, or alternatives to them

Yet there still sits in the cabinet, the minister who said no alternative could be found, and that anyone who talks of or seeks

The Address-Mr. Fulton to find an alternative is an enemy of confederation. That is what the Minister of Justice was saying at that time. The Prime Minister went on:
-and will have some thoughts to exchange with you about them.
Let us contrast that attitude of the Prime Minister with another statement of the Minister of Justice, which was made in Manitoba barely a year earlier. The Minister of Justice was decrying the efforts of those who sought to have dominion-provincial relations brought down to a sensible level and placed on a better basis than the tax rental agreements, as they were then. That is the same Minister of Justice we see here today. In his statement we see another example of the arrogance and complacency of the Liberal government. This is the text of his speech made in Manitoba on October 15, 1954. He pointed out that those tax agreements had been devised by this government and its advisers and had been under consideration since 1941. Then he went on to say:
It seems likely that all the available alternative methods have already been considered for meeting the problem which is being solved by the dominion-provincial tax agreements. One does not need to be a sceptic to doubt that a plan which is being advanced in 1954 has either been considered and rejected in the seventeen years of consideration which this subject has had since 1937, or that it has not been considered, because it was not thought to be worthy of consideration.
That was the Minister of Justice seeking to inflame the country against those who sought a revision of or an alternative to the tax agreements, an alternative which is so timely and necessary. There we find the Minister of Justice seeking to inflame the country against those who side with a revision of or an alternative to the tax agreements which is so timely and necessary. First he says that those who suggest these things are enemies of the country, and that it is nonsense and a waste of time to talk about it because, after all, this government has been in power for 20 years and if they could not think of a better method then nobody else could do so.
Then swallowing his own words and forgetful of principle-he, the champion who had stated that his party was wedded to this principle and would accept no substitute-he sits at the feet of his leader in the conference called to consider the matter and hears the Prime Minister say: "We are not wedded to the principle of tax agreements. We are prepared to consider any alternative anyone may put forward".
That is not the only example of divisive tactics and conflict between the position of ministers, and it is not the only example of shortcomings of administration in the field
rMr. Fulton 1

for which the Minister of Justice is responsible. I want to refer briefly to a case which was the subject of a report in the newspapers yesterday, namely the Coffin murder case. I say deliberately-and I want to choose my words carefully-that I am not aware of any occasion on which there has been a more deliberate or flagrant departure by a government from the principles that should govern the relationship of that government with the supreme court, the highest court in the land. In this case there was a deliberate interference by the government with the exercise by that court of its judicial function. Moreover, it was an interference which has placed in an impossible situation the most recent appointee of this government to the bench of that court. The gentleman to whom I refer was one of their own colleagues until a matter of a few years ago and, I think, is their most recent appointee.
What happened in this case? There was an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. As is provided by the rules of the court, that application came before a single judge. It was heard by him in his capacity and in the scope of his duties as a judge of that court. In the exercise of his judicial function he made a finding that leave to appeal should not be granted.
Then certain representations were made to the government. Whether or not those representations should have been made is beside the point. The point is that the Minister of Justice allowed himself to be made a vehicle by which the government as a whole interfered with the exercise by the court of its judicial function and said in effect, "we do not like the decision of the court and we are going to refer it back to you for further consideration".
I point out that this matter has nothing to do with the exercise of clemency. If the government had wanted to exercise clemency in the case, or to have it reviewed, other methods are open to them. Proper methods are provided by the law, particularly that under section 596 of the Criminal Code. Under this section the minister may, upon an application for the mercy of the crown by or on behalf of a person who has been convicted in proceedings by indictment, direct by order in writing a new trial before any court he may think proper. That would be a proper exercise of the minister's responsibility, and if it were clemency or review they had in mind that was the proper course to follow. Instead of doing that, the minister and the government interfered with the exercise by the Supreme Court of Canada of its

judicial function, saying in effect, "We have no confidence in the judicial capacity of our most recent appointee to that court".
This is a disgraceful interference in the work of the court and one which can only have a damaging effect. I do not wish to say anything which would be prejudicial to the court in the eyes of the public; the minister has done enough to the prejudice of the court already. But I am certain that persistence in such a course could not help but bring the court into disrepute and lower its esteem in the eyes of the people of Canada.
There are some things which I think should be recommended in this connection. Admittedly it was a difficult situation with which they were faced, but there again the minister is responsible for allowing the matter to drift along so that the situation arose. If there are defects in the rules of court in connection with the procedure for dealing with an application for leave to appeal, the rules of court should have been amended. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that earnest and immediate consideration should be given to the question of an amendment which would provide at least that any application for leave to appeal in a capital case would be heard by the full court. Indeed, it might well go so far as to provide that in a murder case leave will automatically be granted if applied for.
As I say, the court was placed in a difficult position in connection with this matter by the existence of the present rule; but the answer to that difficulty is an amendment to the rule, and not an interference with the exercise by the court of its judicial authority as has taken place in this case.
I should like to turn now to one or two other matters where we find repeated the pattern of inadequacy and omission on the part of the government. I shall deal first with the field of agricultural policies. Here, of course, we are dealing with the Minister of Agriculture, and it is rather difficult to extract and tie down any very definite statement of policy because that hon. gentleman is a master of the double statement; the statement he makes first and the correction he makes later after the weaknesses of his original statement have been exposed. But at least he is on record, in a way that he cannot escape, as having denied that there is a butter surplus in Canada. So first I shall refer to the mess they have made of butter. The minister has denied that surplus here in Ottawa, and he denied it in a meeting out in my own country, in Vernon, British Columbia.


William Earl Rowe: And in Winnipeg.
The Address-Mr. Fulton


Edmund Davie Fulton: I also understand that he denied it recently in Winnipeg. Yet the figures which were tabled here in the house the other day show that at the 1st of January the dominion government held 81 million pounds of butter. If there is no surplus in butter I would ask the house and the minister why the government is subsidizing communist countries at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers? If there is no surplus of butter, why do you have this disposal program which is an aid and a comfort to our enemies and not to ourselves or our friends?
It appears that the government's whole disposal program, another aspect of which we saw in connection with the arms deal which has been the subject of debate here, is one which will carry the disapproval of the people of Canada as a whole and will be strongly censured by them. I have already suggested that our people will not be happy -indeed they will be far from happy-about the fact that the government has committed this country to profit by arms shipments to both sides; and the situation is not improved by the highly moral but specious arguments put forward by the minister yesterday.
As I followed his words he adopted this attitude. Equality, he said, between those two countries on the verge of flying at each other's throats must rest on a sturdier basis.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was not referring to arms shipments at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He was referring to the suggestion that he visit Israel. He said that equality must rest on a sturdier basis.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was talking about visits to the two countries.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Apparently in his view equality rests on the sale of arms to both sides for profit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That has nothing to do with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then when he was criticizing the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), as reported at page 467 of Hansard, he went on to say this:
Passion on either side of this issue is not likely to help.
From the minister's attitude one would suppose that he feels that arms shipments to both sides will help. I suggest to you that he will find, as you know and as we know, that the Canadian people disapprove strongly of such a course of action.
This was by way of interjection in my remarks on another surplus disposal program. Coming back to the question of agricultural policy, we find a mess in connection with the marketing of our grain. I am not going to
S38	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fulton discuss the situation on the prairies, because I am not as well acquainted with that field as are hon. members from that area, but I know the people in my own district are affected by the government's contradictory policy in this connection. Everyone feels that it would be a contribution to the solution of this problem to dispose of low grade grains as feed in order to make space available in the elevators for the higher grade grain now stored on the farms. My leader suggested that in the course of his speech here and he has suggested it frequently elsewhere as well. The Minister of Agriculture is on record as advocating such a policy. I have here the text of his address to the dominion-provincial agricultural conference held in Ottawa on December 7, at which time he advocated the use of feed grains in Ontario and elsewhere. The minister said:
If they are going to sell western grain through livestock I think the cheapest way for them and the cheapest way for the farmers in the west is to get the grain moved from the farm out west to the farm down here and feed it. If the wheat board has regulations preventing that, well let us get after the wheat board and get the regulations changed.
Those are bold words, but who is in a better position than the Minister of Agriculture to get after the wheat board and make that possible? But he has not done so. Here is the Minister of Agriculture advocating in December, 1955, that farmers elsewhere should use low grade prairie grain to feed their cattle, yet that same minister only a few months previously cut in half the freight rate assistance on the movement of feed grain. As a result farmers in British Columbia, Ontario and the maritimes find it more difficult, indeed find it practically impossible, faced as they are with declining prices for their livestock, to pay the increased cost of feed grain. Yet because of increased competition for quality cattle their need for the feed grain is even greater than it was before. There we have another example of contradiction, weakness and vacillation on the part of the government, on the part of one minister with respect to the policies of his own department.
I shall not have time to review all the shortcomings of the government, as I have too long a catalogue here. But I do want to place on the record this further example of the government's thinking, and of the sort of explanation it offers the farmers and other people in this country for their problems. Incidentally, before I leave the other point, may I say that I advocate the restoration of the full measure of freight assistance on feed grain to the level it was before it was cut last year.


I want to place before the house a sample of the thinking of the Minister of Agriculture in connection with these problems for which he has some responsibility. He was talking to the dominion-provincial conference about the assistance to prairie farmers offered by the government's arrangement for them to get loans from the banks on their wheat, at 5 per cent. "Why", said the Minister of Agriculture, "they can double their money". I quote from pages 21 and 22 of the text of his address to the conference:
Let us suppose it is a thousand dollar loan he had. By the time he gets through paying off the loan he has had two thousand dollars, not one. He had one thousand which he raised by loan and he has had the other thousand which he received for his grain as he goes along. If it lasts six months and he is able to get grain in the elevator, six months hence he will have had the thousand dollars he borrowed, he will get another thousand dollars out of the grain as he delivered it and he will get through in my opinion till next spring cheaper than he would get through any other way. He knows that too.
I suggest to my hon. friends of the Social Credit party that there they have a readymade convert, except that his financial thinking is even more difficult to understand than that of my hon. friends.
My time is short and the catalogue of government shortcomings is long, so may I conclude by reminding you and the house that the Prime Minister must be held responsible-and is responsible-for these shortcomings. We have a picture of a government wrong about almost everything. They have been wrong about arms to Egypt and Israel. They have been wrong in their attitude to the house. They have been wrong about the butter surplus, and about farm prices. They have been wrong about wheat generally and in their feed grain policy. They have been wrong in their policy on dominion-provincial relations; they have been wrong on immigration and they have been wrong in connection with the administration of justice.
I suggest to you that indeed they are no longer entitled to the confidence of the house, and more particularly so far as this house is concerned, I suggest to you that because of the repeated neglect of their responsibilities to parliament, for that reason above all others they have forfeited any confidence previously reposed in them.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the remarks I made in this debate caused a considerable number of hon. members to rise in their places to make speeches. I have been told that there are members in this house who find it most

difficult to find anything worth mentioning in the house, and as a result seldom rise in their places.
I should like to say for the record that in saying what I did last year I at no time made reference to either the language or the religion of the majority of the people in the province of Quebec. I have always held the highest regard for that language and for the religion of most of the people there. In fact members of my immediate family belong to the same faith, so I would be one of the last to cast aspersions upon it. Many of the statements made constituted a complete misinterpretation of the intent of my remarks.
I hope it was not intentional, but misinterpretation it was.
It seems odd to me that in Canada we have reached the state of affairs where westerners cannot speak of things that mean much to easterners without the easterners becoming exceedingly excited. I should like to answer a question that was put to me at the time by the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot), and I am sorry he is not in his seat. The hon. member asked me whether a French-Canadian and a Roman Catholic could be elected in the riding which I represent.
In reply to the hon. member may I say that never to my knowledge has anyone there asked a candidate to what faith he belonged or what was his racial origin. One of the finest members in this house who comes from British Columbia is of the Roman Catholic faith. One of the most distinguished premiers we have had in British Columbia was of the Roman Catholic faith. That in itself should be evidence that we do not ask people what their racial origin is or what is their faith when we elect them to public office.
Many references were also made to a rather large settlement in my constituency by the name of Maillardville, where there are thousands of Canadians of French descent who many years ago left the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick because they felt they could enjoy a higher standard of living in British Columbia. They have come to British Columbia and they feel at home and are happy there. They are accepted as, and are, excellent citizens. True enough, we may at times have our little misunderstandings, but I can assure you that we shall solve those misunderstandings around the council table and not by hurling threats at one another. We simply do not do things that way.
Without wishing in any way to create the impression that I did not mean what I said last year, I want to put in a word on behalf
The Address-Mr. Regier of hundreds of thousands of people living in the province of Quebec. It concerns the matter of the new C.N.R. hotel in that province. We in Vancouver would resent it very much if a new hotel were built in Vancouver and what to some of us might be a foreign name were applied to that hotel. The people of the province of Quebec have shown in no unmistakable terms that they feel hurt by the name that has been recommended for the new hotel, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation from this government as to why the obvious wishes of the people there should not be acceded to. I am sure the people of British Columbia, at least, do not care at all what name is applied to the hotel in Montreal. As long as it makes people there happy, we shall be satisfied.
I now turn to other subjects. If it were not so serious I would be inclined to be a little amused by the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday came close to shedding crocodile tears when he said that if we had sold arms to all the countries that have asked us for arms, more Canadians would have had employment. That is too bad. Apparently, according to that version, we shall have to begin manufacturing arms and selling them all over the world in order to rid ourselves of our unemployment problems.
We are concerned with this problem, and vitally so. We all hope that a major world conflict has been avoided and will be avoided for the foreseeable future. However, we all have to reconcile ourselves to seeing many small wars in the world in the years ahead. I hope that through the United Nations we shall be able to hold these down to a minimum where they exist, and they will continue to exist.
We in Canada have the raw materials which are the sinews of war, the wherewithal out of which armaments are made. As a result of world war II, we have developed the industrial capacity to manufacture these raw materials into armaments, and there are many people in Canada who are very much concerned lest this country become the arsenal of the merchants of death all over the world. We are very much concerned. For many years we have heaped abuse-and plenty of it-on armaments manufacturers in other parts of the world, and I believe rightly so. We want to be sure what Canadian policy is. If the government say we have to keep both sides supplied, I hope that does not mean we are going to be supplying both sides of all the little wars and all the little revolutions that may occur.
540	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Regier I have a few words to say in regard to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Here also I find it very hard to determine just what is the policy of the government. In British Columbia we frequently have the honour of having in our midst the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He must be a keen analyst of the thinking of people in various parts of Canada, because when he comes to our fair province he seems to go out on a limb in some of his announcements. I understand that in a talk he gave there not many months ago he made the statement that in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration such a thing as racial discrimination does not exist.
I do not see how the minister could make that statement when our regulations and orders in council governing immigration themselves provide for racial discrimination. We find it very hard to understand how he can go out there and inform us that racial discrimination does not exist. I would advise him to ask the Canadians of East Indian origin in western Canada whether they would agree with him when he says that racial discrimination does not exist. I would also like to have him ask the officials of the West Indies whether they would agree with him that racial discrimination does not exist.
I also noted the statement he made to the effect that, in the interests of helping world peace, Canada was willing to accept some of the Arab refugees from the troubled areas. However, he did say that they must be able to speak either the English or the French language, and that they must have a trade in which they could be employed once they were here. I do not see how that is helping the situation at all. Surely the minister must be well aware that even those refugees who are able to speak either English or French do not have a trade. If we are to take them into Canada we shall have to be prepared to train them so they can play a useful role in our national life.
I am also a little concerned about the screening process through which we hear these immigrants must go. I have some reasons to believe that the screening process exists only in the imagination of the Minister sf Citizenship and Immigration. I have met i goodly number of immigrants to Canada, and I have found their political leanings so videly diversified that I cannot see just of vhat the screening process consists. In my opinion it is certainly not screening out any :ommunists. I would once again plead that the ninister consider-if Canada needs a greater jopulation, and I agree that it does-bringing 

into Canada orphans on a mass scale. That is something that could be very ably organized by the department of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The other day I read that Great Britain would like to have a population of seven million less than it now has. I do not really appreciate the reasons thus far given as to why more of these seven million people could not be admitted into Canada. I can see one possible reason and that is the known Liberal hatred of anything British. It seems that now they are even replacing our Union Jack with the uncle Louis pyjama flag as our national flag.
I should like to endorse the views expressed by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) when he complained of a lack of national leadership. I was here at the opening of the dominion-provincial conference last October. I thought the Prime Minister would open the conference by giving some leadership to the Canadian nation. Instead he got up and more or less said in effect, "East is east and west is west and Canada is yours. Help yourself to whatever opinions you like; maybe black is grey, although I am not too sure, and maybe white is green". Then he sat down.
I was proud indeed of the ten men who represented the provinces of Canada. I thought each of them did very well. They spoke ably. They had opinions they wished to present, and all of them stated they were quite prepared to listen to other opinions and to arrive at an agreement. Despite the lack of leadership by the Prime Minister at the opening of the conference, I am sure all of us were hopeful that he had acted in that manner by deliberate design in order to allow the premiers to air their views, and we expected he would then supply the leadership necessary in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution.
What happened? There were several days of negotiations and conferences behind closed doors. The premiers went home thinking they would be called back again for the purpose of having presented to them one or more plans that could be the subject of debate and further negotiation. But what happened? Instead, there was no compromise. There was no "Canada is yours" any more but merely a cold-blooded letter saying, "Boys, I have listened to your beefs long enough. This is it. I am old and I am tired, and I want this thing settled." Of what avail are all the great protestations about conciliation, that we must unite Canada, that we must reach an agreement and devise a plan upon which all can agree, if the premiers are to be faced with a letter and told that this is it?

Even this afternoon the Prime Minister said in effect, if not in intent, that this was it and there would be no further negotiations. I am not nearly as proud of the leadership offered to Canada by the Prime Minister as I am of the leadership being offered to each of the ten provinces by their premiers. We also see the lack of leadership in the cabinet vacancies that now exist and the fact that some of the most important cabinet posts are held by men who also hold other cabinet offices. I am somewhat inclined to feel that the Prime Minister is afraid to fill the existing cabinet vacancies. Surely the biggest business in the country operated by the government, the post office, deserves its own cabinet minister.
Is there no Liberal member of parliament with the ability to fill this cabinet post? Is there no cabinet minister who could be promoted to that post and his lesser responsibilities given to one of the Liberal backbenchers? I can see one reason why the Toronto members might not be awarded cabinet posts. The Toronto people have the unique ability to elect C.C.F. people under the Liberal label, people who sit in this house as Liberals.


Mr. Carrick:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am a Toronto member and I assure my hon. friend there is no tinge of the C.C.F. in my make-up.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to refer to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick), but since he has risen on a question of privilege I can assure him he was not one of those I had in mind. I was referring to some members from that city who are slightly his senior. I can also sense that there is a little bit of difficulty, because I noticed the other day that not all the Toronto members have the privilege of preparing their speeches in the anterooms of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The minister was very much [DOT]concerned the other day when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre interrupted the hon. member for Trinity and asked that he not be permitted to continue reading his speech. Therefore I can understand some of the difficulties the Prime Minister is facing in that part of Canada.
I also am somewhat at a loss to understand many of the Liberal speeches in this debate. You could take at least 12 of them, tie them together and wrap them up, and I think you could use them as fairly good C.C.F. campaign literature. I noticed that one of them devoted his energy to the subject of federal aid to education, something we have consistently [DOT]offered to the nation and which the Liberals have consistently voted against in the house. Another spoke about the guaranteed annual
The Address-Mr. Regier wage, something perfectly consistent with socialist philosophy and heartily endorsed by us. Yet I am sure if that matter were put to a vote the hon. member would feel obligated to vote against it because of the wishes of the Liberal hierarchy.
I could mention many other subjects that were referred to. The Liberal party seem to be falling apart at the seams. They are groping for the needle and thread with which to sew themselves together. They are unable to find the thread, and the needles are pricking them all over. No leadership is being given by the Liberal party in Canada, and no leadership is being given the Canadian people by the Prime Minister of Canada. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, so that it may be on the record, what is the national interest of Canada? Is there such a thing as a nation, and what is the national interest? Surely it must exist. After all, Mackenzie King's chickens of national unity are coming home to roost, and I sympathize with the Prime Minister that he has to eat the soup cooked for him over so many years.
I have been in southeastern Manitoba this year and the attitude there is, give us the Social Crediters, give us the Conservatives, give us the C.C.F.'ers, give us anything except the Liberals; we are sick and tired of what we have now.
I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Labour make an announcement rectifying the blunder made in the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. This, Mr. Speaker, is how the Liberal party operates. When this problem was put before us back home by labour leaders I mentioned the possibility that any payments might be made retroactive. I said that if the government admitted they had made a blunder then they owed money to a lot of unemployed people by way of unemployment insurance payments.
One of the so-called labour leaders who is a member of the local Liberal hierarchy immediately saw the difficult situation in which the government would be and jumped to the defence of the government. He said, "Oh, that would be completely unrealistic; it would be impossible. Think of all the red tape involved." Yet the Minister of Labour rose on the floor of the house today and announced that the payments will be made retroactive and that the unemployed will receive what they rightfully deserve.
I should like to repeat one plea I have made before. I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to undertake a survey to ascertain how much it would cost to provide all the Canadian people with a comprehensive cradle to the grave social security program,

The Address-Mr. Regier as has been advocated by the C.C.F. party for many years. Today we have family allowances, pensions for the blind, mothers' allowances, relief or, as it is sometimes called, social welfare, pensions for the handicapped, war veterans allowances, annuities, life insurance, fire insurance, hail insurance, crop insurance, car insurance, marine insurance, subsidies paid to this section of the population and that, and a system of unemployment insurance.
Now we are talking in terms of health insurance, and I think the next thing we will need is an insurance policy to save us from the many insurance agents flooding the nation. All this must surely involve terrific overhead costs for administration. From Conservative and Liberal governments we have obtained a piecemeal social security program. I deliberately place Conservative governments first because most social security legislation that has been placed on the statute books of Canada has actually been instigated by the Conservative party and not by the Liberals, as they so often say. The Liberal party program has always consisted of almost implementing something.


An hon. Member:: What a socialist joker!


Erhart Regier: I am doing my best to make my remarks as brief as I can.


An hon. Member:: That is good.


Erhart Regier: However, Mr. Speaker, I must appeal this year to the members of the house who come from the province of Quebec. I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce is selling short the national interest of Canada. Deliberately or otherwise he has engaged in a terrific selling out of the national interest of Canada to the United States of America and, as my leader said in his opening speech this year, once you lose economic control how long do you expect to keep political control? I feel it is done unconsciously, and is the inevitable result of the policies of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We are exporting our raw resources. We are living on money borrowed, and on our heritage which is rapidly being depleted.
In the city of Seattle, Mr. Speaker, a housewife can buy hydroelectric power manufactured in the province of British Columbia for less money than can the housewife in my constituency. Much could be said about our oil resources and our gas resources. The economic interests south of the border should shoulder much of the blame for the difficulties in our coal industry.
I should like to point out that there are more farmers in Canada who do not grow wheat than there are who do. These other
(Mr. Regier.]
farmers in Canada suffer continuously, and have suffered over a long period of years as the result of our worship of the United States production line. I must conclude now, Mr. Speaker, as I understand there is another member who would like to speak. While I should like to express my condemnation of the attitude of the Liberal party in taking half of the time in this debate, yet I feel that this individual is not at all responsible, so I should not take vengeance on him by using my full time.
I should like to end with one small plea to the Minister of Justice. I understand that the salaries of civil servants are under review at the present time. We have in Canada hundreds of penitentiary guards, and I wonder if the minister is aware that these guards earn less money than the average Canadian civil servant. They receive about the same rate of pay as the postman who delivers mail from door to door. In my estimation their salary plan is most undesirable. The Archambault commission recommended that the special responsibilities of these men be recognized and that they be put in a much higher category. You cannot expect to train penologists and interest men in that work by paying them what amounts to one of the lowest salaries in the Dominion of Canada.
I believe the case of these guards deserves special consideration, and when salary increases are being considered these men should be awarded a greater increase than the others. In addition, the other day there was a fire in one of the little houses along the wall of the Kingston penitentiary. The men in New Westminster complain about conditions there. In a modern city such as New Westminster the men have to stay in these houses which have no washroom facilities. I feel that is a disgrace in a city that has a modern sewage system. There is only a small coal and wood stove for heating purposes. With practically all the facilities and the technical help necessary right within the penitentiary walls, electric heaters could be installed in these houses to make life bearable for these men who have to stand watch for long hours. I hope the minister will consider that and not allow a flat across the board percentage increase for civil servants to be applied to these guards. I trust the minister will look after these men whom he hopes will save Canada a lot of money by reforming the inmates. I hope he will see that a little more incentive is offered to them.
Half these guards have other employment. One of the men who has been working for 12 years as a penitentiary guard spends all

his spare time forking manure for a mushroom farmer. I think that is a disgrace. The wages these men receive are entirely inadequate to support a family in decency.
Before I sit down I should like to summarize my main message. I again appeal to the Prime Minister. You have under your leadership a nation immensely wealthy in natural resources and a people second to none in the world. You are of French Canadian origin. Times are as good as they have ever been. No Prime Minister of Canada has ever had the opportunity you have. If you will supply the aggressive leadership needed for nationhood, Canada will become truly great. If you allow Canada to fall apart or her interests to be sold out to our friendly but huge neighbour to the south; if you allow Canada to disintegrate as you are allowing the Liberal party to disintegrate, our happy days may not last long.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that by virtue of standing order No. 28 he must address himself to Mr. Speaker. In the last few minutes, he has made me responsible for a good many things.


Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) left me enough time to pronounce the benediction in this debate. And speaking of benediction, I see that he has applied for absolution, and they say that absolution is better late than never.
I am also glad to see that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), is in his seat. I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is not, because I am going to pay a tribute to the lady members on both sides of the house. I noticed by the press that there is a woman in Toronto who thinks there are too many bald-headed men in parliament. As one of the baldingheaded men, I thought I might rise on a question of privilege. We do need more women in parliament, but we do not need more women in parliament because of any bald-headed men who sit here. For instance, take the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who is not too well thatched in the upper storey.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Elmore Philpott: I mean outside. Only a year ago hon. members of the opposition were unanimously after his scalp, but see how successfully he has emerged. Not only has he come up with an equal pay for equal work bill, but today he has come up with amendments to the unemployment insurance regulations which have plugged one of the loopholes that have been discovered. I also
The Address-Mr. Philpott see the thinly thatched hon. member for York South smiling, which indicates that he is glad because of the changes that have been made.
I want to pay my respects to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I must say that we on this side of the house are jjroud of our lady member. We are proud of the very valiant work she did, especially in helping those of us on this side who were in favour of equal pay for equal work. I think I would be most ungallant if I did not say that we also pay a real tribute to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), whose consistent advocacy of the equal pay for equal work bill helped to speed it up and get the government to adopt it. I had the great honour to speak in her favour; I had the great honour to vote for her bill each time in the last three years, and I must say, for what it is worth, that I myself fully intend always to support any good idea no matter from what quarter of the house it comes. I fully intend to support every good idea that comes from the opposition. The trouble is that in the three years I have been here there has been only one good idea emanate from the opposition benches, and that is the one that originated with the hon. member for Hamilton West.
If the truth be known, Mr. Speaker, the Tory men-I will exempt the Tory women- and the whole Tory party of Canada have had only one new idea in the entire twentieth century, and that was the Bennett buggy. If we are not careful we shall be back to Bennett buggies again before too many years have passed.
I have listened for many days to the things that are supposed to be wrong with the government. Did you notice, Mr. Speaker, the difference between this year and last year? Last year the rafters of this building literally rang with loud cries of anguish from the Tory benches about how the country was galloping to the dogs because of mass unemployment, and the loudest voice raised was that of the loud-voiced gentleman the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) who this afternoon, if you please, rose and said that Canada is at an all-time peak of prosperity. This is quite an admission from the hon. member for Broadview.
Therefore I say that my hon. friends immediately opposite, who are now crying similar blue ruin with respect to the temporary wheat surplus, may be just as incorrect as they were in the previous two years, and as the Tories were a year ago in regard to unemployment. In any event, I have listened

The Address-Mr. Philpott very carefully for ten full days to the speeches made by hon. gentlemen of the opposition, and with one exception I have yet to hear from the Tory benches, the C.C.F. benches, or the Social Credit benches one single suggestion to the government of Canada or the wheat board of Canada as to how they can sell one single extra bushel of wheat, or for that m^fter how they can even give away a single bushel of wheat, because no practical suggestion has been made except by one hon. gentleman, namely the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) who did make a practical proposition.
We have heard the question from the opposition benches, can the leopard change its spots? I submit that the Tory leopard has not changed its spots, because the only election they really won in this whole century on their own merits was the election of 1911, and they won it on the cry of "no truck or trade with the Yankees".
I sat back in this debate to the very end, hoping that the Tories would repent at last of the atrocious statement of policy which was made in this house two years ago by their official spokesman on international affairs, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who laid down in most explicit terms the proposition that we should mot sell a single bushel of wheat or a single pound of butter to any part of the communist world, which is one-third of the world. So far as we have been able to hear, not a single member of the Tory opposition has risen in his place and suggested that this policy should be reversed. If I am wrong I hope they will correct me later on in the debate on international affairs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when I say there has been no new idea put out by the Tory party in this century except the Bennett buggy, it seems to me I am on solid ground because, whereas in 1911 it was "no truck or trade with the Yankees", in the year 1956, and in the election of 1957 or 1958, obviously the Tory cry is going to be "no truck or trade with the communists"-one-third of the world

"no truck or trade with China, Russia, or the 100 million in the satellite countries who are held in servitude".
I say, Mr. Speaker, nothing has emerged :in this debate, or anywhere else I have seen, to suggest that there is to be any change in the next election. Today the hon. member for Broadview talked about the Gallup poll. Well, it seems to me that just as in the last election when they galloped to their doom on the phony issue of horses on the payroll, today they are nosediving to disaster on the

equally phony issue of the 15 unarmed Harvard trainers that Egypt is trying to buy.
If this government has and retains the confidence of the people of Canada and the respect of the people of the world, it is due to a very simple fact, namely that the Liberals are a peacemaker party, and our government has respect all over the world as one of the great, practical, peacemaking aggregations in the world today.
Let us look at what happened in the past year. We had no fewer than three cabinet ministers abroad on peacemaking missions. We had the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) in his own way doing a very fine job and, as it turned out, at considerable physical cost to himself. We had our past master peacemaker, the veteran Secretary of State for External Affairs who, for my money, is the most practical peacemaker in the whole world today. If it is true-and it is true-that we won a tremendous success at the United Nations in that so-called package deal, it was not entirely owing to the man to whom I intend to come in a moment. It was owing to the fact that for many, many years the Secretary of State for External Affairs had carefully laid the groundwork for the great success the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was finally able to bring about at Lake Success.
It seems to me that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare was able to obtain that tremendous victory at New York it was for two reasons. The first apparently is because he is also a practical peacemaker well worthy to sit beside the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But it was also because the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his own person represented what is the great opportunity of our time. He is both the man trying to make peace at New York and the man in charge of social welfare in Canada. When he struggled with all his might and with such great skill to get those 16 nations into the United Nations, I believe that what he was really thinking was this. If we can get peace in the world we can have in Canada higher old age pensions, better family allowances and, at the right time, health insurance; we can do all the things that have to be done when we get the full welfare state instead of the warfare state. But you cannot get the welfare state instead of the warfare state until you get real peace. The package deal was a great contribution to that state of peace.
I do not intend to try to keep the house beyond the time limit, but I will say this. I do not know at what time the people of

Canada will decide it is time for a change and time once again to try the same old Tory party with the same old Bennett buggies that we had in the thirties. If they so decide, it is all right with me. In the present Leader of the Opposition I think they will get as good a Tory prime minister as there has ever been since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald; but for my money I hope the people of Canada will allow the present prime minister, who is approaching his 74th birthday, to serve quite as long as did that grand old British oak, that great statesman Sir Winston Churchill, who served to the full age of 81.
I remember how well and how often my Tory friends on the other side of the chamber-including, I believe, my good and second oldest personal friend in the house, the Leader of the Opposition-applauded the fact that the great leader of the British Conservative party was able to serve to the grand and ripe age of 81. Perhaps in God's good grace and with the consent of the Canadian people a Liberal prime minister of Canada may serve to the great age attained by Gladstone, that grand old Liberal of Britain who served, I believe, until he was no less than 84.
We talk about the grand old British oak. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is about our hard Canadian maple one thing which makes it well worthy to stand beside that grand old British oak. The Canadian maple is never so glorious as it is in the autumn. Who knows but that in God's good grace the most glorious years of achievement of the present Prime Minister of Canada may be in the future seven years which would give him a service record equal in length to that of the grand old man of British politics.
In conclusion may I say, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Elmore Philpott: I am glad to note that the exuberant enthusiasm of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) for my speech has caused him to utter that expression. Perhaps I have the identity wrong; nevertheless I am glad to note that I have caused the Social Credit benches to burst into expressions of ardent enthusiasm, because I am just coming to a Social Credit suggestion.
May I say, Mr. Prime Minister, that I do not share in any way the disrespect which the previous speakers have shown to the idea of a Canadian flag. I believe that you, sir, have done as much as has any prime minister of this century or any prime minister we have ever had to unify us on the idea of the British commonwealth. However, I think you could help to crown your great career by giving to Canada an official Canadian flag that Canadians of every nationality could respect and love.
The Address-Division I said I would deal with a Social Credit suggestion, and I shall do so. I think the best and most practical suggestion that I have yet heard on this question of a Canadian flag was made by the acting leader of the Social Credit opposition. I refer to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). In the debate a couple of years ago he suggested that, in connection with the next election, we should have a plebiscite enabling the people of Canada to choose from among several designs a flag of their own which every Canadian could love.
Is the house ready for the


Mr. Speaker:: question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minisier) moved:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has consideration been given, at any time sirscp the end of the 1955 session of this house, to increasing the pensions of retired federal civil servants, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower and middle brackets?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	If not, is this matter now under consideration by the government?


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first and third questions is no, and that renders an answer to the second one unnecessary.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS BASIC PENSION
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has any provision yet been made for any increase in the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
2.	Has any reconsideration been given by the government, or by the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since February 23, 1955, to increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what is the result of such reconsideration?
3.	If no decision has yet been taken on this matter, is it now under consideration?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the answer to each of the three questions is no.

Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Barnell: 1.	Have steps been taken since the end of the last session to provide unemployment insurance coverage for Canadians employed by the United States government and its agencies on Newfoundland bases?
2.	If so, what are they and what coverage is now in effect?
3.	If not, what steps are being taken to provide for such coverage?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, the answer I shall give will apply to all three parts of question No. 4.
Negotiations have been initiated with the United States government and are continuing in the matter of providing unemployment insurance coverage for Canadian civilians employed in Canada by the armed forces of the United States. That, of course, includes the area mentioned in the question.
There are indications that a satisfactory solution of this problem will result from these negotiations. I hope to be in a position to make a more positive statement on this subject at a later date during this session.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR FISHERMEN

Mr. Goode: What progress has been made, since the last session of parliament, to bring into effect unemployment insurance for fishermen in British Columbia?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I was notified on the orders of the day of a question from the bon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) in almost the same terms as this question. My reply, of course, shall apply not only to British Columbia but to the east and west coasts as well as to inland waters.
Hon. members will recall that this question was discussed at some length in the standing committee on industrial relations last session. Much of this discussion will be found from page 299 to page 326 of the minutes of proceedings of that committee. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and officials of his department appeared before the committee. During those discussions I think most of those participating reluctantly had to agree that it would be difficult to bring under the Unemployment Insurance Act those who are owners or are self-employed or who fish on a straight share basis. In view of this, it was felt that even if the remainder-approximately 7 per cent-who go out to fish, namely the wage earners, could be brought under the act and have their fishing employment count along with other employment toward benefits it would be unfair to the main body of the fishermen.
Consequently there was brought about something of a reorientation of the studies related to the whole fisherman group, whereby the Department of Fisheries undertook to explore every possible means of better stabilization of revenue on behalf of the self-employed and those on a share basis, and co-ordinated with that effort the unemployment insurance commission would make further efforts toward fitting the remainder, namely the wage earners, under the insurance plan.
I should add that during the past summer a senior officer of the commission made a firsthand investigation of the practices followed in the United Kingdom and in several European countries where fishing is an important industry. The commission's report on this investigation has not yet been received, but when it is it will be turned over for study.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: For a copy of all letters, resolutions and representations by municipalities or other organizations in Canada, brought to the attention of the government, and having to do with the lamprey menace in the great lakes, and the rehabilitation of fishing industry in the said lakes, especially trout fishing.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINE

Mr. Coldwell:: For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of any of the provinces, since January 1, 1954, regarding proposals for the building of a trans-Canada pipe line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, obviously the consent of the provinces will be required before communications from them can be tabled. As I should like to discuss the question of documents with the mover of the motion, perhaps it could be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



UNITED STATES WHEAT DISPOSAL PROGRAM

Hazen Robert Argue: For a copy of all communications exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United States from January 1, 1955 to December 31, 1955, relating to the United States wheat disposal program.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope this motion will also be allowed to stand subject to communication with the United States government, whose consent will have to be obtained before the correspondence can be brought down.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.

Motions for Papers



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER PROJECT

Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all correspondence with the government of Saskatchewan since the 1st day of July. 1955, regarding the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project together with any reports of engineers or other investigations as to the feasibility of this project.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman will recognize that there will have to be communication with the government of Saskatchewan before we can comply with the motion in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the intention that the motion should stand or is it adopted subject to the remarks made by the Prime Minister?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understood that it would be adopted subject to the remarks made by the Prime Minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps it would be preferable to have it stand, because if it were made an order of the house then it might have to be rescinded. Perhaps it would be better to have it stand until I can inform the mover of the motion that the consent of the government of Saskatchewan has been obtained.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



EXPROPRIATION OF VETERANS' PROPERTY, B.C.

Mr. Goode:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the officials of the Veterans Land Act administration, Vancouver, and the province of British Columbia, from January 1, 1955 to date, regarding expropriation of property held by the veterans under the Veterans Land Act, on Patterson road, Richmond, British Columbia, said expropriation for approaches to the Oak street bridge.


Mr. Lapointe:: In this case also it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the provincial authorities of British Columbia. However, I agree to the motion.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; this is something new, I think, that is creeping into our procedure, whereby we require the consent or authority of the provinces, in this case British Columbia. I feel it is merely a courtesy and I believe the remarks of the ministers, in case they create a precedent, should be so worded.


Tom Goode: Speaking to the point of order, I would say that it would be most embarrassing to the government of British Columbia to allow me to have the production of these papers. If we continue this practice,

some members might be refused by the provinces in connection with things that we should have at our disposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



POST OFFICE BUILDING, WINNIPEG

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of any sections or portions of the contract or contracts, respecting the construction of the new post office building in Winnipeg, which relate to any obligations or requirements that the contractors maintain work thereon at a progressive rate during the winter months.



DEER LODGE VETERANS' HOSPITAL, WINNIPEG

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of any sections or portions of the contract or contracts, respecting the construction of the addition to the Deer Lodge veterans' hospital at Winnipeg, which relate to any obligations or requirements that the contractors maintain work thereon at a progressive rate during the winter months.



P.F.R.A. AND P.F.A.A. OFFICIALS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a return showing a list of all the P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. officials or field officers with their respective postal or home address, salaries and expenses paid to each of them during the year 1955.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps this motion might be allowed to stand until the mover and the Minister of Agriculture are in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



CANADA HEALTH AND ACCIDENT CORPORATION

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of any correspondence or communications exchanged between the superintendent of insurance and the Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation, Waterloo, Ontario, or its president, Mr. E. E. Putnam, or any director of the said corporation, dated at any time since January 1, 1955.
He said: The documents sought by the terms of this motion, Mr. Speaker, were tabled a few hours after I filed the motion. They were tabled in response to a similar motion that was passed by the house last year, so this motion can be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.



BOX CARS

Hazen Robert Argue: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, or other communications since August 1, 1955, exchanged between the transport controller and any person, persons, company or companies, relative to increasing the number of box cars available for transporting grain.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Friday, Mr. Speaker, we shall take the resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to wheat, No. 2 first and No. 3 second. Then if there is time we shall take the one standing in my name with respect to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. It is the intention of the government to set aside Tuesday
Business of the House and Wednesday for the debate on external affairs. We shall follow the device we used on previous occasions of having the Secretary of State for External Affairs move that the house be now adjourned, and by agreement that motion will be debatable and subject to amendment.


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