1957-11-12

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister encourage and the government assist in arranging a broad international conference of scientists to discuss the dangers of thermonuclear war, as proposed in a letter signed by six of the Soviet union's outstanding scientists and quoted in the leading editorial of the New York Herald Tribune of November 8?
Is he aware that the proposal has been endorsed by the editor of the bulletin of the atomic scientists and approved by Mr. Cyrus Eaton, who arranged the Pugwash scientific conference last summer?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to do me the courtesy of sending me notice of his question, together with the editorial in the New York Herald Tribune, and also the observation thereon by Mr. Cyrus Eaton.
From a perusal of the editorial I conclude that the proposal made by the scientists of the U.S.S.R. was one outside of governmental consideration. Apparently a number of U.S.S.R. scientists suggested that it would be helpful if the atomic scientists of all countries and representatives of other disciplines, biologists, medical scientists, philosophers, economists, historians, sociologists and educators, could meet to express their weighty opinions in a broad international meeting of the most important representatives of science. Later on in the course of the letter these words appear:
The danger which hangs over mankind because of the possibility of using atomic energy for war purposes is common to all countries independent of their political and economic systems.
There is nothing in any way to prevent such a meeting under the auspices of any of the nations in respect of which representation by scientists would take place.
The basis of the meeting would be similar to the meeting convened in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, by Mr. Cyrus Eaton, at which representatives of various nations met and discussed international and scientific problems. This is not a conference for governments. It is one for scientists, and I would simply say that everything that can be done should be done to bring about peace in the world. If the scientists choose to meet I am sure there would certainly be every approval by the free nations. Further than that I cannot go at this time, for it is not a matter of national government consideration.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question. The point of my question was, will the government encourage and assist as far as its ability goes? I notice that Mr. Cyrus Eaton, in the article to which I referred and which I sent the Prime Minister, suggests that encouragement might be given by Canada and the conference might be held in Canada. The point of my question is, will the government encourage and to the extent that is possible assist in the organization of such a conference? I think we have scientists in Canada connected with the Chalk River project and the national research council who might be encouraged to join in organizing such a conference.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, up to the present time there has been nothing official in this connection except for a reference in the press to a suggestion made by certain scientists of the U.S.S.R. I would not want to go further at this time until an invitation was actually received by Canadian scientists. I notice that Mr. Cyrus Eaton says that such a conference would probably be held in Canada, the West Indies or India. Then he goes on to say that perhaps Canada might be the place of meeting. Certainly there was no interference in any way by the government of Canada with Soviet scientists coming to Canada to the conference convened by Mr. Eaton, and subject to any eventualities in the meantime I am sure the same attitude should be exhibited by the government in reference to any bona fide effort being made by scientists to discuss the problems of today and arrive at some solution which would ensure coexistence and peace in the world.

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



INQUIRY AS TO INTERNATIONAL CONTROL OF OUTER SPACE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Transport, inasmuch as it may be that the international civil aviation organization would be involved. Is the Canadian government giving consideration to the desirability of seeking international conventions or agreements regarding the launching of satellites and space travel, in the hope that mankind's activities in outer space might be on a coordinated basis?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: We will certainly give the hon. member's question consideration and study.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Has anything been done with regard to this matter under the aegis of the international civil aviation organization as yet?


George Harris Hees: Not so far as I know.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I read in a newspaper last Friday that the plans for the new post office headquarters building, which was to be built on Riverside drive, have been shelved indefinitely. The heading of the article is, "Tories Cancel Plans for New Post Office H.Q." I should like to know if that is right.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I am very sorry, but I did not hear the hon. member's question. I will take it as notice.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I will send the minister the article so that he may understand the question.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. Since he did not understand my question, will he read it and give me an answer now?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member wait until the question just asked has been disposed off?


Joseph-Omer Gour: I asked a question of the Minister of Public Works and he said he did not


understand me. I sent my question to the minister, and he should be able to read it.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has taken the hon. member's question as notice, and it will be dealt with.



REPORTED POSTPONEMENT OF CON- STRUCTION OF NATIONAL DEFENCE HEADQUARTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph-Omer Gour: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence; it is the same question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I have read-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has put me on notice that he is asking the same question, and I must rule him out of order. If he is asking a different one he should have said so.


Joseph-Omer Gour: It is on the same subject but it is a different question. The Ottawa Journal reports that the Minister of National Defence has ruled out the possibility that construction of the pentagon is to begin this year. I should like to know whether or not that is true.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should give the same answer as that given by the Minister of Public Works.


Joseph-Omer Gour: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that they like to put more people out of work. One hundred per cent more people are out of work just now, and this is what they want to do.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he should not comment on the answer he has received, or the lack of an answer. Both these questions have been taken as notice, something which is the right of the minister.
OLIVER, B.C.-PROPOSED NE*W FEDERAL BUILDING
On the orders of the day:


Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which has been given.
As the present post office building in Oliver, British Columbia, is not large enough for the efficient handling of the mails, and as the fruit inspection offices and the Veterans' Land Act personnel are housed in very poor quarters, what plans have the government for an improvement of the existing situation? Is a new federal building for Oliver contemplated and, if so, when?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of this question. Consideration is being given to the erection of a public building in Oliver, but I am not in a position to say just when that can be done.



SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDER RESPECTING PRAYERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and I do so with all due respect to your duties, Mr. Speaker, at the start of each sitting day. Would the government give consideration to the amending of the standing orders so that arrangements may be made to have clergymen of the various religious denominations read the prayers at the opening of each sitting day of the house, in order that all hon. members may have the opportunity of having at some time prayers read by a member of their own faith and in order that each religious denomination may be able to give the house its blessing?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the amending of the standing orders is a matter, of course, for the house. However, I think I speak for all hon. members when I say that while all of us recognize the abiding need for spiritual guidance, the system that has been in effect in our country since confederation does meet the need of hon. members without regard to their religious persuasion. The nature of the prayer that is made each day is comprehensive enough, and I think does meet in general the feelings, aspirations and desires of members as a whole.
While I appreciate the thought behind the question, I do not feel that any change should be made, although I might add this. I do believe that at a time of international trial and fear, the desires of the hon. member could be met, if parliament so desired, by the establishment of a room similar to that which was brought into being some years ago by the United States congress, a prayer room adjacent to parliament where law-givers, without regard to religious persuasion, might ask for that guidance which parliamentarians need today.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. I have often felt that there is one word in the prayer that might be changed for the better. We now pray that Her Gracious Majesty might overcome all her enemies. Would it not be more in keeping with the Prince of Peace if we prayed that she might win her enemies?
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  EQUIPMENT TO KEEP CHANNELS OPEN IN WINTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the experiments carried out by the Atlas Copco Company of Sweden to free water channels from freezing in winter, is such equipment being installed or considered to free the St. Lawrence seaway of ice and thereby keep ships passing in the winter?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me over this newspaper article. I see by it that the experiments have not yet been carried out but that they will be carried out in Sweden this winter. Quite naturally we shall be greatly interested to hear what are the results of those experiments, because anything that would keep the St. Lawrence seaway open during the wintertime at reasonable cost would naturally be highly interesting to this country.



STATEMENT ON SURVEY ON RESULTS OF SMOKING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) asked whether my department was carrying out a study of the effects of tobacco as a possible cause of cancer. I would inform him that the epidemiology division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, in co-operation with the Department of Veterans Affairs, undertook an investigation two years ago to study further the relationship of residence, occupation and smoking habits to death from lung cancer and other selected causes.
Information has now been collected from a large group of persons and this is being carefully analysed. As this study is prospective in nature it is a long-term undertaking and it is not expected that conclusions will be available for some time.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question concerning his statement
992	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry yesterday in respect of air pollution by locomotives. Can the minister say what action is being taken in regard to air pollution by ships?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. The international joint commission has been making a study of this nuisance in the Detroit river and other boundary waters for some years. This study is now nearing completion, and standards covering smoke emission will then be issued to the various authorities having jurisdiction along the St. Lawrence system. This includes Toronto harbour which is, of course, for this purpose under the jurisdiction of the local authorities concerned.
It is hoped that the standards, when issued, will be enforced by the various authorities having jurisdiction and, if this is done, a forward step in dealing with this nuisance for the whole of the great lakes system will have been taken.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. If I understood the hon. member's question properly he was dealing with air pollution. Does the same statement apply to pollution of water, and is the study of the pollution of water extended to the international joint commission in the great lakes area as well?


George Harris Hees: It is my understanding that it is, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anioine-Wesi-mount):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further supplementary question. Do I understand the minister to suggest that the Toronto harbour commission does not have power to regulate this problem within its own control?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. If the former minister will read my answer I think he will see that I said the Toronto harbour commission has jurisdiction to carry out these measures itself.


George Carlyle Marler: So I should infer from the minister's answer that they already have power to regulate this problem?


George Harris Hees: Yes.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Yesterday I addressed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as follows: "-arising out of the answer of the Minister of Agriculture to the hon. member for Yorkton with regard to the serious drop in hog prices in western Canada. Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce now announce a new directive to western producers? I refer to the statement he made in Winnipeg suggesting to farmers that they go into livestock production, thereby using up a lot of surplus wheat.
My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that the answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest to anyone in Winnipeg or anywhere else that the farmers of western Canada should go into livestock production. If the hon. member would get his facts straight perhaps I could answer his question.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege of seeing the text of the speech which the Minister of Trade and Commerce made at the dairy council in Winnipeg, but I have here with me several editorials appearing in various newspapers in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member first said he was rising on a point of order and then revised it to a question of privilege. If it is a point of order referring to what transpired at question time yesterday it should have been raised then. If it is a question of privilege I fail to see as yet where there is any matter of the privilege of this house involved in what the hon. member is complaining about. If the hon. member has a question of privilege I wish he would state it.


Edward George McCullough: My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is this. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said if the hon. member would get his facts straight perhaps he could answer his question. I want to say that I am quite prepared to be corrected in my assumption of what the minister did say and, due to the importance of what he is taken to have said at the dairy council in Winnipeg, according to the various editorials, I would ask him to correct my assumption or mis-assumption and put the facts straight.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, may I just say this. I suggested to the hon. member that he should get his facts straight. He has now admitted that he has not read the text of my first class speech given to the dairy council in Winnipeg. He has just said that possibly there are corrections which should be made to editorials. I cannot keep up with the editorials across the country in order to do that.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to these first class speeches, how are we going to get the full text of them?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Upon request. I will be glad to give one to my hon. friend, who similarly was confused by reports in the papers.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I would suggest that the minister should distribute his first class speeches to all members of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would improve your own speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. I have not given him notice of this question, but there is considerable publicity on the matter in this morning's paper so perhaps he could deal with it. I wonder if he is aware of the situation with reference to the Montreal-Kingston-Ottawa pilots, and also whether he has taken cognizance of the fact that the pilots have been advised that they will be fined and their districts probably abolished unless they return to work by Wednesday. I am asking now whether the minister has approved of this in his capacity as pilotage authority for Canada.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting at four o'clock this afternoon with the pilots' committee for further discussions.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the government consider the construction of a harbour bridge at the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, similar to the Angus L. Macdonald bridge in Halifax?


Howard Charles Green: I will be glad to look into this question.
993
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 11, 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.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin what I have to say today by extending very sincere congratulations to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) upon the excellent form of the speech he delivered in the house last evening. I think there is no doubt that the hon. member caught the ear of the house, which I assume is one of the first objects of a good new member, and I hope that as time goes on the hon. member will continue to bring forward in this house the problems of the province of Newfoundland, about his concern for which I express no doubt; and I am sure he expresses no doubt about mine.
I am afraid, however, that I cannot congratulate the hon. member upon having caught the ear of the Prime Minister, because when the hon. member used that nasty word "unemployment", which no Tory backbencher is supposed to use, there was a frown on the face of the Prime Minister, and I could only conclude that the party whip had not got all the way around with the warning that this nasty word "unemployment", which the Liberals use to spread doom and gloom in the country, was not to be used by Tory backbenchers. But no doubt the hon. member will learn in time.
Now, sir, I think the hon. member for St. John's East in his zeal did rather exaggerate the situation in the province of Newfoundland. It is true that there is a good deal ot unemployment there-more than twice as much as there was a year ago-and it is true that unless some steps are taken to improve that situation there will be a good deal more before the winter is out. That is a matter of proper concern to every member of this house, whatever province he happens to represent.
I suggest it would be better if the government, instead of suggesting that we should ignore the existence of unemployment, were to get busy and try to do some things which could be done, and done right away, to alleviate the unemployment situation. I do not think the hon. member for St. John's East will question my statement when I say that were it not for the building of two public buildings by the public works department and the building of a terminal at Torbay by the Department of Transport, projects undertaken

The Address-Mr. Pickersgill by the previous government, there would be a good deal more unemployment at St. John's than there is at the present time.
I must say that I feel a little concerned on reading stories in the press recently that other public works are going to be cut out for reasons of economy. We all know that the former minister of finance, Mr. Harris, in preparing his estimates-in fact he told the house this-did cut down the public works projects that were put into the estimates for this year, because at that time the prospect for private construction in this country was very good.
Now, for some reason or other

and I am not going to suggest what the reason is- those prospects are not nearly as good today, and I do think it is very unwise on the part of the government to be cutting out any of those essential projects at this particular time when all of us have a proper concern about a tendency toward increased unemployment, which I do not intend to exaggerate.
I should also extend the customary congratulations to the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault). I think they both did very well, but I do not think anything I can say would add to the congratulations that others have extended to them. I will, however, Mr. Speaker, extend a special word of congratulations to you. Like my hon. friend from Inverness-Richmond, I can say this with the more assurance because it is rather long delayed. I confess, sir, that when the names of the ministers were announced on June 21 many of us were astonished that your name was not among them. It did seem to us that you had made a great mark in this house and in other places, and it did seem astounding that you should not have been in the ministry; but the loss to the government, I think, sir, has been a gain to parliament. I believe you have already demonstrated that your main concern is to be utterly impartial and, speaking for myself, I would never ask anything more of the Speaker.
I want to express my admiration of the Prime Minister's election campaign. I think it is well known to the house that I have had a reasonably close association with other prime ministers of this country for what is now 20 years, and I must say that when I looked at the schedule of the Prime Minister's election engagements I was horrified. I thought the hon. gentleman or his advisers had mistaken him for superman. I must say that I never expected him to get to the end of the course. For sheer endurance I think it was a terrific record, for which I cannot fail to express my admiration.
[Mr. Pickersgill.)
I would also like, sir, to express to the Prime Minister my own appreciation of the way in which he has preserved the amenities of his office outside the house. I think he has done that admirably and we have all appreciated it. In doing so I think he was following the example set by my right hon. leader and I would suggest, sir, that if the Prime Minister would follow that example in the house as well as outside, the whole tone and temper of the house might be even better.	.
I should also like to say that I personally feel the Prime Minister should be congratulated upon the excellent arrangements that were made for, and carried out during, the royal visit. I do not think they could have been improved upon. I certainly personally have no criticism, and I do not think anyone in this party has any criticism, of the Prime Minister for having delayed the opening of the house in order to have it opened by Her Majesty. As a matter of fact, sir, I think it would be very ill-becoming any member of the Liberal party to express any such criticism, because in delaying the opening the Prime Minister was simply carrying out, and carrying out admirably, the plans which were already made by the previous prime minister.
I would also like to say, sir, that it was a source of particular gratification to me personally that the Prime Minister went to Washington as the minister in attendance upon the Queen. It did seem to me that was the right and proper thing to do; but my mind, sir, went back 18 years, to the first time a Canadian prime minister attended in Washington and in the United States as the principal adviser to the Canadian sovereign-a prime minister also from Prince Albert-and I could not fail to remember, sir, that at that time there were many members of the Conservative party who were very critical of what Mr. Mackenzie King did. But it is interesting to see that after a generation's lag the Tories usually decide that what Liberals have done is right.
I think, sir, the right hon. gentleman who is the leader of our party did the right thing in taking the view he did, that the government should be given every opportunity to prepare itself for what is after all the most difficult task in this country; and there was, from the day the ministers took office until the opening of this house, almost not a breath of criticism of the ministers or of the government from members of the Liberal party. We felt the ministers were entitled to have time to find their feet, to learn their job; but we did expect that once they came here in parliament they would not expect any quarter, and they would not make any complaints

if we treated them, after four months in which to get experience, in exactly the same way that other governments in the past have expected to be treated in a deliberative assembly.
I do want to say, sir-and I am afraid this will be in a rather more critical vein- something very briefly about the Prime Minister's cabinet making. I cannot express tne same admiration for it as I can for some of the other activities of the Prime Minister. It has always been well understood in this country, except for one occasion, that the cabinet should reflect the federal principle, which is the basis of our constitution. Unless the cabinet accurately represents all the regions of this country, the distribution of the population and the distribution of interests within the country, it is going to be much more difficult to maintain that essential and basic unity without which this country cannot hope to survive and prosper as we want it to prosper. It seems to me, sir, that the present cabinet is almost as lopsided as the cabinet of 1917; not quite, but almost. A life-long student of Canadian political history said to me a few weeks ago:
Canada extends from sea to sea but this new Tory government looks as though it extended from the Humber to the Don and from the lake shore to Eglinton.
Well, you know, sir, that is not really good enough. This government was going to bring in a new era in the Atlantic provinces. Look at them. In the province of Nova Scotia the Prime Minister won the greatest victory that any Tory leader has won since confederation and he won it, as the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) showed so well yesterday, because he painted a picture of the transformation that was going to take place in the Atlantic provinces, of which, after five months, there are no signs or even indications.


Mr. Nowlan:: There are none so blind as those who will not see.


An hon. Member:: What about the 22 years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
An hon. Member:: They never had it before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I expected that interruption, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister would not agree with it, because he flattered me all through the election campaign by exaggerating my importance in the previous government. I do not think anyone, even the hon. member for St. John's East, would question that I had some little influence in the affairs of this country in the last four years-


Gordon Minto Churchill: How is your influence now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and that some of that influence has done no harm to the province of Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: How did you get down to Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite willing to leave it to the people who have to vote for me, and if the hon. gentleman can get the kind of majority I had he will not have any reason to complain.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How do you make them vote for you?


Mr. Fraser:: How do you make them have to vote for you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to say something very briefly about the trade policy of the government. I am not going to attempt to
996	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill traverse the ground already traversed by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson). I want to speak on this subject primarily from the point of view of the Atlantic provinces. I do not think any of us was much concerned one way or the other when the Prime Minister went to London. I do not think we were much concerned when he said he had some scheme for increasing commonwealth trade, because everybody in his senses would like to increase commonwealth trade.
But our real worry began, sir, when the Prime Minister returned from London with this 15 per cent diversion which he apparently never discussed with the cabinet, which he rushed off to the press gallery and broadcast to the world, and about which we have never been able to find out anything more from that day to this. But what really worried us, and if the Prime Minister has any doubt about this I suggest he read the editorials in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, which is an independent newspaper-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, does the hon. gentleman suggest it is not an independent newspaper? If so, I will stand corrected.


An hon. Member:: Notice how we ignore that one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No sober person in the Atlantic provinces could understand a proposal which deliberately suggested that we should take something away from the best customer we had, and that is what this proposal meant and nothing else. That we should expand commonwealth trade, yes; but that the Prime Minister of the country should set out deliberately to injure the exports of our best customer struck us as a very dangerous proposition indeed. We felt, and we have had evidence since, as the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) pointed out the other day, that this 15 per cent proposal of the Prime Minister, this careless proposal as the hon. member for Algoma East described it, has strengthened all those protectionist interests in the United States which the previous government was able to counter, and on the whole counter very successfully. That apprehension is very widely felt, and I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was really right when he said in Washington that the Prime Minister did not mean 15 per cent, that it was only a figure of speech.


Mr. Fleming:: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, sir, we have also been rather concerned about the cavalier attitude of the government-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no; the hon. gentleman is, as usual, misquoted by the press.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Misquoted by the hon.
member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might keep his temper and not blow his top.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My temper is kept, but I would be obliged if my hon. friend would stick to fact and not fiction.


Mr. Harkness:: There were no members of the press present at that meeting.


Mr. Pearson:: There was a lot of talking afterward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is sad that in all of us
there seems to be some lack, and that the Creator left out a sense of humour when He created the Minister of Finance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What did He leave out in you?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did He leave a sense of veracity out of you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest, sir, that the way the minister treated Mr. Thorneycroft's proposal was not the right way to treat it. I suggest that the veil of secrecy that has descended over the trade proposals made by this government and made to this government should be lifted, and that we should have the external affairs committee called at the earliest possible moment and have both hon. gentlemen's proposals investigated by that committee.
The minister said in the house the other day that his proposals at Mont Tremblant were secret because they were intergovernmental. They were nothing of the kind. They were proposals by the Canadian government, and there is no reason whatever why they should be secret unless the government itself wants to conceal them, which I suspect it does. We have never been told, either, what Mr. Thorneycroft's proposals are. We have read a lot of things in the Financial Post, which the hon. gentleman says never reports anything correctly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Probably they are an approximation, but we should be told officially in the house what is in these proposals. As a parliament of freely elected representatives of the people we ought to be allowed to debate these proposals, and the best place to do that is in the external affairs committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is wrong with
parliament?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to go on to say
something about another subject which is just as important to us in the Atlantic provinces and is also referred to in the speech from the throne. The speech from the throne refers to a meeting with leaders of provincial governments "to discuss fiscal relations and to seek better understanding and arrangement of many aspects of our public finances." This is a very vague expression, sir, but I assume it is intended to be a carrying out of the promises made by the Prime Minister during the election. I have looked at one or two of the things the Prime Minister is reported to have said on this subject during the election campaign, and I am going to take a few moments of the time of the house to quote one or two of them very briefly. On June 3 the Prime Minister is reported to have said at Cambridge, Nova Scotia:
We will also provide the necessary machinery to enable applications for federal assistance to receive their proper consideration.
That surely does not mean that the premiers have to write and write again and spend two months trying to get answers to their letters.
These things we will do and, in addition to that, we want to bring into effect a reasonable equality in confederation whereby there will be available to each of the provinces special adjustment grants in order to assure a reasonable degree of equality among the provinces of this country. To that end, we're going to call a dominion-provincial conference immediately after the election. . . .
I am not going to read the rest of that one. I want to read also briefly from what the Prime Minister is reported to have said at Three Rivers, as reported in the Gazette of June 5:
The Conservative party will restore the true meaning of the British North America Act which guarantees the provinces freedom to carry out various spheres of activity allotted them under the constitution. We will not only make sure that the constitution is respected, but we will also make sure that the provinces and municipalities have sufficient money to do the job they are supposed to do. Having the power to do a certain job does not mean very much if you have not got the financial means to implement these powers.
It is no wonder the premier of Nova Scotia expressed the great expectations he did, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of October 27, before he received that very discouraging letter which the Prime Minister wrote on October 31 in which it was stated that nothing was going to be done at the conference in November; no proposals put before it; nothing definite, just talk.
That is precisely what I thought was going to happen; that is precisely what I said would happen when I was in Winnipeg on
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill October 19, after having asked one or two questions in this house. I said the government intended, for as long as possible, to do absolutely nothing for the provinces and that when they were finally forced by pressure to do something they intended to short change the poorer provinces. I still believe that is their intention. If it is not I cannot understand why we in this parliament are not told what their proposals are.
We were told there would be a conference immediately after the election, not five months afterward. Surely there has been plenty of time for the government to consider this problem and formulate some views about it. One thing that has disturbed a good many of us who represent the poorer provinces of this country is that nowhere in the Prime Minister's campaign did he say that the additional payments he promised would maintain the equalization principle. I want to be fair. It is true the Prime Minister said that no province would lose anything it was receiving. He did say that the equalization which exists now would be maintained, but he did not say anywhere that the principle of equalization would be maintained in the subsequent grants. This is of the utmost importance. This is why one cannot escape the feeling that there is an intention on the part of the government to short change the other provinces in order to satisfy the demands of the premier of Ontario.
The premier of Ontario asked on the platforms, where he was accompanied by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, for another $100 million. I am going to be fair again, I hope, to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister never said he was going to give that. Indeed, I think he said in Saskatoon he had given no promise of any kind to the premier of Ontario. However, the premier of Ontario did ask for $100 million. I believe that in Toronto the other day he said he expected to get it. I made a calculation, as nearly as I could with the facts at my disposal, of what $100 for Ontario would mean under Mr. Harris' formula.


An hon. Member:: You mean $100 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; $100; it is the same thing, if you just add a few more zeros. I thought it was simpler if I took $100 to Ontario and made a calculation as to what the other provinces would receive. Of course the figures are not final, but according to the figures that were published I made a calculation as to what the other provinces would get in additional revenues, without duplicate taxation. This calculation shows that for every $100 Ontario derives Quebec gets about


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and with not the faintest vestige of any kind of excuse.


An hon. Member:: How wrong can you be?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That statement is as accurate as are most of the hon. gentleman's statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the 20 years I have been in Ottawa I cannot remember a single occasion on which the previous government had formulated a policy and refused to indicate their intentions. I can remember occasions, while they were still formulating policies, while they had been giving them the sage consideration which I commend to the Prime Minister before propositions are made, when they quite properly would not make any commitments about their intentions. But once a decision on those intentions has been reached, the idea that a minister can get up in the house and say, "That is a matter of government policy and you fellows on the other side are not entitled to know about it", is something new in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is something that has happened since the last election.


Mr. Hodgson:: Do you think Mr. Howe is dead?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have had another complaint from the government side of the house, particularly from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), who apparently is trying to emulate me as an interjector.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And I must say that he is fairly good at it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I assure the hon. member that I will take a better model.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was hoping my observation would bring about a reformation, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture, whose good nature is refreshing on the treasury benches, has said on several occasions-in fact as recently as last night and perhaps this morning-something about the 22 weeks. The Prime Minister also, in his opening speech in this debate, made a good deal of comment on the 22 weeks. He said my leader expected him to do as much in 22 weeks as the Liberals had done in 22 years. I can assure the Prime Minister and you,
The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith Mr. Speaker, that we have no such expectation at all. But when thinking about those 22 weeks a little bit one thought occurred to me. I remembered that on October 14-I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister picked this date purposely-1935, Mr. Mackenzie King won an election. Within four weeks of the date of the election-not within four weeks of the date the government took office but within four weeks of the date of the election-Mr. Mackenzie King's government had concluded with the United States a trade agreement which began to take us out of the depression. What has this government done not in four weeks but, as the Prime Minister said, in nearly 22 weeks?


George Clyde Nowlan: The trade agreement was negotiated by R. B. Bennett.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who would not sign it. He was afraid to sign it.


George Clyde Nowlan: He was like you; he expected to come back.


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


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Then again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to you upon your elevation to the high office which you now hold. I feel confident that you will fulfil the duties of your office with impartiality and dignity. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will continue to keep that right eye of yours directed to the further end of this chamber, as you have done so well up to now.
Since the large percentage of those residing in the Battle River-Camrose federal riding which it is my privilege to represent are either directly or indirectly dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood, it is my intention this morning to spend some time discussing a few of the problems that face those who are engaged in the major industry to be found in Canada. There is no need of my pointing out to the house that those engaged in this industry now find themselves in a position where, while they represent 17 per cent of our national population, their share of the national income was slightly above 6.9 per cent. This points out that those engaged in agriculture from coast to coast, and not in any one regional area alone, have been unfairly treated throughout the last number of years.
The agricultural policy of the Social Credit group has been well known not only to the members of this house but to the people of

The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith Canada for many years. It has not been a policy that has been adjusted in order to satisfy the changing winds of public opinion. It is not a policy that was drafted to satisfy regional groups in Canada. It is a truly national policy, an agricultural policy for all those engaged in that industry. We as a group are extremely proud of the agricultural policy we have advocated down through the years in this house. It is for this reason that it is my intention this morning to again put this policy on record.
In order that the farmers of Canada may be afforded the opportunity to obtain a fair share of Canada's national income, we of the Social Credit group advocate the following agricultural program. First, low cost and long-term credits to farmers and cash advances against the grain stored on the farms. Second, we advocate a two price system for the sale of our farm products. Products would be sold at parity prices on the domestic market and those exported abroad would be sold at the best price obtainable, preferably under international agreement, but supported at levels which would assure that the aggregate sales in the domestic and export market would return to the farmer his fair share of the national income. Third, we advocate the continuation of the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency for wheat, oats and barley, with the inclusion of flax and rye to be handled under the jurisdiction of that board.
Fourth, we advocate an expansion of permanent storage for grain so the desired reserves of grain might be carried without interfering with the normal handling of the current crop. Fifth, an all-risk national crop insurance act along lines similar to the act now in operation in the United States of America. Sixth, the expansion of markets for farm products, (a) in the domestic market by equating the effective purchasing power with the aggregate of all prices of goods available for sale, and (b) externally by making surplus products available to all nations which are unable to obtain them through the normal channels of trade, by the acceptance of foreign currency, by barter deals and in the case of extreme distress by outright gifts.
We believe such a program is not merely in the interests of the Canadian farmer but that it is of vital concern to the people of Canada, in order to ensure that there will continue to be adequate supplies of food at fair prices, prices that bear a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities. Moreover, we feel it is of vital concern in helping to promote world peace.

I wish to point out that we of this group are not prepared to admit that there is a surplus of food in the world today, and in this opinion we have the backing of outstanding leaders in Canada at this time. I have in my hand a short article taken from the Wheat Pool Budget of August 16, 1957. This article deals with surplus disposal as follows:
To those who think that in agriculture we have arrived at a point where we need no longer expand I say to you this:	I learned one lesson at the
commonwealth conference in London-we must expand our agricultural development. With one quarter of the world's population going to bed hungry at night methods must be found to enable-
I want to stress this.
-to enable the distribution of our surpluses to the end that happiness will come to the peoples of the world.
These are not the comments of a wheat pool delegate from western Canada, nor of an official of the farmers' union in Alberta or the interprovincial farm union council. These are the words of the Prime Minister of Canada spoken to 11,000 people at the opening of the Saskatoon exhibition on July 22. We feel very definitely that the only reason we have a grain surplus in Canada today is because of faulty marketing and financial policies followed by the previous administration. No nation in the world should ever be plagued with surpluses of food when there are millions of hungry people in other areas.
We will admit that it is perhaps a wise policy to maintain in Canada a surplus of wheat and other foodstuffs at all times as a safeguard against possible crop failures and so forth, but we do not feel it is fair to expect the farmers of Canada to finance any great portion of such a surplus. It is a problem of national concern and should be financed by the nation as a whole.
The previous administration frowned upon such suggestions as the establishment of permanent storage facilities for our wheat and other grain. That same administration frowned upon the acceptance of sterling or the currency of other lands in return for agricultural products. It frowned upon barter deals and it frowned upon outright gifts of surpluses of food products to hungry nations. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's present government will take a new look at this whole situation and attempt to place the food we have in surplus in Canada today into the mouths of those people who are hungry in other parts of the world.
During the last two sessions of parliament we in this house have spent considerable time discussing amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. During those discussions we of this group urged that several changes be made in

this act. We suggested that the maximum loan granted be increased from $15,000 to $20,000; that the time of repayment of a loan be extended from 30 to 40 years; that the amount of the loan which is granted upon the appraised valuation be extended from 65 to 80 per cent. We urged that there be a reduction in the interest rates charged on such loans, and finally we asked that a more realistic approach be taken to the whole matter of appraising farm property in order to bring such appraisals in line with the present day values of such properties.
We still feel that the act as it now stands is of little or no use to a young man who wishes to enter the agricultural industry. During last summer I had several farmers come to me with their complaints of being unable to secure assistance from the Canadian farm loan board. The interprovincial farm union council in their brief submitted to the Prime Minister and his cabinet on August 15 had this to say concerning the activities of the Canadian farm loan board:
There has been available for some considerable time the facilities of the Canadian farm loan board, but these have proven to be totally inadequate in performing the function, with respect to the farm finance, that we would anticipate from this board.
From experience, farmers (particularly young people wishing to establish themselves on farms) have found the operations of the Canadian farm loan board extremely restrictive.
In actual practice it would appear that the only people who have ready access to the facilities of this board are those who already have more land and greater assets than are normally required. In the words of the interprovincial farm union council, which represents farmers in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario:
Our main concern in this respect is to enable young farmers to obtain the finances necessary, backed by the assets of the farm unit, to enable them to take over, in many cases, their fathers' farms and to allow them to carry on in the vocation for which they are best qualified.
Then again, on July 31 of last year the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet received a presentation from the Canadian federation of agriculture, and that presentation also dealt at some length with the Canadian farm loan board. It had this to say:
The regular Canadian farm loan board program also requires revision. Primarily-
And these are interesting words, Mr. Speaker.
-it needs to liberalize its present over-cautious and conservative appraisal and lending policies.
1001
The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet will take these words to heart, and I will repeat them:
It needs to liberalize its present over-cautious and conservative appraisal and lending policies.
The presentation goes on to say:
The maximum loan should also be increased to $20,000 from the present $15,000 maximum. While the present maximum loan rate of 65 per cent of appraised value is satisfactory for larger loans, this percentage should be gradually increased for loans of smaller amounts with a maximum of 80 per cent on loans of up to $8,000. The maximum term of repayment should be 40 years. Interest rates should be at the cost of money to the farm loan board, with operating costs carried by the government.
With its present administrative set up, the farm loan board is hardly able to base its lending decisions on the intimate knowledge of farming conditions, and appraisal of the personal capacities of the borrower, which are necessary to a flexible and helpful lending policy. We therefore recommend the setting up of regional advisory committees which could work with loan board officials.
There, Mr. Speaker, are the opinions expressed to the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet by the two largest agricultural organizations to be found in Canada.
Last spring I received from a young farmer the following cutting which was taken from the Family Herald published, I believe, in Montreal. This, too, deals with the Canadian farm loan board, and I should like to read a certain portion of it to the house:
Of course, there is the Canadian farm loan board. These folks will gladly lend a farmer money-all he has to do is show that his financial picture is so sound that he doesn't really need any help, and they will quickly approve a loan. If, however, he is in debt, working like a coolie day and night to make ends meet, and needs a loan to better himself, he is wasting his time applying. Love of farming, willingness to work from dawn till exhaustion, a reputation for honesty-these may be assets in some eyes, but not to the hard-headed businessmen who dispense loans.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that I have no quarrel at all with any of the civil servants who are working for the Canadian farm loan board. They have always treated me with courtesy and respect, and I believe they are doing their very best to help the farmers within the narrow scope or limits of the act which we as a parliament have laid down for them to administer.
There is one other matter to which I should like to direct the attention of, perhaps, the Minister of Finance, and certainly of the officials of the farm loan board. Many applications for loans are turned down by the board-in some cases with some justification -but the letter notifying the individual farmer that his application has been rejected, which I believe is a form letter, is a pretty
1002	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith cruel type of letter to direct to a farmer, in my opinion, and I wish to read it to the house:
Your application has been submitted to our head office tor their consideration. We regret to advise, however, that they are not prepared to approve a loan at the present time. Under the circumstances therefore, your application has been declined.
Why was it declined? The farmer does not know. He asks himself, what must I do in order to secure a loan from the board? Are my assets too small? Are my liabilities too great? Why did they turn my application down? Surely another paragraph should be added to that letter in order to remove this doubt which arises in the minds of farmers whose applications have been rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to spend a few moments discussing the tremendous increase in farm operating costs which has occurred over the past number of years. I began taking this matter up and collecting information with regard to it when I first came to Ottawa more than three years ago. On April 8, 1957,
I received a report from the dominion bureau of statistics in which they dealt with the increase in the price of farm machinery. As the base years for its computations the bureau uses the period 1935-1939 as equal to 100. It is pointed out that in 1951, using this scale, farm machinery was equated at 186.8. Figures in subsequent years were as follows:
Farm Machinery
1952		  195.4
1953		 196.7
1954		 197.9
1955		 198.8
1956		 209.4
1957	(January)	 209.7
That table, Mr. Speaker, demonstrates plainly the continuing rise in the cost of farm machinery to the farmers of Canada. We find that in the same period and using the same basis of calculation the cost of equipment and materials had, by 1957, reached a figure of 210.7. The index figures of other necessary expenditures by farmers
were:
Taxes and interest	rates	 177.2
Farm wage rates	 512.5
Building materials		 321.2
Gasoline, oil, grease	 152.8
Feed	 208.7
Fertilizer	 180.5
Hardware	 217.9
That is the picture showing the rise in the prices of goods and services for which the farmer must pay. What has happened to the prices of the goods he sells and has sold 

since 1951? Let us consider the price of wheat, for example:
1951		 206.5
1952		 195.3
1953		 201.2
1954		 186.6
1955		 186.0
1956		 183.2
1957	(January)	 179.8
Now I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the over-all picture, the index figures for composite Canadian farm products, showing what the farmers received for the goods they sold in the same period:
1951		 268.6
1952		 250.2
1953		 221.6
1954		 213.6
1955		 211.4
1956		 210.1
1957	(January)	 211.6
That shows the story; farm operating costs continually climbing but the amount the farmer receives for the goods he has to sell, if he can sell them, steadily decreasing down through the years.
There is another matter which I feel is of pressing concern to the farmers of all of Canada, and that is the fact that they are finding it increasingly difficult to secure qualified farm help. The day of the farm labourer is in the past. When a farmer engages a man now he usually wants one who is qualified to handle mechanized equipment, tractors, tillers, combines, trucks and so on.
Men trained along those lines are not easy to come by, particularly in Western Canada, because if they can handle power machinery they can secure positions with the road contractors or in the oil fields, and so on. When these men in the oil fields or on road construction are laid off during the slack season they are able to collect unemployment insurance. Farm labourers are not permitted to come under the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I feel that perhaps it would be wise for the government to give serious consideration to the establishment of some form of unemployment insurance for men engaged in farming. Probably this matter could well be referred to the banking and commerce committee or to the agriculture and colonization committee for exploratory study and discussion.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the government for its very serious consideration the following. I would suggest that the government make an all-out attempt to increase our overseas markets by accepting sterling or the currency of other lands; by engaging in barter deals and, in instances where the people of a nation are actually hungry and have no funds with which to purchase our foodstuffs, by outright gifts.

I would ask the government to give very serious consideration immediately to the establishment of government-owned permanent storage facilities in western Canada, and immediately extend the former policy of off-site storage so the grain can be moved from the farms into proper storage facilities.
I will again ask the Minister of Transport and other members of the government to immediately appoint a transport controller, not only with the responsibility but with the authority to see that there is an equitable distribution of box cars in the west at all times to enable the farmers of western Canada to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice, not to the elevator that has room for a few thousand bushels. Whether or not the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Trade and Commerce realizes it, I am certain that the grain movement picture in western Canada is today far worse than it was a year ago.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture to give very serious consideration to the equalization of floor prices on hogs right across Canada to remove the discrimination that now exists as far as western hog producers are concerned. The established floor price as it now stands is $23 a hundredweight on the Toronto and Montreal markets. This floor price drops as one travels westward, until it reaches the low point of $18.25 on the markets of Alberta.
I ask the Minister of Finance seriously to consider bringing in amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act which will make the Canadian farm loan board of greater use to the farmers of Canada. I have in mind particularly the young men who wish to enter the agricultural industry. I ask that an amendment be made to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act so it will include other areas in western Canada, particularly those in British Columbia and those north of the Palliser triangle in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I ask for a broadening of the scope of the Agricultural Prices Support Act in order to make this act of some worth-while value to the farmers from coast to coast in Canada, of use not only to the farmers of western Canada but to the potato growers of the maritimes and the dairymen of Ontario and Quebec, the fruit growers and turkey raisers, and so on, of British Columbia.
I ask that the government institute a thorough investigation into the whole freight rate structure with a view to eliminating the discriminatory rates which are now in effect in western Canada. I ask for the establishment of a committee to explore the possibility of establishing some type of unemployment 96698-64J
The Address-Mr. Kucherepa insurance for the farm labourers of Canada; and finally I ask the government to give very serious consideration to the establishment of an all-risk crop insurance plan, in conjunction with the provinces, for all agricultural products grown in Canada.


Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time in this House of Commons. I consider it my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. member for St. Paul's on his elevation to the high position he now occupies as the first commoner in this country and Speaker of this parliament. It is indeed a position of great honour and responsibility, and during the past few weeks in which he has presided over this house he has demonstrated his ability by having filled that position, if I may say so, sir, with fairness, with honour and dignity. I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of committees of the whole on their election to their respective positions.
At the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to miss the opportunity to sincerely congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the manner in which they acquitted themselves of their tasks.
It is now my duty, Mr. Speaker, and a most pleasant one at that, to pay my respects to the Prime Minister and to offer him my respectful congratulations and those of my constituents in the riding of High Park in the city of Toronto upon his election to that high and most honourable post of Prime Minister of Canada. I sincerely hope, along with other hon. members, that with the help of God he will long retain the strength, the health and the vitality with which he has been so abundantly endowed. His recognized talents, his forceful personality, his vast experience, his deep sincerity and love of work, which have been already manifested in his brilliant career in public affairs, have led him to this position of great responsibility, which he has assumed with all the dignity and efficiency for which he has long been recognized. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Canada is more than blessed that at this crucial time in her history a man of such outstanding capabilities as the Prime Minister should be available to assume the reins of government and guide our state through such changing and difficult times so as to win the acclaim of the free world, as the Prime Minister has, in such a short time.


Mr. Byrne:: That is a matter of opinion.


John William Kucherepa: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to take this opportunity of expressing
1004	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Kucherepa my sincere regret that for reasons of health the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. St. Laurent) has had to resign as leader of his party. As a physician I can fully appreciate his great personal sacrifice in staying on as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition for the time being.
As a newly elected member, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I regard it as a distinct privilege to sit in the same parliament as the Leader of the Opposition. As one who has served his apprenticeship in municipal government where members of such governments, notwithstanding political backgrounds, develop as a rule a fine appreciation of their fellows for their abilities and contributions to good government, I cannot help but say that the hon. member for Quebec East has had a long and noble career in the public life of this country. I am sure I express the feelings of all hon. members when I say that the people of Canada are fully aware of his devoted service to his country, and I am sure it is the sincere wish of all hon. members that Providence will grant the Leader of the Opposition the return of his vigour and health and many years of enjoyable life in peaceful surroundings amid his family and many friends.
May I be permitted at this point to say a few words about the city and the riding I have the honour to represent. I consider myself most fortunate indeed to represent the historic riding of High Park, which is located in the western part of the great city of Toronto and which, back in the year 1908, was itself known as the city of West Toronto. To most Torontonians the mention of High Park conjures in their minds that beautiful, large park which lies south of Bloor street just off the shore of lake Ontario and which, in its class, probably has no equal anywhere in the Dominion of Canada.
High Park riding contains as well some very fine residential districts, many churches, fine commercial and substantial industrial areas and, most important of all, friendly, God-fearing people of many backgrounds who have captured the community spirit and are making one vast contribution to the welfare of not only the city of Toronto but the whole Dominion of Canada. As a native Torontonian and as a member of its municipal government I have, of course, great pride in my city.
Toronto is recognized today as the fastest growing city in North America. With this fantastic growth naturally one would expect problems, and we have some; and, Mr. Speaker, we are going to look forward to this parliament to assist us in resolving some of our difficulties. It is important to the whole

The Address-Mr. Kucherepa would be a step in the right direction it the government of Canada were to develop a formula in this connection somewhat similar to that which is invoked in the province of Ontario, whereby the province shares, directly or through its agencies, 50 per cent of the costs of grade separations and allied projects. I was therefore very happy, Mr. Speaker, to note that in the speech from the throne reference was made to a federal-provincial conference for the purpose of discussing fiscal relations and of seeking a better understanding and arrangement of many aspects of our public finances. In this regard, I hope the provincial government will see fit to invite representatives from municipal governments to attend this conference, in so far as that may be possible.
May I reiterate that the backlog of capital works necessary for the proper development of our municipalities is constantly rising. In part this is due to the high interest rates which municipal governments are forced to pay on borrowed money, but is also attributable to the failure of other levels of government to assume their full share of those responsibilities which are constitutionally theirs. I shall be looking forward with great interest indeed to the solution of these vexatious problems through the forthcoming federal-provincial conference.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John William Kucherepa: Mr. Speaker, in the industrial part of my riding are located, among others, the various elements which constitute the packing industry. Because of this proximity, and further because as a member of the Toronto board of health I have been keenly interested in this matter, I should like to bring to the attention of this house the problems arising out of the present, primitive and inhumane method used in the slaughter of our food animals.
It seems that in this field Canada has been lagging badly in taking the necessary legislative steps which other countries, no more progressive than we, long ago adopted. The broad principle of humane slaughter for our food animals may be enunciated as follows; that no animal being slaughtered for food purposes should be shackled, hoisted, hung, cut, bled or scalded without first having been rendered unconscious and insensible to pain in a humane manner.

In the case of ritual slaughter, Mr. Speaker, the present preparatory methods of shackling, hoisting and, so on, are deplorable. In England and in other countries the casting pen and other means have been used which eliminate the most inhumane aspects of ritual slaughter. Humane slaughter or slaughter practices by which animals are rendered unconscious and insensible to pain prior to being slaughtered is compulsory by legislation in many countries.
Under the Criminal Code of Canada it is an offence to cause unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal or bird. What in effect is being asked is that this broad statement be defined in such a way that the current primitive and inhumane methods will be discontinued. For the workers in packing house plants the present methods are laborious, unpleasant and unsafe, the accident rate in this connection being one of the worst of any industry on the continent.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that to the credit of some of the packing house operators in my riding they are adopting more up to date practices. However, until this government passes the necessary legislation, allowing the packers adequate time in which to carry out studies and plant changes, with an effective date, we shall not be able to march abreast of those other civilized countries which met this challenge many years ago.
At this time I should like to pay tribute to those kind people who have taken such great interest in this subject. Among those who have given outstanding service in this crusade I cannot help but mention Mr. George Bryant, who is a newspaper writer in Toronto. His countless articles on this subject have contributed much to public opinion.
I was happy indeed to hear that the meat packers' council of Canada has notified the government that "it welcomes the introduction of federal humane slaughter legislation". Along with the O.S.P.C.A., which has been spearheading this crusade for some time, and in conjunction with the packers, I believe that, if this government could now present to this parliament the necessary resolution which would embody the principles to which I have referred, then the bill could be presented later this session as soon as proper regulations could de drawn up. The important thing, however, Mr. Speaker, is that we in this house by our support of such a resolution could contribute immensely toward the almost immediate cessation of these primitive and inhumane methods used in the slaughter of our food animals.
I should now like to say a few words with regard to a problem which affects the

metropolitan Toronto area and the surrounding municipalities, all in all an area of about 1,000 square miles, which is represented in this house by 21 hon. members. As an executive member of the metropolitan Toronto and region conservation authority I am especially interested in the solution of this problem which affects about one-tenth of the people of Canada who live in this area.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, three years ago hurricane "Hazel" caused 80 deaths on one of the several rivers which drain this area. At that time the government of Canada contributed a considerable sum of money for flood relief in this region as well as men and equipment from military and civil services, for which indeed, the people of this area were most grateful. However, a scheme is now being prepared which would permanently solve this problem, provided federal aid were made available in conjunction with provincial assistance.
The cost of this permanent flood protection would be in the order of about $30 million, a sum far too great to be assumed by the real estate taxpayers in the area. I realize that there are similar problems in other parts of the country; and I would therefore urge the government to work out a detailed formula which could be applied to any such project so that local authorities might be able to prepare plans, having a definite goal in sight. The government should determine a cost-benefit ratio policy on such projects, based not only on primary and direct benefits but also on secondary benefits which would include both tangibles, such as resulting public parks, and intangibles such as the avoidance of epidemics, the facilitation of national defence and so forth.
As a firm believer in conservation I was very happy indeed to hear in the speech from the throne that at long last Canada will see the beginning of a national development policy which, carried out with the co-operation of the provinces and the territories, will enable all regions of Canada to share in the benefits to be realized in developing the resources of this great nation. There is no doubt in my mind that we stand on the threshold of a great and glorious era in the history of Canada, provided we are realistic with regard to this most important aspect of our economic development.
It was most gratifying to hear the Minister of National Defence announce the change in emphasis from militia training to civil defence organization. This is just another accomplishment of a government which has been in office for only a short time but having new and vigorous ideas. This government I am sure will not only produce efficiency in defence spending but
The Address-Mr. Kucherepa also, and this is most important, prepare our country properly for a challenge we hope our people will never have to face. Preparedness, Mr. Speaker, is an old motto but not an outmoded one. No matter how devastating an attack may be, indeed the more devastating it is,-the greater will be the need for a strong civil defence organization.
Civil defence is necessary to care for survivors, to organize essential services, provide for shelter, transportation and all those things necessary to keep body and soul together in trying times. Without civil defence there can be little hope of survival in the atomic era. In this age of expansion it is necessary that our soldiers be trained not only as effective combatants but also as efficient civil service personnel. Only through successful civil defence operations can we hope to reach the point where we will be able to carry out the final military operations necessary for a successful conclusion of any hostilities which might arise.
The best defence against possible disaster in the years which lie ahead, is a strong dependence on self-reliance, based on superior scientific knowledge but without the sacrifice of the humanities. This can only be attained by the further establishment and dramatic expansion of our educational and scientific institutions. We hope this nation can fully avail herself of her tremendous God given resources of brainpower which are being allowed to waste away because of the inability, for various reasons, of those responsible in this field of human endeavour to harness this latent potential of our people in the interests of peace and humanity. It was indeed gratifying to hear the assurances of the Prime Minister in this regard made in this house last week.
The world situation in many respects is alarming, but let us not lose faith. We in Canada, constituted as we are of many peoples from many lands, have a vital role to play which can do much to bring peace and stability to a troubled world. Discouraging as the situation may appear to some people, let me say that we in the free world, especially we in Canada, have an advantage which all the weapons, bombs, sputniks and muttniks cannot overcome. It is not only a moral advantage but a physical one, through the bonds of consanguinity which we have with the tens of millions of people who today are enslaved by that international tyrant called communism.
Their enslavement, which we hope will soon end through the efforts of free people everywhere, is a prevailing state of affairs which will in effect hold back any insidious

The Address-Mr. Kucherepa intentions the Russian leaders may have toward world expansion, until one day the core of communism, being what it is, will crack up and go the way of all dictatorships. When it does we, through our various efforts in the British commonwealth of nations, in NATO, through assistance to underdeveloped countries and especially by our efforts in the United Nations, will have made a real contribution, worthy of our heritage, in helping to bring freedom to nations now enslaved in one form or another by modern Russian imperialism, which at present disguises itself under the cloak of international communism.
To hear these communists rant and rave and disseminate falsehoods about Great Britain, which country has brought through education and evolution freedom, democracy and self government to many former colonies and formerly backward peoples, is a colossal violation of the truth which history will one day expose, even as it will reveal the insidious and brutal methods that communists have used to enslave one nation after another until today most of eastern and central Europe is under their domination.
Many of the people who are today subjected to communism are nations that only two score years ago won their freedom and independence after centuries of enslavement. I predict that they will be free again, for I believe that truth and justice must one day triumph; and I know our efforts toward this end will win for us the eternal friendship of all these nations, most of whom are related and joined by racial ties to many of our Canadian people.
Much has been said about national unity by some of the hon. members in this house in weeks gone by. I could not understand the reasoning behind some of the remarks of these members, unless they were a manifestation of a kind of parochial thinking which most Canadian people had believed no longer existed in our country. I think most hon. members have heard on countless occasions exalted speakers of the Liberal party announce and reiterate the achievements of national unity amongst the people of Canada, which they claimed were built on rugged foundations which would forever hold. Now that the Liberal party has suffered a defeat at the polls it seems that in the opinion of some of the hon. members of that party this means the end of national unity in our country. If anything, I would say those revealing and startling remarks made by some of the hon. members opposite merely serve to underline the fact that the Conservative party which now forms the government has, as those speaking the truth always will,

emerged as a great Canadian party which represents all the provinces and all the groups which constitute this great Canada of ours.
I want to say that our party by virtue of its composition, built as it is on this broad national foundation and having as it does representatives from not only the two great ethnic groups of which some hon. members have spoken but also from other important groups, ethnic and otherwise, will jealously guard the rights of all minorities, big or small, notwithstanding the fact that a particular group may, on occasion, and for quite plausible reasons, support more strongly some other party.
I do not think there is anything remarkable in this regard about the results of the June 10 election. Nine of our ten provinces contributed most of the increase in the number of seats held by the Conservative party in the House of Commons. The people of Canada wanted to change their government, and they voted for a Conservative administration. In so far as the people of Quebec are concerned they did what I consider to be rather a common thing in free elections; they supported what is known in political parlance as "their favourite son"; a man who is a great Canadian and who has always commanded a great deal of personal support in his home province, even as some other outstanding hon. members of this house, past and present, have commanded support in other years and in other parts of the country. That man of course is the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent).
I believe this is a common condition existing not only in Canada but in other democracies. What I do think is unfortunate for the members opposite is that right now, at least, there is not one among them who could possibly emulate that distinguished Canadian of whom I have just spoken. Therefore I have every confidence that when the opportunity presents itself the good people of the province of Quebec will join the people of the other nine provinces in supporting, in equal measure, the Conservative party which is today the living symbol of national unity in every sense of the word.
We have on this side of the house men and women who can trace their origin to almost every major ethnic group in Canada, including some very fine representatives, if I may say so, from the great province of Quebec, of whom we are justly proud and of whom we expect many more in the next parliament.
In conclusion I appeal to all hon. members of this house not only to preach national unity but to practice it inside and outside

these walls; for I firmly believe, as do most Canadians, that although there is not uniformity in all things amongst us, there is full agreement among Canadians in all those things which unite us.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: In the
interests of saving the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, I will not extend congratulations to all those who have so richly deserved them since this debate began, but will content myself by associating myself in this regard with my leader, who so ably handed out the plaudits when he made his most excellent address.
Likewise I do not intend to spend any considerable time on the contents of the speech from the throne, chiefly because we have already dealt with a good part of it in the form of legislation, and the amendment now before the house very clearly states our position in that regard. We have indicated in our amendment approval of all those progressive measures which have been put before the house or which are still to come and to which we will give support because as a matter of fact they are part and parcel of what we have been advocating for some years.
At the same time our amendment sets before the house something rather more solid about which to think, and that is the question of dealing with the basic economic issues. Unless these are faced and solved, it will not be possible to hand out what might be called Christmas gifts in the next speech from the throne. We have to build a firm and solid economic base which will make it possible to produce the wealth, and so distribute that wealth as to bring about the best possible social security in this country.
There are two omissions in the speech from the throne to which I wish to refer, and I will do so briefly. One is the lack of any action with regard to federal aid to education. This is a question which has been raised in this house on numerous occasions. If I remember correctly, I was the one who first introduced the matter in the form of a resolution back in 1946, and the subject has been introduced and debated on nine or ten occasions since that time. The present Prime Minister, as I recall, together with a number of his colleagues, gave approval while in opposition to the proposition I put forward, but unfortunately I failed to find any reference to the matter in the speech from the throne, or any indication that the government is planning to do anything with regard to it at the present session of parliament. I hope they will come up with something before next session.
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
The other omission I wish to mention has already been referred to; that is the lack of any increase to war veterans under the Canadian Pension Act. It seems to me somewhat unfortunate that at a time when we have provided for a general increase all down the line under our social security measures, modest as it may be, we should not have seen fit to increase at the same time and a least in the same proportion the pensions which the Canadian veterans have so well earned.
The subject with which I wish to deal almost exclusively this afternoon is one which I consider to be a very important issue in this country at the present time, and which I predict may become one of the most important issues of all in the near future. I refer to the recent proposal made by the government of Great Britain to Canada to establish a free trade area between the two countries. In my opinion that offer was a historic event which unfortunately has been kept in the background so far as the present government is concerned. It is a very important issue for many reasons, but even if you look at the matter purely from the point of view of dollars and cents it is evident that it is time parliament faced this problem and dealt with it effectively at this present session, because it is obvious that the question of trade, tariffs and trade restrictions affects every Canadian at all times.
The house may be interested to know that in the last 10 years alone the Canadian people have paid out in the form of tariff duties for the goods they have imported from various countries overseas and to the south almost $4 billion. I have all the figures here before me. Obviously I cannot quote them all, but if we look up the records back to the time of confederation we will find we have paid out in customs duties and tariffs in this country more than Canada's total national debt.
This sum represents what has actually been collected in the form of revenue from the various duties. In addition the Canadian consumers have, in my opinion, paid a sum equal to if not greater than that amount in the form of prices which have been artificially inflated by those industries which have been able to increase their prices unduly because of the umbrella protection which our tariff structure provides for them. So if one takes into account what has been paid in actual cash into the public treasury in the form of tariffs, and adds the artificially high prices charged by industries which have produced goods protected by tariff barriers, we reach a fantastically high figure; and for that reason alone every Canadian should be interested in this particular question.
1010	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
I wish to place my stand on this question fairly and squarely before the house, if for no other reason than to provoke a real debate on the whole subject of a free trade area. So far as I recall it, only oblique references have been made to the matter in various parts of the house but no one has really dealt with it thoroughly. I wish to make a case to the best of my ability for the establishment of a free trade area between the United Kingdom and Canada. In my opinion Canada should accept the proposal made by the United Kingdom, and do so with great alacrity. There are strong and compelling reasons why we should do so, and I should like to place before the house five advantages which are to the obvious benefit of Canada, though this number does not by any means exhaust the list.
First, it would reduce the cost of living in Canada, a problem which is our No. 1 headache at the present time. Second, it would improve our export position with regard to primary products so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. Third, it would improve the quality of our consumer goods in Canada. Fourth, it would help to level out our trade balance; and fifth, it would be a step toward the solidarity of our commonwealth.
Now I wish to say a few words about each of these advantages. First a reference to the cost of living. This is a very important issue in Canada and it is one which is often, and in my opinion quite erroneously, referred to as inflation. I do not consider that the present unusually high cost of living in this country is a matter of inflation. Inflation, in the true sense of the word, is a condition in which there is a shortage of goods and services in relation to the availability of purchasing power. I am sure we will all agree that this is not the situation which exists in Canada at the present time; in fact, in regard to primary products the very opposite is the case. We are in a surplus position so far as agricultural products are concerned; we are in something of a surplus position so far as wood products are concerned; we are in a surplus position so far as base metals are concerned, and we seem to be quickly reaching a surplus position in the case of almost every primary product in this country.
So there is not a shortage of actual goods; that is not what is causing the condition which we call inflation, or the high cost of living. What is, in my opinion, causing the high cost of living is the systematic and arbitrary increase in prices on the part of those industries which enjoy either monopoly positions or near monopoly positions, and


which so operate that they take full advantage of the umbrella of protection which they have enjoyed for a long period of years.
In such a situation as this the establishment of an area of free trade between the United Kingdom and Canada would immediately open an alternative source of supply to the Canadian consumer. This does not mean that British-made goods would replace Canadian-made goods, but it would mean that the Canadian consumer would have an alternative choice, and the existence of an alternative choice of a source of supply would automatically tend to bring the prices of Canadian made goods somewhere near their true value rather than the inflated value now shown on the price tags.
Second, with regard to the export of primary products, it has been said by a number of hon. members in this house and elsewhere that the United Kingdom has been scrambling around for several years in an effort to raise dollars with which to buy Canadian products. The export-import figures indicate what the situation is at the present time. Taking the first six months of 1957, from January to June, which are the latest figures I can find, we see that we have exported to the United States in that period goods to the value of $1,391 million; but we imported from the United States goods to the value of $2,139 million, giving them a favourable balance of trade of about $800 million in a period of six months. In the same period we exported to the United Kingdom goods to the value of $341 million and imported from the United Kingdom goods to the value of $260 million, leaving us a favourable trade balance of $81 million.
That indicates a trend that has been developing over the years, and it is a trend which is dangerous both to Canada and to the United Kingdom. We have been buying more and more from the United States and attempting to sell more to the United Kingdom than we have been buying from her. Inevitably the time is going to come when the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries are going to say to themselves, "If we cannot sell our goods in Canada and so earn dollars with which to buy her exports to us we are going to have to look elsewhere for that opportunity". Therefore it is not surprising that Great Britain is becoming increasingly interested in a free-trade area on the continent of Europe. I warn hon. members, and the government particularly, that unless we show some interest in the proposal which was made to Canada by Great Britain for a free-trade area, then Great Britain may decide that we are simply not interested in carrying on any large volume of trade with her and will

almost inevitably give her attention to the building up of a free-trade area on the continent of Europe, and that could be disastrous to the export of our agricultural products in the future.
I come now to the question of the quality of consumer goods in Canada. In my opinion there has been a steady and a sad deterioration in the quality of manufactured goods in Canada since the war. In my opinion at the present time the Canadian consumer is the victim of jerry-built junk, which is sold through high pressure advertising and through appearance, new styles and new models, rather than through quality. Unfortunately the emphasis seems to be on appearance and on selling rather than on building goods which will serve. Goods are made to sell and not to serve. It is perhaps most evident with regard to the consumer goods in lines such as textiles, automobiles, electrical appliances, furniture and things of that kind. With the exception of certain types of heavy machinery and some of the building materials, it is my opinion that the consumer goods offered to the Canadian public by Canadian and United States manufacturers are now at an all-time low.
It might be interesting to interject at this point that it is rather strange that so far as the agricultural producers are concerned, we have built up a rather elaborate system of government grading of goods which are produced by the farmers, particularly at the producer level, so the consumer may be protected when he is buying food products that have been government-inspected, government-stamped and approved to show that they are of the proper quality and wholesomeness. But how many of our manufactured articles are government-inspected or government-approved? When a man buys an automobile, a radio, a television set, a pair of shoes or anything of that kind, and pays very high prices these days, what guarantee has he that he is getting the quality for which he is paying?
The benefit of a free-trade area with Great Britain would, in my opinion, help to improve this situation. British-made goods, over a period of years, have built up a world-wide reputation for quality. I think the manufacturers of Great Britain have followed a very sensible long-range policy in realizing that in the long run it is the quality of the goods and satisfied customers that bring the business; it is not a question of being able to put on a high-pressure selling job and move a whole volume of goods in a short time; to make a big profit, get in, get rich and get out. They are in business to stay, and they try to give the customer satisfaction. I think
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny it could act as a very good example for Canadian and United States manufacturers if they could put some of their goods within reach of the Canadian people so we could test their quality against the shoddy junk that is being offered on the Canadian market today.
I come now to the balance of payments. I have already mentioned the export and import figures as between Canada and the United States and Canada and Great Britain, but there is also a large amount of money involved in the question of interest and dividend payments. Here again we find that in the year 1956, the latest figures for a whole year, on the interest and dividend account we received from the United States $75 million, in round figures, but we paid to the United States in the same year $533 million, giving us a deficit of $458 million. We received from the United Kingdom $20 million; we paid out to the United Kingdom $72 million, leaving a deficit balance of $52 million. If we take all other countries together we find that we received from them $140 million and paid out to them $530 million, leaving a deficit for Canada of $390 million. If we add all these deficits together, on interest and dividend account we find that in 1956 we were in a deficit position to the extent of $900 million, almost a billion dollars.
There are two ways in which we could help to level out this enormous deficit on interest and dividend account. One of the ways would be for Canadians to invest more money in Canada rather than depend to such a great extent, as we have in the past, upon investment from the United States. I think this is a field which has yet to be properly explored. I would recommend to the government that they give rather more attention to this question than has been given in the past. Time will not permit me to go into all the various ways in which this could be done. I would recommend that the government ask some of the experts to study the field and try to find ways and means by which they could open up to the Canadian public avenues of investment in Canadian industries and in the development of Canadian resources, and to that extent stop leaning upon United States capital to such a fantastic extent as we have been doing in recent years.
Then there is another way in which we could help to level out that situation, and that would be by accepting sterling in exchange for some of our exports. So long as sterling remains unconvertible the best way in which we could dispose, or make use, of that blocked sterling we would receive would
1012	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny be to invest it in the commonwealth countries. In my opinion there is a large field for that purpose. I think Canada is suffering to some extent from a sort of national inferiority complex so far as finances are concerned. We have become too used to the idea that we have not any capital. I think it is a myth which has lived much longer than it has any right to live. We have been in a debtor position for so many years that we seem to think that is where we have to stay.
Now that the shoe is getting on the other foot I think we have the responsibility within the commonwealth and in the world generally to begin now to use the resources and the capital that we have in this country, not only to develop our own industries but in assisting to develop the industries and resources in some of the commonwealth countries which have not been so fortunate as we have been in recent years. By doing these two things, first investing some of our own money in our own industries rather than using foreign capital and, second, by accepting sterling as part payment for our export goods, we can materially reduce our deficits on interest and dividend account, and eventually I feel we can arrive at a surplus position.
I come to the fifth advantage I mentioned with regard to a free trade area between the United Kingdom and Canada, and that is the question of solidifying the commonwealth. I know when I say that it might sound more like a sentimental argument than an economic one, and it is perhaps a phrase that sounds rather platitudinous because it has been mentioned so often before. This idea of solidifying the commonwealth, Mr. Speaker, is something I suggest in all seriousness. History shows us that if we want to maintain a solid and lasting political entity such as the commonwealth which, in my opinion, is the most wonderful association of free peoples which has ever existed, then we must lay an economic basis in order to make that political entity possible.
We cannot keep the commonwealth together on pure sentiment. We must be prepared to show that as a nation we are ready to play the game within the family of nations which we call the commonwealth. We must be prepared to set an example to our members of the commonwealth by establishing the most solid economic relations possible with the United Kingdom. We must remember that the commonwealth now is a much larger entity, both in area and population, than it was only a few years ago. We have now the Asiatic and African peoples who belong to
[Mr. Zaplitny .1

the commonwealth. They are countries relatively new in relation to history, and I am sure they are looking to us as one of the senior or older members of the commonwealth to show an example of economic co-operation.
We talk about the political and economic freedom in the -world. Here we have right within the commonwealth a grand opportunity to accept and put into effect both political and economic co-operation, and if we fail to accept the proposition of the United Kingdom for the step by step, gradual building up of a free trade area I am afraid we will not be fulfilling our responsibility as a senior member of the commonwealth to accept something which is economically sound and politically necessary. A challenge has been given to us, and I hope there will be the statesmanship on the government benches that can accept the challenge and utilize it in the best interests of this nation and of Great Britain.
I would also add to the five advantages I have mentioned three specific steps that I believe would have to be taken within Canada in relation to the whole question of a free trade area with the United Kingdom. First, if we are going to make an effective job of it I believe we should set up an export-import board. So far as the disposal of our surpluses is concerned, I believe we are going to have to give greater attention to bulk sales and may even have to give some consideration to barter deals. Therefore an export-import board established for the purpose of most efficiently and intelligently organizing our trade within the free trade area is a must. It is a necessity. It is not a question of choice. I believe we should lose no time in setting up a board of that nature, made up of qualified personnel who would be given the duty and responsibility of exploring the whole field of a free trade area and finding the best means by which we could move the largest volume of goods both ways in order to make such a plan fully effective.
Second, I believe that as a nation we should make the greatest possible use within such free trade area of our co-operative movement both in Canada and the United Kingdom. It so happens that in our own country the co-operative movement has developed more or less along producer lines, and so far as the prairie provinces at least are concerned we now have a highly developed and very efficient system of producer cooperatives which have the know-how, the machinery and experience in that phase of the co-operative movement.
We have not advanced quite as rapidly in the consumer co-operative field. On the

other hand in Great Britain, particularly in Scotland, the consumer co-operative movement has developed rapidly and very soundly and efficiently. I thing we can make use of both phases of the co-operative movement. I think they complement each other, and I believe that within a free trade area, with proper government encouragement and cooperation, the co-operative movements of Canada and the United Kingdom can be important instruments in efficiently organizing two-way trade. I will not have the time to go into detail on this matter, but I feel very strongly that we as a parliament and the government have too long ignored and neglected the economic values in the cooperative movement, and should be prepared to make greater use of that movement.
Third, I would recommend that we make every effort as a parliament to make greater use of port Churchill in Manitoba. Port Churchill is the nearest seaport to the greater part of the three prairie provinces. It could be built into a large metropolis if it were given some encouragement. One way in which it could be given encouragement would be to make the greatest possible use of that port as a trading centre or port of entry and export with the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact I would go so far as to advocate that port Churchill be made a free port of entry for British-made goods. That in itself would provide great encouragement for the building up of facilities and the greater use of that port, and eventually would pay large dividends in western Canada.
That is the case I make at the present time for the acceptance by Canada of the offer made by the United Kingdom to this country. But I wish to say that since the proposal was made it seems to me we have had a thoroughly disappointing response on the part of the government. I do not wish to repeat this too often, but we know that the present Prime Minister, in campaigning throughout the country, repeatedly stated that he would like to see an increase in the trade between the United Kingdom and Canada. He made a specific proposal that he would attempt to divert about 15 per cent of our trade with the United States to Great Britain. That gave the people of Canada reason to believe that if a new administration took office the new government would take some specific steps immediately to make some sort of proposal to the United Kingdom.
You can imagine the shock that many of us who are keenly interested in this matter felt when not only did the government not make any proposals to the United Kingdom, but when the United Kingdom made its proposal the Canadian government seemed
The Address-Mr. Harrison to react in a sort of horrified manner as if to say well now, look, fellows; surely you did not need to take us quite that seriously. We did not really mean what we said. We were just talking in terms of elections, and now all of a sudden you come and offer us free trade.
I believe the government of Canada should have given approval to the principle of that proposal immediately, and should have begun immediately to lay some plans for putting it into effect. What they have done so far has been thoroughly disappointing. I am not of an unduly suspicious nature, Mr. Speaker, but if I were I could quote extracts from such newspapers as the Leader-Post of Regina, the Star-Phoenix of Saskatoon and the Free Press of Winnipeg, and also the words of Premier Matheson of Prince Edward Island, all of which, since that offer was made, have expressed the belief that the government is not interested in expanding the area of trade with Great Britain, is not interested in a free trade area, and feels that somehow in some way it is going to get itself off the hook on this matter without having to answer to the electors.
I hope for its own good the government will not attempt to do that as far as western Canada and the maritimes are concerned. In fact I doubt if they will get away with it even in central Canada, but certainly they will not get away with it so far as the prairie provinces are concerned. They have made certain pledges. Their leader has stated that he would divert a certain amount of trade from the United States to Great Britain. Now that the offer has been thrown in his lap we are sitting back and watching to see what he is going to do with it. No amount of excuses, no amount of dodging about is going to get him out of this situation. He is firmly committed to enlarging the area of trade with Great Britain. We feel that Great Britain has made a statesmanlike offer, a sensational offer, which should have been immediately accepted by Canada. We are waiting to see this indecision and bumbling, in which the Minister of Finance is becoming an expert, come to an end and have the Prime Minister rise in his place and announce that Canada is accepting in principle the British proposal and is taking concrete steps to put it into effect.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is some little time since I made a speech in this house, in fact it is some little time since I made a speech. I am making this one as the result of a promise I gave during the last election campaign to the effect that I would make a speech, not during the campaign but afterwards. I am therefore

The Address-Mr. Harrison in some danger, if I can last out the next 30 minutes, of fulfilling the only promise I made to my electorate during the last campaign. In that respect I am in a little more satisfactory position than some of those to your right, Mr. Speaker, who still have their troubles ahead of them.
When I went home at the end of the last session I found that the people were quite familiar with the issues of the campaign; in fact they were sick and tired of issues and speeches. As a matter of fact the only issue in my particular riding so far as I was concerned Was whether or not my constituents endorsed the kind of representation I had given them in the past, and particularly whether or not they endorsed the fact that I spend about $5,000 per year of my salary in covering the tremendous area that is mine to represent. This expenditure results from the fact that about 90 per cent of the constituency has to be covered by airplane. I made no promises in this regard during this campaign, because I had made the promise some 13 years ago and have kept it since. My only difficulty would arise if some of those who opposed me at the time gave some concrete guarantees that they would do the same as I had done. Since this situation did not arise there was not too much point in discussing issues, so far as I was concerned.
There has always been a bit of the minstrel in me and this came to the surface during the campaign, because I conducted most of my campaign with an orchestra and did not discuss any of the issues whatever. I was panned pretty hard by some of the newspapers in some editorials for this, but of course they did not know the background and the fact that the issues were fairly well under control as far as that area was concerned. What I was interested in was getting around to see as many people as possible. The idea of taking part in an acrimonious debate appealed neither to myself nor my electors at that moment.
Having made these preliminary remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall now get on with the proposition of fulfilling my promise to my electors, namely that I would make a speech after the election. During the early part of this debate I was intrigued by a line or two in a speech made by my good friend the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton). He was talking about the improvements that had come about under the new government in a very short time, and he said:
Take a look at the headlines. What a change there is from the last ten years.
I took the hon. member at his word and looked at a few headlines. I did not find his

contention was borne out by the headlines at	which I looked but perhaps	we
looked at different headlines. These are examples of the headlines that I found that were not common during the previous ten years when we had a Liberal government and when our economy was at such a high level that it was next to that of the United States who lead the world. I have picked these examples at random, and I shall read the headlines only: "Cost of Living Reaches 123.4, All-Time High"; "Grain Glut on Great Lakes Very Serious"; "Faltering Prices May be Portent of '58 Business"; "Predict Record Expansion Era to end Next Year"; "Business Failures Rise 16 Per Cent in Eight Months"; "Alberta Oil Demand Lowest since 1955"; "Canadian Stock Markets drop in Frantic Selling"; "Canadian Stock Markets Suffer Severest Losses"; "Stocks Fall Again, Uranium Off Most"; "Place 31 Per Cent Fewer, Job Vacancies Off"; "Jobless List Rises Sixth Straight Week"; "Unemployment Rises for Seventh Week in Row"; "Jobless Rolls Rise Sooner than Usual"; "450,000 Jobless This Winter, Labour Warns Diefenbaker"; "Hudson Bay Net off 60 Per Cent as Metal Prices Dip"; "Shutdown of Mines in B.C. is Becoming Increasingly Serious"; "Oil and Gas Export Policies Non-Existent while Industry Position Gets Worse Daily". Those are some of the headlines I noted, and certainly those are not the kind of headlines we read during the last ten years.
I will admit that this government has been in office for a short time, so one cannot expect too much to show for their efforts, but at least they could have maintained the economy in the same position in which they found it when they took over. From the standpoint of the west, and I am a western member, we have to look back through the years to see what Tory governments have done for the west in the past. Starting at the beginning, one would naturally start with Sir John A. Macdonald who, in this part of the country, is always looked upon as a great statesman. Perhaps he was in this part of the country, but some of his actions out west throw some doubt upon that point. I want to speak initially about his actions with regard to land tenure in the west.
At that time the northern part of the west was settled by the Metis, whose only mode of transportation was the river and lake systems. Naturally, therefore, these people settled on narrow strips of land which ran back some distance from the edge of the water. Then Mr. Macdonald introduced the idea that there would be a reorganization of the land system and all the plots of land would be square. This system in effect dispossessed

those people of their homes and although representations were made for ten years in a row, in the same hard-headed fashion that one still observes in the Conservative party the system was rammed down the throats of the people in the west. Naturally there was some resistance which was treated in the traditional Tory fashion, when the government brought out troops to deal with these people. They wound up by hanging Louis Riel who, so far as most of the west is concerned, is still looked upon as a patriot because all he did was lead the people who wanted to fight for their homes.
Well, that was our first brush with a Conservative government. Then the next man who came along was supposed to do much better for the west because he came from the west. He was the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. Naturally he would have the welfare of the west at heart because he came from the west. But under R. B. Bennett we in the west suffered under the same policies originated by Mr. Macdonald. We suffered from a tariff policy that provided an umbrella to eastern manufacturers to which westerners had to pay a tribute of 25 per cent or 30 per cent in the way of duty.
Mr. Bennett continued in the same way. He came into power saying that he was going to blast his way into the markets of the world by putting in higher tariffs, something which he did. When he first came in he also said he would bring on a British trade conference. He held out great prospects of that conference relieving us of our ills in this country. I refer to these matters in order to show the parallel between what was done at that time and what is being held out to the people now and to indicate that it is about the same thing. When he got through blasting his way into the markets of the world we were in extremely bad shape in this country. In fact, this country was in the worst condition it has ever been in. That was the promise and that was the performance.
Now we come to the present government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I was rather intrigued to note that during this last election campaign no mention was made of the Conservative party in the west. Maybe their past record is a good enough reason for that. All their election signs said out there was "Diefenbaker". If you had a 20-power microscope you might see "Progressive Conservative" at the bottom of the sign. If I had the record that these people have I think I might have used some name like Diefenbaker or somebody else. I certainly would not put the name of my party on it.
The Address-Mr. Harrison
In the last campaign-although I did not take part in the discussions at that time for reasons I mentioned at the outset-the question arose as to whether the new John Diefenbaker was going to be any different from any other Tory leader we have ever had. Immediately the suggestion was put forward by those supporters that he has out there, "Well, John is from the west and he will not let the west down". I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that he is not the first Lochinvar who has come out of the west as far as the Conservative party is concerned. We all remember Mr. Bennett. He was from farther west than the Prime Minister, and he did not do so well for the west.
We start out with this new government and they are going to have a commonwealth conference instead of a British trade conference which is something of the same order, and they tell us that it is going to cure all our ills. To go on from there, they are going to shake a stick at the United States and they have been doing so for the last nine years that I have been here, from the opposition side of the house, and they were going to go down and tell those people what they were going to do. They were going to blast their way into some markets of the world by telling the United States off. We have had some indication that that has not taken place.
What other indications are there that the Prime Minister is not much different than his predecessors? Once he gets in the strait-jacket of Tory policy he cannot do too much for the west. He is in the same position as R. B. Bennett. Maybe his heart is in the right place and I do not doubt that it is. But when you get that kind of policy saddled on you you are not going to do the things that the west particularly wish.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the attempt to get greater trade with Great Britain. The Prime Minister went over to the prime ministers' conference with the avowed intention of increasing trade with Great Britain. This is something that is dear to the west. They like that idea. I think he went there also with the idea that maybe he could do something along that line; but when he made his suggestion that they might change 15 per cent of their trade from the United States to that country, even the British papers cast a great deal of doubt on the possibility of doing that. When you look at Britain's position you find that she has just so many Canadian dollars with which to do business. I think the Prime Minister went there with his tongue in his cheek

The Address-Mr. Harrison or in other words he knew that with impunity he could make a good fellow of himself in the west by saying that we should have more trade with Great Britain, knowing that Great Britain could not accept that proposal.
But they fooled him. He went there and they said, "We should have free trade". Here is something that is right down the alley as far as western Canada is concerned. For years we have been paying tribute to eastern manufacturers. From the point of view of building up the country, there may be something to that idea. But it is rather hard to tell the people in the west that that is the situation. They have been paying tribute to the eastern manufacturers and they think it is about time that some of those industries stood on their own feet. When somebody tells you that you cannot have free trade, that is not correct. It must be approached with some caution, it is true. We have had some free trade in some items.
The last Liberal government arranged with the United States a proposition whereby we could have free trade in farm implements. At that time the Canadian manufacturers said that would be their ruination. Large companies such as the Massey-Harris company were loud in condemnation of that proposition at that time. Yet it was the best thing that ever happened because it opened to them a large market in the United States.
Free trade with Britain naturally does not come into the same classification as free trade with the United States because you are not dealing with like levels of population. But it has some merit as far as you can let it go without doing too much damage to our industries in this country. So when this present government turned down the proposition of Great Britain that over a period of years we would approach towards the goal of free trade, as far as the people out west were concerned, the Prime Minister, who comes from the west, had sold them down the river.
I do not think there is anyone who can tell them anything different. If he had said that he would look into the proposition and over a period of years would try to slacken tariff barriers between Great Britain and ourselves, I think they would have gone along with that proposition. But no mention is made of that at all. The whole Conservative party is appalled at the idea of going into any free trade with anybody. It is definitely against Conservative policy. So our friend from Prince Albert, who of his own volition would like to go along with this idea and who for 15 years has talked as the champion

of the farmers from the west, at the first opportunity that any Canadian has ever had to bring in free trade and the opportunity for farmers in the west to buy in the same market as that in which they are obliged to sell-and he is the first Canadian who has had that opportunity-has turned it down.
At the time this proposal was made by Great Britain I noticed some articles in the paper by heads of manufacturing concerns who would likely be hit if free trade was gone into, one of them being the head of a wire company-I think it was the Greening wire company-who said his costs of operation were of the order of 240 against Great Britain's 90. I used to be in the mercantile business in the west some years ago and when I came to this house in 1949 or just prior to that time I was selling barbed wire which is sold to most farmers who raise cattle. I was selling that item at a little bit over $5 a roll. I was surprised to find out this summer that it is now $15 a roll. Why is it $15 a roll? Because Mr. Greening, who gave his figures himself, has been allowed, under a system of protection, to raise his price to $15. That is at the retail level. He will not get that because there will be the cost of distribution and so on to be taken into consideration.


Mr. Rowe:: It has risen from $5 to $15?


John Hornby Harrison: It has risen in that way.


William Earl Rowe: Is barbed wire the only thing that has risen in price?


John Hornby Harrison: It is not the only thing that has risen in price but it is one thing that has risen where this one man connected with the industry affected was afraid it was going to be injured and naturally started to howl right away. In other words because of the protection this company had they have allowed their costs to run wild. Naturally our living standards are higher here than in Great Britain and you can expect that they would be somewhat higher over here. But lately we have been concerned in this house about farming and we have been passing legislation for loans to farmers, or cash advances, as they are called. Free trade is something that would have done far more for them. Wire is not a big item as far as western farmers generally are concerned as it concerns only cattle raisers, but it illustrates the point I want to make. If they could buy such an item as wire at a cost of 90 as against a cost of 240 it would mean that wire would cost us something of the order of $5.60, provided there were no technicalities in it as to better production in this country or better technology and so on that might enter into it.

As far as freight is concerned, that would not enter into it too much because it would come into Fort Churchill for less money than if it came from down here. This kind of thing is an illustration of what an acceptance of some form of free trade with Great Britain would do for the farmer in the west. In other words, instead of giving him loans acceptance of this proposition would in many cases have doubled the purchasing power of their dollar and would be something basic that would help the farmer in the west.
Now it comes to the trade talks in the United States. For years the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when he was on this side of the house said what his party would do to the United States if it could ever get hold of them and so it is interesting to read about the conference that was held by the four ministers from this government who went down to talk with their opposite numbers in the United States, particularly with reference to the wheat sales and the Are sales which that country conducted. Well now you cannot do very much business, at least satisfactory business, when you want a person to give you something if you go with the attitude-indeed nine years background of the same attitude-of hitting him over the head with a stick. It is reasonable that they got the kind of reception which they did get. As I read it in this newspaper, Sinclair Weeks, United States secretary of commerce, said at the conclusion of the United States-Canadian trade conference "We fixed 'em". Well I think that is the only concrete bit of news that came out of that conference. Since then we have had a long and rosy resume from the Minister of Finance as to what took place at the conference but at no time did he ever tell us what concessions, if any, he got. You can only conlude that Mr. Weeks was right in saying he fixed them.
Now if you go further down in this article there is another comment on the two-day conference when Mr. Weeks laughed and said that he had "certainly enjoyed his two days in the state department", and that there were in fact no United States cabinet members in attendance during the last half hour of the conference. Now this is indicative of the importance which the United States attached to this conference. They left our ministers talking to themselves for the last half hour they were there. Well I do not know how you would expect anything different if you go to beat somebody over the head in that way in order to get him to do something. It is obvious since then that this mission has done absolutely nothing because
The Address-Mr. R. Muir now the minister of agriculture for the United States, or what goes for such in that country, Mr. Benson, is now in Japan boring further into our wheat markets.
This is the record, so far, of the present government and from the standpoint of western Canada it is pretty hard to swallow. Although we may be told to have no fear because we are led by a westerner I would say that the facts so far indicate he is in the strait-jacket of Tory policy, just the same as all those before him.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) from time to time strikes stamps to commemorate certain historical events and I think perhaps something should be done with respect to striking a stamp to commemorate some of the events in the progress -and I use that word very loosely-of the Conservative party particularly. Possibly, to commemorate Sir John A. Macdonald's operations in the west we could have a stamp with a metis with a bayonet at his throat and Louis Riel hanging up on a gibbet somewhere in the background. To commemorate the regime of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett nothing could be better than the Bennett wagon running downhill.
To come back to the present administration I often think of the Minister of Finance when he sat on this side of the house and the times he used to ask the minister of agriculture of that time what the minister was going to do with the termites in the riding of Eglinton. I was concerned about that at the time because it seemed to me if you had termites boring away at the foundations of the heart of Conservative Canada in Eglinton they might spread to other parts but, having in mind the operations of this government thus far and what they might do if they had a larger majority as far as the west is concerned, I think we might well have a stamp commemorating this government which would show a termite rampant on a field of broken promises.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in rising for the first time in this house I would like to express my sincere congratulations to you, sir, upon your election to the high position you now hold and also the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) on his position as Deputy Speaker and I also extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) for the excellent manner in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
1018	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. R. Muir
Having started work in the coal mines of Nova Scotia at the age of 15 possibly I should feel somewhat outranked when I look around this house and find myself surrounded by lawyers, clergymen, professors, doctors and other professional men. However, I rise at this time to bring to the attention of this house the needs of my constituency and the governmental neglect which has existed in this part of Nova Scotia for many years. I would like to confine my remarks almost entirely to my own riding because of the urgency of some of the problems existing there which I think are very important and should be brought before the house. I would like to describe very briefly the constituency of Cape Breton North and Victoria which I represent and tell you something about that constituency and the problems of those who live there.
The constituency is one of three in the island of Cape Breton and it includes all of the county of Victoria and the northern section of the county of Cape Breton. In Victoria county is the community of Bad-deck, a place made famous by Alexander Graham Bell, J. A. D. MacCurdy, and others. At this point since I am talking about Cape Breton I am very happy and proud that our present Minister of External Affairs, the Hon. Sidney Smith, is a Cape Bretoner, having been born in Port Hood in the constituency which is now represented by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen). Although this constituency is represented by a Liberal member at the moment I am quite sure that will be remedied after the next election, regardless of the political speech that was made yesterday by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond.
Since we have just commemorated Remembrance Day I think it is also appropriate to mention at this time that I am very proud of the fact that on a per capita basis Cape Breton led all of Canada in the number of enlistments in the last war.
Getting back to Baddeck, it was here that the first aeroplane flight in the British empire was made. It was here that Alexander Graham Bell and F. W. "Casey" Baldwin began experimenting with the possibilities of hydrofoil craft in 1919. The original HD-4 hydrofoil is lying on the beach at Baddeck today, and I would suggest that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources look into the possibility of having this historically valuable asset taken over and preserved for future generations. It is worthy of note that our own navy is at the present time experimenting with the 1957 version of the hydrofoil 

craft named the Bras d'Or after the lakes on which Bell and Baldwin first began their experiments.
In the northern part of Victoria county is the Cape Breton highlands national park. There are no industries of any kind in this county except one or two small fish plants. There is some farming, fishing and lumbering, but not on a large scale.
The tourist industry is important to this county and it must be encouraged and developed. We have some of the finest scenery to be found in Canada but it is rather difficult for a hungry man to eat scenery, so more than the tourist industry is required if the people of Victoria county are to have even a fair measure of prosperity.
A few years ago there was a gypsum plant in operation at Dingwall and it employed in the vicinity of 100 men. This may not sound like a large operation, but nevertheless it is very important in a small community. This gypsum was, of course, shipped by water and the company concerned was obliged to pay a large amount of money to maintain the dredging that was carried out annually in the harbour from where it was shipped.
As a result, because of the exorbitant cost, the company was forced to abandon its workings there and move to another part of Nova Scotia.
Nothing has been done to maintain any breakwaters at Dingwall since 1942, except for some small concrete blocks placed on loose sand in 1954. Some weeks ago the depth of water at the entrance to Dingwall harbour was in the vicinity of six or seven feet, so that even the smallest fishing boats could not enter. I am pleased to say that, through the action of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and his staff, emergency dredging is now going on. It is questionable if this dredging is working out as successfully as we would like, but we must continue with this work so as to enable the fall and winter fishing to be carried on.
We cannot stop there. I would ask the minister and his staff to take a very serious and long look at the Dingwall situation with the thought in mind of reconstructing the north breakwater which has been allowed to deteriorate for the past 15 years without any maintenance whatsoever. I understand that installations such as are required here are carried out only when deemed feasible by the economics branch within the Department of Public Works. I feel this is a very unreasonable yardstick to use when the very existence of the many families in the area is concerned. Fishing is the only means these people have of earning a living. The question is: are we to assist them, or let them starve?

Getting back to the beginning of my remarks on the Dingwall situation; not one thing was done for these men who were thrown out of work. Those who were able to, moved out, and the balance turned to fishing, but now they will not even be able to fish if we do not provide the facilities required.
These men engaged in fishing in the Dingwall, Bay St. Lawrence, New Haven, Neils Harbour, Ingonish areas and all along the north shore of Victoria county have not been asking for charity. They have been seeking from the federal government only the normal assistance usually given by governments. By this I mean they have requested breakwaters, wharves, dredging and the like. These are not luxuries, they are the necessities of the fishing industry, but requests for installations were not granted. Either their requests were not brought before the previous government or they were ignored. I feel it is ridiculous that men in this day and age should have to go out at two or three o'clock in the morning, or at any time when a storm arises, and have to work like Roman slaves of old by pulling their boats up on the shore for protection because of lack of proper harbour facilities. In the New Haven area, a breakwater is required immediately to prevent such things as I have just mentioned. I would request the Minister of Public Works to look into this matter without delay. By the expenditure of small amounts of money, a great deal can be done for the people of these areas and I trust that it will be done in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, I have previously mentioned the national park. This is a decided asset to the constituency and it is a great attraction as far as tourists are concerned. It is also a great benefit to the people in the area as it provides employment for them. There is one very important question which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), namely that wages paid to those who are working there are less than those paid for the same work done in other parts of Canada. As I understand it the rate of wages paid is governed by what is known as the prevailing rate. In the areas to which I refer there are no known standards of what is the prevailing rate because there is no industry there. In any event, I believe it is wholly wrong to pay less in Nova Scotia than elsewhere.
I cannot find any justification whatsoever for the federal government paying higher wages for the same job of work in one part of Canada than it does in another. Furthermore, if equal rates of pay were provided for
The Address-Mr. R. Muir similar work no matter where such work was done it would tend to increase the general wage level and so bring it into line with that paid in other parts of the country where better wages are paid. Those in the civil service receive the same salaries no matter where they work; a civil servant working in Cape Breton, for example, does not receive less because the general wage rate in the district is less than it is elsewhere, and the same should apply to those who are working in the national park.
There are several other matters I should like to mention with regard to the park. For instance, there is a great lack of suitable camping grounds, and this shortage has become a decided problem in the past few years. Camping has increased around 200 per cent I would say in recent years, and the net result has been a very serious shortage of camping areas, toilet and laundry facilities. Another problem is the need for recreational centres where movies, lectures and other forms of entertainment may be enjoyed after the daylight hours or in rainy weather.
Then, again, the highway in the park between Ingonish and Neils Harbour is very narrow and very dangerous. I feel this highway should be widened considerably and the dangerous curves removed. I should like also to recommend a program of street lighting within the park in the immediate park area. Consideration should be given, also, to the construction of a new golf club house. The present building is a converted barn and it still looks like a barn.
These suggested improvements may not, perhaps, help the residents of the area very greatly but I feel they would provide the residents of Victoria county with a certain amount of employment which is urgently required.
The Cape Breton north section of the constituency is partly rural and partly industrialized. There are two large coal mines owned by the old Sydney Collieries Limited of Dosco and some smaller mines operated by independent operators. As hon. members are fully aware conditions have not been good in the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia for quite a number of years. Competition from other sources of fuel, loss of markets to oil, loss of traditional sales to the Canadian National Railways as a result of the changeover to diesel engines in the Atlantic region have all had their effects and it has been very difficult for the industry to overcome them. A determined effort has been made by employers and employees, men and management, to bring down the cost of production. Mines have been mechanized and modernized so that the unit cost of
1020	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. R. Muir production could be lowered. Some mines have been closed. It is sad to say that some of those mines were in communities where mining was the only source of employment. The whole economy of such communities has been wrecked and their welfare gravely threatened.
The cost of producing coal can be lowered only so far; there is a definite limit beyond which it is not possible to go. This is true especially in Cape Breton coal fields where most of the coal is mined under the sea. In fact, there are some instances where they go five miles under the water. Experts tell us that coal will again be in great demand in about 10 years, if the industry can survive that long. It needs markets, immediate markets, and many of us believe that such markets can be found, or at least partly found, in the maritime provinces by the use of coal to produce power. Cheap power is needed in the maritime provinces. In order to produce cheap power from coal there must be cheap coal and that is not possible without assistance.
The assistance we ask for is to have the coal subvention policy extended so that subventions would be paid on the movement of coal within the maritime provinces when such coal is used to produce power. This would give immediate assistance to the industry and it would also assist in the development of cheap power in the maritime provinces.
Having, shall I say, Mr. Speaker, a rough idea of what the coal miners' problems are, and the dangers they have to face daily,
I do not hesitate to recommend to the government that they are deserving of every consideration that can be given by this government. Without such assistance there is grave danger that the mining industry of Nova Scotia will be no more.
While I. am on the subject of coal I should like to bring to the attention of the government a matter of prime importance, not only to the coal miners of my constituency but to all the coal miners in the province of Nova Scotia. As the dominion coal board is comprised at the present time labour does not have any representation on this important body. I would suggest to the government that they give immediate consideration to this oversight and appoint a member to this board from within the ranks of the United Mine Workers of America in which all the miners of Nova Scotia are organized. Then labour would be truly represented on the coal board.
Another matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the government is the town of Sydney Mines. Here we have an un-

employment insurance office that has always been a suboffice of the main one at Sydney. This causes considerable delay in processing claims and it has many other objectionable features. I feel that the Sydney Mines office should be separate from, and independent of Sydney altogether. Then, of course, the people of Victoria county could also use this office. As it is now they have to travel many miles farther to Sydney. The office is located upstairs in a building that is over 50 years old and looks it. This creates a hardship on our older citizens who have to climb several flights of stairs to file their claims. I think the time is long past when we should have a new federal building at Sydney Mines that would house the aforementioned office, the post office and other governmental departments.
Also in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, is the town of North Sydney. This is a very important seaport. It is also the Canadian National terminus for Newfoundland. Canadian National ships ply between here and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, and the well and famously-known William Carson sails between North Sydney and Argentia. After Newfoundland entered confederation there was a greatly increased business between North Sydney and Newfoundland. To take care of it a new wharf was built and modern facilities were provided. It was felt at that time that the new pier would be able to handle the business for many years to come and that the pier formerly used by the Canadian National Railways could be used as a public wharf. However, the business has already outgrown the new pier and the C.N.R. must use both the old and new wharves. This is a very happy situation, but it means that the facilities of the C.N.R. must be expanded and a new public wharf is required for North Sydney.
With a new wharf it is expected there will be a great increase in business, as already ships have had to be diverted from this port for lack of space. Others have had to wait until a berth was available. For example, last year saw 1,290 ships, representing 16 nations and aggregating 2.25 million tons, being piloted into North Sydney harbour waters and had proper facilities been available that figure would have been higher. I think we should give every encouragement to shipping as it means a great deal to the town in general as well as to the commerce of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Minister of Public Works and his department have within the past two months

ti-Ken some concrete steps toward the erection of the long-talked-about federal building at North Sydney. I would suggest to the minister that plans for this long-awaited building be proceeded with just as soon as possible.
A matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the government is the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, as passed by this house on June 27, 1955. This legislation, as I understand it, was designed to assist fishermen engaged in a primary fishing enterprise. As it now reads, it is definitely not benefiting the fishermen in my constituency to any appreciable degree, or in fact in any other area of Canada. An example of its ineffectiveness is that since this act was made law only 40 loans totalling approximately $41,000 have been granted to the fishermen of Nova Scotia and the figures for Newfoundland are even less impressive. I feel the reason for this is that the regulations are so stringent that the act is rendered ineffective and impractical. In plain every-day language, there is too much red tape connected with it. I would urge the government to make an immediate re-appraisal of this legislation and amend it so that it will do the job that was originally intended for it.
In my constituency, Mr. Speaker, we also have the Point Edward naval base, which contributes greatly to the economic life of the surrounding areas. A matter that I should like the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) to take particular note of is the fact that this base is not being utilized to the degree of which it is capable. At the present time they are busily engaged at the base in refitting and preparing some Bangor minesweepers which are shortly to be turned over to the Turkish government under the mutual-aid program. After that is a large question mark. There are no other prospects in sight. This is unfortunate because at the Point Edward naval base we have the workmen, the technicians and the equipment to refit ships up to and as large as the tribal class destroyer. All that is required is that some of these ships find their way to Point Edward.
May I also suggest to the minister that he ?ive serious consideration to the basing of a ninesweeper flotilla at Point Edward. This laval base has proven its worth in regard to rorth Atlantic defence in the past and is still of vital importance in the north At-antic defence scheme.
I should like to serve notice on this gov-;rnment that the people of the constituency )f Cape Breton North and Victoria have been eft out in the cold for such a long, long ;ime that they are going to require a great
The Address-Mr. R. Muir deal of attention to warm them up. In Nova Scotia we feel and we know that we have not shared in the growth and prosperity of the rest of Canada. Our people are not as well off; they do not have the opportunity for employment that appears to be available elsewhere.
This is one of the reasons why the increases in old age security and other benefits recently announced are of great importance to Nova Scotia. It is very welcome. It will give much needed assistance to those who require it most. The government is indeed to be commended for their attitude in this matter. This government, Mr. Speaker, has been in office only a few months but it has already demonstrated its worth. It is attacking the problems of our country with courage and ability. It has the support of the people of Nova Scotia and will have, I am sure, for a long time to come.
Finally, I should like to comment briefly on certain remarks that have been made in the house. I listened very attentively to the speech today of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). I will not comment further than to say that possibly he should endeavour to get the opportunity to try out for the cast of "My Fur Lady", which has been seen in the city recently.
As a newcomer I certainly expected that there would be a certain amount of politicking, if I am allowed to use that word, and I expected that it would be done by all parties. Of course, one thing I am very happy to see is that some of the Liberal members from the maritimes after many years of silence have realized their responsibilities and have finally decided to open their mouths on behalf of the maritimes. This is a very good thing and I hope that in the future they will join with us in securing for the maritimes the rights these provinces so richly deserve.
One observation I did make was that during the debate on the wheat bill the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart)-I am sorry he is not here-for reasons known only to himself tried to pit one province against another, one section of the country against another. That was his own idea and I do not know why he did it. Of course, it has been impressed upon my mind since I have been here that it appears to be one of the policies of the Liberal party to divide and conquer, whether it be a case of province against province, religion against religion or race against race. No matter what it is, that would appear to be their aim, as was so aptly portrayed by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). In his emotional outburst he did his best to try to promote disunity in this great country of ours.

The Address-Mr. Hahn


Lionel Chevrier: You started it at your convention.


Robert Muir: What he succeeded in doing was to demote both himself and his party in the eyes of all Canadians who want a united and not a divided Canada. I have wondered many times since whether it was shame that made the hon. member leave the chamber shortly after he finished his speech.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Lionel Chevrier: You are talking through your hat.


Robert Muir: It is a sad day for this country, Mr. Speaker, when a member of parliament stoops so low as to use such means to try to overcome a bitter disappointment and seeks to gain party advantage at the expense of a united Canada.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that no party advantage can be so important as to justify such an attack upon the unity of this country.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to be associated with those who have extended congratulations to the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of committes on their elevation to their high offices. I should like to congratulate also both the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am satisfied that they did an excellent job.
I am sure you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that if I say I feel somewhat uncomfortable on this side of the house it is only by reason of the fact that I like to face those to whom I am in the habit of speaking. I has been suggested by some other opposition members that possibly I might feel more comfortable if I were to choose the side opposite in order that I might be in the position I prefer, and if I should suddenly find myself over there I would ask you to excuse me.
It has also been suggested by others in the Social Credit group that because of our seating position in the house we find it very difficult sometimes to see the cabinet ministers when we wish to speak to them. Possibly some day, sir, we could be provided with a periscope to help us to discover whether or not certain ministers are in the house so that we could address questions to them properly.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Can you see
them now?


Frederick George Hahn: I can when I get up but it is a little difficult when one is seated in his place. Other hon. members may have noticed from time to time that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has made it his custom

to step forward into the aisle so as to be sure that he can see to whom he is talking. Yes, I can see the ministers now, those who are here.


Henry Joseph Murphy: What have you got, photographs?


Frederick George Hahn: It is my intention to devote the major portion of my address to what I consider the most striking problem confronting Canada today, the labour situation. Before doing so, however, I feel I am somewhat duty bound and I also desire to let hon. members know something about my constituency and what is expected to take place in that area next year. As hon. members are probably aware, British Columbia will be celebrating its centennial in 1958. In my constituency of New Westminster we are very fortunate indeed to have the first and second capitals of British Columbia. The first is a district known as Fort Langley.
The former federal government and the provincial government, in co-operation with the municipal authorities and the native sons of the district, have seen fit to restore the fort and I understand that Princess Margaret has been invited to officiate at the official opening of the fort some time next year. I suggest that all members of the house, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the other members of the cabinet, would benefit by being present and taking part in the historic events upon that occasion.
I heard one member today tell us about the difficult tasks that the Prime Minister has to perform in the course of his duties and the rigid schedule which he is trying to follow. I agree with that hon. member, but in looking at today's Ottawa Journal I see a picture of the Prime Minister greeting Miss Canada and I suggest that possibly there are a good number of the junior representatives of his party in the house who would be only too happy to take over that particular task from him. It is the kind of job that possibly might be allocated to some of the other members.
Fort Langley, as I said, was the first capital of British Columbia. It is the centre of fishing and agricultural industries and today is undergoing a considerable industrial awakening. The second capital of British Columbia was the city of New Westminster, and it too is preparing to take part in the 1958 pageant marking the centennial year of our province. New Westminster is the home of British Columbia's first regiment. I consider it very unfortunate indeed that this government has not seen fit to give it the recognition it deserves.

This is possibly one of the most concentrated industrial and commercial areas within Canada. At the moment we are suffering somewhat from conditions which are making themselves more and more apparent in the way of unemployment and a lag in industrial development by reason of the policies followed by this government. However, I am satisfied that if you, sir, or any other member of this parliament should see fit to make his way to New Westminster you will be delighted with the reception you receive. We are proud of the two newer cities in our area, the cities of Langley and White Rock having been incorporated within the last two years.
One of our difficult problems is connected with the Fraser river. The river itself is a navigable stream and was declared such by a previous administration. It is being used a great deal but not to the extent it should be. The fact is that navigation is not as freely and easily conducted as it might be, but we are hoping that this government will see the light and some change in policy in respect of river development will take place.
We have another problem connected with the river. It has to do with fishing. This problem has been drawn to the attention of the Department of Fisheries. It has particularly to do with the opening of the Fraser river above the Pattullo bridge and as far as the Mission bridge to the fishing industry. The former government saw fit to close this area to fishing, but we are hopeful this administration will see the merit of reopening it, not only from the viewpoint of saving dollars for the fishermen but also :o help the community as a whole.
River crossings, of course, play a major part in our development, and we have major problems arising from the fact. The former government was very adamant in its attitude oward giving assistance to these river :rossings. We are hopeful that this govern-nent may see that a change is desirable. Dne of the leftovers we have from the former idministration is the Langley airport. This lirport, although started many years ago, las had to exist and to grow by being built ip with the leftovers from other airports vhich did not require expenditures upon hem. The result is that today the airport, tlthough playing a major role in the develop-nent of agriculture and industry, is certainly n need of assistance. The present government has not indicated it intends to change he policy with respect to this airport, but
would suggest that they make a careful eview of the situation to see what can be lone.
The Address-Mr. Hahn
In so far as harbour maintenance is concerned, I have heard a great deal about what the Conservatives inherited as a legacy from the former administration in the way of waste, extravagance and inefficiency. However, it is remarkable to me to note that this government seems to be carrying on the identical program of the former administration, which would indicate that this government is still not aware of the changes that have to take place. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) advise the house, in response to my question, that the government diking program has been changed. This will ease the problem of many municipalities in this respect.
In so far as the shipping industry is concerned naturally, having one of the main ports in Canada in the city of New Westminster, I am interested in discovering exactly what advance the present government is making in the way of establishing a shipping fleet for Canada. I took particular note of the action announced yesterday with respect to the transfer of our east coast fleet to Trinidad.
The main industry in the area is lumbering. Sales are down and the industry is suffering from problems that are common to the industry as a whole in Canada. I will not go into detail at this time in so far as those problems are concerned.
In so far as transportation is concerned, we have the Canadian National shops which, of course, do present certain problems which are not unlike those the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised so often in this house. This area does have an agricultural section, and we are still in need of the extension of the P.F.R.A. to British Columbia, or at least some assistance similar to it. We do have other problems, too, related to freight assistance on feed grains. At this point I wish to compliment the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and congratulate him upon the prompt action he and his government saw fit to take in assisting the turkey raisers, after hearing recommendations from me and interviewing the turkey raisers themselves. I recognize that this assistance is only temporary, but it is a step in the right direction of meeting a problem when it arises.
This brings me to the main problem which faces my area at this particular moment. I speak of the question of unemployment. Recently the Prime Minister made a statement which caused me a good deal of concern. What he said has been carried by many newspapers throughout the country.
1024	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hahn The Montreal Gazette of November 9 carried a very lucid account of this particular statement. The article reads, in part:
"It seems clear," he added, "that the strategy of the high command of the Liberal party is to spread fear and gloom and preach doom and to pretend that where unemployment exists this (Progressive Conservative) government is to blame."
. . . "there has been a levelling off during the last year and a half."
I am very pleased to hear there is a levelling off of the unemployment situation. I hope that the figures we have today will indicate that the levelling off period has been completed. However, I do not believe the government is facing the facts. The fact of the matter is that we do have unemployment in Canada today. It is true, as the Prime Minister has suggested in this article, and in some of his statements, that we have more people employed in Canada today than probably at any other time. But it is also a recognized fact that if we have more than 1 per cent or 2 per cent of our labouring force unemployed then we have above the point usually allowed for transitional employees, that is, those who go from one job to the next.
I am rather disturbed when the Prime Minister of this country tries to shrug off a situation in which unemployment in this country has increased to such an extent that it causes a great number of industrialists and a great number of labourers a great deal of concern. Yet, the Prime Minister tells us we should not worry. In this article the Prime Minister goes on to say:
"Criticism is of the essence in our system," he said. "But the sowing of fear of mass unemployment is a dangerous course to follow, for it can lead to a depression complex whether so intended or not."
I must agree with what the Prime Minister has to say in respect of a fear complex. However, facing reality does not mean necessarily that one is trying to inject fear into the people. This is a matter of facing the facts. As I read this article I wondered whether this was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Prime Minister-I do not believe it was but it might be interpreted as such-to coerce and to prevent the members of parliament from bringing this particular matter to the attention of the people as a whole.
We are faced with a problem that industrialists, members of parliament and governments at all levels must take hold of at this time and examine into. I ask this question. How long are we to wait before be decide that conditions are of such a grave

nature that we are expected to say something to the people about them? When is the government going to become aware of it? Or must I wait until my constituents write to me about it before I have anything to say in respect of the matter?
I do not care a hoot whether the Prime Minister inherited this problem from the Conservatives or whether he inherited it from the Liberals. The fact of the matter is that many thousands of people are unemployed in New Westminster riding and in Canada and I am concerned about those particular people. My main interest is in knowing what is going to be done about it. As I say, men and women are out of work by the thousands. What is this parliament prepared to do? What is labour prepared to do? What is industry prepared to do? This is not a time for us to wear a blindfold. It is the time for us to be alert to the problem that faces this country and to try to do something about it.
Political parties throughout this country- that means in particular C.C.F.'ers, Liberals, Conservatives or Social Crediters-have all indicated that we are quite prepared to sit down with this government to see whether or not we can resolve the problems that face the nation today. It is with that fact in mind that I speak, namely that this government has a greater degree of co-operation than any government hitherto has ever had in that respect. There is no one rising in this house for the purpose of opposition just for the sake of opposition alone. They are here for only one purpose and that is to bring to the attention of the government a solution to the problem or at least a solution that we think might be desirable and one that we could use.


Mr. Baskin:: Have you any suggestions?


Frederick George Hahn: I am coming to the suggestions if you will just give me time. A few days ago when it was announced that the Britannia mine might be forced to close it was suggested in the house-again not with deliberate intent-that possibly that was a responsibility of the province. I am not denying that possibly the province might have some responsibility. Certainly the industry has as a whole and the industry has recognized that fact. So have the members of parliament. Some few weeks ago when members from all parties were called in by the mine union officials to discuss this question because it appeared then that the mine might be closed we submitted a telegram to this government in respect of what we hoped might be done and we are still waiting for a reply to the telegram. Things have not changed from the

good old days of the Liberals. You present a suggestion, you wire them, you explain it to them and yet you still wait for their reply.
Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that that is the way in which this particular problem should be met. It is not a case where a government should try to pass the buck to another government and indicate that the solution to the problem lies in their hands. The solution to the problem lies in the hands of all the members in this house as well as the other government that might be involved, as well as industry and labour itself. We must keep these industries in operation. It is most important to the economy of Canada and more particularly to the economy of the district in which they might be located.
What are the facts in respect of unemployment. At page 805 of Hansard of November 6, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) in reply to a question posed by the former minister of fisheries, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), indicated a comparison of figures in respect of unemployment in my province. I refer you to those particular figures from which you will discover, Mr. Speaker, that the unemployment condition has practically doubled in the province of British Columbia. By way of example, at September 20, 1956, there were 15,619 unemployed-that is a year ago- this year, on September 19, there were 29,837 unemployed, or practically double the number. In Canada as a whole the situation while not so severe is as follows. The number of unemployed in 1956 on September 20 was 158,804 as compared with 255,896 on September 15, 1957. As to my own particular district of New Westminster, I have a clipping from the British Columbian. I must say that it is an excellent newspaper. I am referring to the issue dated November 7, 1957. This particular news item is headed, "New Arrivals Swell Unemployed; 4500 New Jobs Created but Jobless Lists High". This particular story tells an unfortunate tale indeed. It begins in this way:
Numerous small and temporary lay-offs in lumber manufacturing, construction and secondary manufacturing has created an early upswing in the number of persons registered for employment with the national employment service.
It goes on to say this:
At the end of October, 4,500 men and 1,300 women were seeking work through the national employment service.
Mr. Speaker, those figures are most significant when compared with those of one year ago. The figure at that time was 2,200 and two years ago it was 2,900. I say to you that here we have an instance of well over twice as many individuals unemployed in an area and
1025
The Address-Mr. Hahn yet it is suggested that if we say that the unemployment condition in this country is severe, then we are being unfair. No, the Prime Minister did not say that but the Prime Minister said that we are spreading gloom and fear for only one purpose, pretending that where unemployment exists this government is to blame.
I am not blaming the government particularly, or not just this government. It is a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that possibly the Bank of Canada is as much to blame as anyone. But we cannot assess the blame on anyone but ourselves because we are responsible to the people of this country and it is our responsibility to see to it that they have jobs if there are no jobs. Certainly it is not the job of anyone else or a situation for which we might assess someone else as being to blame. This article continues:
Of those at present seeking work 27 per cent are from outside the New Westminster and Fraser valley areas, the highest percentage yet recorded,-
That, sir, was what gave me cause to rise in my place on October 31 and ask a question of the Minister of Labour. At that time I asked him this question as reported at page 598 of Hansard:
What consideration, if any, is the government giving to the suggestion to the unemployed that they would be well advised to remain in the community in which they now live unless directed to some other labour field in the Canadian market by the officers of the unemployment insurance commission?
The minister very kindly replied as follows:
In the first place the government, or the unemployment insurance commission in this case, is hardly in a position to suggest to an individual who is interested in finding work that he should remain in a locality where he cannot get employment. People will insist on remaining free to look for work wherever it may be found.
That is true and I would agree with him that they insist on that. But certainly this government could direct them and could say that it is bad business to go into an area today where we have too many people at the present time who are looking for work.
Potentially we believe that we might expect a great number more of unemployed. Not too long ago I believe the Canadian Labour Congress rather indicated that they expected some 750,000 people to be unemployed this winter. In the Ottawa Citizen of November 8 I find it says that a qualified government official predicted that unemployment this winter will likely hit 750,000, the highest figure since the end of the second world war. Yet we are supposed to show no concern over the fact that we have in the Canadian Congress of Labour men and women who are interested in the labour field indicating

The Address-Mr. Hahn that they expect an all-time high in unemployment. At the same time qualified government officials indicate they expect an alltime high in unemployment and we are advised that we should not show the natural interest in this matter which I think we have a right to show and are indeed expected to show.
Now the reasoning is wrong. This question must be resolved. The only place it can be resolved is in the parliament of Canada. That is why we are here and that is what we are supposed to do. We should assist the government in taking care of these matters and I think we are all quite prepared to do so; I know we as a party are and I am convinced that others are too. I have many other clippings I could read but my time is running out very rapidly. However, I have a couple of editorials with me from newspapers across the country in respect of utterances of the Prime Minister.
The Ottawa Citizen of November 7 indicates in the early part of an editorial that the Prime Minister had denounced the Liberals at Toronto. Well I do not blame him for denouncing the Liberals; that has been his business for a good many years and I suppose he will be denouncing the Liberals long after they are dead and gone, if such is the case.


Mr. Stanton:: Very successfully.


Frederick George Hahn: My hon. friend says very successfully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One
dead horse kicking another.


Frederick George Hahn: Well at any rate the article goes on to use unnecessarily harsh words about the Prime Minister which I do not feel add anything to the discussion and so I will not put them on the record. However, further down it says:
And the prospect of large-scale unemployment this winter has been tacitly admitted by the government, which has taken steps to try to reduce it. For one thing, it has cut down immigration (a mistaken policy, in this newspaper's opinion, but that is another matter). For another, it has made $150 million available at low interest rates for low-cost housing.
Well these may be cures, but the article goes on to say:
And jobs don't depend on public debate: they depend on export markets, inflation, population growth, and similar factors.
This is possibly a condition which this government did inherit from the Liberals, the fact we did not have export markets, and it is something which some of the hon. members of this house tried to do something about a year ago, namely early in the spring when the other administration was in office.

We asked them to see to it that they traded and accepted sterling either bloc or convertible-or inconvertible for that matter- and see to it that they opened up channels of trade one way or another. However as usual such was not the case.
This article goes on to say:
It is up to the government to give a lead on this issue,
It is up to the parliament to do something about it. Hon. members may consider that because 1 was quoting from the Ottawa Citizen I was using a somewhat biased newspaper but I have a clipping from a Vancouver paper which British Columbia members would recognize as the official organ of the Conservative party; it has this to say:
What we call our "way of life" in western societies is now under test as never before.
This article appeared on November 5, 1957 and the way of life referred to of course is our way of life as compared with the communist way of life. It goes on:
The internal threat is less clearly identified because it is composed of a number of things. The test of western society's fitness to survive will rest on the realism and courage with which it faces up to, and finds solutions for, its own weaknesses.
We must find a solution to our own weaknesses and unemployment is a weakness which has been with us since the early thirties and a long time before that and if democratic society is to exist and continue to exist it is our responsibilty to see to it that we do not have unemployment. I read on:
If during an era when the communist system is forging ahead, with its working force straining to keep up with productive demands, our society fails to keep its own people usefully employed, this will be a most dangerous failure.
Though the communist system may prove to be one of the greatest let-down's in history, the fact will not help us if our system becomes embroiled in internal difficulties for which many will not be able to see any rational reason.
You cannot rationalize with a person who is unemployed, who has no job and has not a full bread box. You can understand only too well, as should this government, how difficult it is to try to convince these people that this thing must be, that we should have unemployment regularly. I beseech you, sir, to advise the government-well it is not your position to do so, I recognize that-but through you I would request the government to give further attention to this particular question.
The reason the communist government is as strong as it is today is because of happy men and contented men who not only have their stomach full but have jobs as well. They do have jobs, whether they are forced to do them by slave labour or not-I am not here to argue at this time. That is one of

the reasons they are a happy and contented lot, in so far as one can be happy and contented under slavery. Therein lies the strength of communism and if we are going to fight it we will have to fight it by looking after our own backyard and seeing to it that the people of this country are fully employed.
The Vancouver and district labour council wrote to I think all the members from British Columbia submitting the problem in so far as they were concerned. I have with me the letter addressed to myself dated November 8, 1957 requesting that I attend a meeting. It says:
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss ways and means of alleviating unemployment which is prevalent in this area at the present time, and is increasing daily at an alarming rate. Predictions are that it will reach an all-time high very soon unless people in authority, together with industry, take steps immediately to provide work for those unemployed.
Now we are told by this government that conditions are not too bad and that we are spreading a fear complex if we continue in this vein. Certainly labour itself recognizes the problem and I say that we should see to it that we recognize it also. The city of Vancouver, I read from a news item of Tuesday, November 5, says this:
Vancouver's appeals to the senior governments for public projects to fight unemployment will be meaningless if voters turn down the city's five-year plan in December.
Now the city of Vancouver is trying to keep its men and women in work and therein lies another problem. The premier of my own province had this to say, and I now read from a news clipping also of November 5:
Premier Bennett proposed Monday that if the Bank of Canada did not heed Finance Minister Donald Fleming's opposition to tight money, "it be reorganized immediately".
I am sure our good friend from Westmorland (Mr. Murphy), who seems to be out of his element in his own party because they brought on this tight money policy if I understand correctly, will appreciate this.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Speak for yourself over there.


Frederick George Hahn: I am speaking for myself. We have found so many individuals suddenly realizing there is something wrong with the economics in this country that I think it is high time that they take a look around and if they are sitting with the wrong party they should come over and sit with the proper one. I go on to quote from the same article:
Mr. Bennett said the provincial government, besides highway spending, is spending $100 million this year through the toll highways authority, the B.C. power commission, and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.
The Address-Mr. Haidasz
They are spending $100 million to build roads in the province, continue with power projects and the expansion of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.
We would make it a point today to change our trade policies. What are we afraid of in respect to an examination into the operations of the Bank of Canada and the control it has in this country? Certainly I say it is high time that we in this parliament brought the directors before us and made them answerable for the policies that have been forced on this nation, and for the unemployment in which we have been embroiled as a result.
It is not enough for a province to do that. Our province has gone a step further, it has sent a trade delegation to Europe to carry on negotiations which the federal government should have carried on earlier. I know, as everyone in this house knows, that the present government has had only a period of five months in which to do these things and I recognize that the government is a new government and has to be established as such; it has not had experience for 22 years. Nevertheless, the problems raised in this house having been drawn to its attention so frequently I think it is high time something was done about them.
I have only one request to make in conclusion, and that is that we put Canada first. All political parties have declared that they will co-operate, and they have indicated in this house that they would do so. Let us, therefore, put Canada first and get the people back to work.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, it is with legitimate pride and great humility that I rise to make my maiden speech in this distinguished house and to represent my fellow Canadians in Trinity riding by speaking in this debate in reply to the speech from the throne delivered by Her Gracious Majesty the Queen at the memorable opening of this twenty-third parliament of Canada.
As I apply myself to the discharge of my responsibilities I should like first to express my gratitude to the electors of Trinity for having chosen me as their representative the only Liberal from Toronto in this House of Commons-and I pray that I may always serve this chamber, my constituents and fellow Canadians with loyalty and devotion. I am honoured to be associated in this house with five of my colleagues in the medical profession, and with the first Italian and the first Chinese Canadians to sit in this house, and I believe I experience some of their emotions because I happen to be the first Canadian of Polish descent to be elected to the House of Commons.

The Address-Mr. Haidasz
May I congratulate the Speaker of the House of Commons upon his election to this high office and responsibility. I offer him my sincere support and co-operation. To you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I extend my sincere felicitations and offer true co-operation. May I also congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for their fine performances.
I confess I deeply regret that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) has announced his intention to resign his post for reasons of health. Along with the rest of the Canadian public I have admired his firmness, dignity and devotion to duty which enabled the Liberal government to give Canada the greatest measure of national unity, full nationhood, international standing and unprecedented economic prosperity. That is why I am proud to be associated with this great Canadian party of reform under the guidance of the present Leader of the Opposition who now takes his place in Canadian history alongside Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John A. Macdonald.
I am proud to belong to Canada's one and only truly national party. Let me remind hon. members opposite that it was the Liberal party which obtained the largest majority of votes in the last election. I must also confess that I was scandalized to hear from my colleagues on this side of the house that the Tory party had one set of election promises for the people of the province of Quebec and a totally different one for the people of the province of Ontario.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You are wrong.


Mr. Lesage:: You did not hear them; I did.


Stanley Haidasz: I am also sorry that the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) should have been placed in the position of a two-faced politician by his colleagues, for in Toronto he had to say one thing last week, and four months ago he had to say a totally different thing to the people in Three Rivers.
And now, Mr. Speaker, as is the custom, I should like to acquaint especially the newcomers to this house with the particular features of Trinity and the needs of its constituents which were so ably served by distinguished members who have preceded me such as Hugh Plaxton, Senator Arthur Roebuck, the late Lionel Conacher and Donald Carrick.
Trinity is located in the southwestern sector of the great metropolis of Toronto. The southern limit of my riding borders on lake Ontario and the Toronto harbour. The armouries, Fort York, and the world-renowned park of the Canadian national

exhibition occupy the southern portion along with the great industries of Massey-Harris and John Inglis.
The dependable industrious, and public-spirited residents of Trinity represent the most complete cross-section of any Canadian metropolis. The stalwart Anglo-Saxons and Irish comprise the majority of its population, followed by the Italians, the Poles, the Jewish, Ukranians, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Czechs and many others. Among these there is also an active group of people from the West Indies federation which I hope will soon join us in the family of sovereign nations, the British commonwealth. The rich traditions and the cultures one thousand years old or more and the firsthand experiences in the struggle against communist tyranny of many of these newcomers to freedom-loving Canada have already contributed and will continue to contribute immeasurably to the stature of this great country. This enviable mosaic, composed of different sizes, shapes and colours is, may I assure you, strongly cemented not only by a common allegiance to the crown and a common Canadian citizenship but also by convictions of loyalty, pride and faith in the past, present and future of Canada.
At this point in my address may I pay tribute to the first Polish immigrant to become a citizen of Toronto 100 years ago, an engineer who built so many railroads, highways and bridges in Ontario that he was elevated to knighthood by Queen Victoria. The name of this man, who worked and resided in Trinity riding and who contributed so much to the development of Toronto and Ontario was Sir Casimir Gzowski. The city council of Toronto paid tribute to his memory last year by naming a park in his honour.
Another new Canadian who contributed to the development of this country is Stephen Roman, a Slovak immigrant, who came to this great land of opportunity less than 20 years ago with only a few dollars in his pocket, but who by hard work and brain power formed, among other companies, the world's largest uranium mine, the Consolidated Denison Mines of which he is president. That is why at this point I pay tribute to the wise and courageous policy of immigration of Mackenzie King, a policy vigorously and successfully carried out by the former minister of immigration, Mr. Harris, and by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
Since it is the duty of a loyal opposition to oppose, I cannot see how one can offer effective opposition without constructive

criticism. Yet, I very well know that in many minds political criticism is today frequently regarded as an ugly word, conjuring up pictures of insidious radicals and non-conformists. And before we realize it political criticism can become regarded as an unCanadian activity instead of democracy's greatest safeguard.
Nowhere in the world more ardently than in the Kremlin is the critic considered a conspirator and as one deserving of exile and frequently death. That is why communist Kremlin, believing itself to be infallible, and determined to revolutionize this world into a godless communist society, continues in the minds of free men to be intolerant and intolerable. In the western civilization, the traditional attitude is that criticism is an attempt to test whether what is, might not be better.
Edmund Burke once said that "a nation without means of reform is without means of survival", and I personally believe that no reform can be achieved in a truly free democratic state without honest and vigorous criticism. Therefore, it is my ardent hope that this government will never resent criticism.
The city council and the citizens of Toronto expect great things from this government, and this hope is based upon the election promises of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and upon the very close friendship and co-operation which now exist between the Prime Minister of Canada, the premier of Ontario and the super-mayor of metropolitan Toronto, who sat together in the front row in Massey hall on that memorable day of April 25, 1957, at the opening of the Conservative election campaign.
At last the taxpayers of Toronto, burdened with municipal taxes steadily rising to intolerable levels, will get relief if only these election promises are all kept. Toronto has been expanding so rapidly that the taxes levied on its home-owners have become an unjust burden because they have to pay for municipal services that were basically the responsibility of the provincial and federal governments.
Education, the building of schools, the relief of the indigent and the vast number of unemployed, the building of hospitals, slum clearance, subsidization of low-cost housing, the administration of justice, the building of roadways and freeways and safer railway crossings should be met also by the provincial and federal governments. Furthermore, many responsible Torontonians are alarmed at the nonchalant attitude and delays of certain levels of government in refusing to start financing the projects of the Metropolitan
1029
The Address-Mr. Haidasz Toronto Conservation Authority in order to remove the dangers of the Humber and Don river valleys which, during hurricane "Hazel" took the lives of 81 of our citizens.
In this address I consider it a pleasant duty to defend also the interests of the small businessman of whom there are over 2,000 in Trinity and who are hard pressed and heading for bankruptcy owing to the greedy expansion of giant chain stores. The present Prime Minister, in his opening campaign speech in Toronto last April, stated that the Tories will undertake to set up a committee composed of members of the cabinet and representatives of small business associations from all of Canada to take necessary effective action to assist small business, the backbone of our national business. May I remind the Prime Minister that he has done nothing and forecast nothing about this election promise.
1 also urge the present government to change the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase benefits from 31 to 52 weeks for the unemployed and also to eliminate waiting periods for payments, as was promised in Toronto and other parts of Canada during his election campaign.
When I voted for the $9 increase for the senior citizens I did not forget to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) of the promise of his government to include an escalator clause to protect this $9 rise against the rising cost of living and to gear it to the national productivity. I reminded him during that debate that the senior citizens, depending solely on the old age pension of $55, have barely enough for three nutritious meals for 30 days. Where are those poor people who depend solely on the old age pension to get the money for shelter, clothing and other essential hygienic products to lead a decent life? That is why I urge this government to use their influence on Premier Frost to be more just and to be even generous in his province's share to care for those destitute senior citizens.
In my riding of Trinity I have over 1,000 old age pensioners in homes for the aged such as Lambert Lodge and Hilltop Acres. I was horrified last summer when metropolitan Toronto took from those old age pensioners $5 out of their $6 increase, which is a very unjust act for I believe that all of us in this House of Commons, when we vote for an increase for these old age pensioners we believe that that increase belongs to them and is not intended to reimburse municipalities for their obligation to our destitute senior citizens.
During my varied experience as a practitioner of medicine among the working class, the poor and the aged in Toronto, and mostly

The Address-Mr. Haidasz in my riding of Trinity, I have become intimately aware of and particularly concerned with the medical needs and the social welfare of my constituents and that is why I regret that in the speech from the throne there was no mention whatsoever of hospital insurance and diagnostic services. The advances of medicine in alleviating suffering and preventing disease were steadily made available to all Canadians by the progressive and beneficial assistance of the national health plans of the previous government. Federal grants to hospitals, co-operation in the production of Salk vaccine, numerous other services and a variety of pensions brought substantial relief to a wide sector of our citizens. The immediate availability of the benefits of the National Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act can provide considerable relief in the cost of sickness. Credit is due to the members of the 22nd parliament for passing unanimously this most significant piece of social welfare legislation and, above all, to the distinguished former minister of national health and welfare whose tireless energy and persistent determination made this dream come true.
I join with those who regret that the Ontario hospital commission will not provide these benefits prior to January 1, 1959 and that, as recently announced, this commission has disallowed outpatient diagnostic and laboratory services which federal legislation, enacted on April 12, 1957, so generously provided.
I therefore respectfully appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to use his influence on the Ontario government to bring these benefits to our ailing citizens earlier and in a fuller measure. There are many other health problems whose solutions are urgently needed-and I draw them to the attention of the minister-such as mental health research and the modern care of the mentally ill, cancer research, research into chronic diseases such as heart disease, arthritis, blindness problems and especially helping to set up glaucoma clinics and banks for corneal transplant tissues, infant and maternal mortality, dental decay, alcoholism, increasing highway traffic deaths which are occurring every summer on our highways and many other medical problems.
I also support every effort of the provincial and federal health departments to ban the indiscriminate sale of tranquilizing drugs and to order their use only upon the recommendation of the patient's physician.
To solve these problems we need more hospitals, more research workers, more doctors,

nurses and technicians. The existing shortage of personnel demands a more vigorous program of education and specialized training.
Never before has our way of life demanded so much scientific education as now and yet, unfortunately, Canada today is in a situation unique in her history. Never before have there been so few in the age group 15 to 25 years in proportion to those in other decennial age groups. This has been brought about by the low birth rate in the 1930's. Moreover, emigration to the United States of our university graduates and skilled workers has long been heavy.
Another contributing factor to this shortage, and especially to the shortage of teachers and professors, is the recent clamping down on migration of teachers, professors and other skilled workers from the countries of central Europe to Canada. It might be interesting to note that of every 100 children in Canada who start school only seven enter a university and only five obtain a degree, and very few of these ever become scientists.
Among other causes of this dearth of scientists, engineers and teachers are the poor salaries for professors, lack of funds, insufficient incentive, decline of prestige of educated people and increasing numbers of self-satisfied citizens who seem quite certain that everything desirable in life is to be found in a ranch style bungalow, a television set, travel and convivial gatherings. These people are avid for the products of science, particularly in medicine and entertainment, but they feel no attraction for a life dedicated to intellectual discipline nor for scientists as personalities.
Now that the very material things in which most people put their trust are in jeopardy Canada and the western world are faced with a need for scientists. An editorial in a Canadian weekly magazine of contemporary affairs remarked last month that "Sputnick is a symbol not so much of Russian superiority as of the failure of American and Canadian education". A NATO committee reported last month that the Soviet union is graduating nearly twice as many scientists on a per capita basis as the NATO countries put together and is also accelerating her output rate.
The need for scientists in Canada was forecast at a conference on scientific and technical manpower at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, in September, 1956. It was stated there that by 1980 Canada must quadruple her currently employed 40,000 engineers, probably more than quadruple today's scientist force of 20,000 and produce ten times as many technicians and have

55,000 university teachers. These fabulous figures are most alarming. In Canada there have been cries of alarm and some talk from the leaders of the present government, but the fears and suggestions of Canada's research directors and scientists warn us that the government is hindering the progress of scientific research by ordering cuts in expenditures.
In spite of the appeals for aid for scientific research and in spite of the election promises by Conservative party candidates of federal grants for education, these same people ignored in the throne speech the urgent need for such aid and ignored mentioning any federal grants to our universities which constitute our very first line of defence. I am sure many members and many Canadians were humiliated and scandalized as I was that Dr. Norman MacKenzie, president of the University of British Columbia has just returned from a tour of the United States to beg United States industrialists to give donations to Canadian universities and colleges.
I urge the government that this session of parliament should not close without granting financial aid to our universities and without giving grants to aid needy but talented students. Recently Walter Gordon, of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, stated that learning should receive economic help even if this meant we could not spend quite as much on other things. I would also recommend the formation of a national education and research committee to advise governments and universities and to solicit financial aid from governments, industries and private benefactors. I highly commend my colleague on this side of the house, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) for proposing the following resolution which appeared on the opening day of parliament:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so as to provide for the exemption from income taxes of tuition fees paid to universities-
He also included other schools of higher learning.
-as well as the costs to students o fall textbooks and scientific equipment-
We can assist our universities tremendously by introducing more liberal changes in our tax laws to encourage corporations to donate more money toward educational purposes such as to expand university facilities, provide more teachers and scientists, increase professors' salaries and promote scientific research, both pure and applied. More money should be available for scholarships, bursaries and loan 96698-66J
The Address-Mr. Haidasz funds even at high school level as well as at college and post-graduate levels in order to identify, encourage and support our young Canadians who have the incentive and aptitude to profit by advanced training. Industry and government could also help students help themselves by providing more summer employment and by exempting these students from unemployment insurance pay deductions. The provision of facilities to expand our universities and to provide bursaries for teachers to take summer courses would also help our drive to promote scientific advancement and produce more teachers.
Education and scientific research are the foundation of our national strength which will serve to increase our international stature and serve as a strong factor in the preservation of security and freedom. In order to preserve peace and freedom and, above all, to check the threat of communism which subordinates its peoples and policies in order to achieve its goal of world domination, we must reappraise our standards. The danger and tragedy of the progressive march of communism and the ruthless extirpation by communist dictators of freedom and basic human rights in peace-loving countries such as Hungary, Poland, the Ukraine, East Germany, the Baltic states and the Balkan countries is most appalling. A few weeks ago we marked the first anniversary of the uprisings in Hungary and Poland against their oppressors. By resisting communist tyranny with heavy personal sacrifice these people undermined the progress of communism and helped our western world in the fight against this godless and ruthless force.
The Liberal government may well be proud of its contribution of economic aid and swift emergency immigration measures to assist refugees from those areas, an act which proved that Canada backs her words with concrete action and which raised our country's stature in the eyes of the free world.
It was indeed fortifying to hear Her Majesty state that the ministers of the present government will do their utmost to participate in NATO and the United Nations in order to preserve peace. We are hopeful that the meeting of the fifteen NATO heads will determine definite and workable plans to enable co-operation in the pooling of scientific knowledge, co-ordination of defence and the extension of economic and cultural assistance to the countries that are in need.
By working through the United Nations, just one year ago the former secretary of state for external affairs was able to divert the dangerous course of the Suez crisis. This achievement in diplomacy in the United

The Address-Mr. Haidasz Nations' forum won him the Nobel Peace Prize, bringing distinction and honour to himself, his party, to this house and to Canada. This Canadian idea of the United Nations emergency force was a godsend. After a whole year of operation it has proved to be a great success and has provided security in Israel, so frequently heretofore endangered. The longer the United Nations police force stays in Aqaba and Gaza, the more established the role of this force becomes as an instrument to prevent hostilities. It might be a wise thing, therefore, to use an ounce of prevention by sending such an international peace force to other threatened borders.
It is, however, a sad fact to hear that the United Nations has difficulty in financing this expeditionary force, especially as a result of the Soviet bloc refusal to contribute to its upkeep. This is further proof of the Soviet union's lack of co-operation and lack of interest in preserving peace in troubled areas. In addition to using the United Nations police force on troubled borders, the United Nations' task of preserving peace in the Middle East will be well served if the Canadian delegation plays its part by encouraging the Arab states to recognize the fact that Israel is a real and permanent state in the Middle East and that a basis for co-existence should be found. By demanding the solving of the Arab refugee problem and by advocating a United Nations sponsored economic aid and technical development program our delegation will contribute a lot towards bringing stable conditions into the Middle East and the other countries in central Europe.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue my address in another official language which I admire and learned to speak while a student at Ottawa university.
(Translation):
And so, while the free world battles to check the rising tide of communism, it should not forget the victims of communism who sacrificed family possessions and even a career so as to be at the forefront of those who are fighting communist tyranny.
Have we so soon forgotten that we have celebrated the anniversaries of the revolt of the Polish workers at Poznan and of the Hungarian revolt in Budapest? We have been recently reminded of those anti-communist rebellions by the United Nations moral condemnation of Kremlin tyranny. We can all take pride in the fact that Canada, from the very beginning, played an

outstanding part in welcoming the refugees from communist oppression. According to Red Cross authorities, 30,000 refugees still remain in camps in Austria and Yugoslavia. To these must be added approximately 200,000 Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Czechs and others who have fled various satellite countries. Those too have resisted communism and sacrificed all to recover their liberty. And yet on July 1st the Tory government all but slammed the door in their faces. Instead of applying a firm immigration policy it has acted in a fumbling and shameless way, making short work of one of its election promises. In his opening campaign speech in Toronto on April 25 last, the Prime Minister stated that the Conservatives would undertake an aggressive immigration policy, in co-operation with the provinces, in order to bring into Canada immigrants possessing the necessary skills and training. The Conservative government, he said, would increase and promote immigration, instead of hampering it. I feel that I should remind the present ministers that their duty now consists in taking immediate and fearless action in this regard.
Yesterday, during the ceremonies of Remembrance day, when paying tribute to our gallant soldiers, airmen and seamen, did we think of the supreme sacrifice they made during the first and second World Wars? Did we also recall the sacrifices of the French underground forces, of the heroes of the British 8th army in Italy, of the brave soldiers of the 3rd United States army in Prance, of the heroes of the R.A.F. and of the Polish squadrons during the battle of Britain? Did we forget about the sacrifice of the Polish artillery divisions at Mount-Cassino? Finally, last but not least, have we already forgotten the millions of human beings, Jews and Gentiles alike, who suffered and even died under dreadful tortures in Nazi concentration camps or in Russian forced labour camps? Let us not forget that what they died for is worth preserving now.
May I make further remarks in French, a language I so gladly learned to speak in the happy years when I was studying philosophy at the University of Ottawa. As a humble Torontonian, I was treated with courtesy and great kindness by the reverend Oblate Fathers and my French-Canadian fellow students. As a new member of the house, and on the occasion of my first speech here, let me publicly express to them my

appreciation and esteem. The various elements of French culture I have gathered there have been a welcome addition to my education.
In this 23rd parliament which looms so large in the history of Canadian politics, I am happy to find myself in the company of five colleagues from the medical profession. I am also particularly happy to find myself in the company of the first Canadians of Italian and Chinese descent to be members of the House of Commons. I daresay that I share their feelings unreservedly, being myself the first Canadian of Polish descent to sit in this honourable house.
I am also proud to represent the cosmopolitan constituency of Trinity which in the past elected such well-known members as Hugh Plaxton, Lionel Conacher, Donald Car-rick and Senator Roebuck. Like them, I wish to dedicate my life to the service of this, my native constituency. May I in this way show my gratitude towards Canada-"mon pays, mes amours", to use a phrase from the French Canadian song which I often sang on St. John the Baptist day.
Should I admit that I bend under the burden of so much dignity and responsibility imposed upon me by my duties as a representative of my fellow citizens? However, let me add at once that I take heart at the thought that, as the sole liberal member from the city of Toronto, I follow in the footsteps of a great parliamentarian and legal authority, the very distinguished former prime minister (Mr. St. Laurent), until recently leader of a Liberal government which gave our great country its most glowing years of harmony and economic development ever witnessed in our history. Bold and clear-minded architect of the full emancipation of our country, a statesman whom posterity will consider as a leading figure of the Liberal party, he saved world peace, on October 19, 1956, in directing the conduct of our representatives at the United Nations Organization. "Man's time being short," as mentioned in Holy Writ, this highly regarded leader wishes to leave the parliamentary scene. He will be remembered as one of the most important personalities in the political history of Canada. This man was a great leader and more particularly a great Canadian.
(Text):


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I first, as is the custom of the house, join with speakers who have
The Address-Mr. Broome preceded me in this debate in the congratulations they have extended to you and to the Deputy Speaker. These are no formal congratulations, sir, but a sincere tribute to one who by his fairness, tact, dignity and constant good humour, sometimes under the most trying circumstances, has earned the respect of all hon. members of this house. I must also congratulate the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), the mover of the address in reply to Her Majesty's speech, and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault), who seconded that address.
As the house is well aware, the debate on this address was interrupted on October 23 by unanimous consent of the house in order to allow the government to introduce certain urgent, top priority legislation and the house has been occupied with this business until November 11 when the throne speech debate was resumed. What did the house accomplish in that period between October 23 and November 11? Mr. Speaker, I venture to suggest that never before in the history of Canada was so much accomplished for the people of Canada in such a short time.
On October 24 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) introduced a bill providing for cash advances to prairie farmers on farm-stored grain, a measure supported by every party in this house but one which had to wait for a Conservative government before being put on the statute books. This bill will advance to western farmers between $100 and $150 million on wheat stored on their farms and awaiting delivery to the wheat board. The cash advance is repaid as wheat is delivered so there is no cost to the Canadian taxpayer except administration costs. It is designed particularly to help the small farmer and its effect will be to stabilize purchasing power in the prairie provinces and thus give a lift to our whole western economy. This bill was finally passed on October 31 and, as a new member, I must confess I was amazed at the length of time hon. members on the other side of the house took to say "yes" to a bill which they all agreed from the start they would support.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we dealt with the various measures introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mon-teith). First there were amendments to the Old Age Security Act increasing the pension to $55 per month, reducing the basic residence requirement from 20 years to 10 years and increasing the length of permissible temporary absence of pensioners from Canada from three months to six months. I believe

The Address-Mr. Broome the minister's remarks when introducing this bill are worth repeating and I quote from Hansard, page 385:
May I add a further word, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the level of benefit that is now proposed, namely, $55 per month. We make no extravagant claims with respect to this benefit. We do not say that it is the final or perfect solution, or that there is any magic rightness about this particular amount. We make no extravagant claims as to the generosity of the amount we are now proposing. It is my view, rather, that we should try to measure what we are doing here not in terms of generosity but in terms of justice.
This increase in pensions amounts to 37.5 per cent over the $40 level which prevailed at the first of this year while in comparison the costs of living have increased 23 per cent since 1949 when the same basic figure of $40 was in effect. When old age security payments were instituted in 1952 the gross national product was $23| billion while in 1957 it is estimated at $30.8 billion, an increase of 32.4 per cent compared to a pension increase of 37.5 per cent.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, our senior citizens are being treated in terms of justice at long last. They will never again be left to linger behind the prosperity of the country as a whole, because we are told these pensions will be reviewed and adjusted from time to time to keep in step with increases in the cost of living.
Then the Old Age Assistance Act, which is applicable to citizens between 65 years and 70 years of age, was amended to give the same $55 per month pension, the same reduction in residence qualification and the same extension of time the pensioner could be out of the country. In addition the permissible income allowed without affecting benefits was raised to $960 a year for a single person and $1,620 for a married couple.
The Blind Persons Act was similarly amended to increase pensions to $55 and to increase permissible income to $1,200 per year for a single person and $2,100 to a married couple where both are blind, or $1,980 if only one is blind.
The Disabled Persons Act was similarly amended to increase pensions to $55 per month, increase permissible income to $960 for a single person and $1,620 a year for a married couple. The benefits have also been extended now to cover pensioners who are in homes for the aged, infirmaries or institutions for the care of incurables.
The federal government pays the entire cost of the Old Age Security Act. The other three acts are administered by the provinces and the federal government contributions are paid to the provinces on the basis of 50 per cent of the pension for old age assistance and

disabled persons and on the basis of 75 per cent of the pension, so far as blind persons are concerned. It is up to the provinces as to whether they take full advantage of the federal offer or not.
The speech from the throne foreshadowed changes in veterans legislation, as could be expected from a government which includes more veterans than any previous government in Canadian history. This house has in the past four days passed an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act of 1952. Briefly the amendments reduced from 20 years to 10 years the period imperial and allied veterans or their widows had to be resident in Canada in order to qualify for benefits and increased the benefits payable under the act. Permissible absence from the country has been increased from three months to six months. Allowances are now payable to veterans who served at least one year in the United Kingdom and who formerly were not eligible under the act. Many of these men were instructors, anxious for duty in France and held against their will in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker, as we debated this bill, clause by clause, in committee, I was amused to hear hon. members of the opposition competing with each other in their praise of the government for this legislation. My amusement changed to amazement when we came to clause 8 which this government proposed to repeal because it had the effect of refusing to children of men who died in action or as the result of service disabilities the same level of income as that provided to orphans under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Every Liberal member who spoke agreed that this clause represented rank discrimination and should never have been in the act. Then what were the hon. members of the opposition doing from 1952 when this act came into being until June 10 of this year? They were the government and they had the power; why then did they not do something about it?
Finally the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) introduced the bill providing for annual vacations with pay for employees in public works and undertakings under federal control and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) introduced a measure to amend the veterans Pension Act. The Pension Act amendments are mainly to correct certain injustices, to provide additional benefits for former members of the forces and their dependents and to bring these benefits more in line with the increase in the basic scale of pensions for disability and death, which became effective last July.
At the next session I understand a special committee on veterans affairs will be set up

The Address-Mr. Broome
and there will be time available for a complete review of the Pension Act. When this act is reviewed, apart from increases to basic pensions, I believe considerable study will have to be given to actual case histories to determine whether veterans are getting the benefit of the doubt which they are supposed to get. It is my belief that the pensions board is not giving applicants the benefit of the doubt and are in fact refusing pensions where evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the applicant.
This same standing committee on veterans affairs should also take up the question of merchant seamen who served so greatly during the war and who at the present time are not eligible for the benefits of the veterans allowance act. The merchant marine was the fourth arm of the fighting services and in my opinion has not received the consideration it deserves.
These last two bills I have mentioned have not as yet been passed as debate on them was broken off so that we could return to the debate on the speech from the throne.
I have dealt in considerable detail with the work of parliament to date to show that this government has in fact already carried out the major part of its program as outlined in the throne speech, and that the promises made to the people of Canada are being kept. Legislation passed to date will return to the Canadian people hundreds of millions of dollars, the greatest part of which will be immediately spent on food, shelter, clothing and other necessities of life. This money will benefit every section of our economy and will be directly reflected in increased business in every Canadian community.
The riding of Vancouver South which I have the honour to represent is vitally concerned in all of these measures. Thousands of senior citizens in my riding will be helped by them and thousands of veterans will approve of this government's recognition of the debt we owe them and the fact that in our veterans legislation we have so closely followed the recommendations of their own organization the Canadian Legion.
The prosperity of my riding is dependant upon the prosperity of British Columbia and this in turn is to a great extent dependant on our forest industries. The $150 million made available through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is good but more is needed. House building throughout Canada must be further stimulated and I would like to see the National Housing Act broadened to reduce the down payment necessary and to include in the purchase price the major accessories such as refrigerators, ranges and washing machines. If this were done the upsurge
in home building would be of tremendous value, not only to the forest industries of British Columbia but also to the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec.
There is no more worth-while investment a young couple just starting out in their married life can make than the purchase of a home. Family life is the corner-stone of our way of living and we must make it possible for the ordinary person to acquire his own home where his family can be brought up under good living conditions. For many reasons it is not always practical for young people to build new houses and very few of them can save the necessary cash required to purchase an existing house. They therefore are forced in many cases to undertake second mortgages at fantastic rates of interest when you consider the premium they usually pay for this money. It is not unusual for a second mortgage to be written for $4,000 at 7 per cent interest, but the borrower may only receive $3,000 or less. The National Housing Act should be expanded to cover the purchase of such homes on reasonable down payments and at reasonable interest rates.
The development of power on the Columbia is placed high on the list in our natural development program and we would like to see it proceeded with as quickly as possible, but because our public funds are involved this development should be under the control of the British Columbia power commission. This does not preclude the British Columbia power commission from selling blocks of power to private power corporations. We believe in this development rather than the development of power from the Fraser river because we must protect our salmon, a source of food given to us by God which will be with us forever unless we wilfully destroy it for the sake of a very short respite from a power shortage. There must be no hydro developments on important salmon streams. The Columbia and other power sites which will not affect our fisheries will tide us over the period required until nuclear power plants are economically feasible.
This time is not as far away as some may think. The British Columbia Electric Company has let the first contracts for a 1,200,000 horsepower thermal plant but this plant is designed so that in the future it can be converted to a nuclear fuel plant. It is interesting to note that a British firm, in competition with the United States, Swiss and German firms won the contract for six turbogenerators for this new British Columbia Electric plant, a contract worth $25 million. We in the west have always been conscious

The Address-Mr. Broome of the necessity to build up British imports so that country can buy our lumber, our fish, our metals and our grain.
We believe our fishing industry, through the fisheries association of British Columbia, was the first industry to devise a practical method of increasing this Canadian-United Kingdom trade. A few years ago we lost the United Kingdom market for our salmon because of lack of dollars in Britain. Our fishing industry set up a United Kingdom industrial committee for the purpose of surveying the requirements of the fishing industry and to recommend items of British origin which could meet their requirements. It toured the United Kingdom, met manufacturers and educated them as to the particular requirements of the fishing industry. The net result was a tremendous increase in the volume of British goods purchased by the fishing industry.
The committee was set up in the fall of 1953 and in 1954 the British Columbia fishing industry bought $6 million worth of British goods at no sacrifice in quality and usually at cost reductions as well. There were no strings attached, no implied commitments that the United Kingdom would have to purchase fish to the value of the fishing industry's purchases in the United Kingdom. It was simply an effort on an industrywide basis to help an old friend and a good customer. Nor was it a one effort job. The committee is a continuing one, keeping member companies up to date on British products which are acceptable to the industry, giving information as to local agents, servicing facilities and so on. Any British manufacturer wishing to sell to this industry can contact the committee and know his product will be given a fair trial and, if acceptable, will be placed on the approved list. Member companies report monthly on the volume of British goods purchased and on their experience in using this goods.
I commend this story to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). If other industries could be induced to do the same thing as our fishing industry has done we would very soon have a mutually increased trade with our old customer who wants to buy from us if we will only buy from him.
Hon. members of the opposition have indicated that they are opposed to switching of imports from the United States to the United Kingdom. They state that any such action is likely to antagonize the United States. I would like to point out that we are presently purchasing almost $1 billion more of goods from the United States than we are selling to them. I willingly concede that we
[Mr, Broome.1
on this side of the house are most anxious to increase our exports to the United States and that we are not trying to reduce our general trade picture but rather to increase it.
We presently have all our eggs in one basket, and if hon. members of the opposition consider that to be the mark of prudent government then they have not yet learned the lesson of June 10. It has become the policy of this government to carry the story of Canada's economic problems direct to the United States people. This has been done in speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by members of the cabinet before audiences in the United States.
The Washington Post has this to say in regard to these speeches:
The traditional friendship of these two countries can only be preserved and fostered by such straightforward exchanges of views.
The New York Times says this:
These are not unreasonable suggestions, and Mr. Diefenbaker's spirit of candour and willingness to seek mutually satisfactory solutions provides a setting for ironing out our present irritants.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch puts it this way:
Canada does not want to become an economic colony. As a matter of sound policy Washington also must be averse to such a possibility. With a genuine community of interests it should not be difficult to initiate co-operative steps toward allaying Canadian fears.
Another publication, the American Metal Market, says the United States method of disposing of its wheat surpluses has "pulled the rug" from under Canadian exports.
Mr. Speaker, British Columbia joined confederation on the promise that we would be linked with the rest of Canada by rail transportation. Today there is another and faster means of transportation which all too long has had a monopoly in this field. Trans-Canada Air Lines has not only had a monopoly but it has charged the highest rates on the North American continent. In a last minute death-bed repentance it announced on November 8 a new domestic fare structure with up to 20 per cent reduction effective January 1, 1958, to bring its fares into conformity with the rates of other North American air lines. Canada years ago outgrew the necessity for pampering and protecting its monopoly air line, a monopoly which has brought about inefficient operation, and disregard of passenger convenience, and now by its own statement it admits it has been overcharging us as well.
The Vancouver Sun in a recent editorial called for competition to T.C.A. and in part had this to say about T.C.A. operation:
Late departures. Missed connections with dreary, uncomfortable waiting-room layovers.

Sudden downgrading due to equipment failures from the much-advertised super-Constellation to cramped, ancient tourist North Stars. Frequent turnbacks by these same North Stars.
Along with endless upsets in plans, a superb blend of indifference, insolence and sometimes outright belligerence from too many members of the T.C.A. ground staff.
The protesting traveller is always wrong. That is made plain to him right from the start.
Some T.C.A. staffers come out with it bluntly- There's no alternative-when asked whether something cannot be done to remedy a four-hour layover, or an hours late arrival in the middle of the night with a busy day ahead.
Others merely shrug off all protests as plain unreasonableness, as ugly refusal by rude travellers to concede what fine service T.C.A. operates.
Ground staffers cannot be entirely blamed for getting case-hardened. They meet so many outraged T.C.A. travellers so often. But the general fumbling of T.C.A. passenger handling cries for remedy.
The remedy is simple
Provide competition. Face T.C.A. with a vigorous rival private air line, eager to gain business by giving service to the public.
I would go even further than this Mr. Speaker. Provide competition for T.C.A. certainly, but why not do the job right and sell T.C.A. to private operators. As a condition of the sale make it impossible for shares to be owned by anyone except Canadians and make it illegal for any competing air line to own shares in T.C.A. Then, and only then, will this fat cat of the former government be operated on the basis it was set up to operate on and that is to provide good, efficient and reasonable service to the Canadian public.
Mr. Speaker, there will shortly be held a dominion-provincial conference and undoubtedly the major topic at that meeting will be the question of federal subsidies to the provinces. The provinces are coming to rely more and more on subsidies from the federal government and in the same manner municipalities have become absolutely dependant on subsidies from their provincial governments to cover their cost of operation.
My riding is a riding of home owners, and it is impossible for taxes on real property to take care of the constantly increasing costs of schools, hospitals, welfare, roads, fire, police and so on.
In particular, it must be recognized that education is not a local matter any more. It is detrimental to Canada as a whole if the level of education in any part of the country is substantially lower than elsewhere. To achieve a desirable standard of education across Canada more money must be provided to build modern schools and to pay the salaries of properly qualified teachers. The greatest indictment of our present system is 96698-67
The Address-Mr. Broome the inequality of educational opportunity which is offered our children in city, town and rural areas.
It has been stated that the aim of education is to give every Canadian that form and extent of free education for which his capacity, interests and appreciation are suited, and to have the services of carefully selected and adequately trained teachers. This minimum standard should be based not upon the wealth of the parent, of the local school district, or even of the province but on the wealth and resources of the country as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock I believe I had finished saying that I thought education should not be dependent on the wealth of the district, the city or the province but that it was actually a charge on the wealth and resources of the country as a whole. Good education requires properly qualified teachers. At the present time 21 per cent of all teachers in Canada hold only permits, temporary and third-class certificates; this number varying from about one per cent in British Columbia to 58 per cent in Newfoundland. Teaching is a difficult, technical job, requiring a high degree of education by those who practise it. We call teaching a profession, a status it has for the majority of qualified teachers, but standards of entrance to it are not such as to ensure a professional status.
By 1965, in Canada we will require 38,000 extra classrooms at a capital cost of about $900 million and an annual increase in teachers' salaries of around $125 million. Real property can no longer bear its present heavy load of school costs. Methods of financing education must be modernized so that we can continue to build modern schools and pay salaries to teachers in keeping with their responsibilities. Our standards of education, from a national point of view, are not high enough. All hon. members heard the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) tell about educational standards in his province. Our children are the greatest asset this country has and we must recognize their right to an adequate education and make it financially possible for this objective to be attained.
Education is and must remain a provincial responsibility, but there is a lesson for us to

The Address-Mr. Broome learn from the man-made satellites passing overhead and that lesson is that we must develop our human resources by education as well as exploiting our material resources. Federal subsidies to the provinces are now used in part by the provinces to aid in educational costs. A province can, however, use this money and rightly so in any way it sees fit. Some over-all pattern must be evolved which will deal fairly with educational problems and educational standards on a national scale and at the same time relieve real property of the greater part of educational costs.
A few days ago the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) told the house that Canadian welders had not been given equal opportunities of employment with United States welders on some pipe line construction spreads. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said that similar cases had been drawn to his attention and, on being investigated, had been found to be true. The situation was drawn to the attention of the former minister of labour who replied that only a limited number had been admitted as supervisory personnel. I wish to inform the house that if anything the hon. members understated the facts. Citizens of the United States by the hundreds came in as landed immigrants with absolutely no intention of taking up permanent residence. Others came in supposedly as visitors but in reality to take pre-arranged jobs. This applies not only to welders but also to engineers, foremen and other supervisory personnel. On many jobs they might just as well have hung out a sign reading "Only Americans need apply."
For all practical purposes in certain fields of construction in British Columbia and Alberta we have become another state of the American union. I am not speaking of matters I know nothing about. For the past 12 years I have had a close association with the engineering field in western Canada. I believe citizens of the United States coming over should be subject to the same rules and regulations as govern Canadians going to the United States. United States personnel working for Canadian subsidiaries should be required to develop Canadian understudies for their jobs or else become Canadian citizens if they intend to stay here permanently. It is high time that the national interest of Canada should be considered in the operation of wholly-owned Canadian subsidiaries of foreign firms. We threw off the yoke of colonialism a long time ago but the yoke of economic vassalism is becoming ever more firmly fixed to our necks. I tell this house that there are highly trained engineers,
skilled craftsmen and supervisors unemployed in Vancouver and Edmonton while the jobs which should be theirs are held by United States citizens who have no intention of ever becoming citizens of this country.
The granting of work permits has become a routine matter with our officials and the whole system needs tightening up. No permit should be given unless it is proven by the applying company that they cannot secure qualified Canadians, and I can assure this house that if this procedure is followed we shall need little if any technical help from outside the country.
We welcome all foreign capital. Such capital is needed to develop and exploit the resources of this country. This is a safe home for such capital; this is a free enterprise economy and, my friends on the opposite side to the contrary, the chances of state socialism are practically non-existent. This is one of the few safe homes for foreign capital offering good profit possibilities and also almost certain appreciation of capital through the natural growth of this country. But these Canadian subsidiaries must be Canadian in spirit as well as in name, with Canadian interests their first concern and not simply branch-office extensions of the parent company and operated in the national interests of another country. It is in the best selfinterest of foreign companies owning Canadian subsidiaries to operate them in this manner.
For 22 years, Mr. Speaker, we were ruled by a government which eventually became the servant and not the master of its own bureaucracy. The former cabinet ministers became simply administrators of huge complex departments out of touch with their own members and out of touch with the Canadian people. It was time for the change.
Bureaucracy, by its very nature, fears and resists change and therefore any advances had to be made at a pace slow enough to allow the bureaucratic machine to assimilate these changes without too much trouble. The gap between the brass and the grass, as it has so aptly been described widened to the point where communication utterly broke down.
In the Conservative party today we have the true reform party, the true party of the people. Our leader, the Prime Minister, has done more for the people of Canada in seven weeks than the previous government did in the same number of years.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Explain.


Ernest James Broome: His leadership has been felt not only in Canada but throughout the whole British commonwealth of nations. Canada

today is more a nation than ever before, a better partner in the commonwealth and at the same time we are treated with greater respect and understanding for our own peculiar problems by the United States.
Canada today speaks in the cause of peace at the United Nations with a more assured and more independent voice. And mark the word "independent". Canada today works to maintain peace by helping the eastern nations of the commonwealth to a better standard of living through the Colombo plan, a plan which I hope will be extended in scope, as this plan is not only a sure buffer against the further spread of communism in the Far East but holds the key to a lasting peace.
We are pledged, Mr. Speaker, to see to it that our resources are developed for the benefit of all Canadians so that this land is a good place for us to live in and that this land, if possible, will be a better one for our children.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, all# of us have wondered just how much legislation the government intends to bring down this session to meet the commitments they made to the Canadian people prior to June 10. After listening to the type of speech we have just heard one could be excused for being a little alarmed. From the many statements made by supporters of the government to the effect that the government has done so much one can only begin to wonder whether we have had it as far as their legislative program is concerned.


An hon. Member:: Wait and see.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Of all the promises which were made by that party prior to June 10 so few have been implemented and yet on the basis of the little that has been done members across the way are taking unto themselves credit for virtually everything that has been done in this country. I suggest that the hon. member who has just taken his seat made many statements with which we could take serious objection and which I feel require a great deal of documentation. However, since it was a maiden speech I am sure members of the house will refrain from making the comments which would normally have been made.


An hon. Member:: Do not worry. Go ahead and make them.


Alfred Claude Ellis: However, I should like to take this opportunity to present to the government a number of problems important to the people of my constituency. The citizens of Regina, I may say, have looked forward to this session 96698-674
The Address-Mr. Ellis of parliament with greater hope and anticipation than in the case of any other previous session. The reason for this optimism is obvious. The present government is in a minority position. Consequently the people of Canada know that any action which might be forthcoming will have to be put into effect at this session. We know, however, that in the position in which the government finds itself it cannot, as was the custom of previous Conservative and Liberal governments, defer or put off indefinitely, or at least for four years until the eve of an election, the pledges which they made to the people prior to polling day.
I have noted with some amusement the crocodile tears being shed by many newspapers in Canada over what they call the present political instability. They even go so far as to point to France and suggest that because we in Canada have finally emerged from that very stable position in which we found ourselves for some 22 years we are obviously going to go to the other extreme. I think such a suggestion is utter nonsense. This is a democratic country and the Canadian people have the right to vote for any shade of political opinion they desire. There is certainly nothing sacred about the traditional Liberal-Tory so-called two-party system that has obtained in this country for a great many years. I am certain that the people in my part of the country would not relish a return to the days when there was no real choice in Canada, when they were confronted with the alternative of voting for either the one or the other wing of the same party even though each wing was known by a different name, Liberal or Progressive Conservative, and even though the parties were staffed by two different sets of political personalities.
We realize there is nothing to be gained by turning back the clock. We realize there are no essential differences either in philosophy or policy between the official opposition in the house and the government of the day. Under these circumstances there can be no genuine two-party structure in Canada. The British parliamentary system functions best under a two-party system provided there is a real difference between the two parties, not this sham battle that has been carried on between the Liberals and the Conservatives over the years when it has simply been a question of the ins and the outs, the one party in power and the other party out of power, the party out being the progressives and trying to drive out the conservatives and when they get into power the situation is completely reversed.
One thing that has been aptly demonstrated in this session is that there is no indication

The Address-Mr. Ellis whatsoever of any fundamental difference in policy between the government of the day and its predecessor Liberal government. There is not one indication in the legislative program of the present government to suggest that there was any real change of government on June 10. It is true that amendments to existing legislation have been brought forward but they have merely been amendments with regard to amounts rather than amendments involving differences in principle.
During the summer months I had the good fortune to be able to visit a great number of my constituents and to talk over with them the prospects of the new parliament. I found there was a great deal of uniformity of opinion on certain basic questions. I found that the people of Regina generally, irrespective of the way they voted in the last election, expected that as the result of the minority position in which the present government finds itself we were going to get more results this fall than would have been obtained if any party had received an over-all majority. Moreover, they were equally anxious that the present government come forward with its legislative program in order that it might be judged on the basis of what it does and not on the basis of speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the members of his cabinet.


An hon. Member:: What would you have done?


Alfred Claude Ellis: They realize, of course, that the defeat of the government on the floor of the house on a want of confidence motion would bring on an early election, but apart from that possibility or eventuality there was general agreement that the new government was honour bound to fulfil its commitments, to continue to present its program and take its chances on the floor of the House of Commons.
Following the last election the present Prime Minister as leader of the victorious party had a decision to make, whether to form a government or whether to decline the invitation. There was no compulsion involved at all. He decided to form a government and we must presume that he did so out of a desire to present the Conservative program to parliament. I would suggest that there is a moral obligation on the part of the government to continue to bring down the type of legislation which they promised the Canadian people prior to June 10 and to continue to bring down that legislation as long as they enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Commons. It seems to me that should be obvious to all members.
Of course, I suppose the Prime Minister may feel he has an obligation to serve the


political needs of the Progressive Conservative party. That is a question that he himself has to decide, whether to give top priority to their solemn obligations to the people of Canada and proceed as far as they can with their legislative program or whether to place the particular political needs of a political party uppermost in the minds of the government.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The people come first.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I suggest that there have been indications of late that the supporters of the government are more preoccupied with playing politics than they are with pursuing the program of action promised the people of Canada prior to the last election. We have seen indications of that in speeches made in the house. We have seen other indications in speeches made outside the house. I noticed in the Windsor Star the other day a report of the Tory nominating convention in one of the Essex seats. I quote right from that newspaper the words of a Conservative member of this house:
The Prime Minister is champing at the bit, waiting for an opportunity to dissolve parliament.
I would think that the hon. member who made that statement is being a little unfair about the Prime Minister because what he is suggesting, in effect, is that the Prime Minister is more concerned with finding an excuse to call an election than he is in completing the job which he was put into office to do. I would suggest that the people of Canada would prefer to judge this government on the basis of the fulfilment of all its pledges. They would take a very contrary view if they were to believe that the only reason an election was precipitated was because the leader of the government felt it was to the political advantage of the Conservative party so to do. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the people of my constituency are much less concerned about the political fortunes of the Conservative party than they are with the legislative program which they have reason to believe should be brought down at this time.
We ask questions on orders of the day to try to get some indication from the government whether or not they are going to introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act or the National Housing Act, and what do they say? They say, due to the shortness of the session we are not going to be able to do that. What is all this talk about the shortness of the session? We are sent down here to do a job, and so far as I am concerned we should stay in Ottawa until that job is completed. As long as the government continues to enjoy the voting

support of the members of this house, then the government has a moral and legal obligation to continue to give service.
What are some of these questions that have gone unanswered as yet by the government of the day? A moment ago I mentioned unemployment insurance. In view of the growing severity of the unemployment situation, amendments to this act are long overdue. We know that on April 25, speaking in Toronto, the Prime Minister promised to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase benefits, to eliminate the waiting time and to extend the benefits to a full 52 weeks. When, Mr. Speaker, may we expect some action to fufil that pledge? Surely, no hon. member in this house can suggest that the situation is not urgent or that this is something that should be put off until another session of this parliament. This is something that is crying out for attention.
I realize that the Prime Minister has admonished those who use the word "unemployment", suggesting that such thinking has caused a depression. I recall many years ago, as a youngster, reading an account of an economist who was trying to explain the reason for the last depression. The only intelligible answer which he could give was that everyone lost confidence, so we had a depression. Now the suggestion is going abroad that anyone who draws the attention of the government to the serious unemployment problem in Canada is destroying confidence and, in some obscure way, is aggravating the problem that is growing day by day.
We in the C.C.F. believe that full employment ought to be of prime concern to the present government. There is no excuse for unemployment in this country. I agree that there is a fractional unemployment of a seasonal nature which occurs in certain districts as a result of a switch-over in jobs. We are never going to have a time when everybody in the labour market is placed. But I suggest that any time the number of these applicants for employment exceeds 2 per cent of our labour force we are faced with unemployment.
What is the government doing about unemployment? The answer given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is exactly the same as the answer which could have been given by the minister of labour last year, the year before or ten years ago. I cannot see any difference in policy between the present government and the Liberal government with respect to unemployment. Certainly directives are issued to employment offices; they set up their advertising to
The Address-Mr. Ellis try to get a little work done, but that is not the answer to the problem.


Mr. Starr:: What is the answer?


Alfred Claude Ellis: We will be happy to discuss it at the appropriate time.


Michael Starr: You tell me what the answer is.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister will have a full indication at the appropriate time when his estimates are before the house.


Michael Starr: You tell us.


Mr. Argue:: Sell some wheat.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The Prime Minister has said over the radio and television that the unemployment situation is not serious. I suggest that for a single Canadian worker to be out of work is a personal tragedy. When you multiply that by hundreds of thousands of workers in this country, then you realize the full extent of the tragedy. In the meantime, we have yet to see any indication that the present government has any effective plan to deal with the unemployment situation.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What is the hon. gentleman's plan?


Michael Starr: Give us a suggestion, and we will carry it out.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If hon. members will vote for our amendment they will find it covers the point very well. We in the C.C.F. believe the only way you can maintain full employment is by adopting those measures of social and economic planning which are necessary to maintain it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I am suggesting that there is no difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party in this respect. There was no difference between the policy of Mr. Bennett of putting the unemployed in relief camps and the policy of Mr. King of giving them 50 cents a day. So far neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have come up with any solution to the unemployment problem.


An hon. Member:: Neither can you.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The Conservatives suggest they have the answer. I suggest the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister take the house into their confidence and tell us what the government proposes to do in so far as unemployment is concerned, instead of drifting and just keeping their fingers crossed, hoping for the best. The government appears to be following that policy.
There are several matters, Mr. Speaker, that are of considerable importance to the

The Address-Mr. Ellis people of my constituency. As you know, in Saskatchewan for many years we have enjoyed a hospital plan. Certainly, by all odds it has been the most successful of its kind. We have been waiting a long, long time for some action on the part of the federal government to provide for federal-provincial participation in the payment of hospital bills. After waiting for so many years for the Liberals to do something, perhaps we raised our hopes too high when the government changed this year. Certainly, we had reason to hope that the new government would depart from the Liberal policy of procrastination and make it possible for a province like Saskatchewan, which has been waiting for so many years for federal participation in our hospital plan, to participate in a federal plan. What do we find? We find evasive answers and no indication by the federal government that Saskatchewan will be able to enter into an agreement with Ottawa at an early date, nor that the people of Saskatchewan, who have borne this burden of hospital care during the past ten years, will be able to enjoy a measure of federal participation in that scheme.
I suggest that at this session the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mon-teith) and other members of the government make it crystal clear whether or not they are going to permit these provinces which have plans in operation now to enter into an agreement in order that the people of those provinces might enjoy the benefits of this legislation at the earliest possible date.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of local matters to which I should like to refer briefly. There is one matter which I should like to draw more particularly to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). Several months ago the minister was reported in the press as having indicated that the new government was going to provide for more adequate airport facilities in Canada. The Regina airport is located within the city limits and in close proximity to heavily populated residential areas.
Our city is continuing to expand at a very fast rate and the time will come when the airport will be surrounded on three sides by residential areas. It is the belief of many citizens in the city of Regina-and I share their belief-that the present location of the Regina airport constitutes a danger to the lives and property of our citizens. Moreover, the airport in its present location constitutes a barrier to continued expansion in that part of the city and some of the best building sites, badly needed for housing, are owing to their proximity to the airport, beyond the scope of any assistance under the National Housing Act.


The present airport in Regina was built when Regina had a fraction of its present population. At the time of its original construction it would seem to present no real problem in view of its distance from the settled areas of the city and of course the lesser role played by air transport of that day. It is obvious today that the airport, irrespective of its present ownership and its history of municipal ownership, is more national than local in character and will continue to grow in terms of the national and international aviation pictures. In these circumstances it would seem to be the better part of wisdom to think in terms of relocating the Regina airport at least several miles from the present city limits. This, of course, would provide for necessary expansion of the airport in the future and it would make available in the city of Regina larger areas of very good home-building land and above all else will remove the inconvenience and the ever present threat to the safety of the people presently living in the vicinity of the airport.
While there may be differences of opinion as to the procedure to be followed, I think most people in Regina are convinced that relocation will have to take place sooner or later, and they are most anxious that the decision should be made now rather than as a result of a possible air disaster in that area in the future. These fears are widely held by my constituents and can be resolved only by the decision to move the airport within a reasonable distance fom the city limits. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to give this matter his early and earnest consideration and that he consider such relocation as part of a forward looking, federal aviation policy.
I now desire to make some reference to an important question in my own province. The other day my colleague the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson) asked the Prime Minister what he intended to do in the light of the solemn pledge made by the Prime Minister to the people of Saskatchewan prior to the last election, namely that within six months of the election of a Conservative government a start would be made on the South Saskatchewan dam. In the answer made to that extremely important question the Prime Minister sought to create the impression that the provincial government is holding up the procedure, that the provincial government has changed its policy. I was rather intrigued that particular afternoon because a few moments previously, in answer to a question asked by an hon. member with regard to a press report which I believe reported the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) as opposing an increase in the

expenditure under FAO, the Prime Minister took the attitude, "Well, of course you cannot depend on anything you see in the press; you cannot go by press reports". But a few moments later he rose in his place in the house and suggested that because he had heard there was a press report to the effect that a certain top figure in the province of Saskatchewan had made a certain speech, he took that as government policy. You see, the Prime Minister can take one attitude towards press clippings one moment and an entirely different attitude a few moments later.


An hon. Member:: Honest John.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I would suggest that the Prime Minister made a most revealing statement. He said he thought this was settled two years ago. This is a very interesting statement because he is admitting in effect that in spite of all the nasty things he said about the former minister of agriculture and the Liberal party with regard to the dam over past years, he now accepts their policy as government policy today. He suggests that because the minister of agriculture was able, through his machinations, to drive a bargain with or impose a certain set of conditions on the province of Saskatchewan-


An hon. Member:: You mean the former minister of agriculture?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Yes, the former minister of agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Murphy (Wesimorland):: They are both Saskatchewan boys.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It was a most revealing statement. Then the Prime Minister made the statement, "I do not think the provincial government should alter the rules between innings". That is another very interesting statement. He is suggesting in effect that after all there is not any difference between the policy of the Liberal government or the former Liberal government and that of the present Conservative government, that he has simply adopted the baby of the former minister of agriculture and called it his own and has suggested that what Jimmy Gardiner or the former minister of agriculture, I should say, was able to ram down the throats of the people of Saskatchewan is all right by him.
When the Prime Minister talks about changing the rules between innings, may I ask whose rules? The rules set up by the former minister of agriculture which he changed around at his will? We never did know what the rules were. But now the Prime Minister is apparently so enamoured
The Address-Mr. Ellis of the former minister of agriculture that he accepts unto his bosom all the conditions and all the twistings and turnings of the former minister of agriculture with respect to the dam.
Let us look back into the record. The present Prime Minister had a great deal to say about the South Saskatchewan dam when he was in opposition.


An hon. Member:: We are going to build it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I do not want to go into the sordid history of the Liberal treatment of this important national project but I want to remind hon. members of this house that from 1940 on, or perhaps before 1940, the Liberals had gone up and down the province of Saskatchewan promising to build the dam. They never said that the province was going into it. No, it was going to be a purely federal undertaking; and that is what the present Prime Minister understood at that time. I have in my hand some exerts from some speeches. I went through all the speeches made by the present Prime Minister on the South Saskatchewan dam and they make extremely interesting reading. For example, I note that on March 29, 1949, in reply to the former minister of agriculture, the present Prime Minister said this as reported at page 2120 of Hansard of that year:
I am glad to have the sympathy of the hon. gentleman, hut what the people of Saskatchewan want is not sympathy at election time but action in parliament.
That is precisely what we want. We want action in parliament right now. Then he went on to say this:
It will be proceeded with-
That is the South Saskatchewan dam.
-immediately by the Progressive Conservative party when in power. Full consideration has been given to this matter. The leader of this party, having been apprised of the necessities incident to the situation not only in Saskatchewan but also in parts of Alberta and Manitoba, has given his undivided support to the plea that this work be proceeded with at the earliest date that engineering skill and capacity will permit.
Then he went on to describe this as a national work. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to mark that phrase "a national work"-that will permit the expansion of industrial development, the extension of productivity in the areas affected, and will pay to the nation as a whole profits that can now only be dreamed of. Then he went on as reported at page 2123 of Hansard of the same day to say this:
There is deep resentment over the fact that in the speech from the throne this year this matter has been neglected.

The Address-Mr. Ellis
He railled against the government of the day. Then I find a very interesting excerpt from Hansard of February 3, 1953. This is what the present Prime Minister had to say at that time. I would ask you to remember that he said something about changing the rules between innings. The Prime Minister on that date said this:
Then on May 31, 1951, for the first time to my knowledge, a suggestion was made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that it would be necessary for the province of Saskatchewan to accept the responsibility of providing irrigation facilities. Until that time I had never heard, nor am I able to find any records anywhere, that there was any responsibility to fall upon the province of Saskatchewan.
So here are the Prime Minister's words after he himself had been promising that the Conservative government would immediately build the dam, criticizing the Liberal government because they had a joker up their sleeves; they were going to come out and require the provincial government to pay part of the cost. Is there any indication in the words of the Prime Minister that he had ever expected that the Conservative government would require part of the cost to be paid by the province of Saskatchewan and that his party might require the same sort of deal that the former minister of agriculture forced upon us through pressure over the years?
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the situation as it appears at the moment is simply this: it has been the provincial government of Saskatchewan which has taken the initiative ever since this government came to office. To get support, the premier of Saskatchewan, to the best of my knowledge, sought in a telephone conversation a meeting between the Prime Minister and the members of the Saskatchewan cabinet within weeks after the new Prime Minister took office in order to discuss this dam. The premier of Saskatchewan has written to the federal government that the province of Saskatchewan is most anxious to proceed. The Prime Minister says the rules have been changed between innings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By
him.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Let me point out this fact. We never questioned it when the Liberal party sat on the other side of the house and required the province of Saskatchewan to pay out so much money in connection with this project; we accepted the proposition that the province should provide for the irrigation works in connection with the dam. The understanding of course was that the full cost of the dam would be borne by the federal government but then of course the Liberals came out and said "Oh no,"-I should not say the


Liberals because I do not believe the Liberals ever intended to build the dam, I think the former minister of agriculture used that as a political bait as long as he was able to do so-but I say this: as a means of prolonging negotiations and trying perhaps to force the provincial authorities into throwing up their hands in disgust, he then came out and said "well you will have to pay for other costs because there cannot be the slightest suggestion that any federal money will go to subsidize power development in any one province of Canada.
On that basis the premier of the province of Saskatchewan agreed to pay the full and complete cost of all the power generating capacity in connection with that dam, and we still do. In spite of that fact the government has now indicated that it is now prepared to pay for the power development of the maritimes and in the province of British Columbia; at least they have promised to do so, but we will have to wait and see what comes of that. However, under the changed circumstances we in Saskatchewan would be perfectly within our rights if we suggested that in the light of the new policy the federal government should be prepared to undertake its share of the cost of hydroelectric development in connection with the South Saskatchewan river dam.


An hon. Member:: The same treatment as in the other cases.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is all we are asking, the same treatment as in the maritimes and in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: You will get your answer to that in time.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The Prime Minister said the other day the rules had been changed and he suggested the province of Saskatchewan is asking the federal government to pay for everything. That is not true. The provincial secretary of the province of Saskatchewan made it crystal clear that while the province of Saskatchewan is quite prepared to pay for the cost of the irrigation works in connection with the dam and is prepared to pay for the cost of hydroelectric stations in connection with the dam, the Saskatchewan government expects that the least the federal government would do would be to build the storage dam on its own. Under the present circumstances therefore the province of Saskatchewan will be committed to the extent of at least $65 million and all we are asking is that the federal government build the dam itself, since in the words of the Prime Minister himself, "This is a matter of great national importance".

I suggest therefore that there is no reason why the government could not at this time proceed before the deadline which I believe is six months from June last-December 10 next-to do something,-


An hon. Member:: We wanted to hear your speech first.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -to redeem the pledge made, which was I believe expected by the people generally. We have been accustomed to political betrayals on the part of the predecessors of the present government but we did hope there would be some slight difference between the actions of the members sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, and the members who now sit on your left. I would say, however, that the conduct of the government in so far as the South Saskatchewan dam is concerned indicates there is no essential difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties or, while there may be very slight shades of difference, when it comes down to doing something and getting into action there is little choice between them.
I suggest therefore that while the hon. members on your right, Mr. Speaker, may talk in their speeches for home consumption and boast of all the things they have done in seven weeks, they have not yet scratched the surface; they have not yet come to grips with the most important problems facing this country at the present time-unemployment, wheat marketing, parity price legislation and all the things which the Conservative party promised to the people of this country. These are the things which the people of Canada were led to expect and I suggest that instead of becoming preoccupied with seeking ways and means of provoking a vote at a time which they consider advantageous to themselves, they should come forward and present their full program, go as far as they can, and then let the people of Canada be the judges.
(Translation):


Mr. Theogene Ricard (SI. Hyacinfhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, like any new member, it is with deep emotion that I rise to speak in this house. At the outset of my remarks, I should like to pay tribute to my constituents of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and to thank them for the mark of confidence they gave me by electing me their member on June 10 last. I should like to assure them that I will always do my best to deserve this confidence and that it will always be a pleasure and a duty for me to speak and act on their behalf.
The Address

Mr. Ricard I should like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for honouring the people of my constituency by appointing me acting delegate to the 12th session of the United Nations, now taking place in New York city. May I repeat what is being said by some of my constituents: "Never was so great an honour shown the St. Hyacinthe-Bagot constituency under a Liberal government."
I would also like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker on their elevation to their present important posts. I also wish to pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent). I wish him good health so that he can long enjoy a retirement which he has so richly deserved.
May I also say how ably the mover and the seconder of the address in reply (Mr. Smith and Mr. Arsenault) acquitted themselves of their respective tasks.
Mr. Speaker, rising as I do for the first time in the house, I cannot help saying how proud I am, and for several reasons. Let me name the major ones:
In the first place, I represent a constituency which is mostly made up of the two main classes in this country of ours, workers and farmers.
In the last elections, those two most representative classes of society joined in entrusting their affairs to the Conservative party. Another reason why I am proud to have been returned here is that this constituency had always been reputed to be a Liberal stronghold. You will no doubt be interested to learn, Mr. Speaker, that I am the second Conservative member to be returned since Confederation in the fine constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. The first Conservative member was elected 78 years ago with a majority of only six votes. My Liberal opponent having obtained a majority of close to 13,000 votes at the previous election, and having been elected by acclamation twice before that, it will be admitted that the 2,094 majority which I obtained from the electors of my constituency is such as to fill me with legitimate satisfaction and pride.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the largest groups of electors in St. Hyacinthe-Bagot riding are made up of workmen and farmers. At the mere mention of those two classes of people, you realize that in my riding, perhaps more and certainly as much as any other constituency there is need for sound social legislation.

The Address-Mr. Ricard
The textile industry is the chief source of employment in my riding. You know, however, that for a decade that industry has experienced slackenings which have been most unfavourable to workers. One plant which could employ 800 workers has only about a hundred people on its payroll at the present time. The lucky ones who can rely on our other textile plants to earn a living for their family are never sure to work a full week. Often, they have to remain idle a few days each week, with consequent serious reduction in their income. Very many families therefore lack the basic necessities for the proper care of children who will make up our nation of tomorrow.
I therefore urge the Conservative government to enact sound and rational legislation to stabilize that industry and raise the employment potential, so that the greatest possible number of Canadian citizens will benefit from our country's prosperity.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to the situation of many farmers in my riding. Under the former government, the agricultural market on the federal level was unstable. The price of raw materials and the cost of production have increased each year at a frightful rate while, on the other hand, consumer prices were held at such a level that the farmers have often suffered losses and deficits which threatened their livelihood. Fortunately provincial laws have made it possible for many of them to carry on in their wonderful field of endeavour.
If farmers have put their confidence in me, it is because the Conservative party willingly gave serious consideration to this vital aspect of their economic life. I am confident that this government will find it possible to give these men who constitute the foundation of the economy, all the safeguards they have a right to demand.
I should like at this point to direct the attention of the government to the importance of the services rendered to the farmers by experimental farms. The constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is situated in the heart of one of the richest farming areas of our province. General farming is practised and breeders of pure-bred stock are among the prizewinners at local, provincial and national fairs. I urge the government to consider seriously the possibilities of improving this technical agricultural service in my constituency. I also urge it to assure sugar-beet producers all the protection they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the speech delivered by our most gracious and beloved sovereign raised high hopes at every level of our society. Among the measures that will provide welcome relief to my people, I would mention the increase of old age pension, veterans' pensions, holidays with pay for employees of industries under federal jurisdiction, etc. I would like here to draw the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) to the necessity of increasing family allowances as soon as this government finds it feasible.
Mr. Speaker, in the matter of agriculture, I must say that the farmers were very pleased to learn that the government had decided to ask the members of the house to approve price stabilizing legislation for their products.
The announcement that amendments to certain tax laws would be submitted to the house for approval was welcomed with great enthusiasm by the workers, and particularly by textile workers who were glad to learn that the government had decided to enquire into this field of industry, in order to protect them.
The many letters of appreciation I have received from my constituents prove beyond any doubt that the citizens of my constituency, like those in the rest of Canada, highly appreciate the legislation which our government will seek to introduce.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on behalf of the National and Catholic Syndicate of Building Trades of St. Hyacinthe, which has asked me to urge upon the federal government to undertake or have projects carried out in my district, so that unemployment may be reduced as much as possible during the coming winter months. I realize that even if this government cannot be held responsible for the present situation, it will do all it can to improve the difficult conditions which it had to face in this field, and which are clearly detrimental to the labouring class particularly.
As a practical suggestion, the construction of a retaining wall along the Yamaska river, at St. Joseph, between Barsalou and Bouchard bridges, would provide jobs for many breadwinners. Another project which would provide jobs for workers would be the construction of tunnels under the C.N.R. railway tracks, in the eastern and western parts of St. Hyacinthe. For the last ten years, this

part of the city which is called Bourg-Joli, has developed so fast that the building of two tunnels to relieve congestion in the underground passage of St. Anne street-the only one leading to the northern part of the town-has become a necessity. Workers of the St. Hyacinthe-Annexe, in particular, are often delayed by trains passing at the level crossing in Cascades East street, when travelling to and from work. The costs of those underground passages could be assumed by the city of St. Hyacinthe, the federal government and the Canadian National Railways.
During the last two weeks, hon. members in the opposition have mentioned the national flag and the representative our country should have at the Vatican. I trust that the hon. Prime Minister will, in due course, give the representatives of the people the opportunity to submit the views of their ridings on those two matters that have been left pending by the Mackenzie King and St. Laurent governments.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I should like now to congratulate very sincerely the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) on the splendid speech he made in this house the other day. I am sure all hon. members will agree that it is one of the best we have heard since the beginning of the present session. The French part of this speech was a very fine gesture to the French-speaking members of this house as well as to those in the whole of the country. He reviewed the situation which faces us in such a manner and with such vision that we are permitted to believe that he has a very enviable future in our party and, thus, in government. I do not hesitate to state that a frame of mind such as the hon. member for Parkdale entertained does more for national unity than another sort of speech which was made in this house at the beginning of the present session.
English-speaking people and French-speaking people have a much better chance to understand each other and to live harmoniously side by side if they adopt the kind of thinking of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney), the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Haidasz), and all those who think, act and talk as they do. This great nation of ours needs a complete understanding amongst those composing it. Members of this house can set a very effective example to their fellow citizens by taking
The Address-Mr. Ricard advantage of any opportunity to show that they understand the views of other ethnical groups.
It might be interesting for many hon. members to learn that my riding elected me as a Conservative in spite of tremendous efforts on the part of the Liberal candidate, his aides and the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who waged a campaign of racial, sectional and religious prejudices. In what was intended to be the great rally for the Liberals, the former member for Stormont developed the following theme, according to the report in the Liberal weekly:
The chief of the Conservative party has made a deal with the premier of Ontario against the best interests of the province of Quebec.
When the former member of an Ontario constituency was saying:
The Liberal party is the only one that has a unified thinking all through Canada.
I wonder whether he knew that in the same issue of the paper the Liberal organization would make a strong appeal to racial prejudices by publishing, next to the photograph of the then prime minister:
We do not want Diefenbaker and his anti-French Canadian policy.
The members of the Liberal party who like to speak so much of Canadian unity would be keenly interested to learn that on the eve of the election the Liberal organization caused to be distributed after Sunday masses a circular appealing this time to the religious feelings of our population in such a way that the president of the Liberal organization for my riding has been arrested for having published and distributed a libelous circular without any signature or any name of a printer.
I am glad to proclaim that the people of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, who are 99.9 per cent Canadians of French origin and who profess the Catholic religion, have ignored the sectionalism, the religious and the racial prejudice pact campaign of a former liberal member of this house. Let it be known to this house and to the country that my people do not ask for any favours; all they want is justice. Since we did not obtain it from the Liberal party we turned to our great Conservative party and I am confident that we shall obtain justice from our able leader.
In coming to this house, sir, I have accepted the obligation of acting as a representative of all the people of my constituency. Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure for me to devote my energy and full capacity in the best interests of our country, under the banner of the Conservative party and under the able leadership of our Prime Minister.
1048	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. R. Gauthier (Translation):


Mr. Rosaire Gauthier (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to tender my sincere congratulations to the hon. members of this house for the trust the people of Canada placed in them at the federal elections, as well as my best wishes so that all decisions and all legislation in this house be taken and passed in the best interest of the Canadian nation.
My feelings and wishes are, without doubt, those of the people in my riding of Chicoutimi, which I have the honour to represent in this nation's parliament.
My speech will contain no bitter criticism, but rather the expression of a few wishes dear to the heart of the people of my riding and also dear to every Canadian of good will.
From the very beginnings of the Canadian confederation, the fundamental force which has impelled our Canadian people and the gallant political leaders who have governed the country-more particularly the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, to whom I am happy to express our esteem, gratitude and admiration for what he so magnificently accomplished in our great country-has indeed been this deep-rooted trend towards a genuine and rational national unity, that is to say unity in diversity, for it does seem that the two great racial groups of our country will never unite to the point of making up a single people with a single mentality. So it was the fundamental tendency of our governments to cause our two main racial groups to constitute a national community united by bonds of human fellowship, the harmony of well-understood liberties and the respect of the democratic scale of values.
Today, after more than a century of common wishes and endeavours, after more than a century of common undertakings in the direction of true national unity, do we not sense, all of us, the undefinable feeling that this national unity must be a truly living reality in the heart of every Canadian.
On the other hand, if we do have that first feeling, we cannot escape another. We know that this unity is still threatened by certain prejudices which have the unfortunate effect of lessening it, of weakening it, and often of threatening it in its fundamental principles. Still I hope that it will never be thought that in this country, there is the west and the east. We should rather think that, notwithstanding the faults committed in the past, we form one country. These faults have been committed, and we can do little but accept them as they were. In any event the west is necessary to the east, as the east itself is just as necessary to the west. Moreover what


affects one province also affects this country as a whole. Let there be no drawing back on our part. We must convince ourselves that it is absolutely indispensable for the Canadian people to understand how necessary it is to present a common front and to unite in every field of human endeavour, individually, collectively and nationally.
That is why I express the hope that the legislation which is to be adopted here will always take into account the meaning of true and authentic national unity.
(Text):
Besides, this unity which I have just mentioned, will not be complete unless and until full general bilingualism is achieved in this country. I do not mean a complacent, diplomatically self-seeking, limited or superficial bilingualism. Our national unity will be a living fact when we shall have live bilingualism, in complete mutual respect and admiration, a bilingualism which is alive and realistic.
I therefore express the wish that future legislation affecting in any way the issue of national interest may fully honour the principles I just stated; and only at such time as our laws, in their spirit and administration, imply general bilingualism will our national unity really progress toward the completeness we all hope for.
In spite of all this, our national unity will not be perfect without the contribution to our national heritage of a distinctive flag, a symbol of maturity, independence and sovereignty; for, even if our country is recognized as having the characteristics of an independent and free nation, these attributes are scarcely believable when it is considered that this nation is deprived of its first symbolic expression, namely a distinctive and characteristic flag which would achieve our common ideal.
This doubt, which many Canadians feel, is not, I believe, the expression of prejudices. It is not a sign of disrespect towards certain great nations to which we are deeply attached by blood, traditions, culture and memories. Nor does it reflect a lack of admiration for those great nations. On the contrary, the collective desire to obtain in the near future a distinctive and typically Canadian flag is a sign of national maturity.
When a nation reaches that stage of national maturity, as Canada has now done it requires all the means of expression which characterize and identify an adult nation. When a nation is in possession of those means

of expression it will command more respect and it will have more respect for others in the full plenitude of its maturity and with all those means of expression which it requires.
I also voice this nation's growing desire to have a distinctive flag and I hope that very soon this general desire will be fulfilled through the enactment of practical legislation which will give our country a distinctive flag, one that will serve and enshrine the cause of Canadian unity.
(Translation):
Furthermore, means of communications have largely contributed to bind together the various parts of the world. More and more, countries are communicating between themselves, and more and more they exchange reciprocal ideas and opinions.
Now, there is in Italy a sovereign state, a defender of the same spiritual and material values that we ourselves defend. I mean the Vatican.
I would not like to hark back to an old question, nor would I wish to raise in the house a religious issue, which would be pointless, but regardless of that, the fact remains that the supreme head of that small state is drawing the attention of the civilized world and the admiration of all nations professing to defend democracy.
That is why these countries send to the Vatican an ambassador in order to partake of the immense advantages of such a friendship.
Why should our country, I am asking you, be further deprived of the benefits resulting from such essential friendship?
I therefore wish that an early decision be taken to send to the Holy See an ambassador who would represent our country and bring us every advantage that friendly relations between countries or states can award.
Without in any way wishing to discuss at this time the delicate constitutional matter of education, I nevertheless think that the government is not unfamiliar-and this is the least one can say-with the issue of education for the citizens under its rule.
Whatever the circumstances, we advocate- and rightfully so-the development of our national wealth. Now, is it not true that there is no greater wealth for a country than its young people, whose value is incomparably higher than all our material possessions?
The Address-Mr. R. Gauthier
More than ever therefore it is high time that the lawgiver should recognize in a concrete fashion such a priority of human values over other values, by furthering education in all its forms, and that he should enable the inquisitive and believing mind to dominate matter and put it to good use, and thus to insure the survival of the other values for which we all live and toil, the triumph of our democratic ideas.
I therefore hope that our legislation will increasingly tend to favour the discovery of the talents possessed by a host of young Canadians. I wish that legislation may facilitate the mental growth of our youth through the numerous legislative means at the disposal of this government, either by tax exemptions for large families, or by the granting of scholarships in every field, an education assistance scheme, a higher training assistance plan for young people, more adequate tax exemptions in the case of teachers, etc.
Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the wishes and particular needs of my constituency, let me dwell on a matter which we all have at heart, world peace.
We are all moved by this deep desire; I need not therefore say anymore about it.
Our understanding of peace is common and collective but often we underestimate the price we have to pay to get peace and maintain it.
Peace at the present time cannot be taken for granted. We all recognize our deep desire for peace but we must also realize the vital necessity of earning peace and paying for it.
It is with the greatest possible understanding that all Canadians must make certain concessions to ensure their security and their well-being in order to avoid having to make greater sacrifices.
I therefore wish that all the acts which will soon be enacted will definitely take this wish into account in order that we may contribute to world peace and take the means to ensure and maintain it.
However, if I make it a point to ask the government to protect the moral and spiritual values of the Canadian nation, I must also bring to the attention of the house the economic and social needs of my constituency, which occupies a very important place in the present economy of this country and whose enormous natural resources have attracted to an ever increasing degree, the attention of financiers and of governments.

The Address-Mr. R. Gauthier
If we must continue to claim that we must retain in this country the advantages accruing from the exploitation of our natural resources, this development must be favoured before anything and we must then see to it that they be processed locally.
The development of these mineral resources has already begun but serious observers have noticed that the progress of these industries has been paralysed through the absence of adequate means of transportation which could be used to direct the ore to large Canadian refining plants which it would be high time to establish in strategic locations, along the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay. As a matter of fact there is already under construction at Chicoutimi a nickel refinery to which will soon be added, I hope, a copper refinery and possibly even a zinc refinery.
The Saguenay river is most certainly one of the finest inland deep draught waterways flowing into the St. Lawrence and situated hardly two hundred miles from the main northern Quebec mining centres.
The government must therefore take such steps as are necessary to establish along the Saguenay the necessary harbour facilities so that maritime transportation may henceforth contribute to the development of our immense natural resources.
The government must also intensify its research and experimental studies so as to find an economic and practical means of preventing the freezing up of navigable waters and to allow the year round use of our ports and waterways.
When it becomes possible to use our seaports all year round, the whole economy of our country will benefit from such invaluable progress. Experiments carried out in this field have shown that it is possible to prevent ice formation over rivers where the temperature is exceedingly cold. All that remains for us to do is to apply this process or any other which modern science will no doubt find.
Furthermore, if ever it becomes possible, as I firmly believe, to navigate at least as far up as Quebec city during the winter months, I am no less convinced that it will be necessary to favour year round navigation on the Saguenay river as far as Chicoutimi. In fact, I should like to point out to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), the importance of ports of the Saguenay river, especially Port Alfred, the port of the Saguenay Terminals Company, which is the third largest in Canada from the point of view of traffic. I might also add that ports on the Saguenay river are deep water ports and sheltered from heavy winds, offering thereby, it seems, a distinct advantage for their maintenance during the winter months.
[Mr. Gauthier (Chicoutimi) .1

It should be remembered that over most of our country the closing of seaports in winter deprives a great part of the population of its main source of income.
It would therefore be a happy solution to the serious problem of seasonal unemployment if that part of the population had the opportunity of working all year round.
Since the development of natural resources and the economy of northern Quebec are dependent on transportation, it is my duty to point out the deplorable situation of the railway services in my constituency.
The Chicoutimi constituency whose economic importance is undisputed, is connected with other centres of our country by a single railway which is in a crude condition and in this regard I call upon the testimony of those who use it. It is obvious that steps should be taken without delay to bring about the necessary improvements. We moreover urge the government to build a new railway line affording more direct connections between the city of Quebec and towns along the Saguenay, in the lake St. John area and in northern Quebec, so as to allow trains to join the national system without using the line already existing which is too long and does not meet adequately our present needs.
Since air transport has now become almost as important as transportation by water or by rail, I must mention the fact that the industrial and commercial centre of my riding has no civil airport.
A few private air companies now use the military airport of Bagotville but obviously that situation cannot last indefinitely. Distances between Chicoutimi county and other centres give a decisive value to air transport; there is no doubt that this means of transportation will be increasingly popular in the future.
We need a modern civil airport so located as to meet the needs of the whole population of the county as well as the needs of the many people who use that means of transportation to get there from the four corners of Canada and from foreign countries.
I hope that the government will give this need all the consideration it deserves.
Enlightened minds would never question the necessity of those means of transport of which I have just spoken in connection with the economy of Chicoutimi county and of the whole of Canada.
A look at the geographical situation of our county gives an idea of the importance of this problem.

This area, almost isolated in the centre of the province of Quebec, needs only adequate port, rail and air facilities to become an integral part of the industrial system of the whole country.
Some private companies were soon aware of its economic value and took the necessary steps to solve that same transportation problem to their advantage and for the benefit of our population. However, the government must do the same thing to allow other industries to establish themselves along the shores of the Saguenay river and, I repeat, the Canadian nation will benefit just as much from such improvements as will the population of the county of Chicoutimi.
I would not like to give my colleagues the impression that I ignore the identical needs of other parts of the country. It is obvious that certain parts of Canada have more urgent needs than others but it is also obvious that there are needs everywhere since we are, I would say, on the threshold of our economic development.
We are therefore pleased to see that everyone expects the federal government to give a free hand to industrial growth.
Even if the economic requirements of the whole country absorb a large slice of federal resources, the government should nevertheless seriously consider, as promised, cutting down taxes and increasing social benefits, not only old age pensions which, in spite of a slight increase, are still inadequate and should have been raised to at least $60.00 per month, from age 60 for people in need, and from age 65 for all others. I am surprised that there was no mention whatever of family allowances, which should be materially increased. Is it because they would mostly benefit Quebec people? It is up to the government to answer that question and to bring an adequate remedy.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has lately launched a campaign for winter employment, but what does the government intend to do to help the unemployed that we are going to have in great numbers in my riding as a result of the interruption of logging operations, since the economy of our region depends on two great and important industries, aluminum and lumber, the latter remaining the most important and most sizeable. It is certainly surprising that the government seems to ignore the necessity of public works to take care of unemployment. It is
The Address-Mr. R. Gauthier the government's duty to promote full employment, to increase benefits as much as is feasible, and to give such assistance to the unemployed as long as they cannot get work.
The influx of new industries to Canada has undoubtedly the effect of creating new jobs which partially solve the unemployment problem and social insecurity. But this is not enough for social security, and I respectfully urge the government to pay particular attention to the jobless, and especially to the lumberjacks who make up a great part of the population of my riding and who, like thousands of lumberjacks all over the country, are now suffering hardship not only through a slackening of this industry, but because of complete shutdowns in logging operations.
The unemployment insurance act does not sufficiently protect this class of workers who, unlike city workers, cannot hunt for a new job in other industries without being almost forced to expatriate themselves.
The unemployment periods in lumber industry are much longer than in most other industries.
At this time, the problem is serious, and our thousands of lumberjacks are anguished because they have no hope of finding the job they absolutely need to meet the needs of their families during the winter months. Our unemployed are not asking for charity. They want jobs. Let them be given the opportunity and, should that not come to pass, I urge the government to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to insure greater social protection to this class of workers by reducing the waiting period.
In newly opened areas such as ours, bush workers and farmers are the pioneers of the twentieth century, and their presence in these areas which will eventually be economically developed is essential to future development.
We must therefore take all necessary steps to allow these pioneers to remain on their farms. If, to that end and to insure the lumber industry the manpower it requires, we must amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, we should not hesitate in adopting such legislation.
I am proud to pay here a special tribute to the settlers of my constituency and of the country as a whole since these men and women are part of the very elite of our great country.
My time being limited, I will only make a passing reference to the fact, but I would like to remind you that the farmer is a

The Address-Mr. R. Gauthier stabilizing element from the material point of view as well as being the very cornerstone not only of the material prosperity of our great country but also of its moral health in the social field. It seems necessary that there be maintained for his benefit an agricultural support price policy for his main products, especially butter, cheese, pork, eggs and poultry. It would also be advisable that account be taken of the possibility of reducing the interest rates on those loans which farmers must obtain to improve their farms. The matter of setting up a central bureau for agricultural markets should also be considered. I therefore hope that the government will be as ready to adopt these measures as it was with regard to western wheat.
As mayor of the city of Chicoutimi, I feel it is necessary that the government consider the possibility of eliminating the 15 level crossings furrowing our city from west to east and constantly endangering highway traffic. There is all the more reason to do so when we consider that those crossings are situated at the bottom of hills. The implementation of the Fairweather plan would remedy this intolerable situation and I should be very glad to give the authorities the necessary information on that matter.
Even if the Minister of Transport did not mention the port of Chicoutimi in the house these last few days, I am sure he is aware that it is a link in the chain of national harbours and I invite him to Chicoutimi to see for himself the state of neglect of some areas of this port, with a view to authorizing the necessary improvements. I would also add that sounding of the bottom of the Saguenay river should be carried out for four miles below Chicoutimi. In this way the necessary straightening out of the channel could be carried out, as well as the dredging required to allow ships of all tonnage to reach Chicoutimi at all times. Serious consideration should also be given to the possibility of allowing the C.B.C. to set up a television station at Chicoutimi to be incorporated into the national system. There are channels available for that purpose and I think that there would be no objection to the government issuing the necessary licence.
Retaining walls should also be constructed, not only along the Saguenay at Chicoutimi and at Chicoutimi-Nord, but also at Port-Alfred, along Grande-Baie boulevard and, farther on, at Anse Saint-Jean and Petit-Saguenay, as well as at Valin and Saint-Fulgence. A viaduct has been a necessity at


Port-Alfred for a long time. I urge that consideration be given to that matter as soon as possible.
As a former president of the union of the municipalities of the province of Quebec, may I bring up a matter which is of vital interest to our municipalities. Everybody knows that tight money and credit restrictions are currently the most agonizing issues for our municipalities. It is now difficult and costly to sell bonds, and in some cases impossible to find buyers, even if the projects to be financed are absolutely essential to the municipalities and even if all necessary guarantees are given; furthermore in cases where financing has been possible, the price of borrowed money has increased substantially.
To the higher cost of municipal loans must be added the increased costs of labour and materials.
The taxpayer's obligations are continually increasing, thus increasing in turn the cost of services; hence the need for municipalities to find new revenues in order to be able to meet the situation. Consequently, it would be in order perhaps to turn to our senior governments in order to obtain part of the taxes paid by the taxpayers. I presume it is with this idea in mind that the government has called a federal-provincial conference for the end of this month, but in my humble opinion, the municipalities should also have been invited, since they are also closely interested in this fiscal problem.
In any case, I hope this conference will bring the municipalities an adequate solution to their fiscal problems.
Mr. Speaker, does everything I just said- and I do not want to blame anybody in particular-not stress the fact that the district of Saguenay-Lake St. John has been somewhat ignored, and that Canada has therefore not had all the benefit from its especially desirable position as a means of penetrating the very economic heart of the continental spread of Quebec, whose mineral wealth has at least been known for more than half a century.
The reason for this fact is probably easy to understand. After confederation, the wish to achieve a great Canada took priority over the care of building up the country more rationally perhaps, more economically, but in a way that would not be in keeping with the great political aim that had been set up. Disregarding the hinterland and supposing that another nation, different from eastern Canada, would have been established in western Canada, it would seem obvious that

the pattern of economic development in the east would have been entirely different. People would obviously have sought to develop the northern sections rather than reach indefinitely towards the west. However, no sooner had the political choice been made in favour of the west than the energies which were expended for the development of these areas, in order to sustain as much as possible the railway policy which was to unite the country, ceased to be available for the development of the resources of the eastern part of this country.
This development, in actual fact, was considered in the light of western railway development, not much thought being given to anything else. What happened to be near these lines was in fact developed because the development of these resources appeared more profitable. However there was no inclination to embark upon a local policy with regard to access routes which would have allowed for more balanced regional development.
Had this been done, the Saguenay-Lake St. John area would certainly have occupied a place of honour in the minds of the authorities of the day and would certainly have received a great deal more attention than has been given to it.
Indeed, our district is so located and settled as to be the heart of a large economic empire and allow developments which can contribute considerably to enhance the prestige of Canada on world markets.
Those are briefly, Mr. Speaker, the few thoughts that I wished to submit to your kind attention.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: The Address-Mr. Blackmore
What about the dominion notes printed by-Canada's finance minister under the Dominion Notes Act of 1868, from 1868 to 1914? Were those notes funny or sound? If so, why in either case? What about the dominion notes printed by Canada's finance minister under the Finance Act of 1914 and of 1923, hundreds of millions of dollars of which were lent into circulation through the chartered banks of Canada, and tens of millions of dollars of which were spent into circulation during world war I? Were those notes funny or sound? If so, why in either case? Sir Thomas White, great finance minister of the Conservative administration during world war I and of the union government administration during the reconstruction period after world war I, believed those notes were sound. Do you? Sir Thomas, in his "Memorandum of Dissent" from the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada published in 1933, wrote the following words as reported at page 85 of that report:
It is my belief that no central bank in the world-
Notice the word "world".
-during the war period functioned more smoothly or was capable of being utilized more promptly or with greater immediate effect in serving the purposes of national and business finance than the Canadian Finance Act of 1914. It is also my view that during the period in question and in the very trying period of so-called reconstruction following the armistice no other monetary system proved more efficient or better adapted to national needs than that of the chartered banks of Canada supplemented as it was by the provisions of the Finance Act of 1914.
And again:
And in my opinion the same high degree of efficiency has been maintained by the Canadian financial system down to the present time. Of this statement we have at least partial proof in the stability of that system during the unprecedented world depression of the past four years.
Someone who knows the man who wrote that editorial in the Financial Post should suggest to him that he read some of these things and enlighten himself! In the light of the things I have said some of the things that were written in that Financial Post article are seen to be just pure nonsense. Absolute nonsense!
May I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) upon his outlined program for the improvement of social conditions in Canada. He will require great quantities of money; where will all that money come from? The first question he must ask himself is: Can Canadians deliver the goods he will require to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, keep healthy, defend and otherwise provide for Canadians the standard of well-being which Canadians have the right to expect and enjoy, and which our present Prime Minister is

eager to render available to them? Can we as Canadians, and will we if given a chance, deliver milk and milk products, meats, grains, vegetables, fruits, sugars, etc., down through the whole list of needed goods? The answer in the main must be a thundering "Yes!"
Surely then we ought to be able to have dollars! A dollar is merely a ticket to goods and services; merely a ticket or a claim. Such being the case the more goods and services a community has and can produce and can deliver, as, when and where required, the more tickets or claims to goods and services that community ought to be able to create.
A theatre manager, having 500 seats in his theatre, ought to be able to stamp 500 tickets. That theatre manager, having 1,000 seats, ought to be able to stamp 1,000 tickets. Incidentally should that manager have to borrow those 500 tickets from anyone? Reason and common sense simultaneously answer "certainly not". He should not have to borrow those tickets. Neither should Canada have to borrow the tickets she uses unless she sees fit so to do.
Now the Canadian community in the year 1957 either has produced, or will produce, in the neighbourhood of $30 billion worth of goods. Of that amount the proportion made up of consumer goods such as food, clothing, shelter, etc., would adequately supply the needs of Canada's people, up to a good standard of living. Why then are so many Canadians not able to acquire that standard of living? The production of each and every kind of those consumer goods can be rapidly and almost indefinitely increased by Canadians if potential producers could but obtain firstly the credit with which to produce, secondly markets, and thirdly, profitable prices. Yes, Canada is able to deliver the goods!
Referring again to our illustration of theatre tickets, might we not say that, in the great Canadian theatre plenty of seats are available; why are the needed tickets not made accessible? Now, can the Diefenbaker government get the tickets or the dollars that would claim these consumer goods and the other goods Canadians are producing, and can the Diefenbaker government work out a scheme whereby they can get those tickets into the hands of potential consumers in such amounts as will enable such consumers to consume the goods and services on Canadian markets, or coming upon those markets some time in the future, without bringing about any rise in prices caused by scarcity of goods? That is to say, without causing real inflation, which, after all, is "too many dollars chasing too few goods?"
May I repeat the question I have already asked? Where will all the money come

from? During 20 years every Liberal minister who has spoken upon the subject has positively affirmed that all the money available to the government had to come from taxation, that is, to come from the pockets of Canadians. Are the ministers of the Diefenbaker government intending to make the same declaration? Is the present government going to maintain that it can have no dollars to spend except those which they can wring from our people through taxation or borrowing? Is it going to do that in spite of the record of Sir Thomas White, the great Conservative finance minister back in history, available for them to read of, and study? If so, then Canadians are doomed to disappointment and further frustration and suffering.
Any central government should possess, and scientifically exercise, the power to create money. Our fathers of confederation in 1867 provided that the federal government of Canada should possess that power. May I quote from the British North America Act section 91, clauses 14, 15 and 20:
... it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated: that is to say-
14,	currency and coinage,
15,	banking, incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money,
20, legal tender.
Our fathers as early as 1868 legislated for the exercise of that power by enacting the Dominion Notes Act. The Dominion Notes Act of 1868 empowered Canada's minister of finance to create and issue up to $8 million worth of Dominion of Canada notes, the first $5 million with 20 per cent backing in specie, that is 20 cents worth of specie behind each one dollar bill, and the next $3 million with 25 cents worth of specie behind each one dollar bill. I would refer you to the report of the royal commission on banking and currency for Canada, 1933, at page 21.
By 1913 the Dominion Notes Act had been so modified during the years, that the minister of finance was empowered to issue $30 million of notes with a backing of 25 cents worth of either gold or guaranteed debentures behind each dollar. Notice the remarkable change	there-it	is very	significantguaranteed debentures instead of gold! Still more dollar bills could be issued backed by 100 per cent of gold. You notice they were not worrying very much about inflation so long as they had the gold.
Subsequently in August 1914 the parliament of Canada empowered the minister of finance to create and issue $50 million worth of notes with 25 cents of gold behind each
The Address-Mr. Blackmore one dollar bill. Later $16 million were issued backed by a deposit of railway securities guaranteed by the dominion government; also $10 million were issued without any particular backing and spent "for governmental purposes".
There is a case where they did not take the money they got from the taxpayer-There you are Conservatives!-do not allow yourselves to be fooled by writers in the Financial Post. (See the report at page 22.) In 1917 $50 million were issued, secured by imperial treasury bills-see the report, page 22-and spent for horses, grain, and other needs for world war I. So there was a time when Conservative governments had wisdom in this country, and we hope that time has come again.
The Finance Act of 1914 made provision for the Canadian government to issue dominion notes backed by approved securities, including dominion bonds, certain railway, provincial and municipal bonds and certain other securities subject to appraisal by the dominion treasury board. See report to which I have referred, page 22. That report is in the House of Commons library and I suggest it be read with care by everyone who bears the heavy responsibility which lies on the shoulders of all members of this house. Paragraph 49 of that report reads thus:
A proclamation in pursuance of the act was issued on September 3, 1914, and thenceforth throughout the war and the early postwar period extensive use was made of the act.
Notice that word "extensive". Paragraph 50 reads:
An act passed in 1919 provided for the continuance in force of the proclamation made on September 3, 1914 until two years after the conclusion of peace on termination of the war.
This explains the continued operation of the act until 1923.
From paragraph 51 I quote:
But extensive use continued to be made of the power to issue dominion notes to the banks against approved securities . . .
So well did the act function that the hon. W. S. Fielding, a Liberal finance minister, in 1923 re-introduced the Finance Act of 1914 as the Finance Act of 1923, using the following words, and I read from the report:
The act was adopted as a war measure, and no doubt it was exceedingly useful in the financial operations during the war. It may be said that the war being over we no longer have any need for the act, but experience has shown that the act is still required: indeed, I am inclined to think that something of the kind will have to become almost a permanent part of our financial system.
Mr. Speaker, so do I think that; I agree with hon. W. S. Fielding. The potentialities of the Finance Act of 1914 and of 1923 are
1056	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore outlined by the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada in paragraphs 13538 inclusive. At page 40 of this report, published in 1933, may I read:
In normal times the Minister of Finance may make advances of dominion notes to the chartered banks and to those to which the Quebec Savings Bank Act applies upon the pledge of:
(a) Treasury bills, bonds, debentures or stocks of the Dominion of Canada, Great Britain, any province of Canada, and of any British possession.
It is an unchallengeable fact that every Canadian finance minister from 1923 down to the passage of the Bank of Canada Act of 1934 possessed the power to create in normal times Canadian dollars backed by approved securities, and advance those dollars to Canadian chartered banks. It is uncontestably true that between the outbreak of world war I in 1914 and the end of 1917 the then Canadian finance minister, who was Sir Thomas White, issued and placed in circulation in Canada $76 million in Canadian notes with no Canadian backing except that of the credit of Canada, that is, with no backing but Canadian goods and services and Canada's ability to produce more goods and services and to deliver such goods and services as required, when required and where required. This I have shown by reference to paragraph 47 on page 22 of the report.
It is true that under the finance acts of 1914 and 1923, the backing of Canadian notes was to be securities of a particular and specified kind as listed in paragraph 135 on page 40 of the report. One class of this kind is given in paragraph 135 as "treasury bills, bonds, debentures or stocks of the Dominion of Canada." I am quoting that again so as to help the editor of the Financial Post to get it.
Any quantity of Canadian bonds could easily be created. What was to be the limit of the amount of Canadian bonds which could safely be created? That is the thing we want to know. That limit, basically, must be Canada's credit, her real credit; that is, her ability to produce or to acquire and to deliver goods and services. What was the backing of the made-beaver money? Goods and services. What was the backing of the French playing card money? Goods and services. What was the backing of the Guernsey island notes? Goods and services.
We have in Canada goods and services today. No one will argue about that. We have goods and services of sufficient variety

and quantity. Dominion notes of 25 cents, $1, $2, $500 and $1,000 were legal tender which of course means, as everyone in this house knows, that when a person tendered a note of one of these denominations in settlement of a debt the person to whom he offered it was obliged to accept it or to cancel the debt. See paragraph 133 of the report. For a time after world war I the holder of a dominion note could call for gold-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: But the gold redemption clause was suspended in April 1933. Hear, hear-did you get that?-"by order in council."
Now it could be said for the purpose of illustration that Social Crediters have advocated, and still advocate, that within well defined limits-note that expression-dominion dollars, either paper or credit, should be issued by the finance minister and by him held available to be employed for helping people to buy whatever needed goods and services might be found in excess in the nation's inventories; excess, not because the consumers could not or would not consume the goods, if they could afford them, but because the consumers lack the money with which to buy. And if today we had in force in Canada the finance acts of 1914 and 1923, then issuance of such notes as I have referred to for the purpose of illustration would constitute a use of the finance acts of 1914 and 1923. Yet the Social Crediters have been called crack pots! Go to Sir Thomas White's ghost and see what he would say. To all intents and purposes it is exactly similar to the $16 million backed by railway securities and the $10 million issued backed only by the credit of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would find this a convenient place at which to stop.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: We will continue with this debate tomorrow.


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

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

Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	How many Hungarian refugees were returned to Hungary at their own request?
2.	How many of these declared themselves to be avowed communists?
3.	How many Hungarian refugees are unemployed?
4.	How many of these are receiving assistance from the dominion government?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	64.
2.	Nil.
3.	2,359.
4.	2,359.


CAUSEWAY CONSTRUCTION, P.E.I.-N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 123
Mr. Macquarrie:: 1.	What investigations have been made by the Department of Public Works to determine the feasibility of constructing a causeway across the Northumberland strait between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?
2.	What have been the findings of such investigations respecting:	(a) the estimated cost of the
project; (b) the time likely to be required for construction of such a causeway?
Answer by: Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	The Department of Public Works has undertaken a drilling program to examine the type of rock which could be obtained from Cape Tormentine close to the existing ferry terminal. A second investigation has been made to determine the cost of providing the present ferry transportation between Borden, P.E.I., and Cape Tormentine, N.B.
Questions
2.	The department is not in a position as yet to make any definite announcement with regard to the result of these investigations.


PUBLIC BUILDING TENDERS, PLESSISVILLE, QUE.
Mr. Lafonlaine: 1.	When tenders were called for the construction of a public building at Plessisville, Quebec, how many contractors asked the public works department for plans and specifications of the said building, in making the required deposit, as specified in the notice calling for tenders?
2.	What are the names and addresses of such contractors?
Answer by:	Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Eleven general contractors and seven subcontractors or suppliers.
2.	Lafiamme & Lafleur, Thetford Mines, Que., (General contractor); Mr. Victor Tardif, 610 Chateauguay, Quebec, P.Q.; Canadian Structural Steel Works Co. Ltd., 3700 St. Joseph Blvd. E., Montreal, P.Q.; Canadian Pittsburgh Industries Ltd., 1285 St. Vallier W., Quebec, P.Q., W. A. Rankin Ltd., 410 Bank St., Ottawa, Ont.; Dominion Structural Steel Ltd., 6894 Clanranald Ave., Montreal, P.Q.; Poud-rier & Boulet Ltd., 325-24th Street, Quebec, P.Q., (General contractor); A. Deslauriers & Fils Ltee, 268 Lalemant, Quebec, P.Q., (General contractor); Raymond Hardware Ltd., 658 Craig St. West, Montreal, P.Q.; Freres Jobin Inc., 925 Ste. Therese, Quebec, P.Q., (General contractor); S. Savoie Ltee, Plessisville, Que., (General contractor); Mr. George L. Lennon, Inverness, Que., (General contractor); Mr. L. P. Pard, Plessisville, Que., (General contractor); Bergerville Estates Ltd., Quebec, Que., (General contractor); Wm. Lavallee Construction Ltd., Sherbrooke, Que., (General contractor); Alsco Products of Canada Ltd., 191 Ashtonbee Road, Scarborough, Ont.; R. E. Stewart Construction Corporation, 862 Wellington St., Sherbrooke, Que., (General contractor); Eugene Marcoux, Sherbrooke, Que., (General contractor).



END OF VOLUME I


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons debates
[Stage Direction]
Speaker: The Honourable Roland Michener

[Stage Direction]
The twenty-second parliament having been prorogued on the twelfth day of April, 1957, and dissolved by proclamation on the same day, and writs having been issued and returned, a new parliament was summoned to meet for the dispatch of business on Monday, October 14, 1957, and did accordingly meet on that day.
Monday, October 14, 1957
This being the day on which parliament is convoked by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General for the dispatch of business, and the members of the house being assembled:
Leon J. Raymond, Esquire, O.B.E., the Clerk of the House, read to the house a letter from the secretary to the Governor General informing him that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, would proceed to the Senate chamber to open the first session of the twenty-third parliament of Canada on Monday, the fourteenth of October, at eleven o'clock.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Members of the House of Commons:
It is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable house attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate chamber, when the Speaker of the Senate said:
Honourable Members of the Senate,
and Members of the House of Commons:
I have it in command to let you know that Her Majesty the Queen does not see fit to declare the causes of her summoning the present parliament of Canada until the Speaker of the House of Commons shall have been chosen according to law, but this afternoon, at the hour of three o'clock. Her Majesty will declare the causes of calling this parliament.
And the house being returned to the Commons chamber:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Raymond, what is uppermost in the minds of us all today is the opening of the twenty-third parliament by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is a great and joyous occasion, a shining moment of rededication to all the traditions and a living exemplification of our history. I do not rise on this occasion to memorialize this historic event, but only to make possible the participation of this house in that event. I know how eager we are to hear from Her Majesty, but having not as yet elected a Speaker we have no voice to speak on our behalf or no means of communication with Her Majesty. Indeed, according to law, the House of Commons is not constituted nor has it any status until that has been achieved. The representative of the crown has reminded us that Her Majesty the Queen does not see fit to disclose to us the reasons that have caused her to bring us together until we have selected a Speaker.
All this is in the tradition of parliament, for at this moment, and on this what I choose to call the Queen's day, the members of the Commons and of the Senate as well will walk with history. There is no need for me to tell you that the highest position that can be conferred on anyone, that of the first commoner, will be in the custody and keeping of that person who is chosen as Speaker. He is the link with the crown and in olden days, as the records show, the function was an arduous one, requiring great courage on the part of those chosen.

Election of Speaker
Those were the days when the Commons faced the overwhelming sovereignty of the monarch. Because of the fact that the Commons never did sit with the crown and the Lords, the practice was, and it goes back to the fourteenth century, of having a spokesman speak on behalf of the Commons. As an example, almost 400 years ago, in 1562, Speaker Williams, during the reign of Elizabeth I, spoke on behalf of the rights of the commoners. He asked for the right of free access to the Queen. He asked for the right to interpret the wishes of the members of the House of Commons. He asked for the historic and prerogative rights of the Commons in these words:
That the assembly ot the lower house may have frank and free liberties to speak their minds without any controlment, blame, grudge, menaces or displeasure, according to the old ancient order.
Finally Speaker Williams said:
.. .the old privilege of the house be observed, which is that they and theirs might he at liberty, frank and free, without arrest, molestation, trouble or other damage to their bodies, lands, goods or servants, with all other their liberties, during the time of the said parliament, whereby they may the better attend and do their duty; all which privileges I desire may be enrolled, as at other times it hath been accustomed.
That was under Elizabeth I. Today parliament is supreme, and the throne, while losing its apparent powers and authority, has gained in dignity and significance and in the hearts of the people, and this function is no longer one of concern.
Oliver Goldsmith, exemplifying what parliament stood for and the right of the rule of law in parliament, said:
The Englishman Is taught to love the King as his friend, but to acknowledge no other master than the laws which he himself has contributed to enact.
What are the functions of the Speaker? I am not going to review what has been said in the past by my predecessors in office. Summarizing the position of the Speaker, it is this: to preside over the House of Commons, to be the jealous guardian of its prerogatives and rights, without which its prestige would suffer and ultimately freedom would be endangered. The Speaker must be impartial. He must know the rules of procedure. He should have parliamentary experience for that reason. He must exercise his office with scrupulous and rigorous impartiality. He must be firm and yet patient and incisive, courteous and ever vigilant to guard the rights and privileges of the individual member.
My predecessor in office, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent), spoke of this on the last occasion a Speaker was chosen. Other prime ministers have done the same. What are the qualifications of a

Speaker? Well, as one reads the ancient records one finds that they embody those qualities that make a Speaker almost above ordinary humanity. Lord Palmerston asked the editor of the London Times, 'What do you require in a Speaker?" This was the reply:
Imperturbability, good temper, tact, urbanity and, if possible, a training in the law.
Mr. Raymond, in my opinion, such a man is among us in the person of Roland Michener. He was born in Alberta, where his father took part in public life, and afterwards, for many years, was a distinguished member of the Senate. Mr. Michener was a brilliant student and was awarded a Rhodes scholarship from Alberta; a queen's counsel and a member of the Middle Temple as well as the bar of Ontario, and with wide experience in government and public service as a private member of this house and as provincial secretary in Ontario; and, above everything else, whose friendships are not circumscribed by party limitations.
It may be appropriate at this time

it has been mentioned on several occasions

when we have the Queen amongst us and when our thoughts are on our traditions and history, to point out that there is a difference between our system of the choice of Speaker and that in the United Kingdom in the mother of parliaments. There it has been the custom to keep the same Speaker as long as he retains his seat in the house. The opinion has been expressed that we should have a permanent Speaker, but up to the present time the practice of Canada has not been to do so. Our practice, as constituted, is governed by the character and historic basis of our country. Under it, with few exceptions, the Speaker in one parliament is of French origin, followed in the next parliament by one of English origin. Whatever our personal views may be as to having a permanent Speaker, only parliament can make that decision and then only when there is generous unanimity in that regard.
Mr. Michener speaks French fluently. I hope he will receive the approval of the house as being a fit and proper person to be Speaker of the twenty-third parliament. Mr. Raymond, I therefore move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent):
That Roland Michener, Esquire, member for the electoral district of St. Paul's, do take the chair of this house as Speaker.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Raymond, when the Prime Minister approached me to inquire if I would like to second his motion for the appointment of Mr. Michener as Speaker, I readily agreed to do so. I have been a member of the House of Commons since 1942, and in all the time I have been here we



OCTOBER 14. 1957

[Stage Direction]
have had Speakers who have worthily upheld the finest traditions of our British parliamentary system.
In the years since Mr. Michener was first elected to this house he has been, as those of us who were here then were able to observe, diligent in his attendance and scrupulous in his observance of the rules of the house and all its ancient usages. His background, which has been referred to in such fitting terms by the Prime Minister, his record as a member, and what we know of him as a man will, I feel, all commend themselves to us as good auguries for the future.
In the confident expectation-and I stress those words-that the house will be well served by Mr. Michener as its Speaker and that he will preside over us competently and with dignity and impartiality, I am happy to second the Prime Minister's motion.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Raymond, as is customary at this time I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) in supporting the nomination of a new Speaker for this parliament. The Prime Minister expressed to the house and indeed to the country what are the functions of the Speaker in this parliament and in the parliaments like it throughout the commonwealth. I noted that he stated that one of the functions of the Speaker was to see that every individual member was properly protected and properly treated in this house.
May I say that I regard one of the principal functions of the Speaker to be not only to protect the individual rights of each member of this house, but to protect groups who may be in minority positions. As a matter of fact, throughout the long period of British history when, as has been indicated, the Speaker occupied a position not only of some responsibility but of some danger, that function on occasion has been the primary function of the Speaker of the day.
I am reminded, as I often am, of one of the greatest Speakers of the British parliament, namely Mr. Speaker Lenthall. I recall again today, as I have done on former occasions, that when Charles I came to the House of Commons in 1642 and demanded that he have the right to arrest five members who had displeased him, it was Lenthall who turned to the king and said:
I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place but as the house is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.
Thus the Speaker established his position as the protector of the rights of a small minority. In this chamber today there is a house much different from any in which I have had the privilege of sitting, for this is my sixth 96698-14
Election of Speaker
parliament since 1935. There are not majorities in this house; there are a number of minorities.
Consequently the Speaker will have a particular function to fulfil, and I believe that in Mr. Michener we shall have a Speaker who will try to carry out his responsibilities impartially and give the minorities in this house, whether large or small, the proper consideration and protection they deserve.
The Prime Minister said the Speaker would occupy the chair. The Speaker of the House of Commons is, of course, no mere chairman elected for the supervision of debates. He is the champion of the legislature, against whom? Against the executive. I would remind the government-the executive -of that important function of the Speaker, to protect the house against the executive. The Speaker is custodian of the rights and the privileges that have been handed down to us through a very long period of history and of struggle. Indeed, as the first commoner he is a principal part of the very constitution under which we live and in a very peculiar way which we are recognizing today when Her Majesty the Queen opens this parliament.
So I rise to join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in supporting the election of Mr. Michener as Speaker of this parliament, and to assure him that we shall give him all the co-operation we can. I believe and I pray that his period as Speaker may be a very distinguished one and that he may function according to the historic precedents which have been so well laid down from time to time in the mother of parliaments as well as this younger institution of our own.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Raymond, I rise at this time to indicate to you and to the hon. members of this house that the Social Credit party feel that Mr. Roland Michener is a fit and proper person to assume the office of Speaker and the position of first commoner. We have confidence in Mr. Michener that has been born of our close association with him for some years.
When the Prime Minister outlined to the house the background of Mr. Michener's experience which fitted him to assume this very high and important office, he told the house that Mr. Michener was born in Alberta. We think that was the most important thing which fitted him to be the first commoner and the Speaker of the House of Commons.
We realize that the new Speaker, when he is elected, will have a more difficult time, perhaps, than other Speakers have had for some years because of the very fact, as

Election of Speaker
pointed out by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), that this house is now a house of minorities. By force of circumstance one of the minorities now sits at the Speaker's right, and we realize that it will be difficult for him to see the members of this group, occasionally perhaps mistaking them for members of the government. But we draw attention, Mr. Raymond, to the fact that it would be desirable for the Speaker, when he is elected, to get an extra long-range lens in the right side of his glasses so he can see the members of this group when they rise and recognize that they do have a right to speak.
Mr. Raymond, in all seriousness we do feel that in Mr. Michener a good choice has been made-one which will uphold the great traditions that have been built around the Speakers of the British parliaments and we wish for him a period of happy and fruitful presidency over this chamber. We will, to a man, give him the best support of which we are capable, always remembering that the rules are here to be obeyed and we shall obey them.
The Clerk of ihe House declared the motion carried in the affirmative, nemine con-tradicente, and Roland Michener, Esquire, member for the electoral district of St. Paul's, duly elected to the chair of the house.
Mr. Michener was conducted from his seat in the house to the Speaker's chair by Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker and Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members of the House of Commons, in the time-honoured formula, I beg to return my humble acknowledgments to the House of Commons for the great honour you have been pleased to confer upon me in electing me unanimously as your Speaker.
Being conscious of the responsibilities of that office and of my own inexperience, I am doubly grateful for the gracious and encouraging words in which my nomination has been proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, and supported by the leaders of the C.C.F. and Social Credit groups.
My aim will be to understand and interpret the will and the moods of the house; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to protect the minority; to enable every member to express his opinions within the limits necessary to preserve decorum; to prevent unnecessary waste of time, and above all to be non-partisan and impartial in my decisions. If my service to this house is to contribute to the projection

of its great traditions, it will come about only because of the sympathetic support, advice and co-operation of every member.
We all expect the cross-fire, the vigorous cross-fire of debate. My only request is that you give me time to try my wings before you start shooting in this direction.
(Translation):
May I say to my French-speaking colleagues how I wish I could answer them in their own beautiful tongue every time they rise to address me. However, in spite of all my willingness-of which I should like to assure them at this time-it may be that, during the first few months of my probation period in the chair, I will have to use the language I understand best.
I do toil and take pains, but alas, I am poorest in my basic knowledge of your tongue.
Nevertheless let me assure you that I love your tongue and respect the equal status of the two official languages.
Once again I thank the members of the house for the great honour they have been pleased to confer upon me.
(Text):



SITTING SUSPENDED

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that the sitting be suspended until three o'clock this day.
At 11.50 a.m. the sitting was suspended until 3 p.m. this day.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at three o'clock. OPENING OF THE SESSION
Mr. Speaker read a communication from the Governor General's secretary announcing that Her Majesty the Queen would proceed to the Senate chamber at three o'clock on this day, for the purpose of formally opening the session of the dominion parliament.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of Her Majesty the Queen that this honourable house attend her immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
Then the Hon. Roland Michener, Speaker of the House of Commons, said:
May it please Your Majesty:
The House of Commons have elected me their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus assigned to me.

If in the performance of those duties I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me, and not to the Commons, whose servant I am, and who, through me, the better to enable them to discharge their duty to their Queen and country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates, access to Your Majesty's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Majesty the most favourable construction.
The Honourable the Speaker of the Senate, addressing the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons, then said:
Mr. Speaker, I am commanded by Her Majesty the Queen to declare to you that she freely confides in the duty and attachment of the House of Commons to Her Majesty's person and government, and not doubting that their proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and prudence, she grants and upon all occasions will recognize and allow their constitutional privileges.
I am commanded also to assure you that the Commons shall have ready access to Her Majesty upon all seasonable occasions, and that their proceedings, as well as your words and actions, will constantly receive from her the most favourable construction.
Then Her Majesty the Queen was pleased to open parliament by a speech from the throne.
And the house being returned to the Commons chamber:


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to report that, the house having attended on Her Majesty the Queen in the Senate chamber, I informed Her Majesty that the choice of Speaker had fallen upon me, and, in your names and on your behalf, I made the usual claim for your privileges, which Her Majesty was pleased to confirm to you.



OATHS OF OFFICE

John George Diefenbaker: for leave to introduce Bill No. 1, respecting the administration of oaths of office.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that, when this house did attend Her Majesty the Queen this day in the Senate chamber, Her Majesty was pleased to make a speech to both houses of parliament. To prevent mistakes I have obtained a copy, which is as follows:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
I greet you as your Queen. Together we constitute the parliament of Canada. For the first time the representatives of the people of Canada and their sovereign are here assembled on the occasion of the opening of parliament. This is for all of us a moment to remember.
Parliamentary government has been fashioned by the wisdom of many centuries. Its justice, authority and dignity are cherished by men of good will. It
Speech from the Throne will be the high purpose of my ministers not only to preserve these qualities but to take steps to make both houses of this parliament more effective in the discharge of their responsibilities to the people of Canada.
You have come here to form this new parliament from across a great land, a land far wider than either of those older countries that first gave it birth. I am proud to contemplate the great heritage of this nation-the minerals, the forests, the lands, the waters, the sources of power and energy which fire your ever-growing industries. But I am more proud to contemplate the spirit and ideas which brought this country to nationhood, and now, drawing reinforcement and enrichment from many lands and peoples, have given Canada a national character peculiarly her own.
Yet in this age no nation can live unto itself. Through the overcast of international affairs the bright constellation of the commonwealth illumines our times. The continuing admission of nations newly guided to self-government both broadens and strengthens our diverse commonwealth as more of us come to share the great inheritance of those institutions and ideals which make our association a quiet but pervasive force for good in an unquiet world. This was manifest when the prime ministers of the commonwealth met in London last June to talk of great affairs; and again, only a few days ago when on Canada's invitation, the finance ministers met at Mont Tremblant and in a comradely spirit laid plans for a commonwealth trade and economic conference to take place next year.
A similar spirit has been evident in the Colombo plan, which is a part of the high venture of the peoples of south and southeast Asia as they move along the path of national development, and which my government will continue to support.
My ministers believe that Canada's active participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is essential for the preservation of peace. You will accordingly be asked to maintain modern defence forces in being which, together with those of our allies, will continue to act as a deterrent to attack upon any part of that alliance.
While Canada plays a full part in these particular associations, my ministers remain convinced that in the wider forum of the United Nations we must also continue to seek such agreements as will preserve security and bring about a wide measure of disarmament. Indeed we must continue to hope that through the United Nations the aspirations of men and women for peace and security will be fulfilled.
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.
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. Accordingly you will be asked to increase old age security pensions and to shorten the period of residence required to qualify for them. Changes will be proposed in the terms of assistance offered to provincial governments to enable them to increase the payments to be made under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act to a corresponding level.
You will also be asked to increase the scale of war veterans allowances and to enlarge the groups to whom they are paid. Changes will also be proposed in several sections of the Pension Act.
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

Address to Her Majesty to be made to seek new markets for agricultural products as well as to regain those that have been lost.
Due to inability to market their grain, prairie farmers have for some time been faced with a serious shortage of funds to meet their immediate needs. In order to permit them to receive an advance payment for the grain they can expect to deliver this year you will be asked to authorize a system of cash advances for grain stored on farms.
My government will strive to secure additional markets for the products of our fisheries and to promote the development of international rules to safeguard the living resources of the sea.
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.
As an immediate start upon a program of more extensive development in the Atlantic provinces, you will be asked to authorize, in joint action with the provincial governments, the creation of facilities for the production and transmission of cheaper electric power in those provinces. You will also be asked to provide assistance in financing the Beechwood project which has been under construction in New Brunswick.
My ministers will advance this national development policy further by initiating new discussions with the government of Saskatchewan in order to make possible the early commencement of construction of the dam on the South Saskatchewan river.
My ministers are pressing for a favourable settlement of international problems in connection with the Columbia river to clear the way for a joint program with the province of British Columbia to develop the immense power in the waters of this river.
My ministers will place before you a measure to ensure that those working in industries under federal jurisdiction will receive annual vacations with pay.
You will be asked to approve bills relating to certain railway branch lines, amendments to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, and, in so far as the other business before you permits, to several other statutes.
Members of the House of Commons:
You will be asked to appropriate the sums required for carrying on the government of Canada during the remainder of the current fiscal year.
Changes in certain of the taxing statutes will be submitted for your approval.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the Commons:
I wish to express to you and to the people of Canada my gratitude and that of my husband for the warmth of the loyalty and affection with which we have been welcomed here in Canada.
As I now address you here for the first time, I will call to your minds the words of the earlier Elizabeth when, more than three centuries ago, she spoke from her heart to the Speaker and members of her last parliament and said "Though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my crown, that I have reigned with your loves". Now here in the new world I say to you that it is my wish that in the years before me I may so reign in Canada and be so remembered.
On this happy day when we give thanks to God for all that He has bestowed on us, I ask that He may bless and guide you.

Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That the speech of Her Majesty the Queen to both houses of parliament be taken into consideration at the next sitting of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that this is indeed the Queen's day, as I said earlier, and in the light of the moving experience which has been ours during the last few minutes, 1 could not but think of the words of the poet John Masefield in which he described the Queen in this way: An order and a beauty from of old Set by its virtue above greed and hate;
A loneliness of living crowned with gold;
In all life's storm a standard of the state.
Without further words I feel that all hon. members in this house would wish to join in the motion to be moved by myself and seconded by the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent in these words:
That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty conveying the loyalty and love of this house and of all her Canadian subjects, their joy in welcoming the presence in Canada of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, and their profound gratitude to Her Majesty for graciously opening parliament and making of this day an historic occasion for all Canadians.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to second the motion of the Prime Minister expressing the deep loyalty, respect and affection which I know everyone in this chamber feels for Her Majesty the Queen, and our genuine satisfaction in welcoming our sovereign lady and Prince Philip.
This is a happy occasion on which to state in formal terms the emotions we felt when Her Majesty presided at the opening of the twenty-third parliament of Canada, and stated, as was the fact, that for the first time the representatives of the people of Canada and their sovereign were assembled on an occasion of such importance. I think this day will go down in Canadian history as- in the words used by the Prime Minister-the Queen's day, and that we shall all rejoice in remembering the emotions of this splendid occasion.
Hon. members will recall that the possibility of Her Majesty and Prince Philip being in Canada at this time arose some months ago, and even then we all hoped that the situation would be such that Her Majesty might herself preside at the opening of this twenty-third parliament. I am very happy that the



OCTOBER 14. 1957

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister was able to arrange that this historic ceremony should take place on the occasion of this visit.
I shall defer until the appropriate time my observations on the contents of Her Majesty's speech from the throne, but I do wish to say a word about the gracious and moving speech the Queen addressed last evening by radio and television to the people of Canada.
The pride of all Canadians in our country was, I am sure, enhanced when Her Majesty referred to herself with such evident pride as the Queen of Canada, and particularly when she reminded us that it would be as Queen of Canada that she would visit the United States of America within the next few days. For many of us those words carried our minds back some 18 years to the first visit of a reigning sovereign to the United States, a visit which prepared the way for the ready acceptance today of the position that the sovereign, in visiting our great neighbouring nation, makes such a visit primarily as the head of the Canadian nation.
(Translation):
The grace and ease with which Her Majesty has addressed us in the native tongue of some five million of her Canadian subjects has warmed the hearts of those who, for more than two centuries, have realized that their traditions, their culture and their language are an ever-growing source of pride to all Canadians and, in the eyes of our gracious sovereign, are part and parcel of our national heritage.
(Text):
From the moment of the accession of our Queen to the throne she has displayed on all occasions those qualities which made her late father, King George YI, so universally loved and respected by his subjects throughout the empire and commonwealth. We have all admired her devotion to duty, her high ideals of family life, and her firm attachment to the finest traditions of the commonwealth over which she presides.
As head of the commonwealth Her Majesty symbolizes the principles of freedom, selfgovernment and mutual understanding which unite the members of the commonwealth and make the commonwealth itself a great force for peace in the world.
We on this side of the house are happy to join in the humble address conveying to Her Majesty the loyalty and love of this house and of all her Canadian subjects, their joy in welcoming the presence in Canada of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, and the profound gratitude of the nation to Her Majesty for graciously opening
Appointment of Chairman of Committees parliament and making of this day, as the motion itself states, an historic occasion for all Canadians.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I
suggest that in putting the motion we stand and sing.
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God Save the Queen.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) presented the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an order in council appointing the Hon. Donald Methuen Fleming, Minister of Finance, the Hon. Leon Balcer, Solicitor General, the Hon. George Clyde Nowlan, Minister of National Revenue and the Hon. Ellen Louks Fairclough, Secretary of State, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter 143 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, intituled: An act respecting the House of Commons.

John George Diefenbaker: That Henri Courtemanche, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Labelle, be appointed chairman of committees of the whole house.
He said: The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) served in the previous parliament and he is a member again of this parliament. He has unusual ability and capacity and I know that if appointed he will discharge the responsibilities of this office with honour to himself and to this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: That Arza Clair Casselman, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Grenville-Dundas, be appointed deputy chairman of committees of the whole house.
He said: The hon. member to whom I refer has been in the House of Commons continuously since 1925. He was first elected in the year 1921 and resigned at that time. He returned in 1925 and has been a member of the House of Commons since. I also hope that his nomination will receive the approval of the house.

Appointment of Committees Mr. A. C. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas):
Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am taken completely by surprise. I had not been officially informed of this. In the long time that I have been in the House of Commons I have learned to appreciate the responsibilities that accompany positions of this kind because for a period of 20 years I was the whip of the opposition. I would ask my leader if he would allow his motion to stand until such time as I can have an opportunity to look into it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at the
request of the hon. gentleman the motion will stand.
Motion stands.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a similar situation prevails today as prevailed in 1949 in the second session of parliament. In the second session of that year a portion of supply had been voted. When the new parliament began its sittings on September 15 in that year the Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, then prime minister, moved that the house resolve itself at its next sitting into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.
A similar situation prevails today because supply will run out at the end of this month. I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming):
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
This can be done only with consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: Again by unanimous consent I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming):
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, very often during sessions of parliament the members of this house are called upon to say words of commendation of hon. members who having served have passed on, and these occasions arising from time to time serve as unhappy reminders of the shortness of life. The election had been over only a few days when Dr. William Gourlay Blair passed away. He was born in Lanark county, Ontario, the county which he represented in the House of Commons, on January 13, 1890. He attended Perth collegiate and subsequently Queen's University, where he graduated as a medical doctor. He went overseas early in the first war and served as a captain in the Canadian Army Medical Corps. Following the war he maintained a continuing interest in the militia forces of the country and became a lieutenant colonel in the militia.
He was first elected to the House of Commons in the election of 1945 and re-elected in all subsequent elections. I think it will be generally agreed that he was hard working, capable and able and devoted himself both in the house and in committee with zeal and capacity. He was the spokesman of this party on the subject of health and welfare. He will be remembered, however, by members of all political parties for the infinite care that he took whenever any member of this house was stricken in any way with illness. He became, as it were, the unofficial medical officer of parliament, and he continued an interest in the afflicted member's condition throughout the period of the illness.
I think one of the most touching descriptions of him appeared in the Ottawa Journal a day or so after his passing. I think these words, if said of us, would constitute a magnificent epitaph:
Dr. Blair, that good and gentle man, carried to the House of Commons a spirit of tolerant understanding that made no political battle bitter or any disagreement harmful to friendship.
His memory will be revered. A great and truly magnanimous spirit has passed on. His death is a loss to parliament; it is a loss to the country and it is a loss to this party in which, had he lived a little longer, the opportunity for greater service would have been accorded to him. The house will join with me, I am sure, when I express the heartfelt sympathy of every one of us to the members of the family, to his widow and to his son and daughter. He served his generation well. His memory will be revered.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, all of us in
the house, the new members who did not know him as well as those of us who did, will share the feeling of sadness that at the very-opening of a new parliament we should be paying tribute to one of the members who enjoyed and deserved the respect of everyone in the previous parliaments in which he sat. I think it is one of the finest attributes of our parliamentary system that we can differ with one another about public questions and still retain respect, esteem and affection for one another as members of the human family.
In the case of Dr. Blair we know that he was one of those members who was deeply loyal to his own party, who worked hard in its interests but was never an extreme partisan, and I think we would all agree with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said about him. As a consequence we all know that he enjoyed in more than large measure the regard of his fellow members in all parties in this house.
On behalf of the official opposition I should like to extend to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues our sincere sympathy in the loss of one who would have contributed to their strength in this house had he been spared to continue his service among us. On behalf of our party I should like to join with the Prime Minister in expressing to Mrs. Blair, to their son and daughter, and to all the members of the family, our very deep sympathy in their bereavement.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that all members of the house will agree with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) have said regarding the late Dr. Blair. Those of us who sat in the house with him for some years look upon the loss as a personal one. When a member fell ill, Dr. Blair, like other medical men in this chamber, was immediately able to render assistance to the suffering member. Dr. Blair sat very close to me-just across the way; consequently I got to know him very well. Indeed, I might say that I had not only a high regard for him but I came to have affection for him, as many of us had. When he passed away so suddenly it was a reminder, of course, that even a medical man who attends members of parliament suffering from the diseases which ultimately take them away was perhaps unaware of the condition in which he himself was.
I wish to join the Leader of the Opposition in expressing to the government and the members of the late Dr. Blair's party our sincere sympathy in the loss that they have
The late Dr. W. G. Blair sustained. I noted the Prime Minister said that had Dr. Blair lived a little longer his great ability might have been recognized to a greater extent than it was hitherto. I noted, too, at the time that the shock must have been very great to his family. I noticed that his wife suffered an attack almost immediately. May I express sympathy to his wife and to his family and also the hope that Mrs. Blair has fully recovered her health and that time will heal the loss she must have sustained in the passing of Dr. Blair.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, it seems that all too frequently we are called upon to pause in our activities in this house to pay tribute to a deceased member. It seems to me it indicates the strenuous nature of the work that has to be undertaken by those who stand for election to this House of Commons.
It has been some months now since the shock of the news of Dr. Blair's death came to us, but I am sure it will be a long time before our deep appreciation of his many fine qualities is in any way dulled. Dr. Blair was one of those members about whom almost everything good could be said. It is therefore no problem whatever to pay tribute to him in the very highest terms and to do it honestly.
We concur in what has already been said about him. However, I would like to add this. In my judgment he was a good representative of his people; he was a good parliamentarian; he was a trusted and valued friend; and above all he was a gentleman who was always kind, considerate and very, very helpful. On behalf of the party that I have the privilege to lead I express to the Prime Minister and his party our sympathy in their great loss, and to his widow and the members of the family left behind our very sincere sympathy and our prayers that time will heal the shock and the wounds and will sublimate their sorrow into most beautiful memories.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I rise to pay tribute to an old friend, the late member for Lanark. I think I possibly knew him longer than did any other member in this house. We were in the same medical year at Queen's University; we graduated together, went overseas with the Canadian Army Medical Corps and returned and took postgraduate courses together in the city of New York. We were returned home from France within a day or two of each other and I met him at the demobilization centre in Kingston, Ontario. There I introduced him to one of the nursing sisters of the unit to which I was attached. She was that gracious lady, Miss Grace Moore, who became Mrs. Blair the

The late Dr. W. G. Blair following year. While in New York I noticed that he took a great interest in the two political parties in that city and I was not surprised that when he came back to Canada he entered politics.
He was a very hard working, sincere member and I am sure that he represented his constituents in the house with distinction. He was always interested in the health of the members of the house. One of the last conversations I had with him had to do with that very matter. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said today that he had intended to call Dr. Blair to a higher duty, I presume to the portfolio of minister of national health and welfare. Without detracting in any way from the present incumbent of that high
office, may I say that I regret that Dr. Blair was not spared to be called to take that portfolio.
I desire to join with the leader of the various parties in the house and express my condolences to Mrs. Blair and her family.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the debate in reply to the speech from the throne will be proceeded with tomorrow and will be restricted to the mover and seconder. By leave the house will then adjourn until Wednesday.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the house adjourned at 4.45 p.m.

Tuesday, October 15, 1957