1957-11-14

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Power Development
interconnection lines at the borrowing cost of the federal government will in itself reduce the cost of power in these provinces. However, it is apparent that the reduction achieved through lower financing costs will not reduce the cost of power for industry to the extent necessary to put the two provinces on a comparable basis with more favoured provinces in our country. Notwithstanding the availability of substantial supplies of coal in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the situation at the present time is that coal for power in the maritime provinces costs more than coal brought in from the United States for the production of power in Ontario.
While central Canada has, of course, advantages in addition to this one in attracting industry, it has seemed to the government that if the maritime provinces are to be given a fair opportunity to attract industrial growth they must be able to secure coal for the production of power for industrial use at a price that does not exceed the price of United States coal in central Canada. The government has therefore decided that it will provide a subvention on coal used for the production of power in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to the extent that is necessary to equalize the cost of that coal with the cost of coal used for the same purposes in Ontario.
I need not emphasize that the subvention on coal will have a double value. It will reduce the cost of the power that is produced from the coal, and that will help greatly. It will also do much to ensure that the coal produced in the maritime provinces continues to be used for the growing power demand of those two provinces and will not be replaced by oil brought in from foreign fields.
This program, I may add, carries the full and enthusiastic support of the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and will, I believe, have a lasting and beneficial effect on the economic growth and welfare of the Atlantic region.
Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roseiown-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister one question following his important and I think interesting announcement this morning, which I hope will benefit the maritime provinces. Will he discuss with the province of Saskatchewan in connection with the South Saskatchewan power project similar assistance in the financing of that project? I understand this would help to lower the cost of financing.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a meeting has been arranged with the premier of Saskatchewan and other representatives imme-fliately following the dominion-provincial

conference, and I may add that the basic concept and the spirit of this policy will apply wherever a case by a provincial government is made out.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: May I put just one question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure everyone will rejoice to find that the project which had been suggested well over a year ago now, that there might be established power plants that would be turned over at cost-or in that project it was suggested that it was the output which should be turned over at cost-to the provinces, with an integrated distribution system for the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, is now going to be realized, though the present government has found it necessary, in order to make it possible to produce power which would be competitive with that available even from fuel in central Canada, to provide a subsidy on the coal so used. That would probably have the double-barrelled effect of aiding the coal industry as well as providing more attractive power for industrial purposes. In connection with the whole matter, now that the arrangements have been concluded, is there still any objection by the government to producing the report of the Montreal Engineering Company, which had been asked to study and report on the whole situation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for his observation and for having distinguished between the plan we produced and the one we believed to be impractical and which was placed before the people during the election by the former government. As far as the question of the right hon. gentleman is concerned, I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is in a position to answer it.


An hon. Member:: A distinction is not a difference.


Hon. Alvin Hamillon (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the report by the Montreal Engineering Company in regard to the requirements for power plants and transmission lines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
In doing so I should like to make it clear that the report is in the nature of professional engineering advice on a specific range of problems. In providing such advice, which I think has been very competently given, the engineers of the company had to examine to some extent or make assumptions on certain matters not strictly of an engineering character. In relation to these there can well be differences of view, without affecting the

accuracy of the technical advice. Unless this is understood there could be misinterpretation of some aspects of the report.
For instance, the Montreal Engineering Company projection of future demands excludes future requirements of pulp and paper companies and any demands which might be created by a large electro-smelting operation. This does not mean that the Montreal Engineering Company or any government is of the view that these developments will not come about. It is rather because if one had to make a firm determination by August, 1957, of the future demands, it was logical to predict industrial demands, as is done by commercial enterprises, only when a firm contract is placed.
Also included in the report is an assessment of coal reserves in certain maritime areas. This is a matter on which there is a good deal of difference of view, even, I believe, among competent engineers. The government does not necessarily subscribe to the assessment made in particular cases.
It was the view of the two provincial governments that it would be best to conclude the arrangements the Prime Minister has just announced before tabling this report. It was as a courtesy to the provinces, therefore, that it has not been tabled before this.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anloine-West-mount):: May I ask the minister a question with regard to the report he has just tabled. Are we to understand from his statement that the government disassociates itself from the recommendations of the report?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My statement was absolutely clear on that point.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister whether the government has initiated any conversations with the governments of the other two Atlantic provinces with a view to the extension of those policies which we all welcome-at least the policy regarding the thermal plants-to those other two provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out at the conclusion of my statement, we were approached by the two provinces in question, and it was with respect to those two provinces that the statement was made by the government. Any other provincial government which chooses to make representations will receive the consideration which the case it makes out deserves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand, then, that the federal government intends to take no initiative in this matter?
Power Development


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after all, each of the provinces has to determine whether or not it desires to make any application to the federal government under this policy. It is not for us to press upon any province a policy which, in its way, is peculiarly a matter of provincial responsibility.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Monimagny-L'Islet):: question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the role of the northern Canada power commission in the implementation of the policy he has just announced?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the matter is brought up for implementation through legislation a very full statement in that connection will be made. The role of the crown company in question will be such as may be necessary in the implementation of the general plan.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if an agreement has been reached with the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as to the location of the first thermal plants to be built under the agreements which were announced by the Prime Minister?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the present state of negotiations among the governments concerned is that the general principles have been arrived at as announced by the Prime Minister, but I do understand that the location of the first plant has been agreed upon.


Jean Lesage: As to this agreement on principles, which has been reached by the Prime Minister and the premiers, is there anything in writing or any exchange of correspondence confirming the agreement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker,
I think I can handle that question. The agreement is now presently being worked upon by the officials of the governments of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the federal government. As a matter of fact I think they are meeting in Ottawa today.


Jean Lesage: Is it the intention of the government to table that agreement when it is completed?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to table it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if in line with the Prime Minister's answer to me the federal government waited until the
1104	HOUSE OF
Power Development
government of Saskatchewan approached it about the Saskatchewan dam, since this matter is primarily within provincial jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Mr. Sinclair:: It was a simple question.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Was there any interference from the province of Saskatchewan?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker,
I am very sorry but I did not get the point of the hon. member's question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps I can clarify it. As I understood the Prime Minister, he said he would wait until the other two Atlantic provinces approached him before any initiative could be taken in power policy. I wondered if the same policy was being applied in the province of Saskatchewan with respect to the dam?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker,
I can certainly assure the hon. member that the government of Saskatchewan is always very interested in what is going on out there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not an answer.


George Carlyle Marler: Another evasion.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: In
view of the answer given a few moments ago by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources with regard to what he suggested might be the attitude of the provincial government of Saskatchewan toward the South Saskatchewan river dam, might I ask him whether he still holds the same opinion with regard to that matter as he did when he was leader of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan? Incidentally, that opinion was the same as I had announced in this house on one occasion, so I cannot complain about it very much if he does. He said if they formed a government provincially his government would build the South Saskatchewan river dam. Does he still hold that point of view, that the Saskatchewan government should build that dam?


Mr. Brooks:: That is not a question; that is a political speech.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My belief now is the same as it was then, that the dam is economically feasible, that any government could build it and it could be made economic in all aspects. I still hold the same opinion.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, of Which I have not given him notice. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario


pays more than 4| per cent at this time for money for capital expansion. I believe it is something over 5 per cent. My question is, would this commission receive a lower interest rate on borrowed money if the Ontario government made the same application to this government in respect of capital expenditures as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have done?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the
statement the Prime Minister made on the power situation in the Atlantic provinces answers the question.


George Carlyle Marler: It would be nice if the minister would answer a question occasionally.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I want to see that I understood correctly the answer of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the question asked by the hon. member for Welland.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I answered it.


Jean Lesage: Yes, but I want to be sure I understood it correctly. I will ask a supplementary question. Do I understand that if the government of Quebec wishes to borrow money for its hydroelectric developments in Quebec, from the federal government, it can get it at the rates mentioned by the Prime Minister?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In answer to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan)
I said that as to the question he asked in relation to Ontario or Quebec or any other province, the answer could be found by a careful reading of the Prime Minister's statement of policy.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether the application made by Canadian Pacific Airlines for permission to fly the Montreal-Vancouver route has the blessing of the government?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, having been in the house a long time I am sure the hon. member knows that it would be completely wrong for the government to indicate whether any particular application has or has not the blessing of the government before it has been considered by the air transport board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given any study to the matter of determining whether or not in its view the volume of air traffic in Canada would now warrant two trans-Canada air lines?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I, together with the officials of my department and air line personnel, have been making a thorough study of th& whole question almost from the time this government took office, and I expect to be expressing some views on this matter in the house before long.
[Later


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question arising out of his statement that since coming into office he has discussed the question of air routes across Canada with officials of air line companies. Does this mean that he discussed this question with officials of Canadian Pacific Airlines?


George Harris Hees: In a general way, yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask a supplementary question. If the minister has discussed this matter with the officials of Canadian Pacific Airlines, am I not entitled to an answer to my first question, as to whether C.P.A. has the government's blessing in the application that has been made?


An hon. Member:: You have already had your answer to that question.


George Harris Hees: When on an inspection tour this summer of harbours and other things which come under the jurisdiction of my department, I met the president of Canadian Pacific Airlines in Victoria and had dinner with him, and on that occasion he outlined the views his company had about international operations, national operations and matters pertaining to the air industry in general. I listened with great interest to what that gentleman had to say on that occasion and on other occasions. I have learned a great deal from what he has told me. However, I did not express to him at any time my opinion or the opinion of the government as to what our attitude might be with regard to the specific matter in question.


Mr. Coldwell:: I understand the discussions were unofficial, that they were not departmental discussions.


An hon. Member:: Social discussions.


George Harris Hees: The discussions were completely unofficial. It was a social occasion, and I
Inquiries of the Ministry met Mr. McConachie with mutual friends at a very pleasant dinner in Victoria. These matters on that occasion and on other occasions were discussed completely unofficially.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Has he received from Trans-Canada Air Lines any word approving the application of Canadian Pacific Airlines?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am really amazed at the lack of knowledge displayed by a man who has been so recently in charge of this department. He knows perfectly well that any application made by Canadian Pacific Airlines or any other air line has nothing to do with the officials of T.C.A.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, that is not the question I put to the Minister of Transport. I know what went on in the department in my own time, but I do not know what goes on at the present time. That is the reason I asked the minister if Trans-Canada Air Lines were backing the application of C.P.A.


George Harris Hees: As I said before, T.C.A. has nothing whatsoever to do with the application of any other air line.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister a question. Has he discussed the matter with either the president or any officials of Trans-Canada Air Lines?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
just discussed it with C.P.A., not with T.C.A.


Mr. Power:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the fact that when an application is made before the air transport board, all other interested parties are also aware of it?


George Harris Hees: That is, of course, a matter for the air transport board. My answer was that T.C.A. had nothing to do with the application made by any other air line. If T.C.A. wishes to appear before the board when a board hearing is held, and opposes an application, they have a perfect right to do so, as has any other air line. But no air line has anything to do with the making of an application by any other air line.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. Has an appeal been made to the government from the decision of the board of transport commissioners to grant the exorbitant freight rate of 70 cents a hundred on rape seed shipments? If so, can the Prime Minister inform the house if the decision to grant the appeal will be made known at an early date, so farmers can soon arrange for their spring seed supplies?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, but unfortunately I received the notice only a couple of minutes ago. In the interval I made an inquiry, and the information I have is that no appeal has been made as yet. I am not saying that further inquiry might not reveal that one had been made, but there is nothing either in the files of the board of transport commissioners or in the hands of the clerk of the privy council to indicate that any such appeal has been made.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether a report from Washington in this morning's Globe and Mail is correct, to the effect that the newly appointed royal commission on fuel resources will immediately deal with the export of natural gas from Canada and will enable gas to be exported within three to six months, and that Mr. N. J. McNeill, general counsel of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, has every confidence that Trans-Canada will be able to persuade the commission to sever the Trans-Canada case from its general study of Canadian fuels?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the royal commission is set up for the purpose of determining those questions in connection with gas export which are of immediate moment, and also having regard to future policy and the future needs of Canadians. When the royal commission will report and the nature of that report is, of course, not for me to anticipate.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister tell us when the first sittings of the commission are likely to be undertaken?


John George Diefenbaker: I will try to have that information for the hon. gentleman at the next session.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: The next session? Why not tomorrow?


George Carlyle Marler: I take it you meant the next sitting.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Peter Slefura (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I sent him notice of my intention to ask this question, but perhaps the notice I gave was too short and in view of the busy day he has perhaps he would give an answer tomorrow.
In view of the drastic drop in livestock prices, has the government been in consultation with representative farm organizations to arrive at a definite formula for adequate price supports? If so, will such formula be proposed for enactment this session? Is the minister aware of the urgency of such legislation, and does he intend to introduce such legislation without delay? And being aware that the small producers are planning their next year's production now, is the minister prepared to issue any directive to the farmers of Canada today?


George Carlyle Marler: Good speech.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there are several questions, and I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of them. However, I should like to point out that the way he prefaces the question-and this has occurred four or five times before-I do not think is in accordance with the facts. He says "in view of the drastic drop in livestock prices". Now, I do not know of the drastic drop in livestock prices to which my hon. friend and various other people who have made the statement in prefacing questions are referring.
I have here the prices on the Toronto and Winnipeg markets for good steers and grade A hogs. On November 19, 1955, the price of good steers on the Toronto market was $19.50 and on the Winnipeg market $19. On November 17, 1956, it was $20 on the Toronto market and $18.84 on the Winnipeg market. On November 9, 1957, it was $17.50 in Toronto and $17 in Winnipeg. That is a drop of approximately $2 a hundred as from two years ago and a year ago at this time, which I do not think can really be called a drastic drop.


George Carlyle Marler: How much more has it got to
go?


Douglas Scott Harkness: When we come to the situation in regard to hogs perhaps the gentleman opposite will not be making as much noise. On November 19, 1955, the price of grade A hogs at Toronto was $23.50 and at Winnipeg it was $20.96. On November 9, 1957, the respective prices were $26.62 and $24.08. Rather than being a drastic fall as from two years ago it is quite a considerable increase. As of a year ago there has been a reduction. On November 17, 1956, the price at Toronto was $30.50 and at Winnipeg $28.
The main point is this. These constant prefaces to questions about a drastic fall in the price of livestock I think are hardly justified. There has been some fall in the price of livestock, which I regret very much, but it is not a drastic fall; and as far as hog prices are concerned they are considerably better now than they were two years ago at this time. They are poorer now than they were a year ago at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Or a month ago.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In regard to some of the other questions, I might just add that everybody who is familiar with the livestock business knows that when you get a large production of livestock, which has been the case so far as hogs are concerned, particularly in the fall of the year, you always get a drop in prices.
The hon. member continued:
Has the government been in consultation with representative farm organizations in arriving at a definite formula for adequate price supports?
We have, of course, been in touch with the federation of agriculture and the farm union organizations and have heard their representations in regard to this matter over several months past, and are fully aware of their views in regard to this matter.
As far as the other questions are concerned, as to whether such a formula will be proposed for enactment at this session and so on, the hon. member is aware, as are all members of the house, that we have on the order paper a resolution providing for a stabilization program for farm prices and that will be proceeded with as soon as it becomes possible to do so and will, of course, become part of the general program of this government and of the laws of this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is very confident.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: May I ask a
supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could inform us as to the drop in
Inquiries of the Ministry hog prices within the last two or three months. Is the minister implying that the very low prices under the previous administration should now be continued?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say to the hon. member that hog prices for the last three months are information that is available to anybody. It is not necessary to ask the minister about that.


Hazen Robert Argue: They would change the minister's answer.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I have a very brief question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is he in a position now to give me an answer to a question I asked him some time ago regarding a fire on the Songhees reserve?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: There have been inquiries made and I have two memoranda on the subject. I find I am not in a position to condense them into one, so if the hon. member would wait until tomorrow I will undertake to answer him then.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the lack of announcement with reference to income tax cuts, will the Prime Minister inform the house if the loyal and hard-working civil servants of the Department of National Revenue are to be regarded as income tax snoopers who pillory and push around honest Canadians, as indicated in a document bearing a facsimile of his signature and sent to thousands of the citizens of Westmorland county? If not, will the Prime Minister so notify the same citizens of his change of heart in the same way?
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the facetiousness of my hon. friend gives the answer to his question.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: This is not a facetious question. It is a matter that is of vital importance at this time of year when the income tax-


Some hon. Members:: Question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked his question and has had his answer, and unless he has a further question we shall pass on to the next one.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that the members of a Canadian Pacific switching crew in the Winnipeg area who felt that they could not cross a picket line two days ago have been informed by the Canadian Pacific Railway that their services are no longer required?
Will the minister look into this matter to see if there is not some protection for such employees under the national labour code, since these employees do come under federal labour jurisdiction?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to look into the situation and report to the hon. member.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Harrington Lewry: i should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, in view of his answer to a question I put to him on November 4 in connection with explosions in the Trans-Canada pipe line in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. At that time the Prime Minister replied that as yet he had no information on the cause of these explosions, but he would make inquiries and let me know possibly the day following. I wonder if he has any further report at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: As I reported the other day, a
very complete investigation was made, and as yet there is no satisfactory conclusion as to the reasons for the explosions in question. The investigation, I understand, is continuing and I expected to be able to give my hon. friend an answer, as I stated, within a day or so. As yet I am not in a position to do so, and cannot until such time as the board of transport commissioners are in a position to advise me.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: The answer to question No. 105, Mr. Speaker, is a voluminous document and I would ask permission to table it as a return.


Mr. Speaker:: This return which is offered
to the house should properly have been made on Wednesday, I am informed by the Clerk, but it could be accepted now by unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Bourgei: 1.	Have any transfers of allotments been authorized by treasury board, since June 22, in the estimates, supplementary estimates and further supplementary estimates of the Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, how many, and in each case (a) what was the amount transferred; (b) from what heading or project was each transfer made; (c) to what heading or project was each transfer made; (d) what was the reason for the transfer?



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Peter Stefura: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the present government have plans for introducing legislation this session to broaden the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to make all areas eligible, instead of restricting the application of this act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a question which I have looked into to some extent and upon which I have received representations. It is not, however, what you might call an emergent matter, and therefore not a matter with which we could properly deal at the present session.


George Carlyle Marler: What does the minister mean by "emergent"; something which emerges, or what?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member has a dictionary, and perhaps he could look in the dictionary and find the meaning of that word.


George Carlyle Marler: I suggest the minister might do so himself.

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: On Friday last the hon. member for Gloucester inquired regarding the possible introduction in 1958 of compulsory inspection of fresh and frozen fish, and as to whether facilities would be made available to those interested in the industry to appear before a committee of the house to discuss any proposed amendments to the regulations enacted under the authority of the Fish Inspection Act.
A decision has not yet been taken regarding amending the regulations enacted under the Fish Inspection Act to provide for the compulsory inspection and grading of fresh and frozen fish. It is not contemplated, however, that a committee of the house will deal with proposed amendments to the regulations. It has been the practice of the department to have full discussion with the industry through its association, the fisheries council of Canada, and with others on proposed amendments to regulations. Meetings with the industry and others interested will be convened before proposals for amending the regulations to provide for compulsory inspection are presented to the government for its consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: May I
ask the Prime Minister whether consideration has been given by the government to the removal of the prohibition on the export of defence equipment from Canada to Israel, and if so, what is the result of the consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: I would rather not answer that question offhand. I think it is of sufficient moment to demand a rather complete reply, and it will be given in due course.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a question which I believe should properly be directed to the Prime Minister, but if I am in error perhaps we will get it straightened
out. Does the government intend to accept the suggestion of Mr. Silverthorne, chairman of the Ontario censorship board, which was to the effect that the federal government should assume jurisdiction over the censorship of films in order that uniformity of censorship may be accomplished?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what Mr. Silverthorne said, but I can think of nothing that would be more unconstitutional than that.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on November 12 the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) asked me this question:
Will the government consider the construction of a harbour bridge at the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, similar to the Angus L. Macdonald bridge in Halifax?
I find that there is no record in the Department of Public Works of any such proposal having been submitted. I also find that the federal government took no part whatever in the construction of the Angus L. Macdonald bridge in Halifax. Evidently the cost of that bridge was met by the province of Nova Scotia, the city of Halifax and the municipality of Dartmouth.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 13, 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. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I may say that I was delighted that so much of this sitting was given over to a discussion of the maritime provinces. We are not an overly sensitive people, but we do not like to be ignored. It is a very happy situation for us to find that we are now being considered since this new government has come into office.
Along with the matters that have been discussed heretofore there is in the province of Prince Edward Island another pressing problem which underlies and affects the only three industries of which we may boast, namely agriculture, fishing and the tourist

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie trade. For years and indeed, I think, ever since Prince Edward Island has sent its members to the Canadian parliament there have been discussions about one particular aspect of transportation, namely the link with the mainland. During the administration of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier this matter was discussed day in and day out, and finally in the administration of Sir Robert Borden our province was given continuous service with the modern car ferry as it then was.
We are hoping that history may repeat itself, and that the present Conservative government may be able to provide what is at this time the modern answer to our transportation problems. We feel that the time has come to build a road to the isle. We feel that a causeway across the Northumberland strait, is in this modern age of technology and science, not only feasible but indeed quite possible within a reasonable space of time. The service now existing, while once very adequate, is now incapable of coping properly with the traffic of goods across the strait. It is also a costly operation, causing an annual deficit of about $lf million to keep our ferries running.
We therefore feel that the building of a causeway upon which there may be some reasonable toll would be a self-liquidating project. It would give us a link with the mainland and, better still, it would give the mainland a link with us! Such a causeway would improve our three basic industries and would give a tremendous boost to the economy of our province.
I hope the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport will give this their most careful consideration.
I know that my friends and colleagues from Prince Edward Island will not allow anyone to forget their very great interest in this problem. I know of no greater memorial to this government, which we hope will stay in power for a long, long time, than the development of such modern and fine engineering projects, and particularly such a fine boon to the maritime provinces as this particular project which is so close to our hearts.
It has been pleasing indeed to observe the type of legislation which the government has put through. I have been greatly interested in it all, and so have the people of my constituency. The old age pension increase is one example. My personal preference at one time had been for $60 per month as a fair and reasonable amount. But the calculations and the explanations of the minister with respect to the economic and fiscal 

situation struck me as altogether satisfying. I am impressed with the fact that this new increase is 37J per cent over 1949 as against a 23 per cent increase in the cost of living for the same period.
There is one feature about this matter which has a special appeal to the people of my province, and that is the increase in allowable absence from three to six months. Many of our people in years gone by found it necessary to move to the United States, especially the New England states. In this, you see, they were anticipating a certain section of the Gordon report. Many of the older people like to spend part of the winter season with their families in the south. Therefore it will not now be necessary for them to return in the midst of winter. I have already had a great many letters of appreciation on this point.
This is an historic time for a new member to enter the Canadian parliament. The opening by Her Majesty the Queen of course was an unforgettable occasion; the change of government after 22 years of power dominance by one party was in itself something unique. We have also seen something else which I think is new-certainly in degree- in Canadian history, and that is the rapid implementation of election promises by a newly elected government!
We have also seen during this historic time in the record of Canada the end of certain things, and I have a feeling that a great many myths have recently died. We, especially those of us who are young-and I boastfully put myself in that class-had become almost inured to certain myths which had gotten about. I would not say any party did it deliberately,-but they got about. One of those myths was that one party had some sort of monopoly on social welfare legislation. Of course, as any projection back through history or any look through the contemporary record of various provinces under different governments or different political parties would indicate, clearly that is not the case. One could turn to the debate on old age pensions in the year 1907 and there get a cross section of party opinion. There was also the myth of indispensability; that it would be impossible, or at least dangerous, to replace a political party. There also was another myth of invincibility and that well known query "Who is going to stop us?", which had almost passed into the category of a rhetorical question.
There is another very assiduous myth- that national unity adheres to one particular party. I remember we used to be told by so

many leaders of the virtue of voting a certain way for national unity. We had in this house at least a partial demonstration of the falsity of that myth from one of the members on the other side, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who gave, I think, a convincing demonstration. He did me the honour of quoting part of an article I wrote. I appreciate his compliment; and while I do not mind for myself being dealt with in this way, I cannot allow to pass any imputation with respect to that great statesman Sir Robert Borden to the effect that he should be adduced as an argument for that which was put forward by the hon. member for Laurier. It would be very immodest of me to practice the art of self quotation, but may I be permitted to put my finger on one very short sentence in the same article, which I think perhaps displays Sir Robert's attitude a little more fully:
(Sir Robert Borden) was not given to pious preachments about his dedication to the furtherance of national unity, but he was nevertheless fully aware of the need for the harmonious interaction of the two great ethnic groups.
Sir Robert Borden did not foster racist divisions, and no man in this country need be ashamed of his Canadianism, whether in this parliament or in the councils of the world, where he strongly and clearly enunciated our national aspirations and became the chief architect of mature Canadian nationhood.
In this party, of which I am proud to be a member, there is no place for any narrowness of outlook on ethnic, religious or cultural lines. We are the great national party of today. We are the only party with representatives from every province in Canada. We have here, and I am proud of it, descendants of many of the peoples whose contribution has made the rich Canadian cultural mosaic. I was always very interested in this great myth of national unity and its association with one party, and am glad to see it has been finally and completely shattered.
One has been impressed also with the impact of the outside world upon our deliberations. The importance laid upon foreign affairs in the speech from the throne has I am sure struck us all; and if one looks back through the debates in the Canadian parliament over the years one sees a gradual development of interest, awareness, information and concern with the outside world.
Indeed, one may say there have been great events even since the speech from the throne was read by the Queen, events so great as to overshadow many of our regular considerations and routine thoughts. Indeed these
mi
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie are stirring and challenging times, and in them petty politics and narrow partisanship seem much out of place. Our earth is now encircled by two man-made satellites, built and launched by the Soviet union. As members of the human species we are thrilled at man's conquest of the lofty heavens, and the imagination warms at the prospect of future triumphs in the vast and illimitable reaches of space. There may be things in store for us which go beyond the fondest dreams of this present moment.
Yet we feel a chill dread about the objects which are swiftly passing through the space around this earth. We wonder if this may be a prelude not to a glorious triumph of man's ingenuity, but a horrible forerunner of man's inability to live peaceably upon this green earth. Whatever else has happened we must admit that we of the western world are late in this field of space conquest. May we not be too late! The forthcoming meeting of NATO at which the leaders of the western states, including our own Prime Minister, will gather may well be a turning point. One is interested in the reaction of people in the western world to this new development. It seems to me we must strike an attitude somewhere between that of panic and that of complacency.
Indeed, linked with this scientific development there is a tremendous political campaign which is exceedingly dangerous. Mr. Khrushchev has said that the western bases in Europe are obsolete. That would be a most dangerous thing to believe. Far from being obsolete they symbolize something which is indispensable to our survival, namely the unity of nations; and I think we will see a great deal more interdependence rather than less.
I am interested in the questions that arise on this very topic from time to time. We must redouble our efforts, and we must turn into practical canons this common ideal which we share. It is not only for parliaments; it is for peoples to meet this present situation. Just the other day in that wonderful newspaper the Christian Science Monitor I read a very simple sentence which strikes me, as does so much of the writing in this paper, as clear, meaningful, and succinct. Speaking of the American people it said:
We prefer a tax cut, we think-to a satellite or a missile-until the Russians have one. And then the heart searching begins.
This is a time, I would say, for some soul searching and heart searching not only among the people of the United States but among the allies of the United States. I think we

The Address-Mr. Sinclair must look very carefully into our educational system so we may meet the present challenge with strength and unity.
From that sense of urgency and common purpose about which I heard the Prime Minister speak at the United Nations some weeks ago may something come which will take us from our present position of second best. These are great and stirring days. May we all be able to measure up to our responsibilities in facing them.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on the address I must first warmly congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this House of Commons. It is just one month ago that the members of this house unanimously selected you to preside over our debates, and in that month you have amply justified our high hopes. You have shown a very sound knowledge of the rules of the house and, even better, a sound appreciation of the customs of this house. You have displayed a judicial attitude; you have given your rulings with firmness, but alleviated them with a very important ingredient, a sense of humour-a quality I warmly commend to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).


Mr. Fleming:: How about applying that comment to yourself?


James Sinclair: You, Mr. Speaker, and I have no common political affiliation, but we have another common bond. Our mutual benefactor expressed the hope that his young scholars would esteem the performance of public duty in their later life as their highest aim. His scholars, on the whole, have done very well in later life, but not too many of them have engaged in public life. You, sir, have amply justified the hopes of Cecil Rhodes by your public service in your own city, in the legislature of your province and here in the parliament of Canada.
While speaking in this vein I think I should also congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) the two Ministers without Portfolio (Mr. Macdonnell, Mr. Browne) and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lambert) for the way in which they too have lived up to the hopes of Cecil Rhodes.
It is customary at this time to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address. There was a special interest among the older members of this house in the speech delivered by the mover, because we all knew his father well. His father occupied a very high position in the hearts of this house. He had a very unusual gift, the gift of catching the ear of the house. New members and strangers in the gallery may have noticed at times
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
that when some hon. members get up to speak, though they may be making a good contribution to the debate, others are slipping through the door, reading newspapers or writing letters. Then another hon. member gets up, the house fills, and all listen.
I believe the two private members who were best able to catch the ear of this house in this way were the late Art Smith and Clarence Gillis from Cape Breton South. I think this was because they spoke only on subjects which they knew well. They spoke lucidly, without bitterness or rancour, and enlivened their speeches with an occasional picturesque phrase. That is why we were so pleased to find in the first speech made by the mover of the address that he was following the example of his illustrious father. I am sure that must have been especially warming to his mother, sitting in the gallery.
I am now going to make a reference to the seconder of the address. It is understandable that the attention of older members should have been focused on the mover. I have great sympathy with the seconder, because I was in exactly the same position myself in 1940 when I seconded the address in the reply at the opening of the war parliament. The hon. member who moved the address had a distinguished father who was still in the House of Commons. Well, I think the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) and I can console ourselves in this; we may not have been endowed with distinguished ancestors, but both of us are well blessed with a good number of lively, bright young descendants.
Now I should like to say a word to my successor in the ministry of fisheries. During the years I occupied a seat on the government side in the House of Commons I repeatedly said I was sure I had the best job in the government of Canada, in touch with an absorbing industry, an industry of ever-increasing importance in our national economy, assisted by a very able and loyal department and a devoted band of scientists, and having an extraordinarily interesting body of men to represent, the fishermen of Canada. I know my successor will get as much pleasure in grappling with the ever-increasing problems of conservation, protection, marketing, and international control of the seas as I did.
During my period of office the hon. member for Queens took an active interest in the work of the department, and I can assure him I intend to do the same during his period of responsibility. But I wish to make one special reference to his attitude in past years. I went to Russia two years ago to try to arrange for an exchange of information between the Russians and ourselves on fisheries

matters, since we fish the same three oceans of the world, and a year later I had the Russian minister return to see our fishing, and especially to see the advantages of free life in Canada.
We visited Newfoundland first, and then we came to the lovely, green garden of Prince Edward Island. The government of Prince Edward Island held a state dinner, and at the state dinner the Russian guest saw for the first time something new, something they do not have in Russia, a member of the opposition, in fact the hon. member for Queens as he was at that time. I took special pains to introduce him to the Russian minister, and I explained to our visitor that this was the man opposed to me as minister, a man who was going to do his best to defeat our party and who, if this came about, would probably succeed me as minister. Mr. Ishkov agreed politely, but I imagine he was not altogether convinced and really felt that it was a "Potemkin" opposition, as the term they use in Russia goes.
A year has passed since then. I am no longer minister of fisheries and the hon. member for Queens is. I understand my friend Mr. Ishkov is no longer minister of fisheries, either. But there have been a number of other changes in Russia as well since that time. Mr. Molotov is somewhere in Outer Mongolia. Mr. Malenkov is managing a power plant in Turkestan, and Mr. Ishkov is managing a fish plant in Murmansk. Mr. Speaker, I prefer our system because I am still in parliament, not running a fish plant in Aklavik.
This debate on the address does, of course, open the whole field of public policy for debate. I had intended to speak on the financial, trade and employment policies of this government. However, it is a little difficult for me to make such a speech because we have had so little information about the financial, trade and employment policies of this government. Of course we remember the speeches made by supporters of the government when they were in opposition. We remember the many election promises they made, promises which have been singularly neglected in the House of Commons. But we find that the really important policy declarations now seem to be made either in C.B.C. broadcasts or in speeches at Oakville and Winnipeg, and we second class citizens in parliament are obliged to rely on newspaper accounts and questions on the order paper in an effort to find out what is government policy on these matters.
This does, of course, give the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce an opportunity to read once again with relish the speeches they delivered outside this
The Address-Mr. Sinclair house, as they did yesterday, the happy little narcissists. It may give them pleasure, but it is not very satisfactory to the other members of this house.
I had intended to speak especially on the question of unemployment. I did not hear the broadcast of the Prime Minister last week on this subject, but I read an account in the Vancouver papers last Saturday in which the Prime Minister is reported as having said that those who mention unemployment are creating a fear complex, a depression complex, casting gloom in the land. I say this is the most serious domestic problem facing Canada today, and we will spread fear and gloom if we do not discuss this matter thoroughly and frankly in the House of Commons and suggest to the government action which can be taken to curb unemployment in Canada today. We certainly are not going to solve it by ignoring it, by sweeping it under the rug.
Interestingly enough, in the same issue of the Vancouver papers there was a Canadian Press story bearing the headline, "Jobless Expected to Hit 750,000," and it starts off:
A qualified government official predicted today unemployment this winter will likely hit at least 750,000, the highest since the end of the second world war.
This comment was made not by a Liberal member but a qualified government official. Unemployment right now is roughly double what it was in the same month a year ago. In Vancouver last week there were 20.000 registered unemployed, and in the province of British Columbia 40,000. The province of British Columbia is especially vulnerable because we are mainly producers of primary products which are sold on world markets without any protection of the tariff.
There is, of course, one great difference between the condition now and the condition in the thirties. We now do have a floor of social security which was not available to those who were unemployed in the thirties. Unemployment insurance benefits, unemployment assistance paid jointly by the federal government and the provincial governments, family allowances and the universal old age pension all put cash payments into the family group which were not available during the thirties. These, however, are no substitute for employment, and the government this winter must make every effort to maintain the highest possible level of employment.
I said I intended to speak on these subjects but I have changed the nature of my speech because of a matter which has arisen which is of concern to all members from British

The Address-Mr. Sinclair Columbia, members of all parties. It is a problem which concerns us and one in which we are pretty well agreed on the solution, an example of solidarity of British Columbia members irrespective of party which has been seen before in this House of Commons. Since it primarily concerns my riding, although it is also of major interest to the other members from British Columbia, I am going to try to give the house an objective account of the problem; and if I am unfair in my exposition or in my deductions I would welcome interruptions from any of the other British Columbia members on this matter.
The problem is the threatened closure at this time of Britannia Mines in British Columbia. Perhaps I should give a word or two of background. Britannia Mines is one of the great copper mines of the world. For many years it was the largest producer of copper in the British Empire. It is located 30 miles from Vancouver, in a position of some isolation. There is no road connection, and until about a year ago all communication was from the sea. They now have a rather irregular rail service provided by the P.G.E., which is still in the throes of construction in that area.
The mine has operated continuously for 55 years, and there is lots of life left in it. They still have large deposits of low-grade ore. It has always been noted in the mining world as a mine with one of the cheapest costs of operation. Over the years it has given the lead in many new mining methods. The copper is not actually smelted there. The concentrates are sent down to a smelter at Tacoma in the United States. This is an unusual mine and does not go down into the ground; rather it goes up. The mine tunnel comes in from sea level and then shafts go up 4,600 feet into the heart of this mountain, with grade levels every few hundred feet all the way up.
The mine is of special interest to me not only because I am the member representing the area but because it was in this mine that I first started to work 33 years ago. I think we all remember our first job. I remember this particularly well because my father and mother were very much opposed to my going to work in what they regarded as a very dangerous occupation. Finally, when I insisted, my father said to me, "Well, go, but you will be back within a week". If he had not said that I think I would have been back within two days, because it was hard work, but it provided a great training in mining.
It was there, too, I had my first experience with the burden of taxation, a matter which

now interests me much more. British Columbia then had a law which said that every male over the age of 18 who did not support a family had to pay a $5 poll tax. I was not 18 at the time; rather, I was 16. However, in order to work underground I had stretched my age to 18, so I was nicked for this $5 poll tax which I thought was most unjust. It took ten hours of work to pay the $5 poll tax, but of course that was my fault because I had stretched my age to 18. Since my first experience with taxation I have always felt that most taxes would be better spent if left in the pockets of the taxpayers.
The mine has been a great training ground for successive generations of engineers in western Canada. Today the mine is not on the early scale, when it employed over 2,000 miners; but it still employs 800 miners. The whole community contains 1,650 people or 312 families. The monthly payroll today averages just under $300,000 and the monthly supply bill spent by the company in Vancouver averages $150,000 a month. Over the years the company has produced almost $400 million of copper wealth. It has paid heavy taxes both federally and provincially.
Over the last year there have been extraordinary fluctuations in the price of copper on the world markets, the New York export market and the London metal market. There was a high of 47 cents and a low last month of 22.175 cents. The break-even point for the Britannia operation is 30 cents, and when copper declined below this price last May the company started losing money. Last August the price declined to 25J cents, which was 4J cents below the break-even point, and the company began to lose between $70,000 and $80,000 a month.
The company wanted to stay in operation and went to the mine-mill union and asked them to share this loss by taking a 15 per cent cut in wages. The company said if they closed down the mine with the expectation of reopening again it would cost them between $35,000 and $40,000 a month, so they were prepared to assume a loss of that proportion providing the union took a 15 per cent cut in wages as their contribution to maintaining employment in this mine.
The union pointed out that their present wage scale was below the wage scale in most other mines because of the difficult position at Britannia. The union leaders said they did not feel a wage cut at this time was the real answer. It would result, of course, in lower purchasing power for that group, which would be reflected in Vancouver, and it would probably lead to other cuts in other mines around the country and start a spiral of deflation.

The press accounts to the effect that the union had refused to take a wage cut to maintain employment did lose public sympathy. The press accounts were most unfair, because the union did better than take a wage cut. The union pointed out that it was not a cut in wages that the company wanted, it was a cut in the cost of producing copper; and the best way to achieve that, they said, was not to reduce the take-home pay of the miners but to have the miners work longer and harder and so cut the unit cost of production in that way.
This is what the union agreed to do last summer. They agreed, first of all, to forgo taking a 5 cent wage increase which was embodied in a two-year contract signed a year earlier. Secondly, they agreed to work a basic 44-hour week instead of the 40-hour week provided in their contract and under provincial law. They agreed, too, to an alteration in the working time of the miners. The men who regularly worked under what are called portal to portal agreements, who got 42 hours' pay for 38 hours' work, now agreed to work 42 hours for 42 hours' pay.
The most important concession the union made was to waive what are called punitive rates for work on Saturday and Sunday, time and a half pay if they were called upon to work on Saturdays and Sundays. This actually means that the men do not work on Saturdays and Sundays, which after all is what the men really want. Work in a mining community is generally done in continuous shifts, day, afternoon and graveyard shifts, and these shifts rotate during the course of the month. There are few times when all the community is free to take part in a normal sort of community life together, which makes life in Canada so pleasant; but by having a closure such as this, with Saturday and Sunday off because of the extra pay the company would have to pay to keep the mine in operation on these days, they did enjoy on the week ends the community life which is taken for granted by most other Canadians.
The importance of this concession to the company was that they could now run seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and so get full value out of the very costly capital equipment in the mine and in the mill. It was last August that the union and the company agreed to this program, and the price of copper was then 25$ cents a pound. The company and the union agreed to make all these concessions for one year or until copper had climbed back to 30 cents, the break-even point. During the month of August the union leaders met members from all four parties in Vancouver to explain what they were doing. The members also wanted to meet the
The Address-Mr. Sinclair management of the mine. We met them the day following and they explained the situation from their point of view, and assured us that they did want to keep the mine in operation. It was not a shortage of ore but rather the depressed price that was the reason for the present crisis.
After that meeting the members present sent a wire to the federal Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois). Perhaps I should read it:
August 26
As there is serious danger of unemployment in base metal industries because of depressed prices, the following British Columbia members of parliament urge that the federal government be prepared to take emergency action to keep the base metal mines operating.
This wire was signed by Messrs. Taylor, Vancouver-Burrard; Winch, Vancouver East; McLeod, Okanagan-Revelstoke; MacDonald, Vancouver-Kingsway; Irwin, Burnaby-Rich-mond; Hahn, New Westminster; Herridge, Kootenay West; Christian, Okanagan Boundary; Sinclair, Coast-Capilano; Regier, Burn-aby-Coquitlam; and Broome, Vancouver South.
With this agreement the mine continued in operation and the program achieved the success which was hoped for. I do not think there was much enthusiasm at national headquarters of the union for this plan which had been worked out, waiving the agreement, to work longer hours and to cut out over-time pay, but the local union leaders did support it in the hope of maintaining employment.
Because of the men's extra efforts the break-even price of the cost of production at the Britannia mine fell from 30 cents to 27.9 cents a pound and the United States smelter, which smelts the concentrates, joined in to help this program by cutting their smelter costs half a cent a pound, getting the breakeven cost down to 27.4 cents a pound. The company absorbed the remainder of the loss, amounting to about $40,000 a month. Unfortunately, however, since last August world copper prices have declined still further to a low of 22.175 cents, and that meant additional losses to the company of about $80,000 a month or a million dollars a year.
The company have now given notice to the union that they cannot afford to carry on with these losses unless some other form of assistance can be given. It is the feeling of the British Columbia members of all parties that since the company, the smelter and the men have done their best to keep the mine going, the 800 men employed and the community of 1,600 happy, the federal and provincial governments must now assist.
Let me turn to what would happen if the mine were forced to close at the end of the
1116	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Sinclair month. Eight hundred men would lose employment, and with 20,000 already unemployed in Vancouver everyone in our province knows that they have no real hope of getting employment this winter. They could, of course, go on unemployment insurance, because they all have full coverage.
It is more than only this unemployment at Britannia. The ratio of population to primary workers in our industrial towns in British Columbia is about five to one or six to one. At the great pulp and paper company at Powell River and the great smelter at Trail the population is of the order of about six times the number of men actually engaged in the mill. In Britannia it is only two to one because all the other service works, ancillary industries, are in Vancouver; so that in addition to the unemployment in Britannia an equal amount of unemployment will develop in Vancouver because of the closing down of this big industry.
Housing is another problem. The people today are all satisfactorily housed up there. The single men are in good bunk houses, in single rooms, and the married people in 312 houses at rents which range from $7.50 to $20 a month. Last year the company finished 33 new, modern houses in addition, which is evidence that the mine is not worked out. The company would never have spent such an amount of money if the mine were worked out. If the mine shuts down these people will have to be evacuated from their homes because there will be no power, no light, no water and no snow plowing, and they will have to try to find housing in Vancouver, which is a very difficult thing to do these days. It is very costly, and it will drain them of their savings.
Let me take a look at the economic loss if this mine is forced to close. Today these men pay $35,000 a month in personal income tax. If they go on unemployment insurance the very minimum will be $80,000 a month which will be drained out of the unemployment insurance fund. The loss to the people of Britannia means the loss of their homes, the loss of their employment and they will have to move to Vancouver, with the consequent drain on their personal savings. The social loss is the difference between being gainfully employed and idle.
What can be done? One suggestion was that the government should stockpile copper. That is not supported by most mining people. Most of the troubles in the copper industry have come about through governments stockpiling, which drew copper away from industrial users and which then artificially stimulated the price up to 47 cents,


which in turn brought a lot of very low-grade holes in the ground into production. Then the price began to collapse and government stockpiles were dumped on the market which, of course, brought an all-time low price of 22 cents a pound.
Floor prices were suggested. Well, floor prices may be the answer in agriculture and fishing in Canada, but they are not the answer as far as copper is concerned because we produce only 7 per cent of the copper of the world, and a floor price would be of assistance to all the mines, the mines which do not need help as well as those which do.
The third possibility is a direct subsidy to this mine to restore the position to that of last August, when the company and the union reached their agreement. The price of copper was then 25J cents a pound. That would mean a 2J, cents a pound subsidy today. The monthly production of this mine is 14 million pounds of copper. It would cost the government $37,500 a month at the present price to restore conditions to where they were last August. If copper continued to climb in price, of course, that subsidy would decline in amount.
What would this payment achieve? Well, socially it would keep 800 men in this community of 1,650 gainfully employed, living in their present homes, continuing their community activities and producing a needed commodity, copper. They would continue their schools, their churches and their little hospital up there. It would also continue employment in Vancouver for those other industries which supply the mine.
Last week I had meetings at the mine with these workers and their wives, and one thing that struck me about the group there was that they were the oldest group of miners I have ever seen in Canada, and I have visited over the years most of the main mining properties in Canada. Britannia is a stable community 55 years in operation. The miners who were working when I started to work there 33 years ago are still in the company employ; their whole life is there, and if they lose employment at this time there is very little opportunity for them at their age ever to regain work in mining.
Economically, such a subsidy would maintain a payroll of $300,000 a month at Britannia, along with expenditures by the company alone of $150,000 a month in Vancouver. It would mean that the government would still get $35,000 a month in income tax from these employed miners. It would save a drain of $80,000 per month at least on the unemployment insurance fund.

There is a precedent for such aid. In 1948, under similar circumstances, the former government brought in the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, not to help the mines but to maintain employment in these northern gold mining towns where the mines were finding the fixed price of gold and mounting costs made mining uneconomic. We split the cost roughly between the mines and the government. The program has enabled these mines to stay in operation, maintaining employment and housing. The cost of this program last year was $12 million.
The subvention paid to maritime coal mines is a similar piece of legislation which has enabled the maritime coal mines to stay in operation. Today the Prime Minister announced the extension of that policy to apply to coal mined in the maritimes and used in the maritimes. We supported that. Another example is the guaranteed price for uranium until 1962, which has enabled the great development at Blind River to go ahead, a further example of direct government assistance of this type in the field of mining.
We have many more precedents in other fields. Price supports for farmers are an example of the same principle. Price supports for fishermen have been paid on the prairies, the great lakes and the Atlantic provinces. Fortunately they have never been needed in British Columbia. The subsidy to the railways for the bridge across northern Ontario; subsidies to the steamship companies for maintaining operations on our two coasts, are other examples. The British Columbia members have, in general, supported all these precedents I have mentioned. Last week we all voted, for example, for cash advances to prairie farmers. We want to help the primary producers in every part of Canada. Now we do expect the government to take action to help this particular group of primary producers in our own area.
Yesterday the British Columbia members met the leaders of the miners' union and passed a resolution which was sent to the cabinet, supporting the proposal of the miners' union that this subsidy be paid. Of course the Minister of Finance will immediately raise the question, will this policy have to be extended to other base metal mines? There are two other major producers of copper in the country, International Nickel and Noranda. Both these companies are in a very happy profit position. International Nickel, of course, has the nickel market as its primary source of profit. Noranda has a complex manufacturing industry as well as mines. There are one or two small copper properties, but they have high grade copper
The Address-Mr. Sinclair and are making money. The best evidence of that is that all these other copper mines in the last year have granted substantial pay increases to their miners, in contrast to Britannia where the miners have taken substantial cuts. The director of the mine and mill union assures us he knows of no other copper mine in this predicament. So far as the lead and zinc mines are concerned, their problem will arise next year if the United States does raise the tariff on lead and zinc.
We all know the tendency of people to lean on the government in time of trouble. The Britannia miners, however, can come to the government in this respect with clean hands, because they have tried to help themselves. If it had not been for the continued drop in copper prices the arrangement they worked out last summer would have been sufficient. It is true that another government has a responsibility, because the provincial government has the primary control over mining. The provincial government receives a royalty, of course, on all mining production, and they get a 5 per cent sales tax on all purchases. I feel a joint program should be worked out between the federal and provincial governments.
I believe we British Columbia members regard this as a key case, not of mining but of employment. If government action is taken in this key case it will certainly do a great deal to dispel the gloom and despair of many people who are unemployed, and others in British Columbia who are fearing unemployment. We have acute unemployment problems in British Columbia.
I think the satisfactory solution of this particular problem could well be the signpost of government action. If the mine closes down I am afraid a lot of people in British Columbia will regard this as a return to the thinking of the thirties, when the relief camp was the only answer to unemployment. If, however, direct government action keeps this mine in operation, in conjunction with the sacrifices already made by the company, by the smelter and by the miners, it will be a very positive approach. It will be heartening to all British Columbians. It makes good sense economically, because a $37,000 monthly subsidy keeps $35,000 in income tax payments rolling in and saves $80,000 per month in unemployment insurance benefits.
It is because of this that the British Columbia members of all parties have sent a letter to the Prime Minister supporting the presentation which was made by the union to the government this morning. I think I can speak on behalf of them all in urging

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston the government to give prompt and favourable consideration to this positive approach to help unemployment in British Columbia at this time.


Mr. Hahn:: Before the hon. member takes his seat I wonder if he would entertain a question. What would be the effect on the mine itself if it were to close, that is on a long-range basis? Would the mine be reopened, or could it be reopened?


James Sinclair: The Britannia is an old mine and a very wet mine. There is a great deal of water in British Columbia, as the hon. member knows. If the mine were closed for any length of time it would be very difficult and costly to reopen it. The company would hope to reopen it, because they would hope to maintain it. It would be a difficult proposition if they had to close down, because of the nature of the mine and the nature of the ground.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I should like to speak about two matters. One is unemployment and the other is related to it, that is, some of our industries in Canada. During the session this year members from all parts of the house have been indicating to us and to you, sir, the ever-growing unemployment problem. The speech to which we have just listened was an excellent account of some of the unemployment conditions occurring in British Columbia. I believe this situation applies not only to British Columbia but to the whole of Canada.
I am afraid the reason for this condition is not any local situation, because the condition is genera] across the whole country. Of course it is my opinion, and I think the opinion of authorities across Canada, that one of the greatest causes contributing toward this unemployment problem is the financial system under which we are operating; that is, the present financial system followed by the Conservative party and which was carried on by the Liberal party. It is the tight money policy which is causing a great deal of the disturbance throughout the whole of the nation.
In this regard I should like to refer to an article which I read in the Gazette of Tuesday, November 12, 1957. The headline reads "Montreal Economist Raps Juggling; Ottawa Tight Money Policy Contributes to Recession". The article reads:
Canadian monetary policy "has certainly contributed to the recession we now are in," J. R. Petrie, Montreal consulting economist, said today in an address to the annual tax conference of the Canadian tax foundation.
"I do not," he added, "place the whole blame for this recession on monetary policy, but a

determined enough credit squeeze can take the froth off any boom, and cause a downward swing in economic activity."
Then farther down in the article he said:
"It is true that many prices are still rising, but if this be inflation it is not the kind of inflation we had five years ago when the pressure on prices was caused by a shortage of goods in relation to demand. There are no shortages now."
A little further on he said:
Maintenance of tight money is not going to solve the cost-price-push. While I am not satisfied that easier money will stop this recession now, I am convinced that the maintenance of existing monetary policy will aggravate both its amplitude and existing.
Then he ended up in this way:
I am in full sympathy with maritime business and political leaders who protest against tight money.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when authorities of that kind attribute our recession-I suppose they hesitate to use the word "recession"-to the tight money policy, considerable attention should be given to that matter. The members of the Social Credit party in this house have on many occasions gone into this problem. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has dealt with it in detail on several occasions. Not only this year but in years gone by he has pointed out the dangers of such a monetary trend and indicated that the result would be universal unemployment.
Of course that is the thing that is happening now. From the hon. member who has just spoken we have had an account of how the mining industries in British Columbia are collapsing. How the lumber industry has collapsed has been pointed out by others. Then we have the example of secondary industries closing across the country, creating more unemployment; and particularly we have the coal industry in western Canada, of which I will speak in a little bit more detail later on, closing and that too causing a continuation and accelaration of the recession.
It cannot be said that this unemployment problem we have been facing is of a local nature because it has been unquestionably pointed out:
Canada's unemployment total, usually stable at this time of the year, jumped by 20,000 during September to 194,000. The jobless represent 3.2 per cent of the labour force, almost double the 1.7 per cent of a year ago. At the same time there were 5,854,000 persons with jobs, a drop of 103,000 from the previous month's record total of 5,957,000.
This is not the opinion of myself. It is borne out most emphatically by a release which we received the other day from the Department of Labour and the bureau of

statistics dated October 23 which has this to say, and I am quoting from this report:
The number of persons without jobs and seeking work, which usually remains relatively stable at this time of year, increased by 20,000 during the month to 194,000, representing 3.2 per cent of the labour force, compared with 1.7 per cent a year earlier.
Then down further they have this to say about this alarming situation:
Unemployment in September was still considerably higher than last year in virtually all local labour markets.
That is the statement which was given by the government, or by the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics. This unemployment is being experienced, as I indicated, in British Columbia, in the Atlantic provinces, in the central provinces and in western Canada. I have literally hundreds of newspaper clippings which I have saved over the last three or four months and which indicate that this problem is ever increasing. Let me just give you one or two. I have many more, but I do not want to take up the time of the house by reading them all. Here is one I have from the Albertan of Monday, September 16, 1957. It reads in part as follows:
Initial and renewal claims for unemployment insurance benefits in July totalled 117,107, an increase of 55 per cent over last year's corresponding total and an advance of 30 per cent over the June figure.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the increase has been most rapid since June 10.T I am not implying that the present government is responsible for all this situation, but I am pointing out most definitely that they have now had an opportunity to tackle this problem but that so far their policies have not been any different in this respect than those of the Liberals who preceded them. Here is another clipping which is headed "Fears Bad Lay-off in Construction," and which reads in part as follows:
Ottawa (CP)-Raymond Brunet of Hull, Quebec, past president of the Canadian Construction Association, says one-quarter of Canada's construction labour force of 550,000 may be out of work between December 15 and March 31.
Then here is another one from my own province. It is from the Calgary Herald of Wednesday, October 21, 1957. It is headed "Cement Plant Lays Off 97" and it reads in part as follows:
Shortage of orders led to a lay-off of 97 workers Tuesday at the manufacturing plant of Canada Cement Company Limited in Exshaw.
The measure was taken to reduce the number of shifts being worked at the plant from three to two daily. Duration of the lay-off is not yet determined.
As was pointed out in one of the articles I read, this recession is different from the one during the hungry thirties because then
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston there was a shortage of goods. There is no shortage of goods now. Certainly there are inflated prices, but there is no shortage of consumer goods. One of the causes of the increase in prices, of course, is the tight money policy which was started by the Liberals and pursued by them, and which is being continued without interruption by this present government.
If we are going to look for the causes of this general recession across the country we had better look to that cause at which all the authorities are pointing, namely the financial system in this country. The premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Flemming, indicated this not so long ago when he was pointing out the deplorable economic conditions in his province. The Social Credit members have pointed it out on a number of occasions here in this house. It is time the government began to take some cognizance of this fact and see what can be done.
I think one of the reasons for the unemployment problem, and which has its bearing on the tight money policy, are the unusually high interest rates which are being charged industry. Of course those interest rates always go into prices, thus making it much more difficult for our people in this country to buy the goods which are produced. Then, of course, as unemployment continues prices remain high, fewer consumer goods are produced, more people are on the unemployment lists and so the vicious cycle continues.
One of the reasons we have been able to hold our head up as high and as long as we have, of course, is the tremendous amount of credit buying that has taken place across this country. Credit buying has amounted in the last year to about $2f billion. That credit buying is certainly not going to help the economy for any length of time, because when people are short of purchasing power, when they lose their jobs and have their incomes cut and then are obliged to revert to credit buying or buying on the instalment plan, their prices are greatly increased. The interest rates on this credit extension in a great number of cases have amounted to anywhere from 5 per cent to 50 per cent, and the ones who are being hit the hardest are those who are in the unfortunate position of having no jobs at all or on fixed incomes.
What have this government been doing to solve the unemployment problem? Have they a policy which is going to solve this serious condition? My mind goes back to the action this government took just the other day when the seamen in the Montreal area went on strike for higher wages. I am not at this point taking any part on the side of the

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston unions or anybody else's side. I am just pointing out the condition as it exists. The seamen went on strike for an increase in pay. The government immediately brought forth what I suppose they considered an appropriate solution, and so they permitted eight vessels of Canadian National Steamships, a government owned crown corporation, to be transferred to foreign registry. The ships will be registered at Port of Spain, Trinidad. The company stated that by doing this they will be able to compete with other shipping companies who are hiring foreigners on their ships at lower rates of pay, and this government is a partner in that action.
Perhaps some of the members of this house have never been to the West Indies. It was my privilege to visit that area about a year ago, and I am going to say to the members of this parliament that Canadian National Steamships will have no difficulty whatsoever in getting lots of cheap labour anywhere in the West Indies. When we made that trip throughout the West Indies we stopped at nearly all the ports which were doing business with the commonwealth, and on every occasion when we stopped at these ports the docks were just lined with workers, hundreds of them, seeking employment. I have never visited a place where the economic conditions were as low as they are in the West Indies and, make no mistake about it, Canadian National Steamship Company, as far as employment on these eight ships is concerned, will be able to get a lot of cheap labour.
The distressing part of this whole thing is that here we have the government of this country in an effort to solve their internal unemployment problems saying in effect to the working people of this country, "If you do not lower your standard of living and accept lower wages then we will get foreigners to take your jobs." I do not think anything could be more deplorable. The government is saying in effect to all industries in this country that one of the ways to lower their costs and, incidentally, to increase their profits is to hire foreign labour. You might as well go out and lower your immigration barriers and allow foreigners to come in and absorb the work which Canadians are doing.
That is not the solution. What is going to be the result? The result will be, as in the seamen's strike, that all these men will be thrown out of work, their families will no longer have the pay cheques coming in each month, and their standard of living will be reduced considerably-almost to nil-with their purchasing power gone.
They will be buying less consumer goods. Of course, there again is a vicious cycle; less purchasing power, less consumer goods

used, less production from the industries and then, naturally, more unemployment. That is not the way, surely, to solve our internal unemployment problems, and the government must accept a portion of the blame because they were the ones who permitted this action to be taken. I cannot help but think that this action on the part of the Conservative party smacks very largely of what happened in the hungry thirties. We had unemployment problems then, and when the unemployed of western Canada decided to come down to Ottawa and complain they were stopped at Regina by the police. I will not go into the treatment they were given; I will not expand on that but unfortunately, although it may be a coincidence, that was the time when the Conservative government was in power under the former prime minister, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.
Is that going to be the policy of this government? It certainly looks like it, because it smacks most strongly of the iron hand for our unemployed. I think there could be some alleviation of this problem, but before I go on to a different angle of my talk may I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I was about to branch out into another topic, namely the subject of industry in Canada. I think one of the things which would help solve our unemployment problem in this country would be for the government to embark on a determined plan to decentralize industry. This question has been brought before the house on a number of occasions in days gone by but too little attention has been paid to it, with the result that most of our industries are concentrated in the two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec because of a number of factors which give these two provinces an advantage with regard to the employment of people as compared with other parts of the country.
One of the factors which has prevented industry from locating in the Atlantic and western provinces is the discriminatory freight rate system we have in this country. We in the province of Alberta have felt this discrimination keenly over a number of years. We have the highest freight rates in Canada, and industry is therefore hesitant about moving to that part of the country to establish factories. It is impossible for industries in the west to compete with industries located in central Canada while

they have to pay such exorbitantly high freight rates. It is not a good thing for the country as a whole, either from an economic standpoint or from the point of view of national defence, that industries should be concentrated so heavily in the two central provinces. It would be an easy matter for the enemy to ruin us in a few months with the help of modern weapons now at their disposal.
Another reason it has been difficult to establish industries in western Canada is the tariff structure. Industries which have settled in central Canada enjoy a very high degree of tariff protection while industries in other parts of Canada have very little. I am thinking especially of the agricultural industry in western Canada. The agricultural industry has no tariff protection, or very little. Certainly there is no tariff protection with regard to wheat. The farmers must sell their wheat on the open market and buy all the goods they require on a protected market.
This is particularly true in respect of our coal industry, and I want to spend a little time in considering the coal industry not only in western Canada, Alberta and Drum-heller in my riding, but in all other parts of Canada as well.
It is true that both the present government and the government which preceded it have been applying the principle of subsidies. Quite clearly the application of subsidies alone has not been sufficient to enable industries in other parts of Canada to compete against those of the two central provinces. That is particularly true in the case of coal. As I say, the government's policy has not changed. It is true that in one or two instances there have been increases in subsidies. The Prime Minister mentioned something of this sort this morning while he was speaking about the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and I expect the position in those two provinces will be somewhat eased as a result. But we in the west have found that the subsidies which have been provided are not sufficient to keep our coal industry alive.
The coal industry is essential to Canada, particularly in wartime. This was brought home to us during the last war when the United States government refused to ship us any coal, and we had to depend upon our own resources. Had we found ourselves then in the same position as we find ourselves today, we should have been in a very difficult situation indeed because today our mines are rapidly closing out not only in the west but in other parts of Canada as well.
When I speak of tariffs I am not unmindful of the fact that a certain amount of
The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston tariff protection is good. What I am complaining about is the unequal tariff protection which results in a situation in which almost the only industries which enjoy protection are the large manufacturing industries concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. The coal mining industry has no such protection, yet little has been done about it. I have myself brought the question before the house many times and other hon. members have done the same, but so far nothing has been done which would stimulate the growth of this industry.
Only the other day, on November 4, the Calgary Herald carried a report of a speech by Mr. C. V. Daniels, president of the Calgary chamber of commerce, in which he said that the Alberta coal industry is in an extremely depressed state because of declining markets for its products in Canada and elsewhere. Mr. James J. Part, the city manager of Drumheller, also pointed out the need for decentralization of industry and for some assistance to be given to the coal mining industry in that area. He pointed out that Drumheller is an excellent spot-and so it is-for the establishment of industry if some of the obstacles to which I have referred were removed. Down in the valley there we have the largest supply of coal in Canada. In Alberta there is over 48 billion tons of coal, yet our mines are being closed year after year at an ever-increasing rate. As I say, we have plenty of coal in the Drumheller area-cheap coal, too, for industrial use. We have electric power; we have a mighty river running through the area; we have gas and oil, all the inducements which would encourage industry to locate there. If some attention were given by this government to the decentralization of industry and to the changing of our present unfair tariff structure, a great deal would be done to encourage such relocation.
I noticed that the other day when I asked the Minister of Transport about this question he seemed unsure about whether there was any undue discrimination in Canadian freight rates. The minister has been here a long time and has heard a good many of us speak on this question in the house, and if he does not know that now he had better get acquainted with his department soon.
The other day I wrote a letter to the dominion coal board asking for some information on this subject, and they produced some figures from the bureau of statistics and sent them over to me. With the permission of the house I should like to have this short table put on record in Hansard.

The Address-Mr. C. E. Johnston


Mr. Speaker:: What is the source oi the table?


Charles Edward Johnston: It is from the coal board, Mr. Speaker, and these figures, supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics, refer to coal production.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission to have this table inserted in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Johnston: The table is as follows:
Coal Production in Canada
	8 mos. Jan.-Aug.		Cal. Year
1957	1956	1956Nova Scotia 	. 3,716,765	3,895,816	5,775,025New Brunswick ..	. 589,936	627,068	985,290Saskatchewan 	. 1,174,140	1,200,403	2,341,641Alberta bituminous	. 798,179	1,372,671	2,064,403sub-bituminous .	. 903,103	1,113,949	2,264,284British Columbia .	. 728,925	1,006,267	1,481,891Total 	9,216,174	14,912,534
I will refer to the table only briefly, then; but I should like to point out that in Alberta alone so far as coal production is concerned, in the first eight months from January to August, 1957,-I am referring to Alberta bituminous-we produced 798,179 tons. In the same period in 1956 we produced 1,372,671 tons, a drop in the first eight months of this year of 574,492 tons. In 1957 Alberta produced 903,103 tons of sub-bituminous coal, while in 1956 we produced 1,113,949 tons, a drop of 210,846, or a total drop of 785,338 tons. That shows the extent to which our coal industry is being destroyed in western Canada. Total coal production in Canada for the first eight months, January to August, 1957, was 7,911,048 tons and in the same period in 1956 it was 9,216,174 tons, which indicates there has been a drop in the first eight months of this year amounting to 1,305,126 tons. This has been going on year after year, until finally our mines are in a deplorable state.
The other day the hon. member for Red Deer asked some questions in the house and received answers. The questions were as follows:
During each of the calendar years commencing January 1, 1952, what was:
1.	The total number of coal mines in operation in Alberta?
2.	The total tonnage of coal produced in Alberta?
3.	The number of Alberta coal mines which ceased operation?
4.	The total tonnage of coal imported into Canada?

The answers received by the hon. member
were as follows:		
	1952	1953
1	157	1462	7,194,472	5,917,4233	18	194	24,932,853	23,265,5411954	1955	1956136	116	1044,859,136	4,456,578	4,329,63935	16	1918,579,989	19,742,531	22,613,374
If you consult these figures, Mr. Speaker, you will observe that from 1955 to 1956 we had a decrease in Alberta production of over 127,139 tons. From the answer to the third question it can be seen that every year we have had a great number of mines closing. I do not have the figures for 1957, but for the years I have dealt with it is shown that an average of more than 20 mines in Alberta closed each year because they lacked markets.
Hon. members will notice that imports of coal from the United States in 1955 totalled 19,742,531 and in 1956 totalled 22,613,374, which represents an increase in imports from the United States of 2,870,843 tons; and there is nothing to indicate that the imports for 1957 will not exceed those of the past two years.
What is the result of all this? Because we are using so much coal imported from the United States we are giving the people of that country employment in their coal mines, while at the very same time we are destroying our Canadian mines and putting our own people out of work, thereby aggravating the unemployment problem here in Canada.
A subsidy offers some relief, but it is only a palliative. Two per cent of Ontario's total requirements last year came from the western provinces and 98 per cent from the United States. Forty-two per cent of Quebec's total requirements came from the eastern provinces and 58 per cent from the United States. Ontario is our natural market. I think some attention should be given to the Canadian coal industry.
As I say, a subsidy is not enough and it will not solve our problem. We could very easily see to it that imports of coal from the United States were cut down a little. Last year they shipped in over 22 million tons for sale in the Ontario market. If we were to give the Canadian mines only 2 million tons of this 22 million which is imported from the United States it would not hurt the United States economy at all, and would serve to bring back to life our own Canadian market.
What we need most of all is a national fuel policy, one that will provide employment for our own people and protect this

country in time of war. If we were to reduce our United States imports by just two million tons as I suggest this would give our own people the employment that is so greatly needed to keep our coal industry alive. It would revive the western coal industry and also give the Atlantic provinces the stimulus required to revive their coal industry. In short, let us make Canada for Canadians and not so much for foreigners.
(Translation) :


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member, may I congratulate you on the honour conferred upon you by this house in choosing you as its Speaker. It is an honour which assuredly reflects the high regard which hon. members have for you. Your thorough knowledge of both languages will no doubt prove a great asset in carrying out your responsibilities, and this ability is more particularly appreciated by us, who speak both French and English. May I also point out that, since the opening of this session, I have been agreeably surprised to find that so many English-speaking members, especially on this side of the house, have shown remarkable familiarity with the French language. Let us hope that their number will increase with the growing realization, by every one, of the advantages of being bilingual.
I should like to quote from an article which appeared in a bulletin entitled "Industry" published by the Canadian Manufacturers Association, and which I am translating as follows:
"French and English are in fact the two official languages of Canada, but the proportion of Canadians who can speak both is unfortunately small, barely twelve per cent. Of the remaining 88 per cent, 67 speak English but no French; 20 understand French and not English, and one person in a hundred speaks neither language.
It is imperative that we do better than that before we can genuinely feel that we have reached the status of an indivisible nation. There should not be a single Englishspeaking Canadian who does not have some knowledge of French, no more than there should be a single French-speaking Canadian unfamiliar with English; because a Canadian who, for some reason or other, lacks a good command of both official languages of his country is not only the poorer, in the matter of language, but he is, in fact, divorced from several million of his fellow-citizens, and all the obstacles to an efficient and true unity are in this way, much more real. At this time, when students of all ages have registered for a new term in our schools, 96698-72
The Address-Mr. Lambert colleges and universities, it seems particularly fitting that we give some thought to those matters."
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate your deputy, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) whose geniality and poise so eminently fit him for this position. May I also, like all those who preceded me, tender my congratulations to my good friend the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) for his contribution in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Though he hails from a locality scarcely known to the people of Edmonton, he has been to me, for many years, a colleague for whose judgment and experience I have the highest regard. By the same token, I commend the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) for his excellent speech when seconding the motion of the hon. member for Calgary South.
It would indeed be ungrateful on my part to pursue my remarks without expressing my sincere thanks to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for appointing me parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). Like so many others in this house, I am a veteran of the second world war. While I do not claim to be an expert in the matter, I may say that I take a great interest in national defence. I acknowledge my shortcomings, my limitations, but I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I could not have found greater satisfaction than in working under the direction of the hon. Minister of National Defence. As was stated previously in the house, he can be described as being unfailingly a gentleman in the true sense of the word. I am very grateful to the hon. members opposite for referring to him in those terms.
Mr. Speaker, it was more than sixty years ago that my father, then eighteen, left his birthplace in the county of Terrebonne, and went to Edmonton, which at the time was a little known still less developed district. A little later, his family followed him. Young though it is, western Canada has its traditions. My grandfather was Conservative member for St. Albert in the last parliament of the Northwest Territories, in Regina, from 1901 to 1904. Most of this constituency is now part of the one I represent. The village of St. Albert, a monument to venerable Father Lacombe, that pioneer missionary of western Canada, is now on the threshold of promising development, after lying dormant for nearly fifty years. A great construction and modernization project is contemplated, and I should like here to wish my electors from St. Albert every success in their undertakings.

The Address-Mr. Lambert
I should like to point out that Alberta has some sixty thousand French-speaking citizens. However, no more than about 4,000 of them live in my constituency, which has a total population of nearly 120,000. The fact remains that I was elected in Edmonton West because I was bilingual, because, you see, where I come from, we all feel united. In voting for me the people of Edmonton West did not feel they were supporting a member of a party which practices disunity. So I would suggest to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), who, unfortunately is not here at the moment, as well as to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and others, to go out west and find out for themselves about the views of the French-speaking population there.
Mr. Speaker, they would be amazed to learn that those people do not share the opinion expressed the other day by these gentlemen. Though a small minority, we have lived in co-operation and harmony with our neighbours. If those hon. members would only lift their noses out of the mud with which they are trying to cloud the waters of national unity, they would realize that the Conservatives are recognized as a national party which is consistently working for the unity of this country. The enthusiasm with which the hon. members opposite greeted the inanities we heard the other day about national unity, and which were repeated more recently in Joliette, just shows to what extent the principles held by the Liberal party are bankrupt. The same applies to the emphasis laid on the so-called Diefenbaker-Duplessis axis. For want of something better, it has become the cry of despair of the Liberal party.
If I may venture a suggestion, let them come out of their shells; let them travel in the rest of Canada. They will be welcomed with kindness, especially out west, for our hospitality is well known, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, they will listen to a few home truths.
People come over from Quebec each year to visit us, and in my opinion they realize that harmony can prevail among people of different races and different faiths without their indulging in snide remarks or bickering. Liberal members have but to look at us, sitting on this side of the house, and they will see an example of the national unity of races and religions. The Conservative party derives its strength from all sources. We are Anglo Saxons, French Canadians (and it should not be forgotten that we got 575,000 votes in the province of Quebec on June 10), Ukrainians, Scandinavians, Italians, Chinese ... Is that evidence of disunity?

(Text):
I had the opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago on your election as Speaker of this house. May I be permitted a moment of personal gratification. I join you, sir, in this house not only as a fellow member of Hertford college, Oxford, but with considerable satisfaction as one of that body of Rhodes scholars who are members of this house. Amongst these scholars we number you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), both members of the treasury benches.

and I should like to welcome back to this house the hon. member for St. John's West-and on the other side of the house there is the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), also a former occupant of the treasury benches. Recently we were pleased to read that another Rhodes scholar had achieved distinction in the person of Mr. Justice St. Germain, whose appointment to the supreme court of Quebec province will be welcomed by all.
I would say also that I have been more than ordinarily surprised at the large number of Rhodes scholars who occupy high positions of trust in the government of Canada. Indeed, if one looks at the list of Canadian Rhodes scholars and assesses their achievements as a whole, one cannot have but a feeling of satisfaction at the fulfilment of the trust and expectations of the administrators of the Rhodes trust in approving their choice of scholars. You, sir, have been secretary for the Rhodes trust of this country for many years, and you know whereof I speak.
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to urge upon the members of this house that, should the occasion arise, they recommend that young, promising students of this country strive for Rhodes scholarships in order to gain an education that, in my very humble opinion, is on a par with, and in many respects and in the minds of many superior to that which can be obtained anywhere else. In so doing they may assure to this country in some measure a source of leaders as well in industry as in the professions and public life. It may be said that Canadian Rhodes scholars as a whole fulfilled the vision of Cecil Rhodes in establishing these scholarships.
As a new member of this house, Mr. Speaker, I of course had my first impressions from the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am astounded and somewhat disappointed in the attitude of many of the members, particularly those opposite. We have heard recita-

tions of serious ruin in so many constituencies. Surely this country has not reached its present eminent position because of all these disasters, either actual or predicted, about which some members appear to be concerned. I would have thought that it was the function of a member not only to have the nature and status of his constituency in its proper perspective, but to tell the rest of the people of Canada what his own people were doing rather than what they were not doing. It is not in the spirit of pessimism that we must approach our functions as members of this house.
I am not by that saying there are no problems, some grave and some of a more minor nature, which exist in this country today. Problems have existed in the past; they exist now, and they will exist in the future. We were not born into a paradise, a sort of Shangri-la, where life would go on serenely at all times. The fortunes of this country and its achievements have not been built by Canadian people who, every time some difficulty arose, cried to the heavens and had their members run complaining to parliament asking what was the government doing about it.
The constituency of Edmonton West, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most heavily populated in this country. There are upwards of 120,000 people living in a relatively small area, composed of 85 per cent urban dwellers and 15 per cent farmers and small holders. The rural area is in the main a good productive area, the better part of which lies in the milkshed of the city of Edmonton. There are no vast farm holdings there, but the farmers of my constituency are an industrious group of men and women who have had the initiative to cope with their problems and get on with the job.
The city of Edmonton, of which I represent only a part, has made tremendous strides since the end of world war II. The population has more than doubled so that now in the metropolitan area of that city it numbers almost 275,000. This great growth has not been without problems and grave difficulties, to some of which I shall refer later. But again, Mr. Speaker, that growth, like that of the rest of Canada, has not been the result of appointing ourselves the death-watch beetles of our economy.
This growth of Edmonton, and of many of the towns in its area, has been in part the result of the developments in the oil and chemical industry. Notwithstanding the credit that may be assumed by certain people for the prosperity of Alberta, there is no doubt in the mind of anyone that this prosperity is in good measure the result of resources 96698-72i
The Address-Mr. Lambert placed there by divine Providence. There has been generally good administration of all those resources. By this I do not mean to say that it has been the best of administration and due solely to the abilities of that political party which has administered the affairs of Alberta during that time. In my humble opinion it would have taken knaves and fools to do worse.
However, notwithstanding the claims of the Alberta government that it has done so well in the past ten years and that the provincial government is in the equivalent of a debt-free position, this position has been achieved at the expense of the municipalities. Great and serious demands have been made on the municipalities because of the vast expansion that has occurred in Alberta, yet the revenues of those municipalities have not been commensurate with the needs that had to be fulfilled and fulfilled immediately, not at some indefinite time in the future. The sharing of the wealth of the province has not been equitable. I would say, sir, that the buoyant financial position of Alberta has been, to a considerable extent, at the expense of its municipalities. The responsibilities of those municipalities are not all the creation of the provincial authorities. The change in social concept has imposed new burdens upon them, duties which have their origin also in laws passed by this house. I would submit, sir, that today even more than in the past our development makes it imperative that we have another look at our structure of government, federal, provincial and municipal, and that we reassess the responsibilities devolving upon these levels of government so that sources of revenue can be made commensurate with the responsibilities.
As the hon. member for High Park so ably pointed out earlier, in the sphere of municipal government we have one of our major problems existing in this country today. I would strongly recommend that the representatives of the municipalities take an integral part in the future deliberations between this government and the governments of the provinces of this country. It is my earnest hope that such representatives may be permitted to sit in as observers at the forthcoming conference later this month. I would further hope that they would be invited to participate as members in subsequent negotiations and conferences which will no doubt arise in the not too distant future.
I deem it an honour, sir, to sit in this house with my good friend the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), to whom I must once again extend my congratulations on his address in moving the reply to the speech from the throne. There is always strong

The Address-Mr. Lambert rivalry between Edmonton and Calgary, and I hope that will continue for many years to come. I believe some of the progress in both these lively cities has been due to this rivalry.
I need not emphasize that Edmonton occupies the forefront in population, in the commercial activity of its immediate area, and of course one must not forget certain athletic endeavours. There is one particular type of sport which at the present time occupies the attention of a good number of our people in Canada. Mr. Speaker, with the advent of these cooler temperatures I should like to warn hon. members of this house that once again there is coming out of the west, out of the land of snow, a fierce horde of Eskimos. Shortly many members of this house-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't speak too soon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -may find that on a Saturday at the end of this month they have business of some sort or other to transact in Toronto. The memorable struggle for the Grey cup will take place that day, but that is the sheerest of coincidence. To all those members who come from Ottawa, Montreal, Hamilton or Toronto, and may I add Winnipeg, I would give fair warning that this year's Eskimos are bigger, faster and hungrier than ever.
At this junction I should like to pay tribute to all those men and women who have devoted their time, their energy and in a good many cases a good deal of their money to support and encourage and direct the athletic teams of this country, be they the most highly qualified professionals or the most enthusiastic bunch of peewees or midgets in some community league. To them and to our sportsmen we owe a great deal in Canada.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the city of Edmonton has made great progress in the past 10 years. It has doubled its population in that time, by up to 15,000 per year in recent years. It has built thousands of housing units per year. Its commercial construction has kept pace. At the time of the election credit restrictions had reduced housing construction almost to a standstill. What was done? A plan was formulated by the builders and real estate agents to meet the needs of Edmonton. Along with the representatives of industry I was very pleased to bring this plan to the attention of the government.
The answer to this and no doubt similar proposals from others was quick action in making available $150 million for National Housing Act lower cost housing. Edmonton's reaction was to get on with the job, with the results as announced by the Minister of Public Works. Edmonton is among the leaders of this country in house building since the election. As of November 1 it had taken up

$7 million of the fund to start 732 housing units. That is the sort of thing I referred to earlier. A problem existed but the answer lay in what the people did for themselves, given the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that they must be commended.
To date we have dealt with legislation to implement cash advances for farm-stored grain, increases in old age pensions and supplementary allowances, blind and disabled pensions, war veterans allowances and other changes for the benefit of veterans. These were emergency measures, the need for them having accumulated for a long time. They were but the first instalment in the fulfilment of a long legislative program of this Conservative government.
This is a prelude to the implementation of a national policy for the benefit of all Canada. This is not a promise of fulfilment tomorrow. It will take time, but given goodwill and the placing of national gain and development ahead of petty partisan advantage or politics, that program could come to fruition before too long.
In this national program I submit we must not be overly preoccupied with props and palliatives. Let us not neglect the foundation, the pillars and the roof of our economic structure. Let us not provide pillows and pads to cushion every fall to the detriment of national initiative and individual responsibility. We have heard a great deal about the rights of citizens, but what of the corresponding duties and responsibilities? We have heard little or nothing of them. I would ask those who seek to emphasize rights to dwell also upon those duties, to pause and reflect upon them most carefully-those duties of citizens and those duties of members of this house-not to any one particular group of our citizens but to the people of Canada as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, there are many matters upon which I could dwell and urge upon the government. I spoke previously of a national policy. This would include the development of that vast hinterland of the great northwest. There in that great majestic country of mountain, lake, forest and endless Arctic waste lies untold wealth. Therein lies part of the great future of this nation. If this generation is not to see the complete fruition of that development, let us pass on to our children and generations to come the legacy of a plan well conceived and well initiated. To northern Alberta will come a great measure of the benefits of such a program of northern development, and upon the people of that region devolves a greater than proportionate share of responsibility for the carrying out of that program. I feel sure that enlightened selfinterest will prevail, and that they shall not be found wanting.

Mr. Speaker, for years there have been representations made to the government that an alternative trans-Canada route be built through the northern section of the western provinces, using the Yellowhead pass. These pleas have apparently fallen on deaf ears. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the present position of our national highway system is indefensible. We have wasted years in the past by inactivity, by a refusal to look to the future. The whole of the blame is not to be assumed by the federal government; the provinces concerned must too take part of the responsibility.
The present route utilizing Rogers pass is, I submit, the least preferable of any route. It is exceedingly costly to build, and there is some considerable doubt as to its providing a year-round route. On the other hand the Yellowhead pass has a much lower gradient and has not the snow conditions prevailing on the presently proposed route. From a national defence point of view it is essential that as soon as possible we develop alternative routes through the mountains to the Pacific coast. The degree of vulnerability to which we are exposed is frankly frightening. The few lines of communication that we have could be so easily put out of commission. Then from a tourist and a commercial point of view the arguments in favour of alternative routes are unanswerable.
Alberta is at the apex of the freight rate structure, and we should like to be able to ship out our products and bring in products from both west and east by the cheapest means possible, by road transport if that be the preferable way. There is no reason why we should have to depend upon long trips over United States highways to bring our goods from western Canada to eastern Canada and vice versa. It is ludicrous that people from northern Alberta who wish to go to the lower mainland in British Columbia or to the fine mountain resorts in the interior of that province should have to travel by United States highways. I need not point out that Canadian tourists spend far more in the United States than do United States tourists in Canada. I would say today, build our roads within Canada so that Canadians can travel in Canada if they choose to do so; so that they may spend their money here and get to know their country better.
This ability to get around one's own country might perhaps do something to dispel that lack of knowledge we have of one another's area. At the present time I find there is a regrettable ignorance of conditions in eastern Canada on the part of the people of the west,
The Address-Mr. Lambert but perhaps not to the same degree that there is among the people of central and eastern Canada about the west.
In this connection may I be permitted this observation. As a western member in Ottawa I can find nothing, in fact less than nothing, in the newspapers of Central Canada about either the west or the far east of this great country. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether there has been erected a sort of paper curtain at the great lakes, but there are important things of interest to both citizens and members of government in central Canada happening in other parts of Canada. I do not know whether or not the reason for the situation to which I have referred is preoccupation with local affairs. However, if I may be permitted to do so I should like to suggest to the press of this country that they could do a great deal more for the unity of this country and the knowledge we may have of one another if they concerned themselves a little bit more with the events taking place outside the particular provinces or city in which a newspaper is published.
I hope I do not appear to be too critical, but I offer that suggestion as something in the way of constructive criticism. I believe that a newspaper has qualities which permit it to be more useful in that sphere than other means of communication. Radio and television, if not heard or seen, are missed, but a newspaper can be put aside and can be picked up tomorrow or can be passed from hand to hand. The printed word remains. I feel that perhaps in the not too distant future we shall have what I should like to consider a truly national press. I merely make that suggestion as a plea to have more news of Canada as a whole.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we heard from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome). He pointed out some very serious criticisms about Trans-Canada Air Lines. Well, frankly we in Canada have been put in a most ludicrous position because of the monopoly which exists in favour of Trans-Canada Air Lines. In a recent number of the Edmonton Journal a story was written of two residents of Alberta, one from Edmonton and one from Calgary, who when coming back from the Orient had to land at Edmonton because the airport terminals in British Columbia were fogbound. Perhaps the members from British Columbia would not admit that, but fog does exist out there. However, they landed at Edmonton airport and were told they could not terminate their journey there; they would have to wait until the fog lifted in Vancouver when their aircraft, at some indefinite time in the future would go to that city, then take their chance on Trans-Canada Air Lines coming back to Edmonton

The Address-Mr. Lambert and Calgary. In addition, they were not permitted to make personal contact with their relatives. They had to speak to them on the telephone, one of these relatives down in the lobby and the other the traveller up in a room. They were not permitted access to their relatives because they had not been cleared by the immigration authorities.
There, I would suggest, we have bumbling of the worst sort. Why would the immigration authorities in Edmontoin not be able to examine those people and clear them? All that stems from the monopoly accorded to Trans-Canada Air Lines, which prohibits Canadian Pacific Airlines from landing at intermediate points in this country on its international route.
Frankly, how ridiculous can we get?
Yesterday we heard a speech by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage). With a great roll of thunder the hon. members of this house were assailed as to the so-called lack of policy by this government. I believe the hon. member called it government by postponement. In the most, to my mind, chameleon-like intonations he recited chapter and verse of the alleged and actual problems which face us today; but he will have to admit, as will most members opposite, that these problems existed prior to June 10. They were there. If the administration of that time did not know about them then they ought to have known about them. Either way it was dishonest. They did nothing about them if they knew of them, and as I say, if they did not know about them then they should have known. Theirs was government by ignorance, either wilful or blissful.
Yesterday we heard not one word of constructive suggestion; no alternative was proposed. Is that the policy of the official opposition or is it, as someone said on the other side of the house, their policy to see that those on this side of the house carry out the government's policy? I would have thought that the role of the official opposition, the responsible role of the official opposition, was to offer constructive criticism and alternatives, not merely to criticize for criticisms's sake or with an eye to certain forthcoming events.


An hon. Member:: You were not here last session.
Another hon. Member: And all you fellows will not be here next session either.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will join our ranks then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Many things have been said in this house which would bear repeating, but I have not the time at my disposal today. I would commend to the members of this

house Her Majesty's speech from the throne, and it gives me great pleasure to support the motion of the hon. member for Calgary South.


Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I find just a little difficulty in rising at this time after such a parade of Rhodes scholars in this chamber. Nonetheless I do not say that with any envy, because I do appreciate the privilege of sitting with those members who have earned that good fortune, and I appreciate the fact that we who have not had that privilege can join with them here. I would like to commend each and every one of the Rhodes scholars in this house who have seen fit to offer themselves for public service in this country, and I trust they will continue to do so for many years to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Blake Huffman: Mr. Speaker, from reading in Hansard what has been said in regard to the position you hold at this time I find that if I were to express my opinion toward you I would have to repeat what has been said on a number of occasions. Therefore if I say to you today that I concur in everything that has been said as to the way in which you have conducted the proceedings in this house since you have taken the Speaker's chair I am sure you will feel that my reference to you, sir, is equally sincere as any other words which might have been used.
As I stand here today I am also reminded that on some other occasion a late member for Calgary South used to stand almost in this very area, and like the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) I enjoyed the privilege of listening to that former member because he always spoke without rancour or partisanship. I think when the present member for Calgary South moved the address we could detect many of the fine qualities which had commended the late Mr. Smith to all members of the house no matter where they sat.
There was only one thing I found missing. As I recall a conversation with Mr. Smith, I learned that he started out as a Liberal, so possibly the wheel will go a complete cycle and the present member for Calgary South will come back to the first political love of the Smith family.


An hon. Member:: There is still hope for the hon. gentleman.
Anoiher hon. Member: He has seen the light.


Edward Blake Huffman: I expected that. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to bring to the attention of the house a certain matter,

and my reason for doing so is because of a resolution passed by the regional women's institute convention held in Ridgetown, which is located in my district. The resolution is as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that if no action has been taken in two years from date the income file was sent in by a farmer, individual or a businessman whose net annual income was $10,000 or less, that these returns become final and complete and that no further action can be taken.
I recall that on January 28, 1957, at page 695 of the first volume of Hansard for the session, there was a resolution before the house standing in the name of the hon. member for Middlesex East, in these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act and regulations made under that act, so as to provide a final receipt for those income tax returns filed for the preceding calendar year for individuals whose income is $10,000 or less.
Now there is a great similarity to the resolution passed by the members of the women's institute meeting as recently as November 4 and 5. I would like to commend the members of this very important organization for taking such an active part in the things that pertain to government as well as to the home. I think each and everyone of us is very conscious of the very important part which the members of the women's institute play. We all know that in many cases they are the bookkeepers in small businesses, for farmers, and so on, and consequently they are conscious of the need for some regulation of this nature.
When the motion was before the house last January I suggested to the mover of the motion that I thought because the government had the right to go back over a two-year period to repay to a taxpayer any overpayment that might have been made, it was quite reasonable to expect that the government should have two years in which to investigate an income tax return if it so desired. I should also like to say that I think the people appreciated the action of the previous government when it reduced the period available for re-examination from six years to four years. I do hope that at this time the government will pay some attention to the recommendation which is made in this resolution and reduce the period from four years to two years.
I recall that in speaking on this item I did express the hope, as well, that instead of just including what is concerned in this resolution, namely those with incomes of $10,000 and less that because there are so few individual taxpayers or small business people earning above $10,000 I did not think it was in the public interest to discriminate
The Address-Mr. Huffman in that field. May I refer to the words which the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) used in closing the debate on this subject on page 714 of Hansard:
I greatly appreciate the suggestion of the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Huffman) that a two-year limit might be acceptable. As I said, my intention was to bring to the attention of the government the problems confronting individual taxpayers. Again, the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, suggested that this include all individual returns except corporations, companies and so on.


Mr. Fraser:: The hon. member for Middlesex East has that resolution on again this year.


Edward Blake Huffman: Yes, but it is in a different form from the previous one.
I think it is essential that real consideration should be given to this subject. When we had a period of six years for re-examination of an income return I think many people whose incomes were being reexamined found it difficult to explain many of the items which were in the return. Consequently, if this period could be reduced to two years as requested in this resolution I feel it would place the taxpayer and those people who are concerned with returns of this nature in a much better position to explain anything which might be asked of them.
There is another reason why I think this should be done, and done as soon as possible. We find that if the period goes back too far, normally the person whose income is being re-examined will find it necessary to get legal opinion, engage an accountant and so on, and any expenditure incurred in trying to have the income tax file cleared is not allowable as a charge which can be assessed as a deduction in the following year.
These are some of the things to which I think people are objecting, and so I commend these considerations to the government for examination and I am sure that when the Minister of Finance brings down a budget, as he has stated he will do, and when changes in the Income Tax Act are being considered this resolution as passed by the women's institute of the region from which I come will receive serious attention from the government. I can see no reason why this proposal should not be accepted because, on examination of Hansard at page 715 of the same date, January 28, 1957, I note that ten of the ministers who are now sitting with the government, five of the parliamentary assistants and others supported this motion. I note, too, that some of the ministers were not present when this motion was called. I certainly think, however, that the proposal would receive a majority in the cabinet in favour of the passage of this Income Tax Act change.

The Address

Mr. Huffman
There is a further item I should like to bring to the attention of the government.
I think it was put very clearly by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Campbell) when, speaking in this house on November 11, he said that Ontario wheat growers were in a worse position than the growers in the west as far as price is concerned.
During the month that this house has been in session I have asked the government if they would bring forward legislation pertaining to the resolution No. 8 on the order paper. That resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities to be named therein and to provide that prices may be guaranteed for any other agricultural commodity or commodities as named from time to time by the governor in council-
Some other words follow in connection with the establishment of a committee, and so on.
Now on the occasion on which I asked for this legislation to be brought in, before the debate on the address had been concluded, I felt that my request was a sincere one, and I was more convinced than ever that there was a good reason for making it after the hon. member for Lambton-Kent had made his remarks the other day. Last Friday the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked the leader of the house if this legislation would be proceeded with before the address in reply to the speech from the throne was concluded. I thought it was a rather unfortunate remark when the leader of the house said that the hon. member for Essex East and myself were only seeking publicity.
I would like to say that that was not the reason for referring to this motion and seeking to have it brought forward at the earliest possible date. I felt there was just as much reason for bringing this forward as there was for bringing forward the resolution with respect to cash advances. We were not interested in obtaining publicity, which was the term used by the house leader, and this definitely was not the reason for our raising the question.
One other reason for making this request was that almost as soon as the present government took office back in June there were representatives of farm organizations coming to Ottawa to lay before the government their requests for assistance of one kind and another. I believe the reason that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent spoke on wheat was because representatives of the wheat growers organization were in Ottawa. It will be necessary to have a change made in the Agricultural Prices Support Act because

wheat is specifically excluded from that act at the present time. It was my hope that we would have notification on the order paper of the government's intention to amend the act at this session in order to include wheat. In addition, representatives of other primary producers and the growers of different commodities have come to Ottawa to present their claims. I believe the farmers in the Fraser valley and the primary producers in the eastern provinces have equally as much right to be heard and to have legislation passed to benefit them as have the prairie wheat farmers especially when we postponed the debate on the throne speech in order to bring forward as early as possible legislation concerning cash advances.
The other day I asked the government if the request of the sugar beet growers would be entertained. My reason for raising this question is that shortly the sugar companies will be negotiating contracts for the coming year. When the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton), who is now parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), spoke last session, as reported at page 3319 of Hansard, on April 9, 1957, he said:
We have always stood for a flexible price support program with prices based on a formula and stated well in advance of the production period.
At that time the house was discussing the amendment of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) requesting establishment of adequate support prices.
The government has had all the necessary information that could be placed before it for the introduction of such legislation because the provincial ministers of agriculture have been here as well as representatives of the various farm organizations. I am sure that farm organizations across the country have placed this problem before the government. I feel that the longer we delay some action of this kind the more difficult it is going to be for the sugar company to get the number of acres under contract that many of us would like to see. I hope this legislation will be brought before the house at the earliest possible moment and that certain provisions contained in this resolution will be spelled out in such a manner that every one will know exactly what is going to happen with respect to a certain commodity. We would also like to know exactly what commodities are going to come under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
From time to time there has been genuine concern in the rural communities because of the action that has been taken on previous occasions by hon. members opposite. We recall that on at least two occasions a parity

price motion has been before the house and on those two occasions hon. members opposite supported it. On another occasion during the past session the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) presented a motion regarding 100 per cent parity, on which occasion our friends who now form the government voted against the motion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is also against that.


Edward Blake Huffman: May I say that the hon. member was against it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, I was.


Edward Blake Huffman: There were the two occasions. Now, there was some difference in the motion itself-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Edward Blake Huffman: -but it was a parity motion. From time to time questions have been raised in this house concerning flexible prices, price supports, parity prices and deficiency payments and I think it will be a matter of some confusion to those in rural areas until we know exactly what is the intention of the government.
Under section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act there is a form of parity. This section provides that the board will step in and buy farm products when the prices fall below the level of other products and that they will endeavour to maintain the prices of farm products at a fair relationship to the price of other commodities. This is the policy that has been followed since this act was passed in 1944. This act was in effect when this country underwent the transition from a wartime to peacetime effort and in many instances it certainly provided the balance which was needed in the industry. Possibly there were times when this stated floor price was not as high as we would like to have had it but at this time I hope the government will spell out in clear language exactly what it has in mind so that our people can follow the example recommended by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture when he said we should have this well in advance of the production period.
Many primary producers organizations are meeting at the present time. I have had the farm union representatives call on me at my office and I know that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture met in Toronto last week. I was notified that this organization passed a resolution asking that the government consider the extension of cash advances to include primary producers in all of Canada which is the same position I adopted in this house.
The Address-Mr. Huffman
When the present Prime Minister spoke on April 9, 1957, as reported at page 3305 of Hansard of that date, referring to the Agricultural Prices Support Act he said:
-that a policy has developed that is used only in extreme circumstances, and that its present uses are not providing the necessary floors to maintain a responsible, profitable agriculture . . . we believe that action must be taken and taken at once.
Therefore I commend to the government at this time the words of the Prime Minister and the words of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture who is in my view the listening post for agriculture in eastern Canada. I trust that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand will use his influence with the Minister of Agriculture in seeing that the primary producers in every part of the country will receive consideration as early as possible. There are other quotations that I might use in regard to this very problem but I feel that I have said enough along this line.
At this time I would like to make a suggestion to the government in this form. For some years past we have found that storage has been a problem in this country. There is a regulation in the Income Tax Act to the effect that if a company or an individual wanted to build storage they could apply to the minister of trade and commerce, whose department gave approval to the project. If that project was approved, accelerated depreciation was allowed and it could be depreciated at 33J per cent a year, or in full in three years. I would like to suggest that at the present time the terms of the act might be extended to individuals who would like to build storage in which they would be able to maintain their commodities at home so that they could be fed in market channels when they were needed and in that way there would be provided one of the better balances that are necessary in agriculture especially.
At the present time the Income Tax regulation works in this way. If the construction is of steel the depreciation is 2J per cent so that it takes 40 years to get full depreciation. If it is of wooden construction the depreciation is 5 per cent so that it takes 20 years to get full depreciation. Therefore, there is not a great deal of encouragement for anyone to build the storages because of the depreciation allowances in the Income Tax Act. My two recommendations have to do, first with the Income Tax Act as it applies to the length of time for re-examination of files; and, second, accelerated depreciation. I commend them to the government. I think it is a case of live and let live; but live and let live is never as good as live and help live which is a part the government can play.

The Address-Mr. S. Knowles


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it has not been my practice in the years that I have been in this house to join in the chorus of congratulations which this debate seems to draw forth. I have been quite content to let the leader of this group speak for all of us in the felicitations that he has extended during the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as he has done at this session. However, on this occasion there is one word that I would like to say. As a previous speaker has already pointed out, it is exactly a month ago today that this house chose the hon. member for St. Paul's to be the Speaker of the House of Commons in this twenty-third parliament. I was more than satisfied that day that we were making a wise choice and I am sure all members agree with me that the intervening month has proven the wisdom of our choice. Indeed, His Honour has occupied the chair with dignity. He has been fair and firm in his decisions and, as another hon. member has pointed out, he has exercised the good humour that is required in the pursuit of his duties. We are satisfied that His Honour will do a good job. We give him our support and we wish him well.
It has been our practice as a C.C.F. group in parliament, during the years that we have been here, to welcome good legislation no matter who brought it in and even if there were some who thought that that legislation was stolen from our platform.
In that same vein we have welcomed the legislation which parliament thus far has been given an opportunity to endorse, particularly the legislation respecting cash advances to prairie farmers and the legislation in the social security field. We shall continue to give our support to beneficial legislation that is brought in by this government, or any government that may be in power at any time. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, so long as we are in the opposition we shall remember that it is the job of an opposition in this democratic parliament to point out the shortcomings of the government in power and to prod that government into the implementation of its own promises and into the implementation of other measures that are for the good of the people of this country. I can assure the members of the present government that we in this group will continue to fulfil that role even as we sought to fulfil it during the days when the Liberals sat to Mr. Speaker's right.
In my remarks this afternoon I intend to point out some of the serious shortcomings of this government which are already showing up and I intend to do what I can to prod


this government into action along certain lines. Perhaps at the start I should remind hon. members opposite, both those who are in the cabinet and those who are on the back benches, that they delude themselves if they interpret what happened on June 10 as meaning that they were elected on their own merits. What happened on June 10 was that the people of Canada voted against the former Liberal administration. The people of Canada were disappointed in the slowness with which that former administration moved in such fields as social security and the people of Canada were apprehensive with respect to the dictatorial manner in which the previous government was handling parliament. Therefore, on June 10, Canadians went out and voted against the former government. The result of that vote was that no party had a majority of the popular vote in this country and no party had a majority of the seats in this House of Commons. In other words, this present government, with a minority of the seats and with a minority of the popular vote, is in power more or less by default. This government is still in the position of having to prove its worth to the Canadian people and I suggest that there are signs that it is not going to succeed in that effort. In fact, I suggest there are few signs of that effort even being made.
I know that it is a very popular type of speech for hon. members opposite to make to list the things which have been done already in this session of parliament which have had the endorsation of the entire House of Commons. May I point out that all of those items that have been put through are items that simply had to be passed because of the way in which the votes were cast on June 10. Those were issues that were discussed from the Atlantic to the Pacific in that election campaign. There was deep concern over social security measures. There was deep concern over the position of the prairie farmers. In fact, the government was just the instrument for bringing before parliament some of the things for which the people of Canada voted on June 10.
But after you have looked at those items of legislation, beneficial and acceptable as they are, I suggest that all you have from this government opposite is a bits and pieces program, without any general over-all policy or philosophy. Where does this government go from here? Where does it go when it has finished putting on the statute books the items that have been mentioned in the speech from the throne? Where does this government go in certain important fields which I shall indicate in a moment? In fact, I suggest that one of the reasons the government

opposite is trying its best to lay the groundwork for an early election is because it does not know where it is going after a few more items have been passed.
Apparently the election may come sooner than some people think from a remark that was dropped this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hodgson). He interjected to say to some of the Liberals opposite him that some of them would not be here at the next session. If he knows what he is talking about, that means the plan is for an election before the next session of parliament. Perhaps he is right for, as I say, the government is running out so far as its bits and pieces program is concerned.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to be quite specific when I make the statement that this government has no over-all policy, that this government does not know where it is going, let me list a number of fields in which any government worth its salt should give leadership. I will take only a minute to talk about trade because it has been talked about very effectively by members in other parties on this side of the house, and it was spoken to very forcefully, very effectively, a few days ago by my colleague the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny). The government does not know whether or not it wants to shift 15 per cent of our trade from the United States to the United Kingdom. The government does not know where it stands with respect to the United Kingdom's proposal for a free trade area between this country and that. The government does not know whether or not it wants to take the necessary steps to develop trade with China. In the whole field of trade, this government simply does not know where it is going, has not got any over-all policy.
The same remarks are true of the field of finance. The government uses constitutional excuses for not telling us, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), what that minister is saying in his conversations with the governor of the Bank of Canada. But it is quite clear that the same Minister of Finance does not know whether or not he favours tight money or easy money; does not know in what direction we should be going in terms of the control of finance, in terms of control of investment, in terms of social planning so far as finance is concerned. In fact, I suggest that those opposite are completely at sea so far as the real, basic factors in financial policy are concerned.
The government is likewise at sea in the field of taxation. They do not know where they are going and they do not know what they are doing. The Minister of Finance told the press last July that there would be a 96698-734
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles budget at this session. Can we get out of him now whether or not there is going to be one? I defy anyone to determine, from what the minister has said in answer to questions, whether or not there will be a budget at this session. He probably does not know because the bringing down of a budget involves some changes in taxation structures. During the election campaign the Conservatives promised they would raise the tax exemption levels. I suppose they are sufficiently familiar with income tax matters to realize that if they raise the income tax exemption levels without making any other changes they will be giving the greatest bonanza to those in the upper income brackets. Perhaps they realize that if they are going to do all the things they are proposing, and at the same time raise the income tax exemption levels, they are going to have to find some other sources of tax revenues and that would raise the question of what they should do about taxation in the upper brackets; that would raise the question of what they should do about corporation income tax. I say, Mr. Speaker, those at your right are at sea in this field; they do not know what they are doing. This is a time that calls for leadership in these fields. There is no sign of it from this bits and pieces government across the way; this government that can use high-sounding words but cannot give any leadership, cannot tell parliament when anything is going to be done or even what is going to be done.
The same remarks are true in the important field of federal-provincial relations. There is going to be a conference and it is only a week or two away. Can we get out of the government any indication of what its plans are? All we can ascertain is that some of the provincial governments are going to put a rather terrific squeeze on this government, and our fear is that some rather unfortunate changes in federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements might be made which could have the effect of lessening the unity of Canada so far as taxation matters are concerned. This is an extremely important field and the federal government should be giving the lead. No government can give the lead in a matter like this unless it knows where it is going and this government, despite all the bits and pieces of fine legislation we have had at this session, does not know where it is going.
I might mention housing. The government and its supporters like to stand up and talk about that move to increase the amount of money available under the National Housing Act, which was already there under the previous legislation. But there has been no suggestion that this government realizes that
1134	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles what is really needed is a reduction in the interest rate on mortgages, or that what is needed is the provision of housing on a nodown-payment basis such as has proven satisfactory in the United States. This is an important economic and social problem affecting our people. This is something in which there should be leadership, but at a time when we need such leadership we have in power a government that is there only by default, not because the Canadian people put them there but because the Canadian people put the Liberals out. This government has failed to give leadership in this important field.
I shall not take the time to go into agriculture because that has been fully debated in this house, and my colleagues have spelled out the situation. It is clear again that this government is prepared to bring in certain palliatives to assist the farmers in western Canada in getting their yearly income, such as it is, spread a little more evenly throughout the year. However, this does not solve the basic problem of the price-cost squeeze so far as the farmers are concerned. It does not solve the problem of enabling the farmers to receive their fair share of the national income. I suggest that here is another field in which this bits and pieces government is completely lacking in any over-all policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are suggesting nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: turn to the field of labour. My hon. friend is an expert in nonsense, and I leave that field to him.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You know more about it than I do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: turn to the field of labour. Here, too, there is a woeful lack of leadership. During the election campaign there were many speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and others as to what a Conservative government would do in the field of labour. They were going to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act; the benefit period was to be extended to a full year and benefits were to be increased. These were not items that were going to be attended to some time a few years from now, these were things that the Conservative party suggested they would go at immediately. Now when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is asked about amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act he gives us that same old answer the Liberals used to give us, he is studying the matter.
This government promised the labour people of Canada in the course of the election campaign that there would be an overhaul of the national labour code; that the conciliation


procedures would be speeded up. Does the government not realize that there is every possibility that within a matter of months it may be faced with a number of labour disputes?
Surely hon. members are aware of the situation that may possibly develop between the non-operating employees of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Is this government going to do the same as the last government did, namely wait until the dispute has reached a crisis and then in the middle of the crisis, change the rules? Oh, they did not like it when the previous government did it. But this present government has no policy and is giving no lead in this field. It does not know where it is going here any more than in any other situation.
The government talked about legislation to provide for minimum wages and for annual holidays with pay and for statutory holidays. The Prime Minister made speeches like that, particularly during the early part of this year and during the election campaign in various parts of Canada, but so far this session we have had only one measure touching any of these fields; and even in that one measure the government has fallen short of the request made to them in all sincerity and in all faithfulness by the Canadian Labour Congress as well as by other labour organizations. It looks to me as though the government does not know what it is all about and that it does not understand labour matters any more than it understands some other matters. Certainly it is not giving any lead in this field. I cannot say we have bits and pieces; we have just one bit so far as labour legislation is concerned.
The same thing is true in the social security field. I know that hon. members opposite think it is wonderful what they did in a short space of time by way of amending various statutes that had been on the books for a few years, in some instances, or many years, in others. But I submit to you that there was no real analysis of the situation as to the amount of the pension necessary for our senior citizens and others. I submit to you that the $55 figure which is now the law of the land does not measure up to the Prime Minister's assurance to the old people of Canada that, if his party came to power, they would receive a pension to meet today's cost of living.
I submit to you that, in the light of the increase in the gross national product since 1949 when the figure of $40 was set, there was a complete lack of policy, a complete lack of fairness and a complete lack of justice to give to our people only that much increase

when the increase in the gross national product has been something over 80 per cent, which means that the increase in old age pensions should have been brought up to something of the order of $75 a month. There is no real policy on the part of the government, no leadership, no understanding of the basic issues, no concept of the social factors involved in this matter. It is just a government that likes to indulge in words, that enjoys being in office, that enjoys the fact that it is administering the affairs of the country, enjoys the fact that it is able to bring in some bits and pieces of legislation but which in the long-run has no over-all policy and indeed has no policy with respect to these individual items.
Where is it in the field of transportation? It has some real problems facing it in connection with the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships. There will be problems arising because of the relationships between the railway employees and the two major railways in this country. There will be problems arising because of demands for increases in freight rates. Here is a field, the field of transportation, in which some real understanding and some real leadership is called for. But we have a government that does not know where it is going at all.
Where is it with respect to air transportation in this country? Hon. members are aware of the interesting exchange we had this morning with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) with respect to the application made by Canadian Pacific Air Lines to compete with Trans-Canada Air Lines on the Montreal to Vancouver route. Hon. members are aware of the attempt of the cabinet ministers to be extremely careful and extremely cautious on this point. Yet at the same time from back benchers on the Tory side of the house there is carping criticism of what they refer to as to the T.C.A. monopoly which, I suggest, is one of the fine examples of something that is important in this country, namely public ownership of a natural monopoly. Not only do they not know where they are going, but ignorance in this field means that they are likely to slip back.
Where are they in the field of pipe line policy? They do not know. They have had to appoint a royal commission to find out what should be done in that field. In the meantime many questions are left unanswered, despite the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite joined with us in 1956-I know it was at the end of the debate but nevertheless they joined with us at the end-in calling for public ownership of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company so that the money to be made out of this natural monopoly might accrue, not
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles in millions to private individuals but to the people of Canada as a whole. Where are they going now in pipe line policy? They know no more in that field than they know in these other fields. They are a bits and pieces government that comes down with a few items of legislation, all of which are good, but it has no over-all philosophy, no over-all understanding as to where it is going.
What is its policy with regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? We have ideas as to what they might like to do as regards the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At least it is not going to be sold, at least not for $50 million. The Prime Minister made that point clear. But where are we going with respect to the C.B.C., with respect to the Fowler report and these other important matters?
Another field in which this government is very much at sea is in the field of defence. I leave the matter at that for the moment because I want to come back to it in a few minutes in connection with my remarks. Likewise I suggest that it is at sea in the whole field of external affairs and on that matter too I will say something in just a moment.
But before I do so I should like to come back for just a moment to the question of the old age pension and say that the people of Canada have found it quite a disappointment that a party which gave the impression to the country during the election campaign that it stood for $60 a month-that impression was given very carefully; it is hard to pin it down, but the impression was given- should now try to buy our older people off with $55 a month. We still feel that under present conditions the pension should be $75 a month, but the least that the party opposite should have done was to implement the promise it made, namely that if elected it would bring in $60 a month. As hon. members know, a situation developed in my own experience that made it necessary for me to be home in Winnipeg for a few days, in fact while these social security measures were being debated. As one would expect, I picked up comments with regard to this matter from a number of people. I say to you quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that I thought people would be pleased, that that would be the only kind of comment I would get, namely that the people would be pleased that the pension was to be increased to $55 a month, that people would forget that we had asked for $75. Mr. Speaker, I had many a phone call and met many persons on the streets of Winnipeg who expressed nothing but disappointment that this government which gave the impression they stood for $60 tried: to buy the old people off with $55 a month..

The Address-Mr. S. Knowles That is not leadership. That is not facing up to the needs of the day. That is not being faithful to the promise that these old people would have a chance to keep up with today's cost of living. This is the work of a bits and pieces government that does not know where it is going and that is not conscious of the real needs of the people of this country.
When are we going to get action with regard to the pensions of superannuated civil servants? When are we going to get some action with regard to Canadian National Railways pensioners, particularly those who are still on the basic pension of only $25 a month? Those are matters on which hon. gentlemen opposite, along with us in this group, had a great deal to say when they were on this side of the house. But now that they are on the other side of the house, what do we find? Oh, we get words. We get the same kind of assurances that the Liberals used to give us but we still get no action. These people are supposed to be satisfied with the general legislation that has been passed, but that is not good enough.
There is another item concerning which this government is showing that it is not a cabinet that is prepared to give leadership and that is in this whole field of health insurance or more particularly hospital insurance in the terms of the legislation that was passed in this house last April. I read again today some of the debates that took place last April. The Conservatives who at that time sat over on this side of the house insisted, along with us, that amendments should be made in that legislation to extend its coverage and to make possible its early implementation.
The Conservatives in the early part of 1957 wanted the six province requirement reduced to five provinces so that this legislation might be brought in with the least possible delay. Well six provinces have now indicated their agreement so we have got over that hurdle.
These people who wanted action when they were on this side of the house are now on the other side where they can do something about it, but they tell us no agreements have been signed with any of the provinces and they are now even quibbling over the meaning of the words "in operation" and "in force". This looks to some of us as though an attempt is being made to stall the implementation of the hospital insurance program just as long as it is possible to do so. I have no doubt Premier Frost will be remembered and that his desire to have his plan in operation by the first of January, 1959,

will not be overlooked, but Premier Frost and Ontario are not the only premier and only province in Canada.
We submit that those provinces which already have plans-British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and some of the others- are entitled to their share of federal money just as soon as six provinces have their plans in force so far as legislation is concerned. That is the way the act reads and I defy the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) or anyone else to put any other interpretation on the legislation which was passed last session.
I remind the house that the minister of health in the province of Nova Scotia is calling for a clear statement as to where the government stands. The minister called for that information by letter dated September 30 and again on October 16 he referred back to the previous letter asking for a statement, which he seems unable to get. When the premier of Saskatchewan sought information on the matter in a letter during the summer the Prime Minister told him that he could not make a statement prior to the opening of parliament in October. Well parliament has been in session for a month and we still have no statement. For a while we were told it would not even be put on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference on November 25 and 26. Now we are told it can be discussed if the provincial premiers want it discussed.
Well, Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen across the way may be proud of the fact that, as they think, they won the election; they may be proud of the fact that they are in power but they are not giving leadership in this important field of health; they are not giving leadership in any field, and I submit to the government members that unless they do come through with something in terms of leadership on this important item their days on the other side of the house are numbered.
There is another field in which we are not getting leadership from across the way. We have moved into a new era-let us admit that; it is a simple statement of fact-since the day when the first sputnik was launched. It is a new phase of life so far as mankind is concerned and yet these people opposite think of everything that has happened, so far as the Russians are concerned, as only a military challenge. Well it is a military challenge all right. It should make us think about our so called defences but I submit that the tremendous advances which the Russians have made in the scientific field call for far more than just the kind of panic that causes us to reappraise our military

defences: it demands that we re-examine our whole approach to a number of very important aspects of our way of life.
One thing it calls for is a tremendous expansion of what we spend and of what we do in the field of scientific research. This is something which is supported not only by those of us in this party but by members of other parties who have placed resolutions on the order paper. As a matter of fact a few days ago I noticed in a newsletter of one of the banks in this country-certainly no socialist organization-a strong plea for tremendous increase in the amount of public money to be spent on both basic and applied research.
I say, too, that if we are going to meet the challenge which the Russians have given to the world we have got to do something about our whole educational situation in the west. No longer should we hold back on this question of the federal aid to education because of some of the niceties which have been brought out in debate in years gone by. Yes, we have the British North America Act which gives the provinces full control over education, and that fact must be respected, but the opportunity for education in all of the 10 provinces of Canada to be raised considerably by means of financial aid is here for any government that will give the leadership required. The last one did not do it; this one has shown no sign of it. It looks as though in the next election the people will have to vote for a real change instead of merely the fictitious change they got on June 10.
I suggest also we have to do something to try and capture for our free way of life the enthusiasm and the zeal of our people in the way the Russian regime has captured it for their dictatorial way of doing things. To me one of the ominous things in the world today is the fact that that regime has been able to stay in power for 40 years. We do not brush it aside by simply saying it is a dictatorship, that it is a form of slavery. Any regime that has been able to stay in power that long has somehow been able to captivate its people and to get its people feeling that life under that regime and life in pursuit of the objectives of that regime is worth while. I submit that is one of the reasons they have been able to make these advances in science.
When we ask for adequate social security, for adequate old age pensions, for a proper national health program; when we ask for the social and economic planning necessary to eliminate unemployment altogether and when we ask for public ownership of some
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis of our great national projects, we are suggesting that we should have the kind of society under the banner of freedom in which every citizen of the land feels he is a participant in the things we are doing. We can do these things to a much greater extent than can be done under a system of slavery or dictatorship, but as yet we do not seem to have the leadership that calls forth that sort of zeal and enthusiasm.
I urge that there be such leadership in this country and that this government realize that during the time it is in power it should be giving some of that leadership. There should also be leadership in the field of external affairs. I have in mind an editorial in the Vancouver Sun of which copies I believe were sent to all of us. I think it is time we shook off the Dulles era of diplomacy; it is time we shook off the notion that you can deal with the Russians by insulting them; it is time we shook off the notion that when they produce their intercontinental ballistic missile our only answer is a speed-up of the arms race on our side.
I am conscious of some of the things which were said by some of us in a debate a few years ago. We were a minority but we expressed the fear that a certain course of action which the west was taking would be a case of going beyond the point of no return. Maybe we are beyond that point and if so the time has come to realize that the Russians, even with their present superiority over us, are just as afraid of annihilation as we are and just as afraid of world war as we are. Surely the time has come for the west and the east to sit down as equals, to realize that we have tremendous scientific possibilities and to try to work out a basis of living together, using this modern scientific knowledge to build a better world for all mankind.
This is not an age in which to be frightened; this is not an age in which to panic into more defences and into an arms race; it is not an age in which to give a country like Canada only a bits and pieces program. This is an age in which the government should be giving leadership. The last one did not do it and this one shows even less signs than the last one of giving the leadership we so sorely need. It may be that the Canadian people will have to avail themselves of the next opportunity-the next election, which no doubt is not far off-to put in power a party with vision-a party prepared to give leadership in times like these.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising in this house for the first time let me congratulate you on your

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis appointment to such a high office. I wish also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Rising to speak in this house is somewhat different from rising to speak in my own local union but I am proud to say- and this is no reflection on parliament but a boost to my union-that the big difference is all in favour of the union, because nowhere in all of Cape Breton would you find a group of men who would continuously denounce and criticize any business before them and then rise as one entire bloc in their places and vote for it.
I must apologize to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). We are sorry that we who are the so-called backbenchers of this party do not act in accordance with his expectations. We have no intention of following the example of the backbenchers of the previous government. I further feel that since I have been elected to represent Cape Breton South I should be lacking in my duty if I were to sit idly by while an hon. member in opposition thinks he is qualified to speak for the maritimes, when he and his party have failed to act in that respect. I am perfectly willing to listen to anyone on national issues, but I still feel that maritimers are best qualified to speak on maritime problems, and we are elected for that purpose.
I would remind the house, that during world war II the constituency of Cape Breton and, in particular, the town of New Waterford, had the highest percentage per capita of volunteer enlistment of any part of this country, and yet since the war this achievement has been met by a complete lack of appreciation by the previous government.
Miners who during the war were considered so important to the war effort that they were "frozen" to their jobs, and even taken out of the service to work in the mines were made jobless without any consideration from the past administration.
You will forgive me if I say that I enjoy the predicament in which the official opposition now find themselves. It is very similar to that of the Cape Breton miners during the past 12 to 15 years. The thought of another election to them is somewhat like the threat of mines closing down to the Cape Breton miners.
The opposition speaks of giving the present government an opportunity to carry out their election promises. This comes rather inappropriately from them in the light of a statement made in this house by the member for

Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) as reported at page 183 of Hansard of 1957:
We do not feel we are a broken-down party, and I believe those sitting on the other side of the house will be convinced that that statement is correct within a few months.
I say to you, sir, their contemptible attitude is one they intend to continue as long as it fits in with their political purposes, and it indicates we can look forward to a change following their convention, at which time they hope to re-organize and re-group.
Everybody in this house knows that the maritime provinces have had, and still have, grievances due to economic difficulties that the previous government would do nothing about. The hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond (Mr. MacEachen) admits this, and he had this to say as late as Monday as recorded at page 972 of Hansard of November 11, 1957 as follows:
The present Progressive Conservative leader and his candidates, as I say, capitalized upon this peculiar and legitimate grievance, and presented a commitment to the people of the Atlantic area prior to the election of June 10.
Since he himself considered it a legitimate grievance, I would remind him it was also an old one which he and his party failed to recognize and deal with.
He drew the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in respect to coal subventions to the attention of this house, and he referred to the throne speech in which it was stated that this government was prepared to pay subventions on the movement of coal for power purposes in the maritime provinces. Let me now draw to the attention of the house what his leader had to say in respect to the maritime problems according to a press report:
If it was found that power could not be produced at reasonable prices, the Atlantic provinces would have to do without.
He further stated that eventually coal would be too valuable a material for production of synthetic products to be used as a fuel. He did not want to see coal centres turned into ghost towns, but he would not encourage any immediate substantial increase in coal production. It would not be fair to future generations in the maritimes who would greatly benefit from the increased value of coal as an industrial raw material. If federal developed thermal power aided Nova Scotia coal mines, that was incidental. His concern for a ghost town of the future is most touching. I would also draw the attention of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond to page 974 of Hansard when he quoted a statement made by the Prime Minister in Minto, New Brunswick:
There should be and must be a subvention on coal transported within these provinces for power purposes.

Well, he had his answer this morning. I should also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the attitude of the former minister of fisheries as contained in a press release from Westville, Nova Scotia, on November 25:
Westville, March 25. The mayor of this Nova Scotia mining town feels Hon. James Sinclair, dominion fisheries minister "should have been chased out of the province for what he said about our coal industry" during a visit to the province.
Mayor Alfred Matheson was one of several civic and union officials in Nova Scotia's coal producing areas to criticize remarks made by Mr. Sinclair in a recent address at Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
The fisheries minister was quoted as saying that uneconomical coal mines must eventually close and that in view of a tremendous demand for labour in Canada there is "no point in subsidizing an industry merely for the sake of providing employment".
Mr. Sinclair later told a press conference "the only value of a subsidy is to tide an operation over a difficult period, if in the end you see that it is going to be of value".
I may say, sir, that the former prime minister figured that coal would be very valuable in the future. The press release continues:
"Mines are not like fisheries. They do not work out. and there is no sense in trying to keep a mine alive which you know is going to be permanently uneconomical."
In his reply, Mayor Matheson said that wheat farmers, gold mines, railroads and even fisheries receive subsidies. He also referred to unfair competition to Nova Scotia miners from the importation of 33 million tons of American coal a year.
"We're fighting for another coal mine in Pictou county and we shouldn't let some western politician come in and knock us down", Mayor Matheson said.
United Mine Workers Locals have also criticized Mr. Sinclair's statements.
Union officials at Princess local in Sydney Mines termed the statement, "brazen, and a black eye to organized workers in the coal industry in this province".
William Carey, a hoard member of United Mine Workers, told union members that "to have the Minister of Fisheries come into Nova Scotia and dictate a policy cannot and will not be accepted by the coal union".
Mr. Sinclair, who arrived in Vancouver today, declined to comment on Mayor Matheson's statement.
He reiterated his previous remark that there "is no point in keeping these marginal operations going with subsidies on the grounds that they provide employment when there is such a shortage of labour all over Canada".
I do not wish at this time to elaborate on the situation of the coal industry in Nova Scotia. With the change in ownership it is hoped that the Avro Company will improve the position in Cape Breton. But I do say now that a pressing problem for the miners of Cape Breton is the matter of wages and working conditions. The miners of Cape Breton have sacrificed much these past years. One has only to go back to the Sir Andrew Rae Duncan royal commission report to realize what they have contributed to the industrial life of this country. At that time
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis the commission felt that the miners who were the backbone of the company were entitled to a raise. Company policy was that they were part of an over-all industry and as such could not receive any rate. Today however the company has reversed its position and our miners are still suffering. I might point out that if the company had continued its previous policy the miners would be in a much happier position and the losses suffered at some collieries could be easily absorbed by the over-all profits and further closings could be thus eliminated.
I would now like to make a few brief remarks for the benefit of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the former minister of citizenship and immigration. I have representations from groups in my constituency that would prove the administration of that department under the hon. gentleman was nothing less than discriminatory. This could be further supported by the opinion voiced by the Canadian Labour Congress. On Tuesday the hon. member saw fit to criticize the makeup of the present cabinet. I find this a strange attitude indeed considering his own position in the last cabinet. This hon. member in his own written opinion is an expert on fish; that is in his own written opinion.
I also wish to comment on the remarks of the hon. leader of the C.C.F. party. To my surprise this party that makes so much of the slogan "The Political Arm of Labour" through its leader had this to say as reported at page 855 of Hansard of November 7, 1957:
May I ask the Prime Minister this supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the Saskatchewan government has been on record to the effect that it would bear the whole cost of the electrical installation and some other costs, but that since the government is to assist in the development of electricity in the maritimes Saskatchewan does not expect to be discriminated against by the government of Canada?
The hon. member was referring to the commencement of construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam. The hon. member says in effect that Saskatchewan would pay the whole cost of electrical installation, but if the dominion government is to assist the maritimes in power development it must at the same time aid Saskatchewan. This is the crudest kind of political horse trading I have ever heard of. We supported legislation to help western wheat growers but we did not do it on a quid pro quo basis in return for comparable benefits- to the maritimes; we supported it as proper and necessary legislation to assist western farmers. I suggest to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that he should take a

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis similar stand in respect to legislation designed to assist us. Where would we get with legislation in this house, I ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, if every member said, "Yes, I will vote for this legislation if you will do the same thing for my constituency". It would mean putting dominion politics on the auction block of local self-interest.


An hon. Member:: What is it on now?


An hon. Member:: You are still young.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am glad to see there are so many who are willing to represent Cape Breton South in this house, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: good riding.


Malcolm MacInnis: In reference to further local problems I would like to draw the government's attention to the conditions of the local harbours. Sydney harbour, which during world war II saw more shipping pass through it than any other harbour on the eastern seaboard, is now in a run-down condition. Its one wharf has long since been condemned. With the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway Sydney could once again become a very important seaport. Numerous inquiries from world cruises had to be by-passed because of lack of facilities. This problem is under consideration and work will commence next spring. However, I will be pressing for greater improvements.
The harbour at Glace Bay is also being given consideration and further plans are being worked out. Conditions for local fishermen along the coast are anything but desirable and an improvement will be looked for. It is my intention to keep the problems of Cape Breton South very much in evidence and the co-operation shown me by the government to date has been very much appreciated and I feel certain that the government will continue to recognize the needs of the maritime provinces.
Another matter I am obligated to bring to the attention of the house was a remark passed by a member of the official opposition. It came at the time the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) had asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) a question regarding the Springhill mine disaster. This statement was not included in Hansard-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why?


Malcolm MacInnis: -but nevertheless it was made. The hon. member to whom I refer cried out, "Send them a wreath". I say that the hon. member responsible for this remark has much to be ashamed of.


In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the opposition cry about promises made during the election campaign, but if their own tactics-not promises but intimidation-had worked they would continue to feel justified that they were doing the right thing. If any of my hon. friends feel that these remarks are unwarranted I would refer them to the tactics used in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and as a further reference to the Ottawa Journal of May 18 carrying an article which contained a remark made by an hon. member of the official opposition who in speaking to a civil service gathering had this to say:
That civil service wide salary increase could come as soon as the vote in the general election has been counted.
But the hon. member qualified it, linking it to a Liberal election victory. What can this be but intimidation?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, though it is now some time since the opening of this debate I feel that I should begin my remarks by felicitating the mover (Mr. Smith) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) upon their maiden speeches in this house. I thought that despite the apprehension which the mover of the address said he felt he spoke with the easy assurance of a veteran and displayed none of the nervousness which we have come to associate with a member's first speech in this house. I was not a member of the Commons at the time his father was in this house but as a reader of Hansard I must say he created upon my mind a most favourable impression and I note from what has been said during this debate that that favourable impression is shared by many hon. members who are present today.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased also to hear the new member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) . He spoke with great ease on the conditions in his constituency. He was rather pessimistic about agriculture, the lumber industry, mining and fisheries. This was all very interesting but, in my opinion, he was forgetting that all those matters come under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, may I say to him that when I sat in the legislative assembly, the members of the Union Nationale spoke only of the extraordinary prosperity which was then prevailing in all parts of the province, including the county of Bonaventure, and I have no doubt they still have the same opinion today. It was their policy to say that everything was going fine. Well, I am rather disappointed with what the hon. member had to

The Address-Mr. Marler
say. I am sure that alter a while especially after taking a leaf out of the book of Union Nationale party members in the legislative assembly, he will start praising the policy of his leader.
(Text) :
Before continuing with my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say how very much I regret the circumstances which made it necessary for the Leader of the Opposition (St. Laurent) to announce some weeks ago his decision to retire from the leadership of the Liberal party. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that no one in Canada in our own times has commanded greater respect from those like myself who have been associated with him in the Liberal party, as well as from his political adversaries, and indeed from Canadians all across our country. I cannot help thinking, Mr. Speaker, that in the future, when we come back to look more objectively than we do at the present time upon the period in which he presided over the destinies of Canada, we shall realize even more fully than we do today the greatness of the contribution he has made. I know it was with a heavy heart that he reached the decision as to his retirement; but I hope he will derive much satisfaction not only from the general regret that is being felt in all parts of the country, but also, and perhaps more particularly, from the fact that during the eight years or more he was Prime Minister of our country Canadians came to regard prosperity in Canada as a normal and natural state of affairs.
I think, Mr. Speaker, they had good cause for that state of mind because the last eight years have been without parallel in the history of Canada. Year after year, in almost every field of endeavour, new records have been established that have made Canada the envy of the western world. In support of those views I could cite many figures but I shall merely point out that during that period of eight years Canada's gross national product increased from $15.6 billion in 1948 to an all-time high of nearly $30 billion in
1956.	To all intents and purposes the gross national product had nearly doubled during this relatively short period which ended on December 31 last.
What was the situation at the end of June,
1957,	when the present government took office? I think the question merits some attention because already hon. members on the government side of the house are talking of the economic conditions which then prevailed in much the same terms as they would have used if the new government had inherited a first-class depression. Perhaps these same members are not unconscious of
the fact-perhaps it is an unfortunate one- that in the minds of many Canadians economic depressions are still closely associated with Conservative governments. But what are the facts of the matter, Mr. Speaker? I am going to cite only a few figures to show that despite the sombre description given by Conservative members, the present government inherited a prosperous economy.
First, corporation profits before taxes for the calendar year 1956 were the highest in history, and corporation net earnings for the first six months of 1957 were greater than those for the corresponding period of any previous year except 1956. In fact, corporation net earnings for the first six months of 1957 were $2,249 million compared with $2,254 million in the first six months of 1956; that is to say they were only one-quarter of one per cent less than the record first half of 1956.
Second, industrial production for June, 1957, was only slightly below the record level attained in October, 1956. It was not at the record level of October but I think all objective people would say that it was at a not unsatisfactory level.
Third, Canada's gross national product for the first and second quarters of 1957 substantially exceeded that of the same period of any earlier year, being estimated by the dominion bureau of statistics at $14.4 billion in contrast with $13.5 billion last year.
Fourth, labour income for June, 1957, reached an all-time high for any month of $1,327 million. More people had jobs than ever before and average weekly wages and salaries were likewise at an all-time high level.
Fifth, total retail trade for June, 1957, was greater than for any previous June, just as total retail trade for the first half of 1957 was substantially greater than for the first half of 1956.
Sixth, the total of gross domestic investment in housing, non-residential construction, machinery and equipment for the first half of 1957 constituted an all-time high for the first half of any year.
These few figures show quite clearly that when the present government assumed office toward the end of June this year Canada was enjoying a very high degree of prosperity and I suggest that this was the general conviction of Canadians at that time. But, Mr. Speaker, despite the prosperous state of affairs which existed last June, attention is now being focused upon the level of unemployment. The statistics for September, 1957, published jointly by the dominion bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour are disquieting and because they are disquieting I believe I should say something about this

The Address-Mr. Marler out to the government that nothing engenders fear and lack of confidence so much as does uncertainty; and it is a fair statement that the government is itself responsible for a great deal of the state of uncertainty which now prevails in Canada.
There is uncertainty as to the trade policies the government intends to follow. During the election campaign the Prime Minister repeatedly promised that he would call a conference of all commonwealth countries to discuss the problem of trade, so that Canada might recover the markets which he said the Liberals had lost. We know-but only in a very general way-of the efforts that have been made in connection with a commonwealth conference on trade, and we know that the government has organized a large mission of Canadians to visit the United Kingdom. But, Mr. Speaker, between the election campaign and the present time, a curious change has taken place.
The trade mission to the United Kingdom is proposing not to find out how the United Kingdom can be persuaded to buy more of our agricultural primary products and more of our manufactured goods but, on the contrary, its purpose is to try to persuade the British to sell to Canada more goods manufactured in the United Kingdom. In fact, we have been given the impression that it would be considered to be almost indecent for the trade mission to talk of the objectives which seemed so important during the election campaign. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this change of purpose is the kind of government action which promotes uncertainty in trade circles in Canada.
Then we also have the Prime Minister's offhand proposal to divert to the United Kingdom 15 per cent of the purchases Canadians make in the United States. There is uncertainty as to whether Canadians are to take this proposal in all seriousness, but this is of small moment compared to the uncertainty which the diversion of some $600 million of trade would have upon Canadian importers, distributors, retailers and consumers.
Then there is the uncertainty arising from the meetings at Mont Tremblant and at Ottawa of the representatives of the United Kingdom government and our own. What were the proposals put forward by the British, and what proposals were made by our own representatives? What are the policies being followed by our government? In response to a request for information the Minister of Finance made a statement which though spread over several pages of Hansard, gave no significant information whatever. Mr. Speaker, if I might just make a remark in parenthesis, it reminded me of the letter of a


school boy who feels that he must tell you what he did all day hour by hour from the time he woke up to the time he went to bed but who does not really tell you anything about what he was thinking or what he was going to do. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that even after listening to the statement of the Minister of Finance, both parliament and the nation itself are completely in the dark as to the trade policies the government intends to follow. We have more uncertainty.
Then there is uncertainty as to the policy to be followed by the government with respect to tight money. During the election campaign the Prime Minister repeatedly described for the benefit of Canadians the dire effects of the credit restrictions introduced by the Bank of Canada: they had struck a body-blow here and another body-blow there; small business had been strangled, and so on. Accordingly the electorate believed that the Conservative party was committed to putting an end to credit restrictions, and that belief was reinforced after the election by the statement made by the Minister of Finance as reported by the Ottawa Journal of June 26, 1957:
There very definitely must be early relaxation of the rigours of the tight money policy.
But, Mr. Speaker, despite repeated questions, hon. members have been unable to get from the government an answer as to what has been done to bring about such a relaxation; not what will be done but what has been done. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bell), in answer to such a question referred to "the many things that have been done" by the government. But no one on the government side of the house, Mr. Speaker, will provide one item of specific information on the subject. No one will say just what has been done.
The Minister of Finance on one or two occasions has alluded to the $150 million which the government has made available for housing; but surely no one will contend for an instant that the earmarking of that amount for housing has added to the available supply of money. All that has happened is that $150 million have been set aside for housing out of the total supply of money, and there is accordingly that much less available for other purposes. I am not complaining of this situation Mr. Speaker; I am merely drawing attention to the facts of the matter.
The Minister of Finance speaks of tight money as an unfortunate legacy from the Liberal government, and even the Prime Minister in his radio address last week blamed the Liberal government for the monetary policies which we followed. Mr. Speaker, if these statements are true, why

does not the present government-which has in the matter the same authority as had the previous government-implement its promises to the electors to change monetary policies; or, Mr. Speaker, if the statements are not well-founded, why does not the government admit the fact and tell parliament and the people of Canada what policy on credit restrictions they propose as an alternative? Surely in a matter such as this, and having regard to the conflict between the Conservatives' promises before the election and their silence and inactivity since that time, the people of Canada have a right to the kind of statement of government policy which will put an end to the uncertainties which the government has itself created.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance the other day referred to a slight reduction in the rate of interest now being paid by the Bank of Canada or by the government on treasury bills. He seemed to feel that this was a tremendous step forward. May I say that I have read with the closest interest and attention recently published statements of the Bank of Canada and their balance sheet, and I can see no indication whatever of any action taken by the Bank of Canada which has brought about this small reduction in the rate on treasury bills. I therefore ask myself, and I ask the government to tell us this: What has the government done to carry out its representations to the people of Canada that it would make a change in its policy with regard to tight money?
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is uncertainty as to the government's policies with respect to inflation. Before the election the Prime Minister was telling the country that federal government expenditures constitute the biggest inflationary factor in our economy, and that the Liberal government ought to cut its expenditures. Of course, that was before the election. What is the government's present policy?
We have very little to go on, Mr. Speaker, but though parliament has been in session only about a month, it has already authorized measures that will increase government expenditures by at least $200 million per annum, not counting either cash advances on farm stored grain amounting to another $100 or $150 million or the $150 million to be made available for housing, to which I referred a moment ago. In other words the government is going to have to find $500 million of new cash.
The contrast between the thousands of words of pre-election statements and the silence which the Prime Minister seems to have imposed upon his colleagues is indeed
The Address-Mr. Leboe surprising; just as the reduction of expenditures promised before the election contrasts strangely with the measures which the government has recommended to parliament.
We recall of course the promises of the Prime Minister to increase the payments to the provinces and also to reduce federal taxes, but how do all of these measures, whether adopted or contemplated, fit into the framework of a balanced budget? This is an important question, because the people of Canada I think should know at the earliest opportunity the budgetary policy to be followed by the present government. Nor is it unreasonable that the people of Canada should expect a statement from the government on this important subject. The policies advocated by the Prime Minister during the election were a change from those followed by the previous government and the people of Canada are entitled to know to what extent the promised change is to be carried out.
As I have endeavoured to point out, there is uncertainty as to the trade policies to be followed by the government; there is uncertainty as to its monetary policies; there is uncertainty as to its budgetary policies and there is even uncertainty as to whether it will present a budget during the current session.
I suggest that the government would be following a wise course if it sought to dispel these uncertainties by making clear, unequivocal statements of policy; by doing this they could remove many of the uncertainties with which Canadians are now faced and for which the government itself is fully responsible. It is an extraordinary thing, particularly having in mind the loquacity to which we became accustomed before the election, that so far no minister holding a portfolio in the government has participated in the present debate. May we expect some of them to do so before the debate concludes or is there to be uncertainty even on that point?


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to mention that I, too, believe that the speeches of the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne were speeches of quality in both content and delivery, with the exception of some matters which were indefinite.
I would like to congratulate the Speaker and those associated with him on their appointments, and also to say that I rise at this time to speak more from a sense of duty than in the hope of getting results.
1146	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Leboe
I would like to go back to that old question which I think is worthy of mention and that is the question of construction grants for our little old Pacific Great Eastern railway. You will recall the other day I asked a question of the Prime Minister which will be found in the October 28 edition of Hansard as to what was his policy concerning these construction grants. You will also recall that he turned the question over to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) and of course I knew I could not get an answer from him because it was an answer which would only come from the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself. I tried in a supplementary question to push the point and to get a clarification on what I wanted to know, and all I got was a great silence.
Now this silence on the part of the Prime Minister surely cannot be directed to the hon. member for Cariboo but must be directed to those people in British Columbia whom he represents. I personally do not think that the smug position of the Prime Minister is good enough. At least when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) was in government, when I rose to ask questions on this matter, although I did not like the answer I received at least I did get an answer as to what was the government's policy on that question.
I think these grants should be forthcoming to the Pacific Great Eastern railway which in the final analysis would mean at least $100 million to the people of British Columbia. This money is badly needed because of the tight money policy which is now being carried out following the policy laid down by the previous government. This policy is one which, as has been pointed out, was loudly denounced by the members now sitting on the government benches before they attained office.
I want you to notice that I do not use the same words in this connection as do the Conservatives. They use the word "power" but I prefer to think of it as office. In that connection I would like to say that this tight money policy has made a great deal of difference to the revenue of provincial governments all across Canada. Naturally the provincial governments, with falling revenues, are faced with a task that is almost insurmountable. I would like to refer to an excerpt from the Edmonton Journal of November 9. In part this article had to say:
Production and sales in the forest industry, the backbone of British Columbia's economy, are down more than 10 per cent and sales tax collections likewise have fallen, the report said.
Reports circulating in the capital say government income from forestry is down more than 30 per cent. Estimates say the industries contribute about $85 million ($38 million from sales tax, the


rest from other taxes) yearly to the treasury. Therefore a 30 per cent drop would leave Mr. Bennett-
If I might interpolate here that refers to the premier of British Columbia.
-about $25 million short.
The paper said the drop would also affect industries dependent on the forestry business.
Now as long as this government is going to be dragging its feet in respect to this matter it looks like an impossible situation for the provincial government and the municipalities of this country. I think the people generally accept that as a true statement and a true appraisal in that connection.
The members of the opposition have been plying the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) with questions in order to try and find out what his financial policy is going to be. We have heard rumours of a split between the governor of the Bank of Canada and the finance minister. This has been denied, but I should like to put it on record that if one does not occur soon, or the governor of the Bank of Canada does not change his mind, the present Minister of Finance will not much longer be sitting where he now does. The people of this country are watching this situation carefully, and it is a matter which touches them where it hurts most, namely the pocket book.
Much has been said about unemployment. I will only say this. It is foolishness for us to bury our heads in the sand and say we must not scare the people because that would make matters worse, when we know very well we have a parliament in Canada whose task it is to deal with the country's problems as they exist. These statements have, to a great degree been made outside the house rather than inside it, but it seems to me the problem of unemployment in the province of British Columbia is a real problem.
My attention was drawn the other day to a newspaper clipping in which the leader of the opposition in the British Columbia legislature was reported as asking questions of the responsible ministers of the British Columbia government with regard to the unemployment situation there. I think his words could more appropriately have been directed to this government here, because the tight money policy is the policy which has affected the economy of British Columbia and brought about the present situation.
The lumber industry and the plywood industry in the province of British Columbia has suffered a great deal, particularly in the northern interior area. The $150 million which was given over for housing to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is only a drop in the bucket as far as we are

concerned. It would mean, at the most, the movement of 100 million feet of lumber in the whole of Canada, and that is not very much so far as the forest industry is concerned. As I say, it does not help the forest industry very much, nor does it give a great deal of assistance to the people who need houses.
Now I wish to make a reference to the consumer index which was the subject of discussion in the house a short time ago when attempts were made to show that there was a levelling off in the cost of living. I should like to point out that the levelling off has been at the cost of the consumer because in many industries a true levelling off does not take place. The people who have suffered in this country are those engaged in the primary producing industries such as lumber, agriculture and mining. These people have to sell on a supply and demand market, whereas the secondary industries of this country do not sell their products on a supply and demand market to any great extent. The cost prices of the articles produced by secondary industries are based on the cost of production and, therefore, as the cost of production rises, the cost of the end product rises accordingly. Therefore when we talk about a levelling off of the consumer index we find that if we look at the situation carefully in reality some people are paying the shot. I do not think they appreciate their position in this regard.
One of the silliest statements I have heard for a long time was made by the present Minister of Finance this session and also by the previous minister of finance, and that is with regard to saving money while at the same time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) puts out a statement that we must seek new markets. We know, Mr. Speaker, that when we export goods we are going to import an equal amount of goods or something very close to it, goods which have to be purchased by people here. Therefore, trade being a two-way matter, we still have the goods in this country on the shelves. Now the Minister of Finance is saying: let us save more, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is saying: we must seek new markets. I think they had better get together and discover which one is going where, because you cannot save more and buy more at the same time, at least I have never been able to do it.
Mr. Speaker, we experienced a great disaster in the Peace river area not so long ago, about the third week in October, when the bridge over the mighty Peace river between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John gave way. This bridge is on the Alaska highway, mile zero being at Dawson Creek and
The Address-Mr. Leboe it goes north for 1600 miles. The amount of traffic which passes over this particular highway is so heavy that only one who has actually witnessed it would believe that this northern route would ever have as much vehicular traffic as it has.
Highway 97 starts way down in the southwestern states travelling up through California, up through Oregon and Washington into British Columbia, through to Kamloops and on up to Alaska. Many thousands of tourists use this highway almost all the year round, and, of course, the collapse of this bridge has created a most unfortunate bottleneck.
I wish to say, however, that I am not disappointed in any manner with the handling of this situation by the Minister of National Defence, (Mr. Pearkes) under whose jurisdiction this bridge comes. But I wish to express the hope that the minister will not listen too closely to his advisers. His advisers are military men and they look after this bridge from a military point of view purely and simply. I want to say to the minister that I believe he has a moral responsibility in connection with this bridge. I believe this government has a moral responsibility in connection with it. If the department feels it has not, then it means we should be looking forward at an early date to a highway policy which will embrace a national highway system in which this area would be included. I believe a bridge across the river at Taylor Flats is absolutely essential. Either a new bridge should be built, or the present bridge rehabilitated as soon as possible.
I am sure that if there were a member in this house from the Yukon,-and I regret very much that there is not-he would be addressing the chamber very much along the lines I have been following in the last few moments and he would emphasize the importance of this great highway to the people of the Yukon.
Other people are interested in the project. I have an excerpt here from the Prince George Citizen, datelined Seattle, Associated Press. It reads as follows:
B. Frank Hintslemon, former Alaska governor, Wednesday urged the Alaska international rail and highway commission to give priority to improvement of the Alaska highway, then give consideration to an Alaska-United States highway link through British Columbia east of the coast range. The 13 man commission ended a two day meeting here Wednesday night.
It is possible, perhaps, that this highway is one of the most important highways in Canada because it does have a defence value. I have, therefore, taken a few minutes today to bring it to the attention of the house in the hope that we will not find ourselves too

The Address-Mr. Leboe long without a bridge across the river at the point close to Taylor Flats. I was pleased that the previous government saw fit, even if it was just before the election, to introduce a paving program to pave the first 50 miles of the Alaska highway from Fort St. John to Dawson Creek and I do hope that if the present government is here long enough-


An hon. Member:: What a question.


Bert Raymond Leboe: -it will follow the example set by the previous government and extend the paving of that highway north. As I pointed out, this is very important to the people in that area and all the people to the south right down to the southern part of the United States.
I have a few words to say about the C.B.C. and the National Film Board and when I say "a few words" I mean just that. Under the present policy for television broadcasting we find that there is an unequal division between the parties in this house in terms of the time allotted to them for television broadcasting. I maintain that this completely overlooks the wishes of the people who are looking at their TV sets and recognizes the situation only from a political point of view. If political television broadcasts are to be continued I think there should be an equal division among the four major parties in this house and an equal amount of time should be allotted to each to present their views so the Canadian people will get what they are looking for and will be assisted in finding out what the various parties stand for, what their platforms and programs are. I do not think anybody except perhaps those who are in political office will argue the point. If a canvass were made of the listening audience across the country I am sure it would be found the people generally would look most favourably upon a policy under which 25 per cent of the listening time were allotted to each of the four major parties.
Now, just a word about the National Film Board. I seem to be ranging far and wide in my remarks but these are just a few thoughts I have in connection with these various subjects. It has been brought to my attention that the National Film Board will not release the film "The Sceptre and the Mace" through its channels for six months. I think this policy should be scrapped at once. There are many people who for conscience sake never darken a theatre door. This film will be released through commercial theatre circuits for a period of six months before it is released through the circuits of the National Film Board. As I undertsand it this is being done to defray expenses. It is the taxpayer who pays in any case and therefore why should the people who want to see this film


be deprived of seeing it through National Film Board channels for a period of six months or more? Many centres throughout the country lack theatres but many have social groups to whom the National Film Board material could be made available. This film should be shown across Canada while the visit of Her Majesty the Queen is fresh in the minds of the people. I do not see for one moment why we should have to wait for six months to view this film on the pretext that we are trying to save some money through releasing it commercially in the first instance. If we think it is possible to save some money for the National Film Board we should perhaps investigate the possibility of uniting the efforts of the National Film Board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Possibly we could save enough money by this means that the authorities would not have to worry about the few dollars they will collect through the rental of "The Sceptre and the Mace" and other films.
Another subject I wish to raise is the need of airports. As we travel across the country we see a great need for establishing new airports and extending the facilities of existing ones because registered aircraft in Canada continue to increase rapidly and the miles travelled by people by the medium of airplanes is increasing every day. Also, new applications are being made for charters. I trust that the government will look into the situation a little closer in respect to the seaplane base in Prince George. A lot of the chartered aircraft in the northern areas of British Columbia, as in other parts of the country, take off and land on water and Prince George is one of the chief centres in western Canada in that respect. A good seaplane base at this point is extremely essential.
There was some mention in this house the other day of the Wenner-Gren project. This happens to be considered for construction in the Cariboo riding. It was described by some hon. members as a steal, a give-away program and many other things but I can refer those hon. members who are concerned about it to three documents, the memorandum of agreement of 1956, the one dated in October 1957 and other related material that is available for distribution in British Columbia. I would also refer them to the water act of British Columbia which is the key to all these agreements. Hon. members of the
C.C.F. party have been inclined to throw cold water on the proposed construction to be brought into being in the Cariboo riding at what is known as the Rocky Mountain trench. I have before me a clipping from

the Ottawa Journal dated April 2, 1957 and I would like to read a part of it for the benefit of those hon. members. The article has reference to a pulp agreement in Saskatchewan and says in part:
Under the agreement, the American group is given an option on 12,000 square miles of crown-owned spruce, fir, jackpine and poplar forests. Construction of the mill, with a minimum production of 300 tons daily, would start before September 1.
This announcement was made by A. G. Kuziak, natural resources minister of the Saskatchewan government. It seems to me that the members of the Saskatchewan government know on what side their bread is buttered as do some of the rest of us, and jealously will get these people nowhere. The people I represent in British Columbia are very happy about this proposition and they are the ones who live in that country. They are developing that country and they are the pioneers whose children today are engaged in the fields of engineering, surveying and so on which are the keys to prosperity in our province. We are looking forward to great things happening in the Cariboo riding.


Mr. John Prait (Jacques Carlier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations to the many already extended to yourself and to the Deputy Speaker, and also to the mover and seconder of the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.
May I also say how sorry I am that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) has chosen to relinquish his high office. I have always admired his personal qualities and qualifications and I sincerely hope that he will continue to serve his country for many years to come in some other important capacity.
The tradition has been very well impressed on me by now, Mr. Speaker, that in addressing this house for the first time one does not plunge into the controversial but rather dwells on the delights and innocent requirements of one's home constituency. I am sure that I do not need to dwell upon the delights of the county of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle with its great industry, its beautiful scenery and its highly intelligent population; but I would like to say a few words about the innocent requirements of this important riding which already consists of over 100,000 people and which will probably double its population within the next decade.
I certainly do not need the pressure of tradition to encourage me to concentrate on the problems of my riding, as indeed my
The Address-Mr. Pratt entire campaign platform in the recent election was based solely on our own local problems and nothing else. However, local though those problems may be, they are actually of national interest, as similar problems exist in many other constituencies right across the country.
One of the most urgent of our problems is the continued and growing pollution of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, in as much as it could adversely affect the health of many thousands of citizens in every municipality along the banks of these streams. It is a disgrace to allow this disgusting, barbaric practice of dumping raw sewage and industrial wastes into our beautiful lakes and waterways. It is a practice which must be stopped but the expense involved is great. It is not fair that the municipalities should be expected to pay the entire cost out of their limited revenues. It is a responsibility of all three levels of government. The federal government is involved not only because many of these streams such as the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers are navigable but because many such streams run across interprovincial and even international borders.
My constituency is also seriously concerned about the question of railway level crossings. Again, this is an archaic situation which has been allowed to exist and grow worse right across the land but it has reached an appalling state in the western section of the island of Montreal which constitutes the riding of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. We are very happy and proud to be the absolute hub of railroading in Canada, but in consequence we have four of the busiest lines where the fastest trains in America continue to take their toll of human life and suffering and where parents dread the thought of their youngsters crossing and recrossing the tracks on their way to and from school, and where the nights are made absolutely hideous by the never-ending scream of train whistles in the hands of nervous drivers trying to prevent the inevitable death and destruction. This problem was solved in Europe in the middle of the 19th century with picks and shovels. Surely, we should be able to cope with it in 20th century Canada with all the wonders of modern power shovels and bulldozers.
Equally pressing is the question of increasing highway traffic, with the lack of adequate bridges over federal canals and navigable waters causing bottlenecks which are not only a nuisance to the travelling public but which are costing millions of dollars in lost time to commercial and industrial transportation. The traffic complex at the Lachine canal in Ville St. Pierre is a nightmare of bad planning and lack of planning. At the

The Address-Mr. Pratt other end of the riding there is a single bridge over the canal which creates a bottleneck at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, resulting in stalled traffic for two or three miles on either side of the block. This happens every weekend with ordinary traffic. What would happen with a civil defence evacuation, under emergency conditions, of a quarter of a million people?
When we speak of civil defence we realize in Jacques Cartier-Lasalle that it is difficult to formulate specific policies, or consolidate specific plans, owing to the complexity and increasing rapidity of scientific progress, but this is all the more reason why the federal government, with its greater access to last-minute information and its greater access to the necessary funds, must itself take the leadership and not lean so heavily on provincial or municipal initiative.
There were only two other planks in my election platform, namely to obtain better postal service in the developed areas of my constituency and to ask that the cities and towns be given a fair share of the national tax dollar. I would like to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) and thank him for all he has done and is doing to improve the postal services in Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. I would also like to congratulate and thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for all he has done and is doing to further the cause of mutual understanding and mutual co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General on their initiative in getting things started and I personally thank them for helping me to achieve already at least part of my platform promises.
A recent magazine article remarked that it was highly unusual for a comedian to become a member of parliament. After listening to some of the hon. members in this house I find that it is not at all unusual for a member of parliament to become a comedian. I would like to say just a word about my first reactions as a wide-eyed newcomer to this historic house. At first, to be quite frank, I was rather disappointed at the hard, cynical way in which some of the older members put their party interests above the common good. I was, therefore, very pleased to hear in the speeches of some of the newcomers the kind of idealism that I had always associated with a true understanding of the real, traditional significance of parliament. I could not help but wonder whether these young men in time would also become hard, cynical and myopic in their narrow focus on the interest of party above all else. Since then I am happy to say I have heard several battle-scarred veterans of many years in this house reveal

an idealism that is far too simple and straightforward to be merely histrionic and I am sure there is no better example for a young man to find than an old one who has kept faith with his principles.
However, there are still too many who seem to have come here to get rather than to give. I have heard far too many talk of their heritage, their rights and their privileges and not nearly enough of their duties, their responsibilities and their potentialities. Let us think less of our separate past and more of our tremendous collective future. I would like to feel that, at least from now on, this house is regarded by all as somewhat more of a parliament and somewhat less of a snakepit.
There are two reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I think I should cut this speech short and not take up any more of the valuable time of this house. First, because I have an uneasy feeling that, like so many hon. members, I may tend to use rather too many words for what little I have to say and, second, because I realize that this year we have an unusually large number of Conservative newcomers, some of whom are still awaiting their opportunity to speak. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that neither of these two mild understatements will be regarded as controversial. It is also six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on the throne speech with a sincere feeling of appreciation to the electors of Kingston riding for returning me once again to parliament as their representative. I should first like to direct my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, and to congratulate you as the first Commoner. Over the years, you have shown integrity and industry in your profession, and may your political career be as illustrious.
I rise today with a great deal of humility to direct my remarks for the most part to the affairs and conditions of the Department of National Defence. I do so with humility possibly because my knowledge of defence matters may not be as great as that of some members in this house, and because the Department of National Defence is headed by a renowned and respected soldier, carrying with him the highest award for gallantry that a soldier may earn. I am sure that in the last parliament when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) had my position on this side of the house, and the then

The Address-Mr. Henderson
minister of labour, the Hon. Milton Gregg, V.C., occupied a front bench on the government side of the house, we were inspired to have two such gallant men in our midst.
I should like to say a word, not to be interpreted as faint praise for the Minister of National Defence, but upon reviewing Hansard since the beginning of the session I find that he is the only active minister of the crown who has accepted his responsibility and has not endeavoured to make political speeches and avoid his responsibility by claiming the inadequacies of his predecessors. I have previously stated that my knowledge of defence is limited. This same condition may apply to some of my colleagues on this side of the house, and on the other side of the house, but we as members know that if this situation kept us quiet there would be a long silence in this forum. I am advising the minister that we serve notice on him now that we have a willingness to learn, so to speak to be taught, not only for our own purposes but so that the people of Canada will learn that their country has an appropriate defence force and that the security and respect of Canada has not been tinkered with to fulfil election promises of a desperate political group trying to remain in power.
I have for eight years been the representative of the Kingston constituency, a constituency whose military tradition is second to none in this country. May I interject that I am happy to have retained the confidence of my electors as expressed in the last election, and so be able to be here taking part in the discussion, particularly on military matters. During the eight years I have represented Kingston I have been compelled to deal a great deal with the Department of National Defence and to learn something about its operations. This has been true because the defence establishments in and around the city of Kingston are amongst the most important in Canada. I feel, therefore, for these reasons I probably have some modest competence to discuss the affairs of the Department of National Defence.
It has been evident that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) either does not have a financial policy for Canada or refuses to advise Canadians of his policy and having expressed my admiration for the Minister of National Defence, I would not want to think he had fallen into the same category. We would want to feel, as Canadians, that all was well with defence and the security of Canada. We have heard rumours that anywhere from $200 million to $500 million could be cut from the defence budget to provide the answer to election promises, including a cut in income taxes. Let me say
this at the beginning, if it can be done without impairing the security and defence of Canada we would greet this action with approval. Our ministers in the past, the Hon. Brooke Claxton and the Hon. Ralph Campney, would have done the same thing. There was one assurance that we had when they were heading the Department of National Defence and that is they had a policy, a recognized and consistent policy. It is evident that Canadians are becoming disturbed about their security and defence today.
If I might for a moment, I should like to refer to a newspaper article that appeared in the Toronto Star of October 17, 1957 which I think sums up the situation very well. It says:
Is the government hacking away here and there just for economy? Just what is the program? If changes are required, what are the reasons? Mr. Claxton and Mr. Campney, the former defence ministers, had a defence policy, a consistent policy. It was a program which carefully took into account the needs of Canada for the defence of our homeland and for meeting our commitments to the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty alliance.
The new defence minister may have information which proves that the defence program should be changed to meet changing conditions. If that is so, the people ought to be told in clear, forthright terms. Let there be no tinkering with Canada's defences.
In recent months we have heard from members on the government side great orations about Canada first policy, anti-Americanism. We have heard about the regency of Canada in the north, but it can be noticed now that United States newspapers are writing about the islands north of Canada. North of Canada should be known as the north pole, and the islands should be known as Canadian islands. The regency of Canada in the north depends upon her small settlements and the ships which make their appearances in the north. Our attention has been drawn to the presence of H.M.C.S. Labrador in the north in picture parade of the Family Herald of October 24, 1957. This newspaper shows a picture of the crew of H.M.C.S. Labrador raising a naval ensign over an abandoned trading post. According to recent reports the H.M.C.S. Labrador has been transferred from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Transport for duty as an icebreaker on the St. Lawrence, which job I hasten to say probably it can do well. However, what about the Labrador as Canada's medium for exhibiting sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic? What about the scientific and survey work which the Labrador could do in the north?
Is it the policy of the government that Canada does not want to know as much about the north as Russia? Are we to disregard

The Address-Mr. Henderson the words of this ship's last master, a Royal Canadian Navy captain, who no later than last week said:
There is no other ship internationally known as well as the Labrador for its pioneer work in the Canadian Arctic, and no ship has done so much tangible good there.
Do we take it the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) is anxious to have this ship under his command and simply says, "this will be an economy move all around"? Is this the policy of the Minister of National Defence that he adheres to or does he simply take the explanation of the Minister of Transport and comply with his wishes? What training is the Royal Canadian Navy going to carry on in the Arctic? What fleet are we to have in reserve or in being? I would suggest to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence that they read the book entitled "The True North", if they have not done so, in order to familiarize themselves with the initiative and foresight of Captain Bernier who did so much to establish the sovereignty of Canada in the Arctic. Just after the turn of the century Captain Bernier came to parliament hill and gained the support of 60 per cent of the members of the House of Commons for his work. It has been said of him that he, more than any other man, kept Canada from tossing away its Arctic inheritance.
The minister has now seen fit to make a change in another branch of the armed forces, the militia. In reply to a question I asked him on October 16, 1957, page 37 of Hansard, he inferred that the militia would have training emphasizing civil defence and the militia's role otherwise would have been glamorous and phony. In reply to another question, he hesitated to set a date for the transfer of the role of the militia to that of civil defence.
Summer camps are to be abolished and the number of days training paid for by the government are to be reduced from 60 to 40. All this may mean the end of the militia but if this is the government's conclusion, let us hear it definitely. I suggest to the minister that he has set a date for the end of the militia, namely January 31, 1958. If that is not correct, let him tell us so. This may be the date that the militia resorts to the role described by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith). I quote from the Montreal Gazette of September 20, 1957, Mr. Blakely's column, in which he says this:
Civil defence is at times a discouraging and thankless task.
If the Minister of National Defence wishes to take away the uniforms and rifles and

issue the militia in January with dungarees, brooms, pails, shovels and fire-hoses, let him make his position clear.
The militia has played an extremely important role in Canada's defence in the last two wars and in peace time. The permanent force has provided a nucleus for the active voluntary forces, and its tradition can best be expressed by extracts from speeches made by the minister's own colleagues in the cabinet. I refer to a report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of September 1, 1954, which is "PC Member Gives Views on Issue" and reads in part as follows:
George C. Nowlan, Q.C., M.P., Progressive Conservative member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, speaking in connection with the proposed disbanding of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, gave his opinion of this proposal in an interview here in which he said: . . .
"For years we, of the opposition, have been deploring the treatment accorded the reserve army by our government, and have been urging that definite action be taken to further the interest in, and increase the efficiency of, this essential part of our national defence effort. How can this be done by disregarding the reputation, traditions and the dress which are the greatest attraction and asset of any military organization".
The present Secretary of State (Mrs. Fair-clough) speaking on national defence supply on July 20, 1956, as reported at page 6269 of Hansard of that year, said this:
I should like to make just one more plea to the minister on this basis. The city of Hamilton has always been very proud of its military men in all branches of the services: its militia has been a source of great pride to Hamiltonians generally, and it has a good auxiliary naval force. It seems too bad that one arm of the services should be left out of active participation. I know it is a matter of great regret to Hamiltonians generally and those who were members of the 424 squadron in particular.
She goes on further and says this:
In all seriousness I ask the minister to give great consideration to this matter, because it is not a light thing to discourage so many persons who are actively engaged in military exercises of this sort, particularly when their activities have been a source of pride and a matter of interest for a quarter of a million people in that district.
But I think the greatest supporter of the militia is the present Minister of Transport. Speaking on national defence supply on June 30, 1955, as reported at page 5539 of Hansard of that year, he said this:
I am also disturbed about what appears to be happening to another great Toronto militia regiment, the Queen's Own. I understand that their recruiting base has been shifted to Calgary, which to me sounds absolutely fantastic. The Queen's Own is a Toronto regiment and has been for many many years. It is one of the really old battalions of this country. Its roots are in Toronto, its spirit is in Toronto, its alumni are in Toronto, and if you want to raise men for the Queen's Own you had better leave the recruiting base in or near Toronto so the traditions of that regiment can remain intact.

I think the treatment of the militia by the government at the present time and the creation of the first, second, third and fourth Guards battalions is stupid. Why not leave these fine regiments intact with their traditions and names that mean so much to them? Why not leave them with the most important things they possess, their uniforms, their names, their traditions? Why do what bureaucrats are always trying to do, streamline or simplify, and in so doing complicate and lose what originally was possessed?
As a former member of the militia and knowing how much these things mean, I appeal to the minister to stop what I consider to be this stupid process of destroying the really important things that keep a militia regiment going, and the only things that do. Leave them intact. Let our regiments remain the fine regiments they are, with the fine traditions they have had for many years past.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where are those members of the present cabinet and what support are they now giving to the militia they supported a short time ago?
Besides the morale and traditions of the militia, let us consider that we may still have many conventional skirmishes before the 30-minute war which the minister may have in mind. Let us remind him that although gas was used in world war I, it was not used in world war II, although both sides could have used it. The same may be true of the hydrogen bomb and other nuclear weapons. We may have a war without them. Would it not be better for an aggressor to take over our lands without destroying them? On the other hand, if for any reason we are the aggressor, I am sure that the minister has heard of conventional troops under the town major. Our active forces may have more technical duties to perform in the case of a conflict. I say it is the obligation of the Minister of National Defence to produce irrefutable information that the militia, the citizen army, will not be needed again before he abandons it and places the personnel in the role of air raid wardens and so on. The members of the militia are entitled to know their future.
Why might the minister be hesitant to give the details of the new roll of the militia? I should like to refer to an article in a paper published in a militia city, namely the Kingston Whig-Standard, of October 12, 1957. It is entitled "The End of the Militia?" and it reads in part as follows:
But if the government has come to this conclusion, why does it not say so? Far better to abolish the militia straight away than to keep willing people on a string and slowly cut off their supplies, thus forcing them out in favour of civil defence. Maybe the abolition will come after the next election. The reason why it does not come before is clear. Disbanded militia men, keen on their regiments, might be disgruntled enough to vote against the government who cut them off without a penny.
The Address-Mr. Henderson
Or is the minister by maintaining the membership of the militia gradually accepting the advice of the new minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Smith, and using the militia as the nucleus for implementing the brain child of the new Secretary of State for External Affairs? I quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail of November 29, 1947.
A year of national service-not essentially military -for high school graduates was advocated yesterday by President Sidney E. Smith of the University of Toronto in an address to Toronto Rotarians-"I have something in mind not entirely military and would go so far as to suggest the organization might have a civilian chief''.
Canada's militiamen deserve to be given all the information of their future role.
Let me for just a moment refer to the permanent forces of Canada. I shall have more to say about it at a later date, but it is indicative that their amenities and their privileges will be lessened. For example, the curtailing of the current affairs bureau, the decided closing off of the defence construction building program, and also the unnecessary moving of the personnel and their families from one area to another.
The minister must realize that these men and women and their families have devoted their lives to a very honourable and necessary profession in which they have been highly trained. The minister should consider his department's policy very carefully before he disturbs the personnel and their families and takes away from them their accommodation and the amenities to which they are entitled. We trust the minister will not hide too long behind the delays attributed to designers and architects. I say we have the finest forces in the world and let us not prejudice that standard by a hit and run policy initiated by any political strategy.
The minister has been credited with making several announcements of cutbacks in the Department of National Defence expenditures. If there is waste and extravagance and duplications, as has been claimed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), let him give us the chapter and verse. We have heard spot announcements as I have just mentioned, such as "Current Affairs bureau next for Pearkes' axe", "R.C.A.F. braces for cuts in budget", and so on. I suggest that the minister, in dealing with the R.C.A.F. is carrying out a policy reflected by his predecessor in office 25 years ago when his party was in power. As a matter of fact a very famous training centre of the R.C.A.F. by the name of Trenton also came into the news then. I quote from Hansard Volume 1 for 1932 at page 597:


Mr. Sutherland:: Trenton will be very seriously cut down.

The Address-Mr. Henderson


Mr. Ralston:: But my hon. friend Is adopting Trenton instead of Borden.


Donald Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman Instead of developing Trenton had stopped the development at that time a great deal of the trouble we are having at present would have been obviated.
Now we find 25 years later that we hear of the transfer of air training command headquarters from Trenton to Winnipeg. I believe the minister was recently trying to retrace his steps however, possibly for a purpose, and I was interested the other day-to be exact November 7-as reported at page 850 of Hansard-to find this question asked of the Minister of National Defence by his colleague the hon. member for Calgary South.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) :: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? Can the minister confirm speculation that certain major changes are planned in the operation of the R.C.A.F. training command in the immediate future?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence) :: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. Reductions in the R.C.A.F. NATO training program will lead to certain reorganizational changes involving a reassessment of the facilities required by the R.C.A.F. training command. No firm or positive action has yet been taken on this matter, and in any case no changes are planned for 1958, with the exception of the R.C.A.F. station at-
And then it goes on to describe the stations. I ask the minister what is his policy, or is he just trying to get past another election date?


An hon. Member:: Who is talking politics now?


William James Henderson: We have very little information about what the minister has really done to the department. I say to the hon. member who interrupts me that he had better get up and defend the militia. The minister has announced a nibble here, a bite here and a chunk out of here, but what is his policy? Has he adhered to the warning given to him by General Simonds, supported by the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). I am sure the present Minister of National Defence can now tell us if his colleague the Minister of Agriculture last year was making an irresponsible statement when speaking of the subject of national defence on July 19, 1956. He is quoted in Hansard of that date at page 6173, as follows:
When it comes to statements of opinion concerning the subjects General Simonds dealt with in his article, I am more prepared to accept his opinion than the minister's.
I may say this is referring to the article in Maclean's of June 23 written by General Simonds:
Having been the chief of staff and having spent his lifetime in the Canadian army. General Simonds I think is perhaps better qualified than is the minister to express an opinion as to the efficiency of Canadian defence headquarters. I think he is better qualified than is the minister to state an

opinion as to whether defence headquarters could operate efficiently and effectively in the event of war.
He goes on to say this:
In any event it has been my contention for several years past that defence headquarters is topheavy and as a result wasteful and inefficient. I now have two very powerful witnesses to reinforce that claim. General Simonds has said in this article that the headquarters is topheavy. The minister, of course, said that was only his opinion. I think that that opinion is a very weighty one and it is reinforced by General Macklin and every other retired officer with any experience with whom I have ever spoken in regard to the matter. General Simonds said that in a real crisis national defence headquarters would come to a grinding, shuddering halt. I claim that is probably correct, in spite of the minister's opinion to the contrary.
Would the hon. minister still be influenced by General Simonds' statement when he said last week that the CF-105 was a "dead duck". He made this statement on November 11, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of November 12, 1957, as follows:
He said Defence Minister Pearkes' decision to use the militia in a civil defence role is "an attempt to convince the people that something is being done when nothing is being done at all."
We as Canadians may well be disturbed when we read the headlines of the Vancouver Sun of November 6 and the press clippings from the Vancouver Sun of that day. The headline says: "Our Defence Outmoded by Missiles" and the clipping says "we are defenceless, Simonds declares", "Ex-chief of staff blasts Ottawa 'Fumbling Stupidity'." The events which have happened in the last few months with respect to the development of guided missiles and nuclear weapons by nations of the world will force the government of Canada to face the making of very important decisions. We must recognize the fact that the threat of guided missiles must be met. This cannot be accomplished by vote-catching economy cuts that could hinder the defence program of Canada.
Although the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) and the president of the Progressive Conservative Association have announced that the election campaign is now on-this was confirmed this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hodgson), and was also so capably dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-I am sure that Canadians and fellow members of NATO would be more pleased if the government could divorce itself from its election campaign long enough to deal with the immediate problems of the defence of Canada and formulate a defence policy which would discourage our enemies and encourage our allies. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the present circumstances the Prime Minister and the

Minister of National Defence, with apparently no policy, who has been forced to nibble, tinker and meddle with the defence of Canada, should take the appropriate steps to set up a committee on defence to examine that matter and hear witnesses and assure the people of Canada that they have provided security and to prove that this government has a policy on defence.


Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with other members of this house who have spoken in this throne speech debate by extending congratulations to yourself and to the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault). A good job very well done.
Coming from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, in the centre of Canada, I hope to give my constituents the kind of service they should expect from their member in Ottawa; also I intend to continue to pursue and uphold the policies of the C.C.F. as long as my stay in this house continues.
The Lake Centre part of my riding was at one time represented by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Speaking nonpolitically, of course, I might add, his representation was considered excellent; he set an example that I hope to take as my own, may I repeat-non-politically.
I may say however that I intend to do my best to prove that the right hon. Prime Minister is a poor prophet. According to a press story a week after the June 10 election, he wired the Progressive Conservative candidate his congratulations and the news story indicated that the Prime Minister believed that the Progressive Conservative candidate might win Moose Jaw-Lake Centre in another election. The Tories had better not count that egg in their basket.
When I checked into my office in the House of Commons, I found there was no electrical wall plug. The electrician promised to have one installed but while waiting I borrowed a 10-cent plug to enable the use of the desk lamp socket. I was told by the electrician that he had to have the plug returned as he said it was the only one they had. I am happy to be able to report to my constituents that unlike the Liberals' Petawawa army camp and its horses, the Conservative government has only one plug on its payroll so far.
The speech from the throne indicated that some of the election promises made during the campaign by the Conservatives were to be carried into legislation. We of the C.C.F. group are pleased to see this legislation for which our members have been clamouring for years and for which we have indicated our approval and support.
The Address-Mr. Lewry
Coming from a constituency half urban and half rural I can tell hon. members that farmers are in a depression and that this is being carried over to business places in western Canada. If the farmers of Canada are not prosperous, businessmen are likewise not doing business.
The latest dominion bureau of statistics index indicating the number of commodities and services used by prairie farmers shows some interesting facts. The farmers' cost of living and production now stands at 240.5, with the years 1935-39 represented by 100. In other words, it now costs prairie farmers $2.40 to buy what a dollar would buy in 1935-39. This means, therefore, that the $1.40 initial wheat payment is worth only 48.2 cents in the 1935-39 value of money on a basis of No. 1 northern at Fort William; at the average country elevator point it is worth approximately 50.5 cents a bushel. How can the western farmer be expected to buy a $7,000 combine on 50 cent wheat?
In all probability the Conservative government may be called upon to set up a royal commission on markets for trade, or may even suggest doing so itself. I am not laying claim to ownership of some recent verse, but I think the house may be interested in the following which sets out what may be expected from the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the subject of trade. It is entitled "The Trader":
Said Honest John, on power bent,
"What can I say, confound it?
With joyous cheer the air was rent:
"Eureka I have found it!"
"Our trade with shrewd old Uncle Sam Is getting mighty skittish I'll wave the flag and beat the drum And holler: Let's buy British.
So up and down our fair domain He stumped the June election And kept repeating his refrain:
"The commonwealth connection."
So loud his voice, so bright his eye
So hard the anvil smitten
That even skeptics were convinced-
And so was Mac of Britain.
And when the smoke had cleared away And Liberals lay buried To Canada without delay The British Traders hurried.
"You wish to trade" said they, "my lad On even-steven basis?"
"A Free-Trade hand we'll deal, b'gad And give you all the aces."
In utter horror and despair
Our Honest John recoiled
They'd stripped him clean; his bluff was bare
His gimmick had been spoiled.
"Up drawbridge, lad" cried he to Don "And bar the gates," to Gordon "Call out my trusted Tory troops And form a solid cordon."

The Address-Mr. Lewry And in his tower, cold and bare In turn, he cried and shouted He beat his breast and tore his hair He raged and sulked and pouted.
"O woe is me! O lack a day!
How could they so deceive me?
They know I mean not what I say Why must they now believe me?"
In meditation thus he sate While hours passed uncounted And as he pondered on his fate His tribulations mounted.
Then, all at once, a blinding light!
His doubts and fears were shattered.
'''Arise, my lads, on with the fight!
"Our foes will soon lie scattered.
"I have a plan-a master plan!
To solve this sad condition.
"We're off the hook, confound it man.
We'll set up a commission!"
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal now with some of the pre-election promises made by the present government. I do not want to indicate at all that, as the Prime Minister stated shortly after this house opened, the Liberals expect the Conservatives to do everything in five months that the Liberals failed to do in 22 years. Nothing of the sort. We just want the Tories to carry out the promises they said they would carry out if elected.
There appear to be no plans under way for an immediate reduction in taxation as suggested by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the Tory opposition, back in Toronto on April 25. He said at that time that when the Conservatives formed the government of this country a session of parliament would be called to reduce taxation. We have the session of parliament, but no budget appears on the horizon. In fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), seems reluctant even to discuss a budget.
The Prime Minister also said that the Tories would have a vigorous immigration policy to increase the population of Canada. After they took over the reins they took steps to stop immigration.
Speaking in Charlottetown on April 29, the present Prime Minister said that the pipe line bill had made millionaires of a few friends-a few companies-who had bought shares in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited at $8 a share. He asked: "Who risked the money? You and I. Who made the profits? Those pampered pets." Whose friends are they now? Whose pampered pets?
The Tories made the promises, but for downright flaunting of public opinion the Liberals took the cake in western Canada. On May 6, the son of the former prime minister, spoke in my home city of Moose Jaw, and I quote:
I'm from the east. I'm not a wheat man. but at least I have a solution which could be an answer to some of the wheat sale difficulties.


The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke of a new method of treating wheat being developed by an American company, whereby it looked and tasted like rice. Since more than half the population of the world is rice-eating, the hon. member saw in this the possibility of greatly expanding Canada's wheat market and providing a solution of the present wheat-selling problem. He said the new product had been tested in Puerto Rico and India and had been considered favourably by the Canadian government. There were problems concerning rice-producing countries which, however, would have to be met, he added. I am wondering now if the Tories are continuing to offer such an easy solution to the problem of the wheat surplus in Canada.
Moose Jaw is the buckle of the wheat belt. Our farmers grow the finest hard wheat in the world, but the policies of the Liberals for 20 years, now apparently being continued without change in any respect by the present administration, have put our western farmers on the brink of depression. They are moving off the farms because of the lack of any planned agricultural policy of the federal government. The youngsters cannot make a living in farming any more and they cannot be enticed into staying on the farm. Agriculture is the mainstay of a large part of the economy of our country. That should be recognized by the federal government as it is recognized in almost every other agricultural country in the world.
Some of the problems that the farmers in my constituency have told me of include the dire need for equalization of delivery quotas for all shipping points. They demand the right to deliver their grain to elevators of their own choice. If they get a quota opened up, they cannot make deliveries because there are no box cars; or if there are cars, there are no orders and the elevators are full. In many communities in my constituency, farmers are forced to deliver grain to the line elevators simply because the box cars are not distributed at the delivery point in accordance with the place where the farmers wish to deliver their grain. As an example, at one time the pool elevator at Bulyea in my constituency purchased 80 per cent of the grain at that point. At present the percentage has dropped to 60 per cent, simply because the box cars are spotted at the line elevator, forcing the hard-up farmers to deliver grain there, over and above what the line companies should have.

Today I received a letter from a farmer in the centre of my constituency. It reads in part:
My farm consists of 240 acres, 210 of which are under cultivation. The other 30 acres is in pasture. So you see what a 5-bushel quota means to me for two years in succession. I have stored up enough grain for over two years ahead, and have nothing to live on. We small farmers have the same living expenses as the medium or large farmer. If it was not for the cream cheques, I would have had to leave the farm two years ago. But no matter how hard I try and save, if this present quota set-up continues I will have to leave the farm on which I have lived for 22 years and raised my family of four children. My farm and machinery are paid for, due to the hard work and self-denial of my family. But if the present set-up is not changed I will have to sell it to a larger farmer for the price he offers me, not for what it is worth, as I will have no other alternative as I have been going backward year after year since 1953. This is the part that hurts most of all. All that will be left for me is to sell the farm, move to the city, walk the streets and start all over again as a day labourer now that I am of middle age. All this would not be necessary if we had a party in power that had the welfare of the common man at heart.
I noted with some interest a news story in the press not too long ago to the effect that this House of Commons is back on the Thursday to Tuesday weekend. I am not at all convinced. I believe that story was written in an effort to indicate to some constituents-and it cannot apply to mine as the long weekend is not long enough for me to go home to Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and back-that these eastern members of parliament are not spending their time in the house.
1 am wondering what those same reporters would report back to their editors if the members of parliament revealed that the press gallery appears to be on a one-hour question period alert on many occasions. My fellow members of the fourth estate file out of the press gallery like homing pigeons after the question period. On many occasions the press gallery fort is held by one lone reporter many hours of the day. We realize they have work outside this chamber; perhaps they will realize that we also have duties to which we must attend outside this chamber.
While I am on the subject of the press I would point out that it is becoming increasingly evident-and this is not criticism of the working reporters in the house-that the editors back home are using their large pencils to delete from stories filed in Ottawa, references about their elected members here and apparently there is no rule so far as party preferences are concerned. If you come from Saskatchewan, newspapers in Ontario and Manitoba use the stories, but not the newspapers in Saskatchewan; or, at most, 96698-74J
The Address-Mr. Lewry not in the home constituencies of the elected members. There also appears to be an iron curtain around news from western Canada in eastern newspapers. We do not read news from Saskatchewan in the great journals of the east. I was somewhat surprised to pick up a Regina newspaper the other day which contained the following story:
Enthusiastic Liberal delegates on their way to Moose Jaw early this week for a two-day provincial council convention ran afoul of the H.C.M.P. radar timing device located temporarily at the half-way point between Regina and Moose Jaw.
Out-of-pocket delegates by way of explanation said they had been caught because they were in a hurry to get the convention started and draft up a plan for better living in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Casileden:: Liberals in a hurry.


Louis Harrington Lewry: I continue:
Notable among the delegates thumbed off the highway for a date with a ticket were Hon. Lester
B.	Pearson; provincial Liberal leader A. H. "Hammy" McDonald; and provincial president Dr. H. S. Jamieson, all in the same car.
"A clean sweep if ever there was one", one of the car's occupants remarked.
I did not notice any report of such a clean sweep in eastern newspapers. They must have had a sympathetic judge, too, for the
C.	C.F. to allow such notable Liberals to get away with just a fine.
Another point I would like to mention is that during the election campaign suggestions and promises were made in connection with the need for expanding industries. Coming from western Canada, I can say that while Saskatchewan in the past 15 years has developed from a totally agricultural province to a province with secondary industries there is much need yet for industries within our province. In the overcrowded east industry is forced to pay higher prices for land. In Saskatchewan we have acres of suitable land available for expanding industry at a very attractive price compared with the rates here in Ontario. From a point of view of defence and decentralization a policy of assistance to such industries to locate in the central provinces of Canada should be developed.
Our municipalities both urban and rural, in the west in particular, are continually facing increasing tax rates and increasing demands for services. Having spent some seven years in the mayor's office in Moose Jaw I can tell you that the elected representative closest to his elector is the councillor and mayor of a city or town, the reeve and councillor of a rural municipality. The Prime Minister has already taken action to discuss with the provinces the matter of provincial-federal fiscal relations. We have not been assured that the views of municipalities will

The Address-Mr. Lewry be considered or discussed except only in so tar as the provinces may wish to do so. The municipalities all across Canada are facing ever-increasing financial burdens with no hope of relief unless a new fiscal arrangement on the sharing of the tax dollar can be worked out.
I mentioned a moment ago the fact that Saskatchewan in the past 15 years has changed from a total agricultural economy to one with developing industry. Much has been said in the press both here and in the west about the failures of the crown corporations in Saskatchewan. I wish to point out that the crown corporations of Saskatchewan have resulted in a much more buoyant economy for the people of our province. Despite what may have been said and regardless of what you may have been led to believe the government of Saskatchewan has been better able to give social welfare services to our people with the help of the crown corporations.
Taking into account those few corporations that did fold the total wages paid to the workers of the 21 crown corporations of Saskatchewan up to the end of 1956 was $30,562,000. In addition, grants in lieu of taxes paid to municipalities totalled some $308,500. And dues and royalties paid back to the provinces were in excess of a total of $5,500,000. Some people would defame their own province and foul their own nest by maligning the crown corporations and their operations but the people of Saskatchewan are proud of the accomplishments and the results of the operation of these industries and services.
I suppose as most new members do prior to taking their seats in the house, Mr. Speaker, I sought information on the proceedings and operations of this level of government. I was fortunate in having been given a copy of an autobiography of an esteemed former member of this chamber, the Hon. Sir George W. Ross who for 11 years represented the Ontario riding of Middlesex West. I was told by my hon. friend across the way, the present Conservative member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas), that he is the first Tory to represent that riding in about 75 years so I am sure he and other hon. members on that side of the house will be interested in hearing some of the references in this book. Dealing with initiation day in the House of Commons in the year 1873 Mr. Ross states:
My seat was to the left of the Speaker (or rather to the left of his chair, for there was as yet no Speaker), and about the middle of the fourth tier of seats. Who designated me to this particular part Of the chamber I do not know. I answered to the

label cn my desk. It was the same as that of my wardrobe locker. "Ross-Middlesex". My seat was well situated for observation, and, comfortable though it was, I felt myself in strange surroundings-strangers to the left of me, strangers to the right of me, strangers in front of me, shuffled and chattered. But many were old acquaintances by reputation, good, bad and indifferent-
Later he continues:
The routine of the house soon becomes uninteresting. After listening to a few speakers on any question one feels there is little more to be said. Why should you not in self-defence, if for no other reason, go to your room or take a stroll through the lobbies with some fellow member and avoid the ennui of a tedious debate-or, what may be preferable, go into the open air and recuperate your flagging energies? Then there is the freedom of number nine-
The ante room-
-where you can smoke your pipe or cigar ajid enjoy the good fellowship of others who like yourself have been overcome with the tedious reiteration of arguments neither new nor forcible. Or you have some correspondence to attend to, or an interview from a friend with a grievance, or business with some minister in his private room, or something to look up in the library. And so to keep your place in the house for a long sitting becomes irksome. Nothing but a full dress debate by the leaders commands your attention; all the rest is "vanity and vexation of spirit". As a consequence days and weeks are spent to very little purpose; you have added nothing materially to your knowledge of public questions, you have marked time, that is all. Now, to a young man, a few sessions spent in this way is fatal to his career.
I remind hon. members that this description was written back in 1873.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question. How does the hon. member relate that quotation to the amendment now before the house?


An hon. Member:: He has to fill in his 40 minutes somehow.


Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised that question because that is the point with which I intended to deal next. I turn now to Mr. Ross's description of the session of 1882. He says:
The chief interest in the session of 1882 centred around the bill to adjust the representation of the electoral districts of the province of Ontario, better known as the gerrymander bill. Under the constitution the representation of the different provinces must be adjusted decennially, Quebec alone remaining constant-
And so on. I continue:
Sir John Macdonald introduced the bill on April 28, or within three weeks of the close of the session, and the excitement on the opposition benches was intense. Nearly all its active members were affected by the changes proposed. It was evidently the intention of the government to hold its majority by brute force, otherwise why change county boundaries and shift municipalities like pawns on a chess board, regardless of symmetry or public convenience? Nothing more unfair could have been devised, and the debate was accordingly warm and aggressive.

-Accordingly I presented what I called an alternative bill in part as follows:
Whereas by the census of the year of our
Lord 1881 and in accordance with the British
North America Act of 1867-
Et cetera-
Therefore Sir John Macdonald, by and with the advice of party wire-pullers and Tory deputations from the province of Ontario and with the connivance of the Tories from the other provinces, enacts as follows:
1. The House of Commons shall consist of 211 members, a majority of whom shall belong to the Conservative party.
My suggestion to the Liberal opposition in this house is that they could very well copy the example set by Mr. George Ross in 1882 and move a similar motion to the effect that the House of Commons shall consist of 265 members, a majority of whom shall belong to the Progressive Conservative party, and I am sure hon. members opposite would willingly support it.
In conclusion, we welcome the measures indicated in the speech from the throne and we urge that the measures be placed before parliament with the least possible delay in order that the benefits proposed therein may accrue to the people of Canada at once. However, we also urge consideration in our amendment that the government deal with inflation, unemployment and other serious problems that face this country. Mr. Speaker, I will support the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), in speaking in this debate, drew attention to-I take it deplored-the fact that not many cabinet ministers had thus far taken part in the debate. I can give him the reason at once, Mr. Speaker. It is that there are so many new members in the house, able members, who should have every opportunity to participate in this debate. But it has occurred to me that some things might be said tonight at this stage of the debate after we have heard now nine days of debate arising upon the lack of a motion of want of confidence on the part of the official opposition and upon a motion of want of confidence on the part of the C.C.F.
It is in no perfunctory sense, sir, that I offer my hearty congratulations to those two new members, the mover and the seconder, of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both of them acquitted themselves with distinction and, like so many of the other new members in this house who have participated in this debate, have earned the congratulations that have been generously showered upon them.
Perhaps you will forgive me a personal word, Mr. Speaker, having regard for the
The Address-Mr. Fleming composition of this new house and another change which is to take place on Monday next. It was in the month of September, 1923, that a third-year class in English constitutional history in the University of Toronto awaited the arrival of a lecturer and when the lecturer stepped into that classroom it was hard to identify him as a lecturer. He was youthful looking; he looked more like an undergraduate but he proved to be a very capable and popular lecturer. That gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is now the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson). I was one of the students in that class.
Then one thinks of a scene two years later in the first-year classroom at the Osgoode Hall law school when a class that included the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), Senator Brunt, the late Senator Joseph Bench, Mr. G. R. Boucher, the former member for Carleton, Mr. William Robinson, the former member for Simcoe East, Mr. Frank Flaherty, a member of the press gallery, and myself awaited the arrival of a lecturer in a class on the law of personal property. He when he arrived also was a young looking lecturer. He is today the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Doctor Smith. Students of his learned much from him; I am sure he is capable of teaching us a good deal yet if we are still capable of learning.
This session has now run five weeks, Mr. Speaker. If one were to endeavour to sum up its features I think there are two that would be outstanding. The first has been the ample government program put swiftly before the house in fulfilment of the pledges given to the Canadian people during the election campaign. The second has been behaviour, irresponsible to an unprecedented degree, on the part of those yonder who have been busy heaping upon the government criticism and denunciation and yet in the votes insist on supporting the government with might and main. Their criticism of us has been bitter; they have jeered at us; they have sought to harry us; they have sought to harass us; they have sought to delay us; they have endeavoured to ridicule us.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They have said we are unfit to hold office, Mr. Speaker. If they really mean what they say, then I suggest that their consciences should dictate to them that they should act and vote in accordance with their own words.
The record of the government, sir, in those five weeks has been an exemplary one of promises fulfilled with dispatch. Look at the pensions legislation. Five bills now have met the approval of the house; bills which hon.
1160	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming gentlemen opposite had ample opportunity to introduce to provide for the increases which these bills provide for, but which they did not find it in their hearts to introduce when they were the government and had an ample majority to support them in this house at the last session.
Legislation has been introduced for the benefit of veterans. Cash advances have been provided for farm-stored grain. A measure is on the order paper to give to agriculture the fulfilment of the promise of a new deal for that basic industry of Canada. The government's program for national development, applicable to all parts of Canada, received today a striking measure of fulfilment in the announcement that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made with respect to the financing of the Beechwood project in New Brunswick and the whole power development project that is going to bring very great benefits to the Atlantic area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Liberal program.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) might just as well spare himself the effort of trying to prove that the program which was announced in that behalf today by the Prime Minister is some mere continuation of a program initiated by the former government.
This is not the same kind of program for national development in the Atlantic areas, sir.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Explain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They had their opportunity to do something to assist in the financing of the Beechwood project but they would do nothing in that regard. It remained for this government to come along and to pick up the pieces and to provide a measure of assistance in the financing of that project which we think will bring great benefit to that part of Canada.
And, sir, in the matter of fiscal relations and other relations between the dominion and the provinces, the fact does not yet appear to have penetrated the perception of hon. members opposite that on Monday and Tuesday, the 25th and 26th of this month, there will assemble under this roof a conference of representatives of the dominion and provincial governments in this country.
Now, the hon. member for Twisted-Billingsgate, I think the name was given to the house not long ago-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not even funny the first time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All right; then let's have it Twisted-Billygoat.


George James McIlraith: You should have a little better trend of humour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member, by whatever name he may be called, was indulging in his favourite occupation. I would have thought that by this time the hon. member would have learned something from June 10, but evidently no lesson has yet been learned by him. His whole speech on Tuesday of this week in this house in relation to dominion-provincial relations can be summed up in two words, "Hate Ontario". Now, he ought to know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He ought to know by this time that that same campaign was attempted in the maritime provinces by the Leader of the Opposition in the election campaign and the people of the maritimes responded to it by electing a strong representation of Conservative members to the House of Commons. The people of the maritime provinces knew very well that the man who then headed the Conservative party and today heads this government is not the kind of man who plays favourites with any part of Canada, but at all times recognizes his full responsibilities to all parts of Canada. The hon. gentleman opposite spent his best efforts that day in erecting a straw man and then proceeding to tear him to pieces, to dismember and throw acid on him and finally to set fire to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You do not need acid to set fire to a straw man.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member indeed delved into the realms of fancy, and in his case it was a disordered fancy. I can say to the hon. member, and to all members of this house, that it is not the intention of this government in entering upon that conference a week from Monday and Tuesday, to follow the tactics that were adopted by the former government in its meetings with the representatives of the provinces of this country. We have no intention of laying down any cut and dried, hard and fast program and adopting towards the provinces a take it or leave it attitude; that is not our method. We recognize the important responsibilities which the governments of the provinces bear and we shall, I hope, all of us, sit down together as Canadians, to try to devise understandings that will be of benefit to all parts of Canada.
Sir, five months will have passed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if before the hon. gentleman departs from that subject I might be permitted a question? Can he assure the house the government has no intention

of departing from the principle of equalization now existing in the arrangements with the provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman knows quite well what has been the position taken by this party and by its leader in that respect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If he needs a further reminder, it is on record. If he is not satisfied with that, he will have ample opportunity to hear, during the opening proceedings anyway, a week from Monday, what is said in that regard. The principle of recognizing the needs of the provinces will certainly be vindicated in a much more Canadian manner than was the case under the former government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We shall see.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Next week, on the 21st of this month, this government will have been in office five months. What was the situation to which we fell heir on June 21? One hon. member opposite managed to indulge in a little frankness on the subject. The hon. member for Algoma East, when speaking in this debate, did say that we inherited serious problems when we took office. Those were on our doorstep.
So that there may be no doubt in anyone's mind-I do not pretend that this enumeration is complete-here are but a few of the problems that we inherited:	First, the
heaviest tax burden on the Canadian people in all their history; second, expenditures running at the highest rate in all Canadian history; third, waste and extravagance in government; fourth, a record wheat surplus- what a legacy that was for a new government to inherit at the hands of a government which had neglected the problem!; fifth, the highest trade deficit in Canada's history; sixth, a record deficit of astronomical proportions in our commodity trade with the United States; seventh, the continued loss of the traditional market of the Canadian primary producers in the United Kingdom.


George James McIlraith: That is for farm products?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Eighth, our Canadian trade eggs, under the policy of the former government, placed to a dangerous degree in one basket; ninth, a cost of living that had been rising under the regime of the former government, not just for months but for years; tenth, the highest interest rates in a generation; eleventh, the tightest credit conditions; twelfth, a substantial measure of unemployment, substantially larger than a year before at the same time; thirteenth, dominion-provincial relations in a very disturbed condition with provinces and municipalities up and
The Address-Mr. Fleming down this country, ten provinces and 4,500 municipalities, all complaining about injustices received at the hands of the dominion government; fourteenth, pensions inadequate for our aged persons, for disabled persons, the blind and the veterans; fifteenth, and let this not be forgotten, Mr. Speaker, a public till that was practically empty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the half billion dollar surplus you were talking about?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The surplus the hon. member mentions was not there in cash when we took over; the till was virtually empty. In sixteenth place, just to make sure that their successors would have to pay some of their bills, they left the $100 million to be provided for the Canada Council in this year's accounts instead of taking care of it last year; seventeenth, heavy maturities of dominion government bonds falling due in so short a time that it left little or no opportunity for adjustments and for easy timing in providing payment of these maturities; eighteenth, a capital shortage that was creating financial embarrassment for provinces and municipalities and businesses.
These are but a few of the elements in the heritage that was passed on to this new government at the hands of their self-satisfied predecessors.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister if he has not forgotten something?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not attempted to give a full enumeration at all.


Major James William Coldwell: There is one very important one, and that is the Trans-Canada Pipe Line agreement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Trans-Canada Pipe Line agreement may well be mentioned because it was Her Majesty's loyal opposition last year, represented in this government today, that took its firm stand on that issue and hon. members of the C.C.F. need not be arrogating to themselves any fexclusive credit for the noble fight that was put up over that and the parliamentary issue that arose from it.
Now, sir, let us be judged by our efforts and by our accomplishments in this space of less than five months. Let us be judged as a government by the legislation we have introduced in this house. Let us be judged by our administration. We are content to be judged by those standards. This government has set,
I think, a new record for hard work on the part of ministers,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -led by the example of the Prime Minister. The entry of this new government into office has been like a breath of

The Address-Mr. Fleming fresh air here in Ottawa, sir. It was a breath of fresh air indeed, as those who had occupied the positions of office previously, in the language of the hon. member for Mon'tmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage), those worn out men were not only worn out but driven out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it not true that the air was air conditioned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Speaking of accomplishments, as far as that matter is concerned let me say this, and I think it can be said with reasonable humility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No previous government in Canada's history has accomplished as much in five months for the good of Canada as has this government. I would there were time to review the whole record, Mr. Speaker, but I will take time only to mention a few of the highlights.
On wheat, this great national problem,- not just a western problem but a national problem-we have provided cash advances on farm stored grain and my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) has thrown into sound disposal policies with respect to that wheat an energy which has not been exhibited in that respect for many and many a year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have grappled with the problems of waste and extravagance. We have faced the problems of these government maturities. In the one issue of government bonds that has been marketed since this government came into office, an issue of $700 million last month, the issue was over subscribed and the books were closed within half an hour of the time they opened. The twelfth Canada savings bond campaign was inaugurated several weeks ago. I am happy to report to the house that the sales of series 12 of the Canadian savings bond have, up to November 8, been pushed to the highly gratifying total of $654 million, an increase of 27 per cent over sales at the comparable date last year in respect of the eleventh series.


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the Minister of Finance a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid I will have to ask to be excused from answering a question. My time is limited. I have only a few more minutes and I will have to ask the hon. member to reserve his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Monteith:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here is just a sample of the way in which they try to take up our time. The hon. member knows-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was rising on a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To take up my time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not
mistaken in saying that his time is limited? Is he not replying to an amendment-


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is a vote at 9.30. What are you talking about? Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member, of course, has overlooked the rules. I do not know whether he even knows them. But if he did know them he would know that by the rules this debate must end by 9.30. I should like to deal with questions; ordinarily I welcome them, but at this time, if the hon. member will permit me to do so, I should like to continue with my remarks as I have a good deal of ground yet to cover.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the minister's pardon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Much has been said about inflation. The Leader of the Opposition wound up his speech in this house on October 16 by touching on the dangers of inflation. The amendment which is about to be voted on tonight, and which was introduced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) if you please, calls upon the government to give immediate consideration to the menace of inflation. Mr. Speaker, we have been at all times very mindful of this problem. I am happy to say to you, sir, as I said on a similar occasion several days ago, that the threat of inflation in Canada has now been checked.
Let me give you several proofs. In this house two days ago I referred to the fact that in the past two months interest rates paid by this country on its treasury bills had dropped by 3/10 of one per cent. I am happy to report that in the weekly issue of treasury bills today we have achieved a further reduction which now brings the reduction in the last two months to 4/10 of one per cent. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada rate, for the first time since early last spring, dropped below 4 per cent. With the drop in the rate on treasury bills the bank rate today arrived at the figure of 3.99. It was last February and then briefly in April that that rate crossed the 4 per cent line for the last previous time.
Another feature that bears out the assertion I have made as to the checking of the dangers of inflation comes from New York this afternoon, following the close of

business in the financial houses. The federal reserve bank of New York this afternoon reduced its rediscount rate, which is the counterpart of the interest rate of the Bank of Canada, from per cent to 3 per cent. I may remind the house that the federal reserve bank of New York had increased its rediscount rate just in August from 3 per cent to 3| per cent. Today's reduction is a significant development indeed, Mr. Speaker.
I give another example. It is the strengthening of the market for Canada bonds. The strengthening of the market for our bonds has really been phenomenal in recent weeks. Many of the issues are selling at from four points to six points higher than they were selling two months ago. With this strengthening has come an improvement in the financing opportunities that are open to municipalities, provinces and business. But we are still not satisfied. I do not wish to give anybody the impression that we are satisfied. However, we find these improvements most gratifying indeed, and they fully support the confidence that the government has shown in its own policies in the face of the doubtful heritage it received at the hands of its predecessors.
There is one final matter which I might mention.-I mentioned it in the house two days ago-and that is that the rise in the cost of living, which has gone on literally for years under the former government, has been checked. Two days ago I mentioned that in October the consumer price index rose only from 123.3 to 123.4.
In this list of promises fulfilled and duties discharged by the government let me remind the house of what we did with regard to housing. The tight money policy made its effects felt more severely with respect to house construction than perhaps in any other sector of the Canadian economy, unless it be in its effect on small business and credit to the agriculturalist. Facing that situation and in the due fulfilment of our undertaking given to the Canadian people, we looked at the slow-down in the rate of house construction in this country under the policies that were in effect when we took over, and we provided an additional $150 million for loans for new housing construction. That money has added substantially to the rate of housing starts in Canada in these past three months and will contribute substantially to employment in the winter. That was a courageous action. We took it. Why did not our predecessors take it if they had any regard for the decline in house construction or for employment in this coming winter?
The Address-Mr. Fleming
On the matter of trade, what irks hon. gentlemen opposite is not that we did not fulfil our promises. What irks them is that in the matter of our trade undertakings we have fulfilled our undertakings to the letter. This government had not been in office two days when the Prime Minister left for London and, in London, made the first plea for the holding of a commonwealth trade and economic conference. Then followed the conference at Mont Tremblant and its achievement of unanimity on the part of the commonwealth countries, of which eleven were represented there, in favour of a commonwealth trade and economic conference next year. The plans are going forward and we have reason to hope that the other countries in the commonwealth will accept the invitation of this government as extended to them to hold that important conference in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How many of them have accepted now?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentlemen opposite have sought at every opportunity to jeer at this decision to hold a commonwealth trade and economic conference. Why? I will tell you why; it is not merely because we have done something they could not do, it is because we have done something that they made no effort to do and in which they do not believe. We have listened to their carping criticisms; we have listened to their jeers about our efforts to expand trade within the commonwealth. They do not like the commonwealth. They do not like the idea-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: One was held before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -of expanding trade and economic relations within the commonwealth. If they have some regard for the commonwealth why did they not do something about expanding trade with the commonwealth; why did they not do something about it while the Canadian farmer lost his commonwealth market? And yet they jeer. How they jeer at the declared policy of this government to seek, by reasonable means, to divert to the United Kingdom and commonwealth sources purchases now made in the United States.
The hon. member for Algoma East had some very weasel words to say on this subject. Look at his remarks at page 331 of Hansard. He undertook to say, and oh, how much it hurt him! He criticized what the

The Address-Mr. Fleming
Prime Minister said in declaring his policy in favour of that diversion of trade and then goes on to say:
I do not for one moment suggest that if it could be done by the right method and without doing this country any harm in other ways, it would not be a good thing to do.
Weasel words! Double talk! He exerted his very considerable talents to prove that it could not be done. Give us time and we will prove that diversion is a possibility. It has never been said that this could be done overnight; it has never been said that it could be done in a year or in a year and a half, but it is our policy. It is a policy that, given time and opportunity and the confidence of this house, will be put into effect. Give us the confidence and we will do the job. This diversion will not be accomplished at the expense of the Canadian producer. No, this is a matter of diverting from the United States sources to commonwealth sources purchases that we are now making in the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what you said in Washington.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is exactly what we have said at all times. It is what we said at Washington as well.
I can see that I am not going to be able to finish, Mr. Speaker, but I do wish to say to the hon. member for Essex East who is just now interrupting me that I do hope that although having his overweening ambition directed to a certain event on the 16th of January next he will keep from making any more distorted and untrue statements such as those which have been tumbling from his lips during his public appearances recently.
The hon. member for Essex East deplores what he says is a strange thing "to increase trade by taking business away from our best customer". Who is the best customer? What about the best customer of the United States? How about Canada? Does he want to see Canada go on as it did last year, purchasing in commodity trade from the United States $4,167 million worth of goods while that country bought from us only $2,819 million, for a trade deficit of $1,348 million. Does he like that? He says "hush hush. We must not say anything to offend our best customer." Then there is a deficit on current account; presumably he likes that too. The Canadian deficit on current account with the United States last year was in the amount of $1,640 million and the record of the former government showed a deficit in the international current account of $1 billion in the first six months of 1957. This is part of the heritage to which we fell heir. Well we intend to continue to make the same vigorous presentation of Canada's trading interests and

rights as did those of us who had the honour to represent this government at Washington and who met face to face with the members of the United States cabinet one month ago.
I come now to the matter of the trade mission which will leave for the United Kingdom next month, as announced by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The words which came from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition in his speech in this debate on October 16 will not be forgotten. We heard from him words which belittled the proposal again on October 23, which belittled the efforts of the government in this respect to send a trade mission to the United Kingdom which would seek to increase the flow of trade between these two countries. But he changed his tune-a remarkable change of tune-at the end of last week. You would not have recognized the same man. It was the same voice but it was a different kind of thought behind it.
The trade mission which is going to the United Kingdom next month is the most important trade mission which has ever gone out from this country. Those public spirited men who are the members of the mission and who have so readily and generously responded to the request of the government that they serve in this capacity are giving their services free. The government is paying the expenses but these men are giving their services and I think that what is called for, and deserved on the part of this trade mission and its members and the government that appointed it, is something better than the jeers of the hon. members opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it being 9.30 o'clock p.m. it is my duty pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38 to interrupt its proceedings an i forthwith put the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. LaCroix:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it
ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Essex East rising on a point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; to speak, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Absolutely.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
with all of the applause which the hon. gentleman and I are receiving it is difficult to understand what you are saying. I have now your permission to speak?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will both hon. members please resume their seats? Will the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency resume his seat? Does the hon. member for Essex East rise on a point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; to speak.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I have recognized the member for Quebec-Montmorency to speak on the question which is on the main motion. Now, of course, it is in the disposition of the house-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Gauthier: On a question of privilege, there is a list agreed to by the whips in which the first speaker is a Liberal, the member for Essex East, and I want the hon. member to have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the member rising on a question of privilege. Actually, I have no list and I have no names before me.
Villeneuve (Roberval)
Walker
Winkler
Wratten
Yuill-152.

The Address-Adjournment of Debate


Pierre Gauthier: You have the list.


Mr. Speaker:: I repeat, I have no list with any Liberal name on it and, in any event, I remind members of the house that arrangements between whips are not any part of the official standing orders and while they are followed as a matter of custom I have, in this instance, recognized the member who appeared to me to rise first and that was the member for Quebec-Montmorency.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency rose to ask for an adjournment, to call it ten o'clock, and the hon. member for Essex East is ready to speak now and raised objection to it being called ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order as to who shall be recognized. If hon. members are dissatisfied with the ruling of the chair in selecting one member or another it is always within the power of the house to move that the other member be given the floor, but I have recognized the member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Mr. Cardiff:: On a question of privilege, there was no name from the Liberal side of the house inserted in the list; there is no name from the Liberal side of the house on the printed list.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, has the hon. member permission to call it ten o'clock?


Wilfrid Lacroix: I move the adjournment
of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Moved by Mr. LaCroix,
seconded by-


Some hon. Members:: The hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot).


Mr. Speaker:: -that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay. In my opinion the yeas have it.
On motion of Mr. LaCroix the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George Carlyle Marler: What is the business for tomorrow?


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


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

[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. Fisher: 1.	What was the passenger volume per month of T.C.A. flights into the lakehead and out of the lakehead from June, 1956 to June, 1957?
2.	How many potential passengers out of the lakehead converted their tickets to other travel means or cashed them in during the above-mentioned period?
3.	How many extra T.C.A. flights were set up out of, and into, the lakehead in the above-mentioned period?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	During June, 1956, two Viscount, two North Star and one DC 3 flights were operated daily into the lakehead, these numbers increasing by June 1957 to six Viscount and two DC 3 flights daily-an increase of about 50 per cent. Actual passenger volume figures are not released to the public by the company in this regard as this information would be of advantage to competitive transportation agencies.
2.	To ascertain the number of potential passengers who converted their tickets to other travel means or cashed them in would require lengthy and costly research on the part of T.C.A. all across the country since tickets are refundable at any T.C.A. office across the system while, in addition, many tickets are purchased under the air travel card system which may not be used and then are turned in for credit to the monthly account of the subscriber.
3.	Three Viscount and eleven DC 3 extra sections originated at the lakehead during the period June 1956 to May 1957 inclusive.


CHIGNECTO CANAL
Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): 1.	With respect to the feasibility of the Chignecto canal to link the bay of Fundy with Northumberland strait, what investigation is being carried on in this connection?
2.	What persons are carrying out the complete investigation?
3.	What persons are engaged in investigating (a) the estimated cost of the project; (b) the other economic factors involved?
4.	When is it expected that the investigation will be completed?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1, 2, 3 and 4. A series of economic studies regarding transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces are being carried out by
Questions
officials of the economic branch of the Department of Transport, in consultation with and under the general supervision of an interdepartmental committee composed of senior officials from the various departments interested in this over-all project.
Included in the problems to be studied is the Chignecto canal proposal, but because of limitation of staff it has not yet been found possible to carry forward any intensive investigation of this particular item. When it is reached, of course, full attention will be given to the question of obtaining proper advice, engineering and technical views.


NEWCASTLE-CHATHAM, N.B.  TELEVISION RECEPTION
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Have representations been received from the municipality of Northumberland, New Brunswick, and/or the towns of Chatham and Newcastle, New Brunswick, or other public body, requesting the erection of a T.V. satellite station in the Newcastle-Chatham area of the province of New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what is being done with a view to improving T.V. reception in this area?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


WINDSOR, ONTARIO, AIRPORT RESTAURANT
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Have tenders been called for the operation of a restaurant at Windsor airport?
2.	If so, has a contract been awarded or a concession given for the operation of such a restaurant?
3.	What company or individual has been awarded the contract or concession?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	Proposals were invited from all interested parties for the operation of a restaurant in the new terminal building at Windsor airport.
2.	The offer most favourable to the department was accepted, but the party concerned was compelled on medical grounds to withdraw, and consequently an agreement for the concession was not concluded.
3.	The department has now approached the party which made the next most favourable proposal. In the event that this party is not prepared to proceed, new tenders will be invited for the concession.


FOREST FIRE PROTECTION
Mr. Lesage: 1.	Have any of the provinces signed agreements with the federal government for forest Are protection?
2.	If so, what provinces and what is the date of each agreement?

Questions
Answer by:	Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	Newfoundland, August 9, 1957; Prince
Edward Island, June 26, 1957; Nova Scotia, August 21, 1957; New Brunswick, June 13, 1957; Ontario, June 20, 1957; Manitoba, June 12,	1957; Saskatchewan, June 21,	1957;
Alberta, June 11, 1957; British Columbia, June 17, 1957.


UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Mr. Kirk: 1.	At the present time what is the total number of unemployed registered at the offices of too national employment service (a) in Canada; (b) in each of the provinces; (c) at each office of the national employment service in Nova Scotia; (d) in each national employment service office in Nova Scotia with respect to (i) manufacturing industries; (ii) miscellaneous industries; (iii) primary industries?
2.	What were the figures for each of the above on the comparative date in 1956?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1. The numbers of persons registered for employment at offices of the national employment service on September 19, 1957, the last date for which data have been published, were as follows:
(a)	in Canada, 255,896.
(b)	in each of the provinces:
Newfoundland		 4,756
Prince Edward	Island	 971
Nova Scotia	 10,213
New Brunswick	 10,079
Quebec	 69,227
Ontario	 108,808
Manitoba	 8,295
Saskatchewan		 4,085
Alberta	 9,413
British Columbia	 30,049
(c)	in each	of the local offices in the
province of Nova Scotia:
Amherst	 423
Bridgewater	 426
Halifax	 3,136
Inverness	 248
Kentville	 716
Liverpool	 232
New Glasgow		  1,456
Springhill	 482
Sydney	 1,823
Truro	 625
Yarmouth	 646
(d)	(i), (ii) and (iii): Data are not available with respect to industries.
2. The figures for the comparative date (September 20) in 1956 were as follows:
(a)	in Canada, 158,804.
(b)	in each of the provinces:
Newfoundland		 3,002
Prince Edward	Island	 713
Nova Scotia	 7,146
New Brunswick	 6,399
Quebec	 43,653
Ontario	 68,218
Manitoba	 6,402
Saskatchewan	 2,972
Alberta	 4,646
British Columbia	 15,653
(c)	in each	of the local offices in the
province of Nova Scotia:
Amherst	 281
Bridgewater	 338
Halifax	 2,504
Inverness	 128
Kentville	 483
Liverpool	 162
New Glasgow		 628
Springhill	 127
Sydney	 1,787
Truro	 353
Yarmouth	 355
(d)	data are not available with respect to industries.



HECATE STRAIT


Mr. Lesage: 1.	Has the government reached agreement with the government of British Columbia on the stand it should take in negotiating with the United States the apportionment of waters in Hecate strait and Dixon entrance?
2.	If not, have there been any discussions with the British Columbia government or officials of the British Columbia government on the subject since June 22, 1957?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1 and 2. There have been no further communications from the government of British Columbia on this subject since the exchange of correspondence between July 9 and October 3, 1956.



GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE  CROWN RIGHTS

Mr. Lesage: 1.	Are the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence Canadian waters?
2. If so, are the seabed and subsoil of the gulf of St. Lawrence the property of the crown (a) in the right of Canada; (b) in the right of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland; (c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, what part is respectively within each jurisdiction?

Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	On February 8, 1949, shortly before the union of Newfoundland with Canada, the then prime minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made the following statement (Hansard-p. 368):
We intend to contend, and hope to he able to get acquiescence in the contention that the waters west of Newfoundland constituting the gulf of St. Lawrence shall become an inland sea. We hope that, with Newfoundland as a part of Canadian territory, the gulf of St. Lawrence west of Newfoundland will all become territorial waters of Canada, whereas before there would be only the usual off-shore portion that would thus become part of the territorial waters. Of course that is a matter which is not governed by statutes: it is governed by the comity of nations. It is our intention to assert that position and it is our hope that it will be recognized as a valid contention.
The government sees no reason for departing from the principle enunciated in this statement.
2.	According to international law the seabed and subsoil under the territorial sea is vested in the littoral state. The law officers of the crown have advised that the administration and control of the seabed and subsoil of the territorial sea is vested in the crown in right of Canada.



HUDSON BAY


Mr. Lesage: 1.	Are the waters of Hudson bay Canadian waters?
2.	If so, are the seabed and subsoil of Hudson bay the property of the crown (a) in the right of Canada: (b) in the right of Canada, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec: (c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, what part is respectively within each jurisdiction?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1. Yes. The waters of Hudson bay are Canadian waters by historic title in accordance with the universally accepted international law doctrine applying to historic
Questions
bays. Canada regards as inland water all the water west of a line drawn across the entrance to Hudson strait from Button island to Hatton headland on Resolution island.
2. The law officers of the crown have advised that the control and administration of the seabed and subsoil underlying Hudson bay is vested in the crown in right of Canada.



HUDSON STRAIT


Mr. Lesage: 1.	Are the waters of Hudson strait Canadian waters?
2.	If so, are the seabed and subsoil of Hudson strait the property of the crown (a) in the right of Canada; (b) in the right of Canada and the province of Quebec: (c) if the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, what part is respectively within each jurisdiction?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes, by historic title.
2.	The law officers of the crown have advised that the control and administration of the seabed and subsoil underlying Hudson strait is vested in the crown in right of Canada.



FEDERAL ELECTION COST, 1957

Mr. Christian: What was the cost of the federal election of June 10, 1957?
Answer by:	Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough
(Secretary of State):
Paid for expenses of election
(a)	to October 31, 1957	 $6,931,822
(b)	estimated amount yet
to be paid	 60,000

/


Friday, November 15, 1957