1957-11-13

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 13, 1957


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) asked for a statement in connection with the subject of defence co-operation between Canada and the United States, and I propose on this occasion to make such a statement. I do not think the present is the occasion for a more lengthy statement than I am about to give, but the opportunity will come later on during the estimates to discuss this question at length. I am prepared, however, to sketch in general terms the basic framework of our defence co-operation with the United States.
As the house is aware, the machinery of defence co-operation between Canada and the United States had its origin in what is known as the Ogdensburg declaration of August, 1940, by the president of the United States and the then prime minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, foreshadowing the development of the closest defence collaboration between the United States and Canada. Arrangements arising out of this declaration were effective during the last war in the political, military and supply fields.
In November, 1945, the United States government forwarded a request to the Canadian government urging that the collaboration in defence which had been so effective during the days of war should be maintained; that Canada and the United States should agree to the continuance of the permanent joint board on defence which had been established in August, 1940, and set up military arrangements to ensure the continuance of close cooperation of the defence forces of both countries in the defence of Canada and the United States. It was agreed that the permanent joint board on defence would be continued and a military co-operation committee would be set up, directly responsible to the chiefs of staff in each country, to discuss and process joint measures for the defence of Canada and the United States.
Following negotiations in the permanent joint board of defence, there emerged a joint statement of principles approved by the two 96698-68
governments laying down in broad terms the conditions governing the continuing partnership in defence of the two countries. These conditions and principles were announced in the House of Commons on February 12, 1957. Defence co-operation and collaboration between Canada and the United States has therefore continued without a break and with continuing impetus since 1940.
When Canada and the United States signed the North Atlantic treaty, the arrangements and procedures for defence collaboration were continued under the Canada-United States regional planning group as one of the regional groupings of NATO.
I would emphasize that the only restrictions which exist in defence collaboration are those imposed by law and not by desire. This limitation is only in the field of thermonuclear weapons, and is mainly concerned with the composition, construction and manufacturing techniques of nuclear weapons. The house will realize that the manufacture of nuclear weapons is not an urgent defence requirement for Canada. On June 15, 1955, by means of an exchange of notes, agreement was reached between the government of Canada and the government of the United States for co-operation in the atomic field for mutual defence purposes. At that time agreement was reached that each government would make available to the other government atomic information deemed necessary to:
(a)	the development of defence plans;
(b)	the training of personnel in the employment of defence against atomic weapons; and
(c)	the evaluation of the capabilities of potential enemies in the employment of atomic weapons.
The finalizing of this agreement in this very important field was followed by the participation of Canadian military personnel in United States exercises involving thermonuclear explosions, so Canadian troops could be trained in the procedures for decontamination of personnel and vehicles and the detection of radiation resulting from these kinds of explosions. In short, there exists today the fullest co-operation in all aspects of military operations in areas where atomic weapons may be used.
In President Eisenhower's statement of November 7, to which the hon. member for

National Defence
Algoma East made reference, the President made particular reference to Canada-United States partnership in the construction of our continental defence system. Collaboration in air defence was undertaken soon after the close of the last war, and a joint effort was made to develop a comprehensive air defence system for the common defence of North America. This system, concerning which the house has been fully informed, comprises an aircraft control and warning radar installation in the southern part of Canada, known as the "Pinetree" system, which was jointly built and is jointly operated by Canada and the United States. This was followed by the joint arrangement for the construction of the mid-Canada line and the distant early warning line, and a common communications system. For administrative convenience these projects were constructed separately by each government, but they are operated along with the "Pinetree" chain as a complete early warning and interceptor system. In order to work out these intricate air defence problems of an operational and scientific nature, a joint Canadian-United States military study group consisting of service officers and scientists was set up.
One result of studies conducted by this group was a recommendation made to the chiefs of staff of both countries in December, 1956, for the establishment of a joint headquarters to provide for the operational control of the air defence of Canada and the United States. These recommendations of the joint study group were approved by the chiefs of staff of both countries and the United States Secretary of Defence approved these measures early in April.
This bilateral arrangement within the Canada-United States regional planning group of NATO is a further step in achieving the agreed NATO objectives for the Canada-United States regional planning group, which are as follows:
(a)	to provide an effective base for and effective protection of the strategic nuclear counter-offensive capability;
(b)	maintenance of an effective early warning and air defensive system.
This arrangement within the Canada-United States regional planning group was reported by both countries to the NATO council before it was made public.
It is realized that this comprehensive air defence system is a defence against the manned bomber, and it was recognized some time ago that steps should be taken to provide for defence against the further threat of the intercontinental ballistic missile. As early as July, 1956, negotiations were commenced for joint collaboration in the study

of methods and procedures for dealing with defence against the ICBM. The defence research board, in collaboration with the United States air force, has undertaken a substantial research program which will aid in solving the problems of producing a warning system and defence against the ICBM. Research studies, including field and laboratory studies, of the factors which will make feasible the radar detection of an ICBM warhead and the interception of this warhead by a destructive missile are now being thoroughly and jointly investigated.
The radar to be installed in Saskatchewan is part of this activity. It is worthy of note that this radar has been loaned by the United States to be operated by the research workers of the defence research board as part of our contribution to the research against this new and serious threat. It is our intention to follow up very closely this joint development and to give this project of creating a defence against the ballistic missile high priority in our defence program.
Other joint efforts of considerable significance are the projects for the development of defensive measures against the missilecarrying submarine, including new long-range submarine detection techniques and improved methods of destroying submarines. These measures are being developed by the two navies, in an effort to combat the threat of missile attacks against North American ports and installations.
There is consultation and co-operation on defence on all levels. Officers of all services are integrated into the major schools and training establishments of all services in the United States. The cold weather testing of United States and Canadian weapons, including missiles, is carried out at the Canadian test station at Churchill, Manitoba. While co-operation in these fields is indeed very extensive, there are other areas where more joint work can be done, and we intend to fully explore further co-operation and consultation in these important fields of defence and particularly research and development.
I think that generally summarizes the situation, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Defence will deal more fully with the question of collaboration with the United States, as I said at the beginning, when the estimates are before the house.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, I realize, of course, that this is not the occasion on which to discuss the statement the Prime Minister has just made. However, I should like to thank him for that review of the situation and to express

the hope that the detailed consideration of the extremely important matter to which he referred will take place before long.
Interesting as his statement has been, Mr. Speaker, it certainly has not answered a great many of the questions in our minds concerning particularly the North American command, or NORAD, as it is called, and the implications of the action that has been taken by the government in regard to continental defence under that command. I refer to military implications and indeed political implications.
We on this side of the house realize that on a question of this kind which is of such great importance to Canada, to the United States and to NATO, we should act with a maximum degree of unanimity. But before we can secure that unanimity, Mr. Speaker, we must have all the available information and particularly the information with regard to the alteration, if there is any alteration, in the responsibility of the Canadian government for the actions of Canadian troops, and also the relationship of this command to NATO.
I notice that reference has been made to that relationship but not, if I may say so, in a form which gives me any clear indication that this command has any direction relationship to NATO whatever, or not in the sense that that relationship was established after debate and discussion in this house, as was done in so far as sending Canadian troops to Europe was concerned. The information we have received up to the present time has been inadequate, so far as I am concerned. After more complete information has been received I hope all the doubts we have will be removed, and that we on this side of the house will be able to support any move for continental defence in the interests of both countries and therefore in the interests of peace.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a further word, my hon. friend says there was not sufficiently full information placed before the house, and I feel I should answer that immediately so there will be no misunderstanding.
I would like to point out that those who served in the cabinet of the present the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) had full information on this matter. Indeed as far back as May 11, 1956, there was an agreement between the chiefs of staff to refer to the joint study group the integration of operational control of the continental air defence of the United States and Canada in peacetime. They supported the principle of a single commander under collective security arrangements which had been well 96698-68i
National Defence
established by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with the examples of the supreme allied commander in Europe and the supreme allied commander for the Atlantic having operational control over all assigned forces.
I would also like to point this out in answer to my hon. friend. He may not have had the information, but these things occurred during the time the government of which he was a member was in power. On the 18th day of February, 1957, after full consideration of the matter, the then minister of national defence recommended the establishment of an integrated operational control system for the air defence of Canada, the United States and Alaska under a single commander, with a reminder that the United States should recognize "the need for adequate consultation with the Canadian authorities on matters which might lead to the alerting of the air defence system". He spoke for the cabinet on that occasion.
On February 28, 1957, the minister asked that the deputy commander should be a Canadian, and he stated at that time that he anticipated government approval would be given to the arrangement, which "we" brought into effect, on the 15th day of March, 1957.
However, on that date the matter was withdrawn and on March 24, on instructions from the then minister of national defence, officers proceeded to Washington to advise the United States chiefs of staff that there was no disagreement on the part of the then government regarding the plan but that it would not be possible to give formal approval, for it was intimated that the matter might become a political issue and it was not considered advisable to have the formal approval until such time as it was not a political issue. So on the 26th day of April the then minister of national defence cleared a dispatch to the United States pointing out that a decision, while there was no probability of any change, could not be expected until June 15.
I thought my hon. friend must have forgotten those facts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: -because they deal comprehensively with the arrangements which were entered into.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in
view of the importance of this matter and in view of the facts or the details put on the record by the Prime Minister in the statement he has just now made, I might be permitted to add a word.
I think if the Prime Minister will do a little more research into the proceedings of the cabinet defence committee and the cabinet

Inquiries of the Ministry he will discover that while all these matters about which he has spoken were considered and, I think, approved by the officers of the Department of National Defence and perhaps, though I have not all the details, by the minister of national defence, that is not the same as to say that they were approved or even considered by either the cabinet defence committee or even by the cabinet. If the Prime Minister will look up the records of the cabinet he will find out,
I think, that this particular matter which was approved so quickly after the election by the government of the right hon. gentleman was not considered in any way, shape or form by the cabinet defence committee or by the cabinet, and no decision can therefore have been taken with regard to it.



INQUIRY AS TO REDUCTION IN EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the reported statement of Lieutenant General Simonds that if the $300 million wasted on that dead duck the CF-105 had been used to stockpile Canadian wheat in Europe it would have been spent to much greater advantage? Has the Prime Minister considered a substantial reduction in current military expenditures, and would he consider using any moneys thus saved to stockpile wheat in Europe, or otherwise to give economic assistance to the free nations?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not seen the report of
the speech by Lieutenant General Simonds or the opinions allegedly expressed by him. After all, it is a matter of opinion. If he did express what has been stated by my hon. friend it is a matter that would have to be considered in all its implications before any answer could be given to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the Prime Minister might answer that part of my question which asked if a reduction in current military expenditures had been considered, and whether such a reduction would be used for economic assistance by way of wheat stockpiling or otherwise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members will agree that if they receive an answer to their question, whether or not it is a satisfactory answer, they should not attempt to improve the situation by asking the question again; because there is no right on the part of hon. members to insist upon an answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you that I was merely repeating my question to the minister, which I submit he had

not answered. If he considers it answered, that is perfectly all right by me.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood that it is part of the question that the hon. member is repeating. I was suggesting that this is not a regular procedure, and I ask the hon. member not to push the matter further.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government any report or comment to make on the announcement reported to have been made at FAO by Mr. Charles Hoeven, representing the United States, that it is their intention to increase expenditures in their policy of making food products, including wheat, easily available to nations throughout the world?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the
announcement to which the hon. member has referred. I do not know what is in it, and therefore I am not really in a position to comment on it.
However, perhaps I should say this. I was present last Thursday in Rome when the United States Secretary for Agriculture, Mr. Ezra Benson, made a speech of about three-quarters of an hour to an hour in length in regard to American ideas concerning surplus disposal. I may say that the whole tenor of his speech was that in his opinion and in the opinion of his government the Americans had done a great humanitarian work in providing food for hungry peoples throughout the world, and he was assuring the meeting that his country would continue to do this. He did not go into the matter of surplus disposal as far as other countries were concerned. The whole tenor of his speech was in regard to his government's intention to continue to make food available where there were people suffering from hunger.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has described the American disposal of surplus food as a great humanitarian effort. Is there any indication that the government of Canada will follow this humanitarian example?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not describe it as that; I said Mr. Benson had described it as that. Of course I would agree that there has been a very large element of humanitarianism in the policy followed by the United States with regard to supplying surplus food to meet the needs of countries in southeast Asia.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES TO INDIA

Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is Canada at this time doing anything to provide additional quantities of wheat for India, in the light of the reported discussions now going on between the United States and India with the object of making additional quantities of wheat available under public law 480?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, any arrangements that may be made with India in the future will be duly announced here in the house. We are aware of their difficulties with regard to food supplies, and we are quite prepared at any time to discuss the problem with our fellow members of the commonwealth from India.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, Mr. Speaker, my question was this. Are any negotiations being entered into with India at the present time or have any negotiations been entered into with India to provide additional quantities of wheat for that country, or does this government do nothing but protest to the United States?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend seems to want to make a speech on the subject.


An hon. Member:: You make one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will be very happy to make a speech if you want to listen to me.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Listen to him.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Make a remarkable one.


Mr. Lesage:: A first class one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have had conversations with the representatives of India with regard to the supply of wheat to that country.


Hazen Robert Argue: With regard to the supply of additional quantities of wheat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, with regard to the supply of additional quantities of wheat.



PRICE OF SALES TO MILLERS IN PRAIRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he yet prepared to give an answer to the question I directed to him a week ago and the supplementary
Inquiries of the Ministry questions the next day, with regard to the price at which wheat is sold to millers on the prairies?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have ready a long answer to what was a rather long question. If it could be accepted as an order for return I should be glad to have it printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For answer referred to above, see appendix "A", pages 1098-99.]



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Coasi-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Actually it is a repetition of a question he was asked last Monday in Oakville, which he refused to answer on the ground that he could not answer it outside the House of Commons. Since he is now inside the House of Commons I should like to ask him, has there been a clash of opinions between the Bank of Canada and the government on economic policy?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I am not aware of anything that could be called a clash.


James Sinclair: A supplementary question. Does that mean the Minister of Finance is now in accord with the policy of the Bank of Canada, which he called an unhappy legacy earlier this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The expression "unhappy legacy" does not apply only to what the hon. gentleman has just mentioned. There are a good many things in the unhappy legacy to which that expression ought to apply. When the time comes to deal with any questions of policy in the house I can assure the hon. gentleman that they will be dealt with fully.


Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. Would the Minister of Finance reveal to the house the nature, scope and result of his recent discussions with Mr. J. A. Coyne, governor of the Bank of Canada?


James Sinclair: Now you can make a speech.
1064	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am quite sure the minister is fully capable of answering that question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Chevrier:: That is doubtful.


Mr. Speaker:: -but I doubt if the house would be patient to listen to him during the period of time it would take. I really must suggest to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary that this is scarcely the type of question he could expect to have answered on orders of the day.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is this a supplementary
question?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes. While you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the question asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary is not one that can be answered on the orders of the day, may I ask the finance minister when the house can definitely expect him to make a statement with respect to the results of his conference yesterday with the officials of the Bank of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that, when the government is in a position to announce policy or to make any announcement that will justify occupying the time of the house, that will be done. I can also assure my hon. friend that, so far as yesterday's meeting is concerned, it was not the only meeting of its kind that has ever been held. The Bank of Canada is an adviser to the Minister of Finance and meetings are held from time to time, with varying frequency, with the senior officials of the Bank of Canada and senior officials of the Department of Finance. The meeting that was held yesterday was one that had been arranged a few days in advance. It was not the first meeting of that kind that has been held in recent times, nor is it the last of its kind that will be held.


Ernest George Hansell: In other words, we are not going to be told.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that my hon. friend has been in the house long enough to know that it is highly improper for any responsible minister to disclose publicly communications that pass between him and the advisers in his department.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: That is not the
position you used to take.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In this respect, Mr. Speaker, advice received by the Minister of Finance and communications passing in that relationship between him and the senior officials


of the Bank of Canada are clearly within that well recognized and time-honoured rule.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER AT OAKVILLE, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has his attention been called to the report of his speech to the Oakville-Trafalgar chamber of commerce appearing in yesterday's Journal and, if so, is he correctly quoted when this report carries within quotation marks these words:
"-the danger of inflation has been checked and the rise in the cost of living is now levelling out".
If the minister has been correctly quoted, can he inform the house as to the source of this reassuring information, in view of the fact that the latest figures produced by the dominion bureau of statistics indicate that in October the consumer price index reached a new all-time high of 123.4?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with much interest to the speech of my hon. friend. He smuggled into his question things that he thought would be taken as statements of fact; but if he is going to put it on that basis I must take issue with what he puts forward in certain respects as statements of fact.


An hon. Member:: He was quoting you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So that the house may have a balanced impression of what I said at Oakville I would very much like to have the opportunity of reading a couple of paragraphs in which I dealt with the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Marler:: Table it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not want a speech, we want an answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I had a text on the occasion in question, and the statement read by the hon. member for Nanaimo was not complete.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: How about answering the question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will. I was asked if I was correctly reported, Mr. Speaker, and this is what would have been a complete report of what I said in this respect:
It is the duty of the Minister of Finance to keep the economic state of this nation under constant examination. Without any hesitation I say to you that the Canadian economy is undeniably strong. There are sectors in which its advance is not as swift as at other periods and, like the United States, we entered some months ago upon a more level plateau of economic activity.


James Sinclair: After June 10.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, we entered upon it before June 10.


Some hon. Members:: Go on with the speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have improved a great deal since June 10 in many respects. To continue:
We always face a problem of seasonal unemployment in the winter months.


James Sinclair: Double that of last year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But Canadians can continue to enjoy full confidence in their future. No nation in all the world offers its people the same long-term bright prospects as Canada.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Is that what you inherited?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, that is what we have improved upon a great deal since June 10.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We took an unhappy heritage and improved upon it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the minister confine himself to the reading of the paragraph, and that the house confine itself to listening.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: We want an
answer.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I continue, Mr. Speaker:
Our gross national product will establish a record this year. The numbers of our employed are higher than they have been at this season of the year in all our history. The total volume of our trade is at record heights. The rise in the cost of living, which has continued for a considerable time, now is levelling out. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has expressed optimism over the outlook for Canadian wheat sales. The market for Canadian government bonds has shown a notable increase in strength in recent weeks. Interest rates on Canadian treasury bills have dropped three-tenths of one per cent in the last two months -a remarkable trend when it is recalled that since mid-July the rate paid by the United States treasury on its treasury bills has risen by one-half of one per cent. On October 1 the Canadian government floated a new bond issue of $700 million. The issue was oversubscribed and the books were closed on the issue one-half hour after they were opened.
The danger of inflation has been checked. As its contribution to this end the government has been warring against waste, extravagance and inefficiency. At a time when more capital is needed to sustain the development of our resources and maintain the momentum of the Canadian economy I shall continue to urge the Canadian people to do their full part in the creation of capital in the only way in which capital can be created, namely, out of their savings.
I shall be glad indeed to continue this, Mr. Speaker, or to send my hon. friend a copy of it. He asked specifically about the matter of
Inquiries of the Ministry the cost of living. The cost of living in Canada has been rising for a very considerable time, and my hon. friend will have observed a reference in my statement to the fact that the rise has levelled out. He will have observed the fact that in the month of October the rise was only one-tenth of one per cent. I am speaking from memory now but I think the rise in the consumer price index was from 123.3 to 123.4. Having regard to the upward trend in the cost of living which has now continued for a very considerable period, that is, I assure my hon. friend, ample evidence in my opinion to warrant the statement I made that the rise in the cost of living has now levelled out. I am not the only one who entertains that opinion.



STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES IN TEXTILE ITEMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: On Monday, November 11, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lavigne) addressed this question to my colleague 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?
Mr. Speaker, I did state to the house some time ago that all the items in the Customs Tariff respecting textiles were referred by me some weeks ago to the tariff board for study and report. The tariff board begins its hearings next Monday, November 18, and I can assure the hon. member that I have taken due note of his request that the government increase the tariff.



INQUIRY AS TO TARIFF BOARD STUDY ON FLUORSPAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I ask
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the board has yet begun a study with respect to fluorspar?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The tariff board has not yet begun that inquiry. The inquiry on the textiles items will be quite extensive and prolonged.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): May I ask a supplementary question, which I think might be helpful to the Minister of Finance.
James Sinclair: He needs help.


Mr. Mcllraith:: He is beyond help.
10G6

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: When does he intend to present the budget or budgetary proposals to which he made reference at a press conference toward the end of July? He indicated that there would be a budget or budgetary proposals at this session of parliament and that would give him an opportunity to deal with the question of the relationship between the government and the Bank of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, whatever is put
before the house in that regard on behalf of the government will be done in due course, and the house, in accordance with the usual practice of ministers of finance as I have observed it in the past 12 years, will be notified in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister, will there be a budget at this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I tell my hon. friend what I told him on a previous occasion, that whatever is required in order to place properly before the house any recommendations or proposals of the government in this regard will be done in accordance with the practice of the house.


James Sinclair: Straight evasion.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is it true that the survey made by the Department of Public Works into the Cassiar-Stewart road indicates that it is less costly to make the southern terminus of the road at Alice Arm than to make the southern terminus at Stewart and, if so, what is the difference in estimated cost?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt if that is the kind of question that should be asked without notice. Has notice been given?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I hould like to thank th hon. memer for Skeena for giving me notice of this question. The survey made by the Department of Public Works as simply a preliminary reconnaissance survey, and any findings of that survey must be considered as tentative indications only

and subject to confirmation or correction by detailed surveys that have not yet been made.
The preliminary reconnaissance survey referred to indicated that the use of Alice Arm as a southern terminus for the route might result in a saving of something in the region of $3 million in the construction of the road itself. It also indicated that a southern terminus at Nass bay might be considered.
However, any savings in road construction costs could easily be counterbalanced by greater port construction costs or by engineering problems that could render development of good port facilities impractical. The final estimates of road costs and of harbour costs cannot be made until much more detailed surveys and studies are carried out on all phases of the project.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would table the studies published by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. I think I should point out to the house that the preliminary report was tabled on January 10 of this year and the final report is in the course of preparation. Some 15 or 16 of the studies referred to in the preliminary report have now been printed, and I should like to ask that they be tabled.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend was good enough to speak to me on this subject some days ago following his asking of a similar question in the house with respect to one particular study that had been made under the auspices of the royal commission to which he has referred. I made inquiries as to what had been the practice in times past with reference to the tabling in the house of studies made on behalf of royal commissions, and I was informed that it has not been the practice in times past to table such studies.
The only occasion I personally recall when copies of the studies were made available for distribution to hon. members was when a volume was prepared gathering together the various studies that had been made on behalf of the Massey royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences. That volume was made available to all members and distributed, I think, through the distribution office.
Apart from that case I have been informed that it has not been the practice for

royal commissions to have copies of their studies printed and distributed through the distribution office. I can assure my hon. friend there is no unwillingness on my part, or on the part of the government, that these studies should be made available, because I am sure they are extremely useful studies. They are not all completed as yet, and they are not all-


George James McIlraith: I believe 16 of them are.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are not available as yet in printed form, in a volume, so they could be made available for distribution amongst hon. members. If there are sufficient copies available in the hands of the royal commission for distribution I will certainly be glad to make inquiries and see if copies can be made available to such hon. members as wish them. I have had no indication that it is the intention of the royal commission to have these studies put into a volume for distribution, as was the case with the Massey royal commission.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if, in view of the somewhat lengthy answer, I might be permitted a supplementary question. With reference to the practice, I may say the only case I could find was that of the Rowell-Sirois commission report, when the 32 appendices were tabled with the report. That was in 1940. I did not ask that these studies be distributed, but that they be tabled in the house to become part of the records of parliament. They are readily available. The printing bureau has circulated a price list of them, and has been circularizing the country at large. This is within the knowledge of the Minister of Finance.
My question was whether he would table the studies, not whether he would distribute them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as tabling them is concerned, I shall be happy indeed to table copies. So far as distribution is concerned, I shall undertake to look into the matter to see if copies are available for such members as may be interested in having them.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Would the Minister of Justice table the report of the royal commission on the law of insanity as a defence in criminal cases? I understand this report was completed some weeks ago and is available now.
1067
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: am glad to inform my hon. friend that steps are in hand now to arrange the tabling of this document.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I apologize for not giving him notice, but I found that impossible because I have only just thought of it. In view of the fact that the report today from the bureau of statistics shows that unemployment in September of this year was 90 per cent greater than unemployment for the same month last year, will the minister consider stepping up the activities of his department in order to overcome the psychological effect of this government publicity on unemployment?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, when I took over the portfolio of Minister of Labour in June of this year I found that the unemployment situation in Canada was not too good. I immediately took certain steps, in conjunction with the government, and in the intervening months we have found unemployment dropping quite a bit from the date when we took over.


James Sinclair: It always does.


Michael Starr: It is rather unfair to compare this year with last year.


James Sinclair: Why?


Michael Starr: Perhaps the hon. member would compare it with 1954 and 1955. I think he would find a different picture. I want to assure the hon. member that the labour department is doing everything to keep in close touch with the situation, and doing everything possible to alleviate it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to inform the minister that I was exercising the same comparison as the government publication in question.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday when I was answering a question concerning action being taken in

Inquiries of the Ministry regard to air pollution by ships, the hon. member for Laurier asked a supplementary question as to whether the international joint commission was considering water pollution in the great lakes area. I answered that it was my understanding the international joint commission was concerned with this matter. I am advised that the international joint commission has studied the pollution of boundary waters, and has issued a comprehensive report on the matter. The report deals, of course, with pollution of water from land sources as well as from ships.
I might also mention that in 1956 an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act was passed to provide for approval by Canada of the international convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil. This convention comes into force on July 26, 1958, and provides measures for curbing pollution of the high seas by oil from ships. The same amendment to the shipping act also empowered the governor in council to make regulations for preventing pollution of our domestic waters by oil from ships.
As a first step toward enforcement of the pollution convention and our own domestic anti-pollution regulations, the Department of Transport has appointed a marine inspector at the port of Montreal and is proceeding with the designation of various provincial, municipal and harbour police officers throughout our ports as inspectors for this purpose. Their efforts will be co-ordinated by the marine inspector at Montreal.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston referred in a question to experiments being carried out in Sweden to free water channels from freezing in winter, and asked if such equipment was being considered in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway.
I indicated in my reply that we would be interested in the results of such experiments. In the meantime I have learned that experiments using this principle, which is that of air movement from the river or harbour bed or at subsurface level by releasing air bubbles to prevent freezing, have been taking place both in Canada and in Europe. Officials of my department have been keeping in touch with the results of these experiments, which are 
extremely interesting and could lead to useful developments in this field. Further information and further tests are required, and will undoubtedly be carried out by interested groups.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Montmo-rency):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is it true that the government has decided to extend the benefit period under the Unemployment Insurance Act to 52 weeks, as promised by the Prime Minister at a Conservative rally on May 4, 1957, at Camp-bellton?


Michael Starr: No decision has as yet been made by the government pertaining to the question asked by the hon. member.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilfrid Lacroix: May I ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it true that the government has decided to increase again the old age pension, as a result of the fact that the Liberals have given $46 and the Tories only $9?



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I saw that he was endeavouring to rise a few moments ago and I tried to reach him before he made that effort. Would the minister reconsider his decision to allow the Canadian National Steamships to transfer its ships to Trinidad registry, an action designed to break the strike of the seafarers' international union, thus throwing 200 more Canadians out of work.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the action of the Canadian National Steamships was in no way an attempt to break any strike. On Monday I outlined very carefully the steps that led to the action that was taken. If the hon.

Inquiries of the Ministry
member will read the answer I gave at	Ottawa-statement on reported
that time I think he will receive the in- postponement of construction of postal formation he is seeking.	headquarters


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will or will not this action throw some 200 Canadians out of work, or will they be rehired?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the action taken by Mr. Hal Banks on July 24 threw 226 Canadians out of work.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Would the minister not consider it better to change the registry of Mr. Banks rather than the registry of the ships?



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. What action has been taken or is being considered by the government to ensure adequate parity for maritime potato growers based on a fair price-cost relationship?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of legislation respecting agricultural prices was referred to in the speech from the throne. At the earliest possible date on which we can do so, that legislation which the government has in mind will be introduced.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) asked a question regarding the construction of a new national defence headquarters.
A brief answer is that there is no provision in the 1957-58 estimates for the commencement of construction of such a building in the present fiscal year. I should not like, however, to give the impression that consideration is not being given to the possibility of erecting such a building or buildings at some future date, but no decision as to the location or the possible date of commencement of construction has yet been reached. 96698-69i
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker,
may I have an answer from the Minister of Public Works to the question I put to him yesterday?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member for Russell asked whether the project for the construction of a new building for the Post Office Department had been shelved. The answer is that it has not been shelved. On the contrary, plans are under preparation and will be finished some time in the new year. It will then be possible to decide when actual construction can begin.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 5, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) asked what action is being taken to provide the 250,000 people of northern New Brunswick and the Gaspe coast with television facilities.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises me that if an application for a private television station in this area is made -and there are reports to the effect that such an application is being made-and the application is subsequently approved and the station established, the corporation would expect to provide national program service for that station.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a related question. In view of the enhanced interest I have myself in television, may I ask the minister how soon he expects the microwave system to be extended to St. John's, Newfoundland?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to speak definitely for St. John's, Newfoundland. After watching the television appearance of the former minister last night I can understand the interest he is taking in the matter. I am sure he will maintain an interest in the television programs of the C.B.C. I can tell him that the microwave system will be continued at least to the mainland by the end of December or very early in January of this coming year, and I would hope that the citizens of Bonavista-Twil-lingate will have an opportunity of seeing the hon. member on television in the early spring.

Inquiries of the Ministry LIVESTOCK



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister clarify his meaning when speaking to the dairy council on September 9, 1957, when in dealing with the curtailment of wheat acreage he said in part:
The acreage released from wheat growing might be more suitably utilized for fodder crops to support an increased number of livestock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly flattered by the attention the hon. member for Moose Mountain has given to my speech delivered in Winnipeg.


Edward George McCullough: I may tell the minister that I have read his speech and that I am still inclined to believe he was advocating an increase in livestock production.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member, having read my speech, has profited accordingly and is now much better informed about the situation in western Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not much better.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes. Two days ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used these words, as reported at page 951 of Hansard, and he was speaking to me or about me:
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.
I said he did not have his facts correct, nor did he. I made no such suggestion. I made no proposal that that be done. I did not say that this was a way to use up surplus wheat. If I may have your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read the paragraph which seems to offend the hon. member and his colleagues sitting beside him.


Major James William Coldwell: Read the whole paragraph.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will not read the whole speech, but there are 39 paragraphs devoted to the wheat problem in western Canada. Paragraph 22 which was elevated by someone who was reporting the speech into a headline about "cattle rather than wheat" or something like that, caused some hon. members, having read only the headlines, to comment accordingly. Here is the paragraph. If this is a proposal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Read the paragraph.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The paragraph reads as follows:
The long-range view with regard to our wheat entails a forward-looking policy with regard to general production, and it may well be that progressively over the years-
I draw your attention to that phrase "it may well be".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is the withdrawal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just pie in the sky.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce of standing order 39. Then perhaps he will answer the question as the hon. member placed it before him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have been asked to clarify the situation, and I can only do so by reading the actual words and giving a little explanation-


An hon. Member:: No comments.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How about letting him read without interruption?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, if the hon. minister will proceed to read the quotation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At the moment I might direct my hon. friend's attention to-


James Garfield Gardiner: No comments; it will not do
you any good.


An hon. Member:: Read the paragraph.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will read the paragraph if I have the opportunity of explaining some of these remarks that have been made by hon. members opposite-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I got as far as:
... it may well be that progressively over the years our acreage devoted solely to the growing of wheat should be appreciably reduced and greater emphasis should be placed on diversified crops and on the livestock industry.


Major James William Coldwell: Read the next sentence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will read the next sentence. The interprovincial farm union brief presented to us this summer mentions reduced acreage on four occasions. However, I will read first the next sentence:
If this is done, wheat production-
You see, I did not advocate that it should be done-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not a directive to anybody.
. . . wheat production might be kept to the average figure of 400 million bushels and the acreage released from wheat growing might be more suitably utilized for fodder crops to support an increased number of livestock.


An hon. Member:: The headline writers were right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The report of the Saskatchewan royal commission suggests that in 25 years a 50 per cent increase of meat production will be required.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Provided it is a question for information and not for comment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister able to tell the house whether he thinks at this time there should be greater emphasis on the livestock industry, in view of the fact that beef producers in Ontario and eastern Canada are going broke and the hog market has collapsed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have never suggested that there should be greater emphasis at this time on the livestock industry; my hon. friend knows that very well.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Lavigne (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any communications from representatives of the city of Cornwall with regard to the establishing of a harbour commission for that city?


George Harris Hees: I would like to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. I have received no representations so far from the city of Cornwall for the establishment of such a commission.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question and it is about fish, not wheat. My question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries, and I have given him notice.
Has the minister received a joint request from the united fishermen and allied
Inquiries of the Ministry workers' union, the British Columbia federation of fish and game clubs, the native brotherhood of British Columbia and the fishing vessel owners' association that commitments by the British Columbia Electric Company to maintain a sufficient flow of water for spawning purposes on the Cheaka-mus river be honoured? If so, what action has been taken to comply with this request?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I would like to thank the hon. member for Comox-Alberni for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The answer to the first part is yes.
With regard to the second part, as to the action which has been taken, I would advise that when I was in British Columbia recently I discussed this problem with the senior officials of the British Columbia Electric Company Limited and impressed them with the fact that the department would expect the company to maintain a sufficient flow of water below the dam for spawning salmon. Following my return to Ottawa this understanding was confirmed through an exchange of correspondence with the president of the British Columbia Electric Company Limited.



LAMPREY EELS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: I would like to take this opportunity to reply to a question asked on Friday last by the hon. member for Port Arthur. The hon. member asked whether I had any recent information on the effectiveness of poisons and plans to use them against the lamprey eel in inland waters, especially in lake Superior.
This is a rather involved and long answer, Mr. Speaker, and I understood on Friday you suggested that it should be put on the order paper; so might I ask that it be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk has informed me that the proper method of dealing with the suggestion of the Minister of Fisheries would be for the house to consent to have the answer printed in Hansard. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Adam Tucker: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that that was the understanding in regard to the question I asked of the Minister of Trade and Commerce; that the answer would be given in the same way.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct. That is the
proper procedure, and I am sure the house will accept it for both answers.
[For text of answer to above question, see appendix "B", page 1100.]



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE HOSPITAL INSURANCE-OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex Easl: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he might clarify today or at some early date the extent to which the provinces will be given the opportunity at the conference between the federal government and the provinces on November 25 next to discuss with the federal government the matter of hospital insurance.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no clarification required,
Mr. Speaker. If the representatives of the provinces wish to discuss hospital insurance they will certainly have every opportunity to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will the federal government not take the initiative in discussing the hospital insurance question at the forthcoming conference so that something might be done to implement this legislation at an early date?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is
nothing whatsoever to prevent such implementation. There may be some matters requiring discussion; and if there are, at that conference everybody will be given the fullest opportunity, if the various prime ministers of the provinces so wish, to discuss these matters fully.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: On November 11, Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked me this question:
Is the minister aware that the previous long-term policy of the Aluminum Company of Canada at Kitimat in granting second mortgages to its employees who buy houses under the authority of N.H.A. has been or might be discontinued?
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have contacted the company in Kitimat and have obtained this answer:
The company has not changed its policy of granting second mortgages to employees who wish to build or purchase a house in Kitimat financed with the facilities of the National Housing Act. Second

mortgages will be granted to home owner employees for houses financed under the act during 1957.
Aluminum Company of Canada has not yet considered the housing needs of employees in 1958. It has been the custom of the company to determine the project for each year at the close of the preceding year. Consideration is now being given to the 1958 program. At present no change in policy relating to the granting of second mortgages is in contemplation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the seriousness of the international situation, and in view of his own indication that there should be a discussion of international affairs in this house before long, can he say whether arrangements will be made to have such a discussion early next week?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to set aside any day of next week specifically for this purpose. However, there will be an opportunity to discuss this subject on the supply motion which will be moved on Monday. We have several other matters of legislation which we believe require early attention. Then when the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) comes into this house the matter will receive attention and a date will be fixed.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 12, 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.
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, during the time I occupied the floor of the house last evening I drew attention to the manner in which this parliament might find ways and means of obtaining money with which to pay for the benefits to Canadians envisaged in the program outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The house, I think, agreed with me and would now agree with me that Canada is fully able to render all those benefits physically possible. There is no doubt that we are able to produce all the goods and services which all Canadians would require in order to enjoy a high standard of living. Our problem, then, is to devise adequate means

of turning Canada's physical possibilities into financial possibilities, to make what is physically possible, financially possible. This task should not be too difficult if we bear in mind that a dollar bill is only a ticket, a ticket to goods and services; that it is only a claim, much as a theatre ticket is a claim to a seat in a theatre. The Hudson's Bay Company made-beaver was a token standing for or representing the skin of an adult male beaver in prime condition. The made-beaver token was worth, or would be a token to or a claim to any goods or services in western Canada in those days to the value of such a beaver skin.
Our word "pecuniary" is derived from the Latin word "pecus" meaning cattle. Presumably, in the far-away days of Latin history, Latin men used for money a token, ticket or tag made of leather and most likely representing or backed by the cow.
The question arises: who is to create the tickets to the goods and services in a community? I took the position that the government of that community ought to have and exercise that power and function. I pointed out that our fathers of confederation placed in the British North America Act provisions giving the parliament of Canada the power to create Canadian dollars. I pointed out also that parliament began to provide for the assumption and exercise of that power when it passed the Dominion Notes Act of 1868 granting the dominion minister of finance the power to create Canada's dollars in accordance with certain conditions. I briefly sketched the historical development of that act through the years down to the passage of the Finance Act of 1914, in virtue of which the minister of finance had the right to create dominion notes backed by any one of several different kinds of securities, including dominion bonds. This was a very definite step forward. I discussed the question of what makes money funny and what makes money sound.
Let me ask the question now: a dominion one dollar note created by Canada's finance minister with twenty-five cents worth of gold behind it, created and lent to one of the chartered banks of Canada-was that dollar note sound, or funny? And why? A one dollar dominion note similarly created and lent to a bank by Canada's finance minister under the Finance Act of 1914 but backed by a Dominion of Canada bond-was that dollar sound, and why?
Or one of the 16 million dollars created under the Finance Act of 1914 by the minister of finance, backed by only railway securities and spent into circulation rather than lent, that is spent for government purposes. Was that sound, or not? Or, finally, was one
The Address-Mr. Blackmore of the 10 million one dollar dominion notes created by the minister of finance under the Finance Act of 1914 with no backing at all except the credit of Canada, that is Canada's ability to deliver goods and services where, when and as required, the notes being spent into circulation-was that note sound or not?
The answer would be that each of these notes was sound, provided there were enough goods and services in Canadian markets to absorb that note without causing a scarcity of goods accompanied by a rise in price resulting from that scarcity of goods.
Now it is most important, Mr. Speaker, that we should divest ourselves of one of the most erroneous concepts which has grown up during the last few years, namely that inflation is just a rise in price. In actual fact, inflation is a rise in price resulting from a scarcity of goods.
In chapter IV of the royal commission on banking and currency for Canada, Lord Macmillan and Sir Charles Addis, the two commissioners representing certain big interests in the city of London, England-which is a most important thing for Canadians to recognize-made statements and conclusions to justify themselves in criticizing the Finance Acts of 1914 and 1923 as being deficient and inadequate, and for recommending the setting up in Canada of a central bank, the Bank of Canada.
The two main Canadian members of the commission, Sir Thomas White and Mr. Beaudry Leman, strongly and firmly disagreed with the two big interests men from the city of London, England. Sir Thomas White expressed his opinion in a masterfully reasoned and emphatically worded memorandum of dissent from that part of the report which is recorded in paragraphs 141 to 148 inclusive of the report, dealing with bank deposits in Canada under the finance acts of 1914 and 1923, this first of Sir Thomas White's memoranda appearing on page 83 of the report.
Sir Thomas White submitted an even more comprehensive and unanswerable memorandum of dissent as regards the finance acts of 1914 and 1923, setting forth convincing evidence of their unexcelled success in financing the Canadian economy from August 1914 through world war 1, through the reconstruction period and through the depression down to October 3, 1933, the date of the handing in of his memorandum. This memorandum is found at pages 85 to 91 of the report. Mr. Beaudry Leman, the other main Canadian commissioner, also wrote a vigorous memorandum of dissent from certain of the London men's arguments and conclusions in the main report. Mr. Leman's memorandum dated September 27, 1933, appears at pages 95 to 97 of the report.
1074	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
Who was Sir Thomas White? Sir Thomas White was the Canadian minister of finance during world war I. He was the minister who introduced the Finance Act of 1914. He was the finance minister who administrated the act all throughout world war I as a member of a Conservative government, and then as a member of the Union government he administered the Finance Act of 1914 through the trying reconstruction period. During the course of his lifetime Sir Thomas White served as (1) vice-president of the Bank of Commerce, (2) director of the Canada Life Assurance Company, (3) director of the National Trust Company, and (4) director of the Steel Company of Canada. Such a man ought to be worthy of attention when speaking of matters pertaining to finance. Mentioning, as recorded on page 89 of the report, such financial problems as "refunding our outstanding loans", "the flotation of new issues, whether in Canada or elsewhere", "the sale of treasury bills", "the management of an exchange stabilization fund", "reducing unemployment", and "raising the domestic price level through monetary action"; at page 89 of the report Sir Thomas White follows with these words:
In the solution of all these problems it is my belief that the existing banking system of Canada supplemented by the provisions of the Finance Act, affords the government a much more efficient instrument than that system controlled and regulated by a newly-created central bank, independent, in theory at least, even of the government of the day.
And who was Beaudry Leman? Mr. Leman held the degrees of B.Sc., C.E., and D.C.Sc. During the course of his life he served as (1) president and managing director of Banque Canadienne Nationale, Montreal, (2) vicepresident of General Trust of Canada, (3) vice-president of Credit Foncier Franco-Canadien, and (4) director of (a) Fairchild Aircraft Ltd., (b) Montreal Tramways Company, (c) Ogilvie Flour Mills Company, (d) Provincial Transport Company, (e) Napier-ville Junction Railway Company, (f) Consolidated Bakeries of Canada Limited, (g) Shawinigan Water and Power Company, (h) Delaware and Hudson Railroad Corporation and (i) Allied War Supplies Corporation. He was 55 years of age at the time of the writing of his memorandum.
Such were the two men whom Canada put upon the royal commission. Such were the two commissioners whose opinions and emphatic protests the two big interests men from the city of London, England, so cavalierly disregarded, perhaps because Mr. Beaudry Leman in his memorandum of dissent set forth six cogent and well-supported reasons against establishing a central bank in Canada. In each of the fourth, fifth and sixth


of these reasons he clearly indicates his feeling that the decisive power over Canada's financial system should reside unchallengeably in the hands of the parliament of Canada, much, no doubt, as it did in 1933 when the treasury board consisted of the minister of finance and five other ministers nominated by the governor in council, those ministers at that time being the minister of trade and commerce, the minister of railways and canals, the minister of national revenue, the minister of marine and the minister of justice with the deputy minister of finance serving as secretary. See the report, paragraph 136.
Neither Sir Thomas White nor Mr. Beaudry Leman expressed any doubt about the soundness of the $10 million issue unbacked to be spent into circulation, or the $16 million issue against railway securities to be spent into circulation, or the $50 million issue backed by imperial treasury bills issued to be spent into circulation. These two authorities, therefore, apparently believed that dollars issued by the minister of finance to be spent into circulation, not lent, had their place in the Canadian economy and that such issues when spent scientifically would be sound. This, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the attitude of Social Crediters.
May I just point out to the all-wise gentleman who wrote that editorial in the Financial Post of October 26, 1957, against Mr. Low and Mr. Aberhart, the kind of authorities he has backed right into; and if he feels he is in a position to question the opinion of Sir Thomas White and Mr. Beaudry Leman, I can only say he has a great deal more conceit than an ordinary man needs.
If a Social Credit government were in power in Ottawa the minister of finance would open his attack upon the problem of unemployment, the problem of surpluses and the problem of the shortage of purchasing power in the hands of consumers by, first, paying a certain scientifically calculated percentage of the price of goods and services as they enter into consumption thereby paying the sellers for granting the consumer a discount-such discount being called by Social Crediters a "compensated discount"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


John Horne Blackmore: May I just finish this sentence, Mr. Speaker? And such discount constituting part of the just price mechanism advocated by Social Crediters, the net result of which discount brings down the price of goods rather than allowing them to go up and consequently is diametrically opposed to inflation.


Mr. Habel:: A rather long sentence.


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, now that the opportunity is offered me to take part in this debate, and speaking for the first time in this house, I should like to join with those who have preceded me, if I am not too late, in paying my compliments to you, sir, upon your elevation to the highest office within the gift of the House of Commons. I listened with much interest to the approval given your appointment by the leaders and members of all parties in this chamber and I feel you have already given ample evidence of your willingness and ability to discharge the duties of your high office with dignity and dispatch and to the satisfaction of all hon. members.
I have listened with interest to the hon. members who have participated in this debate, both the new members and the old veterans, and one cannot help but feel he is among orators. I also cannot help but feel that many hon. members have had considerable experience in public speaking due to their training as lawyers or professors and speaking as a businessman-and I am sure every businessman in this house will agree-I would point out that we are not usually famous as orators nor do we rise to such great heights of oratory.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) upon his appointment. In my opinion this was a very wise choice and is clearly justifiable for we in the Atlantic provinces produce more fish than is produced anywhere else in Canada.
I have the honour to represent the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg. It is a constituency that has long been represented by a member seated on the side of the government in power and I am pleased that this precedent was not broken after the election of June 10. By the way, I would like to thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) as well as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who were kind enough, at great personal inconvenience and expense, to come to Nova Scotia and speak in my riding during the past election. They were of considerable help in my election. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made the prediction that it would be a political miracle if a Conservative member were elected in Queens-Lunenburg and more so if a Conservative government were elected to power. As a prophet he has not gained many followers in Queens-Lunenburg. Unfortunately he is not in his seat, but I am pleased to see that he has lived to see that his prophecy did not come true.
If Canadians were to choose a fishing capital for their country, the very likely
The Address-Mr. Crouse choice would be the town of Lunenburg in Nova Scotia. Lunenburg would deserve this honour on several counts. In the days of sail she was the home of the largest deep sea fishing fleet in North America. Her name on the taffrails of the fleet ranked for 100 years with Gloucester and Boston. Her ships were in every Atlantic fishing port and on every foggy fishing bank. Her ships traded in every port from Labrador to the West Indies. Today a large number of deep sea fishing draggers still operate from her harbour.
For generations her people have had the reputation of being sincere, industrious and hard working. They are known throughout Canada as seafaring, God fearing people who derive most of their living directly from the sea. Others derive a living from those industries associated with fishing such as fish curing, fish packing, oar and block shops, shipbuilding and ship refitting. Some are engaged in manufacturing, which was carried out in a small way and which flourished during the past war. As a matter of fact, in my riding there are several firms which build and equip gasoline engines for sale to the local fishermen. Mixed farming is also carried out in my constituency, with the concentration heaviest in the Bridgewater district. We also have lumbering, the shipping of pit props and in Queens county the heavy concentration of pulp cutting provides a steady income for many people.
I mention these facts so that you will see that my constituency represents a fair crosssection of Canadians, and I think it is significant that these people saw fit to reject the representative from the former administration and elect a member to support the present Conservative government. Members of the former government have found it difficult to find reasons why this change was made and they have searched for the reason on the floor of the house. They were on the right hand of the Speaker so long that they cannot seem to adjust to being on the left, and they were certainly left on June 10.
It is for this reason that I have attempted to give you the background of my people. They are all hard working, thrifty, rugged individualists who abhor waste of any kind. They could never understand why such large sums were expended on the approaches at Port Aux Basques, Newfoundland, for the ferry, William Carson, or why the development branch of the Department of Fisheries spent from 1954 to 1956-57 a total of $817,- 440 for a pilot fish-drying plant in Valley-field, Newfoundland, which was in effect in competition with Nova Scotia plants established by private capital. Nor could they

The Address-Mr. Crouse understand the delay and expense in establishing the Bluenose terry service and its construction outside of Nova Scotia, a province famous for generations as shipbuilders, and why it was berthed in the United States over night rather than at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. It was bought with the Canadian taxpayers' money and it was felt that any industry accumulating from this operation should accumulate to the benefit of Canadians. It was felt that these items and the indifferent attitude to costs generally taken by the former government contributed to the inflation which was creeping throughout Canada. To these thrifty people inflation meant a lowering in value of their hard earned income and their savings, and so a change in government was inevitable.
May I express a further thought on inflation and our many problems. When the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate spoke yesterday he questioned what the government was doing about these many problems and, in fact, we hear many hon. members on the other side of the house question when we intend to implement our election promises. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the opposition that we inherited a rather leaky ship of state from the Liberal government. When the leaks became apparent, the ship was passed over to us by the Canadian people. All Nova Scotians know that when you secure a 22-year-old ship that did not receive the best of care it must first be hauled out, the barnacles removed, the worm holes plugged, then scraped clean, caulked and painted. Next the rust and corruption of 22 years must be pounded free throughout the whole ship and the engines and rigging must be given a thorough overhaul. Finally, a new captain and crew must be instructed in its operation.
All this is necessary before a voyage is planned and, depending on the condition of the ship, will take from six months to a year. I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate realizes this is true for he owns a schooner. I submit to you, sir, that the Conservative government is in this position today, and we have a major refit on our hands in this Canadian ship of state. In the meantime we are effecting some emergency repairs and in due course I am sure the government will arrange a suitable voyage for everyone.
There is no doubt in my mind that the present government is doing the best it can at this time. I see no evidence in any department that they are not trying to do a good job, and as elected representatives of the


various constituencies it is our responsibility to assist the government in every possible way.
With this thought in mind, I should like to say a word at this time about our merchant marine. Engraved in stone over the main entrance to the parliament buildings are these words:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both East and West.
At this, our inland capital, these words serve to remind those who make the laws of this great nation that their community begins at the sea and grows and prospers as seafaring men in ships carry its commerce. Behind the seamen, giving them the tools of their trade, are the shipyards turning the inanimate products of the forests, mines and factories into the ships that keep business moving and growing.
For more than two centuries the commercial shipyards of this country have been sending out ships able to withstand the buffetting of the seven seas or designed with skill to meet the special needs of shippers in Canada's inland and coastal waters. The building and repairing of ships is the oldest of Canada's manufacturing industries. Canada's present-day shipbuilders have moved in step with changing and exacting demands of a mechanized age and are producing steam-powered ships, oil burners, giant tankers, diesel fishing trawlers and rugged icebreakers to penetrate northern waters as Canada pushes back her last frontier.
However, since the end of world war II shipping circles in the maritime countries have been watching with apprehension the increasing amount of merchant tonnage registered in Panama, Liberia, Honduras and Costa Rica, countries which hitherto had no interest in shipping matters. The reason for this attention is that all concerned know that ships registered in these countries are operated virtually tax free. The governments concerned give neither supervision, control nor regulation to the ships. The owners are not nationals of and have no connection with the country of registration. The crews are non-nationals of the registering country. There are no collective agreements providing minimum crew wages or working conditions in these countries. There are no labour relations providing safeguards for crew members. In fact, almost everything most valued in traditionally maritime countries is absent.
The combination of all these factors brings about the situation that ships so registered are a menace to the traditional merchant navies, the national economies of

traditionally maritime countries, international maritime standards and seafarers national wage levels and working conditions.
Because of their tax-free and almost total lack of government supervision they are given trade advantages over the ships of maritime countries. At the end of 1956, there were 1,420 ships registered in Liberia, Panama, Costa Rica and Honduras, with a total tonnage of 11,305,000 tons, which represents 11.5 per cent of the world tonnage. The increase in 1957 looks as if it will be more than 2 million tons. In fact, 20 per cent of the world's new shipping presently building is for these flags.
Because these registered ships carry such a large proportion of the world's cargoes the result is a reduction in net shipping earnings in the maritime countries. If national merchant navies are to be preserved, let alone expanded, the matter should be dealt with on diplomatic and legislative levels. The governments which are members of NATO should give support to the calling of a conference of the representative countries for the purpose of convincing these governments that their present negative attitude or open encouragement of these policies is unfair and harmful to all. Such policies, therefore, should be terminated.
We have spent large sums, over $300 million, of the Canadian taxpayers' money to provide the St. Lawrence seaway. Was this to provide a water route for foreign shipping only? I think not, Mr. Speaker. We have the shipyards and the men and during the war our merchant navy was counted as the fourth arm of the service but in spite of this our merchant navy has dwindled to ten ships. In my constituency, and throughout Nova Scotia, a large number of people make their living by building and repairing ships of all kinds, steel as well as wood. Today we see our fish drying flakes rotting along our shores. Is this to be the fate of our shipyards?
Let us examine the problem. No one will deny that we build the finest ships in Nova Scotia, comparable to the ships built anywhere in the world. Our seamen are unsurpassed by any that ever stood a watch. In 1789 when one of the oldest companies in Canada, Zwicker and Company of Lunenburg, were starting in business, and in the years that immediately followed, Canadians built the ships that caught the fish; built and manned the ships that delivered our fish and lumber to foreign markets, and at wages comparable with the earnings in other industries.
Then, a gradual change took place. The unions took over the affairs of the labouring
The Address-Mr. Crouse classes including those of the seamen on cargo carriers. A debatable hourly wage was instituted, certain regulations pertaining to shipping were passed, and all of these things were upheld by the government. Today, as a result of these regulations and the high wages demanded because of our high living standards, we are unable to maintain our own fleet of cargo carriers and must depend on foreign shipping to carry our commerce.
What of the men in Nova Scotia, and throughout Canada, who like to work at shipbuilding? What of the men who love the sea, who love to roam her vast expanses in preference to a job ashore? Are we to destine them to a landlubber's life because this nation is not maritime minded enough to provide them with a ship which will carry the products of our own industries? Look at our Canadian coastline and envisage the possibility of trade on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I believe you will agree that it is way past the time when this matter can be ignored. It is a time for action, for sober thought, in regard to the future of our merchant fleet and seamen.
Few Canadians know that, in the days of wooden ships and iron men, Nova Scotia had more shipping per capita than any country in the world. It was the ambition of every Nova Scotia boy to become a sea captain. Many of them did and seven became admirals. Nova Scotia sent her best men to the sea as privateers, as traders, as fishermen and the sea gave up her riches to this maritime province. Nova Scotia seamen were great because they knew their craft. They not only sailed their ships but built them. They knew every stick of wood, every square inch of canvas that went into them. Today, the only impetus to maritime shipbuilding is in the realm of building pleasure craft. In the event of another war, the Royal Canadian Navy will have to call again on the merchant navy for trained personnel.
From the viewpoint of the Atlantic provinces, it is of the utmost importance to our economy that trade with the British West Indies be improved, and to carry that trade a larger, more modern and better equipped fleet than we have at present is required. It is hoped that Canada will, in the future, import more citrus juices from the West Indies. This will provide the West Indies with more Canadian dollars with which to buy our fish and wheat. In my opinion, in order to re-establish a Canadian merchant marine it is necessary for Canada to form a definite marine policy under which owners

The Address-Mr. Crouse are protected from foreign shipping. I suggest that action be taken by the government at the earliest possible date to enunciate their policy.
At this time I should like to say a few words about the tourist industry in Nova Scotia. Many of our citizens depend upon this industry for a livehood, and the industry received a boost when the Bluenose inaugurated a ferry service. It is a matter of great concern to many Nova Scotians, however, that this ferry is incapable of handling all the tourists who desire to visit the province from that great nation to the south of us. I would suggest that to alleviate this situation a further ferry service be instituted between Boston and, perhaps, Liverpool or Shelburne, Nova Scotia. These ports are two of the finest on the eastern seaboard and are unequalled as all-weather, deep water ports at which docking facilities are established. This further service would provide an alternate route for the convenience of the travelling public and Liverpool, known years ago as the privateer capital of the world, would welcome this new industry. I should like to impress upon this government the need for giving this matter every consideration.
The establishment of a national park area along the south shore of Nova Scotia would be of further interest to the tourist. I would propose something similar to the park on the north shore of Prince Edward Island, in an area lying between Liverpool and Cape Sable island. Beautiful sand beaches, suitable for salt water bathing, abound in this section and the inland lakes and rivers of Queens county provide opportunities for the finest of trout and salmon fishing. I believe the establishment of a national park in this area would be, not only valuable as a tourist attraction but would provide an ideal vacation spot for native Nova Scotians. In the event of a nuclear war, these national parks would be invaluable. People in thickly settled areas could be evacuated to these camp sites where water and sewage facilities are provided. Because of their location these facilities would not likely be contaminated by fall-out so I would urge the government to give some thought to this proposal.
The speech from the throne offered much comfort to our senior citizens, to the blind and disabled persons. Those worthy citizens, the war veterans, were not forgotten and the scale of their allowances is to be increased. Farmers can look forward to legislation guaranteeing greater stability in the prices of their products and the government is pledged to strive to secure additional markets for the products of our fisheries. This will be of great interest to my constituency for fishing is the real basis of our


existence in Queens-Lunenburg. Most of our industry and enterprise is allied with fishing, directly or indirectly.
In the past few years great strides have been made in modernizing fishing methods and in improving the manner of marketing fish. The development of cold storage facilities throughout the country has helped distribution and has helped bring delicacies of the sea to those inland cities which, otherwise, could not enjoy our fine seafoods. The modernization of our fishing fleet has been gradual over the years. Very few of our graceful deepsea salt fishing bankers, which helped make the industry famous, are left. The memory of these ships has been perpetuated by a replica of the schooner Blue-nose on the back of the Canadian 10-cent piece. This vessel should have, and could have, been preserved by a more thoughtful government.
Today we see a new and different fleet made up of diesel-powered long liners, sword fishermen, scallop draggers and ground fish draggers, ranging in size from 55 feet to 65 feet in length. It is true that we have some deepsea trawlers ranging up to 115 feet in length, but the majority of the fleet today is made up of smaller ships, individually owned or owned by groups of fishermen.
With the increased growth of this fleet, a definite need arose for a protection service or a coast guard. This request was made of the former Liberal administration and it was ignored. It was ignored because apparently no members of the former administration have spent any time at sea, as I have. They were unaware of the need and did nothing for the maritime fishermen. Needless to say, at election time the maritime fishermen did nothing for the Liberal candidates, as evidenced by the large number of members from the Atlantic area.
During the past summer two specific events occurred on our eastern seaboard which outlined the need of a coastguard. The Jean and Edith captained by Mr. William Evans, is a 65-foot fishing dragger, fishing out of Sydney, Nova Scotia. This ship broke down on the grand banks off Newfoundland and radioed for assistance. Unfortunately no one was listening and, as the winds blew and the seas rose higher, it looked as if this was the end. Fortunately, however, our United States friends have a coastguard stationed at Ar-gentia, Newfoundland, and just when it appeared as if all was lost they found the small dragger and towed it to Newfoundland.
Later in the summer the Alfred D., a 65-foot fishing dragger, also broke down on the grand banks. When it appeared as if no one would

rescue them, Captain Bernard Tanner, by a stroke of good luck, heard their call for assistance, and though he has only a 65-foot dragger, he towed the Alfred D. 400 miles to port.
If we abolished the 12-mile fishing limit, and used the present ships engaged in fisheries protective work, we would have the nucleus of a Canadian coastguard without any additional cost to the taxpayer. I would impress upon this government the definite need of a Canadian coastguard, and urge it to consider establishing this service at the earliest possible date.
I listened with much interest some weeks ago to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) when he referred to the prices received for fish some 20 years ago. I should like to remind this house that there has been little change between then and the present time. In fact, the price of fish in Nova Scotia has been more stable than has the Canadian dollar. The cost of living index shows that it has decreased considerably in value during the past 10 years, but we receive almost as much today for codfish as we received 10 years ago.
In 1947 the cost of constructing a 100-foot fishing dragger was $140,000 and codfish was selling to the wholesalers at 3 4 cents a pound by fishermen. Today a dragger of 100 feet will cost $280,000 and codfish are worth 3J cents a pound, according to the press of Thursday, November 7.
There is no clearer evidence of the inflation that has spread throughout Canada, and the neglect and disregard of the fishing industry in the last 10 years under a Liberal administration with regard to costs. Unfortunately the price of fish did not rise in proportion with the costs of the ship, and the fishermen are today faced with these higher costs, not only for the ship but also for oil, rope, paint, fishing nets, refits and in fact everything connected with the fisheries operation.
It is clear that the fishermen do not need subsidies or assistance from the government. What they need is a fairer price for their landed product in relation to their increased costs. Clearly the time has come for governments, both federal and provincial, to direct their efforts and funds to the encouragement of greater fish consumption. In addition, I would urge the present government to add to its investigation program and investigate the prices and the spread in prices paid to Canadian fishermen, in comparison with their United States counterparts, with a view to improving the economic lot of the fishermen of Canada.
The Address-Mr. Crouse
We have had a strange event happen this week. There have been rumours to the effect that an investigation into the primary prices of fish was to be carried out and on Monday an announcement was made in the local press that prices paid to the fishermen in the maritime provinces would increase by 20 per cent. At a time when all other commodities were advancing in price the prices paid to the fishermen remained static or declined. Now when other products are levelling off or declining we are advised by the manipulators in the fishing business that they are advancing the prices paid to the primary producers by 20 per cent. To those fishermen who were told that they would have to tie their boats to the dock, to the workers in the fish plants who were told that there would be no employment for them if they voted for a Conservative government, this will be extremely welcome news and certainly a contradiction of what they had heard prior to June 10.
I have listened with interest to hon. members on both sides of this house, representing constituencies in the west discuss the problem of wheat. I have never been to the west but I should like to remind hon. members, after listening to the many discussions, that this is a problem of abundance, of God's bounty. There is a biblical reference that in another time it was decided to tear down the barns and build greater. We have done just that in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and today there is much soul-searching to sell this wheat. We have no similar glut of fish on the eastern coast for the product of our primary producers is sold in the open market at a price which the public are willing to pay. This simple expedient was apparently never recently applied to the product wheat which has a value set by the government. We hear of the injustices to the western farmer, but he is still allowed to plant his crop.
Consider the attitude of the former Liberal government with regard to the Canadian fishermen. Our fishermen had to remain outside a limit of 12 miles from the Canadian coastline, while fishermen of every other nation were allowed to fish within three miles of the Canadian headland, and to fish on our prolific inshore banks. Further, if one of our Canadian fishing draggers were caught fishing within the 12-mile limit, a $500 fine was imposed. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was little doubt in the minds of Canada's fishermen that it was time for a change. I would impress upon this government the need of reviewing the 12-mile fishing limit.
In closing, I think it is only fair to say that the people of Queens-Lunenburg look forward to the future with new hope under the

The Address-Mr. Lesage present government. I am certain that their requests, which have always been modest, will be given every consideration and that we will advance along with the whole Atlantic area and enjoy under this administration a fairer share of the national economy.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to compliment Mr. Speaker on his election to his high office. His legal and parliamentary experience and knowledge, his urbanity and affability commend him to the unanimous choice of this house.
(Translation):
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to take this opportunity, while you are occupying the chair, to congratulate you on your appointment to this significant post and to assure you of our conviction that you will guide the debates in this house with justice, fairness and impartiality.
(Text):
I wish also to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address. They have given a good account of their ability despite the poorness of the material with which they had to deal.
I have read the speech from the throne a number of times with great attention. I have even tried to read between the lines. However, I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I have failed to see in it the great things which hon. members opposite have talked about in such glowing terms. The first half of the speech from the throne is devoted to Canadian nationhood, Commonwealth solidarity, the Colombo plan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations. On these subjects we all agree and there is nothing new in what has been said. As a matter of fact, there is not even the suggestion of a new approach.
Then the speech from the throne goes on with the somewhat trite statement:
. . . my ministers look forward to meeting next month with the leaders of the provincial governments in order to discuss fiscal relations.
Well, despite the importance of the subject and the pledges given by the Prime Minister during the election, we have in this debate heard not one word from the cabinet about the policy of the government in that field. Moreover, it is clear from the answers we have received since the beginning of this session that the government has no set policy nor is it preparing any proposals which it could lay before the conference.
It seems to me that serious study of these grave problems-and I am very sorry I have come to hold this belief-is as far away from the minds of the ministers as electioneering and partisan politics are ever-near and ever-


present. It looks as if the cabinet will be as far from ready for this federal-provincial conference as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was for the Mont Tremblant conference. It is clear from the letter addressed by the Prime Minister to the premiers of the provinces on October 31 that the government is merely preparing the physical arrangements for a conference, the only accomplishment of which will be to prepare for another conference.
Then the speech from the throne mentions a bill providing for vacations with pay for workers under federal jurisdiction. We know now that the provisions of the bill do not satisfy labour completely. The speech also expresses the pious hope that new markets will be found for our fisheries and agricultural products, but since June there have been no signs that this hope will be realized.
The speech from the throne also mentions legislation to provide greater stability in the prices of farm products. I suppose this legislation will follow the resolution which is on the order paper. A careful reading of that resolution tends to show, having in mind the constitutional limitations of parliament, that it means nothing more than the continuance of the policy of price support. It looks like the same policy with a different setup and a more costly and cumbersome administration. After all, if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to translate from the French this addition of $50 million to the revolving fund is nothing but "powder in the eyes" of the public.
Leaving aside for the moment the paragraph on national development and the subparagraphs on cheaper power for the Atlantic provinces, and the South Saskatchewan dam and the development of the Columbia river to which I will come later, what is left of the speech from the throne? The government is increasing its assistance to wheat growers and to the recipients of social security payments according to policies which have been developed by the Liberals; with the difference of course which I mentioned the other day that there is no increase for the recipients of family allowances in spite of the promises made by the Tories in Quebec during the last electoral campaign.
Oh, it is so very easy indeed to increase public expenditures, especially when no consideration is given to its possible detrimental economic effects or to the additional taxation it might involve. It was because of the inflationary pressures existing at the time, which still exist to some extent, that the previous administration did not feel it could do more than it did in those fields when it had the responsibility of office. However, the fact that the present government has

seen fit to provide these additional benefits does not give it the right to act as if it had initiated all the policies under which the benefits are made available and to present itself-as did the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) the other day-as the only defender of the little people of Canada. Oh, it is quite easy to act quickly when the only thing which is involved is the increasing of the amount of benefits and assistance within the framework of already existing Liberal policies.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) is in the house because I now wish to come to the point made in the speech from the throne with respect to a national development policy. As was to be expected, that policy is not defined in the speech from the throne, nor was it defined or explained by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he referred to it in this debate on October 15. I have gone through the discourses of the Prime Minister and those of his predecessor as leader of the Conservative party in this house with reference to this subject during the past years, but I have not been able to find any definition of a national development policy or plan. On October 24 of this year I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if it was his intention to outline to the house the famous national development policy or plan which the Conservatives had been talking about for years. As I expected, I received no answer. Anyway, it is usual to receive no answer from the minister. The only logical conclusion to which we can come is that this government has no national development plan or policy in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Bell (Carlefon):: Nonsense.


Jean Lesage: Well, I hope the parliamentary assistant, instead of interrupting with remarks like "nonsense"-which might easily apply to him-will rise during this debate and, if he is so good and so well informed, will give to this house an explanation outlining this famous national development policy of the Conservative party. I challenge him to do so.
As a matter of fact what does the speech from the throne mention and what did the Prime Minister mention in his speech on national development? He merely mentioned the creation of facilities for the production and transmission of cheaper electric power to the Atlantic provinces, assistance in the financing of Beechwood, discussion with Saskatchewan on the South Saskatchewan dam and discussions with the United States government on the development of the
The Address

Mr. Lesage Columbia river. Most of these things are not new. They certainly cannot be presented as constituting a national development policy.
After all, a national policy must be precise in scope. It requires principles and methods, and it has to be made available to all regions of Canada. There is nothing of the sort in the government proposals for those things I have just mentioned. Moreover, the democratic way in which to initiate a national policy in any field is for the government to spell it out in a special piece of legislation and submit it to this parliament. But the government is content with promises; it has become accustomed to that since the last electoral campaign.
The first promise is about the creation of facilities for the production and transmission of cheaper electric power in the Atlantic provinces. This is, after all, only a continuation of the policy which was announced in this house by Mr. Harris, the former minister of finance, on March 14 last, and detailed by myself on April 9. However, since October 14 it has become obvious that whatever is intended by hon. gentlemen opposite is not for the Atlantic provinces, but only for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Then I understand that the government intends to initiate new discussions with the government of Saskatchewan with regard to the South Saskatchewan dam. The previous government had such discussions, but they were not successful. If the present government can come to reasonable terms with the government of Saskatchewan, so much the better, but after the answers the Prime Minister gave in this house last week I am afraid it will take a long time, even more time than the present administration will have at its disposal.
Finally, the speech from the throne says, and I quote:
My ministers are pressing for a favourable settlement of international problems in connection with the Columbia river.
I am astonished that any government should have the nerve to put into Her Majesty's mouth words which have so little relation to the truth. After the questions I put in the house to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on April 22 and 24, it is obvious that there has been no discussion with the United States authorities on the subject since I led a delegation to Washington on May 20 last. Nothing has been done in this field, as nothing has been done in other fields by this government of words and promises, even on such an important matter as this, and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources should know it by this time.

The Address-Mr. Lesage
I should like to turn now to vital matters which are not mentioned in the speech from the throne. In several of the fields in which we have grave problems what we find is government by postponement. Yes, sir, government by postponement. Instead of facing the issues and defining its own policy, the government calls conferences and appoints royal commissions. What is the policy of the government in the field of trade? It is a policy of conferences. The government has refined this technique to a point where we have conferences called for the specific purpose of organizing another conference. The government is so convinced of the merits of this new technique that it claims a great victory -I am thinking now, of the Minister of Finance-when it has succeeded in making the physical arrangements for another conference.
In the field of trade we know now that this 15 per cent policy is nothing but a monumental bluff. Michael Barkway has been quoted at length in this house by hon. members on this side, but I should like to put on Hansard a quotation from an article by Blair Fraser which appeared in the October 26 issue of Maclean's magazine. Writing about the attitude of the Minister of Finance at the conference held at Mont Tremblant, he had this to say, and I quote:
Rightly or wrongly, everybody In the room was convinced that the reason he-
The Minister of Finance -could not talk about Canada's proposals was that Canada had no proposals worth talking about.
And Mr. Fraser concluded his article with the following paragraph:
Like the weavers in the old story of the emperor's new clothes, Fleming and his advisers had been working all summer on the fabric of this great Canadian idea, a commonwealth trade conference. And on the day of the big parade It was not the innocent voice of a child but the bland tones of a chancellor of the exchequer that set off the deadly cry: "The Emperor has no clothes on".
In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, the government is so busy preparing conferences that it has no time to prepare itself for those conferences.
In a more restricted field, what is the attitude of the government with respect to certain tariffs now protecting Canadian industries, such as the tariffs on textiles? The government has no policy, or, rather, it has decided to make a reference to the tariff board so that the board can supply a policy to the government. What about the problem of our economic relations with the United States? Here, again, no policy but a conference, where something or some one was fixed. As to who did the fixing, I believe what happened at the FAO meeting yesterday in Rome is revealing

as to the intentions of the United States government with regard to the protection of Canadian trade.
When the Conservatives were in opposition they used to blame the Liberals for the low level of farm income and the spread between the retail prices of agricultural products and the receipts of farmers. Now that they are in power, what is their policy? Here again, they have no policy or, rather, the government has announced its intention to create a special committee of the house to investigate this problem, and we can infer from the Prime Minister's remarks in this house that once the committee has terminated its study a royal commission, a new Stevens commission, will be appointed to consider the work of the committee. Thus we have conferences to prepare other conferences, and royal commissions to study the reports of parliamentary committees. In the meantime, we have government by postponement. In this way the Conservative party hopes to hide from the Canadian people the fact that on major issues it has no policy.
In the field of energy, here, again, we have heard no policy announced by this government. We all know that the Gordon commission devoted a good deal of attention to this problem and will in its final report make specific recommendations which were anticipated in its preliminary report. Before knowing what will be the final recommendations of the Gordon commission in this respect, the government appoints a royal commission whose main purpose is to make an inquiry on the recommendations of another commission before these recommendations are presented in final form. This is what can be called quick action, but what about the wisdom of the action. Of course, everybody knows why this royal commission on energy was appointed; every one in Canada knows that it is to hide the fact that the Conservative party wants to continue the pipe-line policy initiated by the past Liberal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Jean Lesage: Yes, it is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Jean Lesage: That is why the royal commission on energy has been appointed. The Conservatives strongly criticized this policy of the past Liberal government and of course they do not dare admit publicly now the fact that they endorse the policy. What they wish to do is hide that policy of theirs behind a royal commission. They do not have

the courage to admit they will have to follow our policy in this matter. They intend to escape their responsibility by appointing a royal commission.
Contrary to a well-established tradition- and this is remarkable, you know,-there is no reference this year in the speech from the throne to the current economic situation. It is the first time since I have been in this house that there has been no reference to the economic situation in the speech from the throne. This omission is certainly not justified by the absence of economic problems. It can only be explained again by the absence of government policy.
After all, at present we have both rising prices and rising unemployment. Unemployment is rising rapidly and I am sure it will attain new post-war heights during the coming winter. It is expected that there will be several hundred thousand unemployed during the coming months in Canada. What is the government doing about this situation? The government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has made available an amount of $150 million in the form of loans in order to stimulate housing construction. This is not a new policy but the application of Liberal policy. This amount was always authorized in the act passed by parliament under a Liberal administration.
What else is the government doing to meet this situation? We have been told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) that the government is concentrating its building program during the winter months. Here again is a policy initiated by the Liberals but at the same time there is evidence that the government in its endeavour to reduce over-all expenditures as promised during the election is cutting down its construction program, which of course will have an adverse effect on employment.
During recent months prices have risen continuously and in spite of what the Minister of Finance said on orders of the day prices have not ceased to climb. In the situation we are now facing rising unemployment and rising prices are not incompatible. Moreover, in the long run, despite what the Minister of Finance has said, the experts in the field of economics in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and Canada all agree that the great danger in the free world is still inflation.
What is the government doing to curb the so-called creeping inflation and to reduce inflationary pressures? Here again it has no policy. We have not heard a word from the Minister of Finance on this subject. However, the minister made a speech a few
The Address-Mr. Lesage weeks ago in Montreal in which he made quite astonishing statements on the problem. In substance he said that the curbing of inflation was the responsibility of the individual citizen and he implied that anti-cyclical budgeting was an unwise policy. The minister surely knows that inflation is a collective phenomenon which feeds itself and develops into a spiral. There is very little that the individual citizen as such can do to prevent rising prices.
The Conservative government wants to appear as the party of the common man by increasing some of our social security payments but it still supports the good old reactionary fiscal policy of the Bennett regime which contributed so much to aggravate the depression of the 'thirties. Since the second world war all the democratic governments whether Conservative or Liberal, except the present Canadian government, have recognized that one of their primary responsibilities is to ensure a high and stable level of employment and income and that fiscal policy is one of the most effective weapons in the fight against unemployment and inflation. Surely the Minister of Finance knows that economic instability, whether it manifests itself in the form of unemployment or inflation, has its roots in the private sector of the economy and that a government whose policy it is, according to the Minister of Finance, to rely mainly on private initiative to eliminate those undesirable conditions is evading one of its basic democratic responsibilities. What we need at present is a positive and dynamic fiscal policy to cope with the present economic situation but the government is offering a negative policy based on the old fashioned and outmoded approach of Tory laissez-faire.
Absence of policy, Tory laissez-faire and government by postponement are the main characteristics of the present government. The Canadian people are still waiting for clear-cut policies on matters of national concern but the government is silent. We had an example of that today. The members of the cabinet have consistently refused to answer questions and to give information on important matters of policy to this house and to the people of Canada.
The reasons for this absence of policy and for refusing information are quite obvious when we hear the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet mention the possibility of a general election. That is their refuge whenever they are reminded from this side of the house of their lack of policy. The Prime Minister would like the people of Canada to believe that the dissolution of parliament would be an act of courage on his part.

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart On the contrary I maintain that in the present circumstances it would be a confession of failure. It would be an admission that his administration cannot cope with the problems it should face. It would be nothing less than a retreat from hard realities.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) for the last few minutes I am quite convinced that one of the prerequisites of a successful Liberal politician is to have an illimitable amount of gall. We have just heard a former cabinet minister asking the government to express its policy and while I think he has the right to ask for it and the right to expect it I would point out that during the years I have been in parliament I have never listened to a Liberal policy being expressed except what had been filched and stolen from other parties. Now that the Liberals are in opposition they still fail to express any policy because when the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) was asked the other day by a Tory what Liberal policy was with regard to a certain subject the hon. member for Algoma East said, "Our policy is to wait and see what your policy is". Thus we listen to Liberal and Conservative members batting nothing from one to the other.
I want to discuss today certain aspects of Liberal policy in the past which have brought us as a nation to a very precarious situation at the present time. Three years ago I introduced this subject of the extent of United States domination over our economy, and in the last three years the situation has become appreciably worse. There are many sincere people in this country who are very worried about our capacity as a nation to survive. The more pessimistic have told me that within a predictable number of years this House of Commons will be the capital of another American state. I do not happen to share that pessimism but I do think that the situation today, from the point of view of Canadian independence, is extraordinarily serious, and it is this which I want to examine. On February 4, 1955, as found at page 855 of Hansard, I had this to say. It aroused the wrath of a good number of people but I am not taking back one word.
Most oi the foreign investment here is American, although quite a substantial part is European. And under certain conditions I welcome both. I welcome more European investment because I want to see greater diversity of investment in this country, rather than have us almost in thraldom to one country.
But the significant thing is that when one looks at the financial structure of Canada one is struck by the small, the almost insignificant part which Canadian capital itself has played in the opening

up of this country. When I think of the Canadian capitalist I think about what Robert Burns said about the mouse-the "tim'rous beastie". Unquestionably, when it comes to investment in their own country, Canadian capitalists are frightened, cowardly creatures depending always upon outsiders to do the fob which they should be doing themselves. They are men without vision, men without confidence, men without any courage whatsoever. I think of what the future of Canada has for all of us, and then I realize that Canadian capitalism has abdicated in favour of the foreigners.
That situation has become even more apparent over the last few years. I repeat what I said about foreign investment. We need it in this country but in doses not so great that it threatens the independence of Canada. The speech I made at that time aroused the ire of Mr. Grant Dexter, one of the most respected members of the press gallery and one for whom I have a decided personal liking, although I must say he is constantly blinded by Liberal blinkers. He wrote in the Free Press:
Suggestions that Canadian investors are timorous or that we are in danger of being enthralled or enslaved by foreign capitalists must be set down to socialist rhetoric. The truth is otherwise.
I am sure Mr. Dexter would be the first to admit today that the truth is not otherwise. I want to call one or two witnesses. The first is a most reliable one despite Mr. Dexter's concept. I mean the editor of the Financial Post. The Financial Post had this to say editorially a short while ago:
Canada now finds itself with around 60 per cent of its industrial machine and a high percentage of its raw materials owned by foreign corporations. That means a great many of the big decisions affecting this nation and its people are made outside the country and the pace of foreign ownership is increasing.
When I am told that over 60 per cent of Canadian industry and very much more of Canadian raw materials are owned by foreign capitalists I wonder what is wrong with our own capitalists, and I accuse them, and rightly so, of cowardice in letting outsiders come in and do the job which they themselves should be doing. When I am told by the editor of the Financial Post that a great many of the big decisions affecting this country are made outside of it, then I adhere to my original words that we are living in a state of thraldom to a foreign country.
But there are other witnesses one can call. For instance, in the Canadian Journal of Economic and Political Science of November last year there was a most interesting article by two members of the dominion bureau of statistics, Messrs. C. D. Blyth and E. B. Carty, who have done some extraordinarily good work in the field of Canada's balance of payments. They had this to say:
No other nation as highly industrialized as Canada has such a large proportion of industry controlled by non-resident concerns.

I am one of those who believe that where you have economic control ultimately you have political control, and when that is the situation then to say we are not in a state of thraldom is to talk nonsense. To take still another issue of the Financial Post, I find the following:
That Canada should proceed through a decade of unparallelled boom and development, and find herself more than ever a hewer of wood and drawer of water, Is a fact that is, to say the least, disturbing.
I, Mr. Speaker, find it alarming, for if we are hewers of wood and drawers of water it is not a matter of our own volition it is not a matter of our own free will. It is being imposed on us from outside, so how can we say that we are free? We are not. I object to this foreign domination but I do not blame the Americans one iota. They are playing the game as they know it under their free enterprise system. It is not the United States investor who is to blame. It is the Liberal government in past years which sold Canadians down the Hudson river. They are the ones who have got to take the responsibility.
In time to come the Tories may be faced with the same strictures but they are going to be given a chance to show in the meantime precisely what they can do. It is not as though the Liberal government had been ignorant of what was happening. They had been told by Mr. Coyne of the Bank of Canada and their other economic advisers that the effect of this foreign investment in Canada was to add fuel to the inflationary flames. They were told last year by Mr. Coyne that a billion dollars too much money was in our economic system and that therefore the effect of it would be inflationary.
What action did the Liberals take? They did nothing very much except to give us the free enterprise answer that if there is inflation it is the fault of these terrible workers who want increases in wages. But the workers of this country have every right to the highest possible standard of living they can secure and workers' wages always follow the cost of living and never precede it. Therefore when the workers come out for higher wages it is to meet a cost of living which has been brought about by the fiscal policy of one government or another.
The Liberal government knew that inflation was upon us and they knew how it was being caused because Mr. Coyne tells us in his report this year how it was being caused and he must have told the government last year how this was happening. On page 4 of Mr. Coyne's recent report he says:
In Canada, the chief cause in inflationary pressures was a great increase in capital expenditures,
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart a boom in investment, particularly business investment in resource development and in fixed assets, construction, and expansion of equipment. A significant part of the total, including many of the largest projects, arose from large foreign enterprises taking the lead in developing Canadian resources with a view to export of raw materials to the country of origin of the foreign enterprise.
I draw Mr. Dexter's attention to this again.
A significant part of the total, including many of the largest projects, arose from large foreign enterprises taking the lead in developing Canadian resources-
Where were our Canadian entrepreneurs? Where were our Canadian capitalists that they had to let foreigners do the job for them? What was the effect of all this? The government of the day, the Liberals, suddenly became alarmed. They got certain advice from Mr. Coyne and Mr. Coyne tells us what it was on page 41 of his report. I disagree with this statement and I am going to make an amendment to it. Mr. Coyne says:
In the circumstances of 1956, and in view of its statutory responsibilities, the central bank had no alternative but to restrain monetary and credit expansion since it was clear that any significant increase in the money supply would have added to inflationary pressures.
That is not a correct statement. One word is missed out and I am going to put it in.
In the circumstances of 1956, and in view of its statutory responsibilities, the central bank had no alternative but to restrain Canadian monetary and credit expansion-
What the central bank did, and this was a matter of government policy, was to restrain Canadian business, to restrain Canadian enterprise, and it succeeded for a very obvious reason. Canadian business is dependent upon whatever money market there may be in Canada for its capital requirements and when these requirements are cut and whittled down then business and industry itself are cut and whittled down. Canadian industry was left flat on its back while United States industrial enterprises could expand as much as they liked, and again the reason for that is obvious. These United States dominated subsidiaries in this country have tremendous reserves of undistributed profits, great reserves for depreciation and other reserves which they can use for expansion.
If they run short of these reserves, all they have to do is go to their parents over the line and get some more money for expansion. The end result of Liberal policies in this country, therefore, has been a net increase of United States domination over Canadian industry at the expense of our own Canadian industry. The Liberals will not be allowed to forget that in a hurry so far as I am concerned. They have hurt Canadian industry and have given all the assistance, all the aid they possibly could to foreign industry to

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart come in here and eventually assume the degree of control which I am going to point out.
Now, I mentioned before the names of two Canadian civil servants, Messrs. Carty and Blyth. We ought to be grateful to them for the work they have done in the annual statement of the Canadian balance of international payments. I want to quote some of the figures which they have given because they are worth considering. A study has been made which covers production and employment in manufacturing by United States controlled firms which have a Canadian investment of $1 million or more. It is worth noting that these companies represent about 90 per cent of the capital in all United States controlled manufacturing companies in Canada. It is worth noting further that they account for 30 per cent of the selling value of all factory shipments in 1953. I am dealing with 1953 because unfortunately these figures do not go beyond that date. I hope the dominion bureau of statistics will take steps to project these figures and bring them up to date so we will know what has been happening.
They account for 30 per cent of the selling value of all factory shipments and 21 per cent of all the employees engaged in manufacturing, although they represent just about 2 per cent of all manufacturing establishments in Canada. Here is industrial concentration with a vengeance. Two per cent of the manufacturing establishments in Canada account for 30 per cent of the selling value of factory shipments and employ 21 per cent of the labour engaged in manufacturing.
Now let us examine this table a bit more closely. There is a statement here, statement No. 21, which gives us some idea of what is happening. It is headed "Share of United States Controlled Manufacturing Establishments in Selling Value of Factory Shipments, Employment", and so on. In establishments with 1,500 employees and over, and there are 20 of them United States controlled, the selling value of factory shipments was 52 per cent-that is of all shipments in that category -the employment was 40 per cent in that category and the earnings were 41 per cent. In establishments employing between 1,000 and 1,500 employees, and in this category there were 25 United States establishments or 39 per cent of the total, the selling value of factory shipments was 45 per cent; 41 per cent employment and 43 per cent earnings. In the group employing between 500 and 1,000 employees, and in this category there are 79 establishments, 39 per cent of the selling value of factory shipments is controlled by those in this group; 33 per cent

of employment and 36 per cent of earnings. As a matter of fact, 45 per cent of the production of all establishments with factory shipments of $5 million or more was in 212 United States establishments. This is what I mean when I talk about the concentration of industry and the concentration of economic power.
It is pointed out by Messrs. Blyth and Carty:
The above data show that investment and production are highly concentrated in a small number of the larger firms controlled by non-residents.
What they say is obviously true. Let us take another table, statement No. 20 on page 29 of the Canadian balance of international payments, "Manufacturing and Mining Enterprises in Canada, Concentration and Control". It is divided into four groups. The first one is "Petroleum Exploration Development and Refining", and of all enterprises in this category 67 per cent of the control is outside Canada. There are also "Large Enterprises"-this includes all manufacturing and mining companies with an investment in Canada of $25 million and more-and there are 13 large enterprises in this category, 81 per cent of which are controlled outside of Canada. When I say "controlled" I do not mean to say that they are United States owned. Certainly not, but the great majority most emphatically are. Then, we come to "Mining other than Petroleum Exploration and Development". In this category 55 per cent of all enterprises is controlled outside of Canada and 68 per cent of the large enterprises-which in total number about 14-is controlled outside of Canada. In the grouping "Manufacturing other than Petroleum Refining", 47 per cent of all enterprises is controlled outside of Canada-the number of enterprises is 55-and 54 per cent of the large enterprises is controlled outside of Canada. In the grouping "Total Manufacturing and Mining", 51 per cent of all enterprises is controlled outside of Canada and for the large enterprises, which total 82, 62 per cent is controlled outside of Canada.
Then, the report goes on to say on page 28:
The capital investments in these large enterprises were about 80, 70 and 55 per cent respectively controlled outside Canada. In each of these areas of investment foreign control represents a significantly higher proportion of the large companies than it does of the industry as a whole. If account were taken of the changes in control which have occurred in this group of enterprises since 1953, the ratios of non-resident control would be 95, 75 and 57 per cent respectively (based on 1953 book values), or about two-thirds for the whole group.
There is part of the story of the concentration of foreign-owned enterprises in this

country. There are many other tables which one could put on Hansard to substantiate the case I am making, but I am not going to do it, primarily for the reason I simply do not have the time.
What is the effect of this concentration, economically and socially, on this country? We know that these companies are not owned by great masses of shareholders. In the United States, on the other hand, there are many thousands of shareholders who have shares in the ownership of their companies even though they have no control or no say in the direction of them. This is not so here because the majority of the equity capital is held, of course, by the parent company. Take, for instance, Ford of Canada. There are Canadian investors in Ford and yet none of them are naive enough to think that anything they say or do is going to affect the control of this company which is dominated exclusively by the United States.
Then, again these large United States enterprises are not unduly concerned about their shareholders. I call to witness here Mr. Gordon Huson who is editor of the Business Quarterly which is published by the University of Western Ontario. He tells us on page 254 of the fall, 1957 issue:
-both Canadian General Electric and Canadian Westinghouse in making offers to buy the shares of minority shareholders wielded the whip by announcing that future dividends were to be cut to increase investment.
They told Canadian shareholders they were going to cut dividends. "You had better sell out to us because we do not want any Canadian shareholders in our concern." This seems to be a deliberate part of the policy of these corporations. These figures show the reason why. United States corporations, in distinction to ours, are eternal. They think of themselves in terms of eternity. They outlive governments, and sometimes even outlive nations. Our Canadian corporations do not think, perhaps, so far ahead. Yet the fact remains that these United States corporations are not paying out too much in dividends. They are holding large amounts of undistributed profits. They are keeping their reserves for further investment in Canada and for further control in Canada.
The very size of these corporations discourages competition in this country. No small manufacturer is going to set himself up against these giants because he knows what Is going to happen to him. Their very size, as I say, discourages competition. Their size is one of the effects of what is so humorously called free enterprise. By its very nature free enterprise has got to expand, has got to grow and it can only do so at the expense
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart of other companies. Free enterprise becomes monopoly enterprise. It is worth noting, of course, that the 500 big United States corporations have 750 plants in this country and they are the ones who do most of the controlling. The effect of these giant corporations in so many fields is to kill competition. It is true that ostensibly there is an element of competition. After all, they would not dare kill off every competitor, so they allow some to exist with a rather cynical bow to the combines investigation branch. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) were here, I would tell him how I think he could make this branch really effective.
If we want to stop combines, there is no sense in fining them because they regard a fine merely as payment of a licence to carry on with their combinations. If we want to stop combines and cartels in this country the way in which to do it is to send each of the directors who is responsible for breaking the law to prison for two years without any alternative. That would stop combines in Canada. It would also, of course, stop the investigation branch of the combines department in Canada and no branch likes to put itself so completely out of business.
I refer again to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Macdonnell) in the Conservative government, and also Mr. Grant Dexter who maintain that foreign investment in relation to total investment has fallen. It is not so and it is demonstrably not so. Rather than put the figures on Hansard, I would ask these gentlemen to go and look up the 1956 figures. Also let them examine into the basis for their argument because it is quite spurious.
After all, what is Canadian investment? Canadian investment includes housing, roads, hospitals, schools, sewers, and public works of all sorts. I do not think we have ever got to the stage where we were ready to ask outsiders to come in and finance our homes. It is possible that provinces and municipalities must get outside help in financing schools and so on when they borrow outside of the country. But by and large those are the items which make up the great mass of Canadian investment. But on top of that, Canadians also invest money in industries in which they have a primary interest such as beverages, textiles, clothing, food processing and a multitude of smaller concerns. But there is one big one in which I think up to the present there is still Canadian control and that is in primary steel. Canadians, for some reason, have always been prepared to invest in primary steel. However, United States investment has been in different fields. It has been for years in

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart petroleum, mining, smelting, electrical appliances, automobiles, chemicals, pulp and paper. These United States subsidiaries control large segments of these industries. Let me quote from the Gordon commission in connection with this matter.
The influence which foreign-controlled concerns exert in some industries may be greater than the percentages which the amount of foreign capital investment in these industries might imply at first glance. This is because, in Canada, a relatively few large firms tend to predominate in many industries; and the influence which they exert in such industries may be pervasive and compelling. If these few large firms, or a majority of them, are controlled by non-residents of Canada, it may follow that the foreign capital invested in the industry, because of the way in which it is concentrated, in fact dominates or at least influences greatly the operations and the general conduct of the entire industry.
That is an extremely interesting statement, "Foreign capital .. .dominates or at least influences greatly the operations and the general conduct of the entire industry".
What is happening is that they are not only dominating industries but they are now beginning to dominate the economy of the country as a whole. That situation, I maintain, presents many difficulties to Canada today. One of the great dangers it presents is the disappearance of us as a political entity. Here is what is happening. Again I come back to the Financial Post. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, I am using most reputable sources for my quotations. Mr. Michael Barkway had some rather interesting articles in the Financial Post in recent months. One appeared in the issue of August 10. Mr. Barkway has this to say:
Over a steadily widening area of Canada-U.S. trade the normal relationship between buyer and seller is being abolished.
In the majority of these bulk commodities there is no longer an American buyer bargaining with the Canadian supplier. The American buyer is doing away with that old fashioned process. He is getting control of the Canadian seller.
In other words, what is happening is what I outlined earlier, namely that free enterprise can only continue to exist by expansion, by domination, by the eradication of competitors and eventually by the creation of monopolistic industry. Yet that is the logic which actuates those who believe in free enterprise.
But there are also some other interesting facts to consider. I am quite sure that 90 per cent of the iron ore exported to industries in the United States comes from United States controlled companies in Canada. More than 90 per cent of our oil and gas are United States controlled, and about 80 per cent of our non-ferrous metals mined and smelted in Canada are United States controlled. About

50 per cent of the pulp and paper comes from United States controlled industries.
There are great implications in the concentration which exists. The Americans are dominating these industries. What is wrong with Canadians today? Could they not have gone into these many fields which the Americans are in? The excuse that is given is that Canadian capital could not afford to take the risk of going in and opening up the northern regions of Canada because they had no guarantee of any markets. That argument, I suggest, is fallacious because Americans needed our products. But in typical free-enterprise fashion the Canadian capitalist sat on his hands and waited for the Americans to come in and do the job for him because the Canadian is afraid to gamble on his own country. The Canadian is afraid to risk his money on his own country. The inevitable result has been that foreigners have come in and have done the job for us. Certainly there are markets had free enterprise had any reality and had those Canadians who owned the capital gone out and fought for the markets. A more legitimate excuse is that the Americans had the technical knowledge. That I admit, but I still insist also that even today you can still hire brains.
In many ways-and I insist on this-we need United States capital. But that capital should have been controlled for the welfare of the people of Canada. A great many people shudder at the thought of this word "control". Yet let me remind the house that somebody is going to control this country. It is either going to be the democratically elected members of parliament or it is going to be big business for its own greater glory and of course its own greatest profits.
These are some other matters that should be giving us a good deal of concern. What, for instance, about the future shape of the Canadian balance of payments? That is going to be a substantial headache for Canadian governments in the future. I do not intend to go into the balance of payments question at the moment, except to say this. Rather over $100 million a year is paid out in interest to the United States. Figures for dividends, however, are of importance. In 1953 we paid $233 million; in 1954, $237 million; in 1955, $281 million; in 1956, $326 million. These payments abroad must have an appreciable effect upon our balance of payments. Of course, they add to the debit. As I see it, they are going to cause all sorts of unhappy moments for those in the Department of Finance who are responsible for the whole balance of payments situation.
These difficulties are going to arise in abundance. They are bound to, because the

Americans have invested so extensively in what we might call risk investments. I do not think the risk is as great as it is made out to be because after all the markets were there. Since it is risk capital the profits will necessarily be greater and so when the many enterprises of the Canadian north have been opened up and get going they will be making very high profits. The rate of profit will be very high indeed and much of it will be paid to American investors.
But concentration of capital will mean the freezing out of Canadians, because I think we have to remember that trade is no longer being decided solely by the wishes or the desires of the government. American owned subsidiaries in this country of ours can decide the pattern, no matter what the government of the day has to say about it. Let me quote Mr. Huson again:
It is therefore disturbing that whole industries in which foreign control is predominant are not allowed an interest in export markets because of the attitude of their parent companies.
Their parent companies are true free enterprisers and they do not want competition. The Canadian subsidiaries are told what they are going to do with their production and they have no alternative.
As Mr. Huson says:
In several cases the purchase by an American parent of a Canadian firm actively exporting to several markets has brought such exporting to an immediate end.
Once again the domination of a Canadian industry by foreign control, by people outside of this country. I am convinced that no free enterprise government can tackle this problem adequately, even although the Prime Minister goes around shaking a warning finger. The government may tinker with the problem; they may play with it; but I doubt if they will deal effectively with the situation which confronts us. In almost every case where a Canadian subsidiary manufactures the same product at its United States parent it is not allowed to export to United States.
All you have to do is look at our balance of payments to see how necessary it is that we export to the United States, yet the parent companies will not permit those exports and here is one of the largest markets for export which is denied to us. All this has been due to Liberal policies in the past. Here you have real control of industry; here you have real domination; here you have real concentration; here you have that age old prerogative of the harlot-power without responsibility.
Can a government believing in free enterprise clean this mess up? The government
The Address

Mr. A. Stewart has a responsibility in this matter which it will have to shoulder and it will duly suffer at the hands of the Canadian people if it does not do something about it. But what does the Prime Minister say in his speech at Dartmouth:
"United States companies investing in Canada should not regard Canada as an extension of the United States market."
So what? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about it; what does the Tory government intend to do about it? They have this problem; they have it and now it is theirs. They had better try to get some answers to it. Here is a picture of free enterprise working in the usual conventional way-not the free enterprise of the opium smoker but the free enterprise of actual crude everyday fact.
If new members of parliament are particularly interested in the antisocial effects of free enterprise I suggest they just go down to the parliamentary library and read there the story of how the United States oil companies and chemical companies during the war were dealing with nazi cartels and combinations to their own greater profit when their own people were dying. That is free enterprise. They could study also the story of Canadian free enterprise which is no better and see that when war was declared it refused to produce the materials needed because the level of profit was only 5 per cent. Let the Canadians die so long as we have profits-that is free enterprise.
Let me give you another and more recent illustration. George Humphrey, who was recently secretary of the treasury of the United States and was one of the architects of the anti-inflationary policy of the Eisenhower government left the treasury to become chairman of the National Steel corporation. American steel companies raised the price of steel this year by $6 per ton and this was followed by an investigation by a United States Senate committee. Mr. Humphrey admitted that the $6 per ton increase might be temporarily inflationary. What nonsense. Somebody has said you can no more have temporary inflation than you can have temporary pregnancy. You either have it or you do not.


An hon. Member:: The other you can see.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: He was
asked by Senator Kefauver since his plant was operating now at 80 per cent instead of the 98 per cent capacity of early this year if it would not be advisable to lower prices and so stimulate sales, but Mr. Humphrey couldn't risk it. Mr. Humphrey was not at all encouraging. He was told for

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart instance that wage increases were only $3.50 per ton. Then Mr, Humprey was asked why he had raised the prices by $6 per ton and he had no answer for that. He was told the cost of steel scrap had fallen by $3.87 per ton which would more than make up the increase in wages, but he had no answer for that. Instead he said that the increase of $6 per ton would only mean an increase to the United States consumer of $540 million but that none of them would feel it because it was spread out over such a large number.
This man who in government was all for anti-inflationary policies is now a free enterpriser. He has failed to live up to his duties and responsibilities to the people over whose destinies he once presided in such a high and august office. But as I say he is now all for free enterprise. Then he was asked if his present policy was to quote prices as near to those of competitors as he could get. He agreed that that was so. You see, Mr. Speaker, the free enterprise concept is to charge everything the traffic will bear and damn the consequences. These industrial tycoons never think for a moment about the social effects of their actions upon the country. We have seen that in Canada. There was a committee of parliament which met a few years ago and the president of Canada Packers appeared before that committee. He agreed in reply to questions that his company charged what the traffic would bear. Well of course we cannot expect socially responsible behaviour from these pirates.
Now getting back to Mr. Coyne on page 11 of his report he said:
The endeavour to maintain stability of prices in conjunction with economic growth, to achieve expansion without inflation, depends for its success on the attitudes and activities of all members of society.
Of course it depends on the attitudes and activities of all members of society but I maintain that capitalistic free enterprise is essentially antisocial and therefore it has got to be controlled for the benefit of all the people. And I say again, it depends upon who is going to do the controlling, the elected representatives of the people or private industry, itself, for its own private profit.
What can be done about it? Well obviously there are some things that even this capitalist free enterprise government might do and we will have to wait to see whether we will get any initiative or ingenuity of action out of it. We have to get some of our eggs out of the American basket. We have to increase our trade in other parts of the world, particularly China, and for the Prime Minister to get up and say we are not prepared to recognize communist China but we are going to trade with them-we want their money

but we will not recognize them-is a piece of absurdity. Some day he is going to regret it. The Chinese people are not going to forget in a hurry what the Prime Minister of Canada said recently in this house. There is a great market in China for Canada, not only there but also in the whole of Asia. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) had better make much more determined efforts than he has done up to now to try and secure part of that market.
Simultaneously Canada should be closely studying and negotiating with nations in Europe which are intent on setting up another great free market. Free trade with the United Kingdom is not enough; free trade with the commonwealth is not enough; we should try to join this new market and thus bring the old world in to redress the balance in the new. But those solutions are not going to affect the fundamental problem which confronts us through the domination by foreign industry of this country and the concentration of industrial control.
There is only one answer and that answer is simple, practical and effective. Since less than one out of four United States subsidiaries will offer stock to Canadians, let the government introduce legislation whereby it will purchase 51 per cent control of certain corporations. Then at last we will be able to say we can control our own economy and control our own country. We will not be dependent upon whims of Wall street or any other area for the wellbeing and the welfare of Canadian citizens.
I admit that to expect such drastic action from a free enterprise government-even the pseudo kind of free enterprise government we have-is probably asking too much but that is the only answer, I am convinced, which is going to work. Of course, a formula for payment offers no difficulties. The foreign investor will merely switch, in part, his holdings from equity capital to bonded indebtedness but his investment will be secure. He will get a reasonable return.
Since we are being constantly reassured that the investor only wants to invest in a growing country and, perish the thought-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I am sorry but I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Perhaps I might be allowed to conclude my sentence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will have to ask the consent of the whole house. Do the hon. members wish the hon. member for Winnipeg North to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Since we are constantly being reassured that the investor only wants to invest in a growing country and perish the thought, has no desire to make a killing at the expense of us natives, his wishes should be honoured.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I wish to associate myself with all those who have congratulated the mover and seconder of this address. I do that with the utmost sincerity. I must also congratulate the Speaker and his deputies and commend them for the manner in which they discharge all their important duties. Sir Robert Borden once said of the Speaker that he must be impartial, firm, courteous and, above all, patient, and I think that in the last few weeks we have seen demonstrations of all these essential virtues.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary for me to identify myself in a manner somewhat different from that which other hon. members have used. I come from a riding which elects two members, the dual riding of Queen's. I am the junior member. The senior member is the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean). He is my senior in parliamentary experience, of course, but more surprisingly, if one looks at him, he is my senior in years as well. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) spoke about the distinction between the two men bearing the name of his constituency in terms of one being long and the other short. I do not think any great distinction can be drawn between the Minister of Fisheries and myself in this respect, but we might invite comparison in the matter of width and here again, I would defer to him in that regard.
A maiden speech, as one member of this house observed years ago, is always a valuable exercise. To the new member it gives a rare opportunity to experience a deep feeling of humility, an attitude good for the soul as well as for the mind. To the other members of the house it affords an opportunity to show indulgence, one of the greatest virtues of men and especially, it is said, leaders of men.
While I am not lacking in the proper sentiments of humility concerning my own shortcomings as 1 speak in this historic chamber, I have no need to feel such sentiments about my constituency nor my province. Through the years in previous parliaments my predecessors have doubtless described the glories and beauties of our fair green province and lauded the virtues of its citizens. What has been said in this line is, of course, no exaggeration, for Canada's garden province is known far and wide as one of the beauty 96698-70
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie spots of the continent. A steadily increasing number of tourists attest to its charm and hospitality.
But to the list of descriptive superlatives which might be applied to Prince Edward Island and its people must be added one more. Unsurpassed we have long been in many things. On June 10 we displayed our unchallenged superiority in something else, the excellence of our political judgment. The call for a new deal was sounded all over Canada, but in our province it was clear, it was unmistakable, it was unanimous. For the first time in history, Prince Edward Island sent a full slate of Conservative members of parliament to Ottawa. We are today the only 100 per cent province. 'Twas not ever thus, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, over the years our province has shown a remarkable fidelity to the Liberal party. In the provincial election of 1935 a neighbour of mine was leading the Liberal party and he was so triumphant in the result, that every single Conservative candidate was defeated. For four years the Prince Edward Island legislature did not include a single opposition member. In the dominion field, too, the Liberal party has been almost as successful down through the years.
What caused the change? Hon. members opposite will doubtless be interested in this question, since they have been indulging in a good many post-mortems lately. Of course, there is never just one reason for political change, but I will touch on one major cause of the total collapse of the Liberal position in my province. On June 10 Prince Edward Island decided to register a strong protest against the treatment it had received at the hands of the party controlling the national government. This protest was primarily on economic matters. We rejoice in the prosperity of this country but we believe that it is in the interests of the whole country that the maritime region be not allowed to fall farther and farther behind.
In Prince Edward Island we are faced with serious financial difficulties. Freight rates are high, there are serious communication and transportation problems. We lack the sources of revenue which are available to other provinces. There is a growing number of abandoned farms. Provincial governments, faced with rising costs of public services, have to meet increasing large budgetary deficits.
To ensure equality of services for all Canadians, we believe that fiscal need and economic capacity must be considered with great attention in the realm of dominion-provincial relations. It is not the fault of the people of Prince Edward Island that there

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie are no oil deposits there, nor are we to blame if we are not blessed with iron and coal deposits. We do not have Ungavas and Kitimats, but that is not the fault of the people. We lack the ingredients of modern industrialisation. Yet we are Canadians, entitled to the benefits of this great and beautiful country.
We feel that down through the years we have made our contribution in many and, indeed, all phases of Canadian life. But we have waited long. We have been hopeful that our position would be recognized and our peculiar situation appreciated. With what result? Last spring, just at the time when our province was faced with a serious deficit, we heard the interesting news from Ottawa that due to a strange miscalculation Prince Edward Island had, of all things, been overpaid by the dominion treasury and was therefore in debt to the tune of almost $1,250,000.
How did this strange mathematical blunder come about? It came about because our population rise was gravely miscalculated. Why was it miscalculated? It was because many of the young people of our province found it necessary to go to other parts of Canada and so, piling Pelion upon Ossa, we not only lost a great many of our people at the productive and energetic period of their lives, but we had to pay for it on top of that.
When the representatives of the provincial government came to Ottawa to treat for terms, indeed on the eve of an election when one might have thought that such a time was propitious for satisfaction, what did we find? An agreement was made whereby with abundant generosity the government of that time agreed that Prince Edward Island might be given this benefit: they could pay the money back in five equal instalments. I may say that this generous gesture was not overlooked by the people of our province when the opportunity came to express themselves on this particular attitude taken towards Canada's smallest province.
Now our people were definitely influenced and impressed by the program of the Conservative party. They were convinced that here was a truly national policy which would take cognizance of the special problems of the maritimes and of the province of Prince Edward Island and would build, develop and foster a truly national Canadian economy. We have the feeling, and it is a justifiable one, that in such a development program our part of the country will not continue to be a Cinderella in relation to the total Canadian federation. We mari-timers-and the de luxe maritimers of Prince Edward Island, if I may use that modest expression-are convinced that much can be


done in the way of self help and I quite agree with the Premier of Nova Scotia when he said that the time is opportune for us to attack our own peculiar and pressing problems, but at the same time we require- and I think the economy of Canada generally requires-a great deal more attention to those problems which the advancing technological developments of this country have made pressingly acute for the maritime provinces.
It has often distressed me that when we talk about maritime problems we are often answered in terms of economics. We are told about the distances and the lack of markets and the lack of raw materials. I do not accept these economic arguments as being sufficient. This country of ours was built in defiance not only of geography but of the laws of economics. Through political action and by a union of people with a high dedication of purpose we took an entity which was a contradiction of terms as far as a nation was concerned and built out of it a united country. In other words, the laws of economics did not always prevail; government action and government leadership were necessary. We have only to look at many aspects of the Canadian economy-how we built our railways and establish our tariff policies and so on-to understand clearly that the laws of economics were not always followed in the creation of the Canadian nation. To the members of the Liberal party as they compile their list of reasons for catastrophe I offer them gratis this one particular item as far as the episode in Prince Edward Island is concerned. We look forward to a better deal in our province and we feel that our needs and difficulties will be met.
It is not my intention to speak on issues of a purely provincial nature. This is a national parliament and I think it is our function and duty as members thereof to deal with issues which bear on the whole of the nation. There are, however, matters which are very acute to us and which have a definite bearing on the development of the whole country.
We in Prince Edward Island have problems in the field of agriculture. We have heard a good deal about wheat, fish and poultry and we are interested in all of these things but we have an important crop too, the potato. Now, it is one virtue of our people that we can apparently produce a better potato than any other part of the world as any agriculture market list will show.


Mr. Mclvor:: No, Ireland.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think our potatoes
would compete even with those grown in Ireland. As I go up to the sixth floor I often wish that the purchasing agent for the parliamentary restaurant could be convinced of the priceless virtue of our potato crop. We are looking forward with anticipation and satisfaction to the agricultural program of the party now in power and we feel it is absolutely necessary that this particular commodity, the potato, be given special consideration.
Not long ago I recall buying a bag of potatoes in the spring of the year from a friend [DOT]of mine. He said he could give me a basket, about half what I wanted. I inquired as to the price and he said it would cost $2.40. Just a year after that, again in the spring, I returned and asked for some more potatoes. This time he was more willing to sell them and he sold me a bag this time and sent his son down to put them in my basement. He charged me 50 cents. It seems to me this
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie illustration demonstrates the sensitivity of the potato market. It underlines the tremendous risk, the almost complete insecurity, which that particular agricultural producer has to undergo. There is no guaranteed price. We appreciate that the western farmer has the problem of selling and delivering his wheat but at least he knows that it will not command five cents a bushel one year and perhaps $3 another year. The potato farmer of Prince Edward Island is faced with uncertainty throughout the entire process.
On motion of Mr. Macquarrie the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1094
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Christian: 1.	What does it cost the people of Canada per day (a) to feed a penitentiary inmate; (b) to clothe a penitentiary inmate; (c) to otherwise provide for such inmates?
2.	What is the total number of male and female inmates, given separately, in all Canadian penitentiaries according to the latest known figures?
3.	What is the total maintenance cost of Canadian penitentiaries inclusive of the cost outlined in question 1 above?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of
Justice):
1.	(a) per diem average cost per capita is 55.44 cents.
(b)	average daily per capita cost for the fiscal year 1956-57 was 10.8 cents.
(c)	$5.23 per day including rations (fiscal year 1956-57).
2.	Population on September 30, 1957:
males	 5,336
females	 85
total	 5,421
3.	Total cost for fiscal year 1956-57:
Salaries		 $ 6,753,041.71
Retiring allowances	 10,525.00
Uniforms	 109,386.83
Messing	 108,966.00
Printing, stationery and
office equipment	 22,065.15
Other administrative charges	.	62,597.87
Maintenance of inmates		1,654,104.55
Discharge expenses	 79,851.70
Operating	expenses	
962,866.55Maintenance of fixed assets	..	269,746.70Total operating costs	
$10,033,152.09


NARAMATA, B.C., IRRIGATION SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
federal government in connection with the rehabilitation of the irrigation and domestic water system at Naramata, British Columbia?
2. If so, what action has been or will be taken by the federal government in this connection?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	Yes, in a letter received from the premier of British Columbia dated July 22, 1957.
2.	No action has been taken or is contemplated as the federal government has never been involved in this project because it is one coming entirely within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

Mr. Smith (Battle River-: Camrose):
1.	How many hogs were raised in each of the 10 provinces of Canada in 1956?
2.	How many hogs were exported from each of the 10 provinces in 1956, and to what provinces were these shipped?
3.	How many hogs were exported from Canada in 1956, and to what countries were these hogs shipped and how many to each country?
4.	What was the average price received per hundredweight for (a) all grade A hogs exported from Canada; (b) all grade B1 hogs exported from Canada?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	The number of hogs raised is not available. Following are the numbers of market hogs graded in 1956, according to province of origin:
Gradings by origin
B.C			 42,088
Alta			 1,571,929
Sask			 576,804
Man			 387,908
Ont			 2,196,306
Que			 1,060,090
N.B			 35,810
N.S			 15,763
P.E.I			 73,000
Nfld		
Canada 			 5,959,605
Question No. 79


Frank Claus Christian: 1. Has the provincial government of British Columbia requested financial assistance from the
2.	Receipts at public stockyards and shipments direct from country points to packing plants, according to province of origin, 1956:
From:-	B.C. Alberta Saskat- Manitoba Ontario Quebec Maritimes Total
chewan
Arrivals in:
British Columbia	
22,327	317,187	1,550	-	-	-	-	341,064Alberta	
19,552	1,166,121	3,717	-	-	-	_	1,189,390Saskatchewan	
-	10,445	299,756	-	-	-	-	310,201Manitoba	
-	57,746	271,707	385,964	255	-	-	715,672Ontario	
209	7,643	74	1,944	2,018,668	3,658	-	2,032,196Quebec	
-	12,694	-	-	177,383	1,056,432	48	1,246, 557Maritimes	
_____	_	124,525	124,525Total	
42,088	1,571,836	576,804	387,908	2,196,306	1,060,090	124,573	5,959,605
Exports*
U.S	 668
Venezuela	 113
Mexico	 470
Jamaica	 3
St. Pierre	 405
Source-Trade of Canada	 1,659
4.	Not available.


AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT BOARD- OPERATIONAL COSTS
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What was the net cost of operations of the agricultural prices support board up to September 30. 1957?
2.	Under its price support program what was the net cost to the board up to September 30, 1957, attributed to the following agricultural products: (a) shell eggs; (b) butter; (c) apples; (d) potatoes; (e) hogs and cattle?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	The net cost of operations of the agricultural prices support board on an accurate accrued account basis is not available at September 30, 1957, although it is known there will be losses on some of the programs in operation. According to the annual report of the board the net cost of operations up to March 31, 1957, totalled $94,084,716.91.
2.	Up to March 31, 1957, as reported in the annual report of the agricultural prices support board, the net cost attributed to the following agricultural products is as follows:
(a)	Shell eggs, $728,122.99.
(b)	Butter, $13,189,536.02.
(c)	Apples, $6,889,902.45.
(d)	Potatoes, $2,041,006.38.
(e)	Hogs and cattle, $70,031,909.93.


TRADE MISSION TO U.K.  PERSONNEL
Mr. L'Heureux: What are the names of the persons who will accompany the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce on his mission to the United Kingdom this month?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom
The following have accepted invitations to be members of the Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom, to be led by the Hon. Gordon Churchill:
James S. Duncan, chairman, Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Toronto, and deputy leader of the mission;
Robert J. Askin, vice-president, Abitibi Power and Paper Company Limited, Toronto;
Questions
A.	G. Bailey, president, Bailey-Selburn Oil and Gas Limited, Calgary;
Lt.-Col. Herve Baribeau, president, Bari-beau & Son, Levis, Que.;
John L. Bonus, general manager, Canadian Association of British Manufacturers and Agencies, Toronto;
Lawrence C. Bonnycastle, vice-president and managing-director, Canadian Corporate Management Company Limited, Toronto;
Leonard W. Brockington, president, Odeon Theatres (Canada) Ltd., Toronto;
E. A. Bromley, vice-president, Canadian National Railways, Montreal;
J. Arthur Clark, president, Maritime Asphalt Products Ltd., Summerside, P.E.I.;
H. A. Cresswell, vice-president, Canada Steamship Lines Ltd., Toronto;
Hugh Crombie, vice-president, Dominion Engineering Co. Ltd., Montreal;
Robert Drummond, executive vice-president, Angus Robertson Ltd., Toronto;
M. A. East, president, John East Iron Works Limited, Saskatoon;
S.	S. Fletcher, vice-president (merchandising), Robert Simpson Company Limited, Toronto;
Allan D. Foulis, president and managing director, Foulis Engineering Sales Limited, Halifax;
Kenneth F. Fraser, vice-president, B.C. Packers Limited, Vancouver;
Geoffrey Abbott Gaherty, president, Montreal Engineering Co. Ltd., Montreal;
R. W. Ganong, vice-president and manager, Ganong Brothers Limited, St. Stephen, N.B.;
B.	B. Gattie, president, British Columbia Lumber Manufacturers' Assn., Vancouver;
Crawford Gordon, Jr., president and general manager, A. V. Roe (Canada) Ltd., Toronto;
R. E. Heartz, president, Shawinigan Engineering Co. Limited, Montreal;
Bruce Hill, president, E.T.F. Tools Limited, St. Catharines, Ont., and chairman, Canada-U.K. committee, Canadian Chamber of Commerce;
Gordon W. Hunter, assistant deputy minister, Department of Defence Production, Ottawa;
W. L. Hutchison, vice-president, Moffats Limited. Weston, Ont.;
J. R. Jenkins, senior merchandise director, T. Eaton Co. Ltd., Toronto;
J. G. Johnston, president, Johnston Everson and Charlesworth Ltd., Toronto;
John D. Leitch, president, Toronto Elevators Limited, Toronto;
Harold V. Lush, president and general manager, Supreme Aluminum Industries Limited, Toronto, and president, Canadian Manufacturers' Assn.;
Frederick C. Mannix, president, Mannix Limited, Calgary;

Questions
Ian F. McRae, vice-president, Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd., Toronto;
H.	P. Miller, manager, purchases and stores department, Canadian Pacific Railway Company Ltd., Montreal;
Trevor F. Moore, vice-president, Imperial Oil Limited, Toronto;
F. M. A. Noblet, vice-president, International Nickel Co. Ltd., New York;
James Patterson, president, Interprovincial Farm Union Council, Winnipeg;
William Perlin, managing director, I. F. Perlin and Company, St. John's, Nfld.;
Andre Piche, vice-president and general manager, Reynolds Aluminum Company of Canada Limited, Cap-de-la Madeleine, Que.;
Col. Roger Roberge, Ottawa;
Frederick G. Rutley, president, The Foundation Company of Canada Ltd., Montreal;
George P. Schollie, vice-president, Canadian Labour Congress, Montreal;
Henry Sissons, assistant general manager, Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Toronto;
Wallace C. Smith, vice-president, Lunenburg Sea Products Ltd., Lunenburg;
Donald M. Stephens, chairman and general manager, Manitoba Hydro Electric Board, Winnipeg;
E. B. Stocker, president, Canadian Importers & Traders Association, Montreal;
Humphrey B. Style, president, John Inglis Company Ltd., Toronto;
John H. F. Turner, O.B.E., assistant general manager, Bank of Montreal, Montreal;
Eric J. Wain, general purchasing agent, Canadian Industries Limited, Montreal;
Victor C. Wansbrough, vice-president and managing director, Canadian Metal Mining Association, Toronto;
J. B. White, vice-president and general manager, Aluminum Company of Canada, Limited, Montreal;
David M. Woods, president, Gordon Mac-kay and Company Limited, Toronto.
Officials attached to the mission
Roger R. Parlour, Department of Trade and Commerce, secretary;
R. Anderson, Department of Trade and Commerce, assistant secretary;
Peter Stursberg, press officer.


BROADCASTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Benidickson: Referring to page 223 of the report of the royal commission on broadcasting, 1957:
I.	What were the 51 locations on the first plan referred to?
2. Are plans being worked on for the construction of any of the 27 low power repeater stations
for television transmission in centres of 5,000 population or more as recommended by the commissioners, and if so, is such planning being done for such a station in the districts of (a) Kenora; (b) Rainy River?
Answer by: Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises:
1.	The submitted plan referred to did not include specific locations, since it was known that future needs would vary depending on a number of factors, including the establishment of privately owned stations.
2.	No plans are being worked on for the construction of specific repeater stations in specific areas.


DESIGN OF STAMPS, 1958
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the Post Office Department decided upon the design of stamps to be issued in 1958?
2.	If so, what are the designs and denominations?
Answer by:	Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	The subjects have been selected but not the designs in all cases.
2.	The subjects to be illustrated are: Contribution of the press to the nation's
development, international geophysical year, centennial of British Columbia, Canadian Nurses' Association, three hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Quebec by Samuel de Champlain, the explorer La Verendrye, centennial of the discovery of oil in Canada, bicentennial of the convening in Halifax of the first elected assembly to meet in what is now Canada. The denominations of all of the above listed new stamps will be 5 cents.


PORK IMPORTS
Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose): 1.	How many pounds of pork products were imported into Canada during each of the years,
1954,	1955, 1956 and 1957 to date?
2.	From what country or countries did these products come?
3.	What was the average price per pound paid for these products?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1,	2 and 3. Identifiable imports of pork products during the calendar years 1954,
1955,	1956 and the period January 1 to July 31, 1957 (latest figures available) were as follows:-

Questions
Item	-	Country	Lb.	Value	Average price
				$	cts.
Year 1954	United Kingdom...	850	213	25(Item 2253)	Australia	121,824	36,712	30Ireland	1,191,048	555,962	47Totals	1,313,722	592,887	45Year 1955	United Kingdom...	3,244	898	28Australia	78,205	27,965	36Germany West	441	110	25Totals	81,890	28,973	35Year 1956	United Kingdom...	1,400	516	37Australia	70,038	29,605	42Alaska	585	350	60Totals	72,023	30,471	42Jan.1st to	Australia	52,260	22,881	44July 31st 1957...	New Zealand	51,867	16,310	31Totals	104,127	39,191	38Bacon, hams, shoulders and	Year 1954	United Kingdom...	29,361	14,647	50other pork, cured, other than	Ireland	80,054	30,042	38canned.	United States	58,751	31,976	54(Item 2261)	-Totals	168,166	76,665	46Year 1955	United Kingdom...	4,908	1,975	40Germany West	375	140	37Alaska	203	128	63United States	29,121	24,295	83Totals	34,607	26,538	77Year 1956	United Kingdom...	1,550	736	48Alaska	814	482	59United States	36,141	29,001	80Totals	38,505	30,219	79Jan. 1st to	United States	206,358	99,246	48July 31st 1957...	-Totals	206,358	99,246	48
Inquiries of the Ministry


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
Mr. Tucker: Mr. Speaker, is the same formula used in regard to wheat sold to the millers for domestic consumption as when it is sold to them for milling for export?
Answer:
The price at which wheat is sold to the mills for domestic purposes is the same as the price basis for export, with the exception that on flour sales to specific areas (excluding the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States and its territories and possessions) an adjustment in the purchase price of wheat is granted by the board, to enable Canadian mills to compete with suppliers from other countries in specific flour markets.

Question No. 2-Mr. Tucker:
In view of the fact that wheat is being sold at Vancouver for $1.71 and a fraction and at Fort William for $1.60 and a fraction, the effect being that the Fort William price is 11 cents below the Vancouver price and that the price to millers is based upon the Fort William price, will the minister look into the question of why the basing of that price at Fort William does not, in effect, constitute an element of subsidization by the western farmers to the consumer or the miller?
Answer:
This question relates to a pricing policy adopted by the wheat board some time ago. Prior to February 1954, the board had been able to quote identical prices for wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur, and in store Pacific coast ports. However, in February 1954, in the light of conditions existing at that time the board adopted a policy of quoting separate prices for wheat in store Pacific coast ports, in store Fort William/Port Arthur, and in store Churchill. The policy was adopted in order to make board wheat competitive in overseas markets irrespective of the port of shipment. The policy was made necessary by variations in forwarding costs, including ocean freight rates, which tended to make one or another of the Canadian export routes more attractive to overseas buyers.
A policy of quoting different prices for wheat in store Vancouver and in store the lakehead is utilized when the differences in the costs of laying down Canadian wheat in overseas markets necessitates such action.
For the balance of the crop year, 1953-54, the board asking prices for wheat ex Pacific coast ports ranged higher than its asking prices for wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur; the difference was as much as 8 cents per bushel. The spread gradually narrowed in the crop year 1954-55 and by February 1955, board asking prices for wheat in store Vancouver and in store Fort William/Port Arthur were virtually the same. For limited periods the Fort William price was slightly higher than the Vancouver price. In the crop year 1955-56 there was not a great deal of variation between board asking prices for wheat in store Vancouver and in store the lakehead. At times the lakehead price exceeded the Vancouver price by a few cents a bushel. Throughout the crop year 1956-57 any marked difference between board asking prices for wheat in store Vancouver, and in store the lakehead did not occur until May of 1957 when it was again necessary for the board to quote higher asking prices for Pacific coast ports.
At the start of the present crop year the asking prices were about 5 cents per bushel higher at the Pacific coast and only in the last 60 days has the difference widened out to the 11 cents referred to in the question.
The variations in the board's asking prices basis in store the lakehead or in store Vancouver has been brought about by external factors which have affected the position intermittently in the past three and a half years. Normally it is a position which ordinarily corrects itself. The normal position is for board asking prices in store Vancouver, and in store the lakehead to be identical.
In the opinion of the Canadian wheat board it would not be advisable to change the basis of its selling to mills in all parts of Canada to meet what are considered to be temporary price situations, particularly since flour mills have established locations throughout Canada related to freight rates applicable to wheat and flour and the price at which wheat can be acquired basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur.
The board's asking price for wheat basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur is the basic price for wheat. It is this price which governs the distribution of the major part of Canadian wheat supplies, and the basis which must govern export flour prices if all mills

Inquiries of the Ministry
m Canada, regardless of their location, are to have an equal opportunity of competing in foreign markets. It is also the basic price recognized by the international wheat agreement for the purpose of the administration of that agreement. It would not seem desirable at the present time to alter the price basis on which wheat is supplied to the milling industry throughout Canada upon a temporary and abnormal situation which has arisen at the Pacific coast as a result of
variations in the laid down cost of wheat, particularly in the United Kingdom and European markets. Being temporary and abnormal the wheat board should be in a position to adjust its pricing policies without regard to domestic considerations.

Question No. 3-Mr. Argue:
Why is the price to millers based upon the lower Fort William price instead of the higher Vancouver price?
Answer: See No. 2.
1100

Inquiries of the Ministry



APPENDIX &quot;B&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On Friday last the hon. member for Port Arthur asked whether I had any recent information on the effectiveness of poisons and plans to use them against the lamprey eel in inland waters, especially in lake Superior.
I have now seen the original press release of November 1, 1957, issued by the United States fish and wildlife service which gave rise to the reports to which he referred.
As the hon. member is aware, prior to the formation of the great lakes fishery commission in the spring of 1956, a great deal of more or less independent research had been carried out on the life history and control of the parasitic sea lamprey in the great lakes, that in United States spearheaded by the United States fish and wildlife service and that in Canada conducted by the fisheries research board of Canada and the province of Ontario. Both groups had investigated the use of poisons to kill the larval lampreys or ammocoetes since this larval period spent in the mud of the river bottoms constituted 4 to 6 years of the total life. The adult stage, lasting about 18 months, was being controlled by electrical barriers placed in the rivers to intercept and kill the spawning runs.
In 1956 the great lakes fishery commission decided that its United States agent, the United States fish and wildlife service, which had already established facilities and tested about 6,000 chemicals, should continue to stress that phase. The present tests reported by the United States fish and wildlife service are thus all part of the composite program of the great lakes fishery commission to which Canada contributes 31 per cent of the funds.
Of the 6,000 chemicals tested, five or six were found to be specific for lamprey larvae in low dilutions but did not affect other fish except in much greater strength. These six have been rigidly checked in artificial raceways using caged fish as controls. Tests have also been run on deer and cattle with negative results.
On October 29, the first natural stream test was made. One chemical, dowlap (3-4-6-trichloro-2-nitrophenol) was distributed by using a precision mechanical feeder at a rate of 30 parts per million into a two mile stretch of Little Billie's (Elliot) creek emptying into Duncan bay on lake Huron near Cheboygan, Michigan. By noon on October 31 it was demonstrated by the caged control lamprey that a 92 per cent kill had resulted. The effect on trout and other game fish in this excellent fishing stream had been negligible. Tens of thousands of larval lamprey of all sizes were dead.
This is the first of the actual tests in natural streams and more are now being run. If these are equally successful, we will have a method of controlling four or five years of the lampreys' six or seven year life. The electric barriers will control the adult stage. The results are extremely encouraging but not entirely proven. We are certainly hoping for continued success.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 14, 1957