1957-10-18

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Green). In view of what appears to be a tense and dangerous situation on the Syrian-Turkish border, would the government consider instructing their delegation at the United Nations assembly to explore with other delegations, as a matter of urgency, the possibility of stationing elements of the United Nations emergency force on that border in the interests of greater security and the avoidance of aggression?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I agree that this is a very serious situation, and we will be glad to give consideration to what he has said.



COLOMBO PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I
ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker? In view of the fact that one of the ministers without portfolio is now on his way to Saigon in South Viet Nam to attend the meeting of the Colombo plan, and in view of the repeated declarations made in this house by the present Prime Minister as to the inadequacy of Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether or not the minister without portfolio will be announcing that Canada proposes to make substantial increases in its Colombo plan contributions?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is not the type of statement that should be made without some consideration, but we will be making a statement to the house at the earliest opportunity on this question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But will the
minister without portfolio who has now left the house for Asia be making an announcement on the lines I have indicated?


Howard Charles Green: That is the same question
dressed up in a somewhat different form, and my answer is the same as the answer I gave to the first one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I would be correct in saying that the Acting Prime Minister is not aware of the situation.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Essex East would be very incorrect to assume any such thing.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with the transfer to his department of H.M.C.S. Labrador. What physical changes are to be made to this ship, by whom are they to be carried out, and have tenders been called for?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having sent me notice of his question. The answer is that discussions with regard to the arrangements for the transfer of the Labrador from the Royal Canadian Navy to the Department of Transport are still going on, and no decision has yet been taken by my department as to what physical changes to the ship, if any, should be undertaken in this connection. At such time as a decision has been made I will be very glad to give the hon. member the information he seeks.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anioine-Westmount):: Before the minister goes on,
may I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister not make an announcement quite recently that the transfer of the Labrador from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Transport had actually taken place?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is mistaken. The announcement I made was that arrangements were being made between the departments for the transfer, but the transfer was not expected to take place until later on in the year when the arrangements between the two departments had been worked out.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Carlyle Marler: So I take it the minister was misquoted.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, the minister was not misquoted; he was quoted as saying exactly what I am telling the house now.


An hon. Member:: Read the St. John's News.



UNION STEAMSHIP LINES, B.C.   SUBVENTION PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the following question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. Perhaps it could be taken as notice. Has there been any change in policy in respect to payment of a subvention to Union Steamship Lines to carry cargo into the northern ports of British Columbia?


Mr. A. R. MacDonald (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport I will take this question as notice and the information will be supplied as soon as possible.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) asked what progress was being made with regard to the freight equalization program.
The board of transport commissioners is continuing to make progress with the freight rates equalization program. It had submitted an earlier report on action with regard to equalization of class rates. It has now submitted a further progress report regarding equalization of commodity rates. This further report has been forwarded to the governor in council, and I expect that it will shortly be tabled or otherwise made available.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement that class rates are being equalized. Since those rates affect, I understand, only 10 per cent of the traffic, is the government considering any policy different from the one of further discriminatory increases in freight rates which may take place as a result of the present application? Has the government considered any policy different from that of allowing further discriminatory increases?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, these are all matters which are examined by the board of transport commissioners. I have reported to the hon. member the results which have been obtained so far from the examination that is being carried out, and I have given him a full answer to his question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I was inquiring whether the government itself is considering any change in policy, such as that brought about a few years ago by the $7 million subsidy spent on maintaining trackage in northern Ontario. Is the institution of that type of policy being considered?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any plan to encourage discriminatory freight rates. We have always been very much against discriminatory freight rates, and if at any time people in various parts of the country believe that freight rates are discriminatory, they have a perfect right to be heard by the board of transport commissioners in the normal way, and the findings of the board will be examined by the government in due course.



REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN RATES ON GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. While I have not given him notice, there has been an exchange of correspondence between us with regard to this matter. Is the government taking any action at the present time in an attempt to reduce the very discriminatory freight rates on grain moving from the prairie towns to the lakehead?


George Harris Hees: This question, Mr. Speaker, has been and is being considered by the board of transport commissioners, and if there is anything to report to the hon. member in the future I will be glad to let him know.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to take this opportunity to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). He asked if information could be given in connection with the disposal of certain Canadian National waterfront property at Prince Rupert, B.C.

I have been in touch with the management of the railway, who advise that negotiations are at present actively under way, but that final arrangements have not yet been concluded.
[Later:!


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if he could advise me when the negotiations to which he referred between the Canadian National Railways and this other private concern might be expected to be completed?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National Railways have advised me that they will be completed just as soon as possible.



CHIGNECTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) asked who are carrying on studies regarding transportation problems in the Atlantic region, and what is the competence of the people who are carrying out this work.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: That was not the question.


George Harris Hees: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, that was the question, and my answer is that this work is being carried out under the direction of the bureau of transportation economics within my department. The staff engaged in this work are the regular employees of that bureau, employed by the civil service commission in accordance with the normal procedures, and selected because of their competence in dealing with economic and other aspects of transportation matters.
I would like to assure the hon. member that I have the greatest confidence in the competence of those who are carrying out these studies, and if he has any doubt as to their competence I suggest he speak to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) or the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler) under whose direction these men were appointed to carry out this type of work for my department.


George Carlyle Marler: I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the question he was asked related to the Chignecto canal and not to transportation problems in general.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: I am always glad to put the hon. member straight on these matters-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question before the house.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I
should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the answer he has made. Does the government now consider the Chignecto canal project as part of the St. Lawrence seaway, as did the Prime Minister in Saint John, New Brunswick, on May 3 of this year?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the Prime Minister said any such thing.


Mr. Sinclair:: It is hard to keep up with all the promises he made during the election campaign. I do not blame you for not knowing them all.



WELLAND, ONTARIO  INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO RELIEVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I tried to reach him this morning but was unsuccessful, so I could not give him any notice. Has the minister of highways of Ontario approached him regarding federal financial assistance for the relief of traffic bottlenecks across the Welland ship canal in the Niagara district?


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



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I ask this because of the very fine remarks the minister made about the sale of obscene literature when he was in opposition. I am wondering if in his present ministry, when it is within his power to bring in legislation in this parliament, he is going to do so prohibiting the sale of obscene literature.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for his kind remarks and also for having indicated to me yesterday that he was going to raise this matter. In reply I should like to inform him that this question was

Inquiries of the Ministry considered at the recent meeting of the committee on uniformity of laws which met in Calgary just prior to the annual convention of the Canadian Bar Association. They gave consideration to the subject and their consideration raised certain further problems which are now being studied in the Department of Justice.
I can assure the hon. member that I am still as interested and concerned over this matter as ever, and as soon as it is possible to reach a decision and make recommendations I will be happy to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think you are stalling.



CAPITAL AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister in a position to inform the house what action is being taken on the report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries, and also on the Fauteux report? Will any action be taken this session on the introduction of legislation which comes completely within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question is rather a lengthy one and, as I recall it, contains three parts. I will try to deal with it as briefly as I can.
As the hon. gentleman knows, there was no opportunity provided at the previous sessions of the house to take into consideration the report of the joint committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries, and until that is done it is difficult to say just what will be done by the government in that regard.
With respect to the second part of the question regarding the report of the Fauteux commission, I can tell him that this matter is now receiving the exclusive attention of an officer in my department, with a view to preparing what I might call a working paper which will then form the basis of discussions which it is hoped to hold with the provincial attorneys general.
As to the last part of the hon. gentleman's question, I regret that I do not recall the details. However, I will read it in Hansard and give him the answer at the earliest possible opportunity.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, may I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is action going to be taken at this session on those sections which come completely within the purview of the House of Commons and the Senate, dealing with such matters as stamps, the retail trade, the give-aways in the retail trade in various other aspects, having regard to all the reports which are now before you?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, attention is being given to these matters within the department; but I should say it is our feeling that it would be desirable, before introducing any legislation dealing with any of them, to attempt to reach as unanimous agreement as is possible with the provincial officials concerned, and that there is at the moment not too great a unanimity of view in that field. Therefore we are continuing to explore the matter and are not at this time in a position to introduce legislation.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED TRADE MISSION TO U.K.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on the report which came from the Prime Minister's office yesterday to the effect that a 50-man mission may be flown to London on November 22 and might stay there for three weeks. Would the government make a statement on this matter and tell the house whether or not this is a government-sponsored mission and who is going to pay for it?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Well, Mr. Speaker, a full
statement will be made in due course with regard to the proposed trade mission.



NON-STRATEGIC GOODS  EXPORTS TO SOVIET UNION AND COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the interests of increasing our exports of non-strategic goods, has the government taken any action, such as that taken by the United Kingdom and others members of NATO, to remove the differential between the list of prohibited exports to the Soviet union and that of communist China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under review, and when there is anything to announce with regard to government policy, that announcement will be made.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: It is a question of fact that he has asked, not of policy.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question supplementary to the one I asked a moment ago. Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce be kind enough to tell the house whether or not the government is taking any action to remove the differential between the list of prohibited exports to the Soviet union and that with respect to communist China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I know of no action that has been taken recently.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and I trust he has had sufficient notice of my intention to ask it. What steps are being taken to establish offices of the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service in the communities of Terrace, Smithers and Burns Lake?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any notice of this question but if the hon. member wishes me to look into the matter I will have a report prepared.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Further to the Prime Minister's announcement appointing a royal commission on energy and more specifically to paragraph "d" covering details of its terms of reference, will he assure the house and in particular the people of northern Ontario that this will in no way be used either now or in the future by his government to delay the construction of the northern Ontario section of the trans-Canada pipe line, the construction of which is so important to the future development of northern Ontario?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a copy of the order in council before me at the moment but I can assure the hon. member-


John Richard Garland: Section "d" refers to northern Ontario.


Howard Charles Green: -that we are just as anxious as he is to have the trans-Canada pipe line completed.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah.


Mr. Harkness:: We always were.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Would he please advise the house if the contract for the construction of the administration building at Joyceville penitentiary has been let to date?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, and in reply I should inform him that tenders for the construction of the administration building have been invited, with a closing date for submitting tenders of October 30.


William James Henderson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister please rush the matter along to alleviate unemployment in the locality during the winter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that construction may be expected to commence as soon as a contract has been let.



PENTICTON, B.C.-PROPOSED NEW FEDERAL BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct three questions to the Minister of Public Works. I have given him notice of these questions. Have any steps been taken by the government to purchase land in the city of Penticton, British Columbia, for the purpose of constructing a proposed federal building thereon? If so, what has been done? When does the government anticipate the construction of such federal building will commence? To what specific use or uses will the building be put?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having sent me notice of these questions. The answers are that the department
128	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry is at present investigating suitable sites. It is expected that construction will be started in 1960. The building will provide accommodation for the Department of National Revenue, income tax division; agriculture; citizenship and immigration; veterans affairs, and the unemployment insurance commission.



QUEBEC CITY-INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF NEW POSTAL TERMINAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monfmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the government to proceed as soon as possible in connection with the construction of a postal terminal in Quebec?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency has not read the answer I gave to his question yesterday.
The difficulty is that the Department of Public Works has acquired a site and that site was approved by the municipal authorities of Quebec city with the exception of a planning board which apparently has certain overriding powers in that city.
When that situation arose an attempt was made to have the city acquire the site on which they wished to have the post office erected and then bring about an exchange of the two properties, but the proposed site which the city prefers is owned in part by the Canadian National Railways and I believe the C.N.R. station is located on that property. As yet the city and the Canadian National Railways have not been able to come to terms, and for that reason the Department of Public Works is held up and is unable to proceed with the construction of the building.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Are any plans being made for the immediate release through the film councils across Canada of the film covering Her Majesty's visit to Ottawa?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have not the latest reports on this matter but my understanding is that plans are being made for the release of the film as soon as possible. A review is being made of the


script which will accompany the film. I understand the interest of the hon. gentleman, which will be shared, of course, by all the people of Canada. I can assure him that the release will be arranged for at the earliest possible date.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Through the film councils?


Mr. Fulfon:: I will note the hon. member's interest.



REFERENCE TO ALLEGED SHORTAGE IN AUSTRALIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware of the grain shortage in our sister commonwealth nation of Australia? If so, has anything been done to assist in the sale or barter of Canadian wheat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have heard that drought conditions are affecting the agricultural areas of Australia but I do not quite follow the hon. member in the latter part of his question. I did not get the significance of it. Perhaps he would like to repeat the latter part of his question.


Louis Harrington Lewry: I was wondering whether the government is doing anything to assist the commonwealth of Australia in getting rid of the drought?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we have not entered into the rain-making business yet, but perhaps the hon. member has some suggestion along that line.
[Later:f


Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Speaker, may I follow up my first question in connection with the grain shortage in Australia and ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the government will at this time accept so-called soft currency to overcome the Australian shortage of wheat and our surplus of wheat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know how this would help Australia, if that is what the hon. member has in mind. They will be able to market all the wheat they have at their disposal. We have no trade with Australia in wheat.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the statement he

made yesterday regarding hog cholera in the Leamington district. Has there been any importation of pork into Canada from the United States and, if so, in what form? Does the United States hog producer use live serum for the control of cholera in that country?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I will take these several questions as notice and produce an answer at the earliest possible moment.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question supplementary to the one I asked the other day. At what price is the government selling butter held in government storage to the trade at present?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether the hon. member would repeat his question. I did not get the significance of it.


Jacob Schulz: At what price is the government now selling butter held by it to the trade?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not able to hear the hon. member. I will take note of his question in Hansard and answer it on Monday.



SOYBEANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.k Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell the house whether the government intends to provide adequate storage space for soybeans? My question arises from a communication directed to me by the Ontario soya-bean growers' marketing board.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation with regard to the large crop of soybeans. The matter is being considered, and the hope is that adequate storage facilities will be available.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   DIRECT TAXES AND SUBSIDIES-POSITION OF QUEBEC GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Breton (Joliette-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. As he is an official representative for the province of Quebec in the cabinet, in view of the federal-provincial 96698-9
Inquiries of the Ministry conference on fiscal relations that will be held next month can he tell us if he agrees with the well-known opinions of the Quebec government on matters relevant to direct taxes and subsidies?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Poslmasier General):: Mr. Speaker, I have too much respect for the constitution to consider that I am any more an official representative from the province of Quebec than any one of the other 74 members from that province who have been elected by the people.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: There are not many in the government.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Nor, on the other hand, do I feel that it is proper for me to comment in this house in the way requested on the policy of a provincial government.
(Translation):


Maurice Breton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Solicitor General a question?
When sitting in the opposition the hon. Solicitor General has, on various occasions, given expression to the well-known thought that federal subsidies are unconstitutional. The opinion which he voiced then was shared in every way by the government of the province of Quebec. In view of the proposed federal-provincial meeting on fiscal matters, could he tell us now if he will oppose the subsidies which his government seems to be preparing at this time?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. friend that I am still opposed to subsidies such as were proposed by the former government. As to his question, it seems to be a hypothetical one, but I am-


An hon. Member:: A political one-


Léon Balcer: And a political one, yes. I want to tell him that the proposals of the federal government are not yet known, but I am convinced that they will be made on a very different basis from those of the former government.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Careful now'
Don't go too far!
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask the leader of the government if the Solicitor General was correctly interpreting government policy when he foreshadowed an abandonment of

Inquiries of the Ministry the equalization grant, as he did in the answer he gave to the hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm?


Léon Balcer: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, although he is fluent in French, should brush up on it a little more, because he has not properly interpreted my answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. gentleman not say-I am directing this question to him-that the grants that were going to be proposed by his government would be different from those that had been proposed by the former Liberal government?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: That is right.


Léon Balcer: My answer was that the propositions of the federal government have not been formulated as yet, but I am sure they are going to be based on a different attitude toward the provinces from that of the last government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the most important question that has yet been brought before the house. I have a supplementary question which I would like to address to the leader of the government.
I feel that-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I ask the leader of the government, is there any intention whatsoever on the part of the federal government to substitute something else for the equalization grants?


Howard Charles Green: Well now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member for Twillingate-Bona-vista-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Bonavista-Twillingate.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, Bonavista-Twillingate-he is all twisted up anyway. I suggest that he has already had his answer from the Solicitor General and he should know better than anybody else in this house that announcements of policy will be made in due course by the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite satisfied with that answer.
(Translation):


Maurice Breton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys? The stand taken by the Quebec government being well known in connection with direct taxation and subsidies

granted the provinces by the federal government, could he tell us whether, as the official representative of our province, he concurs in the opinions of the Quebec government about these matters?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) for giving me notice of this question. I believe it is not appropriate, in view of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference, to answer this question or to express my opinion on this matter.
(Text):



DISPOSITION OF SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Breton: I have another question I should like to ask the Postmaster General. Since the government has disposed of the simultaneous translation system that was installed in the house for the benefit of the universal postal union, can the minister tell us to whom it has been sold and at what price?


William McLean Hamilton: I should thank the hon. member for having given me notice of both his questions, which notice arrived just a moment ago. The simultaneous translation system which was installed in the house was developed and built by the Department of National Defence. It was installed in the House of Commons by that department, used for the purposes of the universal postal congress, and then taken back by the Department of National Defence which at all times retained ownership and possession of it. My understanding is that it is the intention of that department to retain it and keep it available for such conferences as it might be needed for.
If I may add one word, Mr. Speaker, because I have had comments and questions from several of the members, it should be pointed out that the simultaneous translation system which was installed in the house for the universal postal congress was on a temporary basis only and was for many reasons not suitable for permanent installation.


Maurice Breton: A supplementary question-


Hon. Leon Baker (Solicitor General):: Perhaps I can answer part of the hon. member's question. At the present time a committee is being set up to study the possibility of installing a simultaneous translation system in the House of Commons.


Maurice Breton: May 1 ask a supplementary question. The Postmaster General just said a system had been installed by the Department of National Defence, and an estimate made in March of last year of $30,000-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Order paper; question No. 18.
(Translation):


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. From the answer he gave a moment ago, I understand that the government proposes to give special consideration to this matter of simultaneous interpretation. He told us a committee had been formed to study the matter. I would like to know when this body was set up and who are its members.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the original plan was to keep the simultaneous interpretation system which had been set up in this house for the universal postal congress. It was discovered that this system, having been used for simultaneous interpretation in four languages, was far too cumbersome and required the setting up of cabins for the interpreters. We therefore concluded that it would be impractical-


Hector Dupuis: Do it with part of the $500 million you intend to save.


Léon Balcer: -and could not adequately provide for a perfect simultaneous translation service. We have therefore decided to appoint a committee which I believe will be made up of the Speaker, representatives of the various parties and representatives of the departments concerned. I cannot say at this time who the members of the committee will be nor when their report will be ready, but you can be assured that instructions have been given to appoint a committee.


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken,-it can be checked in Hansard tomorrow-the Solicitor General stated that a committee had been appointed. Well then, he did not answer my question, because I asked him when that committee had been appointed and who were its members.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the committee has been appointed or will be appointed shortly. The order has been given but unfortunately I am not aware of the choice made of the members of the committee. Moreover, I am not the one who has given the order- 96698-94
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Dupuis: When a person does not know about something, that person should not talk about it.
(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has any action been taken with respect to the request of the printing bureau employees for a wage boost?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: I am afraid I do not understand the hon. member's question. I do not have a request in that form.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did
the Secretary of State not receive a request from the printing bureau employees to meet with her to discuss this matter?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Better see the Postmaster General.



INCREASE IN SALARIES OF TEMPORARY STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, or his parliamentary assistant or any suitable minister. Will the increase which was granted to the permanent staff of the House of Commons be granted also to the temporary staff? Has it been approved and will it be retroactive?
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of
State): I believe this is a matter under the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: Oh, no.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, yes.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. gentlemen will permit me a word I would like to reply in particular to the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard). The Speaker is not ordinarily asked questions and does not ordinarily make answers; nevertheless I understand the hon. member's question related to the increases in pay for the temporary sessional employees.


Mr. Richard (Ollawa East):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I can tell hon. members that increases corresponding to the other general increases are being attended to.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can he tell us whether any studies have been made by the department to determine the possible effect of the purchase of Dosco by A. V. Roe on the Nova Scotia coal and steel industry?


Paul Comtois: I shall take note of the question and an answer will be given at the first opportunity.


Mr. Robichaud:: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister not aware of the situation?



DISPOSITION OF DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS IN INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would
like to address a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister tell us the progress of the high level discussions between Canada and the United States with respect to the disposition of downstream benefits in the international waterways; that is to say, the whole of the international waterways?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view
of the importance of this matter to the people of Canada I would like to make it very clear that at this time, in the public interest, there will be no statement from the government.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The order in council sets out
the terms of reference and


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -refers to the international
joint commission relating to waters crossing the international boundary and the development of electrical energy therefrom. I would like to ask the minister whether these negotiations are being transferred back to the international joint commission or are they remaining on the high diplomatic level on which they were.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the supplementary question I would like to say that there will be a statement by this government, not at this time, but that the statement will give all the answers and information which it is necessary for the people of Canada to know with regard to these discussions.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The country is definitely interested in this question and I would like to ask that at least on Monday or Tuesday the minister be in a position to tell us whether or not the negotiations have been transferred back to the international joint commission. This is a very important question, and does not require any study.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport inform the house if surveys are going on at the present time in regard to the construction of a railroad from the province of Alberta to the south shore of Great Slave lake in the Northwest Territories?


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



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF CONTROLLER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but since he is not in his seat perhaps his parliamentary assistant would take it as notice. Has the Minister of Transport given any thought to the appointment of a transport controller with the authority and responsibility of seeing that there is an equitable distribution of box cars in western Canada at all times?


Angus Ronald Macdonald: Speaking on behalf of the minister I will take the question as notice and advise that a reply will be forthcoming as soon as possible.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, notice of which has been

given. Have representations for the establishment of a highway sufferance warehouse in the city of Red Deer been received by the minister? Has a decision been rendered, and if so what was the nature of that decision?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice. The answer is: Yes, the establishment of a highway sufferance warehouse has been approved in principle, pending submission of warehouse plans by the applicant for final approval.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Is a thorough investigation into fee-spreading or "kick-back" now under consideration or is any action being taken because of disclosures recently made and the income tax return manipulations by certain persons in a certain section of the medical profession?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have had no notice of this question and I would like to get the full import of it, but if I understand the general import it would imply a disclosure of information with respect to the affairs of taxpayers which, of course, would be contrary to public policy and which I would not consider.


James Sinclair: It has all been in the papers, names and all.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
for 1956-57
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. How many people are registered as unemployed in Montreal? Could I also, perhaps, have the comparative figures for the same period last year?


Michael Starr: I will take the hon. member's question as notice and get the information for him.



R.C.A.F. DEPOT, MONCTON    REQUEST FOR INCREASES IN PAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or to his parliamentary assistant. Perhaps the question
Inquiries of the Ministry could be taken as notice. Will the government consider an increase in the rates of pay for labourers and mobile equipment operators and mechanics at No. 5 R.C.A.F. depot in Moncton, New Brunswick?
Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, we will take that question as notice.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is it the intention of the government at this session to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to extend the benefits of unemployment insurance to farm employees?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Because of the shortness of this session and the great deal of consideration that must be given to the study of this act there is no intention to have the act reopened during this brief session of parliament.


George Carlyle Marler: Who said it was going to be short?


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. I noticed he used the words "shortness of this session". Does the minister not agree that parliament and only parliament determines the length of a session, or is the minister aware of any plan on the part of the government to obtain dissolution at a certain date? If so, will he tell us what that date is?


Mr. Speaker:: That hardly appears to me as a question which is asking for information.



EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF BENEFITS TO UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc). Is it the intention of the minister or his department to extend the period of benefits to the unemployed under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, that matter is being given serious consideration by the unemployment insurance commission. As soon as we have a report the government will decide what action to take in that matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry
NORTHERN AFFAIRS	HEALTH INSURANCE



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of a report by his department concerning the serious depletion of the caribou population in the Northwest Territories. Of course this report substantiates the warning I gave this house over a year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You will get the question. This report stated-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: This report stated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his question.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I would like the minister to tell me if it is true, as this report stated, that restrictions against the hunting of this animal by native Indians and Eskimos were being considered by his department, because I am sure-


William McLean Hamilton: You
have asked the question; now stop.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am sure it is not a question of this department ruling on it in any event, because it is the function of the Northwest Territories council, but should the council pass legislation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is very interesting information that the hon. member is giving the house, but as I understood it his purpose in rising was to ask a question.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, I just got to my question. Should the Northwest Territories council pass legislation restricting the hunting of this animal by Indians and Eskimos, could the minister advise me what ways and means are being considered to supply these people with meat?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's hypothetical question I would like to suggest that we will wait until that circumstance arises.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister consider that waiting until legislation is passed by the Northwest Territories council is going to solve the problem of feeding these people when it does happen?


Some hon. Members:: Order.
IMr. Starr.]



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since he assumed his portfolio on August 19-


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: August 22.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since August 19 when the Prime Minister announced that the minister would be given the portfolio, which I understand he assumed on August 22, have there been any discussions between the government of Manitoba and the minister with respect to the possibility of that province coming into the national hospital insurance plan? If so, what is the status of those discussions at the present time?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There have been no discussions, Mr. Speaker. There has been some correspondence between my department and the minister of health of Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister be prepared to table copies of that correspondence?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, providing I have the approval of the provincial government involved.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) directed the following question to me:
Can the minister now assure the house that there are no instances of heads of crown corporations being at the same time directors of private companies or corporations?
The answer is that in so far as the heads of those crown corporations which report to parliament through me as Minister of Trade and Commerce are concerned, there is one who is also a director of a private corporation.
Dr. C. J. Mackenzie is president of the atomic energy control board. He was formerly the president of the national research council and president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. After relinquishing his duties as president of these two organizations, and before he was appointed president of the

atomic energy control board, he accepted a directorship with Canadian Chemical and Cellulose Company. He receives no pay whatever from the atomic energy control board.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence in view of his statement appearing at page 37 of Hansard for October 16, to the effect that in the training period for the non-permanent militia starting October 1 emphasis will be given to civil defence. May I ask the minister whether literature, directions for courses of study, equipment and instructions have been provided to the militia to carry on its training to date with emphasis on civil defence?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The annual training instruction to which I referred described in general terms the type of training which was to be carried out by the militia in connection with the civil defence duties; in particular, it laid down that certain staff discussions would take place with civil authorities. It directed that study should be given to the application of corps training to civil defence requirements, and also that there should be mobile support group exercises. Beyond that, there has been a block syllabus of some 60 periods based on the civil defence precis which have been issued. Furthermore military publications dealing with first aid, traffic control and radiation monitoring have been issued. I think that covers in general the publications which have been issued. These will be followed up by further instruction as the training proceeds.
Regarding equipment, no special equipment has been issued as yet to army units. This matter is under consideration with the civil defence authorities, who in the past have been responsible for the issue of such equipment.
A large number of militia officers have attended the civil defence college at Arnprior over a considerable period of time. It is hoped that it will be possible to step up the attendance at these courses by other militia officers, non-commissioned officers and men.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
fishermen's UNION On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Yesterday the hon. member for Comox-Al-berni (Mr. Barnett) asked the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Fisheries whether he had taken any steps to terminate the investigation into the affairs of the united fishermen and allied workers' union of British Columbia by the combines investigation branch. The Minister of Fisheries promised a reply today, and since the combines branch is under my department he asked me to reply.
The investigation referred to is an investigation into the production, purchase and sale of fish in the province of British Columbia, which was commenced by the director under the Combines Investigation Act as the result of a formal complaint under the act. The matter has been the subject of considerable previous discussion in the house, particularly between the hon. member who asked the question yesterday and my predecessor in the former government.
The position is that no steps have been taken by the minister to terminate the investigation because, under the present legislation, the minister has no authority to direct that an investigation be discontinued. The terms of the act require that the director in such a case as this:
. . . shall cause an inquiry to be made into all such matters as he considers necessary to inquire into with the view of determining the facts.
Such an inquiry then proceeds until, again in the words of the act:
. . . the director is of the opinion that the matter being inquired into does not justify further inquiry-
-or until the inquiry culminates in a written report by the restrictive trade practices commission to the minister. The minister himself, by the legislation, is given no authority to terminate the investigation.


James Sinclair: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister regarding the investigation by the combines branch into the activities not just of the fishermen's union but of the fishing industry as well in British Columbia. I appreciate the position taken by the minister that he cannot interfere, but can he ask the director of combines to speed up the investigation, since it has now dragged on for over a year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in that connection I should advise the hon. gentleman that although the formal application was received in November, 1955, the inquiry had to wait several months to be placed on the agenda. After it was so placed the union brought action for an injunction which had the effect of delaying the investigation further. Then the selection of a time for calling witnesses which would not interfere unduly with the fishing season caused further delay, and as a result witnesses are being called before the restrictive trade practices commission this month in Vancouver.
136	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 17, 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. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: watched events in the house yesterday with a great deal of interest. As a matter of fact, as I sat patiently through the whole day waiting to begin my speech one of the things that struck me was this. On Wednesday last the Prime Minister stated that he would introduce legislation to do away with closure in this house. I may say at once that I think under some circumstances a government has the right to use closure. Under circumstances that existed in the summer of 1956 that right, or that privilege, was abused, but I believe in straightforward closure when justified.
I do not want to see this house gagged indirectly. Yesterday two ministers gagged this house. When the Minister of Transport rose to answer quite a proper question from the opposition side of the house I saw the Minister of Finance gesture and order the Minister of Transport to sit down and not answer that legitimate question. I also saw my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) questions that were perfectly legitimate and which he should be able to answer after two months in office as minister, and I saw the Minister of Finance order that minister to remain silent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nonsense.


Major James William Coldwell: Last night I rose to discuss a matter of important business and the Minister of Public Works immediately rose in an attempt to gag me from following that course.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar well knows I rose on a point of order. Every time a person rises on a point of order is he to be considered as attempting to gag somebody? I suggest that is not in line with the usually very fair comments made by the hon. member.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say this-


Howard Charles Green: I raised the point of order simply because I thought it was my duty to do so, and I am sure the hon. member will accept that statement.
TMr. Fulton.)


Major James William Coldwell: May I say this to the minister. He has been in the house as long as I have been here, 22 years. He knows the rules of the house; he knows that a point of order should not be raised on a matter which is not before a court of record. That is my point, but I take his explanation. I thought he was trying to stop me from following up a matter which the government does not want brought before the house at this time.
Yesterday at the conclusion of my remarks I began to discuss the trans-Canada pipe line. I want to make it very clear that I am in favour-and so is my party-of transporting gas from the gas fields of Alberta, or anywhere else, to the users in eastern Canada or anywhere else, provided it is done in the public interest, in the interest of the consumers as well as in the interest of those who produce the gas wherever it may be found. We are in favour of that.
I raise the question of the trans-Canada pipe line today because that pipe line will remain the property of the people of Canada for a long period of time. It is being constructed, it is being paid for by the Canadian people and then leased. We objected to the lending of money to a private corporation to build the first leg of the pipe line as far as Winnipeg, and I think the government still has the right and should exercise it to expropriate that leg of the pipe line which the people of Canada financed. At the time the Conservative party agreed that the people of Canada were financing it for a private and very largely alien-controlled corporation.
The profits that accrue from that public utility should accrue to the people of Canada and not to any group of private promoters who, as late as February of 1957, were described by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) as "buccaneers". When he was somewhat taken to task in the house by the then minister of trade and commerce, Right Hon. C. D. Howe, he defined what he meant by "buccaneers" when he used the word. I find the definition he gave at page 1607 of Hansard of February 25, 1957, and it is in these words:
A buccaneer is one who reaps a piratical profit without any danger or fear to himself. It is in that sense that I use the expression.
But the present government apparently is quite content to allow men whom the Prime Minister described as buccaneers to reap a piratical profit. They have already reaped huge profits without any danger or fear to themselves.
I said last night that while I welcome the appointment of a royal commission 1 deplore the fact that it now appears quite evident

that the government's intentions and, indeed, the Conservative party's sincerity in June, 1956, can be questioned. Their whole attitude in that debate can be questioned unless they take action to prevent these buccaneers from reaping the profits that will accrue because of the expenditures made by the government and the people of Canada.
What did the Prime Minister say in that debate? He said a lot of things. I have the Hansards here. When he spoke in the debate on May 17, 1956, he said, as found at page 4032 of Hansard:
The perquisites here-
I think that must be a typographical error. I think the word should be "prerequisites" and not "perquisites". I continue:
-are that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should abdicate his belief in democratic principles and deny those in opposition the right to advance their arguments and to educate public opinion or to find out why there is such solicitude on the part of the members of this government. For five long years this pampered pet-
This is what the present Prime Minister said.
-Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, by deviation, by change of direction, by protestation, by alteration in course, has postponed that estimable end of securing a market for Alberta gas and the making available to other parts of Canada of that necessary form of energy. I ask the Prime Minister today to tell this house why he is so fearful of the facts; why he was afraid to allow the true facts of this nefarious scheme to be elucidated? I ask why he found it necessary, and the members of his government found it necessary, to muzzle the representatives of the people in advance of anything in the nature of a filibuster or an interference on the part of the opposition with the policy and program of the government. I ask him to explain that today, for certainly the day of silence is past. Are they afraid of the truth over there? Is that why they hide behind the caricature of parliament which they have substituted by the adoption of the parliamentary form of closure in a way that it has never been adopted before?
A caricature of parliament, a nefarious deal. I ask the government today if the Prime Minister stated the opinion of his party at that time when he said this was a nefarious deal. If he did state their opinion the facts which brought him to that opinion are facts that are there today; and if the facts are as he believed and indicated them to be, then the present government should not allow Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to operate the line across northern Ontario. Indeed, they should go further than that. They should restore to the people of Canada ownership and control of that portion of the pipe line which was alienated from the people of Canada by money provided by this parliament. That is their clear duty.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) spoke at some length regarding this same proposition. I am not going to quote him at 96698-10
The Address-Mr. Coldwell the great length I have quoted the Prime Minister. As found at page 3955 of Hansard of May 15, 1956, the Minister of Public Works said:
I conclude my remarks by this statement, and I make it after careful consideration. I believe that this measure now proposed by the government is the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people since confederation.
What is he doing about it now? If he believes that this was the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people since confederation then he should restore to the people the utility with regard to which he says the former government betrayed the trust of the people of Canada. That is the clear duty of the Minister of Public Works, particularly in the capacity in which he now finds himself.
Then we have the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This will be good.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, it is a very short quotation and is to be found at page 3935 of Hansard of May 15, 1956. He referred to the trans-Canada pipe line as "this infamous proposal". Infamous proposal. Now the government is apparently quite content to go along with this nefarious deal, with this group of buccaneers, and to carry out this infamous plan, this infamous proposal. I say that if they do so there has never been a greater betrayal of the Canadian people by a government than the betrayal that the present government of Canada contemplates.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that one can question their sincerity. How they made the halls across this country ring. How television portrayed the Prime Minister denouncing the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines deal, denouncing the destruction of parliament because of the manner in which it was done. I say that unless they rectify the situation they will have done more to destroy parliament than even the previous government did, because they will have betrayed the trust that the people of Canada had in them when they elected them on June 10. Again, the Minister of Finance had this to say a little later, as found at page 4694 of Hansard of June 5, 1956:
Well, sir, it seems now we are narrowed down to a choice between two courses, the government's iniquitous proposal to hand over to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited great sums of public money to help them out and public construction of the entire line.
Apparently the present government is quite willing to go ahead and finance, by public money, the construction of the entire line in northern Ontario, which has just begun and which the present Minister of Finance described as an iniquitous proposal. He will be the minister controlling the finances of this country. He will make the necessary

The Address-Mr. Coldwell financial arrangements in order that the iniquitous proposal can be carried out. Was there anything more insincere than that?
Then the Prime Minister spoke on May 29, 1956, at page 4423 of Hansard for that date. He said:
What have you been doing for five long years? Playing around with this corporation, with these adventurers from Texas and New York trading away Canada's natural resources at the expense of the Canadian people.
This is the Prime Minister of the present government which has the power to prevent this being done. Are they going to use that power, or are they going to betray the Canadian people to the adventurers from Texas and New York, the buccaneers as the present Prime Minister called them on one occasion? At one time he referred to the pipe line proposal as "this ramshackle caricature of national development". Yet he and his colleagues have the nerve to set up a royal commission to inquire into this ramshackle caricature of national development, under the guise that this is part of the Conservative policy on national development which they tried, and probably successfully, to sell to the people of Canada prior to June 10.
There is another aspect of this with which I intended to deal last night. Perhaps I would not have put on the record today just what I have put on the record if it had not been for the interruptions in my address last evening. I am thinking of government action to prevent the promoters of pipe-line companies from making millions of dollars at the expense of the public of Canada. Of course, they have already made many millions of dollars by having allotted to them promotion shares, about which the people knew nothing and about which this parliament knew nothing, at prices that were so small. Perhaps it is already too late to catch the real culprits in this matter. Certainly it will be even later if the government waits for the many months or years it may take the royal commission to make its report.
Those of us who know the history of the North American continent remember that in the early years of the oil and railway industries the robber barons, as they called them, built up for themselves huge fortunes. We are allowing a few people in this country, and their friends across the line, to follow the examples of these robber barons. The government, which shared these views with me and those associated with me, are now in the seats of power and are apparently prepared to betray the Canadian people to these robber barons or these buccaneers, as the Prime Minister referred to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I understood him correctly the hon. gentleman said there were promoters of this enterprise who were able to buy stock at prices about which this parliament was never told. I am sure the hon. member does not recall-I am asking him if he does not recall-that his seat mate pointed out that this information was in a return which was made to this house before this measure was ever voted upon?


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend and seat mate pointed out that that return was available ten months later, when he raised the matter on the floor of this house in February of this year. As a matter of fact I went through the documents in connection with this whole deal very carefully. I went into the agreement, which was never attached to the bill as an appendix, as it should have been.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was tabled in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: It was tabled in the house; quite right. I managed to get a mimeographed copy of it, but some of the members of the house never saw the agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This was all in the agreement, was it not?


Major James William Coldwell: No, it was not in the agreement. I can say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes, it was.


Major James William Coldwell: However, I am not going to argue with my hon. friend at the moment. I am arguing with the new government of Canada, so allow me to argue with them.
I want to take a look at a few of these people to whom reference was made in connection with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. There was another outfit which was headed by a gentleman named McMahon. Those of us who were in the house will remember the name McMahon. Mr. McMahon was to have been the chosen instrument of the Conservative party if some of their front bench members had had their way. I said at the time that I agreed that Mr. McMahon's operations certainly did not recommend him to parliament and the people of Canada. I think that is quite right. For example, let us see what he has done with the Westcoast Transmission Company. Let me say that when I first made these computations some months ago the results, of course, were very much higher than they were yesterday when the computations were revised, because there has been a significant fall in the stock market

during the last three months. However, even revising these figures at present stock prices, the profits made by Mr. McMahon and his associates are still enormous, just as the profits made by the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines interests were enormous. May I add that these shares were very largely unloaded at high prices on smaller investors in Canada and elsewhere. They have seen their investments diminish in value since.
I am quite happy that my colleagues, during last session, were able to prevent the splitting of the shares of Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company because, had the company been able at that time to split the shares which were then worth $124 five ways, making them worth approximately $25 each, the people today would find they had shares valued at less than $12, because yesterday the shares were selling at $58. Hon. members will recall that the president of Westcoast Transmission was Mr. Frank McMahon, the favourite of the Conservative party in June, 1956. Mr. McMahon was in a very fortunate position throughout these operations. He was an insider. He was able to obtain the common stock of this company at a special price, indeed at only 5 cents- make no mistake-5 cents a share for stock that was offered to the public at $5 a share and which today is selling at $27.50.
He bought 155,000 shares at that price of 5 cents. These cost him in the neighbourhood of $7,700, and for that investment he acquired an equity worth over $4 million. I repeat, an investment of $7,700 at 5 cents a share brought $4 million of equity.
In addition the same Mr. McMahon, whom some members of the Conservative party would have brought into the picture in preference to Mr. Tanner and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Coates, was granted options on 200,000 additional shares to be purchased at any time before January 31, 1960, at $6 per share. This stock is now selling, as I have said, for $27.50. In other words he could invest a part of the tremendous capital gain he has already made, even under present comparatively depressed prices, to realize a further capital gain today in excess of another $4 million. Surely it does not take a royal commission to establish the vicious exploitation by these robber barons of the Canadian people which is taking place in the gas and oil industry.
I say it is the duty of this parliament to protect the people of Canada from exploitation and raids of this description, and the present government has taken office because many of the people in Canada believed that 96698-10J
The Address-Mr. Caldwell this government would do just that. Now it is clearly prepared to betray the Canadian public in this regard.
This kind of thing is something that has happened in any pipe line company that one might name. I referred to the West-coast Transmission Company Limited. Mr. McMahon is not the only person to make tremendous capital gains on this company's stock. For an initial investment of something like $20 million the stockholders of this company acquired shares now worth $125 million, or a capital gain of $105 million. I will just mention also Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, which stock originally sold for $54 million and is already worth $124 million, or another capital gain of $80 million.


An hon. Member:: Tax free.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, of course, tax free; and I am dealing, with the stock that was sold to everybody. I am not talking about Mr. Tanner's options or Mr. Coates' options and I am not, in another field, talking about some of the stock that sold in some other companies at four-fifths of a cent to insiders, out of which they have made hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am talking about shares that have been put on the market since. There is Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, to which I referred a moment ago. The stock purchased in this company by a few large United States corporations at $10 per share is now selling at $59. In other words the value of the stock has climbed from $15 million to $89 million, or another capital gain of $74 million. There is the case also of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, where the stock was originally sold for $44 million and now has a market value of $192 million, or a capital gain of $148 million. I am using the current price of the stock, not the high prices at which a lot of this stock changed hands, from the promoters to the public, until the drop last July.
Now, to take a couple of smaller companies like the Alberta Gas Trunk Line which owns lines in the province of Alberta gathering the natural gas for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, the stock here sold for a total of approximately $13 million and is now worth about $33 million, or a capital gain of $20 million.


Frederick George Hahn: To the people of Alberta.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not complaining about the little fellow getting any of this; I am complaining about the great big fellows.


Frederick George Hahn: But he is the one who got it.


Major James William Coldwell: I am fair-I am fair-

The Address-Mr. Coldwell


Frederick George Hahn: In principle it was the little fellow who got it.


Major James William Coldwell: I say that the thing to have done would have been to make this available to all the people of Alberta, even those who had no spare dollars to invest, and give them an opportunity of receiving a return on what was called by Mr. Aberhart their cultural heritage.


Frederick George Hahn: That is what they did this year.


Major James William Coldwell: -which they have been alienating-


Hazen Robert Argue: Twenty-two dollars.


Frederick Davis Shaw: How much did Saskatchewan pay?


Major James William Coldwell: -which they have been alienating to promoters almost ever since they took office, under false pretenses, in 1935.


Mr. Low:: While you are at it, why don't you tell the house about your cement company in Saskatchewan?


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly I will. 1 do not want to interrupt what I am saying to do that, but I am going to say that the Saskatchewan cement company bonds, which were guaranteed by the province, required that that company pay 2 per cent for the guarantee of those bonds, and the government was adequately protected in the deal which was made with the cement company.


Solon Earl Low: And the promoters made $2| million.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, the promoters may have made something on it.


Solon Earl Low: It was exactly the same thing.


Major James William Coldwell: No, it is a very different problem.


Solon Earl Low: The principle is exactly the same.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say this, and I want to make this very clear. I am not opposed to persons who invest risk capital getting a return for the risk they take. What I am opposed to is giving the natural resources of Canada to groups of promoters who take no risk-I repeat, take no risk-and make hundreds of millions of dollars out of the people of Canada.
There is also Quebec Natural Gas Company which is to retail natural gas to the Montreal area. That stock was sold for about $1 million and it is now worth $24 million, or a capital gain of $23 million. I could go on; there are the Union Gas Company of Ontario, Consumers Gas Company of Toronto, Northern Ontario Natural Gas, which hold

franchises throughout northern Ontario, and what has been done in that connection will not bear examination.
Just taking the six companies I have mentioned there is a total original investment of $148 million now worth $598 million or nearly $600 million. The point I am making is this, that this has been made possible not by those people, in the main, taking all the risk, but because Canada took the risk. Canada, in part, put up the money for the initial steps and the present government of Canada is going to put up the money to build the pipe line for them all across northern Canada. They will reap any profits that accrue from the flow of gas in that pipe line.
We can be sure that taking the other companies into account, there have been capital gains of more than half a billion dollars. I could go on of course to elaborate further, but I say to the government, surely this is something that calls for immediate action, particularly in view of their record in the house during the pipe-line debates of 1956. Instead of any kind of equivocation or abdication of responsibility properly theirs, and which they assumed when they so bitterly opposed the Trans-Canada Pipe Line deal in 1956, I say that action should be taken now to stop the carrying out of the deal as far as we are able to do so.
Second, it is about time the government of Canada instituted a capital gains tax. A capital gains tax would bring back to the people of Canada some of those immense speculative profits, as well, of course, as bringing the pipe-line companies over which we have jurisdiction under public ownership and control. These are, after all, public utilities to the same extent as the great system of hydroelectricity in Ontario of which this province is so proud and which, I would remind the Conservative party, was established by a great Canadian, Sir Adam Beck. But perhaps the Conservative party may have changed since it added the word "Progressive" to its name, though it is, in any case, a strange combination of names. Yes, the Ontario hydroelectric system of which the people of that province are so proud was promoted by Sir Adam Beck but built by a Conservative government of that province.
It may be said by somebody, in connection with all this, that there may very well be some Canadian control over these companies. I notice that the Minister of Public Works dealt with that matter in the House of Commons during the debate in 1956. On page 2195 of Hansard he discounted a statement

made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce very well indeed. On March 15, 1956, he said:
The minister has said that shares are to be offered to the Canadian public. He might have gone on to point out that even though several thousand individual Canadian shareholders bought up to 51 per cent of the shares, which is most unlikely-
Of course it has not happened.
-there would be no possible chance that they could overrule these three great United States companies-The Delhi Company is also a United States company-working together as a closely knit unit. It is absolutely fantastic to suggest that private Canadian shareholders would have the slightest chance of controlling the company. Control rests with these United States companies and it is going to remain there unless the government makes some change in its policy.
I say those words are as true today as they were in March, 1956. What steps will the Conservative government of Canada, which so bitterly opposed this bill when in opposition, take to ensure to the people of Canada the public use, public control and public profit with regard to these utilities which the people of Canada have financed already, in part, and which they will finance to an even greater extent when the pipe line goes forward. It is not yet built. We have an opportunity now. I challenge the government to seize that opportunity and to do the right thing in this regard.
Having said this, I want to put on record again the amendment I moved to the speech from the throne, because now, I think, it may be better understood than when I introduced it on Wednesday afternoon, wishing to make sure that the amendment would be introduced that day:
This house welcomes the measures indicated in the speech from the throne and urges that these measures be placed before parliament with the least possible delay in order that the benefits proposed therein might accrue to the Canadian people at once. We respectfully submit, however, that in the opinion of this house Your Majesty's advisers should give immediate consideration to the advisability of taking steps to deal with the menace of inflation, rapidly rising unemployment and other serious problems facing this country. We call upon the government to give immediate effect to the social and economic planning necessary to cope with these problems.
As clearly as I am able, I have pointed out to the government what in my opinion is its duty in this regard. I wish to reiterate, before I sit down, that we welcome the measures announced in the speech from the throne, measures which we-though not we alone-have long advocated, namely an increase in the pensions provided for our senior citizens, an increase in disability pensions, an increase in pensions for the blind, an increase in pensions for our war veterans, some steps toward a stabilization of agricultural prices to prevent a continuance of
The Address-Mr. Simmons the price-cost squeeze from which the farmers right across Canada are suffering acutely, advance payments on farm-stored grain and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken more time than I have ever taken on any occasion in this house. I hope hon. members will forgive me, but I had the right to do so, moving as I did this amendment. For the first time I have taken advantage of this because I felt that the problems I wished to bring before the house on behalf of my colleagues as well as myself were of sufficient importance to merit devoting so much attention to them.


Mr. J. A. Simmons (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make a short statement on my position as member of parliament for the Yukon Territory.
Shortly after the result of the general election had been announced my Conservative opponent challenged the legality of the election on the grounds that there were irregularities in the taking of the vote. The charge was heard before two judges, as provided for in the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. Last week they gave their decision, to the effect that irregularities had taken place in the taking of the vote and that the election should be voided.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that the judges found no evidence of fraud or corruption, but merely of minor technical irregularities committed by the supporters of both candidates. I am afraid that our ways in the Yukon are more casual than in the more densely populated areas of Canada, and we have generally been more concerned with the spirit rather than the letter of the law. An election act designed for taking the vote in southern Canada is not necessarily the best way to get out the vote in the vast reaches of the Yukon Territory. Because of our sparse population, everyone knows everyone else, and so the special identification requirements of residents not on the voters lists are scarcely needed in the Yukon. Therefore I would respectfully suggest that the elections act be amended to remedy these special problems peculiar to the northland.
Perhaps the house would be interested in the type of irregularities discovered. For example, a clergyman resident in Whitehorse preached in Mayo Landing, a settlement 250 miles north of Whitehorse, the Sunday before the election and cast his vote there, as he would not be back in Whitehorse until after election day. Another clergyman of a different faith cast his vote at the proper poll, but the poll was a divided one and the ballot was put in the wrong box. There were many

The Address-Mr. Low others in the same position as the clergyman I have just mentioned who were absent from their normal places of residence, but who voted at polls in the communities they happened to be in on June 10.
Disfranchisement of our citizens in my opinion is not the intention of the act. Every Canadian no matter where he lives in Canada should be given every opportunity to exercise his franchise. When such errors could be made in good faith by clergymen, it is easy to understand why other minor technical errors were made by other persons.
I have the right to appeal the decision of the judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, and to hold my seat until their decision is reached. I have decided, however, not to exercise this right but to accept the judgment of the lower court and vacate my seat when the court order is formally received by Mr. Speaker.
I do this, Mr. Speaker, in order that there may be no cloud on the Yukon representation. Our great territory needs an active spokesman in parliament and I urge the government to call the by-election as soon as possible so that a Yukon member can be seated without undue delay. The constituents of this important, far-flung riding expect the government to take prompt action to avoid further resentment and annoyance, and to give them the representation they so justly deserve in this House of Commons.
I believe it is possible to call the election before Christmas, which would permit representation in parliament in January. As a man who has lived almost all his life in the Yukon I can assure this house, Mr. Speaker, that it is perfectly possible to have a winter election there, because we have certainly solved the problems of transportation and communications in winter. All the remote settlements not served by highway are readily accessible by ski-equipped aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be proper for me at this time to speak on any of the many Yukon problems which need attention. I shall reserve those remarks until I return from winning the by-election, which I hope will be called for December.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad to relinquish my regular turn in favour of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Simmons) in order that he could place his statement before the house today, as I understand time is running out. I only regret that such a statement was necessary, because no matter who the member might be it is an extremely difficult thing for him to do.
May I take what few minutes remain before one o'clock to get through some pleasantries before I begin the more serious part

of my remarks which I have to make this afternoon. I only wish, sir, and I say this without casting any reflection on your own good self, that Mr. Speaker were able to be in his chair at this time. I understand he cannot be here because of illness. I would like to convey to him my warm congratulations upon his election and to state I have confidence that he will carry on his high and important duties with dignity, decorum and justice. I wish for him a happy term of office, one that will be satisfying both to himself and to hon. members of this house while he is in the office of speaker.
I had the opportunity of congratulating you, sir, yesterday, so I will not do that today.
I would like also to say that I express my felicitations to the government on having won their present position on Mr. Speaker's right. I cannot help but feel a bit sorry for the government at this time, however, after listening to the discourse of my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. party. I am sure the government as a whole recognize that they are here under most unusual circumstances, in a house which has already been described as a parliament of minorities. Not only that but unfortunately a good many of the things that have been said by them in the past are now being thrown into their faces. I suppose this goes to show that we all have to expect these chickens to come home to roost, and I would imagine that if by some ill wind that should chance to blow my hon. friend across the way ever formed the government of Canada, a lot of these things which have been said by him and members of his group in the past would be thrown back at them with equal vehemence and equal effect.
I must say, though, that the government is in the enviable position of having people pay great tributes to it, and I can only say that never in my experience have so many opposition parties and members been determined to keep a government in office. This is indeed an unusual circumstance. All governments that I have seen thus far are ones that the opposition wanted to defeat at the first opportunity, but here we have a changed circumstance and what a drastic change it is. I am sure the people of the country will watch with vast interest what happens here in the next few weeks.
In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, this could very well be one of the most fruitful sessions of parliament in Canadian history provided, of course, that we see a strong measure of statesmanship instead of political manoeuvring. I am certain the next few weeks are going to witness the separation of the

supreme politicians from the statesmen in parliament, and it will be most interesting to see into what category various hon. members fall.
And now, Mr. Speaker, with those remarks 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.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I would like to add to those already offered to the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) my own warm congratulations on the honour that was conferred upon him by the Nobel foundation. I think that it can safely be said that the fellow members of the hon. member in this chamber will feel that when one of their own in this parliament should be considered worthy of the Nobel peace prize it must be a source of great pride and satisfaction to them all.
At this point I should like also to add a word of sincere and warm commendation to the two young men who introduced the motion we are now debating. I was impressed with their fluency and with the excellent quality of their maiden speeches. There is no doubt in my mind that both will make many fine contributions to the debates in the days ahead. If I single out the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) for further mention it is only because I knew his friendly and illustrious father so well and also because he comes from my own province. I might say here, Mr. Speaker, that word comes to me almost universally that this young man made a fine impression while he was a member of the legislature in the province of Alberta. I only want to say that if he follows in his father's footsteps he will indeed make a warm friend of every member in this house. In addition to that, I am sure he will avoid the serious error into which some other members from our province fell, the error of believing that when they were elected to this house they were given a mandate to libel their own province and belittle everything that was done to improve conditions there. Art Smith, senior, never was heard at any time when he was in this house to criticize unjustly, and we all had a great affection for him.
The events of the weekend, Mr. Speaker, and the first three days of the present week have made me even more proud to be a Canadian, a loyal subject of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I am grateful indeed that I can live in this wonderful land,
The Address-Mr. Low a land which I greatly appreciate, and partake of the many privileges and blessings of citizenship here. I think we are all blessed in that we have at the head of our parliament a constitutional monarch of the quality of our beloved Queen whose ancestry has been traced back to David of old who was anointed King of Israel by the prophet Samuel. Our Queen was also anointed for service in the spiritual as well as in the temporal realm and a part of the solemn covenant she has taken is that she shall jealously and zealously safeguard the liberties of her subjects. It was for me a soulstirring moment when our lovely Queen made history by presiding at the opening of this parliament on Monday.
I am grateful, too, that I could be here as an elected member to witness the event and in my small way to take a part in it. It was a moment that I shall always remember and about which I shall never tire telling my children and grandchildren and whenever I do retell the tale I will try to impress upon those children the facts about the very important role the royal family plays in holding together the many and extremely varied parts of the commonwealth of nations as well as providing visible substance to strengthen government in Britain, in Canada, and in some others of the commonwealth countries.
It is a new experience for the Social Credit party, Mr. Speaker, to be sitting to your right. Since 1935, when Social Credit members first came into this house, they have sat to your left, facing the government. They have been a part of the opposition and as such they have always taken their responsibilities seriously. As a matter of duty they have been constructively critical of measures placed before parliament either by the government or by private members from whatever party. We have supported those proposals which we thought were in the interest of our country and its people. We have strongly opposed those things which we thought were departures from principle or which threatened the liberties of Canadians; but as we did our duty as we saw it we faced the government, and I say that is always a good place to have your opposition, out where you can clearly see what they are going to do to you. It is easier to keep track of them that way. There just was not room for all of the opposition in that section of the house to Your Honour's left following the election of June 10. Someone had to sit over on this side. We were asked to do so and being the reasonable people we are we took our place here. It may be that some of our political opponents will try to read something into the fact that we sit on the government side of the house, something that just is not there. Just in case
144	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low there is such an inclination we felt that it did not matter very much where we sat because we think that we can do our full duty as well here as elsewhere in the chamber. We are still members of the opposition. We shall try to be justly and constructively critical of all measures that are brought before us.
We have never been carping critics nor at any time obstructionists, and we shall not begin to be now. As long as the government tries faithfully to fulfil those of its election promises with which we were in agreement and to stand on sound principles we shall give them and their measures our full support. If they depart from good principles or neglect their promises or if they ever forget that the real source of their power and authority to govern is the people of Canada whose will is expressed through the elected representatives to parliament, then, Mr. Speaker, we shall feel obliged to oppose them with vigour. We will support fully any effort by the government to enact just as quickly as possible their legislation providing for cash advances to the farmers and for increases in old age pensions, pensions for the blind and war veterans allowances. We thought, sir, that yesterday's show was hardly in keeping with a sincere desire to get those important pieces of legislation into early effect. That was one reason why we felt that it was not our privilege or our right to delay unduly the time that was taken to put through interim supply. I think, sir, that pretty well sums up our position clearly enough.
There is one more thing I should say about the situation and that is this. During this session we shall get the feel of the atmosphere on the government side of the house and we think the situation is one which very likely is well designed to give us training against the time in the not too distant future when we become the government of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just the tail wagging the dog.


Solon Earl Low: Well, it is something to be a part of the dog which is something I am afraid my hon. friend cannot say.
I would like to turn, sir, for a while now to a discussion of the provisions of Her Majesty's speech. We were glad to see that the government is prepared to fulfil its election promises in connection with old age pensions, war veterans allowances, pensions for the blind and pensions for the disabled. These are things which we have fought for constantly over the years. Reference to these matters in the speech from the throne was in very general terms, as has already been 

pointed out. Nothing definite is yet known about the amount of the increases or when the increases will be made effective. I presume that in good time the government will make these things known to us and that at that time we shall be in a far better position to express our views about them. However, I should like to say that the government is to be commended on thinking about our aged citizens, the veterans and the unfortunate ones in our country. Surely, it must have been evident to any thinking person that our senior citizens should not be expected to try to eke out a miserable existence on $46 a month, in the light of the serious increases, as it were, being made almost monthly in the cost of living.
We think that long ago there should have been an escalator provision in the old age and blind pension arrangements, and perhaps even in the war veterans allowance arrangements, to make possible automatic increases to take care of increases in the cost of living. We are impressed by the fact that the government recognizes the need for increases and that they are prepared to make some provision for them. We want them to know that we support also any effort that will be made to shorten the residence qualifications and we believe that since old age pensions are now contributory they should be paid as of right to the recipient no matter where he may live. We ask the government to take that matter into very serious consideration.
I am certain that the people of Canada generally are aware of the fact that if the Conservative government can increase old age and blind pensions and war veterans allowances in October of this year there is no reason whatsoever why the Liberal government could not have done an equally good job in March of the same year or even earlier. In the intervening months so far as I know there has been no real change in the economic condition of the country, certainly no upsurge or change for the better which would justify the Liberals in saying that they could not do it.
There is one thing however, that the government must bear in mind and that is this. Unless something fundamentally sound is done to check the continuous price rise, what they have proposed to help the aged, the blind and the war veterans will be of no lasting value whatever. One of the big reasons why the people of Canada elected a new government last June was that they wanted people in office who would bring to bear upon the problems of the country a different approach and different thinking, and especially people with the mental attitude that says, "it can be done."

It is refreshing, therefore, to see the new government taking the stand in some things that changes for the better can be made, and for that I congratulate them. I suggest it is time that a new approach was made to financial policy because I am convinced that with a fresh attitude towards it something of a worth-while nature can be accomplished that will be of lasting advantage, not only to the aged, the infirm and the disabled but to all the people of Canada. I hope that the Conservative government will not get into the same frame of mind that was so obvious all the while the Liberals were in office. From 1935 to 1957 they seemed to feel that so far as financial policy was concerned the present state of affairs was the necessary state of affairs. They constantly indicated the closed mind on that subject and the people of the country just got tired of it. Therefore I throw out the warning to the government that they will have to be very careful not to fall into the same frame of mind as did the Liberal government, especially with respect to this most important fundamental, a sound monetary policy. It is easy to do that, especially when ministers of the crown depend so much for their advice on the civil servants they inherit. That does not cast any reflection whatsoever on the civil service of Canada.
I sincerely hope that the old age pensions, blind pensions, war veterans alowances and disability pensions are given a substantial boost at this time, one that will be in keeping with the needs of the good people concerned as well as with the productive capacity of this great country. I suggest that a $60 a month basic pension for the aged would not be out of line at all.
We noted with some satisfaction that the government is to provide cash advances to farmers against farm-stored grain. We have already made our position clear in this regard in previous debates of other years. We think that cash advances are more fair than and preferable to government guaranteed loans through the chartered banks. Here again, Mr. Speaker, the details of the government's proposals have not been revealed to us and we will have to wait until we see exactly what the program is before we can go too much into detail in our discussion. We sincerely hope, however, that this is not the sum total of the government's program for assuring the farmer his fair share of the national income.
Her Majesty's speech does indicate in a rather indefinite way that parliament will be asked to enact a measure to provide greater stability in the prices of farm products. These words may refer to the commodity price support legislation now on the
The Address-Mr. Low statute books of the country but which was never put into effect fully by the former government. It must be clear to the present government that some definite provision will have to be made through stabilization of prices and marketing arrangements, and perhaps in other ways, to assure the farmer his fair share of the national income.
My colleagues and I have been advocating various measures for years which we thought would have to be applied if the aggregate income of Canadian farmers was to bear a fair relationship to farm costs. It will not be good enough in my judgment to provide cash advances against farm-stored grain and that only. At best these cash advances can only make available to the farmers a small amount of cash to meet their most pressing bills and keep them one step ahead of the sheriff. Moreover, the government is going to find tremendous difficulties in taking security and in making the advances.
The situation would be far different if the former government had been wise enough to provide approved storage as they should have done. I do not mean to imply that the farmers of this or any other country have to be molly-coddled or want to be because I am sure they do not want to be, but I think it can be laid down as a sound principle that governments should do for the people those things which they cannot do for themselves or things that the government can do so much better. Provision of adequate inland and terminal storage facilities for grains especially is one of these things that enlightened, forward-looking governments have felt it their duty to provide. In the United States the government has doubled the amount of storage capacity for farm products since 1953, and thus when surpluses mounted approved storage was available and that made it much simpler to make cash advances against farm products properly stored.
I think that this government must face up to the fact that in the years ahead it will be desirable in the interests of our national security and in the interests of the hungry people of the world for Canada to have enough inland and terminal storage capacity properly and wisely dispersed to carry over safely from one year to another not less than two full years' grain production. When the time is more appropriate I intend to put forward to the house an irrefutable case for the establishment of a 2 million bushel storage elevator in the Peace river country, my own constituency, as one unit in what will be a necessary, broader government program. Here again the people of Canada are bound to ask if the Conservative government can make available cash advances to the farmers in the

The Address-Mr. Low fall of 1957, why could not the Liberals have done equally well in the spring of 1957 or 1956 or 1955 or even earlier?
However that may be, the problems facing the farmer will not be solved unless and until great improvements have been made in marketing and in pricing. We are convinced that the basis of any real improvement in the farmers' position will be the adoption of the two-price system that has been used so successfully by many industries in this country. Colleagues of mine will go more fully into this situation in the course of their speeches.
I note some rather vague references to taxation in the speech from the throne. I sincerely hope that this is not merely window dressing in preparation for another election. The people of Canada are expecting relief from the heavy burden of taxation. One of the reasons they changed governments was the failure of the Liberals to come to grips seriously with the whole taxation problem. I think the former minister of finance must have realized that when he took upon himself this summer much of the burden for the loss of government status by the Liberals. The government will have to realize that what I am saying is true and if they ever expect seriously to tackle the increasing cost of living they will have to begin to remove those taxes that inevitably push up prices and add to the burden of consumer costs.
One of the most prolific causes of inflation is the government's habit of imposing hidden taxes against commodities, and a right good place to start tackling the cost of living problem and the rise of the price index in any program of tax reduction is in the field of commodity taxes, the sales and excise taxes that are applied at the manufacturers' level.
Of course, the Canadian people would welcome a reduction in income taxes. I am told that if some relief in income taxes is provided Canadians generally are prepared for the time being to forget all the others so that they can at least sleep nights.
The government is to be commended for their intention to propose from time to time projects and programs to implement a national development policy which is to be carried out in co-operation with the provinces and territories and which will enable all regions of Canada to share in the benefits to be realized from the development of the resources of this great nation. But I warn the government that as they proceed to develop the ideas programs and projects for this purpose they will come face to face inevitably with the absolute necessity for a change in the financial policy of this country. I point out that financial policy and national


development are inevitably and unalterably tied together. If the government is to fulfil its promise to give effect to proper national development policies they will have to change their whole approach to finances in Canada, particularly their concept of the role and functions of the Bank of Canada. They will not get far if they do not solve the tight money problem and come to a definite decision with regard to this very important question. Who is to devise and lay down financial policy in this country? Is it to be a bunch of jobbers or must it be the parliament of this land?
I think one of the most serious omissions in the speech from the throne is the lack of any mention whatever of the tight money policy of the previous government. Thus far I have seen little evidence that the new government is prepared to come to serious grips with this disastrous policy. They must know-I am speaking now of this government-as many thinking people across this country are coming to know that the tight money policy of the Liberal government was a policy laid down largely by the Bank of Canada. It is a policy which was enunciated about two years ago and was supposed to have accomplished three things. According to the governor of the Bank of Canada, it was designed to bring about a reduction in the cost of living or at least to curb rising consumer costs. In the second place, it was supposed to bring about a reduction in Canada's serious adverse balance of trade. Thirdly, Mr. Coyne's policy was supposed to bring about a reduction of the huge consumer debt that had been brought about very largely by credit buying.
Those are the three things that the governor of the Bank of Canada and his associates emphasized and about which they expressed deep concern in the banking and commerce committee in 1955. I ask hon. members of this house to pause for just one moment and think of what has happened since then. The government of Canada established a market for treasury bills, that was the Liberal government, and they allowed the interest rate on those to rise to 4 per cent. Following this the Bank of Canada claimed that they had no alternative but to increase the rediscount rate to 4 per cent. The governor of the Bank of Canada issued requests at the same time, which many people of course interpreted as commands, to the chartered banks of this country to restrict credit. This they immediately started to do. As a consequence the tight money policy was foisted upon the people of Canada. General interest rates jumped by more than 1 per cent in a single

year; development in many areas of Canada fell off seriously and soon came to almost a full stop in several areas. Our municipalities, school divisions and provincial governments were forced to either completely curtail their present projects or go into the money markets of the United States to borrow to fill their money needs.
The tight money policy which started in 1955 has unquestionably been a miserable failure. Let us take a look at what has definitely happened in those two years in the three important things Mr. Coyne's policy was supposed to have accomplished. I remind you that it was supposed, in the first place, to curb the rising cost of living. Has it done so? Well, in September 1956 the consumer price index stood at 119, and today it stands at 122.6, the highest in history, and it continues to go up. Unless something is done about it, Mr. Speaker, I predict that within a year it will stand at 125. The fact is Mr. Coyne's policy, rather than curbing living costs, has actually built into our economy definite inflationary trends, some of them on a long-term basis.
Consider for example, if you will, the serious increase in mortgage interest rates. The family man who tries to provide a home today finds that as a result of the credit restrictions and tight money policy he must contract to pay higher interest rates, not just for one year but over a period of 15 or 20 years, no matter how interest rates may go down in the next few years. That is what I call built-in inflation over a long period of time. What strikes many people as very odd about this whole situation is that prices go on rising in spite of the fact that industrial and business inventories have been accumulating at a rapid rate over the last two years. There have been very few commodities in short supply, except money and the will in high places where policy is made to tackle the problem in such a way as to help the average citizen. Mr. Coyne's policy has been a miserable failure too, so far as reducing the cost of living is concerned or even in curbing the rising cost of living index.
What about the second thing Mr. Coyne's policy was supposed to have accomplished, namely a reduction in our adverse balance of trade? Since the tight money policy began in 1955 our adverse balance has more than doubled, and so the tight money policy has been a miserable failure in this branch also.
What about the third reason for Mr. Coyne's policy? How has it operated in connection with consumer debt since 1955? The governor of the Bank of Canada expressed grave concern two years ago over the tremendous increase in credit buying by Canadian people.
The Address-Mr. Low If I remember my figures correctly, in 1955 consumer debt brought on by credit buying by the people of Canada stood at about $2.2 billion. Today it stands at no less than $2.6 billion which is a good $400 million above the figure for 1955. This simply means, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada have had to mortgage future incomes to the extent of $2.6 billions in order to satisfy present needs and wants out of the great pile of production already in existence and crying for a market. I say that nothing emphasizes quite so much as this fact the imperative need for a new approach to our whole financial policy in Canada.
We Social Crediters have that approach. Our financial policy can solve this problem and can make completely unnecessary the tight money policy. It must be evident to hon. members of this house that Mr. Coyne's policy has failed all the way along the line. In fact it has intensified inflationary trends rather than reduced them. I remember back in 1955 that one of the reasons given by Mr. Coyne for initiating the policy of credit restriction was a claim of insufficiency of labour in Canada. I think it can be safely said that the framers of the policy cannot use that argument now, because the dominion bureau of statistics reports that today the registered unemployed labour force stands at 174,000 individuals, and it is growing daily.
We are charging Mr. Coyne with foisting upon Canada a policy of foolish restrictions just at a time when our chief competitor, Russia, is going all out to expand all the way along the line. This in our judgment puts us in a very dangerous position. I bring these things to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because this government will have to face up to the situation in a very realistic manner. They will have to make it abundantly clear to the Bank of Canada that financial policy from this time forward is going to be framed by the parliament of Canada. Until the government makes that point very clear and then sets about asking parliament to give Canada a new, realistic financial policy, they never will be able to fulfil their campaign promises. In fact the best thing we will be able to do will be to take care of the fringe things, that is until they fight out this battle with the Bank of Canada and win.
We commend to the government a serious and uninhibited study of Social Credit financial proposals. I am sure they will find in them the real foundation for the establishment in Canada of a policy of freedom. Moreover, they will find in the techniques we suggest for the application of that policy the only hope in the world today for individual liberty. We see most of the present

The Address-Mr. Low policies stripping the individual of his liberties and progressively narrowing his range of free decisions.
It is because we feel so keenly about that situation, and the necessity of doing something about the tight money policy, which has not been mentioned in the speech from the throne, and because we cannot go along with the full import of the amendment which was moved by my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. party and the implications therein of the necessity for socialistic planning, that we wish to move a substitute amendment. Therefore, I move, seconded by my hon. friend the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch):
That all the words In the amendment after the word "once" be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:
However, we regret that there is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that it is the government's intention to ask parliament to lay down a scientific, modern financial policy for Canada that will guide the Bank of Canada in its operations, bring about a speedy end to the present tight money policy, and eifectively check the ever-rising cost of living.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker-I see I have three or four minutes left-I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) a very important matter about which I have received a sheaf of telegrams from various bodies in my constituency of Peace River. This has to do with the unfortunate and tragic collapse the other day of the bridge across the Peace river at Taylor flats. This has had the effect, of course, of stopping traffic along the Alaska highway from Alberta in the east and from eastern British Columbia into the northern British Columbia area. The collapse of the bridge brings .us face to face with the necessity of providing some alternate route for the people in this country to travel.
In his announcement the other day the Minister of National Defence did suggest that he was looking for an alternate route and I would like to draw to his attention that there is one such route. In order to give him the facts in the shortest possible time I will quickly read two telegrams, one which I received today from the president of the Peace river chamber of commerce and the other from the Berwyn men's club in the Peace river country. The first one reads:
Collapse of Peace bridge and inadequacy of ferry transportation at Glayhurst and Dunvegan renders imperative that road from Hines creek north of Peace to Fort St. John be brought up to standard immediately. Ferries will be inoperative within few weeks. Peace river bridge may have to take bulk of traffic once ice flows in river. Will you take this matter up in the house and with department of defence as one of urgency.
J. Ersfeld President Peace River Chamber of Commerce

And the other one reads:
General Pearkes enquiry for alternate route to serve Alaska highway in view of bridge out Taylor flats. Please advise him only alternate route north side of Peace river via Hines creek cutoff distance approximately 125 miles which will require some gravelling and improvement to Beatton river hill to handle heavy traffic.
Total distance via this route five hundred thirty miles from Edmonton which is comparable with present route via Dawson creek.
Berwyn Mens Club
Mr. Speaker, I have done my duty with respect to the speech from the throne and the telegrams received with regard to this matter requesting us to bring the position before the house. I will take the first opportunity to talk to the Minister of National Defence personally and to acquaint him with further facts concerning this alternate route which might be used by people who wish to travel in the northern part of British Columbia over the Alaska highway.


Harold Edward Winch: May I address a question to the previous speaker.


Solon Earl Low: Yes indeed, if you wish.


Harold Edward Winch: With respect to your last comment, are we to take it that you are in opposition to the offer of the premier of British Columbia that a bridge now completed on behalf of the P.G.E. should be used? I ask that because there is now only about 17 miles distance involved to the bridge which has not collapsed.


Solon Earl Low: No, I am not in opposition to that. I think that was a very fair offer and, if I remember correctly, the Minister of National Defence did say the other day, when making his announcement, that the proposition had been made by the premier of British Columbia, but he felt there might be some difficulty in providing an alternative road route from the present bridge up to the new road. It may be possible that the suggestion made by the premier of British Columbia will be the practical one-who knows- but I have done my duty in simply bringing forward this matter in the house as requested by the chamber of commerce and Berwyn men's club.


Harold Edward Winch: But you are not opposing the offer of British Columbia?


Solon Earl Low: No, no, not at all.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke in this debate his designation of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) provoked a great deal of merriment in the opposition benches. I must say that is not a cause for laughter; it is a very serious matter. I have found continually

when I come into the chamber I bow to the right to the Sergeant-at-Arms and turn my back on you. I hope you will forgive this unseemly conduct on my part. I might even go further and say that I have run into these doors out here so often that I am convinced the hinges are on the wrong side and perhaps you might run at them a few times yourself to see if I am correct.
I think at this time it is the usual custom to offer congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, to your new deputy, to the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South), to the seconder (Mr. Arsenault), to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition. In all sincerity I do so to all.
I think, however, if one were looking for a good way to obtain additional material with which to pad out a speech this would be a very obvious way to do it. One might even continue and offer congratulations to all of us who got here but, in doing so, I think we would be touched with some sadness for those who did not. As the Prime Minister said the other day, no matter what may be said in the heat of debate across this chamber or in an election campaign it does not affect those personal friendships which exist along the way. So, Mr. Speaker, I say as I welcome new friends in this chamber that I will miss many old friends from the last parliament.
If I might add one further word of congratulations I think it would be to say to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) that he and the people of his department worked miracles in their preparations for the visit of Her Majesty the Queen. The staff in this building was extremely competent and courteous and I have never seen parliament hill so beautiful as it was the other night when we witnessed the final 1957 performance of the musical ride of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The municipal authorities, the shop owners, yes all the people of Ottawa should be given a sincere thank-you for their work and thoughtfulness in helping to make our capital city on this occasion as beautiful as any you would find anywhere in the world.
Let us turn now to the business in hand. I have said before that I know my constituents in York West would be quite satisfied if I discussed their problems as they form part of the problems in the national scene. The Leader of the Opposition said he felt there was little to be gained by any post mortem examination of the last election. Perhaps that may be true with regard to those who voted, but for those of us who are here I am not so certain. Of one thing I am sure, the result of the elections of June 10 can be attributed to a drastic change in the thinking of the
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton man in the street, the little man who saw things happening which could not be seen by those who were engrossed in the study of their own balance sheets.
While the government gloried in the rising gross national product and the phony figures of total trade, while many watched with satisfaction their soaring sales figures, studied with frowns their rising costs, took pride in their new product development or worried over increased taxation, here were the things which were happening in Canada; these were the things that others noticed and, Mr. Speaker, they did not all come from one political party.
First, the relegation of the House of Commons, the real basis of democracy in this country, to being a mere sounding board for the chore boys of the administration, out of touch with the real wishes of the people, the ignoring of the plight of our senior citizens faced with the continued rise in the cost of living, the use of ex parte foreclosure against the provinces in their attempt to get a fair division of the tax revenue sources to assist them in providing the educational facilities and the development costs needed for them to get ahead with their progress; the disappearance of effective means of communication in connection with the conduct of our foreign affairs to the point where we were not even consulted by our best friends when drastic action was taking place in the Middle East. Not a question, Mr. Speaker, about what was right or wrong at Suez, but of what happened before Suez. As a matter of fact there was the same breakdown in the lines of communication with our neighbour to the south, a breakdown that left us with no say in procedures of investigation affecting the rights and political status of our own citizens. The general deterioration of our international trading position, the continuing pile-up of our western wheat crops, the mounting trade deficit on current account and the situation in which more and more of our basic industries are owned outside our own country were also among the realities which were not being faced.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, United States investment in Canada now amounts to over $12 billion, and those who say that is not much should remember that Canada needed $914 million of capital in the first half of this year to balance its current account deficit with other countries, and $790 million of this was financed on long-term money from the United States. This is certainly an unenviable record to have achieved. Has any hon. member as a shareholder in his company ever gone to a banker and asked for a loan when his balance sheet was showing thousands upon thousands of dollars in the red
150	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton balanced only by some long-term loan over in the righthand corner. He would not have very much to ofEer.
These problems, Mr. Speaker, did not arise suddenly after June 10. They were well known and well published by three of the major parties prior to that date, and if there is any impression that they were used solely for the purpose of gaining votes I think that impression can be dispelled now, because now we see that even the opposition recognizes that these problems exist. When our ex-minister of foreign affairs goes to California or to some other place to make a speech, or whether it be down at Presqu'ile Point talking about the economic problems of the country and the failure to recognize, as the Prime Minister says, the "lack of communication between grass and brass", no matter where it is the opposition now realizes apparently that these conditions existed and grew up during their tenure of office.
It took the United States two world wars to take care of a similar situation on a much smaller scale. No one wants an economic benefit while others suffer, but I am wondering whether we have not reached the point where if we are to maintain control of our own resources, have the wherewithal to do it, we may not have to say to our allies that we must take care of our own economic requirements while they take care, on a larger scale, of continental defence. Surely there is an object lesson for us, an indication of the need to get away from the usual standard of percentages based on population figures in connection with defence requirements, and an opportunity to arrive at a more realistic standard. If our ally to the south, maintaining a higher living standard than our own, having a basic tax structure as low, if not lower than ours, can meet their global commitments and still have enough money left over to dominate the capital investment field in this and many other countries, then I think it is time we said: "We can no longer afford to bear the burden of some of the defence costs that are facing us."
I wish to interject at this point that I do not say that these people are in any way not generous, or that they do not have open hearts. They have done everything they can, everything that money can buy to provide these facilities, but there is no indication that they are at any time prepared to buy the product of any other country's manufacturing facilities in order to provide the protection that we need, I do say to the Prime Minister that perhaps we have reached the stage where that type of representation should be made to them.


The choice for us is serious. I have lived to see many countries maintain their political independence even though they had lost a war, but I have never seen a country maintain its political independence when it has lost control of its own economy.
There is no question of the government not being aware of these problems. This party was elected on a program which promised that we would move forward and attack the problems confronting Canada with vigour and vitality, and recreate in Ottawa an atmosphere of sound thinking. The Prime Minister is determined that this government shall remain responsive to the urgent social and economic requirements of the people. We recognize that the needs and tempo of the Canadian people demand a dynamic program. That is the type of program, which is contained in this speech from the throne, and if I have seen anything at all in this chamber I have noticed one thing very definitely, that all the howls of protest, all the use of exaggerated expressions such as "robber barons", and lack of sincerity are caused by one thing only-that this speech from the throne has cut the feet from under the whole bunch to your left.
I have told you what the problems are; now listen to the answers. Here they are in capsule form. We have been talking about the problems involved in foreign affairs. Listen to the speech from the throne:
The Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth Met in London Last June
Another reads:
The Finance Ministers Met at Mont Tremblant. Laid Plans for a Commonwealth Trade and Economic Conference to take place Next Year


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1959.


John Borden Hamilton: What a change.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Secret agenda.


John Borden Hamilton: I am glad to see that you are waking up. You have been asleep for 22 years. Take a look at the headlines. What a change there is from the last ten years. What a change from the time of the crisis in Suez. Now that we are talking about a crisis in Turkey and Syria what do we see? We find newspaper headlines like the following:
MacMillan Will Fly to U.S. For Talks With Eisenhower. Diefenbaker, President Swap Views.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, there could not have been conferences of this kind before Suez.


An hon. Member:: You never asked for them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We fixed them.


John Borden Hamilton: You certainly did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a quotation.


John Borden Hamilton: Now, just listen to the fixer, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). Of all the people in this house he is truly the fixer of all time. Let us listen to the rest of the answers, the following drawn from the speech from the throne:
In domestic affairs my ministers look forward to meeting next month with the leaders of the provincial governments in order to discuss fiscal relations and to seek better understanding and arrangement of many aspects of our public finances.


Mr. Habel:: Then you will have a headache.


John Borden Hamilton: What a change, Mr. Speaker. There is the group over there who when asked questions time after time had nothing more to offer to the provinces-


James Sinclair: We will see what you have to offer.


John Borden Hamilton: -and I suppose more especially not a cent to a Conservative province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And you said this morning you were going to take back what they have.


John Borden Hamilton: And yet it is
possible for the present administration to bring these people together around a conference table to discuss with them programs for assisting them with their financial problems in relation to education and development costs. Hon. members opposite used complete foreclosure just a few short months ago in relation to the requests of the provinces.


Leonard T. Stick: We are glad to hear that.


John Borden Hamilton: If you people really believe the criticisms you are making of the speech from the throne then why not vote against it?


An hon. Member:: You are asking for it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do you think you will get a portfolio the next time?


John Borden Hamilton: Here is
another answer from this government, drawn from the speech from the throne.
In the legislative program to be laid before you, it is fitting that mention should first be made of measures to improve the lot of the senior members of our society.
What were you doing for them, paying them 20 cents a day? You thought that was the solution to the problem.


An hon. Member:: What will be yours, to offer them ten cents more?
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton


John Borden Hamilton: If you do not
think the speech from the throne is of value you will be given an opportunity to vote. Here is another Conservative answer to be found in the speech from the throne:
In order to assure to the farmers of Canada a fair share of the national income, you will be asked to enact a measure to provide greater stability in the prices of their products. Every possible effort is now being made and will continue to be made to seek new markets for agricultural products as well as to regain those that have been lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the next paragraph.


John Borden Hamilton: Here is
another one:
My ministers believe that a national development policy carried out in co-operation with the provinces, and in the territories, is needed to enable all regions of Canada to share in the benefits to be realized in developing the resources of this great nation. It is their intention to propose to you from time to time programs and projects to implement this policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Borden Hamilton: Oh, do not
laugh. One after another the answers appear: Beechwood, the South Saskatchewan river dam, the Columbia river development project. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the former minister of agriculture. For years and years he tried to do something for his own province and what did his party do? They turned him down.


Mr. Gardiner:: You have not done much better.


John Borden Hamilton: It has taken the present administration to set up a program to-


John Whitney Pickersgill: To start discussions.


John Borden Hamilton: -to ensure that these national resources will be developed by Canadians for Canadians.


Harold Edward Winch: When are you going to start on the South Saskatchewan dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: They do not know.


John Borden Hamilton: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, times have changed. My last experience with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) on the final day that parliament sat last year was not very pleasant but I want to tell hon. members this.


An hon. Member:: Are you afraid of him?


John Borden Hamilton: No, I am not. In fact, I have not met anyone in this chamber yet of whom I am afraid, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Not even the supermen of last year.
152	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton Mr. Pickersgill: Why don't you answer them?


John Borden Hamilton: And this
includes the superman who sat to the right of the Prime Minister in the last parliament. There has been a great change even in the headlines of the newspapers. Look at them now and see how they read. I have one before me which reads:
Canada Comes First Here is another:
Election Promises Backed Up And yet another:
Prime Minister's Promise Lauded by C.C.F.
And again:
Liberals Sidestep No-Confidence Vote Mr. Studer: What did that cost?


John Borden Hamilton: Another reads: First Confidence Vote Backs Progressive Con-vatives, 147 to 0, As Fleming Battles.


Mr. Ellis:: You are a press agent now.


John Borden Hamilton: Yes, a great change has been made.


William James Henderson: Tell us about the press agents.


John Borden Hamilton: I am sure that parliament will be given back to the people. Never has a government moved so quickly and with such sure strides to rehabilitate our relations with friends and neighbours. Never has a Prime Minister spoken so clearly on the problems of trade and economic development. There is no longer a cap in hand attitude as all are aware if they listened to the Prime Minister's radio broadcast from Dartmouth college. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there are truly more signs of action in 22 months than there were in the previous 22 years.
Someone has said 22 weeks and this serves to demonstrate that we are even more efficient.
Before closing my remarks I wish to say a word with regard to the comments made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I have said before there is ample reason for his being so upset because there is every indication that this government can take care of the problems about which he has been speaking for many years and I suppose this has removed from him one of the greatest talking points he could find for an election campaign.
I noticed that he and the leader of the Social Credit group had a great deal of trouble with their mental gymnastics in figuring out where the balance of power is in the present parliament. While I am not sure where the balance of power is in this house, 

Mr. Speaker, I am nevertheless sure of one thing; that the true balance of power as long as this House of Commons exists will remain in the hands of the people. And if hon. members opposite want to find out where the balance of power lies at the moment they will have a perfect opportunity of doing so in ten days.
(Translation):


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a legitimate pride that I rise today in the house. After having been away for three years, I am glad to be back in the house where I am pleased to see again many a familiar and friendly face, and where I also find that unfortunately, some of the people I had known have disappeared, swept away, as it were, by the fortunes of politics.
When, in June 1954, I introduced in this house for the last time the estimates of the Department of Transport, I was convinced it would be my last appearance here. After three years as chairman of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, I am glad to be back in politics, and if I have come back to them, it is primarily because I was asked to do so by the right hon. the former prime minister. I could not possibly refuse to co-operate with the leader of the party, who himself had given such an example of sacrifice for the sake of his country by leaving not only his profession, but his family life, in order to dedicate himself to the service of Canada.
In view of this example of devotion to public affairs given to all of us by our leader, I was happy to come back to Ottawa and to find myself again at the side of former colleagues in the House of Commons.
When I quit politics in 1954 to accept the chairmanship of the St. Lawrence Seaway Administration, I was conscious then of doing what I considered to be my duty for the common good of the country. When I returned to active politics, at the side of those with whom I had been associated for some 19 years, I was also conscious of answering a no less urgent call, but in a wider and greater field. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I have no regrets at all about the decision I made because, one way or the other, I felt I was doing my duty.
Speaking in this house for the first time since my return, I am happy to do so in French, as a citizen of a country which is officially bilingual and as a member representing a French-speaking constituency of the province of Quebec. In so doing, I am

conscious of exercising a fundamental right which the Liberal party has always been mindful to respect fully. In the minds of the French-speaking members particularly, that right, which was won following the struggles of the first year of responsible government, constitutes a duty from which they could not shrink without betraying the mandate entrusted to them.
It seems to me that in 1957, even more than was the case 50 or 100 years ago, French-Canadians, by their attitude inside as well as outside the house, are duty-bound to assert this inalienable right, for the recognition of which their ancestors struggled so gallantly.
It is also in French, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to pay Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Canada, the homage which is due her. All Canadians, of whatever origin, are deeply grateful to their gracious sovereign for the great honour she has shown them in coming here to open the first session of the 23rd Parliament.
I believe this is the right time to express again to her, as well as to His Royal Highness Prince Philip and the whole royal family, the feeling of attachment, respect and loyalty of French-speaking Canadians for the British political institutions.
May I also congratulate Mr. Speaker not only for the honour conferred upon him by this house, but also for the way in which he is performing his duties. I trust that he will keep on fulfilling his functions with dignity and efficiency. And allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker of the house, to convey to you my congratulations and my best wishes for the future.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to depart from the tradition of this house whereby those who take part in this debate should first congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, Messrs. Smith (Calgary-South) and Arsenault. I congratulate them in the first place for the honour conferred upon them by the government, and also for the way in which they have performed their task. Remembering a similar occasion, more than twenty years ago, when the government had chosen me to assume a similar function, I have listened to their speeches with attention, and it is also with sympathy and admiration that I have heard what they had to say.
After those preliminary but necessary considerations, I cannot forget that I owe first and foremost to my electors of Laurier the privilege which I am now enjoying of sitting in this house. I am proud to represent that
The Address-Mr. Chevrier riding, first because of its name, since to me, Sir Wilfrid Laurier not only devoted himself for the greatest part of his life to the cause of national unity but was also one of the greatest among Canada's prime ministers.
As many other Canadians, I have been influenced by the thought and doctrine of that master. He has remained for me a living leader, a master whose teaching, in spite of the passage of time, is as valuable today as ever. However, the reputation of Laurier riding does not derive exclusively from its name. It has had worthy representatives in this house. To name but a few, there were Sir Lomer Gouin, Mr. J. A. Mercier, the hon. Ernest Bertrand, and my predecessor in the House of Commons, Mr. Eugene Lefrangois, now a member of the other house, to whom I wish to pay tribute now, for he represented that constituency with great devotion in the years preceding my return to politics.
Since the last session, our Canadian political life has undergone rather important changes. Following the June 10 elections a new government was formed, headed by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). We must congratulate him on this appointment, even though he is there only temporarily. He is in fact in large measure responsible for the results of that election, even though we can hardly approve the means which he has used or the promises which he made.
It is no exaggeration, however, to say that never in the political history of this country has an election been marked with so much exaggeration or so many promises. I believe that in this case we could paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill's famous statement and say: "Never in Canadian political history have so few politicians made so many promises to so many."
The Prime Minister and his chief lieutenants have been rushing around the country promising everything to everybody. Then, following a victory which was as uncertain as it was unexpected, a large number of them have, privately at least, begun to feel sorry that they had attempted to play Santa Claus in the middle of June.
Those of us who sit on this side of the house have certainly not been long in noticing that these gentlemen have suddenly become full of circumspection and filled with dread about the statements they had been making in this house.
That is why my leader was right in saying here the other day that nothing much has been changed by what happened last June 10,
154	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier save that we have some new faces among us. One after the other the new ministers have risen to go on record as approving either the statements made or the policy followed before their time as far as their own departments were concerned.
I would have a great deal more to say on that score, Mr. Speaker, but I now wish to deal with another subject.
(Text):
Now, sir, I should like to turn to another subject. Early in the month of September the people of Canada learned with a great deal of regret the news that the leader of the Liberal party had decided to retire. I need hardly tell you that those of us who sit on this side of the house felt perhaps more keenly than others the news that soon our leader would seek to be replaced at a convention to be duly called. There can be no doubt, sir, about the place which history will give to the former prime minister of Canada. I have no intention of making his eulogy because I know what he thinks of compliments of that nature. I would rather have it come from another source. A day or two after the announcement which he made the Vancouver Sun of September 9 had this to say about his decision:
Mr. St. Laurent gained wide respect and admiration for his leadership in international affairs, particularly for his role as one of the fathers of NATO. He certainly was always keenly aware of the big problems of our age and intent upon grappling with them. But his greatest contribution as prime minister of Canada was to Canada, to Canadianism. He reconciled French and English Canada during the war. He was the chief negotiator for Newfoundland's entry into conferedation. His government abolished appeals to the privy council. He appointed the first Canadian governor general.
Of much greater importance, however, was his concept of unity. His message was simple: What French and English have in common as Canadians is far more than the differences that divide them, for it is Canada itself. And this man, straddling the nation's basic split by his very birth, carried the message as few men could.
This is an excellent account of the important part played by our beloved leader. We on this side of the house, as well as all true Canadians will always be most grateful to him for the role and the part which he has played and for the services which he has rendered to Canada in that respect.
Under his able leadership national unity has made great strides. The two main ethnic groups have come to understand each other better and, what is even more important, they have come to undertake national projects, they have come to work hand in hand together with one common end in view, greater Canadian advancement. They have


learned too that after world peace there is nothing more important for this country of ours than national unity, that it is the indispensable basis of all progress in all spheres of our national life.
Unfortunately this national unity which we have acquired in recent years under the leadership of the Liberal party is now being threatened by the political strategy of the Conservative party. I should like to recall some of the history of the Conservative party in that respect before referring to this strategy in detail.
In order to understand the background of the matter, however, we have to remember that Canadians have always been divided into three groups insofar as national unity is concerned. At one extreme there are those Canadians who throughout our history have always been more British than the British themselves, have always been imperialistic in their tendencies and have always thought that it was impossible for French speaking Canadians to be British without ceasing to be French.
At the other extreme, however, there are those Canadians in Quebec who have always been anti-British, who are always reluctant to participate in national undertakings except on their own terms. In fact they think and behave as if Quebec was not an essential part of Canada but a separate state. In the 19th century these people were called the ultramontanes or "Les Castors".
Finally, midway between these two extremes was the great number of Canadians, both English and French speaking, who always had a Canadian outlook, which is certainly not incompatible with a deep attachment to British and French traditions, who accepted quite willingly the fact of our different ethnic origins and who were ready to participate in common undertakings in a spirit of conciliation and mutual respect.
Under the leadership of Macdonald and Cartier the Conservative party was a national party in the true sense of the word. However, quite early in its history, and especially under the leadership of Blake and Laurier, the Liberal party adopted a Canadian outlook and recruited its supporters from the third group of Canadians which I have just described. Since the Liberals occupied the position at the centre, the Conservative party felt itself obliged to seek its support at the extremes among the so-called imperialist group in English speaking Canada and, especially after Cartier's death, among the ultramontane group in Quebec.
Since these two extreme groups had nothing in common with each other there was only

one alternative for the Conservative party to adopt and it was this, to have two policies, one for Quebec and one for the rest of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Mr. Brooks:: You know that is not a correct statement.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says that I know that is not a correct statement. If he will follow what I have to say I will cite Professor MacQuarrie of the University of Toronto who confirms exactly what I am saying. This division within the Conservative party became quite evident when Laurier was elected leader of the Liberal party. All his life Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to fight these two tendencies of the Conservative party. In Quebec he was accused by the Conservatives of being a traitor to his race and to his religion and of trying to be an instrument of British imperial policy.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A very good stump speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What have Liberals in Quebec said about our leaders in the last few years?


Lionel Chevrier: If you will just hold your voice I will not only tell you what happened in the province of Quebec but I will tell you about the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in Montreal the other day. While this was happening in the province of Quebec what was happening in the rest of Canada? In the rest of Canada Laurier was accused by the Conservatives of being too French, too Catholic and of attempting to detach Canada from her traditional ties with Great Britain.
Finally, in 1911 the strange alliance of Quebec Conservatives, supported by Bourassa and other French Canadian nationalists, with English speaking Conservatives succeeded in defeating Laurier and the Liberals. It is quite possible, sir, for two opposing elements, two opposing groups, to unite in opposition but it is impossible for those two groups to unite in power, and that is where I come to answer my hon. friend.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This is the unity you are speaking of.


Lionel Chevrier: If you will follow closely you will see how the Conservative party down through the years, and even today, has been trying to split the country from the point of view of national unity.


Mr. Cardiff:: What are you doing right now?
The Address-Mr. Chevrier


Lionel Chevrier: On the eve of that election of 1911 the Hamilton Spectator, a stalwart Conservative supporter, spoke out plainly on the matter and had this to say:
Mr. Borden has been returned to power with a majority sufficient to permit him to be independent of Quebec, or rather that portion of it which is hostile to Canada's participation in imperial naval warfare. He is in an ideal position and he should take full advantage of it . . . Mr. Monk may not like (the Canadian naval policy) and his nationalist friends may object, but they are after all only a meagre minority and, like all minorities, must yield to the will of the majority or move elsewhere.
Professor MacQuarrie of the University of Toronto in an article dealing with the formation of the Borden cabinet had this to say. I say to my hon. friend who interrupted me, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks), that he should listen very carefully to this article. These are not my words, these are the words of a professor from the University of Toronto.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You will always find words to suit your purpose, no matter where you look.


Lionel Chevrier: The article reads:
In bringing the nationalists into his cabinet, Borden showed a realistic awareness of the forces and combinations which had helped to make him Prime Minister of Canada. But at the same time, he was also taking a step which might lead to the resuscitation of the Conservative party in Quebec where it had not won a majority of seats since the election of 1887. In the hope that such a happy end might eventually be attained, he was willing to forgive the past disloyalty of Monk and to endure cheerfully the shocked resentment of some of the stalwart imperialists within the Conservative party. It would appear that far from repudiating the nationalists, as some of his followers urged, Borden was determined to cultivate them. The generous bestowal of cabinet posts was followed by many other gestures designed to strengthen the alliance which had been so effective in, the recent campaign. Blondin, the fiery young nationalist was chosen Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. (The member selected as Speaker was Doctor Sproule who had been for fourteen years the grand master of the Grand Orange Lodge of British America.) At the opening of the session, the address in reply to the speech from the throne was moved by the empire-loving R. B. Bennett of Calgary, and seconded by the brilliant young nationalist Sevigny, whose pronuncements on naval defence had been as outspoken as Bourassa's. To the Toronto Globe, Borden's balancing artistry rivalled that of a tightrope walker.
Of course, Borden's attempt to reconcile what was incompatible did not succeed. What happened? Monk left the cabinet in 1912; Pelletier and Nantel followed his example in 1914. Borden found it increasingly difficult to find cabinet material from the province of Quebec, with the result that from 1917 to 1921 there was no French-speaking representative from the House of Commons in the cabinet.
The Conservative party has never succeeded since that day in overcoming this deep internal division. Following Laurier,

The Address-Mr. Chevrier Mr. King, Mr. Lapointe and the present leader of the Liberal party had to fight the same old battles against the two wings of the Conservative party. There are many Englishspeaking Conservatives who ask why it is they cannot have more followers in the province of Quebec. There is one in particular who sits on the other side on the treasury benches, and for whom I have the highest respect, who said to me one day many years ago when I was a minister of the crown, "Can you tell me how it is we have not been successful in getting more seats in Quebec than we have?" My reply was this: "The real cause is that the old guard of the Conservative party has not yet succeeded in developing a genuine Canadian mentality." That is the real challenge of the Conservative party today, but it has not as yet had sufficient courage to meet it.
Recently, rather than try to face it and deal with it, the Conservative party has preferred to adopt another approach. According to press reports, when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) became the organizer of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker's) campaign for the leadership of the Conservative party last year, he made a long and detailed study of the results of each election since confederation. After an elaborate analysis of the data he reached a most astonishing conclusion, namely that the Canadian voters outside of Quebec elected more members of parliament than those in the province of Quebec. From this strange conclusion he drew the inference that it would be necessary for the Conservative party, in order to form a minority government, to centre their attention on the maritimes, Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia.
As a test case, in order to try out this strategy, it was decided that these tactics would be put into effect at the convention which was being called to select the now Prime Minister as leader of his party. We all remember what happened at that convention. Well-established precedents of collaboration between the two main ethnic groups were broken. It was necessary to go back to Mr. Bennett's day 30 years earlier to find a precedent. No major proposals from the Quebec delegation were included in the party's platform. It become evident that it was impossible to ignore Quebec without being, more or less, openly against it.


An hon. Member:: What do you know about it?


Lionel Chevrier: I know from the press and I have statements to confirm what I am saying.


Howard Charles Green: He is just promoting unity.


Lionel Chevrier: If my friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) will contain himself for a moment I will show who is for unity and who is not, because there was no greater example of national disunity than the events which took place at the convention which selected the present Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You worry about your own convention.


Lionel Chevrier: The proof of that is that the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) had the courage to rise and to denounce the tactics which took place on that occasion. Not only did the Solicitor General denounce the tactics, he denounced his own leader. Moreover the Quebec delegation walked out of the convention in protest against what was taking place.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: The Conservative convention of December last ended in an open split between the two traditional wings of the party, and, as I said, with an unfortunate demonstration of disunity.


John Borden Hamilton: You were a little afraid to pick your riding?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not need to be interrupted by my friend, who thinks he is very smart and who made the kind of speech a moment ago that deserves to be treated very lightly because it was light in every sense of the word. I realize that this is not very quotable in so far as my hon. friends opposite are concerned.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: We are enjoying it.


Lionel Chevrier: But if I may be allowed to come back to what I was saying, I would like to state it was clearly shown at that convention, that it was possible because of the strategy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to choose a leader without making any compromise with Quebec and indeed without the support and against the express will of the majority of its delegates. Throughout the campaign the same strategy was followed and systematically applied by the Conservative party which, in the rest of Canada, appeared to ignore the province of Quebec.
Now that strategy was apparently designed to gain the support of English speaking Canadians in one part of the country but it was not the only tactic used by the Conservative party in the last campaign. I have said earlier that since

Cartier's death there were in fact two very different Conservative parties in Canada, one in Quebec and the other in the rest of Canada. This fact was never more evident than during the recent campaign. While English speaking Conservatives were applying the new strategy, ignoring Quebec and accusing the Liberals of having surrendered to Mr. Duplessis, what was happening elsewhere? There was a French speaking Conservative party at work in the province of Quebec and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the real leader of the French-speaking Conservative party in the province of Quebec was not the present Prime Minister but was the premier of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Same old story.


Lionel Chevrier: Just listen-I say that without the active support of the Union Nationale party of Mr. Duplessis there would not be one French-speaking Conservative member from Quebec in the House of Commons today.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Lionel Chevrier: If I am so foolish as my hon. friends in the front benches state I challenge the seven Conservative members from the province of Quebec outside the greater district of Montreal to rise in their places and prove that what I have said is not the case.
(Translation):


Mr. Lambert:: A fine example of unity, isn't it?
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: He asked for it, let him take it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. members that they should not interrupt a member who has the floor.


An hon. Member:: He invited it.


Lionel Chevrier: The two hon. members who have risen to interrupt me now-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: -are men who were elected unquestionably with the support of the Union Nationale. There is still a lot of speculation going on in Canada about the nature of the political relationship which exists between the federal Progressive Conservative party and Mr. Duplessis' Union Nationale. There was one fact quite apparent to those who campaigned in the province of Quebec-and I happened to be one of them-and that was that in those areas and constituencies where the Union Nationale entered the field there was no doubt about who was the boss, there was no doubt about who dominated the scene and there was no doubt about who carried on
The Address-Mr. Chevrier and directed the campaign-it was the Union Nationale party and not the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: That is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: The Conservative party did not only make a strange alliance but it carried on a very strange campaign. It proposed a platform which I am sure is quite unacceptable to the hon. members who are interrupting me now-and quite unacceptable to those who sit opposite in this house. I do not intend to recall in detail what these points were but I do want to put on the record a summary of the promises as indicated by the Solicitor General in several speeches during the campaign.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the hon. member will recall his party's alliance with Tim Buck back in 1945.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Justice
would do far better to look after his two departments, one of which he is poorly administering, rather than to interrupt me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I could do far better than listen to this sickening speech. It is a travesty of every feeling of national unity.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend thinks it is then all he has to do is to leave the house. I will carry on and I will refer to him towards the end of my remarks,-and not in a complimentary manner.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would not expect it.


Lionel Chevrier: Because he does not deserve compliments when in Montreal he goes down and threatens the province of Quebec.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What nonsense are you talking?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend will see just how nonsensical it is.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The whole speech is nonsensical.


Mr. McPhillips:: I would just like to ask the hon. member, what is the matter with Mr. Duplessis? Do you not in your province refer to him as Maurice the Magnificent?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should
go on to put on record the policy of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec during the last campaign. While the Conservatives in the rest of Canada were accusing the Liberals of being dominated by Quebec, the Solicitor General and his friends were claiming in Quebec that the French-speaking Canadians had no voice and very little influence in the administration of the country
158	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier under the Liberal government. Moreover, the Conservatives in Quebec clearly implied that if their party were in power bilingualism would be established in the federal service and a much greater number of Frenchspeaking employees would be appointed to top positions in the federal administration.
While the Conservatives in the rest of the country were accusing the Liberals of weakening the British and commonwealth connections the Solicitor General and his friends in Quebec were favouring the name "Chateau Maisonneuve" for the new C.N.R. hotel in Montreal and the adoption of a distinctive national flag. While the Conservatives in the rest of the country were promising increased old age pensions the Solicitor General and his friends in Quebec were stressing the need for increasing family allowances and, finally, the Conservative party in Quebec campaigned in favour of an ambassador to the Vatican.
I want it to be clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not blaming the hon. member for Three Rivers and his friends in Quebec for holding such views, but I say in all seriousness that the Prime Minister should tell the house whether those members were speaking for the Conservative party in making these statements on time allotted to the national Progressive Conservative party and, if so, whether those electoral pledges will be implemented.
The Churchill strategy and what I might call the Balcer strategy, which I have just described, may compliment each other during an election campaign but once these two incompatible groups get together they do not operate in the same way in parliament.
In Dorchester, in Lotbiniere and Bellechasse, the Prime Minister had been more or less forced to follow the Balcer strategy by promising to appoint at least five ministers from Quebec if his party formed a government. However once the Conservatives took office the Prime Minister apparently decided not to keep his solemn promise to the electors of the province of Quebec. Borden tried and failed in 1911 to reconcile the two opposing trends in the Conservative party. In 1957, as in 1917, there has been no real attempt at reconciliation of these two tendencies.
During the first stage of cabinet formation -and we had two very painful stages of cabinet formation and it took several days, even weeks, to form the cabinet-only one French speaking Canadian became a minister. He was the president of the National Conservative association and a senior member and leader of the party in Quebec. However, as Solicitor General, he was not even given a department; he is assistant to the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am very sorry to have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you on this basis-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you on the basis that when speeches are interrupted in the manner in which my speech has been interrupted by hon. members opposite-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Lionel Chevrier: -it is the custom in this house to allow an hon. member to complete his speech, or at least to use the time which was taken up by the interruptions, and I ask you to allow me to complete the remarks which I had intended to make.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to allow the hon. member to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am the next speaker in this debate and 1 have another engagement which requires me to catch a plane at a certain time.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can complete what I have to say in just a few minutes so that the hon. member may be free to keep his engagement which, I am sure, is of an important nature.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to let the hon. member proceed?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call on the hon.
member for Peel.
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who has just spoken was not here when the rules were amended so as to impose a definite time limit on speeches in this debate, since when courtesy has required that no one member should exceed the 40-minute period allotted to him in order that every one might have the opportunity to express their views.
I would also add, Mr. Speaker, that the maiden participation of the hon. member for Laurier when he came to the house in 1935 was much more effective than his maiden speech as a private member on the opposition side, because in that participation he made no comments whatever.
As to his remarks in French, they were a little better than his comments in English. He was kind in his comments in French, and it seems to me that when he referred to the

former prime minister he expressed thoughts that we all share. We regret, however, that when that right hon. gentleman was prime minister he saw fit to surround himself with people who did not have quite the democratic tradition that he has, and we regret that those hon. gentlemen still surround him.
As for the little comment which the hon. member for Laurier made in French that during the election never were so many promises made by so few to so many, I suggest to him that never have so few come so far so fast.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Twenty-two years is a long time.
Mr. Pallet!: I am very pleased to have the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of taking part in the debate on a historic occasion such as this. This is a very rare privilege. History was made when a ruling monarch opened parliament. There is no division in this country. All one had to see were people of both tongues turning from that monarch with a smile and a light in their eyes. To think that the hon. member for Laurier would suggest that there was a division-such poorness, such lowness, and many of us thought it did not quite fit in with the person who used once to be-I am sorry the hon. member for Laurier is leaving, because I am not finished with him yet-does not become the occasion.
Perhaps, of course, his general remarks can be taken as being on the same basis of accuracy as those in which he congratulated the mover and the seconder of the address when he said that he shared the same experience on his first visit to the house. I took the liberty while he was speaking of checking Hansard and found his name did not appear in Hansard as either the mover or the seconder of the address. Maybe we should give the same attention to the rest of his remarks as is indicated by the index to Hansard with regard to that particular comment.
I would like to join with others who have spoken in congratulating the Speaker on his elevation to that office. We have known him well, and we have admired him, and I am sure he will discharge his duties with alacrity and fairness. To the Deputy Speaker I wish to say exactly the same thing, and as for the mover and seconder of the address, they spoke with vigour, they spoke with intelligence and they spoke with a deep knowledge of the matters that they discussed, a combination which speaks well for this parliament and which augurs well for the future of this country.
When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) concluded his comments the other day I rather expected that all those
The Address-Mr. Pallett people sitting behind him would get up and cross the floor and attempt to sit on this side of the house. Some of them might have to get used to sitting on the back benches here, though they had sat on the front benches before. But if the hon. gentleman is correct when he says he represents over half the popular vote of the country, is he being fair in not giving those people whom he represents an opportunity to express their views in the expected fashion?
If, on the other hand, the view of the members of the constituencies which his party represents are the same as the views of members on this side of the house, does he not think they should be given an opportunity to express those views, and soon?
It should be comforting to hon. members on this side to note that there have been other occasions when an amendment was not moved on the address, and they were usually followed in the ensuing election by a thundering defeat of the party which failed to move it.
On the subject of criticism: The Leader of the Opposition says he is not going to criticize; his party are going to make minuscule suggestions, but they are not meant to be taken seriously. He has placed an extra burden on hon. members on this side, but one which I am sure they will discharge with a full sense of their responsibility, a sense of responsibility which was completely missing on the government side in the last parliament.
We are quite prepared to perform a double function on this side; the government will introduce legislation and hon. members sitting beside and behind the government are quite prepared to criticize that legislation so that when it leaves this house it will be in a form as perfect as their efforts can make it. This was a matter in which, during the last parliament, hon. members then supporting the government failed in their responsibility, but I can assure the people who now make up the government that their own members will watch their legislation.
Do not be surprised if we criticize it because that is our function in this house. I also assure them, Mr. Speaker, through you, that knowing the lady and gentlemen who make up the government we have the utmost confidence that the legislation they introduce will be, not only sound, fair and well drafted but by and large will represent the views of the country as a whole.
The events of June 10 raised the horizons and opened new vistas for Canada. Canadians can now go forward in solid step, surmounting the supineness of the last 22 years. The step

The Address-Mr. Pallett will be quickened. It will be to good purpose if we follow a course of high principle and dedication and not one of expediency.
On the debate on the address it is customary to deal with some matters concerning one's own riding. I do so with no diffidence whatever because the county of Peel is one that owes a great deal to this country. We feel we are rather fortunate in that we have every means of transportation including road, rail, airport and deep sea water. We have ideal agriculture and the best industrial sites in Canada. Ours is a fast-growing, rapidly developing section of this country. A great many of the problems we meet, I think, are not unlike the problems that are met by the rest of the country and certainly our agricultural and horticultural problems are much the same.
We are pleased that the government has taken some steps to assist the agricultural industry. We anticipate that more steps will follow and that the agriculturists and horti-culturalists will be enabled to receive their fair share of the national income.
I come next to aircraft production. In Peel county we have a large industry centring around the production of aircraft and employing many thousands of workers. It has been in the forefront of aeronautical activity for years. The workers in those plants cannot be allowed to be subject to the whims and vagaries of defence requirements as they exist from day to day. These workers are highly trained and skilled and constitute a valuable pool. It is up to the private industry in which they work and other groups to ensure that their employment is guaranteed. The future of Canada is in the air and we in Peel are fortunate that we can make such a marked contribution to that future.
The next matter with which I choose to deal is housing. Although we welcomed the announcement of the release of $150 million, that in itself is not and will not be sufficient. Our municipalities want housing developments and we are aware that such developments create employment. There is no industry in the county that of itself creates as many jobs as does housebuilding. We also know that in the development of subdivisions many problems arise. We cannot have new homeowners paying extra levies to take care of capital construction costs of services if we follow the principle of maintaining low-cost housing.
At one time the municipalities were prepared to accept the burden of this cost of providing services but today they cannot do this. I am informed a dominion-provincial conference will be held shortly. We anticipate-and we trust we are right in our 
anticipation-that moneys will be made available to the provinces to pass on to the municipalities to handle the cost of these new services so we as a federal body can provide the necessary low-cost housing and the accompanying employment which it is our responsibility to do.
Previous parliaments have seen fit to increase the funds set out for the elimination of level crossings in this country. Traversed as we in Peel county are by two main lines, both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific railway, there are many level crossings in my riding which present both a problem and a hazard. I am pleased to say it is contemplated that one of the most serious and dangerous of those crossings will be eliminated with construction commencing in 1959. That is a perfect example of co-operation on three levels of government, if I may express it that way, and I welcome the announcement of the elimination of the crossing north of Port Credit on No. 10 highway.
I come now to a subject that has been mentioned on the floor of this house many times, the fate of the Long Branch rifle ranges. Much was said but not too much was done about this. It now appears that it can be said the ranges have been declared surplus and subject to the requirements of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario for the building of its massive generating plant, the lands of the city of Toronto can be dealt with and the balance may be referred to the municipality of Toronto township. That to me was a very welcome announcement. It will require a working out of details but I was pleased to learn that these valuable lands which have been dormant for so long can now once more be made useful.
We in the county of Peel and I am sure all hon. members of this house welcome the social security measures set forth in the speech from the throne. Because of our industry and the generally high level of employment the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) receives what we at least consider to be more than his fair share of the revenue from Peel county. We realize that with increased social services we will perhaps be paying a large portion of the cost of those services for other parts of the country. Nevertheless I say to this house we do not regret this situation in the least because we know that social services wherever they may be not only help the economy, but what is more important they assist those who are not able to help themseelves. The fact that we can participate in this way makes us proud of our present government in that it has seen fit to include mention of this type of legislation in the speech from the throne.

On behalf of my riding I wish to pay personal tribute to our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). The hon. member for Laurier has not yet realized what has happened. There was a spark that lit the fire of democracy in this country. It has nothing to do with the division of the races. You know I have a name that is pronounced differently in Ontario from the way it is pronounced in Quebec. The hon. member for Laurier made a speech. It was different when he represented a riding in Ontario from what it is when he represents a riding in Quebec. This is the first time in this house that I have ever heard him make that type of speech. He made it because he is now from a Quebec riding. Read the speeches he made when he was from an Ontario riding. You will find they were quite different. If he wants a lesson on national unity let him read the speeches of our Prime Minister. There is a man we congratulate as a political winner, a man who knows how to put first things first and a man who has restored the jaunty step to Canadians.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as a newly elected member I am pleased to be able to speak in the throne speech debate at this time through the courtesy of my colleagues. I was pleased with the promises implied in the throne speech but at the same time was very disappointed by the fact that the needs of the unemployed in the lumbering industry particularly were overlooked, or worse still, not recognized. The inflation that cuts into everyone's pocket and steals half the pay cheques of our workers creates an emergency situation that is in no way alleviated.
Many of the problems of my constituents are pressing and I must ask for some consideration from the house regarding those problems. As I listened a few moments ago to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) I wondered whether he is afraid that perhaps his party will be forced to pass the legislation that we have all wanted and waited for for so long and which is only hinted at in the speech from the throne.
I come from a riding that is dependent to a large extent on the gold mining industry, the riding of Timiskaming, and I should like to say a few words on the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and its position in my area. I was pleased to be able to read in Hansard of June 12, 1956, at page 4972, a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in which he said:
I have emphasized, sir, that this measure-
The Address-Mr. Peters
He was speaking of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I continue:
-is no solution of the deep-seated problem of the gold mining industry. The difficulty and the flaw in measures of this kind is that they often lull the government and lull parliament into thinking that the problem has been solved, or at least the problem has been met for the time being. No hon. member should delude himself into thinking that this measure is any solution, even on the short-run basis, of the needs and the problems of the gold mining industry. These problems are going to require much more farsighted solutions than are offered by the hand-to-mouth, stop-gap type of assistance that we have in the present measure.
I wish to say that I agree wholeheartedly with his views, and we look forward to hearing something more very soon on the things that he said could be done for these people and these mines that are existing on emergency gold mining assistance, but we look at it from a different point of view. We think that the act did not go far enough. It did not go far enough for the simple reason that it offered no assistance to be made available to the mining communities and the miners in those communities. Some stipulation must be put in the act so that the workers in those communities and the communities themselves will receive some benefit from the assistance.
I believe the Canadian people have been pleased over the years to be able to do something for a situation which was not the making of the mining industry itself. As everyone knows, the price of gold is a set price. It appears to be much too low for the economy of Canada today. The situation has developed where the people of the mining communities have had to exist on wages that are substandard by all accounts, and certainly are not in keeping with the standard of living which is enjoyed by miners in other fields throughout Canada.
We have found that the assistance has been of little value to communities like Matache-wan and Cobalt. Matachewan is an example where cost aid was paid and it did not eliminate the problems of those mines. They eventually shut down. We have found that although the people were willing to subsidize that industry no provision was made for assistance to encourage secondary industries to come into the community so that when the day comes that the mines disappear, when they are no longer advantageous to operate, there would be something for that community to turn to in the form of secondary industry. The people who have gone into the mining communities and established their homes in those communities should be given some consideration, even if it means that the government may find it necessary to subsidize secondary industries, at least in their initial settlement in that area, so that there will be some continuity in those communities and

The Address-Mr. Peters they will not be left in the position that Matachewan, part of Kirkland Lake and a number of other communities find themselves in at the present time.
I think everybody knows the history of Cobalt. We have found that that town has continually suffered from booms and busts. Recently, the previous government had a contract on a long-term basis under which they subsidized the production of cobalt. Cobalt is a strategic metal and I think that even more than gold it should be considered when subsidies are paid. We have been subsidizing cobalt, as I say, but the term basis has disappeared and cobalt is no longer of any account. Cobalt is not even being developed. If it should become necessary to procure cobalt, in the event of an emergency, development work is not being done. In these mining communities they have not blocked out the amount of cobalt ore that remains in the mines. As a miner of many long years experience underground I know that the people in those mining communities must be given assistance, not only so that dividends can be paid but so that decent wages can be paid and working conditions can be improved in those mines. Consideration should be given to the communities in which the miners live.
In my particular area there is a large iron ore development. This development is taking place in a community called Dane. It requires some assistance to get it started. A large company has come in and bought up the rights. The ore is there. We have the miners available in the area but so far nothing has been done. We would suggest that the federal government give some consideration to subsidizing freight rates in that area in order to get this mine into production as soon as possible.
One of our primary industries in Timis-kaming is lumbering. If there is a field that has been neglected in the speech from the throne that we are now asked to consider it is, I am sure, the lumbering industry. The white pine industry is faced this year with a situation where all its lumber is in the yards in Temagami and Matachewan. Throughout the White River area no lumber has been sold this year and very little was sold last year. This problem rests directly on the doorstep of the government and its tight money program.
In speeches that have been made we have heard references to the sum of $150 million for housing. It would appear to me that the $150 million is not going to be of much more benefit than the money available before because the working people are not able to buy or build houses on account of the great

difficulty they have in obtaining the down payment. I would suggest that we should consider some of the plans that have been followed in the last few years and in the last few months, particularly at Blind River, Elliott Lake and Bancroft. At these places other methods have had to be used than those found under the National Housing Act to promote housing in those areas. I certainly hope that the government will consider extending the application of the methods used at these places with respect to down payments so that we can get the housing industry started again and get our lumber moving from northern Ontario.
I suggest that no solution for the sale of our lumber can be found by asking the producers to reduce the price because I do not think we will even then find any market for it. We are again faced with the problem of imports in the form of very fine plywood. By "fine" I do not mean that it is exceptionally good plywood; it is very thin plywood. In fact, we do not cut veneers that thin. This plywood is coming into Canada, and I suggest we are going to have to do something to expand our markets in the lumbering field so that we can market our products from east to west rather than from west to east as we are now doing.
In Timiskaming we have probably one of the finest agricultural areas in Ontario. We find in that area, as I think is true in many other areas, a great number of farmers leaving the farms. There is one particular township near my home in which at one time there were over 100 farmers and that area is now supporting only five full-time farmers. If the situation has not reached the catastrophic stage, in my opinion it has pretty nearly done so.
I should like to suggest that I believe the throne speech should have included something with regard to parity prices for farm products based on the cost of production of the product compared with the selling price that the farmer receives, parity being the amount of profit that the farmer could reasonably expect should be maintained.
We find farmers in Timiskaming growing some of the finest timothy seed that has been produced anywhere in Canada. During the recent election campaign the government's candidate suggested that if elected he would be able to find international markets for timothy seed. If such markets for timothy seed do exist then I ask the government to take advantage of them without delay so that some of our farmers who are finding it exceedingly difficult to exist at the present time will have a good cash crop.

Yesterday we heard something about rain and drought and have read about these things in Hansard in past years. In northern Ontario we are not particularly worried about drought but we are worried about rain and unseasonable weather. Our growing season is short and on many occasions we find ourselves not able to get our crops into the barns with the results that there is very little money for the family on the farm with which to live throughout the year. I suggest that some consideration be given by the Department of Agriculture to encouraging the provinces to set up crop insurance and, if it can be set up, help to finance such a scheme.
We also suggest that this could be extended to take care of crop failures so that something will be available to alleviate such situations. I should like to point out that last year the grain in the fields was not good on most of the farms in the clay belt of Timis-kaming. When the farmers went to get seed grain in the spring they found they had to borrow money from the banks to buy it and that the price was out of their reach. The result was that inferior grain was planted, grain with a germination of only 15 per cent in some cases. I believe consideration should be given to alleviating this problem of the farmers in my riding.
I do not want to take too much time but I should like to say that in my riding there is a very large lake, lake Timiskaming. It is 85 miles long and a number of miles wide. On that lake there are a number of steamers. There is a pulp log flow through the lake to south Timiskaming pulp mills. There are a large number of private craft on the lake. At Haileybury the dock is such that it cannot even be used for docking a small boat and the dock at New Liskeard was destroyed by fire. I suggest that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) should give consideration to the restoration of both these docks as they are vitally important to a number of people and are most necessary to the pleasure craft that make use of the lake.
I support the amendment because it will result in the realization of some of the promises made in the throne speech, because it deals with other problems that have not been mentioned that affect my riding and because it requests that immediate consideration be given to some of the larger problems such as national health insurance. Some protection must be afforded in the face of the disaster of rising unemployment, the disaster of low and in some cases negligible farm income and the rapidly rising cost of living. I ask the house to give consideration to these most pressing problems.
96698-11i
The Address-Mr. Landry (Translation):


Mr. J. Armand Landry (Dorchesier):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted first to congratulate you upon your election as Speaker of the house. We are confident that, as your predecessors, you will do honour to the functions of Speaker by maintaining our parliamentary discussions on a dignified level and by being fair to all members of this distinguished assembly. I am also pleased to say how much I appreciated the form, the elegance and the delivery of the speeches made by the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Smith and Arsenault), even though I confess that I do not agree with everything they have said concerning the government's program for this session.
Mr. Speaker, I feel I must take this occasion of my maiden speech in this house to go back to the last general election held in Canada, in the province of Quebec, and particularly in the fine constituency of Dorchester, since this election will no doubt go down in history as "the surprise election". As a matter of fact, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives nor any other political group expected the defeat of the Liberal government.
The Canadian population was visibly satisfied with the St. Laurent government. The reverse would have been surprising since, under the Mackenzie King and St. Laurent ^ administrations, our country, in war as in peace, has known a tremendous development and enjoyed its greatest prosperity.
It is for that reason that the St. Laurent government, at two general elections, has gained the greatest majorities of our political history, without resorting to fraudulent electoral means.
How is it then that the St. Laurent government was defeated at the last election? The explanation is simple: the Canadian people seemed so well satisfied with the external and internal policies of its government, led by a great statesman, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, that the Liberal party was perhaps too optimistic, concentrating all its energies on the administration of the country without taking enough care to show, day by day, how efficient it was. I do not hesitate to say that the St. Laurent government was ahead of its time by eliminating from politics numerous things which form together what is called "electoralism".
There are many who claim that the government was so preoccupied with the continuing process of improving legislation and adminis-

The Address-Mr. Landry tration, in the interest of the Canadian people, that it did not give sufficient thought to its own fate. However, in consideration of the moral and material progress for which it deserves full credit, history will grant it a summa cum laude degree of democratic generosity.
In a much more immediate future the Liberal party can expect another reward: its return to power.
After twenty-two years of uninterrupted government, during which so many marvellous realizations were achieved, it is normal that the Liberal party should regroup its forces in opposition. This is in accordance with the history of all the great political parties in the world. But there are already several serious signs indicating that the Liberals' stay in the opposition will be of very short duration; just time enough to brace up in this refreshing atmosphere. Here are some of those signs:
The memory of the Liberals' achievements is vivid in the people's mind. First of all, even if the Conservatives managed to get a few more members elected than did the Liberals, one must remember that the Liberals obtained 200,000 more votes than the Conservatives, and that it is the number of votes which more adequately reveals the popular appeal of the parties.
The general impression seems to be that the Liberals were swept out of power by accident; over-confidence in their victory at a time when, precisely, the Conservative party was labouring more than ever to improve its electoral machinery. In the opposition, the Liberals will not take long to tone down their over-optimism after twenty-two years of uninterrupted power. Not really expecting to get into power, the Conservative party made a great many promises which were so contradictory that the implementation of some would make it impossible to keep the others; but people always remember election promises, and always callously insist on their being carried out.
While denouncing what they called the incompetence and the mistakes of the Liberal system, our Conservative friends have put themselves under the obligation to prove these accusations once they were in power. Now our new ministers admit one after the other, and even publicly, that there are no scandals, no costly errors, and that very few things will be changed in the administration. This is decisive proof that the Conservatives have, let us say, far overreached themselves in order to find the "mote" in the Liberal

party's eye, and to camouflage the "beam" in their own. Canadian voters will not be slow to recognize those who deceive them and those who tell them the truth.
But now, after having been fooled by the glaring campaign of the last election, which had blinded them, the people are already back on their feet, remembering the deeds of the Liberal rule, including the march of Canada to full nationhood, at the head of the middle powers of the world; the building, over years of very difficult international trade, of a prosperity which is the envy of all nations; a national machinery providing for the economical needs of our country for at least another quarter of a century; social security measures shielding the people from want; family allowances, pensions for the old, the veterans, the blind, and the disabled, unemployment insurance, and soon, I hope, health insurance, if the new government agrees to continue this highly social undertaking, so well started by the St. Laurent administration; a substantial and intelligent help to agriculture, for instance, the price support act; careful thinking, thorough research, and happy solutions to educational and intellectual problems at the national level; and finally, a true policy of national unity in accordance with the generous principles that have inspired the whole public life of a very great Canadian: The Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
These achievements and many others, we, Liberals, are here to make them prevail and to demand that they be continued by the present government, as well as to watch for the carrying out of the promises so lavishly made by our opponents, until the chivalrous revenge which we will no doubt obtain at the next election.
And if our friends opposite try to appropriate credit they do not deserve, for instance, if they continue to give the public the impression that the Liberals made an excessive use of patronage whereas they, Conservatives, abolish political favouritism, we will not fail to straighten the record by showing:
1.	That the Liberal administration has made very little use of patronage.
2.	That there is no more patronage to suppress in federal politics, and
3.	That the change of advertising agencies already made by the Diefenbaker administration is a flagrant breach in this policy of nonpatronage so loudly proclaimed by this government which has, so far, so cleverly played on the keyboard of illusions.

A record full of brilliant deeds, such is the record of the Liberals; bold promises and obstruction to the wonderful work of the Liberal government, such is the record so far of the Progressive Conservatives.
On the other hand, the Liberal party is united, while the Conservative party is suffering, and will suffer for a long time, from the disunity which marked the national convention of last fall.
Under those circumstances, it takes a lot of conservative faith to hope that the new government will live long.


Mr. Arsenault:: We have that faith.


Joseph-Armand Landry: It is appropriate, I think, to say a few words about the last federal election in the province of Quebec. It has been said that on June 10 the Quebec vote was a sentimental one. This is not so. If the people of Quebec have been voting for the Liberal government, it is because on the federal scene, for over half a century, the Liberal mind has seemed far broader than the Conservative mind.
True, the fine personality of prime minister St. Laurent was an important factor. But this is due not so much to the fact that Mr. St. Laurent is of French origin through his father, but rather because he possesses an admirable combination of qualities which ideally fit him for leadership in a heterogeneous nation such as Canada.
And it is precisely because of that that, for two general elections, the party led by Mr. St. Laurent has gained the most decisive victories ever recorded throughout our political history, not only in Quebec, but also in English-speaking provinces.
May I also be allowed to recall the loyalty of the province of Quebec to Mr. Mackenzie King, former Liberal prime minister, whose deeply social and humane outlook has had a most salutary influence over Canadian society, in all respects.
The province of Quebec did not vote for sentimental reasons on June 10 last; it voted for reasonable ones. I would be the first to admit that Quebec, from a political point of view, is far from perfect. But please do not say that we voted sentimentally when we know that twice English-speaking Canadians voted with equal enthusiasm for the same liberal leader! We have paid homage not to Mr. St-Laurent's French name but to his true worth.
And I have no hesitation in adding that such an attitude is in keeping with the prin-
The Address-Mr. Landry ciples of true democracy as well as with the needs of Canadian unity and Canadian progress. Quebec need have no regrets concerning its attitude on June 10. And I do hope such will be the case for the country as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to thank the electors of Dorchester who returned me with a good majority in spite of the coalition and alliance of the Progressive-Conservatives and of the Union Nationale who spared nothing to defeat me. In my constituency, as in many others, all opponents spent fabulous sums during the elections, as is the case in every campaign in which the Union Nationale takes part. This party is far richer than any other for reasons of which everybody is perfectly aware. In spite of everything the people of Dorchester have remained faithful to the Liberal party. And thanks to the young people of my constituency who, nearly to the last one of them, considered your humble servant and the Liberal party as the living impersonation of human liberty, I succeeded in overcoming the oppression of dictator or dictators who put all their faith in asphalt, concrete, brick or gravel rather than in the human value of their constituents. In my constituency as in those of Montmagny-L'lslet, Chicoutimi, Lapointe and so many others, the Diefenbaker-Duplessis axis was not successful.
Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with local problems, with which I must deal here in order to properly fulfil my duty to my constituents, I wish to express my opinion on a few general questions while proposing to deal at some other time with other problems of the same nature.
It is unfortunate that Canada should not have its own national flag. On several occasions, the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, has said with his usual and remarkable frankness that he certainly would like to see a truly Canadian flag but on the condition that such a flag be a factor of Canadian unity and not a cause of impassioned controversies and disunity. Should the government succeed in getting all to agree on the project of a truly and exclusively Canadian flag, it will have done a great service to our country, Canada.
I could say as much about a national anthem which should be a hymn of national unity heard with the greatest respect from coast to coast.
The government will soon have to choose a successor to the right hon. Vincent Massey as governor general. It is most important that the next representative of Her Majesty

The Address-Mr. Landry the Queen of Canada be a Canadian citizen. Acting otherwise would be going backwards in our constitutional development. Now, if we want Canadians to have a truly Canadian spirit, they must be satisfied that their only country is Canada, and that it is a sovereign state, without any link of political dependence with either England or the United States, nor any other country. In this way, Canada will be on good terms with every other country and Canadians will all be each other's real friend.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Diefenbaker government, which counts many friends among the Quebec Union Nationale party, to see that the scandal of political influence is stopped with regard to the distribution of old age pensions, and pensions to the blind and disabled. These pensions being paid partly by Quebec and partly by Ottawa, the present federal government should use its friendship with the Union Nationale in order to suppress this preposterous discrimination often affecting our senior citizens, as well as the blind and disabled in Quebec when they are not Union Nationale sympathizers.
May I, Mr. Speaker, now plead for the people of my own riding.
The riding of Dorchester, which stretches along the south bank of the St. Lawrence, is surrounded by the counties of Bellechasse, Lotbiniere and Beauce, as well as by the State of Maine. The riding comprises about 35,000 people who derive their main revenue from agriculture, lumbering, and the maple syrup industries.
In the part colloquially called the "lower county", the soil is rather bountiful and our farmers manage to live, in spite of the nearby cities and the lack of stability in farm prices.
In that part which is called the Upper county, the situation is different; one must go there to appreciate the courage and tenacity shown by our farmers in order to make their lands somewhat productive. Those who come to visit me are always surprised to see, in the fields, huge piles of rocks, which our farmers have removed from their soil. This made one of our good farmers say that he had to till his land, not in rocky earth, but actually in earthy rock. It has therefore become an act of heroism for our people to open up new lands or increase their tillage on lands which have become too small for their needs.
There is often much talk about people leaving the land. This applies to our district perhaps more than to anywhere else,


because the land is not very good for agriculture. That is why, in order to prevent our people from leaving their lands, the government must carry on this stabilizing price policy and even, if need be, improve it so as to provide some measure of security to this large group of our population.
During the last federal campaign, our opponents promised they would increase support prices. I hope they will keep their promise. Here is an example: if we consider that the price of pork-support price, I mean, -is now fixed at 23 cents, such price, according to the Quebec farmers' organ, is but the actual cost price established at 23 cents, which means that any slight loss or accident occurring during breeding means a deficit for the farmer.
Of course, the price of pork, on the Quebec market, is now 30 cents, and perhaps 35 cents in some places; but it happens that many people, who are not farmers, take up hog breeding, the result being an over abundance of this product on the Canadian market. There is therefore, as in the past, a constant threat of a sharp decline in price on the hog market. Those who have begun to sell pork when prices were high are now giving up this business whereas our farmers must continue to live on the land and to accumulate repeated deficits. It would therefore be the proper time for the government to set the support price of pork at 28 cents at least, instead of 23 cents in order to stabilize our market and to allow our farmers to live.
The same holds true of poultry, that is of chicken, the price of which is now 23 cents. I am sincerely convinced that the government should set the support price of poultry at 27 cents.
And again, the same is true of eggs, the floor price of which is at present 38 cents instead of 43 cents, as it should be normally. We must not forget that the support price of these must cover the cost to the farmer of candling and grading, which amounts to approximately 5 cents a dozen. This means that the price of eggs falls to 33 cents when the cost price is fixed at 31 cents.
I would also suggest that the government reduce, on behalf of the farmers, the interest rates on agricultural loans. This rate, I fear, should not exceed 3 per cent, whereas it is now over 5J percent.
As a consequence of the conditions just mentioned, it happens that our farmers, with support prices being so low and soil conditions so poor, have to find a living somewhere

1G7
else. That is why many of them go away for four, six or even eight months a year, to bush camps in order to support their families. Many go to Canadian bush camps (about 6,000) but a great many go to the United States.
For some time, the situation of lumbering has been more than alarming for our people.
I am living in anxiety, with the approaching winter months, for hundreds of homes in my county because I know, for having visited many of them, that hardship will be their lot unless the problem is solved very early.
Several large companies have decided not to cut any lumber this year, and some others have reduced their operations by 50 per cent or even more.
Our bush-camp workers are therefore faced with a problem which will cause in my county such hardship as has been unknown since the 30's. This is an urgent problem for hundreds of families in my county, and I urge the government to consider it as such.
There is, I was assured, in the Unemployment Insurance Act, a clause providing for allowances in extremely urgent cases. I do believe that our bush workers, who now find themselves in a very difficult situation, should benefit from that clause of the unemployment insurance act.
That is why I feel that I must make here a few practical suggestions. The former minister of labour had started negotiations with the administration of the State of Maine with a view to creating a system of reciprocity between that state and Canada, for those of our workers who have to earn their living on the American side. It is well known that under the unemployment insurance act, our bush-camp workers who seek jobs in the United States cannot, when they come back, benefit from Unemployment Insurance, because they have not paid their contributions. I was told that several American states had accepted reciprocity with the exception of Maine and a few others. May I suggest to the Canadian government to keep up negotiations with those American states, in order that Canadians may receive the benefits of unemployment insurance when they come back home. They pay taxes in Canada, and even if they work in the United States, it is still in Canada that they spend their money.
May I also suggest to the government to lift restrictions on farmers who have to leave their land to earn some money, for a part of the year, either as bush-workers or otherwise. According to unemployment insurance regulations, as they now stand, bona fide farmers must have left the farm for a certain number of weeks. The officials concerned
The Address-Mr. Landry generally rule that a farmer who has left his farm for over 22 weeks, or more, in some cases, is eligible for unemployment benefits. This gives rise to constant criticism from our farmers. It also adds greatly to the work which must be performed by the officials of our various Unemployment Insurance offices.
I might also suggest that the district office of St. George de Beauce, which serves most of my constituents, be relieved of part of the load it has to carry. To begin with, the devoted officials at this point should be provided with healthier quarters. Their working conditions should be more humane. Does the department know that from January 1956 to December 1956 the amount of unemployment benefits paid out by this office was $1,106,831.80 as against a roughly equal figure, $1,072,890.50 for the period January 1 1957 to May 31 1957, that is for the first five months of this year, as against the twelve months of last year? Does it know that a total of 38,130 cheques have been issued by this same office? And all this has been accomplished by 16 permanent employees, seven more being employed by the national employment service.
I do feel justified, therefore, in asking that the crowded situation at this district office be remedied by the establishment in my constituency of a sub-office which would serve the parishes of Cranborne, Ste. Germaine, Ste. Rose, St. Camille, St. Louis, St. Cyprien, Ste. Justine and Ste. Sabine.
Because of the great distance between the parishes of St. Leon, St. Malachie and Frampton and the district office in Levis, these communities should also be detached from this office and come under the new sub-office which I would like to see the government establish in my constituency.
While facilitating the work of our employees, at the district office, this improvement would save a lot of money to the unemployed who are often obliged to travel to the district office to file their claim.
The maple syrup industry occupies an important place in the economy of my riding. In fact, every spring, hundreds of our farmers draw from our maple trees that delicious sap later made into maple syrup. Unfortunately, for a few years now, that industry has been suffering from a regression which discourages our producers. In fact, while the cost price of a pound of maple syrup is estimated at 21 to 22 cents, our sugar producers seldom get more than 20 cents a pound. Last year, the Dorchester Maple Syrup Producers Association had to be satisfied, for its production of more than a million pounds, with a selling price of 18 cents while the consumer often had to pay 30 cents, 35 cents and even,
168	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Landry in some cases, up to 50 cents a pound. Of greater consequence still is the fact that markets are now very scarce and that many of our producers still have on hand their 1957 production. Could not the government do, as it does for wheat, butter or for New Brunswick potatoes, make available to the maple syrup industry a certain amount which could be spent first to make this marvellous product known throughout our country and also to provide for a support price for maple syrup, thus ensuring the producer that his yearly production will be sold?
In my opinion, the support price for maple syrup could be set at 28 cents a pound and the government could undertake as it does for other products, to buy the surplus, if need be.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to say a few words in English on behalf of the several hundred people in my riding who do not speak French. The riding of Dorchester, like several others in Canada, comprises the two elements from which our country was formed, and I must say in this house that, to the satisfaction of all, the two groups get along beautifully in an atmosphere of harmony and mutual help. I am happy therefore to mention these English speaking voters and to assure them of my wholehearted devotion in the service of our riding. May I add, Mr. Speaker, that I am proud to represent such a beautiful riding as Dorchester and to be able, in this chamber, to speak on behalf of such an intelligent people.
I would like, on the occasion of my first speech in this house, to say a word about national unity because I am convinced that national unity is the essential condition of the greatness and strength of our country. Although I am an ardent and earnest follower of Laurier, King, Lapointe and St. Laurent, I have nonetheless deep admiration for Sir John A. Macdonald, who was a Conservative and the co-founder of our Canadian confederation. It was Sir John Macdonald who, on February 17, 1890, in reply to Dalton Mac-Carthy, an influential Conservative of that time, had this to say-and I am translating now from the French version of the original text:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other . . . There is no paramount race in this country; there is no conquered race in this country; we are all British subjects and those who are not English are nonetheless British subjects on that account.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the language of justice and truth and it serves the cause of Canadian unity infinitely better than the slogan repeated here and there during the last electoral cam-


paign in a spirit that is very demagogic but not at all Canadian: "We do not need Quebec to form a government."
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that such provocations will no longer slow down the march of Canadian unity.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude my first speech in the house on a note of national unity because I am convinced that national unity is the primary condition of the greatness and strength of our country.
As I just said in English, I am an ardent and staunch follower of Laurier, MacKenzie King, Lapointe and St. Laurent, four great statesmen who particularly concerned themselves with national unity. I have nonetheless great admiration for Sir John A. Macdonald a former Conservative leader and a co-founder of the Canadian confederation with Sir George Etienne Cartier and other illustrious representatives of both great races making up Canada, the English and the French. It was Sir John A. Macdonald who, on February 17th, 1890, replying to Duncan MacCarthy, a very influential Conservative member at the time, said:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other. I believe that there could be no success in such an attempt and it would be a folly and a malicious thing to do, if it were possible. The statement made that Canada was a conquered country was certainly unhappy.
Whether Canada has been conquered or relinquished, we have a constitution whereby all British subjects are equal, having equal rights in matters of language, religion, property and as individuals. There is no paramount race in this country; there is no conquered race in this country; we are all British subjects and those who are not English are none the less British subjects on that account."
That, Mr. Speaker, is the language of justice and truth which serves the cause of Canadian unity so much better than the slogan repeated here and there during the last electoral campaign in a very demagogic but by no means Canadian spirit "There is no need of Quebec to form a government."
I do hope that such provocations from one side or the other will cease delaying the progress of Canadian unity.
In the circles of the St. Laurent government, which know how to direct the minds towards a generous ideal of Canadian unity -an ideal which is neither French nor English but intensely and profoundly Canadian-no such provocative language is heard from the leaders of that party.
More than his predecessors, Mr. St. Laurent has endeavoured to educate our public men with regard to national unity. In his own party he has forged a spirit so generous, so

broad, so Canadian that, even after his departure-which	he has unfortunately
announced for the near future-the Liberal party will remain the champion of national unity in Canada.
That is why I am a Liberal, Mr. Speaker; that is also why I call upon the public, and particularly on our friends opposite, to find out about the true doctrine which inspires Liberal policy in matters of national unity as well as in other matters of Canadian life. To the extent that there will be sincerity of effort, there will be great cause for gratification.
(Text):


Mr. T. J. Irwin (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard over the years of attacks of butterflies in the stomach and jittery feelings when a member arises for the first time to address any legislature and particularly this House of Commons. Well, sir, this is the first time in seven sessions I have had the honour and pleasure of addressing Mr. Speaker and I am frank to say I do not feel too badly about it. True, six of these sessions were spent by me in the provincial legislature and the reason for my reticence in addressing the house then was founded on the fact that when a person occupies the position that you do, sir, and is found talking to himself he is looked upon with a large degree of suspicion.
I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the high position you now occupy as first commoner of this country and Speaker of this House of Commons. It is indeed a position of great honour and responsibility and I feel you will fill it with honour and dignity. I feel it incumbent on myself to assist in this matter by behaving in an ordinary rational manner.
May I congratulate, too, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) for the able manner in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne or, probably more correctly, the causes of summons.
Contrary to the opinion expressed by an hon. member on the opposite side of the house who rather regretted the fact that the proceedings of parliament were televised on opening day I wish to congratulate those persons who were responsible for televising the opening of parliament. Even granting the rights of hon. members of this house to preserve it from the invasion of outsiders, the rights of the Canadian people to see and hear what is going on in this house do have some place in the annals of this country. I believe that radio and television are an extension of the press. While technically 96698-12
The Address-Mr. Irwin members of the press are not in this house I fail to see that television and radio invade the rights of this house any more than the presence of the press reporters. At least radio and television are factual and not expressions of opinion as to the proceedings.
The constituency which I have the honour to represent is a reasonable cross section of the industrial life of this country having within its boundaries a large number of small industries and many large ones. Also, we have extensive fisheries on the Fraser river and much shipping in the same area.
On examining the text of the speech from the throne I am afraid that my constituents are going to deluge me with queries as to the effect of some of the matters mentioned therein because it is a somewhat nebulous document. I feel it could have been a little more precise in giving the people of this country, and those in my constituency in particular, a feeling that the government intended to implement all the delightful promises that were dwelt upon by my opponent in the election on June 10.
The needs of our senior citizens in the light of rising costs are particularly urgent and already some question has arisen as to the implementation of the extent to which old age pensions should be supplemented. Newspaper reports, which are of course notoriously speculative, have given rise to some doubts in this matter and I sincerely hope the government will go the full distance suggested during the election. Specifically it is to be hoped the government will make it its business to see that the regulations under which the means test is applied are ameliorated to a degree that will permit the participation of a greater number of people who have reached the age of 65.
I am quite well aware, as I was told by the Minister of National Health and Welfare a couple of years ago, that the government denies any responsibility for these regulations but the fact remains if the Department of National Health and Welfare is going to insist on either accepting or rejecting regulations that are sought by the provinces then that department is responsible to that extent for those regulations.
The allowable income under the old age pensions regulations is too restrictive. I am quite sure the government will agree that $46 a month is an impossible income upon which to live in most parts of this country and yet the allowable income, unless it has been raised recently, is only $840 a year. I earnestly suggest that the government give this matter close scrutiny with a view to alleviating these conditions.

The Address-Mr. Irwin
The foregoing remarks regarding old age pensions are most emphatically applicable to war veterans allowances and I sincerely hope the government will adequately implement its promise to see that conditions are made easier for these unfortunate people who have given their services to their country and are now unable to care for themselves. I would like the government to consider altering the regulations for the War Veterans Allowance Act to permit those men who served in the first war and who did not get any further than Britain and are therefore classified as not having served in a war area to be included as eligible for war veterans allowances. It must be remembered that a great many of those men who did not leave Britain were held there for the reason that they were over age. Sure, they lied about their age, but they put no strings on where they were going to serve; they were willing to go anywhere, but because age or health prevented their going any further than the British isles the government has thus far taken it upon itself to rule that they are not eligible for assistance under the act. Certainly they lied about their age, but so what? They were interested in the welfare of Canada and they offered their lives in its defence.
Many of these men have reached an advanced age now. I know one old gentleman who is 92 years of age. He served in the first war under the conditions I described and is now in receipt of only $46 a month. He is not eligible for assistance or treatment under the War Veterans Allowance Act and is forced to live on the paltry sum of $46 a month. I regard this situation as desperately unfair.
There is another class of people that should be considered and that is the widows of war veterans' allowance recipients. When a disability pensioner dies and leaves a widow she is eligible for a pension which may be considered reasonable but the widow of a recipient of the war veterans' allowance is eligible only for a widow's pension and thus is in a different classification from the widow of a disability pensioner. It would be well to ask why, because both are the widows of exservicemen and surely there should be no discrimination as to their status.
Another class that has been discriminated against in my opinion is the Imperial veteran. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that when these men or women comply with a reasonable residence qualification,

and I do not regard 20 years as reasonable-they should be eligible to have their pension from Britain raised to the same level as Canadian pensions for the same percentage of disability or they should at least receive their British pensions in Canadian currency at the old par of $4.86.

At the moment there is a post office in my area which was established under conditions which were not altogether favourable for its establishment. It is a rented building and was built specifically for the Post Office Department but it is in an unfortunate position. It is over to the one side of the area in which I have the honour to serve. It is not central. I believe the lease expires in December of this year and therefore it will be necessary to renew the lease. I sincerely hope that the department of the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) will regard this building as being inadequate for the needs of my constituents.
My constituents and I look forward to the establishment of a dominion government building in that area which will serve the needs of the 80,000 people who are residents of Burnaby at the present time. I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) will agree with me that Burnaby as a whole has now arrived at the point where it is entitled to a federal building to house all the various departments of government which are necessary in that fast growing area, and I would respectfully request that the Minister of Public Works give that matter his earnest consideration.
I note there is some indication that this government proposes to co-operate with the provinces in the development of natural resources. Nowhere in this country, Mr. Speaker, will this government find greater scope for activities of this kind than in British Columbia, and from no other source will it reap greater reward. The growth of population in British Columbia since 1941 is 23 per cent higher than the next highest province, Quebec, and nearly twice that of the Canadian average for the same period. This puts a terrific strain on provincial health and welfare services; for the equable climate of the southwest corner of the province makes it a mecca for those seeking refuge from the more rigorous parts of the dominion and the opportunities for advancement hold out an inducement to young men and women to establish themselves and their families there, thus accentuating the pressure on our educational system.
What should be of interest to the dominion government, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the development of British Columbia's natural resources is a veritable pot of gold for the dominion government and yet comparatively it has done nothing in past years but milk the prolific British Columbia cow that has been fed and nurtured by British Columbians. The 1940 report by the Rowell-Sirois commission on British Columbia at page 11 says that the population increase in that province has been greater than in any other province

in this dominion and because of that the pressure on the provincial government is terrific. It is even more important to consider that opinion today because the development in the past seven years has been phenomenal.
The commission to inquire into energy resources, so recently appointed by this government, will in all probability hit a snag in Bill No. 3 passed by this house some three years ago when it considers the development of the Saskatchewan dam. This will also be true of the development of the Columbia river. The water rights act and its regulations in British Columbia are recognized as a pattern for that type of legislation throughout the world and this government would do well to study it, look at some of its effects, and then place their faith for a right and proper development of British Columbia water resources in a government that has the interest of the people of British Columbia at heart.
What benefits British Columbia will benefit Canada, and vice versa. This government will find that co-operation will bring results and to that end the Pacific Great Eastern railway should be of special interest. This railway, stretching as it shortly will from Fort St. John and Dawson Creek to rest its head on the shores of Burrard inlet, taps one of the greatest sources of wealth in this country and offers a scenic trip that is unequalled in a country richly endowed with majestic beauty.
The hon. member for Calgary South made mention of a suggestion that the mayors and reeves should be brought into consultation with the dominion government because they could probably contribute to discussions on dominion-provincial relations. In my opinion the most potent contribution they could probably make is that of convincing themselves that they have sufficient trouble on their hands with their creators, the provinces, without taking on another creation of the provinces, the dominion government.
If the provinces make it their business to maintain their autonomy they will be doing something worth while. This autonomy is slowly but surely slipping from them. Take a look at the Canada Year Book. In 1949 the division of public revenues was as follows: dominion government, 52 per cent; provincial governments, 27 per cent; municipal governments, 21 per cent. Look at it for the year 1956. It is as follows: dominion government, 72 per cent; provincial governments, 17 per cent; municipal governments, 11 per cent. There is a danger arising out of a continuation of that trend. The municipalities are the form of government closest to the people. They provide the facilities to 96698-12i
The Address-Mr. Irwin make life pleasant, but if their creators, the provinces, are to have their revenues absorbed by the dominion government to the extent indicated, then they are fighting a losing battle.
I find when I look at the question of the division of this revenue that the provincial governments are being hard put to it from year to year to make it their business to see that the municipalities receive the assistance they should get. The taxation on land values and improvements in order to provide revenue for the municipalities has gone just about as far as it can go as far as the owners of property are concerned, and I feel the time has come when the dominion government should make it its business to relinquish some of the hold it has on public revenues in this dominion and leave more of them available to the provinces so that the municipalities may be assisted in looking after the welfare of the people.
It would appear that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) feels that there should be some material difference between the policies pursued by the Liberal government and the one now in office. This group has been telling the public of this country for many years that there is no material difference between the two parties, and under the present circumstances the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition prove that assertion. If further proof is needed, it comes from the Prime Minister himself, for on at least two occasions during this session he has used the term, "since we came to power". If he had said, Mr. Speaker, "since we came to office", I would not have thought too much about it, I would not have commented upon it, but may I point out that the use of that word "power" has unfortunate implications. We have had some years of that already. Are we due for some more of the same? I hope not.
This government has my sympathy, Mr. Speaker, not because it is a minority government. That should not worry them too much, for so long as this government is prepared to bring down legislation that is in our opinion for the benefit of the Canadian people we will go along with it. We will help them out. In fact, we will help them out in more ways than that. We are prepared to step in and give them the benefit of our advice in these matters.


Harold Edward Winch: Any advice from the Canadian Legion in Cloverdale?


Thomas James Irwin: Well even that advice might be very valuable. So far as I am concerned, my sympathy is based on the fact that we as a country are merely getting a deal from a minor shuffle of the old deck of political

The Address-Mr. Rea
cards. We as a people want, not only a new deal, we want a completely new deck of cards. Furthermore we do not want the deuces wild and we want the jokers removed from the pack too.
The old line parties have nothing to offer but rehashes of outworn policies that bring no relief to the Canadian people as a whole. We have had 12 years of the Bretton Woods agreement, and its concomitant stupidities which have cost Canada her overseas markets. There is only one reason for production and that is consumption. Canada does not care where her consumers live. We have the capacity to produce goods and services away beyond our capacity to consume. Other peoples do not have the capacity to produce their actual needs.
Let us go back to section 91 of the British North America Act, take unto ourselves as a parliament the right to control and issue our own purchasing power and not strangle our economy by leaving that function in the hands of a private monopoly. My leader put forward a subamendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne and for the benefit of the house I want to repeat it. It is in these words:
That all the words in the amendment after the word "once" be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:
''However, we regret that there is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that it is the government's intention to ask parliament to lay down a scientific, modern financial policy for Canada that will guide the Bank of Canada in its operations, bring about a speedy end to the present tight money policy, and effectively check the ever-rising cost of living."
The need of this country at the present time, Mr. Speaker, is to have the cost of living, which is rising at the rate of between 3 and 4 per cent a year, stabilized first of all and then slowly but surely reduced to the point where our dollar will resume a value that it has not had for the last 40 years. I appreciate the very close and kind attention I have received from the house and so far as I am concerned I will now take my seat.


Mr. C. E. Rea (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to extend rather special congratulations to the Speaker because he happens to come from a riding right next to mine. I have known him for many years and have no hesitancy in going along with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, namely, that he will do an excellent job. To the Deputy Speaker I also offer my congratulations. While I am extending congratulations, I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder, (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

I am inclined to think that I am only echoing what has been said by other members when I say that because of the young men who have joined the Conservative ranks in the house our party is truly in a healthy position and this augurs well for the future of Canada. It is something of which we on this side of the house are very proud.
While talking about that, let me mention a couple of other things. Besides the people of various racial origins whom we have in the Conservative party and in the house, we have two ladies in the house, one of them the first cabinet lady in the history of the country. We have several Ukrainians, one who is a minister, and to complete the picture we have a Chinese member for the first time in Canadian history sitting in the House of Commons on the Conservative side. I think that speaks very well that the Conservative party is truly a Canadian and national party.
I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Landry). He spoke in glowing terms of the unity of the English and French speaking people of his riding and how by working together they became true Canadians. With that I fully agree. My mind also goes back to a speech made a couple of hours earlier today by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), one who has had a great deal more experience than the hon. member for Dorchester. The hon. member for Laurier made a speech that to my mind was strictly a propaganda speech designed to destroy the unity of Canada. I have never heard such a speech before. I am sure that Quebec wants to be treated as one of the ten provinces of Canada and not as a province that has to be treated in a special way.
When one of our members was speaking he asked the other side why they did not change their minds and make us go to the people and the answer was "We do not want to let you fellows off the hook." We know who is on the hook. Those who are afraid to fight are on the hook. Do not worry about us.
To come back to the speech from the throne, hon. members have all heard it or read it and the comments about it are excellent. One can only come to the conclusion that for the first time in 22 years a party that has been elected to form a government is starting right at the beginning to put every election promise into effect.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Reduce income taxes?


Charles Edward Rea: All you have to do is read the speech from the throne. Wait till the next one is brought down. It is going to be better. In

a country that is growing as fast as Canada and needs so many good people from various parts of the world I think we will all rejoice that the period it is necessary to live in Canada to qualify for the old age pension is going to be reduced. Just imagine what good news that will be for the older people who have come over here bringing with them their young people to contribute to the steady growth of our country. Their culture, which in many cases is hundreds and hundreds of years old, will eventually form part of what will be known as a Canadian culture. In this regard may I say I am sure the time will come when many people from what we now call the ethnic groups will be represented on the Canada council.
We have done a great deal, as have many other organizations, to try to help these newcomers to learn our language and understand our ways. I have often wondered whether those of us who were born here have ever tried to do our part in learning to understand the emotions and problems that have to be faced by these newcomers to our country. I am inclined to think that all of us should spend more time in this direction because while we are trying to teach these people our ways we are also being taught to understand their problems. It is only by this method that they will enter much faster into the various societies that Canada has to offer.
I also think that we are all trying sincerely to show these newcomers that we just have one class of citizenship in Canada, and that is first-class citizenship. The proposed legislation to decrease the length of time that one has to live here to qualify for the old age pension is something that will help to equalize all people in this country and it is certainly something which should have been done a long time ago by the do-nothing former Liberal government.
I shall just take a moment or two to speak about our senior citizens. We all know how long they tried to exist on the meagre allowance that was dealt out by the former government. Just before the election, of course, the government tried to bribe them with two extra cups of coffee each day. I should like to remind you of the proposal that has been made in the speech from the throne. I am sure these senior citizens are going to be very happy when this measure is actually implemented.
At this point I might say that there are no farmers in the Spadina riding, but we all know that if the farmers are successful then the remainder of the population in Canada is successful. We must operate as a team, and the suggested legislation will be of help to farmers in the future and therefore will be
The Address-Mr. Rea
appreciated not only by the farmers but by everyone else in Canada.
Some hon. members may have heard me talk some time ago about the deplorable situation in the electrical fixture business. For example, a manufacturer who manufactures electrical fixtures in Canada must manufacture them according to very high standards and rules. This is essential for the protection of human lives. Unfortunately certain fixtures can be imported from the United States which do not meet these high standards. Naturally, because the manufacturers do not have to use high class materials, these fixtures can be manufactured a great deal more cheaply and constitute not only unfair competition for the Canadian manufacturer but put the lives of everyone who uses them in danger. The loss from fires resulting from faulty electrical materials runs into many millions of dollars a year, and the loss of life of course is appalling. Those who were here, I believe it was two sessions ago, will remember what happened in Ottawa and will realize the seriousness of this situation.
You can have the best firefighting equipment in the world, the best trained firemen in the world, but when a person uses what we might call the "killer type" fixtures, firemen with all their equipment do not have a fair chance. Not long ago I bought a set of Christmas tree lights which had been imported from another country. The country of origin was not stamped on the box. I want to tell you that if I had ever connected those lights to a socket the whole thing would have gone up in flames. These lights were purchased in a reputable store, but I do not believe the purchasing agent realized the situation. I showed them to him and he immediately withdrew what he had left on the shelf. You will note I said, "what he had left". There had been some sold and goodness knows what happened as a result. Since being in power this government has actually started to ascertain what can be done about this matter. I am sure that before long they will correct another oversight of the "don't bother me" former government because I tried to get the former government to correct this situation. Evidently it was too much of a problem because the provinces had to be consulted and they did not want to take the time to do that.
On motion of Mr. Rea the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: It is the intention of the government to continue with this debate on Monday.


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

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