1957-11-11

UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to welcome back from the FAO conference the Minister of Agriculture who is now in his seat-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, Gardiner:: -and I would like to ask him this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Did the Canadian delegation to the FAO conference support an increase of one-third in the FAO budget for the coming year? If not, why not?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Melville for his kind welcome back to the house. In regard to his question, the subject did not come up whilst I was there. The discussion of the budget for FAO, as I think the right hon. gentleman knows, actually takes place in one of the commissions which were to begin their meetings today. Therefore there was no discussion on that particular subject while I was in attendance.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: May I ask a
supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Melville. Is the minister prepared to tell the house what is the attitude of the government toward the budget of FAO, or what instructions have been given by the government to our delegation to the meeting of that organization?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to do that at this time.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture another supplementary question. Did he not take some position with regard to the budget of FAO when he spoke at the conference of that organization which he attended?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, what I did in speaking at FAO was to indicate what I thought and think is the necessity of FAO funds being spent in the places and in the ways in which they are most urgently required and can do the most good. It seemed to me that some of the proposals in the budget submitted by the director general were not proposals which would accomplish that purpose.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport this question. Is it a fact that the Canadian National Steamships have taken a decision to transfer eight of their vessels on the West Indies run to foreign registry, and will the government permit the transfer of these ships from Canadian to Trinidad registry?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I had intended to make a statement on this important subject, and my statement will cover the answer to his questions.
Mr. Speaker, subsidized steamship service between Canada and the West Indies dates from 1892. The service has been operated under different conditions at different times, but since 1928 it has been performed by the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, a company incorporated for the purpose of carrying out Canada's part of the
1926	West Indies trade agreement.
In 1952 the Canadian government gave notice that it intended to withdraw two of the passenger boats from the service. As the remaining three motor ships and the five steamers could not meet the requirements of the agreement, the various West Indies governments withdrew their subsidies, and since then the service has not been bound by trade agreement requirements.
The service has had a long record of operating deficits. Only the years 1941 to 1948 resulted in any profit. Subsidies granted by the government of Canada approximated $6 million between 1892 and 1927, and since
1927	the government has assumed operating

Inquiries of the Ministry deficits totalling an additional $7 million. As hon. members will recall, it was because of this situation that the operations of the company were carefully studied by an interdepartmental committee in 1955.
Having regard to the fact that Canada's trade with the colonies amounted to $34 million exports and $35.5 million imports; that the company's management was making a creditable effort to develop additional traffic; that a recapitalization, whereby the government took equity stock in exchange for bonds, would reduce fixed charges by $260,000 per year; and that the long-term prospects of service indicated the possible attainment of a break-even financial position, the then government decided on continuance of the service for a period of five years, after which time the results would be reviewed to see if further continuation was justified.
It is against this background that I wish to refer to recent wage demands made upon the company. On September 10, 1956, the seafarers' international union, which is the bargaining agent for the 220 unlicensed personnel employed on the eight vessels, submitted demands for basic wage increases averaging 50 per cent; an increase in overtime rates; a reduction in hours of work at sea from 48 to 40 hours per week; payment for two additional statutory holidays; the establishment of a health and welfare plan, and other items. These demands, if granted, would mean a total increase of 80 per cent in payroll costs, or $450,000 per year, almost all of which would have to be borne by the taxpayers.
The company made a counter-proposal offering an 8 per cent increase in basic wages; an increase of 25 cents per hour in overtime rates; payment for one additional statutory holiday; an additional payment of 10 cents per working day to each employee in lieu of a health and welfare plan; and certain other concessions, all conditional upon a two-year agreement. This offer was rejected by the union.
On September 27, 1956, the then minister of labour appointed a conciliation officer, but his efforts failed to effect a settlement.
On December 28 a conciliation board was established and hearings commenced on January 7,.l$f>7. The union again proposed its original demands. After lengthy deliberation the majority report of the board recommended, inter alia, a 10 her cent' increase in wages; an increase of 30 cents per hour in overtime rates; 10 cents per day in lieu of a health and 1 welfare plan, and a ' two-year agreement. The company accepted the conciliation board's report but it was rejected by the union, and the men were called out on strike on July 4.


Various attempts to settle the strike, including personal intervention by the present Minister of Labour, produced no results during the summer and early autumn. In an effort to terminate the strike the company proposed a further meeting with the union. This meeting was held on October 15 in line with the settlement recently reached on Canadian National coastal services in Newfoundland. The company offered the union a 15 per cent wage increase; a 15 per cent increase in overtime rates and a two-year agreement from date of signing, together with other items recommended by the board of conciliation. Notwithstanding that the company offered the union an increase in wages 50 per cent greater than that recommended in the conciliation board's majority report, the union found the offer unacceptable and the company was obliged to withdraw it.
As of last Thursday the strike had been going on for 127 days; and has already cost close to half a million dollars. With winter rapidly approaching and consequently serious implications for the ships immobilized in Montreal harbour, it became absolutely imperative that a final effort be made to settle the strike immediately. Therefore on Thursday the company sent a telegram to the union offering to effect a settlement on the basis of the October 15 proposal and advising that this offer would be left open until twelve o'clock noon on Saturday, November 9. In view of the element of urgency attending the situation the company advised the union that, failing notification that an agreement to this effect would be signed, the management would have no alternative but to transfer the registry of the vessels from Canada.
I sincerely regret that the union did not see fit to accept the company's offer, an offer which I would remind hon. members went considerably beyond the recommendations of the board of conciliation.
On Saturday the company took steps to initiate transfer of the ships from Canadian registry to registry in Trinidad. It is the opinion of the government that under present circumstances, and having regard to Canada's desire to aid and assist the proposed federation of the West Indies, the service can best be administered under this arrangement. I mdy say that very earnest and careful consideration has been given to all possible alternatives to actual transfer, but they raise such serious disadvantages of one kind or another as to render them unacceptable to the government. At the same time the government was reluctant, in the interests of Canada-West Indies trade and relations, to permit outright abandonment of the service.

With respect to any suggestion that increased costs could be assumed by the government, I might remind hon. members that over the years the government has borne a substantial share of the costs of this service, and was prepared to assume the additional cost which would have resulted if the union had agreed to settlement on the basis of the company's final offer. Even this offer, according to the company estimates, would have resulted in an increase in operating costs approaching $200,000 and a return to a deficit operation which would be in the neighbourhood of $200,000, to be borne by the taxpayers. Beyond this we were not prepared to go, in view of the record I have mentioned and our belief that we would not be justified in placing the burden of heavier operating losses on the Canadian taxpayers.
I fully realize that with the transfer of these eight vessels to registry in Trinidad there will remain on Canadian deep sea registry only ten cargo ships and eight tankers. These remaining vessels, I should point out, are mostly engaged for a large part of the year in our coasting trade or are operated by subsidiaries of industrial firms whose business provides them with captive cargoes. In either case they are less affected by foreign flag competition.
This transfer is only one of a long series of sales and transfers of Canadian-owned shipping to foreign registry. Since war's end companies with ships on Canadian registry have found it increasingly difficult to operate their vessels profitably in competition with low-cost foreign carriers. This is understandable when one realizes that the daily operating cost of a 10,000-ton cargo vessel on Canadian registry exceeds that of a similar vessel on foreign registry by at least 50 per cent; and if one takes into account the cost of building the vessel in Canada the difference exceeds 60 per cent. An estimate of the operating cost, excluding fuel, is that it costs $100,000 more per year to operate on Canadian registry than on United Kingdom registry. These adverse cost differentials do not take into account any tax or other benefits which foreign registry often provides.
In these circumstances the problem of maintaining and encouraging Canadian shipping and shipbuilding industries presents a number of serious difficulties. Both industries are severely handicapped in normal times by having to bear a level of costs which is probably the second highest in the world. By offering a measure of tax relief the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act has gone some way toward stimulating ship construction in Canadian
Inquiries of the Ministry yards. A bill to amend the act, now being considered by parliament, would add further to the benefits already provided.
It is evident, however, that on the ship operating side an unfavourable cost differential hinders the Canadian operator who must compete in the world market for the carriage of international trade. Measures of assistance which may be proposed must, of course, be considered in relation to the costs to the taxpayer and the effect on our trade relationships. The royal commission on the coasting trade is expected to present its report within the next few months, and at that time it will be appropriate to determine whether or not any change in policy might be desirable not only in respect to coastal shipping but also deep sea shipping.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. May I thank the minister for the very comprehensive report he has given, and I take it that the answer to the two questions is in the affirmative?


George Harris Hees: The hon. member is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask this question. Does this mean that Trinidad citizens will from now on form the crew and personnel of these eight ships, which I take it would be some 400 or 500 people?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. The unlicensed personnel, amounting to about 220, will be recruited from Trinidad and the office personnel will remain Canadian.


Hon. George C. Marler (Si. Antoine-Wesi-mouni):: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a very clear implication, from the decision which the government appears to have made, that it is a very discouraging decision for those who are arguing for the establishment of a merchant marine in Canada?


George Harris Hees: I think it is obvious to all hon. members that those who are arguing for a Canadian merchant marine are no more discouraged today than they have been for the last 10 or 12 years under the previous government.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Are they any less
discouraged?
lLater:l


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Was the minister consulted in any way with reference to the transfer by Canadian National Steamships of the registry of its ships to Trinidad? Could he say whether he gave his approval to this course as a way of dealing with or getting away from a labour dispute?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, as such, as an individual, was not consulted personally in that respect.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. I am sure, because of his interest in literary excellence, he will appreciate the question. Would the minister inform the house if, since he has assumed the mantle of censor in chief of books entering Canada, he has changed the conservative and incomprehensible censorship procedures used by his predecessor?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member in having some time this morning, apparently, dropped notice of his question in the mail box, which I found when I came up to the house this afternoon. Unfortunately there is a conflict in the terms of this question which makes it incomprehensible to me and therefore impossible to answer. The question asks, referring to myself, "has he changed the conservative and incomprehensible censorship procedures ..Mr. Speaker, if they were Conservative they would not be incomprehensible. If they were incomprehensible, they would not be Conservative. Therefore until the hon. gentleman resolves that problem there is nothing I can say in answer to this question, except that I have donned no mantle whatever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The emperor's new clothes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Wesimorland):: Will the Prime Minister give to the house the legislative program for this session that will more particularly be for the purpose of instituting a new deal for the maritime provinces?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in general there has been an outline in the speech from the throne, and my hon. friend will have to wait in anticipation of the introduction of those measures which will be brought before the house during the course of this session.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if the minister would clear up the confusion that I think was created by the answer he gave last Thursday to the hon. member for St. Boniface regarding the hospital insurance act. Is it necessary that six provinces have their plans in actual operation before money can be paid to any one province, or is it not the case that it is only necessary for those provinces to have their legislation in force? If that is the situation, would it not still be possible to have federal money made available to some of the provinces which have their plans in operation by July 1 of next year?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I think possibly the only answer to that is the interpretation of "in force".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister not make clear what he understands by the words "in force"?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. My understanding as of the moment is that "in force" is implied to mean in operation. Whether or not that is a correct legal opinion, that is what I am given to understand as the implication.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question. In view of the fact that that is not the interpretation that was given to the last house by the former minister of national health and welfare, would the minister have appropriate inquiries made as to what is the legal meaning of those words?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, in my studies at the moment concerning the act I have every intention of doing that.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE  ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY IN STATEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he is yet in a position to indicate whether or not there is to be a conference between the provinces on the one hand and the federal government on the other with regard to hospital insurance. At the same time my hon. friend possibly might clear up the inconsistency in the correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial ministers. In

one letter he says that hospital insurance will not be discussed and in a letter to the premier of Manitoba dated October 29 he says hospital insurance may be discussed at the dominion-provincial conference on November 25.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. gentleman's first question is no. I do not think there is any inconsistency, as he has suggested, in that I believe I have said, and I think it has been agreed, that some aspects of health insurance could well be discussed at that time, or could be mentioned.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the widespread and almost tragic circumstances surrounding the grain grass and seed harvest in northern Alberta, will the minister launch an immediate and thorough investigation in order to determine the facts of the situation and what might be done in co-operation with the government of Alberta to alleviate what is likely to be intensive distress and suffering amongst the people this winter if effective help is not forthcoming?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the P.F.A.A. officers who operate in the northern part of Alberta to give me a report on the situation which exists there and what possibility, if any, exists with regard to harvesting any of the present crop either now or in the spring. Following receipt of that information I think we shall be in a better position to assess the situation.



REPORTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Lavigne (Sformonl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the press report that the federal government may grant price support on cheese at 30 cents or 31 cents a pound government policy?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press report, but in any event I think the hon. member knows that press reports do not constitute government policy.
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Lafer.-l


Albert Peter Lavigne: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister take immediate steps to raise the price support on cheese to 34 cents a pound as soon as the provincial government stops its support?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seem to me that
a question with respect to price support on cheese has already been asked. I suggest if the hon. member has a further question of that type-


Albert Peter Lavigne: On a question of privilege,
I submit that the answer I received from the minister was not very good.


George Clyde Nowlan: Neither was the question.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be, but the hon.
member has to take his chance on what answer he will receive. This does not entitle him to ask the same question twice.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the declaration made by the Prime Minister before the chamber of commerce of Montreal on February 19, 1957, my question is this. Is it true that the government has decided to subsidize the construction of a smelter along the St. Lawrence river for the processing of domestic iron ore into steel, as a way to stimulate employment in Quebec?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the
report to which my hon. friend is making reference, but I have never heard that action suggested at any time.


Wilfrid Lacroix: May I ask a supplementary
question. Did the Prime Minister promise that action at a meeting of the chamber of commerce of Montreal on February 19, 1957?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister did not.
LLater.-l


Wilfrid Lacroix: I should like to direct a
question to the Prime Minister in connection with a question I asked a moment ago. My question is, would he comment on the following declaration made at the chamber of commerce of Montreal on February 19, 1957, which is as follows:
Every encouragement must be given to the processing of domestic raw materials-


Some hon. Members:: Question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Wilfrid Lacroix: Well, that is what I am
asking. I am asking for his comments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not clear as
to what the hon. member proposes reading.


Wilfrid Lacroix: The hon. member seems
to be very excited.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Sit down, the Speaker is
on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I did not
hear the preliminary to the hon. member's question. Would he inform me what he proposes to read?


Wilfrid Lacroix: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Prime Minister. I want his comment on this declaration made at the Montreal chamber of commerce, on February 19, 1957.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to inform the hon. member that it is not in order to read a statement and ask for comments on it. If the hon. member has a question to ask of the Prime Minister, would he please ask his question.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I am asking for the comment of the Prime Minister in connection with a promise made.



INQUIRY AS TO DECENTRALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What action has been taken by the government to encourage decentralization of industry within Canada and to encourage industrial development?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps this is a question that could have been placed on the order paper. The matter is under consideration, but I have no action to announce at the present time.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to press reports that the government is abandoning its traditional role of exploring and charting the

Arctic waters by withdrawing H.M.C.S. Labrador from this work, and that this is being done in the interests of economy? Will the Prime Minister tell this house if this is correct? If so, does he believe it is a realistic economy?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr Speaker, I would suggest that the Minister of Transport might answer that question.


An hon. Member:: Pass the buck.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was caught napping. I was reading another answer that I expect to be giving in a moment or so. I would greatly appreciate it if the hon. member would repeat his question.


Harold Edward Winch: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. May I readdress my question to the Minister of Transport. Has the attention of the Minister of Transport been drawn to press reports that the government is abandoning its traditional role of exploring and charting the Arctic waters by withdrawing H.M.C.S. Labrador from this work, it being transferred to the department of the Minister of Transport for use as an icebreaker, and that the same is being done in the interests of economy? Will the Minister of Transport say if this is correct? If so, does he believe that such withdrawal in connection with our work in the Arctic is a realistic economy?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the transfer of the Labrador to the Department of Transport is an economy measure, whereby it can be put to more useful work in the winter as an icebreaker. However, it is not our intention that the useful work to which the Labrador has been put in the summer shall be decreased. I am very glad to say it is our intention that that valuable work shall be continued.



COASTAL TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his earlier reference to the report on the royal commission on coastal shipping. Can the minister explain to the house why the publication date of this report seems to have remained at a fixed but moving point several months ahead during the last year? Could the minister find a pair of seven league boots and attempt to catch up with this elusive report?


George Harris Hees: I am just as anxious as the hon. member is to see the report, but I cannot see it until it is presented to me and to the government.



INQUIRY AS TO GROUNDING OF C.G.S. &quot;BAFFIN&quot; AT BLACK ROCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, of which I have given him notice. What were the circumstances leading up to the grounding of the Canadian government ship Baffin at Black rock, Nova Scotia, on July 4 last? Was an inquiry held into this grounding, and if so by whom and what were the findings?


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Halifax for giving me notice of his question.
Answering part one of the questions: On July 4 last the C.G.S. Baffin was engaged in marine survey work off the Nova Scotia coast in the vicinity of cape LaHave, about 50 miles west of Halifax. At about 4.30 in the afternoon the ship grounded on Black rock, which is located one mile off cape LaHave.
On normal offshore sounding operations a survey ship runs lines of soundings at right angles to the coast. Thus, a survey ship in the course of its work stands into a danger area at the inshore end of each sounding line. Survey personnel and officers naturally become accustomed to such an operation. In comparison, commercial shipping in the coastal trade travels well offshore, picking up the fairway buoys marking the desired harbour entrances or passing through safe channels marked by buoys and ranges.
Prior to the grounding, new equipment aboard the Baffin was being used to determine the position of the ship, which was conducting sounding operations in foggy weather. Similar equipment had been fitted and used in 1955 and 1956 on one of the other ships, the Kapuskasing, with exceptionally accurate results, and it was the normal practice with the Kapuskasing to sound in foggy weather. Some of the same personnel who were trained on the Kapuskasing were using the Baffin equipment and were confident that equally accurate positions were being secured for that ship's position, whereas such was not the case. This of course was not discovered until too late.
Answering the second and third parts of the question asked by the hon. member, I may say that at the request of the then acting
Inquiries of the Ministry minister, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), the department requested the services of the Department of Transport for the holding of an inquiry. The inquiry was held and the report brought out the fact that the grounding was due to a combination of circumstances but not to any negligence on the part of the hydrographers or the officers navigating the ship. No punitive action, therefore, was taken with regard to any of the personnel who were in charge of the ship and operations. Captain Snelgrove, in charge of navigating the ship, has had more than 30 years' experience as a navigating officer in our hydrographic service. Mr. Goodwill, who was our chief hydrographer aboard, was also a man of experience, having been in charge of hydrographic operations at sea since 1939.
May 1 add that the Canadian hydrographic service was first organized in 1883 and has grown so that this service now maintains and operates four ships on the Atlantic coast and three ships on the Pacific coast. Two ships are chartered during the summer season for Arctic surveys. Considering the type of work in which these ships are engaged their record has been extremely good.



UNION STEAMSHIP LINES, B.C.- SUBVENTION PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I did not send him notice. On October 21, in reply to a question by me, he indicated that the coastal shipping subsidy to Union Steamship Lines in British Columbia was under consideration and review. I am now asking him whether the review has been completed and, if so, what action the government intends to take.


George Harris Hees: The answer is the review has not yet been completed.



COMMUNIST CHINA-RUSSIA    LISTS OF PROHIBITED GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the departure of the trade mission for communist China, has the minister taken any action to remove the differential between the list of goods prohibited for sale to China and that for the Soviet union, as has already been done by the United Kingdom and other members of NATO?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that a large copper mine in British Columbia is being forced to close, would the minister consider copper as one of the articles of trade which the mission might discuss while in China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will take that suggestion under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



PITWOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister advise the house as to the present situation with regard to export shipments of pitwood from the maritime provinces to overseas markets? Will the minister consider including a representative of the maritime pitwood industry as a member of the trade delegation which will visit Great Britain shortly?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer in detail the first question with regard to pitwood or pit props. A very great effort has been made to get back into the United Kingdom market. I have taken up the matter myself, and it is being pursued vigorously. I will take the second question under advisement.



AUSTRALIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister care to comment on a statement by the Australian minister of primary industries that a plan to import Canadian wheat has been dropped because such a purchase would be a heavy drain on Australian dollar reserves? With our desperate need for increased wheat markets, can the minister say whether, in an endeavour to make this sale, Canada offered to accept sterling or to extend credit to Australia?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should comment upon statements made by ministers of other governments in other countries. I have no knowledge of any suggested transaction such as that to which the hon. member refers.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED STATEMENT BY MR. EZRA BENSON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Peter Stefura (Vegreville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of Mr. Ezra Benson's statements in Rome defending the increased United States efforts to expand marketing of their excess stocks, what are the Canadian government's plans to compete with the United States and to increase export markets?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This question I think should, perhaps, more properly be addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. So far as Mr. Benson's speech in Rome is concerned, I do not think the statements he made at that time were such that the hon. member or others should or could take undue alarm from them.



DISCUSSION OF IMPORTS AT LONDON CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Peter Stefura: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the trade delegation the minister will be heading to the United Kingdom be discussing Canadian exports as well as imports?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I presume we will discuss a number of questions. The purpose of the mission is to place the emphasis on imports from the United Kingdom to Canada.



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: In view of the fact that barter is an effective means of increasing trade with the United Kingdom, is it the intention of the trade mission to investigate this possibility? If so, does it not appear desirable to include representation from the Canadian wheat board or the three western pools as well as the single representative from the interprovincial farm union council already selected?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not sure I heard all the hon. member's question. If he mentioned the word "barter", we have found no need to engage in that type of trade with the United Kingdom. With regard to the second half of his question in which he mentioned- was it the wheat board?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The wheat board or the three western pools.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was in the month of September that, accompanied by representatives of the wheat board, I had the opportunity of visiting the United Kingdom and talking with representatives of the grain trade in London and Liverpool. Every effort was made on that occasion to stimulate the sale of Canadian wheat and other grains in the United Kingdom. The results of these talks and that visit are beginning to show now in the increased sales of our grain to the United Kingdom.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Albert Peter Lavigne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of a substantial recession in the textile industry, will the minister give consideration to changes in tariff items 523b, 553 and 523d?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stormont very kindly gave me notice of his question which I will refer to the Minister of Finance on his return.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) asked me if I could tell him when the new Quebec air terminal would be opened. I am glad to inform him and the house that we plan to open it on Saturday, December 7.



STATEMENT ON HOSPITAL AND HOTEL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Ashbourne), as reported at page 892 of Hansard of that date, asked the following question:
What progress has been made in providing a new hospital at Gander, and also what facilities for hotel accommodation will be made available when the construction of the new terminal at Gander will have been completed?
The Department of Transport does not assume responsibility for the construction of hospitals at or in association with airports and in the case of the town of Gander, this would appear to be a matter for primary
Inquiries of the Ministry initiative by the provincial authorities. I am not aware of any recent approach from provincial sources. Similarly, the department does not assume responsibility for construction of hotels at or in association with airports, although a wartime surplus barracks is presently being operated as a hotel at Gander by a commercial firm under contract with the department. Any construction of a new hotel, however, it is hoped would be a matter for private initiative in the newly constructed town of Gander where land is available for this purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the minister a supplementary question. Would he consult the files of his department, because I think he would find that the provincial government had approached his department about the question of the hospital.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Haidasz) asked a question concerning air pollution by locomotives and ships; and while I think the hon. member's specific question may have been answered when I indicated that I would be glad to discuss the matter with my officials, the house might wish to be advised briefly as to the consideration that is being given to this problem.
The regulations of the board of transport commissioners in regard to air pollution are contained in general order No. 18, dated November 25, 1908. This regulation was made applicable to the province of Ontario only. However, complaints lodged with the board by individual municipalities in all sections of Canada in regard to smoke nuisance created by railway operations are investigated by members of the board's inspection staff, and appropriate corrective action is taken in each case.
In recent years the board has received requests to revise the regulation with the object of bringing it more in line with present day practice, and on November 17, 1955, a specific application was filed with the board by the city of Toronto to substitute a more restrictive order for general order No. 18. The board's technical officers were therefore directed to review the provisions of this regulation and draft a proposed order to replace general order No. 18. The board

Inquiries of the Ministry also solicited the assistance of the atmospheric pollution service, Department of National Health and Welfare, and the wide experience of that branch in this field has been of great value to the board in its study of this matter.
Following consideration being given to the submissions of the city of Toronto, the report of the select committee of the Ontario legislation assembly, and other interested parties, a draft of the proposed general order was distributed to all concerned on July 17, 1957. The board is at present awaiting final submissions from certain of the interested parties, and on receipt of these submissions further consideration will be given to the matter, and it is expected that the revised regulations will be issued early in 1958.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware that the previous long-term policy of the Aluminum Company of Canada at Kiti-mat in granting second mortgages to its employees who buy houses under the authority of N.H.A. has been or might be discontinued; and, if so, are any steps being taken to ensure that workmen there would be able to continue to buy homes on the same low down payment basis that existed in the past?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I shall have to secure the information and let him have it at a later date.



CAMPAIGN FUNDS-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister in Vancouver last May, is the government giving consideration to bringing in legislation making public the source of campaign funds?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government is not.
IMr. Hees.l



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG  MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Deniset (Si. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the great concern aroused in Manitoba by the decision of Trans-Canada Air Lines to limit its Winnipeg maintenance operations to one type of aircraft, namely the Viscount? Would the minister be prepared to use his influence in changing the attitude of Trans-Canada Air Lines in this regard?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. I would refer him to my answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on October 29 last, when I assured him that Trans-Canada Air Lines did not expect in any way to diminish repair and maintenance operations in Winnipeg. Therefore I do not think the employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines in Winnipeg need have any fears whatsoever.


Louis Deniset: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I understood the minister correctly he said there is no intention of diminishing repair and maintenance operations in Winnipeg. Is there any possibility of having more employment in Winnipeg?


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have not my crystal ball here at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: We always hope there will be more employment, but I am not in a position to forecast.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us look into that crystal ball together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question in regard to this matter, but I should like to direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce aware of the dissatisfaction in Winnipeg, particularly in his own constituency, with the tenuous assurances given by the Minister of Transport concerning repair and maintenance work at Winnipeg by Trans-Canada Air Lines, and will he discuss the matter with the Minister of Transport and try to obtain a more satisfactory settlement of the situation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from my neighbour in Winnipeg.

I am glad to see that he is back in the house. The hon. member can be well assured that anything which concerns Winnipeg or Manitoba concerns me. He can also rest assured that I have already discussed this question, and I think Winnipeg may be reassured that the Minister of Transport will do everything in his power to see that the work done at the airport in St. James is maintained and increased to the extent-


Lionel Chevrier: In the light of circumstances.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -of the requirements and as a result of the constant increase in air traffic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister tell us what that means?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was following the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). That is the type of answer he used to give.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in my statement on October 29 I outlined to the hon. member that all servicing of DC-3's, North Stars and Viscounts would continue at Winnipeg; that the only additional servicing would be on the new Vanguards and the DC-8's, which will be received in three or four years' time by Trans-Canada Air Lines.
May I ask the hon. member whether he believes that these new aircraft-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: I am asking him a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member has something on the order paper which makes him responsible for that subject I am afraid it is out of order to ask him a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if I understood him correctly to say that it would be three or four years before the Vanguards were available. If that is true it is going to be very disappointing to Newfoundland.


George Harris Hees: Yes, it will be three or four years, in 1960 or perhaps 1961. We hope to get them in 1960.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there no hope of getting a somewhat improved service in the meantime?


An hon. Member:: What about your yacht?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a schooner.


George Harris Hees: In answer to the hon. member's question, every endeavour is always being made to improve the service, but with respect to providing an advanced type of aircraft I can only say that they will not
Inquiries of the Ministry be ready until we can obtain delivery from the company from which they have been ordered.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, of which I have given notice. In view of the present unemployment situation in Canada and of the increase in strength of the armed forces by approximately 2,332 persons since September, 1957, is it the intention of the government to continue to enlarge the armed forces of Canada?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The brief answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is no; and the reason for that is that the manpower requirements of our armed forces are governed by our defence commitments. The relation between discharges and enlistments at the present time is very satisfactory, and I expect the same level will be maintained.
I cannot accept the figure given by the hon. member for the increase during September, since the statistics maintained in my department show an increase of only 1,074.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: On Friday last when I was absent from the house the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) made the following remarks:
Some time ago I asked a question of the minister regarding revision of the National Parks Act and a particular question regarding Banff. The minister at that time indicated he did not have any information on the subject and if I would send him some he would be prepared to make a statement in the house. I supplied him with some information several days ago, but as yet I have not received an answer to my question. I wonder if the minister would now take this under consideration and be prepared to give an answer on Monday?
The hon. member's interpretation of what I said on November 4 in reply to his question is not accurate. At no time did I say I "did not have any information on the subject". What I did say was:
I wonder if the hon. member for Bow River coulcj. give me more details as to the regulations he has in mind, and tell me particularly what water and sewer rates are unfair so I will know what to inquire into.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I have now reviewed the information my hon. friend sent me on November 5 and my answer is as follows. The original question was twofold. The hon. member asked:
Does the minister intend to revise the park act in order to rescind some of the impractical regulations in that act?


Lionel Chevrier: This is debate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I gather that the hon. member in his remarks in Hansard on April 27, 1956, on page 3379 and following was protesting mainly against the penalties and procedure section of the act. I challenge his use of the word "impractical" to describe a provision of an act-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but it seems that he is going beyond the answering of a question by challenging the member on a number of statements. If he would confine himself to the answer to the question to which he has referred I would allow him to proceed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will give the answer the other way. The answer to the first question is that, in view of the facts I have given above, I would like some time to study the advisability of changing the custom of leaving the penalty to the discretion of the judiciary before I make any commitment about revising the act.
The second part of the hon. member's question dealt with water and sewer rates, and my answer to that is in all the circumstances I have yet to be shown that there is any unfairness that requires to be remedied.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the serious situation in Canada in narcotic addiction and trafficking, can the minister advise the house whether provision will be made for a discussion of the problem, and whether consideration will be given to the report of the special Senate committee on this matter?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question a short time ago. As to whether provision will be made for discussion of the problem, that would require, of course, the consideration of the leader of the house for a special time to be set aside; but I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that adequate opportunity will be presented when

the estimates of the Department of Justice are before the committee of supply. I shall be very glad indeed to see a full discussion take place at that time.
With regard to the second part of his question, as to whether provision will be made for consideration to be given to the report of the Senate committee, that report is being considered in my department and, I believe, in the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where it really belongs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And, of course, it can also be discussed when the estimates are before the committee. I should, of course, remind the hon. gentleman that this matter is of concern to the Department of National Health and Welfare as well as to the Department of Justice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where it belongs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Also, as he knows, there are widely divergent views as to the opinion expressed by the Senate committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of National Health and Welfare to be very careful, otherwise the Minister of Justice may steal a very important function of his department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that because the original question was directed to me, and assure the former minister that now that we have the present Minister of National Health and Welfare there is no danger of anyone stealing anything.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In view of his answer, is the minister now in a position to assure this house that estimates will come before us so the matter can be discussed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the only answer I can give is I am prepared to discuss anything at the proper time, and I believe the estimates are the proper time, the estimates of either my department or the Department of National Health and Welfare, when these matters can be discussed to the fullest extent the hon. member wishes.


Harold Edward Winch: We are well into November and we have not discussed any of the estimates yet.



PRINCE RUPERT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING ARMED BANDITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I think the date mentioned was September 20, and that would rule the question out, anyway; but I am sure the report does not represent what was said.']
Frank Howard: I have a question I should like to direct to the

Minister of Justice. Can the minister advise the house what progress is being made toward the apprehension of the armed bandit or bandits who accosted two women in Prince Rupert near the end of October?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, although I received notice of the hon. gentleman's question shortly before coming into the house, for which I thank him, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has not yet been able to let me have a full report, but when it is forthcoming I will communicate it to the hon. gentleman.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources was speaking for the government at Aylmer, Quebec, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of Friday, September 20, when he said:
I am tired of Great Britain dictating our destiny and the United States controlling it.
Would he care to comment further on this?


John George Diefenbaker: I think the date mentioned was September 20, and that would rule the question out, anyway; but I am sure the report does not represent what was said.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the report correct which we have heard today, that the governor of the Bank of Canada has been retired?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard that yet.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the disastrous drop in the price of livestock to the producer, will the
Inquiries of the Ministry minister give the house some assurance that it is the intention of the government to place floor prices under livestock immediately?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman knows that pigs are under price support at the present time and, of course their market price has not yet reached the price support level. As far as the placing of any other livestock under price support is concerned, when that is decided upon it will be announced in the normal way as government policy.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the answer of the Minister of Agriculture to the hon. member for Yorkton with regard to the serious drop in hog prices in western Canada. Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce now announce a new directive to western producers? I refer to the statement he made in Winnipeg suggesting to farmers that they go into livestock production, thereby using up a lot of surplus wheat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest to anyone in Winnipeg or anywhere else that the farmers of western Canada should go into livestock production. If the hon. member would get his facts straight perhaps I could answer his question.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a supplementary question the Minister of Agriculture with reference to hog floor prices. Can the minister say whether the government has considered increasing the disastrously low floor price set by the former administration, so that further serious losses to hog producers may be averted?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The level of support prices is under constant consideration by the Department of Agriculture, and when I think it necessary and desirable I draw the matter to the attention of the government as a whole.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is also too late now.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the answer he gave to questions asked on November 7 on this subject. In view of the Prime Minister's statement at a press conference following the Ontario Progressive Conservative convention, in which he is reported as having committed

Inquiries of the Ministry himself to increased federal grants for scientific education and research, will the Prime Minister comment on that statement and give some indication of what action the government proposes to take this session in the form of special grants for Canadian universities or increased grants for scholarships in order to give effect to his promise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that this question has been asked several times this session and has been dealt with.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I referred to a specific statement made by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The answer given to previous questions had no relationship to this specific commitment on the part of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: My recollection is that the questions were quite specific and related to grants for scientific education. It seems to me that the hon. member is repeating questions which have been dealt with.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. A while ago I asked the minister if he intended to change his policy with regard to protection walls. His answer then was no, due to the fact that the bed of the river is the property of the provinces. Since then the provinces have refused-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Well, the matter has to be clarified so the minister can understand what I mean. The provinces refused on the ground that navigable waters are the responsibility of the federal government. Would the minister tell me if he intends to place this matter before the forthcoming federal-provincial conference in order to clarify who is responsible for these protection walls?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker,. I am afraid the hon. member for Hull has misunderstood the answer I gave him formerly. 1 said that the dominion accepted responsibility for protecting shores where damage had been

caused by navigation but not by erosion, and that had nothing to do with who owns the river bottoms.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration now in a position to inform the house of the decision of his department on granting citizenship rights to Mr. Banks, the newly elected head of the seamen's union, a person convicted in the United States, and under whose direction fewer and fewer of our Canadian seamen are now being employed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should say that the Mr. Banks referred to was given the status of a landed immigrant, I believe by order in council passed by the previous government. Since that time he has made application to be granted Canadian citizenship. His application came in the ordinary way before the citizenship court in Montreal, and during the hearing I believe there were some protesters who appeared. Then at that time or about that time there was civil litigation involving Mr. Banks and involving allegations of his having indulged in criminal libel. The judge of the citizenship court adjourned the hearing until he could learn the outcome of the civil litigation. I should add, perhaps, that the matter win not be before me for determination until after the citizenship court has made a decision on the application.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, this house has learned that the government is not interested at the present time in higher pay for members of parliament. Amongst the new members of all parties with whom I have had the opportunity to chat there was not any real concern about higher pay but there was concern about a more complete stenographic and secretarial service. The plaint is not with the quality of the present service but with its narrow scope. How does one keep

in touch with constituents and their problems, handle attendance and participation in debates, learn more about procedure and government operations, with only a half-day secretary to help you with the correspondence? This must be an old problem but I think it has been made much more crucial now by the energies poured into this house by the many new and younger members. I should like to hope that we could have a genuine secretarial pool on which we could draw to the limits of our working capacities as members.
Further, I do not think anyone here would agree with the provision that the United States legislators have as to the library of Congress whereby their reference service even writes the speeches for the members. However, I certainly feel that we could have a specialized research and reference service here for private members, staffed by trained librarians and by the best of graduate students from fields such as political science and economics, working on some kind of scholarship rota. We would abet the educational process and such scholars could give some depth to the knowledge that we bring to our work. If, as political scientists such as Professor Corry of Queen's maintains, a basic weakness of this house is the opposition's shallow knowledge of governing operations, a scheme such as I have just proposed would improve matters greatly. With due respect to all hon. members, may I say that most of us are sketchy, misinformed or underinformed on too many phases of government affairs. To me that may be one explanation for the tendency of our debates to groove into this business of "You said this", "No, I didn't", "Yes, you did" that we seem to have.
Nineteen days ago when the six o'clock adjournment interrupted what I was saying,
I had just made some remarks about government leaders taking narrow party advantages out of the present set-up. Indeed, it almost appeared that this government had made our Port Arthur provincial member- a Conservative, by the way-its minister for northwestern Ontario. He had just announced that the C.B.C. was locating four television satellite stations in northwestern Ontario. I did not take that well and was pleased to have the assurance of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) that he had not relayed this information to this particular gentleman. But it seems to me that one of the testing points of the grandiloquent purposes of the party across the way will be whether they take this narrow advantage. In Sault Ste. Marie's paper on Saturday I notice that the defeated Conservative candidate was making an announcement on airport extensions there. That is
The Address-Mr. Fisher only a minor point. I suppose this game has been played for many years. All I can say is that one of the nicest things we have had in northwestern Ontario previous to this time was the fact that whatever we might say about the Liberal government we had, they did not go in for that particular kind of tactic.
In the region that I represent a television service, analogous to that offered by C.B.C. radio booster stations, appears to be the only hope for most of the towns in our bush hinterland. The Fowler commission recommended it; technically it is not too difficult; financially, this house must pass the moneys required; and they will be considerable. I should like to urge the hon. members to remember this point. Our bush communities lack many of the city's recreational devices, and even more of the city's educational and cultural facilities. Television brightens, informs, and moderates life in remote places, much more than it does in cities. The demand for it is sharp. When the matter comes up in the next session I hope that favourable consideration will be given in an impartial way to the provision of this service.
Political campaigning by television, of course, seems to arouse intense interest. It certainly seemed to culminate that way on the exciting night of June 10 and I feel this is true right across the whole nation, not just in Port Arthur. For such programming I feel that the rules evolved by the C.B.C. are rather frumpy. They do not allow much scope for imaginative programming. In centres such as Port Arthur our movement found television to be valuable in presenting candidates and policies. For one thing, it eases the handicap of press antipathy. Indeed, one of the main explanations for the slow progress of our party-slower than some of us would hope-lies in the fact that control of communication media has been in the hands of those to whom our program is anathema. In the face of this barrier, the marvel is that we have progressed at all despite the myriad prognoses of death we are having all the time from these newspapers. On this point, without rancour but with a great deal of amusement, one notes the alteration of treatment by our political pundits since June 10.
Two noted Liberal hod-carriers, one who writes for a national magazine, the other for a financial paper and occasionally for a Boston paper, have given the C.C.F. quite a play in past years-until June 10. With the Tory victory, the C.C.F. has almost disappeared from their maunderings. Similarly, after an initial burst of emotion on a possible Liberal-C.C.F. alliance, that garish charity of Canadian journalism, namely the Toronto

The Address-Mr. Fisher Star, had dropped us completely. To compensate, Conservative sheets-I will not mention them here-have drawn us out of past obscurity. It is the old problem of whose ox is being gored and all very much in the Canadian newspaper tradition.
Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Port Arthur is the third largest in all Canada in terms of area. It stretches from its name city in the southwest corner, west and north to Hudson bay and over 250 miles east to Hornepayne and White River. It has the largest population and electorate of the ten biggest ridings in Canada. I state this, Mr. Speaker, because a justified demand has arisen for a redistribution in my constituency. The eastern and northern towns, since Manitouwadge's whirlwind growth, feel they merit their own member and they will await eagerly any news of an independent commission on redistribution. If Port Arthur constituency were split in half, each part would still have more population than 30 present-day constituencies, and each would have more area than over 190 of the present-day constituencies.
This house will soon be graced by a most persuasive exponent for new colleges, especially junior colleges. At the Lakehead college we have what amounts to a junior college; the nucleus, we trust, of a degreegranting university. This school was initiated in 1947 mostly through the vision of the Right Hon. George Drew. It was and will be well supported by the local councils and people. But this Lakehead college is presently an example of the conundrum of federal support for higher education. The federal aid through grants administered by the provinces, and the new aid through the Canada Council have been, or seem to be, predicated on the principle "Them as has, gets!".
The double per capita system-first, by province and, second, by institutional enrolment-is great for well-established institu-' tions, especially in Ontario. It is hopeless for fledgling colleges. We trust that Dr. Smith will become an unofficial minister of education, counselling real government help for new enterprises such as the Lakehead college of arts and sciences.
It is well to remember that we, like certain other parts Of Canada, have an expanding population and economy, an enthusiasm for our region and a certain richness in talent because of the many nationalities in our background. From the point of view of our need, the worst factor of all is that we are isolated, far from any metropolitan centre, so that we need higher education

much more than some places of comparable size which are close to universities.
Some people accuse the C.C.F. party of a Cassandra-like fondness for unemployment. Now unemployment, I gather from statements made by people of great authority, is rather a dirty word at the present time. Anyhow we and the people, I think, of all parties in northwestern Ontario regret that we are faced with the bleakest winter since the thirties. This is largely due to something we can understand: there has been a slump in our pulp and paper works; there has been a rapidly-changing production scheme in our woods industry which has caused quite a bit of dislocation. Of course we have all heard in this house, ad infinitum, about the doldrums of the grain trade. In such a situation and without a pre-prepared plan we hope for crash efforts by federal and provincial authorities to soften the effects of lack of work. A most hopeful project would be the one which I understand the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) has under consideration and that is the clearing and rock-work for the pipe line east of the lakehead to be done this winter. Our unemployment rolls are filled with men who have the necessary skills but during this past season some pipeline contractors had difficulties-so they said-because they had an inferior labour force. That would certainly not obtain at this time of the year.
A further suggestion is that the rockwork for groynes and breakwaters could be carried on over ice in the Fort William and Port Arthur harbours. The problem here is that neither the Department of Transport nor the Department of Public Works have plans prepared. It certainly is not the fault of the ministers; we are grateful for the investigations they have carried out with respect to our harbour facilities and we naturally hope for action.
Now the harbour facilities at the lakehead constitute a much-abused topic. In essence there are two main themes: first, the present facilities are inadequate for unloading seagoing freighters and for truck-haul transfer; secondly, the energetic efforts of the Duluth authorities have the jump on us and this Minnesota city will become the larger entrepot for Western Canada.
To solve the problems with respect to the merits of these two points of view is I think something really for the experts in economics and engineering, but, like many of my constituents, I feel there is a sense of urgency and a need for leadership on the part of the government. The three levels of government in this nation- are involved, plus the extraneous factors of inter-city rivalry and pressure from the prairies.



II. 1957

[Stage Direction]
Nothing this government could do would impress us more than knowledgeable action on our harbours tied in with some alleviation of our unemployment problem. It would certainly help to quiet the whispers-growing to a roar-which are now going the rounds to the effect that it is shaping up like the thirties-a Conservative government; no work; hard times. Such whispers in my mind are very unfair, but let us not have them grow to an uproar.
Many residents in our small communities of the bushland are confused over their inability to obtain mortgage money for house construction because, it appears, of the low credit ratings and prospects of municipalities. The National Housing Act seems peculiarly ineffective; there is the vicious circle. Housing standards are low because of the economic position of the municipalities and the economic position does not improve because the tax and assessment structure is precarious.
There is considerable opinion at the lake-head that we could be much better served by Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is felt that too often reservations are impossible to get; that the number of available flights are too few. Some people argue that Canadian Pacific Air Lines should get a franchise from Winnipeg to Toronto through the lakehead. However, before plumping for that I would like to get an analysis of the problem from the minister concerned.
The trans-Canada pipe line has been a live issue at the lakehead for three reasons: firstly, because of Mr. Howe's part in it; secondly, because of local controversy over distribution of gas within the cities; and, thirdly, because of a considerable animosity -and this is a bad point-engendered by the United States contractors in the way they have handled their employees. I believe, of course, that the line should be publicly-owned and the bulk of the citizens, I think, would go along with this point of view. In any case the main reaction to this government's royal commission follows the path of the little blank verse written some years ago entitled "Royal Commissions". It goes:
Three cheers for the royal commission!
By the end of 15 months we shall have all the facts. A year later
And the government will have a plan.
By that time of course
The situation will have entirely changed
And it would be clearly unwise to interfere.
Now in a political way-the rest of my speech will be involved with purely political matters, at least I believe this to be so-I would like to say I was weaned on Mr. King's Industry and Humanity. Despite my appearance I found it pretty meagre fare. However, it did open up in my mind a curiosity about the principles and basic ideas
The Address-Mr. Fisher of political parties. I was very pleased to notice in a speech of the member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) the other day that he was again talking about Liberal principles and at the recent Progressive Conservative rally everybody was talking about the Conservative principles.
John Whitney Pickersgill: No, they were mostly talking about the Liberal party.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well we will not get into that. To continue, it may be presumptuous of me as a novice, especially since this happens to be an arena of empiricism, to raise this matter but I have found that many people are hungry for discussions on the principles of political parties. For this reason I think it is worth while going ahead. It may be unfair to state that much of this hunger is due to an inability to distinguish between the fare offered by the Liberal and Conservative parties. C.C.F. members are often accused of purveying this line, ad nauseam and maybe we do it too much, but one would hope that in the midst of this busy legislative program we would not have to be putting forward this line and that the major parties would be displaying their own principles so that the people could see them in all their clarity.
Perhaps as an initial step I could put on record some words written 22 years ago by a man who has the regard, sometimes favourable, of many members of this house. Twenty-two years ago was the era of "King or chaos"; I hope you will remember that slogan. There was a ferment of political ideas. One yeasty bit of ferment was an article entitled "The Decay of Liberalism" written, before he became an impartial civil servant, by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
One must be fair. Those who turn to this article will find certain criticism of democratic socialism which I shall not cover now. After all, the member is still in the house and he could quite probably drag them out again. But here is the core, where this questing academic laid bare his political soul and pointed up the Liberal dilemma. He wrote: Liberal doctrines are supposed to have universal validity and to be beneficial to all men without distinction, but it cannot be denied that in practice, Liberalism has been the creed of the middle classes . . . The fact that Liberalism appeals to a section of society, the middle classes, rather than to the whole population, is not, however, the Whole explanation of its decline. There is another serious weakness of Liberal doctrines, and that is the inherently inactive character of most of them. Potent to destroy political, social or economic privilege, but having little positive content, they have become politically obsolete as their destructive work has been completed . . .
This negative character has been most obvious in the case of economic Liberalism.
9S6

The Address-Mr. Fisher
This is still, by the way, quoting the member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Professor Pickersgill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: To continue:
The doctrines of "laissez-faire" and of the beneficence of unrestrained self-interest were useful to destroy archaic, inadequate, and often ill-conceived economic regulations or privileges. But when that function had been performed, it began to be apparent that the effects of unrestrained selfinterest. far from being universally beneficient, were often evil, and in some cases socially intolerable.
This is a damning attack. Here is a free enterpriser gone sour! Here is an absolute denial of the old economic basis of Liberalism. In fact, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate belongs to a party that has almost completely rejected the old Liberal economic ideas in practice but not in party propaganda, and not for anything consistent, either. Thus we had Mr. Howe, the heroic free enterpriser to the business community and also the spawner of crown corporations. Have the Canadian Conservatives ever had a distinctive economic and social philosophy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We cannot leave them out of this. In some ways I feel they have grabbed the economic ideas of the old Liberalism but the author of a recent study of the Conservative party in Canada-and I would recommend to it to any hon. gentleman who has not looked at it-made the point that no Canadian Conservative has ever made a coherent statement of the Conservative party's general position. Indeed, some people-Conservatives, at that,-claim that such is unnecessary and impossible.
I was interested in the remarks of the fine premier of Ontario on March 28 last in the provincial assembly when he expressed his interest and intention in carrying out measures of practical socialism. I wonder if the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) would be willing to call some of his proposals "practical socialism"?
In England, the spiritual home of the Bennetts, the Meighens, and our present day fifteen-percenters, the Conservatives have developed a certain continuity of thought first articulated by Burke and continued by figures such as Randolph Churchill and Chamberlain. This school of thought sees society as organic. Change is not impossible but it evolves; there is no revolution. Society, of course, pre-dates the individual and is superior to him. It is here after he is gone and thus we get a great veneration for the past.
Such a vein does not exclude social reform measures but regards them suspiciously. "Tory Reform" is not an uncommon phrase
(Mr. Fisher.]
in England. But it is distinct from socialist reform. The pace is slower; there is a deference for established institutions, a veneration for the past and its forms and symbols Gentleman of elevation and property should give the lead in bettering bad social conditions. Reform comes from above, not in response to mass demand but because the Conservative elite is endowed with a high sense of moral responsibility. It refrains from the demagogue's, the huckster's appeal. Well, one can have a certain respect for the basic position given here; mighty oaks spreading their benevolent protection over the humble grazing in their shade. Deference on the one side; responsibility on the other.
Has this ever been the Canadian Conservative's basic position? I do not think so, except in the pursuit of the symbols rather than the substance of Canadian life. "Let us keep the royal crest on our mail boxes!"- that sort of thing. Perhaps I am too cynical but I feel the present government's attitude toward reform and most of its measures are opportunist, ad hoc. They have been stumbled upon haphazardly in 22 years of exile. In terms of left or right, they are probably left, but they are designed for the inside, not the outside of office.
Let us review a bit. The Canadian Liberals introduced social measures because they could not bear the consequences of their original economic ideas. In the quest for office the Conservatives have followed the Liberal lead; yet from both of them we still hear all this talk of free enterprise. We had the Prime Minister "private enterprising" the other day. Planning, economic and social, such as is included in the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, should be the logical outgrowth of 19th century Liberalism. Liberalism's very faith in the power of individual reason indicates this. But what do we find instead? We have a formless, piecemeal reaction to free enterprise with the refusal to give up the free enterprise, the private enterprise myth. If you scratch the verdigris off the Canadian you will not find a free enterpriser. Canadians are the greatest people in the world to turn and scratch on the government's door: "Do something for us".
I would like to deal with the images of the two older parties that history presents. Hon. members will perhaps forgive a history teacher for taking off on this tack. I think some of it may amuse you. Here are the Conservatives in the popular historical myth. As I see it they are the party of the empire; anti-yankee; the party of loyalty; the Queen and Tommy Church; the party that owns the flag-not the Red Ensign either, but the

Union Jack; the party with the cartoon view of Mackenzie King as a nasty little man chipping away with a mallet at the noble statue of Britannia.
In contrast, let us consider the popular historical image of the Liberals. They are considered tepid toward the empire and the commonwealth; looking southward; traditionally sympathetic to the United States; calling for unrestricted reciprocity; the permanent joint commission; the interlocking of North American military and economic interests.
The Tories: high tariff, the party of big business and national development. The Grits: low tariff, the party of the farmer and the small businessman. The Conservatives, centralizers; the Liberals, provincial rightists. But what switches have come about! Who has centralized for more than 20 years? Who has been the creature of big business for more than 40 years, ever since the days of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern?
Since 1885 and Riel the Canadian Conservatives have raised an image of a party antagonistic to Quebec, with July 12 being considered in many parts of Canada as a Conservative day. The Liberals in this period have created the image of being proFrench; sympathetic to Quebec; pro-immigration; the party of all the people; all the ethnic groups. Do these differences, these popular images really exist? And if they do, are they worth it? I think they really do exist in the minds of some people. Will we get a view of the Conservative's antipathy to the United States when we know their policy concerning the C.B.C.? Will it continue as a rampart protecting a part of Canadian culture or will the Jack Kent Cookes and their Americanism win with the Conservative party?


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the C.C.F. before your time expires.


Mr, Fisher:: Let us wait and see. Today our Conservative Prime Minister, for example, is closely associated with the St. Jean Baptiste Society and that is not the sort of thing you think of in relation to the popular image as being a Conservative aim.


Mr, Churchill:: You should go to Saskatchewan.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I think it is hardly fair that a new member of this house should be rudely jolted by these unsolicited interruptions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Stop jabbing, then.
The Address-Mr. Fisher


Douglas Mason Fisher: Another Conservative prime minister, Mr. Borden, took this country far off the colonial path. Fielding, a Liberal, swallowed high tariffs without a tremour. King was such a centralist that he could not abide the provincial Liberal premier, Mitch Hepburn. In the 70's the Liberals caterwauled about the C.P.R's gift of $25 million and 25 million free acres of the best land in Canada yet in 1956 the Liberals turned around and gave Trans-Canada Pipe Lines a public gift that makes the other appear fairly small.


James Garfield Gardiner: What did the C.C.F. do with their Regina manifesto?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Both parties came up with large campaign war chests filled by big business. Today neither is high tariff and neither is free trade; both claim to be free enterprisers, parties of sturdy individualism. Each pushes social welfare legislation which gainsays this.
There is a choice between them, all right, which will probably be evidenced in the next election campaign in terms of the personality of the leader: the jaunty bow tie versus the portentous, rhetorical pause. Each party is angling for the French Canadian bloc. Each seems to presume that the French Canadian either cannot accept an electoral defeat placing them on a minority footing in the nation or else they do not have to accept an electoral defeat. And what do we hear of the minority parties, strongest north and west of Sudbury? Out there where the air is light I suppose the popular image, according to the press, is that we are the crackpots, the zanies, the doctrinairs, the impractical fuzzy idealists. This image, of course, is fostered by the hostile press.
I would now like to turn to another subject. Hon. members will forgive me if I search my notes for a moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Do you want to find the Regina manifesto?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: No; we changed that. The point I wanted to make in conclusion is this: if we are those fuzzy idealists, and if we are crackpots, it gives me a certain amount of pride to stand here and later on to vote for the amendment introduced by those crackpots you see in front of me, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). If they represent the kind of zany thinking that the C.C.F. is always being accused of, I am very proud to be associated with them, and I feel that

The Address-Mr. E. J. Campbell they and our group give a more honest opposition, even it you disagree with them, than the anomalies that overlap in these two major parties to my right.


Mr. E. J. Campbell (Lambion-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in my place lor the first time in this house my memory takes me back to a lesson I learned in public school and I can think of no better place to repeat that lesson than here today. It goes something like this:
Speak no ill, but lenient be To others failings as your own;
If you be the first the fault to see.
Be not the first to make it known.
For life is but a passing day,
No lip may tell how brief its span;
Then, O, the little time we stay Let us speak of all the best we can.
I am not going to attempt to speak at any great length in this throne speech debate, and I must admit also that I will be repeating some of the things that many other speakers have said. I will admit also that I am well pleased to repeat many of the other things that have been said because so many representatives agree with my own thinking.
I would like to add my congratulations to the Speaker on his elevation to his exalted position and also to the mover Mr. Smith (Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think theirs was a job well done.
I feel honoured and privileged to have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes to the hon. members who are here today representing the interest of the people of their districts, and on behalf of the people whom I have the privilege to represent.
I am not sure that I agreed with my colleague who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne when he said that the terror you have when you get up to speak just automatically turns to plain fear because, as I sit here day after day-and I think the hon. member across the way mem-tioned 19 days-the pressure seems to build up to the point in a new member that I think the next object that you hear about flying around and around the world will be parts of a new member. The pressure certainly has not got less.
I do appreciate the comments which have been made from all comers of the house. I may say that I have had some experience in public service, althrough this is my first experience in the House of Commons, and in connection with that public service I have had the occasion to take part in a number of debates. I find that when you are reasonably

sure that you are right when you are debating it seems to lend a source of strength to you that you cannot get in any other way. In my public service I have come to find a source of strength, and it seems fitting that I mention it here, in the words of the apostle Paul. It is recorded that he said:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
As I listened to the debates which have been given in this house, and having regard for the advice contained in the apostle's words, I like to think that the opposition which has been brought to bear against the proposals brought down in the speech from the throne have been intended, not so much to prove that the proposals are wrong but mainly for the purpose of making the representatives who are upholding them prove that they are right. If that is so, then I feel that they deserve to be commended for the opposition that they bring to those proposals.
I note that a number of members who, it would seem, have believed in and supported a different trend of thinking from that of perhaps a majority of the members who sit on this side of the house, have, after having had an opportunity to prove, as it were, the worth of their proposals and having apparently failed to prove that they were wrong, then reversed their position and voted with the majority on this side of the house. I feel that that is something that they are to be commended for and it is something which often requires tremendous courage to do.
I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that there was a matter with which I was not quite sure that I agreed. However, at this point I would like to emphasize the fact that there are a number of things with which I do agree in the submissions which were made, and I will endeavour to deal with them in the order in which it appears to me that they affect the people of Canada and particularly the people of my district.
I feel that the need for greater stability and increased purchasing power on the part of agriculture and the beneficial influence that increased purchasing strength in the hands of the farm people would have on the many other lines of business is the one single thing that would do the greatest good for the greatest number of our people today. I feel that it would help to balance and strengthen the entire Canadian economy. I feel also- and I would like to emphasize this point- that aside from the indirect effect upon other lines of business the fact remains that on its own merits the dependence of the people upon agriculture for their most important needs, namely food, should give agriculture a rating

well up to the top of our consideration rather than at or near the bottom, where it seems to have been in these late years.
I would emphasize especially the need for help for the winter wheat growers. Measures have been taken to protect the western growers of spring wheat, but I suggest to the house that the growers of soft winter wheat in this part of the country are in a worse position than the growers in the west as far as price is concerned. I do not say that to reflect upon what has been done for the west. I am glad that the house has seen fit to pass a measure which is going to help the growers in the west but I respectfully bring to the attention of the house the wheat growers in this part of the country who are also in need of help. I believe it is the intention of the Ontario wheat growers to attempt to set up a marketing program in the near future under the Ontario farm products marketing act. If they do this I believe it will be a step in the right direction. I do hope they are successful in that effort.
I should like to say a few words in connection with soybeans. I understand there is a tariff or duty of $1.20 per bushel against Canadian soybeans entering the United States while United States soybeans enter Canada duty free. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian regulations were balanced so as to provide the same protection for the Canadian producer as has been maintained for the United States producer it would change the position of the soybean producers of this country from that of a poorly paid business to one which would pay well. At the same time it would encourage the production of more soybeans which the figures show are needed in Canada. At the same time I feel quite sure this would draw land out of the production of other things which it would seem are being overproduced at the present time.
I should like to refer now to a letter I have in my hand. It is from the soya bean growers' marketing board and reads in part as follows:
The newest farm organization in the United States, the national conference of commodity organizations, is working feverishly to come up with recommendations on an over-all farm program before the next session of congress. Members have already agreed on two basic principles which apply to almost all crops. One of these is to provide greater protection to farmers against imports from other countries. The conference wants tighter import controls. They say the government permits too many commodities to enter the United States. . . . The second is to get a new base for the parity formula.
I should like to point out that the United States, our greatest competitor, is setting up
The Address-Mr, E. J. Campbell regulations to protect that country against imports from other countries. For that reason I draw the attention of the house to the fact that I feel we also need protection for our people.
I should also like to draw attention to the need for help for the sugar beet and corn growers. I feel I can speak with some authority in this regard because in the past I have, as a farmer myself, produced both of these crops in considerable quantity, and when I am home I still live on a farm where a certain amount of these things is still produced.
In the case of sugar beets, may I say that I was named a member of a deputation that came to Ottawa a number of years ago to see if something could be done to protect the sugar beet industry. We did not receive much encouragement at that time and on my return home I decided that I would cease growing sugar beets and I have not grown them since that day. In my opinion, many sugar beet growers are at a crossroads. Mechanized equipment has been devised to decrease the many hours of back-breaking labour that the harvesting used to take but farmers are in a quandary to know whether the future of the industry would justify the outlay of money that is required to equip themselves in this way. They are again asking for some measures that will stabilize and protect their industry to the point that they will have a reasonable assurance that their investments may prove to be profitable in the years to come.
I feel that this industry is well worth protecting not only from the point of view of the producers and workers who are employed in the fields and factories but also from the point of view of the machine companies and their workers. Perhaps more important than that, I believe it is necessary to have a home source of supply in case we should get into such a conflict as we have had twice in my time as the result of which trade barriers might be erected or trade might be cut off and we would not be able to get the supply that we need.
I also have in my hand a statement prepared by the sugar beet board in which is contained figures of contracted acreage from 1950 to 1957 inclusive. In 1950 there were 41,007 acres, which I believe was an all-time high, and in 1957 the contracted acreage was 20,313 acres, less than half the handling capacity. The Wallaceburg plant has been shut down for some time and would have remained closed throughout this year if it had not been for the fact that we had exceptionally good harvesting weather resulting in the beets piling up at the Chatham factory
960	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy and it was decided to operate the Wallace-burg plant for a short time in order to alleviate the situation.
I have a newspaper account here concerning a request made to members of the house a few days ago by a deputation of sugar beet growers in which they dealt with their objective and I should like to quote from the article which appeared in the London Free Press of Tuesday, November 5, 1957. In part it has this to say:
Western Ontario's sugar beet industry today enlisted the support of . . . members of parliament in its plea for the establishment of a federal floor price of $14 per ton under sugar beets, and a curb on the importation of foreign refined sugar. These twin actions, according to a producer-processor delegation, were necessary to save the Ontario sugar beet industry from destruction.
This brought back to my mind very vividly my own experience some time ago when we came to Ottawa asking for much the same kind of protection.
I should also like to say a few words in support of the proposal to try to work out a tax sharing agreement between the federal and provincial governments whereby the provincial authorities, who in turn exercise a measure of control over the municipal councils, would be in a position to share a more substantial part of the tax burden of home owners for schools and other services and in this way bring about a measure of benefit where I believe it is most needed and would do the most good. I should also like to emphasize that because the purchasing power of our dollar today is not nearly as great as it was when assistance to our senior citizens was first instituted I am in favour of supporting the proposals outlined in the speech from the throne to increase old age pensions and other kindred benefits, which increases have, as the result of recent action, become a reality.
Finally, I recall to mind a few words that I feel have a fitting application in helping to emphasize the requests I have made. They are:
If you would build a way that lasts Two things stand like stone Kindness to your fellowmen-
Courage in your own.
I hope that we may be able to work together, kindly and constructively and with the courage of our convictions towards the establishment of those things that are good for the people of our country. To that end, I solicit your support and I pledge mine to you.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my first words in this debate are words of congratulation to you, sir, and to the mover of the address the hon. member


for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and the seconder, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault). I intend to make some suggestions during the course of this debate which I hope the government will find helpful in relieving the critical unemployment situation that is plaguing us in Canada, and more specifically in the province of New Brunswick. I am making these suggestions very sincerely because up until June 10 the Atlantic resolutions signed by the Conservative candidates in the Atlantic provinces and the new deal for the maritimes were the things that were most publicized. Since June 10, however, they have become deep secrets and I am not able to find out what is going to be done about them. I am told to wait and see. Apparently the government is in need of some suggestions as to what to do in the maritime provinces.
I should like, first, to urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to take a greater interest in the welfare of Canadian National Railways employees, and to realize that his responsibility does not end with making funds available to the Canadian National Railways. He must see that Canadian National Railways employees who are walking the streets of the city of Moncton, and other Canadian National Railway points, are put back to work and that these unnecessary lay-offs, if I may borrow an expression from the minister, will not take place in increasing numbers. It was reported in the press that the reason the men were not taken back was because of certain seniority rights in the Canadian National unions. I had the opportunity of talking to R. P. Lellan, vice-president of the Canadian National system, federation 11, and Atlantic president of this federation, and I understood that the press release said the government would make funds available to assist in the re-employment of the Canadian National shop men who were laid off.
In this particular lay-off to which I refer there were 110 men laid off in the shop in our area and also some 50 men laid off in what is known as running repairs. I understand that no action has been taken by the government to induce the management of Canadian National to help those men in running repairs who were laid off. These men worked in the roundhouse and yards and many of them belong to what is known as the car man's craft. I further understand that the work planned in the Moncton area covered an increase in car production in the car shops. In connection with this new program, the management wanted to employ the laid off craftsmen in other trades, but the crafts organizations, having their own

seniority arrangements, wanted to see the car men who were laid off re-employed first. I feel the government should make sufficient funds available so that both the 110 men laid off in the shops and the 50 men laid off in the running repairs will be re-employed.
Suggestions have been sent to me by people in the international association of machinists. I have a letter from Moncton lodge, No. 594 outlining their plan. It is addressed to me as the member for Westmorland, and it says in part:
We are aware of the understanding that serious consideration is being given by the Canadian National Railways of the letting of a contract to private industry rather than do this work at the Moncton shops. It was suggested that the Moncton frog shop work seven days per week so as to enable them to fill this order at straight time rates. This procedure is contrary to our wage agreement (Rule 2).
It is also the understanding that the amount of this contract will be a minimum of two and one half million dollars.
It is the considered opinion of local lodge No. 594, I.A.M. that the best possible solution to the problem is to acquire additional equipment so as to enable the frog shop to compete with private industry inasmuch as production is concerned. This, needless to say, would mean a great deal to the economy of Moncton and the surrounding area.
A few days ago I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport another letter from the Canadian National war veterans association, dated October 28, 1957. The minister said he had received a copy of this letter. The association protested the dismantling and scrapping of thousands of dollars worth of very valuable machinery in the Canadian National Railways shops. These are suggestions which, in so far as the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways are concerned will assist us.
I could agree with the statements made in the speech by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) on May 14, 1957, which is reported in the Moncton daily Times. He is reported as saying that there is a definite barrier between the maritimes and other parts of Canada. The hon. member also told this group that something should be done to encourage our youth to stay in the maritime region. He said that each year we have lost many of our brains to other provinces; it is a concern for us which is alarming. I have noticed an increase in the number of people leaving Westmorland county since June 10 because many times I have been called upon to assist them in obtaining papers and documents to enable them to go to the United States and find employment. I feel that the time has come to carry out major public projects to combat the recession now taking place in our area.
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy
As hon. members of this house know, one matter of great interest to us is the Chignecto canal. This proposed canal would be about 18 miles long and would connect Northumberland strait with the bay of Fundy. I should like to point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is reported to have said in Saint John, New Brunswick, on May 4 that he considered the canal to be part of the St. Lawrence seaway system. Upon completion of this canal, ships using the St. Lawrence seaway and wishing to proceed to South American points would save 400 or 500 miles, depending upon their destination. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks), who is also the minister for the province of New Brunswick, has always been a great supporter of this project and has brought it to the attention of this house year after year. I hope that now he is in a position to do something about it he will, and that he will be supported by the parliamentary assistant from the province of New Brunswick, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who has also supported the project at public meetings in Saint John. Many other members from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have signified their support of this project. One of the strongest assurances concerning this canal was given recently in the house by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne). I know that if the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska had been elevated to a cabinet post, as we in New Brunswick expected he would be after the remarks of the Prime Minister in Campbellton, we could put the faith that we would like to put in his assurances.
Another matter of great interest to the people of Westmorland county-and, of course, to the people of Prince Edward Island-is the construction of the causeway from Westmorland county to Prince Edward Island. Exploratory drilling has taken place in Westmorland county and I understand it is to ascertain the quality and quantity of stone that could be used in this project. We are all waiting for some announcement from this government concerning this project in particular. I am not at this time going to go into the merits of this causeway in full because there is on the order paper, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kings, (Mr. Macdonald) a resolution which will give us an opportunity to tell the house of the many advantages of this proposed causeway.
Another matter that was proposed some time ago, in fact, it was brought forward by the last government, was the power project for the maritime provinces. The idea behind this power plant is to make available power in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It has

The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy been said that it will be built in the province of Nova Scotia at Springhill and it has also been said that it will be built at Saint John, New Brunswick. One reason that it would be built at Saint John, New Brunswick, would be that if coal became scarce, oil could be shipped in by sea to supply this power project. The reason given that it should be built at Springhill, Nova Scotia is its nearness to the source of coal. I have a suggestion to make in this regard. I suggest that the plant be built farther up the bay of Fundy at some point on Shepody bay. My suggestion would be that the plant be constructed at Dorchester which could be open to navigation the year round if, as suggested, they needed oil and it is only some 40 miles from the coal mines in Springhill.
Just about a year ago the Moncton Times sent me a complimentary copy of their paper containing a front page editorial scoring the hard money policy. In it they quoted Premier Flemming who pointed out that there was no inflation in the maritime provinces and he said that this policy should not be applied in the Atlantic region. I quote from the report in the paper of Wednesday, September 26, 1956 as follows:
"But I do not believe that this policy should be applied indiscriminately to all provinces and to all regions of the Canadan economy. The condition of the New Brunswick economy and, indeed, the condition of the economy of the whole Atlantic region, differs greatly from that of other parts of Canada."
And he urged that allowance he made when monetary restrictions were applied.
There has been no change. I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) the other day about the "castor oil policy". Perhaps he did not understand me. I will read what Premier Flemming has to say about that. This is quoting from the same paper:
Conceding that the hard money policy was necessary to prevent inflation in the booming central provinces, New Brunswick's premier said its application in this province was "about as sensible as a man with 10 children feeding them all castor oil regardless of their individual needs."
If this was true then, it must be true now; but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if it was true then, we are still getting the castor oil treatment enunciated by Premier Flemming.
I should now like to turn to a subject about which I spoke last session and for my effort on that occasion I received both praise and criticism. That subject has to do with C.B.C. television operations. After the election this year Time magazine printed an article. I am going to quote from Time magazine of July 8, 1957 in which there is a report of a statement of a C.B.C. official.


The paragraph was entitled "long haired nut boys", referring back to some remarks last year and it reads in part as follows:
Because the C.B.C. is free from obligation to make a profit, it is unfazed by program ratings. It experiments boldly with highbrow plays . . . Explains one C.B.C. official "If only five per cent of the population might be expected to find a program interesting then we do not expect more than five per cent to watch it. You cannot judge the value of a program by its rating."
I do not know how else you would judge a program. But apparently these people set themselves up as sole judge and jury. This is the attitude that I complained about last year in the House of Commons, namely that whether you like it or not you are going to have to watch what they put on if you are going to watch television at all.
In the part of the country from which I come we can receive, with a good set, four television stations. At the same time they produce C.B.C. programs and send them over all stations. With the percentage of five per cent interested in seeing this type of program, I wonder whether this C.B.C. official thinks for a moment that there is a large percentage of people in Canada who want to listen to someone advocating the communist line. We had on our station a C.B.C. program on which Joe Salsberg appeared and advocated the communist line. I have seen him the second time talking on the communist line and he said that he was a communist. He qualified that statement by saying that he was some particular type. But I do not think we as Canadian citizens want to listen to this man on programs for which we are paying. I think the percentage of those who want to listen would be very small.
At the same time we have other programs that are positively the wrong type, in my opinion, for showing at particular hours. From five o'clock to six o'clock over our station there is shown a C.B.C. program called "Fighting words". I think that is the name of it. Lately I have had more than one complaint about showing this program at this time. For over six months now in the Moncton district covered by this station we have been treated to a discussion on prostitution, homosexualism and allied subjects. That was between five o'clock and six o'clock at night when the children, including my own, are watching television. In one particular case a gentleman told me that this program came on and that his family were watching it when one of his children, age about 12, became embarrassed and he said, "We don't want to listen to that" and he got up and turned it off. That is not the kind of program we want in our province when our children are awake and are watching television.

I do not want anybody to think for a moment that I am attacking any particular person producing this program or anybody who cannot answer; because if there is anybody who can answer anybody, it is the C.B.C. Last year when in this House of Commons I came up with some honest criticism with regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a week later a program-the same program, I might say-came out and discussed what I had said in the House of Commons here; and the concensus on that program was, "This man either wants to be or will be defeated at the next general election". They have national coverage. When I go on television I must pay for it for local coverage.
When the Prime Minister came to Moncton on May 4 he is reported by the Moncton Times as saying that if they were elected they would set up a body independent of the C.B.C. I would ask the Prime Minister what action has been taken in this matter. I would suggest to him that this is an urgent and national matter. We here in Canada hold very dear our way of life, our families and our Christian ideals. This programming of communism, prostitution and homosexualism can have a serious effect.
I understand that some of these programs are produced and sold below cost to sponsors by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Now I may be told that there is a check on these matters by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who look after the security problems involved but the R.C.M.P., although excellent law enforcing officers, should not I think be asked to take on the additional job of acting as judges. Somebody else may argue that there is a board of the C.B.C. which censors these things; well if there is it is a case of one person sitting on his own judgment which is against every rule of law.
Although I am not one of those who looks for a communist under every bed, I do not like the way things are going with respect to this programming. The pattern, if it is a pattern, coincides with that used by communist groups and carried out in communist countries. The first idea of the communists is to destroy the moral fibre of the nation, destroy the family unit and when this is accomplished the people are then ready to have imposed upon them a new way of thinking. We in Canada have always been very jealous of our way of living and today we have honoured the men who fought to save us from aggression of ideas from without. Let us be just as careful to safeguard our families, particularly our children, from within. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that a standing committee be set up so that the persons who are responsible to the 96698-614
The Address-Mr. Hansell public will have their decisions-whether right or wrong-judged by the people of the nation in the results of the general elections. In this way we will have a real democracy at work, safeguarding democracy.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the speech from the throne I think I should say I am sure we are all very happy to have witnessed the visit of Her Majesty to Canada particularly for the purpose of opening this session of parliament. I am sure we were all thrilled with the way in which the visit was conducted and recognize of course that the Queen herself in all her loveliness represented not only a tradition but the fact of loyalty to the crown which will linger with the British people, including the Canadian people for many many centuries to come. I wish to say in passing that no stone was left unturned to make the visit successful; the Queen endeared herself to the people of Canada and placed the crown in the hearts of our people in a way that has perhaps never been accomplished before.
I also wish in this connection to say a word with respect to the magnificent job done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in televising the royal visit. I have always been somewhat of a critic of the C.B.C. I listened to the previous speaker with a good deal of interest, especially so far as what he had to say in connection with the C.B.C. programs. I think I will go along with him just 100 per cent of the way. I suppose I will continue to be critical of the C.B.C. just so long as I feel its policies are unbalanced or indeed tend towards the propagation of socialistic and almost communistic ideas.
However, I give credit where credit is due and apart from my criticisms I repeat that the job they did in televising Her Majesty's visit and the opening of parliament was a magnificent job one that compares more than favourably with any similar undertaking by any network in the world.
Now the original motion of course is for an address to thank Her Majesty for her most gracious speech. I suppose on the face of that we would all want to convey our thanks to Her Majesty but, being the democracy we are, at the same time as we thank her we may register any complaints we have in respect to the activities of her ministers. This parliament is where we as representatives of the people of Canada may lay bare the complaints we have at the foot of the throne and some of us will indeed wish to register our complaints in this way.
One of the complaints I have is that I can find no difference between the basic policy of Her Majesty's government today and the

The Address-Mr. Hansell policy of the government which preceded it. I have never been able, I cannot now, and I do not expect I will ever be able to see any difference between the basic policies of the Conservative party and those of the Liberal party. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). It was a speech well prepared and well delivered; The hon. member went into a little bit of history with respect to the Liberal party and also the Conservative party, but I am sure when we come to analyse the situation we will discover that as far as basic policy is concerned, there is no difference. While I congratulate him on his speech I was disappointed that before concluding he did not lay down specifically the policy of the socialist party, but perhaps he may have thought it was not too necessary to do so for I am sure we all recognize that their basic policy is one of nationalization, in other words socialization.
Now I would like to reinforce my remarks with respect to the question of whether or not there is any difference between the two major parties in Canada. Let me refer for just one moment to their activities in this house. I do not want to deal with little things but sometimes the little things are an indication of the pulse of the situation. I have been here a good many years and I suppose some of us have become quite used to the way questions are asked and answered in this house. We certainly became accustomed to the way in which Liberal cabinet ministers for years were in the habit of answering questions, but I really expected that when there was a change in government there would perhaps be a change in some of the parliamentary activities of the government side of the house. But we have seen no changes. As a first illustration let me point out that on October 15, the day after parliament opened, I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) which I thought was extremely important in respect to the economic affairs of this country as they affect the people of Canada. As reported at page 17 of Hansard of that date I asked my question in the following words:
May I direct a question to the Prime Minister or the leader of the house. Would the government initiate a move to have a special parliamentary committee or even the banking and commerce committee meet to pursue a study of the reasons for the inflationary trend and the continued increase in the cost of living?
I knew that such a committee existed in the United States Congress which met not long ago and did admirable work on this subject. I asked this question because we were opening another parliament with a new


government in power and because I thought the cost of living, the question of inflation and the economic conditions of the country were serious enough to warrant a thorough examination by this parliament. I thought surely another government of a different stripe would now perhaps take up the cudgels of battle, institute such a study and bring forward something of value from such an investigation. But what happened? The Prime Minister answered my question in these words:
Mr. Speaker, this government, as always, will give consideration to anything for the benefit of the Canadian people.
Well now, what an answer! This was the same kind of answer some of us had been listening to for 22 years from the government that was in office before the present government came to power. That was the answer I received to what I regard-and I think all would regard-as a highly important question. Immediately following that, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) rose to his feet and is reported in Hansard as saying:
I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am sorry I was not able to give him notice. I should like to ask him, what is the difference between the attitude of the majority of your members now as compared to the attitude shown by the previous government and to which your members strenuously objected?
Now, notice the Prime Minister's answer:
It is not a question of attitude; it is a question of parliamentary rights.
There was, of course, an immediate chorus of "Oh, oh" by some hon. members and the hon. member for Vancouver East spoke again:
As a supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister if he does not find there is a difference when the shoe is on the other foot?
The Prime Minister made no reply to this. The point is that I had raised a question which is a matter of concern to every citizen of Canada and the government has deliberately closed its eyes to the subject through the Prime Minister brushing it off and saying, "As ever, we are always interested in anything that is for the benefit of the people of Canada." Over and over again we have heard that type of answer given to questions that have been asked by hon. members. I do not know if I was actually amazed by it, but just the other day when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was asked a question he said in effect, "You must remember that we inherited this situation from the previous government". What sort of answer is that?
Let me ask one question. If the present government did inherit the existing situation, what of it anyway? Did it not ask to inherit it? Of course it did, and the members of the government got just what they asked for.

Perhaps they did not really expect to get it, but they did. Just like Little Jack Horner, the Prime Minister put in his thumb and he pulled out a plum. Well, the members of the government got what they asked for and now they complain because they are faced with the problems that confront this country.
Hon. members will recall the nursery rhyme that begins, "Little Jack Horner sat in a corner". I thought perhaps I could write a little poem that would be apropos of the situation in which the government finds itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: I started off by writing,
"Little John Horner sat in a corner," and had to use the word "corner" because I could not find a word to rhyme with "Diefen-baker". I thought I might have to give up the effort but finally I did sketch this:
Little John "Dief",
Sat with a beef,
Discussing political pie.
He put in his thumb
And pulled a fast one
And said, "What a good boy am I!"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: You are wasting your time here; the new Ogden Nash.


Ernest George Hansell: The members of the present government asked to inherit the existing situation. They pulled out the plum and now they complain. Even today when questions were asked on orders of the day one government member said he was not aware that the situation today was any worse than it was under the previous government. What an answer! Another government member referred to the fact that he had not brought his crystal ball with him. Hope, hope, hope. He used words to the effect that he was looking into his crystal ball and hoping. That is not what the people of Canada want and that is not what we in this chamber want.
In answer to a question addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) he said he was only following the method used by the former minister of national health and welfare in answering the question put to him. We do not want him to follow that method. We want the members of the present government to come up with something new, fresh and dynamic, something that will appeal to the people of Canada as a solution to the grave problems confronting the country today.
Any government which inherits a situation and in a five-month period allows that situation to grow worse must be held
The Address-Mr. Hansell responsible for it. Let us now hear any reference to the present government inheriting bad policies or existing situations; that is a confession of failure. The government has inherited something with which it does not know how to deal.


An hon. Member:: They can be disinherited if they want to be.


Ernest George Hansell: We in this corner of the house have always contended that the difficulties which governments have to face from time to time are the result of a faulty financial policy and unless those faults are corrected we will never be able to solve those difficulties. That is the reason this group is here, the reason we are returned almost every election, and that is the reason each one of us was returned this election with four additional members.
Let me turn now to the subamendment proposed by the leader of the Social Credit party in Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Put it in poetry.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, not this time. I do not think very fast. It requires a great deal of time for me to write even a small jingle like the one I read. I do not have the brains that some people have. I have to think for a long time before I can compose poetry.
This is the subamendment proposed to this house by my leader the other day:
However, we regret that there is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that it is the government's intention to ask parliament to lay down a scientific, modern financial policy for Canada that will guide the Bank of Canada in its operations, bring about a speedy end to the present tight-money policy, and effectively check the ever-rising cost of living.
That amendment, Mr. Speaker, was devised by reason of the fact that unless there is a change in basic financial policy, the problems that confront Canada today will never, never be solved. But when this amendment was moved and the leader of the Social Credit party made his speech, which was the basis of the amendment, of course, he had to criticize the policy laid down by the Bank of Canada. In criticizing the policy laid down by the Bank of Canada he mentioned the name of the governor of the Bank of Canada. Well, well, what happened? We find that the Financial Post, one of Canada's leading orthodox financial papers, began to take my leader to task. It was not very ably done, either, but it was done in a way that should be far beneath the dignity of one of Canada's leading financial papers. This is what one of the editors said. I do not know what editor

The Address-Mr. Hansell wrote this article; I wish I knew so that I could name him as I am reading this editorial. This is from the Financial Post of October 26:
Mr. Low's contribution to the current Ottawa debate was a lecture on finance. It was an eye-opener to any who fondly believe that experience has cured the Crediters of their delusions.
First, Mr. Low did the cowardly and inexcusable.-


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Ernest George Hansell: I continue:
-He launched a violent personal attack on the governor of the Bank of Canada, a civil servant unable to defend himself.
Let me stop there just for a moment. Who said that any official of the Bank of Canada was unable to defend himself? Who said that? That is news to me. If the governor of the Bank of Canada, or any official of the Bank of Canada, wants to explain anything he can do so; for it seems to me that he is in a position even far above government.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Is he not
responsible to the Minister of Finance?


Ernest George Hansell: To answer my hon. friend's question, perhaps in some sort of legal sense he is, but in practice the Minister of Finance is responsible to him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: Now, then, any time the officials of the Bank of Canada want to come 'before the banking and commerce .committee of parliament all they have to do is to make a request and the banking and commerce committee will hear them. What is this nonsense about a civil servant unable to defend himself? I continue with the editorial:
Second, Mr. Low again revealed the Social Credit plan, if it achieved national power, to have that party run the extremely complex and delicate machinery of our monetary system.
There is a strong element of farce in Mr. Low s impudence about the bank governor. Mr. Coyne happens to be an extremely able person, unusually versed in the difficult art and science of central banking.
Well, perhaps he is; but no one is above criticism by this parliament, for we, as members of parliament, represent the people of Canada.
I am not going to take the time to read the whole editorial but farther along we find this:
The Social Crediters-quacks of the economic world-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: Thanks for the applause; we appreciate that. I am going to say this: the world in its present state was not brought

there by anyone in his right mind. I continue with the editorial:
The Social Crediters-quacks of the economic world-claim to have discovered that the monetary system is nothing but a nefarious plot to fleece the public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member but there is a rule against reading extracts from newspapers which relate to debates earlier in the session, and I should like to refer the hon. member to that rule which is citation 264 of Beauchesne s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition.
I should like to read a bit of it:
It is out of order to read extracts in a debate if they:-
Then there are a number of subheadings:
(a) refer to other debates during the same session-
(c)	contain unparliamentary expressions, as no language can be heard in quotation if it would be disorderly if spoken;
(d)	refer to, comment on, or deny anything said by a member;
(e)	allude to debates in the other house of parliament.
The extract comments on what an hon. member said earlier in the session and it seems to me it does contravene the rule.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose the hon. member could have risen on a question of privilege but this, to my mind, is extremely important because it takes the leader of the Social Credit party to task for what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want the hon. member to understand me to say he cannot refer to it, but to read these extracts from the paper is contrary to practice.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I will bow to your ruling because I think I have covered that part of the editorial which refers to the Social Credit party. I had not thought of the rule before. If I had I would not have read the article. However, there is another part of the article which does not refer to my leader, or what he said, and it is quite striking in contrast. It says:
This was seriously the belief of William Aber-hart, the Alberta buffoon, who arrived in politics via evangelism of the kind that goes in for predicting the end of the world. If the banks could pull unlimited "money" out of a hat, argued Bible Bill, so could the government; and he offered to pay everybody $25 a month, for nothing, forever. What's more, he assured the citizens no taxation of any kind would be needed to finance the handout.
Such were the preposterous economics of William Aberhart, a man of unfathomable ignorance on all economic questions.
The reason I read that, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. You see the illogic of the editorial writer here. He scores the leader

of the Social Credit group because he criticized the governor of the Bank of Canada, and he did not criticize him at all. He simply criticized the Governor's policy; but then, the editorial writer criticizes the leader of the Social Credit group for criticizing a man who the editor says could not speak in his own defence. And yet, what does the editor do but criticize a man who is long since dead, who cannot possibly come back from the dead to defend himself? Yet, he calls him a buffoon who arrived in politics via evangelism, of the kind that goes in for predicting the end of the world.
Some of us are mighty glad that a man like the late William Aberhart existed and put forth to the people of this country an appraisal of the present economic system that bleeds people almost to economic death through burdensome debt and taxation when at the same time our vast abundance of production is going to waste. Some of us are mighty glad that such a man existed, a man who, believe me, Mr. Speaker, has started a movement in Canada that will never die. Let the editor of the Financial Post know that. Let him know that he cannot kill this movement by that sort of wetting of pens and knocking out editorials on a typewriter. No sir, it will take more than that. Some of us are going to battle this thing through if we have to do it with our last breath.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. Long before the leader of the Social Credit party criticized the policy of the Bank of Canada, Hugh John Flemming, the premier of New Brunswick, did so. Let me emphasize that I am talking about the premier of New Brunswick. We do not want to get these men confused. I am talking about Hugh John Flemming, not Donald Methuen Fleming. Remember that. What did the premier of New Brunswick say in a speech delivered before the Atlantic provinces economic council long before the Social Credit leader made his speech in the house? Let me read from the Fundy Fisherman of October 9. For the sake of brevity I will break into the middle of the article but I am not altering the context. First, the article had this to say:
The colossal failure of the program-
The reference is to the program of the Bank of Canada.
-was illustrated on every hand-
They meant in Mr. Flemming's speech.
-and while the program was introduced inflation as defined by the Bank of Canada was non-existent, it has since become apparent that it is being created. After gathering force slowly over a period of months, the slump brought about by the Bank of Canada's policy was gaining in impact and was striking with particular force at the Atlantic provinces.
The Address-Mr. Hansell
That is from the news item in the Fundy Fisherman. Now, what did Hugh John Flemming say when he spoke to the Atlantic provinces economic council? Of course, I cannot read his whole speech. That would not be permitted and I recognize it is against the rules to read too much, but here are certain portions of his speech:
The purpose of this policy, as stated, has been to check the pressure of a strong over-all demand on a scarce supply of resources. But, I submit, where is the scarcity? According to the dominion bureau of statistics, retail trade in the Atlantic provinces in the first six months of this year failed to attain the level achieved in 1956.
In the country as a whole the tight money policy has not been successful in checking the rise in prices. In September, 1956, the consumer price index stood at 119. Today is stands at 122.6. The odd thing about the present situation is that prices go on rising and yet there are very few commodities in short supply. Indeed, over recent months, business inventories have been accumulating at quite a rapid rate. The only thing which appears to be in really short supply is money, particularly east of Montreal.
In the United States the rather odd monetary and economic situation we appear to be in has resulted in the United States senate finance committee holding hearings on the financial condition of the United States. These hearings began on June 18 and continued in high gear during July and August. The whole banking and financial structure of the United States is being subjected to a most careful and searching scrutiny.
The premier of New Brunswick continued:
I think that something similar should be under way in Canada. After all, our monetary system has not been given a really careful examination since the royal commission on banking and currency was appointed in 1933, almost a quarter of a century ago.
Hugh John Flemming said almost the same thing as the leader of the Social Credit party said in this house some days ago. But did the Financial Post criticize him? Oh no, they did not.


An hon. Member:: He was a Conservative.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, he was a Conservative and perhaps will turn out to be a good one. Do not think I have any idea that there are no good Conservatives in the ranks. There are some good ones. I have known them for a long time. I have known the Prime Minister, he is a fine man. The Minister of Finance is a fine gentleman, and you who have recently come here are mighty fine boys; yes sir, mighty fine boys. But after you have been here as long as some of us you will find how impotent you are.
You talk about the supremacy of parliament. What a laugh! All you can do in parliament is holler your head off like I am doing now. Whether or not anybody takes any notice of it, I do not know. You talk about the supremacy of parliament. That is really a joke. You talk about the supremacy of the government. That is another joke because

The Address-Mr. Hansell there is a government stronger than the government that governs the government. Yes, sir. I am telling you that unless they change their financial policies they will never solve the problems of this country.
Through the policy announced by the Bank of Canada not very long ago tight money has caused inflation. It has been accentuated. Instead of safeguarding the stability of the economy of the country they are running the country into the red, into the ground, and the people of the country are thereby suffering. The evidence is that of a disastrous failure. The cost of living continues to rise and that affects each and every individual man, woman and child within the borders of this fair land. Inventories of goods are continually growing, with less money to buy goods. If that is not the result of economic policy, what is it the result of? Let the government say what it is the result of.
Surplus production? Yes sir, wheat is spilling over and is being dumped in the open on the prairies while the world starves. If that is not the result of economic policy, what is it the result of? There is an abundance lying unused all over the ground. Warehouses are beginning to become overstocked while part of the world continues to exist on the lowest possible subsistence level, with some nations on the verge of starvation. Unemployment is growing. In Canada it has now reached approximately 200,000. I read a speech that the Prime Minister made somewhere the other day in which he mentioned the number of people who are employed in Canada. That does not give the picture at all. How many people are unemployed in Canada and why are they unemployed? If it is not because of a faulty economic system, tell me what it is, for every time there is an increase in unemployment there is a decrease in income and the people therefore are that much farther short of the necessary money to buy the vast production of goods from our farms and from our factories.
Municipalities are labouring under crushing financial burdens. That is the picture. Housing construction is gradually petering out. Agriculture which produces the foodstuffs of the nation and which could supply foodstuffs for other starving nations is struggling for its economic existence today. We read today of the terrific drop in the price of hogs and of the stock market falling continually.
What is responsible for that, if it is not economic policy? I challenge the Minister of Finance. I notice he is not in his seat at the moment; I do not know where he is, but it does not matter very much. Perhaps he is

running around trying to find markets or perhaps he is running around trying to convince somebody that he is right. I wish he would convince himself that there is something wrong, tackle that which is wrong and rectify it in an attempt to make Canada what it ought to be.
I say that this economic situation we are witnessing today is the direct and disastrous result of a policy that has been laid down by the Bank of Canada. The Prime Minister is in his seat now. I do not know whether or not he intends to take the opportunity of participating in this debate, but I wish he would say whether or not he opposes this policy that has been laid down by the Bank of Canada or is this government working hand in glove with that policy.


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


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps it is a good time for me to stop anyway. I did want to say something about what the Social Crediters propose to do, but thank you for reminding me, and I will do that some other time. We hope we will have plenty of opportunities.


Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings of pride and humility that I rise today to address this honourable house. I rise with pride because I have been privileged to participate in two historical events; one of which was the opening of this parliament by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and the other is that a Canadian of Chinese extraction now sits in this house for the first time. It is, however, with humility that I speak because I am aware of the tremendous responsibilities which rest upon me, not only as the first member of my race to sit in this house, but also to my constituents who have thought at all times of me only as a Canadian.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will feel some pride from my presence in this house as being one example of the kind of democracy that does exist in this country, I, personally, derive deep satisfaction from being here because hon. members may not know that, less than 10 years ago, Canadians of Chinese extraction did not have the provincial franchise in British Columbia. I understand that British Columbia was the only province that had that restriction. Since that time British Columbia has made amends so admirably that to that province must now go the credit for sending a Canadian Chinese to the House of Commons. While those of us in the Conservative party will take particular pleasure in my election, which election will refute any argument that this party

has been discriminatory to certain groups in the past, I am sure that hon. members on both sides will rejoice that we in this country have a system of government that does not extol its virtues by fanfare, but by expressing our belief in our principles by deeds and not words.
I wish to record also at this time, Mr. Speaker, my deep respect for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent). At the conclusion of the second day's sitting in this house, and because I was anxious to meet a man who is generally acknowledged to be a great Canadian, I went over and introduced myself to the right hon. gentleman, and he acknowledged my intrusion in the most gracious and courteous terms for which he has long been noted. I trust that when I leave this house, I shall leave with the same esteem and high regard in which all hon. members hold the right hon. gentleman.
It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak very briefly about a few things which have particular application to my constituency of Vancouver Centre. As you know, my constituency contains almost all of the downtown business and financial districts of the city of Vancouver. There is in it, among others, a very large group of clerical workers. Many of these workers, as indeed workers in all occupations, have at one time or another suffered severe financial loss through illness. It is with a view to alleviating that problem that I urge the government to give some consideration to extending the benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. A great number of people have contributed to this fund, and while the possibility of their being out of work is always present, I think the chances of their losing time through illness is much greater. Yet, while they are absent from work through illness, they cannot apply for benefits. I feel that the fund is now sufficiently established whereby benefits could be extended without making further demands on the government. These remarks, of course, are qualified in the light of the proposed national health legislation which this government plans to implement.
My next proposal has to do with the university students. I am sure that all hon. members will agree that, in this particular age, young people should be encouraged to attend universities. As one who, among others, attended university under rather straitened financial circumstances, I urge the government to give some consideration to exempting from income tax the summer earnings of university students. I think the loss in income to the government from this source would be quite small, while the benefit to be 96698-62
The Address-Mr. Jung derived by this particular class of people would far outweigh the temporary loss of income to this government.
Next, Mr. Speaker, the position of retired civil servants, as indeed the position of all senior citizens, veterans and disabled persons, will always occupy and have my prime interest. I shall defer my remarks on this subject because of the legislation which has been introduced. But I should like to suggest that an inquiry be made into this entire field of social legislation, which would examine old age pensions, health and unemployment insurance. I know this proposal is not new, but I submit that the object of this inquiry should be to insure that the administration of these overlapping agencies should be performed as efficiently as possible, rather than to see how much more should be granted at the present time.
My final proposal has to do with the immigration of Chinese nationals. My constituency contains the largest group of Chinese in Canada. Out of some 44,000, British Columbia has 10,000; Vancouver alone has approximately 7,000. But lest some hon. members think that I was elected only through the efforts of the Chinese community, may I explain that, if every one of the registered Chinese voters had voted against me, I still would have been elected with a substantial majority. I mention this point merely to emphasize a fact that most hon. members will appreciate, and that is that no person can be elected through the efforts of any one minority group. His support must be much broader.
I speak on this matter of immigration, Mr. Speaker, not because I advocate an influx of Chinese, but because I believe that we owe a moral obligation to the early Chinese immigrants who are now naturalized Canadian citizens. Many of our early immigrants had to pay a head tax ranging from $100 to $500 in order to enter Canada, and they were not allowed to bring their wives or families with them. They were thus, for a long time, deprived of a normal home life. Regulations were relaxed in 1947 which permitted, within limits, the entry into Canada of dependants of Chinese who were naturalized Canadian citizens. There is still, however, a number of families whose members are separated.
Without going into technical details, it is my intention to urge the government to expedite the entry into Canada of these dependants, so that the members of the Chinese community who have contributed so much to the development of this country, and who have been denied a home life for so long, may be able to enjoy a measure of

The Address-Mr. Jung happiness during the last few years before they pass on. The number of persons so affected is not large. I am informed by a responsible source that even if the government were to relax the regulations today to cover this category the total number affected would be approximately 6,000. Hon. members will appreciate the fact that this number is insignificant compared to immigration from other parts of the world. There is no danger whatsoever of a great influx. Once these people have been taken care of, then of course the immigration regulations will be applied alike to all immigrants, no matter from which country they come.
The early Chinese immigrants referred to Canada as Gun Shan, or Golden Mountain, because of the opportunities which this country held out to them. Material success came only to a very few. Nevertheless, these people still held to their faith in Canada. Today, these same people feel that their faith has been completely vindicated because they have seen the election of a Canadian Chinese to the House of Commons. They feel that whatever opportunities they missed, their children will now have.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, while I am dealing with the question of Chinese immigration, I think that it is appropriate that I say something about the rise of the Asiatic countries and their influence on world politics. It is not my intention to speak about things connected with government policy because I know that there are other hon. members who are more competent than I to speak on those matters. But because of my background, Mr. Speaker, and because of my ability to speak the language, I feel that in this particular field I can perhaps interpret to hon. members the thinking and the psychology of some of the Asian peoples. My remarks are therefore directed more at the approach which we might take towards these peoples.
Mr. Speaker, we have today two opposing forces, namely the eastern bloc, composed of Russia and her satellites, and the western bloc consisting of the commonwealth and the United States. There is no doubt that in the commonwealth we have a strong political unit; but counteracting this commonwealth group is the new Afro-Asian group which has emerged, and it is with this group that I wish to deal.
I think that a suitable starting point for my remarks would be to relate to you, Mr. Speaker, a comment made by one of the Asian delegates to the legal committee of the United Nations. In discussing international law this learned gentleman said that

international law should now begin to feel the influence and to receive the impact of the Asian point of view. To me, Mr. Speaker, that was a most significant statement because international law is a comparatively new field of law and is still in its evolutionary stage.
We have today two great systems of law, the British common law system and the system of law based on the Code Napoleon. The leaders of Asia, in a great number of cases, have received their legal training from either one of these two schools and they have tried to evolve a system which would have particular application to their countries. Some of these countries, in their newly found situations of freedom and independence, are now aggressively asserting their status. We all appreciate that in the assertion of their status many of them are still feeling their way and that, owing to certain periods in their history, they are sensitive to the manner of the approach which certain western countries make to them. Because of this sensitivity, I suggest that our approach to these countries might be different than to those countries which have had and enjoyed a longer period of political development.
To the oriental peoples particularly, Mr. Speaker, an approach based on reasoned argument, and presented with sympathy and courtesy rather than with an air of condescension or superiority is, I suggest, the kind of approach that will produce the desired effect of gaining their trust and co-operation. Because Canada is not, and will never be, I do not think, a major power, and because of our treatment of minority groups generally, this is the kind of approach that Canada can make without any sense of embarrassment or guilt. I suggest that Canada, by acting as the spokesman for the more highly developed countries, and because of our support for the United Nations and its agencies, can with facility and confidence explore new channels in order to help the west acquire the friendship and trust of this Afro-Asian bloc.
This Afro-Asian bloc, which today consists of 22 countries, is in great need of economic and social development. But many of these 22 countries, some of which are part of the commonwealth, are being assiduously wooed by Russia. Russia is extending to those countries aid in every conceivable form, from economic to military. I suggest that Canada, because of our unique position in world affairs established through a record and reputation of non-exploitation, is in a position to take the lead in contacting these

nations, on behalf of the western countries, for the purpose of extending a more vigorous policy of economic and social aid.
I say "a more vigorous policy" because since world war II it has always been Russia which has created para-military situations which leave the western countries gasping and desperately striving to recover. Why should we, with our superior resources and professed political sophistication, always be in a position where we are caught short? At one time we thought that the west was at least superior in technical achievements. That belief has now been dramatically shattered.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the satellite countries in Europe are beyond our reach and influence. They are too closely under the control of Russia. And so we have the Afro-Asian bloc as the remaining alternative on which to expend our efforts. The economic and military potential of this group staggers the imagination, and we in Canada with our 16 million people might do worse than to be on friendly terms with this bloc of countries which comprise almost a billion of the world's population. I believe that most of these countries want peace and that they need a period for economic development. Because of our limited resources, Canada alone cannot begin an overly ambitious program of economic aid to these countries. Nevertheless, the suggestion put forward recently that Canada take the lead in research into the use of commercial atomic power for these underdeveloped countries is one which to me merits serious consideration, notwithstanding some of the financial aspects involved.
The role which I have suggested for Canada insofar as the Afro-Asian bloc is concerned may not always be an easy one, because some of these countries, imbued with a newly-forged sense of nationalism and being jealous of their status, have unfortunately gone to the other extreme in order to impress upon the world their new position.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that probably none of the things that I have said are new; in fact all of what I have said may present difficulties of which others more qualified than myself are aware. Nevertheless, it is because I feel so strongly and so very deeply about the impact of the Far East upon world politics, and because I am concerned that we do not lose any more of the traditional friendship which this country has enjoyed with these countries that I say these things today, knowing full well that hon. members are already giving full consideration to these problems. Nevertheless, I, like other young people, have reserved the right to my generation of repeating the obvious with all the 96698-624
The Address-Mr. MacEachen courage we can muster. I know that I share with other hon. members the great faith that we have in the future of Canada, and I hope that in time we may see Canada emerge, not only as a great country but also as a great humanitarian nation.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of my remarks in this debate I wish to congratulate very sincerely the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat and who made such a very outstanding maiden speech which was received with sympathy and interest by all members of this house. I am also conscious as I rise to speak this afternoon that we, like all the other people of Canada, are celebrating a very important remembrance day and that if we do not interrupt the proceedings of the house in order to mark this occasion it is because we feel that the discharge of our parliamentary duties is more in line with the spirit of this day.
I wish also to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon your accession to your new post. Although I have been carrying these congratulations now for some weeks I feel they can be made with more substance today because the confident expectation expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) as to the outcome of your election has been well justified by the good humour and firmness with which you have guided us so far this session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: While I am on this sincere and complimentary theme I wish also to congratulate the mover, Mr. Smith (Calgary South) and seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the speech in reply for the very splendid manner in which they acquitted themselves in the first days of our sittings.
I cannot forego the proper courtesy of noting the presence in this house of nine new members from the province of Nova Scotia who are sitting here for the first time but, I regret to say, on the government side of the house. Hon. members who were present during the last parliamentary session will recall that there were 10 government supporters in the house and two members of the opposition. Well in this parliament there are also 10 supporters of the government and two members of the opposition and although I wish to congratulate these new members from Nova Scotia upon their election to this house I certainly cannot extend to them the same congratulations upon the location in which they find themselves this afternoon.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

The Address-Mr. MacEachen AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, just before the dinner recess I was referring to the rather obvious change that had occurred since the last parliament in the composition of the representation from the province of Nova Scotia. I believe that such a transformation could only represent a shift in public opinion in the maritime provinces and indeed in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in particular. I among others believe that the chief reason for this particular shift in opinion had to do with the skill with which the leader of the Conservative party had seized upon one of the chief and obvious problems of the Atlantic area. That was the fact that over the years the Atlantic provinces had not showed the same rate of economic development as other parts of the country. It is a problem that had affected the thinking of this parliament during my stay here and one which had been discussed often on various resolutions.
The present Progressive Conservative leader and his candidates, as I say, capitalized upon this particular and legitimate grievance and presented a commitment to the people of the Atlantic area prior to the election of June 10. I believe this commitment can be best represented as a promise to initiate in the Atlantic area an economic program, indeed an economic revolution, which would have as its chief effects, first of all the closing of the gaps between the incomes received by citizens of Nova Scotia and the rest of Canada, the establishment of new industries, and finally the creation of new employment opportunities which would halt the movement of population from the maritimes to the rest of Canada. These are effects which are honestly desired by all the citizens of the maritime provinces, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his candidates prior to the election chose as the particular instrument that would carry forward these desirable objectives the now famous Atlantic resolutions. I am happy to know that there are at least two persons in Canada who are still interested in the Atlantic resolutions; namely, the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) and the premier of Nova Scotia because we have had references made to these resolutions by the hon. member for Westmorland and on Saturday the premier of Nova Scotia also made a reference to these resolutions to which I will refer later.
However, I think it should be stated that these resolutions were received with great interest and great appeal by the citizens of the maritimes. Indeed, the Atlantic Advocate in its issue of July 1957 states that the seven Atlantic resolutions are of prime significance. The editor states:
The seven "Atlantic resolutions" are of prime significance. They constituted the seven-point election manifesto of the Progressive Conservative candidates in the four Atlantic provinces and were endorsed in their main principles by Mr. Diefenbaker.
Indeed, so seriously did the editor of the Atlantic Advocate take the Atlantic resolutions that he suggested a new portfolio should be created in the Canadian government. He thought the problems of shepherding the resolutions through the labyrinths of Ottawa would be so formidable that the example set by the British government in having a special minister for Scotland should be applied to the four Atlantic provinces and we should have a secretary of state for the Atlantic provinces. Well, I trust if such a portfolio is established the minister who holds it will have greater success than has his counterpart in Scotland in bringing the needs of Scotland to the attention of the British parliament.


Mr. MacEwan:: You leave that up to us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I must say that we have had no indication that the government intends to establish such a portfolio, but we do have a presentiment of the attitude of the government thus far on the importance of these Atlantic resolutions. One of the Atlantic resolutions was the establishment of a Canadian coastguard. On October 29, 1957, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) addressed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) asking him the intentions of the government with respect to a Canadian coastguard. I am sure that hon. members will recall the answer given by the minister which is to be found at page 549 of Hansard of that date. It will be clear to any person who has read the answer that up to the present the government has made no decision to change the arrangements made by the previous Liberal administration with reference to a Canadian coastal service of this type. That was the first intimation we had of the fate of the Atlantic resolutions.
Some days ago, on October 31, the hon. member for Westmorland addressed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) having to do with a further resolution calling for special fiscal considerations to encourage the location of industries in the Atlantic provinces. I believe the answer of the Minister of Finance deserves greater attention

than the answer on the previous resolution. The answer of the Minister of Finance will be found on page 603 of Hansard of that date. Suffice it to say that the hon. member for Westmorland asked the minister:
What special fiscal consideration is being given to private enterprises to encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic area?
In reply, the Minister of Finance stated:
-if my hon. friend will be a little more specific I think I may be able to give him a more satisfactory answer.
Well, it was clear to me, as it must have been to every other hon. member in the house, that the Minister of Finance did not even recognize this particular question as having to do with an extremely important resolution put forward by his party in the Atlantic provinces. Later, in an effort to recover whatever ground had been lost in his first answer, the Minister of Finance recommended to the hon. member for Westmorland that he consider the measures in the speech from the throne on this particular subject. Here, of course, he committed an even greater error because there is no reference whatsoever in the speech from the throne to any fiscal considerations that might be given to the encouragement of industry in the Atlantic provinces.
The Atlantic resolutions also contained a special inducement that policies would be introduced to encourage the decentralization of industry in the Atlantic provinces, calling for more crown corporations for that area and a bigger share of defence expenditures. The hon. member for Westmorland, with I think exemplary interest in his constituents, again addressed a question to the Prime Minister who replied that when action had been taken on this particular subject it would be announced to the house.
There we have, Mr. Speaker, the early reception of the government to this major manifesto in the Atlantic provinces. I trust that the later reception of the government will be more in line with the statement made by the premier of Nova Scotia last Saturday at Halifax when addressing a very important gathering of his fellow Conservatives. As reported in today's issue of the Halifax Chronicle Herald the premier of Nova Scotia said that all the Atlantic resolutions would be put into force as soon as proper study had been given them and legislation was prepared.
The premier of Nova Scotia has given us in Halifax assurances on the subject of the Atlantic resolutions that we have not yet received from the government of Canada. I trust that the very optimistic tones sounded by the premier in Halifax will be simply
The Address-Mr. MacEachen a forecast of a categorical statement by the Prime Minister that all the resolutions that were adopted as part of his manifesto will be put into force, and I will even accept the qualification of the premier of Nova Scotia, after proper study and when they can be put into legislative form.
So much for the Atlantic resolutions; I want to refer for a moment to the references made in the speech from the throne to development in the Atlantic provinces. The speech from the throne states that:
As an immediate start upon a program of more extensive development in the Atlantic provinces, you will be asked to authorize, in joint action with the provincial governments, the creation of facilities for the production and transmission of cheaper electric power in those provinces.
This particular policy has been heralded by members opposite as a new deal for the Atlantic provinces. Well, we welcome this particular deal. It is not a new deal; it is simply a repetition of the deal that was offered to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the budget of Mr. Harris last spring. In so far as this particular proposition will contain the merit of the previous proposal, then it certainly should be endorsed by this house and by the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
I think the elements of the previous proposal are worthy of repetition. The power proposal was first based, not upon suggestions made in this house by any hon. member but by a study that had been undertaken into the prospects of thermal power development in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick by Professor Christie of Johns Hopkins University, who is regarded as one of the outstanding experts on thermal power in North America.
As a matter of fact, Professor Christie made three or four small reports on this subject and-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Quote what your leader said.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am ready to deal with what my leader said on the subject and I hope the honourable member will be able to deal with what his leader said on these particular subjects.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You were in office 22 years; what did you do?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this particular proposal had the germ of a very important idea because it called for the unification of the power systems of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick under a central authority, and later that particular intention was expected to be carried out through handing over this particular work to the

The Address-Mr. MacEachen Northern Canada Company. The federal government, in its first proposal, also promised to pay the costs of transmission lines and to pay the cost of building those power plants in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
There was then another very particular problem that arose in connection with this power development in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and is the particular problem which the hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned a moment ago. There were two interests involved in this power proposal. First of all was the guarantee of the use of the cheapest fuel because it was absolutely necessary that power be generated and distributed in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick by the cheapest possible fuel. That was in line with the needs of the domestic and industrial consumers in those two provinces.
The second interest, of course, was the interest of the Nova Scotia coal industry. It was an absolute necessity that this power be generated from coal because of the need of expanding markets for the Nova Scotia coal industry. Now, there appears to be a conflict of interests between these two desirable objectives; but that apparent conflict, Mr. Speaker, was overcome by the previous government in its commitment to this house and to the country that coal would be used in those power plants. It was further stated that in any particular market situation that coal was more expensive than the cheapest competing fuel, coal would be assisted to the extent that it could be used in those power plants.
There was never any question that coal would not be used in those plants, and there was never any question that the preceding government had not given a commitment that if necessary coal would be assisted in order to compete with the cheapest possible fuel.
In the course of the campaign, as is customary, there were many charges and counter-charges made on this particular power proposal and I hope that what was said in the campaign will not permit this very important project to be lost in political bickering. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to place before the house the statements of the Prime Minister with respect to subventions on coal.
In the speech from the throne and later in his first speech made in the debate the Prime Minister said that his government was prepared to pay subventions on the movement of coal for power purposes in the maritime provinces. I suggest that the statements made by the Prime Minister in the course of the campaign have no other interpretation than that his government would be prepared to pay subventions, not only on the movement

of coal for power purposes but on the movement of coal for all purposes in the Atlantic provinces, and that is why I feel it is so important to place on record the remarks of the Prime Minister on the subject of subventions on coal.
The Prime Minister spoke at a number of places and made commitments on this subject. He spoke at New Glasgow and Amherst in Nova Scotia and at Minto in New Brunswick. At New Glasgow on April 30, at a meeting at which Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia had previously asked for an extension of coal subventions, the leader of the Conservative party said, and I quote from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 1, 1957:
If we form a government I tell you, Mr. Premier, there will be subventions for coal In these provinces, according to your request and to the demands of the people.
Hon. members will note there is no qualification about coal for power purposes.


Donald MacInnis: Quote from Premier Stanfield the same evening.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Again at Amherst the Prime Minister reverted to the same subject to point out that the subventions on coal paid by the federal government were nothing more than a subsidy which Nova Scotians already had in order to compete with the central provinces, and he is reported by the newspaper I just mentioned as saying:
What we want is coal subventions within the province.
In the light of this statement, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is perfectly clear that the people of Nova Scotia had the right to expect that the new government would provide these subventions for all purposes and without delay. Indeed, the people of the province of New Brunswick were led to the same expectation because the Prime Minister, speaking in Minto, said:
There should and must be a subvention on coal transported within these provinces for power purposes.
Later, speaking in Cambridge, Nova Scotia, on June 3, the Prime Minister stated:
There is something strangely peculiar about the fact that Nova Scotia coal delivered in New Brunswick is higher in price than it is when delivered in Montreal. There is a need, and-
These are the significant words.
-we undertake to supply that need by providing a subvention on maritime coal.
Not just a subvention, Mr. Speaker, on coal to be used for generating power but on all coal moving in the maritime provinces. The government has had an opportunity in the representation of the estimates to the house to widen the basis of the subvention

for coal but no action has yet been taken either on the movement of coal for power purposes or on the movement of coal for all purposes. Just recently, in reply to a question of mine, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) told us that no order in council and no new rate had been established for the movement of coal in the maritime provinces. This is a very important matter and could have been dealt with quickly by the new government without delaying and waiting for an opportunity for legislation because no legislation is required. If there is any hon. member opposite-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The old government had
22 years to deal with it and did not do anything.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We never made any such promise.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If there is any hon. member opposite who feels I have been unfair to the Prime Minister in asserting that his commitment was for all coal and not just for coal for power, then I refer that hon. gentleman to a statement made in Halifax on Saturday by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) who stated, among other things, that the development of the coal industry through subventions on coal moving in the maritimes would be put into effect. On page 6 of the same newspaper he is quoted as having made the same statement.
Mind you, as the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys knows, there is a good deal of difference in making a promise to put a subvention on the movement of coal for power purposes because in Nova Scotia each year about 400,000 tons of coal are moved for thermal power purposes in that province.


Howard Russell MacEwan: And there will be more
very soon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: However, for all coal moved within the Atlantic provinces there is represented 55 per cent of the total coal produced in Nova Scotia which reaches about 3 million tons, and if we accept the suggested figure of $4 a ton for the per ton rate that is attributed to Premier Flemming of New Brunswick, it means the difference between about $1 million or $1.5 million and $12 million. Therefore the government should really make up its mind as to when, first of all, it will clarify this situation so far as the people of Nova Scotia are concerned, and once clarification is made it should use the power which it now has under legislation to put these promises made to the coal industry of Nova Scotia into effect without further delay.
The Address-Mr. MacEachen


Donald MacInnis: Suppose you tell us what
you know about the coal industry. Let us hear what you know about the coal industry.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to assure my
hon. friends from Nova Scotia that their interruptions on this subject have no particular bearing either on the facts stated or the readiness with which their Prime Minister will carry out the pledges made to the people of Nova Scotia, some of which have likely resulted in their presence in the house tonight.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are merely complaining that we did not do in 17 weeks more than you did in 22 years.


Mr. SI. Laurent (Quebec East):: You promised in 17 hours more than we promised in 17 years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The record sounds pretty bad.


An hon. Member:: Don't get your notes mixed up.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word now about the problem of trade because it is another problem concerning which the Conservative party has made quite a number of statements and about which there is much to be said by a member from the province of Nova Scotia. We know that the problem of trade has been under discussion in the house not only at this session but at preceding sessions. The most revolutionary statement made on trade, however, was made by the Prime Minister in which he suggested radical surgery and the shift of 15 per cent of Canadian purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom. The only reason I mention this statement is that later in the development of the subject the British chancellor of the exchequer suggested that consideration be given to establishing a free trade area between Canada and the United Kingdom.
The people of the province of Nova Scotia have always been interested in trade and our interest has never reached a concrete realization at any time since prior to confederation. As a matter of fact, the Minister of National Revenue, speaking in Halifax last Saturday, stated that it was the intention of his government to restore the conditions that existed prior to confederation. We know that the economic conditions which accounted for the prosperity of Nova Scotia prior to confederation and, indeed, up to 1878, were based upon free trade. Those of us who study history know as well that it was the members from the maritime provinces, particularly the

The Address-Mr. A. B. Macdonald Liberal members, who prevented the introduction of a national policy of tariff protection until 1878. We know that 1878 signalized the introduction of that tariff policy and the gradual and eventual debilitation of Nova Scotia trade based on worldwide commerce.
We know as well that there was a great effort made in 1911 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to re-establish a system of free trade between Canada and the United States. That period is still fresh in the minds of Nova Scotians, because again we lost our search for free trade. Today we are still waiting for the present Prime Minister to seize upon the opportunity presented to him by the British chancellor of the exchequer to establish free trade with the United Kingdom for Nova Scotia and all of Canada. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister, speaking in Sydney just before the election, stated that the election of a Progressive Conservative government in Canada would mean a return to those policies which kept the maritimes in the forefront decades ago. Well, if the Prime Minister is really honest and sincere, as I think he is, he will realize that the only way that this condition can be restored is to take a courageous and statesmanlike attitude and really go forward with the British in establishing a system of free trade.
Before I came here, Mr. Speaker, I travelled through my constituency of Inverness-Richmond. In every part of that constituency I saw the lumber industry languishing because the British purchasers did not have the dollars with which to buy the products of Nova Scotia. If we had a system of free trade with Britain, the British manufacturers would be able to earn the dollars in Canada that would enable them to buy the goods of the primary producers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and the provinces on the west coast of Canada. I do not believe this proposal, which means so much to my province, should have been received by the shocked silence of the Minister of Finance, but should have been accepted as a whole-hearted response of the British government to assist the Prime Minister in his efforts not only to raise the standards in Nova Scotia but also to divert 15 per cent of trade from the United States to the United Kingdom.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Kingsway, to take part in this debate. Vancouver-Kingsway is an area in southeast Vancouver, an urban area. The people come from many diverse national origins and cultures. They are thrifty and industrious, and I venture to say there is a higher percentage of home owners in

Vancouver-Kingsway than in any other part of Canada. Vancouver, itself, is probably the most rapidly growing city in Canada. It might almost be called the Shangri-la of Canada, attracting people from all the other provinces to its climate, scenery and sunshine although I must admit that at this time of the year the liquid sunshine is more usual than the ordinary kind.
Vancouver may be said to be right at the centre of the crossroads of the world. Hon. members should not smile at that suggestion. It is half way between London and the orient; half way between Moscow and Latin America; half way between Ketchikan, Alaska and Tia Juana, Mexico; in fact, Vancouver is so central many important people say that they simply cannot afford to live anywhere else.
In taking part in a broad debate such as this, Mr. Speaker, in which so much can be said, I feel a little bit like the mosquito in a nudist camp; I don't know where to begin. However, begin I must, and I am speaking in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). What does that amendment do? The amendment welcomes the promises in the speech from the throne of increases in social security measures, as well as the promised tax relief. Certainly, we in this corner of the house are not going to be guilty of any obstruction. We want to see these measures on the statute books as quickly as possible. We are glad that the breakdown of parties in this house means that the long-forgotten people of Canada have to be given some consideration in so far as social security measures are concerned. We are pleased that neither of the old parties can, in this parliament at any rate, hide behind a large majority and disregard the needs of the people.
We do regret, however, that the increases proposed for old age pensioners, the blind, the disabled and the veterans, have not gone far enough to protect these people who are caught in the spiral of rising living costs. The other day the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea), speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, charged the Liberals with bribing the electorate in the last election by promises of pension increases that amounted to no more than the cost of two cups of coffee per day. After all that campaign oratory and all those promises the Conservative mountain has now laboured and brought forth an increase equal only to the cost of three cups of coffee per day. Yet we have to be grateful for small mercies.
We cannot forget the glaring oversights in the speech from the throne. Surely, this new government cannot continue to turn a blind eye on the twin problems of inflation

and unemployment. How can anyone say that in this year of grace 1957 Canada can afford the human wastage involved in rapidly increasing unemployment.
When speaking last Friday night the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said unemployment was, to use his words, "not generally serious" in Canada. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that it is very serious in British Columbia. The latest official figures we have show that in September of this year unemployment in British Columbia, the Pacific area, stood at 29,800. The previous year the figure for unemployment was about half of that amount. In other words, it is twice as bad this year. Unemployment, even on that scale, is a social crime. Indeed, as Talleyrand, the famous French diplomat said, it is worse than a crime, it is a blunder. Today we are locked in a struggle with the totalitarian regime of the soviets for the hearts and minds of the uncommitted millions of Africa and Asia; a struggle for moral as well as material ascendancy. Unemployment has become something the western world simply cannot afford.
Neither can we afford inflation. In the last two years rising prices, like a thief in the night, have stolen from the pay envelope, from the shopping budget, from the bank account, as much as $5.50 of every $100. Even the vaunted pension increase which government members are heralding so much of $15, that is the Liberal and Conservative increase combined, when judged even in the light of prices as recent as 1949 is not an increase of $15 at all but only $4.70. In other words, in terms of the purchasing power of a dollar a short eight years ago the federal pension we are offered today is only $44.70; that is certainly not a large increase. This process of inflation, therefore, is not comparable to any petty theft at all, it is grand larceny. While prices continue to rise, to date the government has blandly ignored the whole problem, as though hoping it will go away if only no one notices it.
I think it is worse than that, Mr. Speaker. I think the government are relying on the classic solution for inflation of the orthodox economists, the solution of the big business and financial interests of Bay street, Toronto, and the other centres. What is their solution for inflation? Their solution is that to cure inflation you must have a little unemployment. They feel that if only there is not too much money jingling in the pockets of ordinary Canadians, then prices will level off. I believe that cure, of course, is worse than the disease. It reminds me of the doctors of olden times whose cure for any human ailment was to apply a leech and draw off a pint or two of blood from the body of the unfortunate
The Address-Mr. A. B. Macdonald patient. But who can say, in the kind of world in which we live today, that we can afford the national hemorrhage involved in thousands of unemployed, numbering among them our most skilled and productive workers.
Finally, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) calls attention to the need for social and economic planning. I do not think the government should any longer be afraid of those two little words "social planning". Surely the cure for inflation is not to have a little bit of unemployment but to plan investment capital both to protect consumer prices on the one hand and to maintain employment on the other. If the big interests which for the last 10 years have made of Canada a profiteer's paradise are not prepared to co-ordinate production and distribution in accordance with the abilities and needs of the Canadian people, then it is high time that this parliament with a united voice reminded them of their duties as well as their privileges.
In listening to the debate on cash advances to prairie farmers I could not help but connect that matter with the need for social planning. It is not that I hold myself out as an expert on farm questions. I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar still gets a laugh when he recalls how 12 years ago when I saw a pile of straw on the prairies, I asked him why the farmers grew that. I think he told me that they grew it to hold up the heads of wheat. But while I am not a farm expert-in fact, far from it-I cannot help observing the folly of unplanned scarcity, free enterprise economics. Here is Canada with our granaries bulging with good foodstuffs and our people in need of many of the necessities for making a good life and there, for instance, is Japan hungry and anxious to exchange with us many of the goods which she can produce very well. Why can such an exchange not take place? Would not both countries be the richer for it? Of course they would. But how can that take place when here in Canada we are hard put to it to keep our own people at work, let alone receive goods from other countries.
The real issue surely must remain an issue between unplanned scarcity and planned abundance. I would therefore ask the government not to be afraid of those two little words in the amendment namely, "social planning". We wish them well in carrying out their responsibility to transact public business at this time. But they should be reminded that that is not only their right but their constitutional duty. There has been too much bantering talk from the government benches
978	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. B. Macdonald in this parliament about a snap election. Even the Prime Minister, when he gets into some small corner or other, likes to threaten the house darkly with the possibilities of an election, while his excited but uninformed supporters pound their desks behind him. The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), speaking in Toronto not long ago, said that the Conservative party was already engaged in a federal election campaign.
However, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada expect this government, like any other one, to carry out their constitutional duty, to forget electioneering politics and to attend to the transaction of that public business which they were elected to transact. Their constitutional responsibilities in this situation have been well defined by many authorities. Perhaps the foremost one is Canada's own Dr. Eugene Forsey who wrote a book entitled "The Royal Power of Dissolution". The opinion of the experts boils down to this.
Under the usages and conventions of our constitution, it is incumbent upon a government, including a minority government, to carry on with the transaction of public business unless they are defeated in the house or unless they meet obstruction in the house. This government, from what has been said, is not in sight of defeat in this house; and it could hardly be said that there has been any obstruction in the house. Indeed, all parties in the house have helped to see that their legislation has been quickly passed.
I therefore think it is well to remember that there is, in circumstances such as these, a constitutional duty to put the transaction of public business before the political expediency of the government party, even if it thinks it might gain political advantage from an early election. Not that we in this corner of the house-I think perhaps the hon. member opposite was going to say this -are concerned about an early appeal to the people. We are not boys to be frightened by gibes from the government benches. But nevertheless, loose talk about an election, and the kind of loose talk we have heard, seems to me to indicate that those who engage in it forget that this government, like any other one, was elected to transact public business and that as long as it can do so in this parliament, its duty is to carry on while this condition prevails.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex Wesi):: You will not vote for the amendment, then.


Mr. Coldwell:: Page Arthur Meighen.


An hon. Member:: On loose talk?
(Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway).]


Major James William Coldwell: No; on the rights of parliament over a government regarding an election.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: In
this debate reference has been made to something of great concern to British Columbia, namely the fabulous profits that have been reaped by the natural gas pipe line promoters. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar placed on Hansard the other day an indictment of these interests that should not fall on deaf ears anywhere in this house. But what has the Conservative party done after all the election promises, after the campaign oratory in which they promised to protect the people of Canada from those whom they described as "piratical profiteers and buccaneers"? Their answer has been to set up a royal commission, the last resort of a government which wants delay, delay, delay. Here is what the Financial Post says-and it is a paper which should be close to Conservative thinking- about that royal commission. In its issue of October 19, 1957 there is a story headed "Tory move picks gas out of current politics" and it is therein stated:
Politically the move is being looked at with great interest. The Conservatives made a lot of noise in the recent session against Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in particular, but most of them now think that the pipe line deal was pretty good.
By setting up the royal commission, which may take months in its investigation, the Tories effectively take the pipe line out of current politics, and they have an answer to the C.C.F. which is expected to move for nationalization of the whole line.
There it is, the time-honoured or rather time-dishonoured method of getting a government off the hook. But even worse in this case, it is a method of getting the pipe line profiteers off the hook. For that commission, with its wide terms of reference, will take at least 18 months, I would say, to complete its hearings and make its report. Then how long after that will it be before the government contemplates action? Well after the next election, I dare say, as hon. members opposite are no doubt thinking. But by that time it will be too late and the millions of dollars in illicit profits that have been made by these pipe line profiteers will have been built into the gas rates charged to the Canadian consumer.
All across Canada the story of profiteering in this public service has been the same. It has been a story of profiteering on a scale that would make the robber barons of 100 years ago wet their lips with envy. A recent issue of Time magazine stated that the tax-free capital gains netted by the promoters of Trans-Canada up to July 1 of this year were estimated at $300 million.

That amount, going into a few pockets taxfree, is almost three times what this house voted a week ago as an addition to the old age security legislation and in almost every province of Canada the story has been the same-Quebec natural gas, Alberta Trunk, northern Ontario-all stories of private killings at public expense. All, I should say with the exception of the province of Saskatchewan which at the local level at least made sure that this public service has been put under public ownership for the benefit and under the control of the people it serves.
My province of British Columbia is particularly concerned with this problem. The company which services us with natural gas is the Westcoast Transmission Company; that is a company which is substantially controlled by a giant United States firm called Sun-Ray Midwestern Oil; also holding a substantial interest of course is Mr. Frank McMahon, the man the Conservatives favoured to receive the rights on the trans-Canada pipe line just a year ago. Westcoast gathers natural gas across the Alberta border and in the British Columbia-Peace river area and brings it down to the coast by pipe line, some 650 miles, to Vancouver and to a United States outlet at Huntington and by a branch line into the interior of British Columbia.
I would simply like to present to the house a few of the hard facts of this operation. .First Mr. Frank McMahon was given an option to purchase 155,000- shares of the company at five cents a share. Before the line was open his profit on that transaction amounted taxfree to $5,600,000.
Second, the same Frank McMahon was given an option to purchase 200,000 shares of the company's stock at $6, exercisable at any time up to 1960. Before the line had opened he had made another profit of $6 million on that.
Third, a United States investment firm and some other United States firms were given the same options as above and netted a taxfree capital gain of $23 million.
Fourth, a firm owned by the big United States company, El Paso Company was given an option to purchase Westcoast shares at $5 per share. The option covered 1,128,000 shares and that netted them a capital gain of $35 million.
Fifth, the total of these capital gains made by the promoters of Westcoast Transmission adds up to the grand sum of $69 million. Now British Columbia is, in resources, a wealthy province, but that figure which will be paid for by the consumers of natural gas
The Address-Mr. A. B. Macdonald in that province, namely $69 million, is almost as much as the province collects for a whole year from its sales tax of 5 per cent.
Sixth, the board of transport commissioners has jurisdiction over Westcoast Transmission which crosses the Alberta border. It is interprovincial and while the Pipe Lines Act passed by this parliament makes as yet no provision for the control and regulation of natural gas rates no doubt that power will be given to the board of transport commissioners. However, how do they go about fixing a fair return to Westcoast Transmission? It will have to be a fair return on capital which includes that $69 million of watered stock. I do not know how you could have a fair return on watered stock, but that will be the way it will end up.
Seventh, with respect to Westcoast Transmission Company this is the last hard fact I have to offer. This United States controlled firm has entered into a contract with United States distributors to sell natural gas across the line at 22 cents per thousand cubic feet while at the same time it is selling the same natural gas to its British Columbia distributor at 32 cents per thousand cubic feet.


An hon. Member:: Canadian gas?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Canadian gas. So I call upon the government as a constructive and forthright act of statesmanship to issue a declaration forthwith under section 92, 10 (c) of the British North America Act declaring natural gas pipe lines in Canada to be works for the general advantage of Canada or the advantage of two or more provinces. That was one of the solutions: i.e. public ownership, advocated in this house by the Conservative party not a year ago. If they wish to redeem their promises of that time they will quickly transfer these companies into public services, of the people, by the people and for the people.
I was pleased that the throne speech mentioned a national development program to be carried out in co-operation with the provinces. Again that is a matter of concern to my own province which is a treasure house of potential mineral, timber and water resources. The speech from the throne mentioned the Columbia river development particularly and yet there have been two stumbling blocks. There have been negotiations going on with the United States authorities with respect to compensation for down stream benefits and there have been protracted negotiations with the British Columbia government as to the financing involved and the form the enterprise would take.
980	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. B. Macdonald It is a great pity that we have heard of no progress in these negotiations with the United States authorities since May 20 of this year when the last conference at the ministerial level broke up without result. Surely Canada, in a matter of such concern to one of her provinces as this, should not be without some bargaining power in dealing with the United States authorities. In connection with the second matter I am sure the majority of the people in British Columbia think this enterprise should take the form of public hydro. It should hardly be necessary any longer in this house to defend public hydro as against private hydro. The success of the Ontario hydro commission and of the Tennessee Valley authority with its vast complex of irrigation, power, conservation and industrial development, have conclusively proved that public power is cheaper power and that public hydro is closer to the needs of the region and of the people it serves.
In my own province of British Columbia that is borne out very dramatically by the electricity rates we pay. In Manitoba with public hydro and scarce water resources the average cost per kilowatt hour is three-quarters of a cent while in British Columbia under private hydro and with lots of water resources we pay an average rate per kilowatt hour of 2.1 cents.


Frederick George Hahn: How much is it under the British Columbia power commission?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: The
power commission unfortunately under a free enterprise minded government has been starved and not allowed to operate or move into the rich areas where they would really have an opportunity to bring down the price of electricity.


Peter Stefura: How much is it in Saskatchewan?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Saskatchewan rates are far below those in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: How about Alberta?
Another hon. Member: That is a good question.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: So
we ask that the government proceed with this national development program as promised and I suggest it is one of the things that should be put upon the statute books and under way before this government thinks of holding an election.
There is another matter of importance to British Columbia under the heading of national development. North of the Peace river area lies the Rocky mountain trench. [Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1

The people of Texas say that they carry out things in a big way; they do nothing on the scale on which it is done in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: Smalltime operators.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: The British Columbia government has given a reserve with first rights out of that reserve to the Wenner-Gren interests, amounting I think to 71,000 square miles.
No TV give-away program can match that, and yet the federal government is involved and has a responsibility because the Peace river, of course, flows over the Alberta border and up into the Northwest Territories. Therefore I repeat again, let this national development program in co-operation with the provinces include the development of Peace river power if that is feasible from an engineering and financial standpoint at the present time. Concerning the question of whether or not it is feasible, let the engineers of the department of national resources give their opinion as well as those of the Wenner-Gren interests.
What is this Wenner-Gren foundation? Some kindly souls have suggested that it is a charitable or philanthropic organization. Of course it is nothing of the kind. Wenner-Gren himself was blacklisted in the last war for trading with the Nazi enemy. Much of the wealth he made which poured into British Columbia came from munitions produced in the last war. Fortunately for him, but unfortunately for the province of British Columbia, one * of the three directors of Wenner-Gren in that province is a man who is also the head of the P.G.E. railway of the government of British Columbia and the financial wizard behind the Social Credit party there.
There should be no difficulty, Mr. Speaker, about the public financing of a hydro-electric development program that has been proved to be sound in an engineering way and in a financial way, and if this national development program means what I hope it means then we should move to help safeguard in co-operation with the provinces some of the equity of the people themselves in their natural resources.
I said earlier that we in this parliament have a heavy responsibility to legislate not only for the welfare but indeed for the safety of Canada. It would be madness to underestimate the scientific and technological progress of the soviet union in throwing artificial moons into the firmament, or to ignore their military and political implications. It is not so much that we need fear war itself. We can dare to hope that General Partridge in Colorado Springs will never have

to push that button that will mean annihilation for victor and vanquished alike. But those who hold precious the rights of free discussion and inquiry can lose in ways other than war if the uncounted millions of Africa, Asia and the Middle East turn not to the west or the United Nations but to the east and to the soviet dictatorship.
How can the west safeguard its position? Not by piling up new and more dreadful weapons of war. Arms alone will not save us. What we must do is recreate our society as a model embodying the human ideals of equality, freedom and fellowship upon which the peoples of the world can look with inspiration and affection. We have a long way to go toward these ideals, away from the crass materialism, dollar worship and false values of a profit driven society. There will be no excuse for us if we fail to read the signposts and plot our direction accordingly.
In this connection I cannot help but be concerned about the remarks made by irregular members of the Conservative party in various parts of Canada who seem determined to tear down and dismantle national television and broadcasting under the C.B.C. They would turn it over to the hucksters. Mr. Speaker, there is no quicker way to debauch the mind and soul of a nation than by turning over to commercial advertising interests the control of broadcasting and television. It is not that the C.B.C. cannot be improved and brought closer to the communities it serves, but I would express the hope that the Minister of National Revenue <Mr. Nowlan) who states that he is going to introduce legislation affecting the C.B.C. will give due consideration to the facts and recommendations contained in the Fowler report.
With that I conclude as I began, by urging the government to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. It is certainly later than we think, and none too soon to awaken in our people a driving social purpose that will enable us to meet the dangers as well as the opportunities of the world in which we live.


Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion for an address in reply to Her Majesty's speech from the throne, I would first of all like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a former member of parliament who is now deceased, Gordon F. Higgins, Q.C., O.B.E., whose death on October 13 last after a long illness came as a great shock to us in Newfoundland. He was the first member of this house for the constituency that I now so humbly represent. Mr. Higgins during his
The Address-Mr. McGrath tenure of office from 1949 to 1953 was widely known and respected by members on both sides of the house and his voice, speaking on behalf of Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders was a familiar sound in this chamber.
Gordon Higgins, like his father before him, played a very important role in Newfoundland politics. In 1946 he was elected to represent St. John's East at the national convention which was convened in St. John's by the British government to decide the political future of Newfoundland. He was, like many of us in Newfoundland, vigorously opposed to confederation, not in principle but in the way it was being brought about, and like many of his colleagues he advocated that if terms were to be negotiated with Canada these terms should be negotiated by our own elected government, between two sovereign states and not two political parties.
When the votes of the second referenda were tabulated and confederation with Canada won out by some 6,000 votes Mr. Higgins offered himself as a candidate to represent St. John's East at Ottawa. He did this because he felt that in the House of Commons he would have a chance to continue the fight for his beloved island home. Although he polled a good majority of the votes cast in the election of 1953 he was defeated by a split vote. From then on his health began to fail. His death came as a sad blow and I am sure that hon. members on both sides of the house who knew the late Mr. Higgins will join with me in extending deepest sympathy to his bereaved family.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Following in the footsteps of my illustrious predecessor on this side of the house I, too, intend to raise my voice-perhaps in humility-on behalf of my constituency and the people of Newfoundland generally.
Before continuing with my remarks I wish to join with hon. members who have preceded me in this debate in extending to the Speaker and to you, sir, congratulations on your elevations to the very important posts of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. I would also offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) for doing such an admirable job in moving and seconding the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.
It was on August 3, in the year 1583, that Sir Humphrey Gilbert landed in St. John's with a charter from the first Elizabeth. A few days later, on August 5, in the same year, Gilbert made preparations on the site of what is now the Queen's beach in St. John's and which constitutes part of my constituency

The Address-Mr. McGrath of St. John's East. At an appointed time he proceeded to this spot where his officers, masters of the fishing fleet and many local merchants were assembled-and remember, hon. members, this was in the year 1583-he then read his commission from Her Majesty, Elizabeth I, and after so reading his commission a piece of soil was dug on the spot and together with a twig were presented to Sir Humphrey as a symbol of English sovereignty over the new found land. Thus, sir, was established Britain's oldest colony. And today, in speaking on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Majesty Elizabeth II I wish to affirm on behalf of Britain's oldest colony and Canada's youngest province her undying loyalty to Queen Elizabeth.
The province that I represent in this house, Mr. Speaker, together with my hon. colleague in the government and those hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, has been a partner in the Canadian federation for eight years. The success of this union has yet to be proven, sir, and no one expected otherwise. If we are to measure success in terms of geographical or financial advantages only, then, yes, has it been a comparative success. Geographically speaking, Canada is now one from sea to sea. But these things alone, sir, or together, cannot complete the picture.
Newfoundland came into confederation with no thought of being a junior province and least of all of being second-rate citizens. And, sir, in fairness to the government that I have the privilege to support, I wish to imply that such was not their intention. However the best intentions sometimes are not enough, and I must state here that the union of my province with the other nine provinces of this nation was perhaps founded on the best intentions. But governments, sir, like people, have their human failures and if I pursue a slightly critical theme at this time, Mr. Speaker, I pray the hon. members of this house will accept it in the spirit that it is offered; that it not be interpreted, sir, as bitterness on my part or on the part of the riding which I so humbly and proudly represent in this House of Commons.
Newfoundland, sir, in its turbulent and tragic history has gone through a series of misfortunes that would break the spirit of a lesser people; yes, suppression of even the barest minimum of human rights, the denial of personal freedom to a degree unknown in the western hemisphere and brutality of massive proportions; injustice, that was motivated by the horrible greed of merchants interested solely in reaping the rich harvest from the seas that ring our 6,000 miles of coastline.

It was in such an atmosphere, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland struggled for survival and hon. members will do well to remember that those conditions existed not in the 16th century, not in the 17th century, but in the 18th and 19th centuries. When the rest of North America was making glorious strides in all aspects of human endeavour military governors ordered gallows erected as symbols of fear in Newfoundland. When courts of justice in other parts of North America were serving the people with impartiality and fairness a man's hand was seared in Newfoundland with a red hot iron for stealing a sheep so that his family might eat. When the bill of rights was a historical document, and when the fathers of confederation laid down the course of action for this federation, Newfoundlanders were still struggling under the suppression of greedy merchants. Indeed, sir, it was unlawful for them to cultivate the soil of their adopted land.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to quote the way in which one impartial historian has put it:
Modest and unpretentious as is its story, no student of history can set it aside without feeling strangely moved at the wonder of human pertinacity in creating from "a great ship" an amazing colony which, in spite of inherited weaknesses and economic disabilities, stands today as a great testimony to the power of a people to nullify Britain's greatest experiment in retarded colonization.
This, Mr. Speaker, was the historical misfortune of Newfoundland. If I strive a little harder or perhaps speak a little stronger or even urge a little more vehemently than most hon. members have done in their maiden speeches I do so, sir, with the knowledge that Newfoundland has not yet caught up; that even in 1957, eight years after confederation that was to solve all her problems, we still do not have sufficient hospital beds to meet the barest minimum requirements of our people. Our institutions are dangerously overcrowded, resulting in our people not getting the full advantages of the modern advances in medical science. Our communications are still pitifully inadequate, with many of our people still living in almost total isolation. Our schools, too, fall far short of the barest minimum requirements; and this, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the teacher shortage, I am sad to say, is one of the more serious problems we are faced with in Newfoundland today.
If I may be permitted to use Nova Scotia for comparison, in the province of Nova Scotia there are some 1,500 miles of paved highways while in the province of Newfoundland, which is more than twice the size of Nova Scotia, there are no such highways, only secondary roads which in most cases

do not even measure up to the standards of secondary roads. After eight years of confederation and the relative prosperity which accrued to Newfoundland as a result of the second world war, one still cannot drive across the island of Newfoundland. The Canadian National Railways system, which operates the antiquated, narrow-gauge line, is still the only means of transportation from east to west, in spite of what Mr. Smallwood may have tried to convey to the contrary. And, Mr. Speaker, the folly of it all is that our fisheries, sir, which we have always taken pride in, and which form the backbone of our economy and which are basically our chief resource, have been grossly neglected.
In order to rectify this situation, Mr. Speaker, the present provincial government, no doubt with the best intentions, started on an ill-fated industrial development program which for the greater part I must reluctantly state has met with dismal failure.
Let me hasten to dispel the idea, Mr. Speaker, that my words might convey. Eight years of confederation have been of tremendous importance to Newfoundland. Indeed, rapid strides have been made in trying to catch up with the maritime provinces but we still have a long way to go, and our own provincial government confesses that we are still some 35 years behind the province of New Brunswick. I am convinced, sir, that the government I support will approach our problems realistically and will help Newfoundland find her way in the Canadian family.
There are many people, Mr. Speaker, who looked upon confederation as the immediate solution to all our problems. But, sir, I submit that the joining of two peoples is never that simple, and the original terms of union, which unfortunately have proven most inadequate, could never convey, much less find, a solution for the complex problems that arise in the struggle to belong to a greater economy, to become truly Canadian in every sense of the word, to share in the prosperity of a great nation.
All hon. members in this house with the exception of my Newfoundland colleagues- I stress the word "Newfoundland" and not those who would find in our hospitable shores political refuge-have been born Canadians. You know the heritage of Canada in its fullest meaning. Yes, indeed, you feel the pride of being a Canadian beat within your hearts. You glory in all that is great in the past and you look forward to a future that holds great promise. That is what is making this nation profoundly respected in the world today. I, sir, feel the same way but not quite as you do because in terms of being Canadian we are less than nine years
The Address-Mr. McGrath old. There are some 425,000 new Canadians of the finest British stock who are still learning, still striving to understand what being truly Canadian is, and surely there is more to it than family allowances.
The people of my province are proud, perhaps stubbornly so, and if they cling to the past with one hand and grope for the present and the future that is most uncertain, they are not to be condemned. The past, sir, is their history, a history of a people struggling for survival against sometimes insurmountable odds. After eight years they are just beginning to grasp the true feeling, the real significance of belonging to a nation that is truly great. It is only now, Mr. Speaker, that our children are learning from their textbooks the greatness of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with its glorious history and the promise of an exciting future. These young Newfoundlanders when they come of age will, I pray, be truly Canadian just as the concept of union of our two countries becomes truly of age.
I am in this house, Mr. Speaker, to contribute what I can to the governing of Canada. My days here will be humbly dedicated to the principles of good government. But in contributing to the over-all picture I must of necessity be specific in my thinking. We in Newfoundland know little of the problems facing the wheat farmers in western Canada and until we have achieved that equality of opportunity which is ours by right of union we must of necessity confine ourselves to our own specific and peculiar problems.
In terms of comparison Newfoundland today is Canada's third largest market. If I may illustrate that point, just prior to confederation we imported from Canada $50 million of foodstuffs. Six years later our imports from the Canadian mainland were up to $200 million. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, the things we use to make life a little more pleasant, we buy from the Canadian mainland. That is why I feel that we too are important to the over-all economy of this nation, and that is why, sir, I am in this House of Commons.
My riding of St. John's East has many problems but they are so interwoven with the over-all problems facing my province that I must speak for the most part in general terms. Right now Newfoundlanders are faced with rising unemployment. Our fresh frozen fish industry has been hard hit by a falling demand, which coupled with the Jamaican situation has resulted in many fish plants having to close their doors with unemployment as the net result. As a result of these fish plants closing hundreds of our people are actually on relief.
984	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McGrath
Indeed, sir, the anti-inflationary policy of the previous government has resulted in construction, which contributes a great deal to the economy of a growing province, being down 50 per cent compared with last year, with unemployment as the net result. The problems besetting the pulp and paper industry, which are well known in Canada, are proving disastrous for Newfoundland. A serious reduction in the output of our two paper mills has also contributed to the widespread unemployment.
In other parts of Canada the depression of one industry can usually be absorbed by another industry, but this is not so in my province. In Newfoundland there are no other industries in spite of the policy of the present provincial government. With regard to mining, Newfoundland is barely holding its own, but here too there are disquieting rumblings from the United States that it must protect its own base metal industries with higher tariffs.
It is not a pretty picture I present to the house, Mr. Speaker, but were I to do otherwise I could not face my people for I would be guilty of fraud and deception. In Newfoundland today there are more than twice the number unemployed as there were at this time last year. The government must take grave note of this situation. Social security benefits-here I must interject how pleased we were to know that the government had brought in legislation to increase old age security benefits-were not intended to be the sole source of revenue for any Canadian. On the contrary, they were merely intended to augment. But, alas, in Newfoundland there is nothing to augment in many cases. As a matter of fact, many hundreds will be unable to receive unemployment insurance benefits because the available work during the past year was not sufficient to entitle them to benefits, and here we are only just approaching the height of seasonal unemployment.
I am particularly pleased to note the establishment of a greater number of unemployment insurance offices in Newfoundland. I believe that through this greater coverage the problem of unemployment will be greatly eased. During the coming winter months, I believe that this government, with all possible haste-and I know it will-must institute a program of action that will alleviate the desperate unemployment situation which is rapidly growing now in Canada as well as in Newfoundland.
In the fisheries of Newfoundland there lies our greatest promises for the future. The federal Department of Fisheries must concern itself more actively in the peculiar and


varied problems of the Newfoundland fisheries. It must find a market for fish products, not only abroad but amongst Canadian consumers. It must help to provide a scientific approach so necessary to the actual procurement of fish and so necessary for better production and better marketing. Indeed, it was the proud boast of Premier Smallwood's government that he was going to take Newfoundlanders out of fishing boats and place them in new industries. Undoubtedly, his intentions were sincere. I submit, however, that this has proven to be the greatest folly. We in Newfoundland must unite, in conjunction with the government of Canada, to reverse this trend which is so obviously doing so much damage, and pursue a more vigorous and determined policy of fishery development.
In closing I should like, Mr. Speaker, to speak briefly on the transportation problems that beset Newfoundland and that are contributing to making our cost of living higher than that of any part of Canada, I repeat, higher than that of any other part of Canada. The Canadian National Railways system which operates in Newfoundland is not a gift from Canada. Hon. members should please bear this in mind. The Newfoundland Railway, with its rolling stock, its coastal fleet and its various other facilities, was handed over to the Canadian government to be operated by the Canadian National Railways system. I say this, sir, to dispel from the minds of hon. members the fact that Canadian National Railways is one of the benefits that have accrued to Newfoundland from union. As a matter of fact, today our railway system is little better than it was ten years ago. The only thing that has been added is the ill-fated and infamous William Carson.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland is an island and until the trans-Canada highway is completed and the William Carson functions as she was intended, our highway is still the sea. I would, therefore, point out that we in Newfoundland, and particularly in eastern Newfoundland, are prayerfully awaiting word of the decision of the government on the proposed development of St. John's harbour. This development would mean that a greater volume of freight could be handled in St. John's at considerably less per ton. In due course, this would result in a decrease in the cost of living.
The revision of the terms of union of Newfoundland and Canada, as called for in clause 29 of the terms of union, is now in the hands of a royal commission. The findings of that royal commission will probably be tabled in

the house within the next year. I would, therefore, ask hon. members to recall the importance of this report when it is tabled in this house, and to bear in mind that the final chapter in confederation, as visualized by the fathers of confederation, will not be written until Newfoundland's case is finally settled and Newfoundland is given her just dues. With your leave, sir, I would read to the house clause 29, which has been called Newfoundland's court of last resort:
In view of the difficulty of predicting with sufficient accuracy the financial consequences to Newfoundland of becoming a province of Canada, the government of Canada will appoint a royal commission within eight years from the date of union to review the financial position of the province of Newfoundland and to recommend the form and scale of additional financial assistance, if any, that may be required by the government of the province of Newfoundland to enable it to continue public services at the levels and standards reached subsequent to the date of union, without resorting to taxation more burdensome, having regard to capacity to pay, than that obtaining generally in the region comprising the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Here, sir, lies the hope, the dreams, the desires of 425,000 new Canadians of the finest British and Irish stock who want to be part of this nation but who do not intend to be second class citizens.


Albert Peter Lavigne: Mr. Speaker, it seems I am running out of time. I wish to congratulate you on your appointment and the manner in which you have presided over the deliberations of this house to date. I should like also to extend my congratulations and good wishes to the chairman and vicechairman of committees, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the members of his cabinet. My congratulations also should go to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) upon the manner in which he acquitted himself of his task.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Arsenault), for the manner in which he carried out his task.
I should also like to seize this opportunity of thanking the people of Stormont county for again showing their faith in me by sending me to this house. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to represent them as worthily as I can and with all means at my disposal.
The difficulties facing the people of my riding have increased in the last few months, particularly in the matter of unemployment. A great number of them are now jobless and afraid of the coming winter. We may therefore have some reason to feel concern for
The Address-Mr. Lavigne the business people and municipalities whose responsibility it will be to provide for the needs of those unemployed during the winter season.
The outlook is alarming, not only for the textile industry, the pulp and paper mills, but also for our farmers who make up thirty per cent of the people in my riding. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I propose to discuss these matters in my speech.
(Text):
I should like to bring to the attention of the government the disastrous hail and wind storm which caused such heavy losses to the farmers of Roxborough, Finch and Cambridge townships on July 3. In some cases they have had a total loss of their grain, hay and garden crops. The area of damage covered a considerable amount of land, about 3,542 acres. If one bears in mind the small size of eastern farms, one can imagine the number of people who were affected.
We are concerned with unemployment, and rightly so, but these farmers have put in hours of work, made an expenditure for seed and still find themselves without revenue. I believe some sort of legislation should be introduced to obviate the necessity of our primary producers being faced with such a problem again.
The county of Stormont is well known for its production of cheese, both for the quality and the quantity. Year after year our producers are bringing honour and recognition to the county of Stormont. A few weeks ago I attended a cheese producers' meeting and they were greatly concerned by reports that the provincial government was giving consideration to abandoning their cheese price support. The price support on cheese at present is carried by the federal government to the amount of 24 cents and by the province to the amount of 10 cents. This support permits the cheese board to borrow money to buy surplus stocks during the high production season and give better stabilization to year-round prices.
I must point out here that the government price support has not cost the provincial or federal governments much money to date. I hope that if the provincial government of Ontario decides to discontinue its support the federal government will accept the full responsibility of the price support which has been a source of reassurance and a guarantee of revenue for our cheese producers.
In the city of Cornwall we are concerned with the growing unemployment when we compare figures with those at the same time last year. We find that unemployment has risen considerably in the last two months,

The Address-Division compared with figures for corresponding months last year, in spite of the fact that pipe line construction has given employment to a good number of our citizens.
I should like to draw the attention of the government to the conditions which exist in our textile industry, and I refer more particularly to the manufacturers of cotton and rayon goods. I believe that the government has a duty to take its stand on tariffs-


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform hon. members that it is now 9.45 p.m.


Albert Peter Lavigne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the house that I am extremely glad to announce that the textile strike in Cornwall has been settled.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, it being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any subamendment now before the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Shall we proceed with this	
debate tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we intend to con-	
tinue with this debate tomorrow.


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

Questions