1957-11-15

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the house to table copies of order in council P.C. 1957-1477 revoking section 161 of the regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Act regarding married women. Perhaps for the information of the house I might make a statement at this time.
I should like to announce that effective November 17 the unemployment insurance commission is revoking its regulation that imposed additional conditions for the receipt of unemployment insurance benefit on certain married women. In other words, as far as unemployment insurance is concerned married women in the labour force will now be on exactly the same footing as all other claimants in the labour force.
Perhaps I should take a minute or two in order to outline the events and reasonings that led to this decision, and I believe I can best begin by noting the special conditions to which married women have been subject.
In effect, the regulation required any woman who claimed benefit within two years after the date of her marriage to have 10 contribution weeks during that period; and further, if she was working at the time of her marriage the 10 contribution weeks had to be made after her first separation from that employment. This special condition purported to show that the claimant had not left the labour market as a consequence of getting married.
There were, of course, exceptions to this rule. The additional condition did not have to be fulfilled if her separation from employment was a consequence of her employer's policy against retaining married women; or if, for instance, she was laid off because of a shortage of work. But in spite of the exceptions quite a number of married women have been affected by this regulation ever since it came into being.
The married women's regulation was introduced in 1950, and it has had a stormy life in the seven years of its existence. As with everything that has overtones of discrimination, it has been a focal point for controversy, and that is perhaps one of the most cogent reasons for abandoning it.
At the time this regulation was introduced it was argued that a goodly number of newly married women, who had ceased to depend entirely on their own earnings, were nevertheless representing themselves as seeking work for the purpose of drawing benefit. I have always felt that this was a highly dangerous argument since it implied that one knew, without possibility of error, what was in another person's mind.
Again, it was suggested that married women were making far more claims in proportion to their numbers than were single women or men. This again was a dangerous argument, since it involved casting the shadow of suspicion on an entire class numbering in the hundreds of thousands because it was felt, although it could not be proved, that there was chicanery on the part of a few.
Since 1950 I know various hon. members have from time to time fulminated against the provisions of this regulation. Perhaps the most persistent and effective champion of the rights of married women in this regard is the Secretary of State, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). Again, throughout the recent election campaign the Conservative party promised that one of their first acts in office would be the revocation of this regulation.
I think there are two basic reasons why we rejected the arguments of those who were its proponents. First, there is an almost natural repugnance against anything that has the slightest shading of discrimination, even though the motives of those who favour it are of the highest. Second, and perhaps more important, I believe we sensed that those who favoured the married women's regulations were completely ignoring one inexorable fact. That fact was that the working wife or mother was not a temporary product of world war II but was in fact the indication of a new social trend. If married women in the labour force had only been a temporary phenomenon of the war years and the immediate post-war years, in all likelihood this particular problem would long ago have solved itself. But the married woman in the labour force has long since proved herself to be no temporary phenomenon.
From June 1951 to June 1957 the number of married women in the labour force increased from 303,000 to 543,000, a gain of 80 per cent. Some of this increase is due no doubt to older women returning to employment when their children have reached an age when they no longer require their
1172	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance mother's full time. It is, however, probably safe to assume that the increase is due in the main to the growing extent to which single women, upon becoming married, continue to work. This I think is the new social trend which I noted a few moments ago.
Because of the economic factors that have been at work during these past years more and more women have found it necessary to continue working after marriage in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Again, it is likely that many married women continue to work because they enjoy the stimulation of the many contacts afforded by a working day as opposed to the housewifely routine. It is a known fact that nowadays many women take a temporary leave of absence for the purpose of childbirth and resume their normal working routine as soon as satisfactory arrangements are made for the care of the child. This is a pattern that has now won wide acceptance both in industry and in the civil service. And, I might add, it is a pattern that strongly indicates that married women are in the labour force to stay, for as far into the future as one can look.
In view of the undoubted importance and permanence of married women as working women, there is no justification for retaining a regulation which implies that statements made by them as to availability and willingness to work are less reliable than similar statements made by other classes of insured persons. There is no justification for retaining a regulation that forces married women to be treated differently from other groups, such as persons who are on pension from their former employers and seasonal workers. Most of all there is no justification for retaining a regulation that discriminates against those married women who, although unable to meet the additional condition that applies to them, are genuinely in the labour market.
I believe that whatever good it may have done is far outweighed by this single effect it has had.
I should like to conclude by noting that each year some 12,000 married women will now be entitled to the protection of unemployment insurance benefit, protection that this regulation has prevented them from receiving. By that I mean 12,000 is the number of married women who were disqualified in the past year by regulation 161. Although this revocation is not retroactive, I would suggest that married women who have been disqualified under this regulation should get in touch with their national employment office to have their claims reviewed. In the event that the review of their claim indicates that the disqualification might be removed, we would wish to have no delay in the implementation of that removal.



CRIMINAL LAW


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table four copies in English and four in French of the report of the royal commission on the law of insanity as a defence in criminal cases.



CANADIAN VESSEL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 72 (from the Senate), to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Would the Prime Minister care to inform the house whether the Canadian government had any prior information about the intended delivery of arms by the United States and the United Kingdom to Tunisia?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, any information received does not go beyond the general information which has appeared in the press. I should not like to say anything further at this time, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will understand that nothing should be said or done now which might in any way aggravate the situation that now exists. I think the right hon. gentleman, with the experience that has been his over the years, will understand that I should not like to go any further at this time, or to add to the information that appears in the press, or say anything that might in any way result in the present situation not being resolved at the earliest possible date. When information is available that can be given to the house without having the potential danger to which I referred I will certainly give the house the fullest possible information.


Mr.   SI Laurenl@Quebec Easi: Then I am right, Mr. Speaker, in assuming from the Prime Minister's reply that there was no prior information of the intention to make these deliveries, and that the press has reported everything that is available? Of course

I was not asking the Prime Minister to comment upon the information that has been supplied through the press.


Mr. Sinclair:: The same as Suez; no information.


Mr. Coldwell:: Was there prior information given to Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: I would not like to say, Mr. Speaker-


James Sinclair: Why not?


John George Diefenbaker: -the extent to which Canada received information in anticipation of what actually took place at this time.


James Sinclair: That is no answer.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and I am sincerely seeking information. I trust that his answer will dispel the miasma of ignorance and discontent which exists on this subject at the present time. Will the minister inform the house of the government's policy with respect to emergency assistance to unemployed immigrants and the per diem allowance, provided for such immigrants, other than Hungarians?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy in informing me of his intention to ask this question. I cannot answer it except at some length. I have an answer here, and if it would meet the hon gentleman's wishes and the wish of the house I would be glad to table the answer and ask that it might be printed as a reply to the question just asked in the form of an appendix to Hansard of this date.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to accept the suggestion of the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For answer referred to above, see appendix, pages 1217-18.]



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry aware that the price of hogs to the producer has dropped about 11 cents per pound in the past 10 weeks, and will he take steps, if necessary by order in council, to raise the floor price on hogs immediately until such time as the price support legislation can be passed in this house?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisler of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not the figure of 11 cents a pound which was mentioned by the hon. member is correct. Certainly there has been a varying drop in different parts of the country, but in any event the hon. member is taking the amount of drop from the highest point hogs had reached during the past year or more-


George Hugh Castleden: Last autumn.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -to the present time. The matter of a drop in hog prices at this time of year, as the hon. member knows, is traditional and has been a part of the general pattern as far as hog marketings are concerned. This is a matter, of course, to which we are paying very considerable attention, and I trust that the drop in hog prices which has taken place thus far will not be continued.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question. Has the minister a statement to make in connection with the status of the Montreal-Kingston pilots?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add anything to what has already appeared in the papers. I said in a statement to the press that I had a meeting of some two hours with the pilots on Wednesday afternoon and discussed the matter very thoroughly. I had hoped that we had reached an agreement, and I was extremely disappointed to learn the following morning that we had not.


Hon. George C. Marler (Si. Anioine-Wesl-mouni):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. Newspapers reported the intention of the department to levy fines on pilots who ceased to carry out their duties. I believe there was also the threat that the pilotage district would be dissolved. Will the minister say whether that threatened action has been taken or is being contemplated?


George Harris Hees: I do not know of any such threat ever having been made by my department.
1174	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PIPE LINES



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    STATEMENT ON EXPLOSIONS IN SASKATCHEWAN AND MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, several hon. members have asked questions in regard to the result of the investigation into the breaks on the Trans-Canada pipe line, and I have now a report from the board of transport commissioners to the effect that:
All of the breaks experienced in our testing program so far have occurred because of a fatigue crack in the parent metal of the pipe, but we have not determined what causes this fatigue nor what limits it to a relatively short length, 2 inches to 18 inches, along the factory weld in the pipe. The pressure within the pipe finally overstresses the remaining metal and the rapid propagation of the pressure wave brought about by that failure results in a tearing and ripping action in the metal itself.
While there has been no determination as to the cause, the board of transport commissioners are advised that the Battelle Memorial Institute, an independent research laboratory, has been hired to make an investigation into the cause of the failure, and the board has not yet received from the company the results of its investigation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since the minister has indicated that a budget will not be brought down this session, will he give the house an assurance that his estimates will be brought in at an early date; and, second, will he give us the assurance that on the first item we shall have the widest possible scope for discussion of financial policy?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the statement which is the prelude to my hon. friend's two questions is not correct. I have made no such statement in this house this session. As to the first of his questions, the estimates of the Department of Finance will be brought before this house at whatever time they can be appropriately reached in the course of the discharge of the business of the session.
As to his second question, I am quite sure the chairman of the committee of supply will permit discussion on any matters that are pertinent to the first item in the estimates of the department.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, just a supplementary question to the first part. I said: Since the minister has indicated that a budget will not be brought down this session.
[Mr. Hees.l

That was the impression that was left with us. Will the minister say now whether or not a budget will be brought down?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I have said I think on two or three occasions this session; that whatever is required under the rules and practice of the house to permit the introduction and dispatch of whatever financial proposals the government chooses to lay before this session of the house will certainly be done.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May
I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is his intention to refer departmental estimates in toto, or in part, to an estimates committee of this house, in accordance with his own and his colleagues' very strong opinions expressed in the previous session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, no estimates committee has yet been set up, and whether that will be an appropriate way of dealing with the estimates of any department I do not think anyone can yet say. So far as an estimates committee is concerned, what has been said by myself and others on that subject in times past did not apply to the Department of Finance any more than to any other department. It was said by way of observation as to a method of dealing with the estimates of all departments, some at each session.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Perhaps my question should be redirected to the house leader. Can the house leader inform us if an estimates committee is going to be appointed this session?
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works):	Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not
in a position to make a statement on that at the moment, but I would point this out to the hon. member. We are dealing with estimates which were brought down last spring and considered in part at that time, and there will be new estimates brought in shortly after the new year for the ensuing fiscal year.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Is that a promise?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Is there going to be a new session?


Mr. Green:: If members of the house have any desire to finish the business before Christmas it might be very difficult to fit in the work of an estimates committee. [Later:!


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the house leader. Since he has expressed some doubts as to the feasibility of establishing an estimates committee this session, can he

tell the house now whether or not the government has the intention of setting up a special committee to consider the estimates of the Department of National Defence?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a statement on that point, although in that case again the remarks I made a few minutes ago would be applicable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Did I understand the house leader correctly when I thought he said a moment ago that new estimates would be brought in early in the new year?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I meant to say, whether I did or not, that with the commencement of the next session the estimates for 1958-59 would be brought down. Of course it is desirable to get the 1957-58 estimates out of the way in the meantime.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the house leader. Is it no longer the opinion of the members who are now members of the government that the efficient and expeditious consideration of the estimates would be facilitated by referring some of them to the estimates committee. I would further like to ask if it is the intention of the government to refer the Department of External Affairs estimates to the external affairs committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we cannot get into estimates at all until next week, and then there are only four weeks after that before Christmas, my personal opinion is that it would delay matters if estimates were referred to an estimates committee. Also there would not be an opportunity to give them careful consideration. There might be some advantage to the government in doing so, in that these are largely the estimates of the former government, and I am rather surprised that the hon. member is asking that we refer these estimates to the committees.


Walter Adam Tucker: There is nothing wrong with them.


Howard Charles Green: With regard to the second part of the question, it is hoped with respect to external affairs estimates that we can arrange for a day fairly soon on which to debate external affairs and then, at the end of the day, refer those particular estimates to the external affairs committee for consideration.



INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUATION OF PRESENT SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the house leader. In view of his repeated statements this morning about the shortness of
Inquiries of the Ministry the period between now and the Christmas recess, can he inform the house what obstacle there is in the way of this session of parliament being continued after the new year?


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member knows, this session was called to deal with certain legislation which was considered to be very urgent, and to dispose of the estimates of the current fiscal year. We now have only a little over four months remaining-


Some hon. Members:: Four weeks.


Howard Charles Green: -four months remaining in the current fiscal year, and it was never the intention to have a regular session which, as hon. members know, lasts from five to six months. The work of the regular session will have to be done next year. After all, we spent quite a few months here this last spring working on the governmental business of 1957, and I am sure the hon. member who is asking the question would not expect any government to go ahead and try to conduct a full session at the present time under these circumstances.



INQUIRY AS TO PROCEDURE RESPECTING DIVORCE BILLS

[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 leader of the house. In view of the references which have been made to the possible length of this session, whether it is to be short or long, and in view of the government's interest in maintaining the dignity and effectiveness of parliament, may I ask if the government has any ideas as to what is to be done this session regarding the many divorce bills which are before parliament?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I fancy that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a far better idea than I have about what is going to be done about divorce bills this session. I doubt very much whether it will be possible for the government to work out a solution to this problem in the next four weeks.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he not feel, as the leader of the new government, that it is extremely important that at the first session of the

Inquiries of the Ministry house under that new government the nation be given a clear exposition of the financial position and the state of the nation through the customary budget debate?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the solicitude of my hon. friend. The answer to the question of whether or not there will be a budget has been given by the Minister of Finance.


James Sinclair: What answer?


Mr. Mcllraith:: He did not deal with the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I seem to remember that over and over again in days past, when the question was asked if and when a budget would be brought down, the answer invariably was that the house would be notified in due course. I am not forgetful either of the fact that-I forget the years-there have been two occasions in any event in recent years when there was no budget. At that time my hon. friend was a member of the house, and I heard no objection raised by him.


James Sinclair: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the vast experience the Prime Minister has in these matters, can he ever recall in Canadian history when a new government facing a new parliament did not bring down a budget during the first session?


John George Diefenbaker: I have already referred to the fact that there have been cases in which there has not been a budget, and I suggest that my hon. friend would have the answer to his own question by a simple perusal of Hansard.


James Sinclair: Perhaps the Prime Minister did not understand my question, so I will repeat it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that spokesmen on both sides have understood what the other has said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: -and that the matter is now developing into a debate. If the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has a supplementary question which is not a statement of opinion and does not continue a debate, I will permit it.


James Sinclair: Sir, it was not a supplementary question. The fact is-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was a speech.


James Sinclair: -that the Prime Minister obviously misunderstood my question. Perhaps I phrased it wrongly. I asked whether he could ever remember a case where a new

government at the first session of a new parliament did not present a budget.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall that at the session in the fall of 1930, which was called as an emergency session, there was no budget, and that the government had just come into power. I should add that I do appreciate the interest of my hon. friends in the preservation of parliamentary government, for I also seem to remember that in 1948 they introduced taxation by radio.


James Sinclair: Do I understand now that the Prime Minister is, as usual, using the example of R. B. Bennett in the conduct of public affairs?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister a
supplementary question. From what the Prime Minister has now said, referring to past history, are we to infer that there will not be a budget at this session, contrary to the indication given to the press by the Minister of Finance in July that there would be one?


An hon. Member:: In June.


James Sinclair: June 25.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
June or July.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is
to be no inference whatsoever taken from anything I have said. As far as the alleged representation made by the Minister of Finance is concerned, my recollection in that regard is that the Minister of Finance has already stated in this house that the statement in question had not been made by him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement in his speech in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne respecting the plight of retail merchants, would the minister indicate whether it is the intention of the government to bring in legislation this session to make it possible for small retailers to receive financial assistance, as recently requested by the retail merchants of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that I did not hear the first part of the hon. member's question. Would he mind repeating it?


Frederick George Hahn: In view of the statement in
his speech in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne respecting the plight of retail merchants, would the minister indicate whether it is the intention of the government to bring in legislation this session to make it possible for small retailers to receive financial assistance, as recently requested by the retail merchants of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any suggestion to indicate that any legislation would be introduced at this session. As a matter of fact, if we do not make faster progress with the business that is already waiting to be dispatched at this session I do not know how far we shall be able to go.


James Sinclair: If the minister would give
shorter answers it would be easier.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) has a great time these days larding up the record with his interjections, and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) does the same thing. I have been sorry many times that I have not heard their interjections as I went along. I found them on the record afterward-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and they were very senseless interjections.


James Sinclair: Hold your temper.


Mr. Gaulhier (Porlneuf):: Nobody wants it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Because the Minister
of Finance considers the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to be out of order, that does not give him the right to continue out of order. The Minister of Finance has risen to answer a question, not to raise a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. In the course of answering that question may I point out that I was as usual interrupted by the loquacious hon. member for Coast-Capilano.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But he is not one whom you can expect to observe restraint, or the rules either.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who is answering the
question?


James Sinclair: No one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There appear to be at least 20 to 25 hon. members opposite who consider that they are in each case the minister of finance and are called upon to answer questions put to the Minister of Finance.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: We would not like to be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps my hon. friend will not need to worry about having to make a choice on the subject.


James Sinclair: Don't turn your back to the Speaker. Address the Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There still seem to be a great many ministers of finance in the chamber, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to hon. members that if they continue to interrupt I shall consider it sufficient provocation to allow the minister to comment on the remarks made. But I would ask him if he would go ahead with his answer, and I would ask hon. members if they would allow him to answer the question.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. As a matter of fact I think the house is being treated with contempt by the government. This morning we have had three examples of perfectly legitimate and proper questions which have been evaded. I think that we are entitled to answers to those questions. I rise to protest at these infractions of the rights and privileges of this parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then may I suggest to my hon. friend that he address his admonition to hon. gentlemen opposite, who are loudly interrupting and trying to shout down ministers who are endeavouring to answer questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the question of privilege was addressed to the chair.


James Sinclair: And not to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that my understanding of the rules and practices relating to oral questions before the orders of the day are called is that no member is entitled to insist on an answer. It is quite within the practice and the rights of whoever is asked a question to take it as notice or to refuse to answer. I therefore cannot entertain as a matter of privilege the objection that has been raised, because I do not think it offends the privileges of the house. It is not that sort of matter. I would ask the Minister of Finance if he would answer the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying to the hon. member, we have received representations from various organizations on this subject. Some of the requests would involve legislation if they were to be acceded
1178	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to and others would not. I have already indicated that these various representations are under consideration. Whatever action is taken on them will depend upon various factors. I cannot give a categorical answer to the hon. gentleman at this time as to what may be the outcome of these presentations, or what legislation might be involved if effect were given to them.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on October 30 the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) asked me the following question:
Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statement of Mr. A. Beasley, chief of the View Royal fire brigade, appearing in the Victoria Daily Colonist of October 23 in connection with the recent fire on the Songhees reserve which cost the lives of two Indian children, in which Mr. Beasley stated that the Indian affairs branch carries out no inspection of chimneys and other fire hazards on the reserve and that the Indian agent at Duncan had failed to reply to four letters written by Mr. Beasley in regard to fire protection on the reserve?
If so, can the minister inform the house as to the correctness of Mr. Beasley's assertion that no inspection is carried out, and can he tell the house whether his department is considering entering into agreements with municipalities contiguous to Indian reserves to ensure fire protection on the reserves?
I want to apologize to the hon. member for the length of time which has elapsed between his question and my reply, but I wanted to get the facts absolutely correctly. I have now received a report from the superintendent of the Cowichan Indian agency in which the Songhees reserve is located, and in which he advises that the fire occurred in a large old building occupied by Mrs. Thomas George at 1441 Craig-flower road. Mrs. George was caring for six grandchildren. It is thought that fire started in the stovepipe connecting a cook stove and the chimney. The outbreak was seen by passers-by on the well-travelled highway which passes the house, and four children were brought out of the house with the grandmother. Unfortunately two could not be found in the smoke, and were burned to death. The report continues that the superintendent of the agency went to Victoria immediately and helped the chief make arrangements for rehabilitation of the family, and he wishes to go on record as saying that the chief and council did an excellent job of


organizing, and the generosity of friends and neighbours, both Indian and white, was overwhelming.
Now with regard to the allegations in the newspapers, in the Victoria Times on Wednesday evening, October 23, there was a leading article which stated in part as follows:
Chief Beasley criticized the department of Indian affairs for not sending agents to inspect chimneys in the Songhees Indian reserve.
Although not responsible for the area the brigade answered the alarm as a courtesy, he said.
Recently he wrote four letters to the Indian agent at Duncan complaining about the lack of fire inspection.
Chief Beasley claimed he didn't even have the courtesy to reply.
The agency superintendent reports that he interviewed Mr. Beasley that same evening, asking him to produce copies of the letters he alleged had been sent. Chief Beasley claimed that the reporter had made a mistake and denied that he had ever sent as many as four letters, but he maintained that about seven months ago he had written a letter to that office.
The superintendent advises further that on his return to the agency next day he made a careful search of their filing system but could find no trace of any letter from Mr. Beasley, nor could any member of his staff recollect having seen such a letter.
The superintendent has since written to Mr. Beasley asking him for a copy of this letter in order that he might know exactly what was proposed. The superintendent adds that, during the conversation referred to, he asked Mr. Beasley if his fire department would be interested in negotiating an agreement to provide fire protection to the Songhees and Esquimalt reserves, such as are in existence with other fire departments in that agency. Chief Beasley said he would take it up with the officers of the View Royal fire department and let the superintendent know. This conversation has been confirmed in writing by the superintendent, but as at the date of his report he had received no reply.
In answer to the other part of the question with regard to this matter, since 1955 it has been and still is the policy of the department to negotiate, wherever possible, agreements with municipalities for the extension of fire protection to reserves adjacent to municipalities. It appears that no such agreement has been negotiated for this particular reserve, but that matter is under negotiation at the present time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIVES OF MUNICIPALITIES TO ATTEND FORTHCOMING MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I regret that I did not have an opportunity to send him notice of the question.
In view of the strong recommendations made yesterday in the admirable speech of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lambert) for representatives of municipalities to be made an integral part of the conference between the dominion and the provinces, is it the position of the government that at next week's meeting between the dominion and the provinces representatives of the municipalities will be invited to participate?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated on previous occasions, the stand taken by the government in so far as the conference which is to take place next week is concerned is that, as the municipalities are the creation of the provinces, any representation by municipalities will be determined by the respective provinces. There has been no change in attitude in that regard.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the prohibition contained in section 15(2) of the Aeronautics Act against any surface carrier being granted a licence to operate a commercial air service unless it has the approval of the governor in council, how is it possible for Canadian Pacific Airlines to make its application for a licence to fly the Montreal-Vancouver route without prior approval of the government?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in that before a licence can be granted it must receive the approval of the governor in council, but that approval is granted after the application has first been heard before the air transport board. If it is approved by the air transport board it is then submitted to the governor in council for approval.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, then may I ask if this is the course which was followed with respect to previous applications by Canadian Pacific Airlines
Inquiries of the Ministry before the air transport board? Is it not only fair and proper to a company which goes to the expense of making such an application, and is it not fair to the country which is also put to expense, to know in advance whether it is government policy to approve such a licence?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member yesterday, in my opinion

and I believe it is the opinion of the government and I think it would be the opinion of the hon. members of this house-it would be completely wrong if the government expressed its views in favour of or against a certain application before it had gone before the air transport board for consideration.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Boucher (Chaieauguay-Huniing-don-Laprairie):: May I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a telegram from the Laprairie chamber of commerce protesting the proposed increase in tolls by the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridge authorities, and if so what will be the government's policy on this matter?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have received such a telegram, and at the present time the question of tolls on these bridges is still under consideration. I am not aware of any proposed increases in these tolls.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS TO WESTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister arising out of a telegram I received this morning. Has the Prime Minister received any request from western farm organizations or wheat pools asking the government to give serious consideration to the making of deficiency payments to western farmers because of the present price of wheat?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection that anything of that nature was received this morning. However, I will look into the matter and see whether any message of that kind did come in. I have no information on it.
1180	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



BRANTFORD, ONT.-STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF DISMISSED EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked me a question concerning Charles Kratzmeir, who had formerly been an employee of the public works department in Brantford, and a day or two later the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, asked a further question.
I have now had an investigation made, and the facts are these. A few days before the election of June 10 two men, Charles Kratzmeir and Ambrose Truman, were hired by the Department of Public Works purely on a party basis and neglecting any question of veterans preference. On election day they took part in the election in support of the former government. Subsequently it was found that Ambrose Truman had served in the merchant navy, although this fact was not brought out at the time he was hired. Mr. Kratzmeir had no war service. Mr. Truman has been continued in his employment and is on the job at the present time. I do not think he lost any time, actually. Mr. Kratzmeir has been replaced by a veteran, who was employed through the national employment service.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Public Works a supplementary question. Am I correct in saying that the request made by the labour organization in Brantford with regard to one of these men has not been accepted by the minister or the government?


Howard Charles Green: No request was made to me by any labour organization, but the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did mention it when he asked the question. In view of the facts I have stated this man is not being reinstated in employment.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: A further supplementary question. May I ask the minister who recommended the dismissal?


Howard Charles Green: For one thing, the whole story has been in the press. I understand a great deal of this commotion originated with the Liberal association in Brantford. When an investigation was made the facts were ascertained as I have outlined them, and as minister I am accepting full responsibility for the action which was taken.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Is it not a fact that the hon. member for Brantford, sitting behind the minister, is the one who recommended the dismissal?


Howard Charles Green: I received representations from several people in Brantford.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Can the minister say who made the representations?


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member for Essex East really wants me to go into this question of patronage on my estimates I will be delighted to do so, but I would be very much surprised if he stays in the house to take his medicine.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, what the minister has just said is surely contrary to the rules of this house. I will tell him-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I agree with the hon. member for Essex East that what the Minister of Public Works said was contrary to the rules of this house, and I trust the hon. member for Essex East will let the matter drop there and not continue it.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I should be very glad to, Mr. Speaker, but in view of your ruling, for which I am grateful, I would request you to ask the Minister of Public Works to withdraw his rather cheap observation.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to withdraw.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works, and before I ask the question I wish to say that I agree with the general position taken by the government. In the light of information received recently which would indicate that veterans preference has not, in some instances, been observed, do I understand from the minister's remarks that veterans preference is still being maintained?


Howard Charles Green: We try to do our very best to observe the veterans preference at all times.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will the minister please look into the matter of delays occasioned to vessels loading coal at North Sydney for Newfoundland, and see if these loadings can be expedited?


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the speech he made at the FAO meeting in Rome has been made available to hon. members and, if not, whether he would consider tabling it as a sessional paper. I think it would be interesting for us to be able to read the speech and see what stand was taken by the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to table a copy of the speech made on that occasion, but unfortunately I have not a copy with me; I did not bring one from Rome. We would have to send over there for it, but if I am able to get a copy I will be glad to table it.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 14, 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.
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, if there is to be any budget, which of course I doubt very much, and if there is to be any decrease in taxes, I hope that with regard to income tax the government will respect the family organization of agriculture in the province of Quebec, and will not impose unwonted charges on a system of agriculture which has been the strength of our nation.
I hope the basic exemptions with regard to income tax will be increased from $1,000 to $1,500 for single persons and from $2,000 to $3,000 for married taxpayers, in line with the wish I have expressed more than once on the floor of the house and also in line with promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Let us hope, too, that the Unemployment Insurance Act will be amended to take into account agricultural problems and, more particularly, to cover agricultural workers. I also hope the qualifying period for unemployment insurance will be reduced.
I take advantage of this opportunity to protest against the new trade policy of the government. The London government knows full well that Canada is incapable of allowing British industry free access to our markets. This would spell the doom of our woollen and
The Address-Mr. LaCroix cotton mills, of our factories producing shoes, gloves, slippers and other goods, which provide employment to several hundred thousand workers in Canada, several hundred of whom are in my own constituency. At the present time these industries survive only because of the protection afforded by customs tariffs. Free trade, preferential tariffs or anything of the sort would certainly bring about their disappearance. Everyone knows that the cost price of anything made in England is lower than that of goods manufactured in this country, where salaries are higher.
The attitude adopted by the Conservative government since it has come into power with regard to our trade relations with Great Britain has caused unemployment in almost every branch of industry and commerce in this country. At the present time there is unemployment on a scale unknown since the days of the Bennett administration. Mr. Bennett had already tried his economic policies with England, and the only thing they brought our country was a period of intense unemployment and, to Mr. Bennett, a seat in the British House of Lords where he spent the rest of his life. Unless we maintain the Liberal policy of protecting our industries against depreciated currency and low salary countries our Canadian industries will be wiped out and foreign investments in this country will diminish. The best means to increase our exports to the United States is to insist upon the processing of our natural resources here in Canada, as we have already done in the case of pulpwood and as we should do also in the case of iron ore, processing the latter into steel by means of smelters built in Canada. That would facilitate shipping through the St. Lawrence seaway and reduce our trade deficit with the United States.
Representatives of several manufacturing concerns in several industrial sectors have already stated categorically that to accept the British proposal or something similar would be deliberately courting disaster. It would mean the shutting down of several factories and the laying off of many thousands of Canadian workers at a time when owing to a recession in a certain sphere of our economy and to wide scale immigration, unemployment is on the increase. As a result of the high salaries and the standard of living prevailing in this country, in many fields we cannot compete with British industry and the industries of many commonwealth countries. This new trend which is apparently taking place in the trade policy of Canada will likely cause another period of uncertainty in financial circles, which will then hesitate to make further industrial investments as long as the future trends of our trade policy are not definitely set out.

The Address-Mr. LaCroix The Prime Minister, who before the election of last June 10 blamed the Liberal government for not standing by England's side in her declaration of war on Egypt, notwithstanding the fact that Great Britain had not consulted Canada, went through his whole electoral campaign stirring up the fanatical feelings of certain imperialists in Canada on this subject. However, the day after the election he did not hesitate to put under the direction of an American the whole of our air defence thus sacrificing our independence; and he did so after a conference with the United States Secretary of State, at which he had meant to speak firmly to the Americans. The only result so far discernible by Canadians is that the Prime Minister of their country has beaten a hasty retreat.
Since the last British garrison left our shores, about a century ago, we have assumed full authority over our armed forces. By this fact Canada has been able at least to direct its own international policy, of which military establishments are but an expression. It is owing to this Canadian independence in military matters that the hon. member for Prince Albert, acting as leader of the opposition, could blame the Canadian government last year for following the policy of the United States in the Suez incident instead of pursuing a policy which should have been, in his opinion, an endorsement of the British operation. That, however, would not only have brought us automatically in the war beside England, but would have unmistakably brought on a third world war, which fortunately we were spared thanks to the firm attitude of Canada's former secretary of state for external affairs, the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), whose gallant efforts in that field have just earned him the award of the Nobel prize for peace, a unique honour since he is the first Canadian to receive this prize for his contribution to world peace. How will Canada be in a position to pursue its own foreign policy if national defence passes to United States command?
I wish to draw another matter to the attention of the government. Here are the comments made by L' Action Catholique on Tuesday, September 10, 1957, after Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent had announced his decision to relinquish the Liberal party leadership:
History will recognize that the Hon. Mr. St. Laurent was a great prime minister. At all times, he has enjoyed the respect and consideration of all Canadians. He had political opponents taut no enemy.
Notwithstanding certain attitudes which they would have liked to be different, French Canadians will admit that, under the administration of the Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, the cause of bilingualism in Canada and of our representation in the civil service has improved. His views and actions in

such matters have placed his successors in a position from which they cannot back out with impunity.
Has our racial group lost ground since June 10 last as far as its representation and influence are concerned? The following is what I read on that subject in Le Soleil of Friday, August 9, 1957:
It will be the first time in a very long time that the French element is reduced to such a minor role in the administration of our country, which is bad from the simple electoral point of view for the party in power and particularly for Canadian politics.
With two ministers confined to minor assignments the voice of French Canada will hardly be heard. Such a situation is a matter of concern not only for the province of Quebec but for all political observers who have the future of our country at heart. Looking back on history, Mr. Bruce Hutchison, in a recent issue of the Financial Post, said that the first condition of success for a Canadian government was to rely on the support of French and English Canada.
As for the criticisms levelled at the government on that score, the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) said in Montreal that the province of Quebec must elect more Conservative members if it wants more representatives in the Progressive Conservative government. He also emphasized the fact that his leader had chosen three ministers among the eight Conservative members elected in Quebec. He even felt it necessary to add that those three ministers hold very important posts.
The Prime Minister was in the position of a lawyer who must rely on doubtful arguments to defend a very bad case. British Columbia has three representatives in the cabinet, including the Minister of Justice, (Mr. Fulton), and these three departments are still more important than the three assigned to Quebec representatives. Yet British Columbia elected but seven Conservative members, and its population is but one-third of Quebec's population.
It is possible, without violating parliamentary tradition, to choose ministers outside the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, did not hesitate to call on Mr. Sidney Smith of the University of Toronto to make him his Secretary of State for External Affairs. French Canadians, on the other hand, must be satisfied with two ministers, since the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton), the third Quebec minister, represents the Anglo-protestant minority, and those two representatives must accept the two least important portfolios of the whole federal administration.
The appointment of the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave the province of Ontario a seventh representative in the cabinet. However, in a speech delivered on television some time after the election the

Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) told us that the eight elected Conservative members in Quebec were all qualified for ministerial positions, a statement confirmed recently by the Prime Minister in a television broadcast. The Prime Minister argued that we are living in a bilingual country. I can tell him, in this respect, that it is not enough to come to the province of Quebec and read a few words, with the help of a Mona Lisa smile, to convince my fellow citizens of his sincerity, but it is necessary to translate those ideas into facts.


Mr. Balcer:: That is not cheap?


Wilfrid Lacroix: Otherwise the voters of
Quebec might take the liberty in 1958 to show the Prime Minister, who calls the tune and attempts to follow the devious and brutal policy of give and take, that Quebec is more than an ordinary province. This it will do by making him feel deeply sorry for playing this little game of hide and seek, even if he keeps playing it until the very eve of the next election.
I would like to avail myself of the opportunity offered by this debate, Mr. Speaker, to ask the government, as I have done on previous occasions for at least 20 years, for a distinctive Canadian flag. There is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that the government will agree to solve this Canadian flag problem which has been plaguing us ever since confederation and which, as long as it remains unsolved, will maintain our country in a ridiculous position in the eyes of the world. Yet a solution would be welcome, the matter being more than ever topical.
The time seems ripe for action, Mr. Speaker. Our fellow citizens throughout the country appear ready to make certain concessions. The Toronto Star cited a few interesting facts in this connection the other day. For example, the Toronto junior chamber of commerce adopted a resolution indicating in no uncertain terms its wish for the adoption of a national flag containing neither the fleur-de-lis nor the union jack. For a protestant and English-speaking group to have adopted such a resolution without this giving rise to acrimonious debate among its members is certainly proof that the fanaticism of certain people is on the wane. The Toronto Star also indicates that a similar resolution has been adopted by the Toronto section of the native sons of Canada.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I have prepared an amendment which in every shape and form I would consider to be not a nonconfidence motion.
The Address-Mr. LaCroix
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot), that the following be added to the address:
We respectfully urge, however, that Canada should have a distinctive national flag and, in the opinion of this house, Your Most Gracious Majesty's advisers should consider at once the advisability of taking steps to give to this country a truly Canadian flag.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it proper for a motion to be seconded by a member who is not in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there a seconder to this motion?


Wilfrid Lacroix: It has been indicated that the seconder is not in the house. To meet the point of order raised by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) will second it.


Mr. Speaker:: A seconder is necessary before a motion is properly before the house.


Wilfrid Lacroix: A seconder is indicated. The seconder is the hon. member for Beauce.
(Translation):


Mr. Benoit Chabot (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, it- is with a pleasure not unmixed with emotion, that I now rise to speak on behalf of the constituency of Kamouraska-


Mr. Bonnier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
(Text) :


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member yield the floor to the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Bonnier), who is rising on a question of privilege?
(Translation):


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: Mr. Speaker, when the question was put yesterday evening, the C.C.F. amendment was ready in English only. In view of my very limited knowledge of English, I would have liked to know exactly on what matter the vote was called. Luckily for me, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) rose ahead of me, and I followed his example. However, there will be circumstances when the former prime minister will not be here and I would then be among the first to vote on motions which have not been read in my native tongue and which I would not have understood. I do not see why this should be. A man should always know why he votes, just as he should never sign any document without knowing exactly what he is putting his name to.
When the vote was called last evening, I heard several members who I thought were newcomers unfamiliar with the standing orders, shouting "Question! question!"


The Address-Mr. Chahot Among those voices, I heard that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) repeating "Question! question!" The hon. minister must have been aware that the amendment is normally read in both English and French and he should have studied French a little longer. It would not have done him any harm.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! I wish to
point out to the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Bonnier) that it has been the practice in the house to use both languages. However, a member who speaks English exclusively cannot be required to speak French no more than a member who speaks French only can be required to speak English.
It might be preferable that a motion be read in both languages when it is put to a vote, but as there are many experienced members among the Liberal party, I am convinced that the hon. member knew that the C.C.F. party had moved an amendment and that, according to our standing orders, the house had to deal with it last night.
On the other hand, a member is always within his rights if he requests that the motion or amendment be read in his native tongue.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission, I would like to repeat in French the amendment submitted by me to the house when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry that I did not understand the hon. member. Would he please repeat what he has just said?


Wilfrid Lacroix: I would now like to read in French the amendment which I forwarded to the Speaker while he was in the chair, and which was written in English.
We respectfully urge, however, that Canada should have a distinctive national flag and, in the opinion of this house Your Most Gracious Majesty's advisers should consider at once the advisability of taking steps to give to this country a truly Canadian flag.


Benoît Chabot: Mr. Speaker, it is with a pleasure not unmixed with emotion that I now rise to speak on behalf of the constituency of Kamouraska. The atmosphere of dignity which befits this house never fails to impress a new member, but the sympathetic welcome of the hon. members, regardless of the party they belong to, is comforting to the newly elected.
As an independent member, allow me to say that the recent visit of our gracious Queen Elizabeth II and of her husband, Prince Philip, greatly warmed the hearts of Canadians, strengthened our convictions and

stimulated our efforts to safeguard the prerogatives and rights of each ethnical group in our beautiful country, in a spirit of frank co-operation and sincere understanding. (Text):
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada on his wonderful success in his victory of June 10. This victory was the result of tenacity and his hard-working spirit. I sincerely hope the whole of Canada will appreciate having him as their Prime Minister, and that his administration will contribute to a better Canada.
I should also like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his choice for the position of Speaker in this new parliament, as well as for his nomination of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) as Deputy Speaker. As we know, their duties are of great importance, but due to the fact that these hon. members are competent we are sure they will fulfil those important duties with great diligence, as their undeniably good record will reveal.
As an independent member of the house, I assure the Prime Minister that it will be a pleasure as well as a duty for me to support his government as much as possible and as long as his government presents measures which will contribute to bring peace and happiness in the homes of the Canadian people, and as long as they do not come into conflict with the sacred rights of my province and with the interests of my constituents.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and pleasure that I say to this house that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) will go down in history as one of the greatest figures of any country. In my estimation, he is the very personification of frankness and sincerity. Everything about him bespeaks dignity. Through the prestige of his personality, no one will have contributed more to the great cause of national unity. On behalf of my electors, I congratulate him and I thank him.
May I, Mr. Speaker, commend the member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) who has so eloquently moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He shows promise of becoming one of the best speakers in the house. I also congratulate the seconder of the address, my hon. friend from Bona-venture (Mr. Arsenault). His electors will be proud of him and will be glad to be so worthily represented.
Mr. Speaker, several of the bills mentioned in the speech from the throne are bound to improve the lot of many Canadians, and I am glad this is so. However, allow me to endorse the views expressed by my colleagues

who spoke before me about the unstable situation of our agriculture in general. I think the government should give very special consideration to this matter and especially to family farming. The recession of farming across the country in general, is even more deplorable in my constituency, the county of Kamouraska.
Being mostly agricultural, this area is even more threatened than elsewhere. First, in so far as climate is concerned, there are barely five months of summer, and because winter lasts seven months or more, there is a sharp increase in production costs.
The farmers in my constituency live far from the great markets, pay high prices for the transport of their products and cannot afford hired help. Even their sons have to take outside jobs to earn money to pay for clothes, amusements and, of course, education. A supreme effort is urgently needed on the part of the government to establish as soon as possible, on a logical and reasonable basis, a price support on potatoes, and to adjust prices of butter and hogs, to mention Quebec products only.
I hope therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of Quebec and the lower St. Lawrence will fare better under the new Conservative government. This is what everyone everywhere, from coast to coast, has been hoping since June 10. While Canada is a rich country, in her soil and sub-soil, to the point of arousing the envy of foreign interests, while it is a country that is still young and in full development, I would ask every member in this house why 80 per cent of our Canadian families are unable to secure the goods needed in these times and to provide the necessary education for their many children without going into the red and endangering their economic and family security?
The house spends a goodly part of its time considering representations of all kinds, from every part of the country and from every class of citizens, while the whole world is extolling Canada's wealth. Is it not paradoxical, Mr. Speaker? Where does the trouble lie? Does anyone know? If so, is there any possibility of any real and sincere attempt to correct it?
Fifty years ago, there was a production problem, which was solved by technology and mechanization. Today, the problem is one of distribution and marketing of the goods produced. The new social measures enacted by the government will alleviate to some degree the serious consequences of
The Address-Mr. Chabot the present problem, but I am afraid that nothing is going to be done about its basic cause. Governments will increasingly have to face a people suffering from philosophical and spiritual depression as well as from mechanical and materialistic hysteria.
For those two reasons, people will not restrain their greed in the face of so many products of science and progress, which means that the task of our present and future leaders will be extremely difficult. Social security legislation will become more and more necessary to offset less and less adequate wages.
By the force of circumstance, governments are more and more pressed to resort to compensatory legislation, but, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am afraid of the effects of paternalistic government side by side with anonymous private enterprise whose ultimate aim is profit. Because technical progress is more rapid than philosophical and educational advance, it creates a dangerous chaotic state in which governments have to be extremely cautious.
The chaos created by an industry progressing at 100 miles an hour, beside an agriculture which is still going at a leisurely 20 miles, will force governments to legislate so as to balance this disproportion. I welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne of legislation tending to improve such conditions.
This gap is even more deplorable in the eastern part of Quebec, because families there mainly depend for their living on agriculture and the lumber industry. Seventy to seventy-five per cent of our young people are leaving the land to go to the city for lack of industrial jobs.
This exodus is a social evil which should be stopped at all costs by stimulating smaller industries and by promoting the development of untapped natural resources. For instance, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the government's attention to the airport now being built in my county, near Notre Dame du Portage. The hopes of the people and local chambers of commerce in the counties of Kamouraska and Temiscouata are centred on this airport. This landing field is being built with funds voted by the last government and I hope that the present government will pass further legislation to facilitate an early completion of this project. In order to prove its usefulness and significance, I shall quote the words spoken by the hon. Leader of the Opposition at a meeting in St. Pascal during the last election campaign.

The Address-Mr. Chahot
I quote:
Stating he was very optimistic about the outcome of the current campaign, Mr. St. Laurent then referred to the construction work which is about to start on the future municipal airport. After describing this project as a substantial and justified improvement for Riviere du Loup, in the field of communications, the prime minister suggested that the Trans-Canada Airlines might include Riviere du Loup as a stopping point of one of its domestic air routes. Adding that our local airport might eventually be used by chartered aircraft, Mr. St. Laurent also revealed the existence of a project to operate a helicopter service between Riviere du Loup and Manoir Richelieu for the speedy transport of travellers and tourists.
The use of this airport would greatly help the economic development of our district, as stated by the former Prime Minister himself.
There has been for some time a great deal of talk about winter shipping on the St. Lawrence, from the gulf to Quebec. This project would help relieve winter unemployment and promote the completion of a dyke in deep water in the county of my hon. friend the member for Temiscouata (Mr. J. P. St. Laurent), at Cacouna. Soundings with regard to this project have been undertaken by experts and it has been found that, because of the action of certain sea currents, the river at this point is, from natural causes, almost always free from ice. The building of the Notre Dame du Portage airfield and of this dyke in deep waters with the help of the government would be beneficial to the economy and industry of our district which is now suffering from an alarming depression.
If completed in the near future, these two projects would help us take advantage of the magnificent development on the north shore, just across the river. Our farmers would be able to dispose of their produce in a natural way, and our workers could travel more easily. Mr. Speaker, that part of Quebec which I represent in this house deserves special consideration from the present government, for this is the first time since confederation, that the constituency of Kam-ouraska has not been represented by a Liberal member. Having been a Liberal constituency for 90 years, the constituency of Kamouraska has now sent a new face to Ottawa. My constituents have the greatest confidence in their new member. And for that reason I would like to make out a strong case in this house for the need of generous government action with regard to those problems peculiar to my constituency and to my province.
Increased benefits have just been voted to our older citizens, to the blind, the disabled, and the veterans. Moreover, the western farmer will henceforth receive cash advances

for his grain. That is all well and good and I congratulate the government, even though the balancing of the budget may suffer thereby. The speech from the throne has forecast substantial increases to the benefit of agriculture in general. The farming population of this country is looking to Ottawa and expecting with greatest confidence the implementation of support prices calculated to increase their security.
I would ask the government not to forget the farmers who produce pulpwood. There are many of them in my constituency. From one year to the next they have no idea what price they will get for their wood. Those producers must be protected by an adequate support price so that they will not remain at the mercy of powerful large companies.
Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of speculation on the reasons for the great change brought about on June 10, 1957. In my humble opinion, if the present government is a Conservative one, it is because the people have understood that it would be more liberal in its social legislation. On the other hand, if the opposition is now made up of Liberals, it is because it was felt that the Liberals were or wished to be more conservative in intent and in action.
The recent increases voted for the benefit of our older citizens, our blind people, our disabled citizens and our veterans will be such as to bring comfort to thousands of Canadian homes. Should the government do nothing else, it would have proved its usefulness to the country.
We hear much talk in this house about Canadian unity. Unfortunately national unity is often seriously grieved in its heart and soul!
If the very few trouble-makers within both our great races in this country kept silent instead of taking advantage, for political and personal purposes, of certain prejudices as old as our country itself, national unity would fare better and there would be greater understanding between the majority of the citizens of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest dangers which threaten our modern civilization, possibly more than any nuclear weapon, is the licentious use being made of the great propaganda media, namely television, radio and the press, in the name of art, freedom of speech and of the press.
More and more, and for the sake of so-called freedom, the hearts and minds of our young people and even adults are being poisoned by the most disgusting publicity

given to crime, and by the stirring of the basest instincts of human nature through obscene and salacious stories.
It is the duty of the government to keep watch on those propaganda media so that they will not be used for the degradation of our society. Hon. members of this house should adopt the interpretation of the supreme court of the United States as to the precise meaning of the word "obscene", so that our judges may know what to think on this point. If in the name of art and freedom we allow our growing generation to degrade itself, we are aiding and abetting the disorders that will follow as a result of the imbalance of minds and of real values caused by a propaganda which knows no restriction in the detailed exposition of crime and lust.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the increase of family allowances does not appear in the program for this session. My constituency is part of a section of this country where, according to a recent survey, the ratio of children below fifteen to the number of families is the highest of all Canada.
If family allowances were substantially increased, especially for children of twelve to eighteen years of age, I think it would be a good way to help universities and educational institutions, without encroaching upon constitutional rights. If an allowance of $12 to $15 a month was granted to any school child up to the age of 18, what a fine subsidy to education that would be without encroaching too much upon constitutional rights, especially when we know that education is an essential condition of our economic future. I hope the government intends to increase the family allowances soon.
I urge the government to make our unemployment insurance legislation more flexible so that it may be easier for bush workers to receive unemployment benefits. The government should also revise eligibility requirements for such benefits so that our bush workers will not be forced to accept inconsistent and inhuman working conditions as happens so often.
I would feel remiss in my duty if I concluded those few remarks without supporting my hon. friends who urged the government to equip this house with a system of simultaneous translation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, with the co-operation of all parties in this house, let us get together to give our country a distinctive Canadian flag, red and white, sealed with a maple leaf, so that every Canadian may salute that flag while singing, each in his own language, the joy, the glory and the expectations of Canada.
The Address-Mr. McLeod
When all Canadians are united around the same flag the different elements which make up our beautiful and great country will love and understand one another better and join in the fulfilment of the great destinies which Providence has assigned to them.
(Text):


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, like other members of this house I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the speeches made by the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the motion to adopt an address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do believe that the history-making event when that speech was delivered in person by our gracious Queen imbued hon. members and the mover and the seconder with a greater sense of responsibility.
I would go further and say that every member in this house seems to be showing a greater interest in the proceedings, due possibly to the fact that the responsibility for carrying out the program in this house has been placed on his or her shoulders by Her Gracious Majesty. Then again I am satisfied that a very wise choice has been made in the selection of our Speaker and his deputy, and that instead of congratulating those two hon. members I should congratulate this house on having such personable gentlemen in control of its proceedings.
I wanted to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton), but they do not happen to be in the house and I do not know whether their parliamentary assistants are present. Today in the city of Vernon a new federal building is being opened, and yesterday at about 5.30 p.m. I received an invitation from the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General of Canada requesting the honour of my presence at the official opening of this new building in Vernon on Friday, November 15. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I thank them for this gracious invitation, I wish, though, they might have made some provision for a magic carpet by means of which I could have taken advantage of it.
While I am in such a generous mood, Mr. Speaker, I have some further thanks to offer, and here again the hon. gentleman to whom I offer them is not in the house. I owe the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) a very heartfelt vote of thanks, and the reason I am in his debt goes back prior to June 10. On May 24 the hon. member in a stumping tour through the interior paid a visit to my riding, and it is reported that
1188	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McLeod he addressed an audience of about 200 people there. At this meeting, in the usual vein of the former minister of fisheries-a vein which, I would say, goes back and is a hand-down from the days of old partisan politics -he made certain statements which may be of interest to some hon. members of this house. I should like to read a report of those statements which was carried in the Vancouver Sun on Saturday, May 25. I shall condense it considerably. The report talks about this meeting at which there was "stirring music and hard words", and speaking of the hard words it says:
These hard words, which brought an audible gasp from the crowd of more than 200, were delivered by Mr. Sinclair against the riding's sitting member. Social Crediter George W. McLeod.
Mr. Sinclair charged the member with doing nothing for his riding. He said the riding has not elected a government member in 46 years-
A pretty good choice on the part of this electorate for 46 years.
-and that of all those members who sat in opposition "the present member is the weakest, most futile member in the house today."
"He may be a good husband and father," Mr. Sinclair said angrily, "but he is a timorous, timid and weak little man who sits in the corner of parliament with the small bloc of Social Crediters."
A little farther down we find the former minister taking a rap not only at me but at other hon. members representing the interior of British Columbia.
Mr. Sinclair said the interior has a man to the north-
I am sure the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) will listen to these words.
-who "talks points of order"-
Of course that is a throwback to a debate on which I possibly agree with the former minister of fisheries.


An hon. Member:: Be careful.


George William McLeod: -a man to the south (Owen Jones, C.C.F. member for Okanagan Boundary) who "babbles socialism"-
Mr. Owen Jones, who is not presently in this house, is nevertheless, I will say, a man who has won the respect not only of his riding but of all hon. members here.
-and the local member who "just collects his pay".
Mr. Speaker, the one thing which amazes me is that after such a description as that I should have the nerve even to go and collect my cheque. But I will say this; that is one thing I have never missed. However, I want to pay the hon. member for Coast-Capilano my respects for having brought me a lot of very good advertising. It said in the paper that there were possibly 200 people at his meeting. My first public meeting, which followed his one week later in Vernon, was attended by close to 700 people; and those 700 people came, possibly, to see for them-


selves what such a weak, miserable, useless member looked like. Therefore I feel that I owe the hon. member a very great debt in respect of the free advertising he gave me during the electoral campaign.
Mr. Speaker, before I continue with that portion of my remarks which is more pertinent to the speech from the throne, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My attention has been called to a printing error which appears on the cover of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day with respect to the hours of sitting. These hours of sitting should read: 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. instead of 2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m., as printed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George William McLeod: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was dealing with certain statements which had been made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) in my riding. During the course of these remarks I drew attention to his statement relative to my neighbour to the south, Mr. Owen L. Jones, the former member for Okanagan Boundary, and I paid a personal tribute to that gentleman. I hope my hon. friends in the C.C.F. ranks across the way did not misunderstand me and attribute those words to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano because that hon. member in speaking of Mr. Jones described him as the man "to the south who babbled socialism."
I wish now to outline some of the problems with which our part of British Columbia is confronted and I am satisfied they are of such broad proportions that they affect the whole economy of Canada in many of its phases. In the first place I would point out that one problem which is developing and causing great concern to the various municipalities in the northern part of the interior is that with respect to future water supplies. It is perhaps rather peculiar to think and talk about a shortage of water in an area where we have such an abundance of lakes and rivers; however, it is not always so easy to bring that water to those points where it will do the most good. For this reason we now have an organization looking to the future when we anticipate a much larger concentration of population at which time additional supplies of water will be required not only for domestic purposes but also for irrigation. I refer to the organization known as the North Okanagan metropolitan

water board. This board is considering the whole problem of finding a suitable supply of water that can be provided to the various municipalities and will give them ample supplies on a gravity basis. Such a source is available. It is going to take a considerable amount of money to complete the exploratory engineering. I understand it will cost a minimum of $80,000.
In thinking of this project I cannot help but recall similar things that have been planned and then brought to completion under the P.F.R.A. regulations in parts of the prairie provinces. For this reason I make the plea, as I have made it yearly and perhaps more often since coming to this house, that we have some such plan of water distribution made available to the people of British Columbia. I would recommend as I have in the past that the word "prairie" be eliminated and that the name of this act with all its benefits-and I maintain that it has many benefits that can be applied to all parts of Canada-be changed to read, "National Farm Rehabilitation Act".
In our part of the interior of British Columbia we require extensions of experimental farm services. I am glad to say that during the past summer there has been some improvement. There has been some worth while extension of the services we have received and I will only continue my plea that this present government look into the program and accelerate the improvements that are being made thereunder.
Another thing about which we have heard a great deal and which has captured the imagination not only of the people of B.C. but of the whole of Canada is the development of power on the Columbia river. No part of British Columbia will benefit more directly from the development of power from that source than will my part of British Columbia and we are directly thinking, of course, of the Mica creek dam. During the past three or four years we have heard much about the problem of downstream benefits.
We had been given to understand that it was a matter of first importance to the late government and that swift action was being taken to secure a speedy settlement of the whole problem of downstream benefits on international rivers. We have not heard anything about any such action recently. In fact, questions put forward to elicit information in this respect have been casually brushed off by the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) with the evasive statement that there is nothing to report. We believe this is a matter of urgency and that the economy of the interior of British Columbia and the projected advance in that economy which we are sure could be 96698-761
The Address-Mr. McLeod forthcoming are entirely dependent on the development of power on the Columbia river. We have looked forward with great anticipation to prompt action by the government in solving the problem of downstream benefits. In the past this was given prior consideration but now we are told that before anything can be done we must have the report of the Borden commission.
I would point out that we do not require a Borden commission to convince us of the great benefits that would accrue from the development of this project nor do we require that commission to persuade us of the need of developing it at an early date. Any delay in bringing this matter to the state where work can be proceeded with is nothing less than a blanket, and a wet blanket at that, withholding development of the whole interior of British Columbia.
As was mentioned by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) the other day, we too have an airfield problem in practically every town in the interior, but there is a slightly different point of view from which we may look upon the development of airfields in our area. At the present time the civil defence authorities have designated the interior as a receiving centre in case of trouble or attack on the densely populated coastal areas. If these events should occur and if it becomes necessary to move the hundreds of thousands of people from the coastal areas to the interior, how is it going to be done? We do not have roadways and we receive no assistance from the federal government to provide them. In any case the coming method of quick evacuation and speedy travel is by air making better facilities imperative.
Therefore, I would suggest that this government take a new look at the matter of airfield development. Look at the future prospects of such progress, such development and travel and give the three important areas in my community every consideration. I am referring to the airfield at Ellison which, though in my riding, is maintained and kept up by the city of Kelowna. Nevertheless, this is becoming a great centre, and we hope it will be a great centre in coast-to-coast transportation if and when the Canadian Pacific Air Lines gets a charter to fly to Montreal. At the present time it is planned to make the Ellison field an important stop in the air transportation service between Vancouver and Edmonton.
The city of Vernon has a small field, but a splendid area is available to the north which has been inspected by officials of the Department of Transport and which has been pronounced to be one of the best in the interior of British Columbia. In order for the city to get appropriate rights to the land so that it can be held in reserve for

The Address-Mr. McLeod airport services it is necessary that they should know the over-all national program of this government in regard to the development of civil flying in this part of the country.
We have a field in Revelstoke on which thousands of dollars have been spent locally together with grants from the federal department. In the past couple of years promises have been given that a further $10,000 or $12,000 would be granted in order to complete the runway but, for some reason or other, the powers that be have seen fit to cancel those appropriations just when it seemed we were on the threshold of receiving them.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without referring to unemployment. Here, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I stand 100 per cent behind the remarks made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) in the house the other day. We are not talking blue ruin; we have no fear complex because we know that with proper government policies, financial and fiscal, the problems that are facing the country at the present time can be solved. All that we are asking is that the government give serious consideration to those problems as they arise. I do believe that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is doing the best within his power but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he is not the one who is responsible for unemployment. He is the minister who, under the unemployment insurance service and under the employment service, provides perhaps some measure of alleviation but he has nothing whatever to do with unemployment. The department of government that has more to do with unemployment is the Department of Public Works, which announces that public spending is being cut; that public buildings are being shelved in general. I maintain that in a time like this when we have unemployment the government, instead of talking retrenchment, instead of talking economy, instead of holding up the public works program, should be accelerating them and should be spending more money into circulation.
I hold in my hand the October 28 issue of the Vernon News, which contains this headline:
Unemployment Up In City
Doubles Over 1956
Official figures from the national employment service indicate that unemployment has more than doubled. The article goes on to say:
Number of unemployed persons registered at the national employment service is 2.6 times higher in October this year than over the same month in 1956.
I am not quoting these figures because I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, or because I want to

create a feeling of fear and pessimism, since I have every confidence in the future of British Columbia and in the economy of British Columbia, provided that the present government will take the proper steps to give it a chance to progress and to develop.
The other day we had a very clear analysis of another problem that is developing in the province of British Columbia and which will contribute to the unemployment situation. That analysis was made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and I should like to congratulate him on the clear and forthright manner in which the problem was presented to the house. I am going to back him up, Mr. Speaker, and ask this government, in the face of this serious threat of 800 more people being added to the rolls of the unemployed, a problem which is becoming increasingly greater across Canada, what they intend to do about it? Do they intend to sit idly by and say, we are doing everything possible? I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is one thing that requires and demands the attention of the government before the whole unemployment problem in British Columbia is aggravated by an additional 800 men. In this respect we were shown how it would actually save this government money by subsidizing or paying the necessary amount of money to keep the mine in operation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take you back for a few moments to the campaign which preceded the election of June 10. At that time most Canadians were beginning to feel the pinch and the effects of the tight money policy. This tight money policy, as was said in the house the other day, was hitting them where it hurt. Rightly or wrongly the people of Canada believed that the tight money policy was responsible in large measure for the increase in the cost of living. They believe it is responsible for the slow-down in municipal projects; it is responsible for higher taxes in municipal and school districts, owing to the high cost of borrowing and the high interest rates on money which they require to borrow. It is responsible for the slow-down in basic industries, especially the lumber industry in British Columbia, which has shrunk by more than 30 per cent in gross income during the past year. It has brought about difficult employment conditions and a tightening of credit that has made it impossible for the small businessman and the small farmer to secure the necessary funds to carry on.
All opposition parties, including the great Conservative party, played this up during the last campaign but none of us gave it more attention than did the Conservatives. I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

the Conservatives made pledges which will never be forgotten. They said that if they were returned and placed in office they would take immediate steps to alleviate the tight money situation. The people of Canada have not forgotten that pledge.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what has this government actually done? Minister after minister has risen in his place and said that the government has taken all necessary steps but I should like them to name one thing that this government has done as a government. It is true that there has been a lowering of the interest rate, but was that the result of government action? Or was it the natural action of the Bank of Canada? This is something I should like to hear explained. The Conservative party now in power condemned the Bank of Canada just as loudly as the rest of us and also condemned the previous government for allowing themselves to be placed in a position where they were dominated by the Bank of Canada.
But again I ask, what is the change? I should like to have seen, and I think the people of Canada would like to have seen, some action by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the government whereby they would stand up to the Bank of Canada and say: Here is government policy, and this is what we want to see made effective in Canada. Instead, what do we learn? We learn that there is no difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada.
Another trump card of the Conservative party during the campaign was the question of the supremacy of parliament. Far too many promises were made, promises which the government is finding it quite hard to live up to. They promised that the tight money policy would be alleviated at once. They promised that the supremacy of parliament would be restored and that the rights of members would be protected. I am just going to refer briefly to what I think about the whole question of the supremacy of parliament. I make the broad statement that never in my experience has there been so much flouting of the rights of private members as there has been during the past month. I have never seen such evasion on the part of ministers and very seldom have I seen a prime minister go out and make speeches on policy and proposed policy of the government before presenting such policies to parliament, which should be first to learn of all matters of legislation.
I see that my time is growing short, Mr. Speaker. I should have liked to go considerably further in discussing the matter of parliamentary supremacy because I know
The Address-Mr. McLeod there is much that could be said. However, I shall analyse the situation a little further. What were the people looking for when they voted as they did on June 10? I maintain that the electors of Canada were looking for an alternative. What did they get? What alternative has the government offered in any policy they are considering at the present time? I simply ask that question, and I know that the people of Canada are asking that question, too.
In what way are the policies of the present government different from the policies of the government which the people of Canada rejected in the hope of finding an alternative? I could go on and elaborate but I will simply take a couple of items that are or have been on the order paper. I am very glad to see that there is a resolution extending assistance to the agriculturists of Canada. I think everyone knows that legislation in that respect is long overdue and is one of the most important things required in this country. But what about the price support program? In what way is it an alternative to the program which the Liberals have had for a good many years? The government says that it is going to be enlarged and broadened, but the same policies are going to be in effect. Is that an alternative? Is it anything different from what was offered before?
Reference can be made to the legislation passed by the house dealing with welfare. Is it an alternative? Is there any different approach? I say to hon. members that it is the same approach. We are not satisfied with the alternative for which the people of Canada voted and what they hoped to get last June 10. We also read about trade. I was greatly encouraged by statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that commonwealth and British trade were going to be increased. There was a lot of talk about it. I like many other Canadians looked hopefully to the government. What happened? The minute that Britain said to Canada, all right, Canada, if you want to trade with Britain we are prepared to go the whole way and give you every opportunity to trade with us. What happened? Immediately the government started back-pedalling. In effect they said to the people of Canada, and to England, we did not mean all this about trade with Britain; we were just talking so do not take it too seriously. That is the way that the people of Canada size up the situation.
I find, Mr. Speaker, that I have only one minute left. I have an announcement that I should like to make. Today we shall be taking the main vote on the motion before us and I should like to read to the house a statement endorsed by the Social Credit members.

The Address-Mr. Taylor
In regard to our stand on the main motion the leader of this group pointed out that in order to solve our economic problems it will be necessary to bring about certain reforms in the existing financial system. We moved an amendment to that effect which was defeated. We are still of the same opinion. However, we believe that the government should be given an opportunity to show what it can do in dealing with the problems of the nation as outlined in the speech from the throne. We will therefore, Mr. Speaker, support the main motion when the vote comes later today.


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, it is with humility that I rise in my place for the first time in this distinguished house to continue the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. You will recall, sir, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) honoured a westerner to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He delivered a most fitting address and referred, as was natural, to his illustrious father who passed away some time ago. Later in the debate my colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney), spoke about his father who likewise served so well in the house but who did not live to see his son honoured in this parliament.
Fortunately, my father is living and has been observing his son carry on his parliamentary duties. While in Ottawa dad was interviewed on television about his hockey career and I gave him moral support. Today he is in my rooting section and I feel he will get as great a thrill out of these proceedings as he ever got out of the alleged back-handed goal scored over 40 years ago in this very city.
There is another person whom I should like to see in the gallery of the house. I refer to the mother of the Prime Minister. It is my understanding, sir, that she is the only mother in Canadian history who ever saw her son become prime minister of this country. Perhaps in the near future she can be present to see her famous son lead the government.
I appreciate this honour and opportunity of speaking in this august chamber and the privilege of representing the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard. I think it is the usual custom to offer congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, upon your appointment to high office. I did not know until the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) pointed it out that you were born in Red Deer, Alberta. Long before I came to know the name of Roland Michener, I knew well Michener hill which is on the outskirts of Red Deer. The hill is as prominent to the citizens of Red Deer as Mr. Speaker will be to this house.

In congratulating you, sir, I should like to congratulate others. When I think of the physical disabilities of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and of how he has overcome them, which was obvious during the opening of parliament, I must say that he deserves special commendation.
I will never forget the opening of parliament in October, 1957 as the majesty of it all unfolded itself before our very eyes. I am sure that when I get back to Vancouver many of my constituents will want my personal observations on the activities in the house. My report, sir, will be in most glowing terms. I personally appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister took time to refer in such a fitting way to the late Dr. Blair who died a few days after the recent election. His remarks were followed by those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) and in turn by those of other hon. members. This served notice upon the newcomers that if you serve well in this house, all will remember you in such a nice manner.
I was glad to see the Prime Minister pay personal tribute to another member, namely the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) upon his winning the Nobel peace prize. You will recall, sir, that the Prime Minister crossed the floor of the house, shook hands first with the Leader of the Opposition and then turned to his left and shook hands vigorously with the hon. member for Algoma East. That is what newcomers wanted to see, namely a great leader paying tribute in such a nice manner for work well done. Sometimes I think that the Prime Minister has a heart bigger than himself. Probably it is because of that that the nation decided to "follow John" in the last election.
I want to report to my constituents about the fitting and kind remarks made by my Prime Minister concerning the retirement as leader of the hon. member for Quebec East. My constituents have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition. I have always looked forward to hearing him speak. His decorum and deportment set a mark for us all to attain. We Canadians have been so fortunate in having leaders like the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. While I am not of the same political faith as the latter, I have always joined in the thunderous applause that attends his appearance at meetings of the Canadian Bar Association and other such meetings.
Before commenting on the speech from the throne, may I also refer to my predecessor, Dr. MacDougall, who represented my constituency of Vancouver-Burrard and who passed away in this house prior to the last election. I never knew him personally but everywhere

I go in this house people who knew him have a kind word for him. If I can be remembered as he was I shall feel that my service here in this house was not in vain.
Before the election I received from one of my constituents a poem which reads as follows:
To "follow John" I'm not content Until I find which way he went.
After the election there was a further poem:
Now having boldly followed John And made our wishes clear,
This is the thought we dwell upon-
Where do we go from here?
Upon reading the speech from the throne, the nation knows which way John went and which way he goes from here. Members of the opposition say that he has not kept faith with the electorate. I suggest, sir, that the Prime Minister has kept faith. Undoubtedly the opposition policy this session will be "irritation without challenge".
I should like to refer to an article written in the Vancouver Sun by Mr. Elmore Phil-pott, a Liberal, who in the last parliament sat but a few seats from mine. Mr. Philpott wrote:
The 1957 speech from the throne is an historic document for several reasons. But the one which means most to the people of Canada is that the Conservatives have spectacularly kept their main election promises.
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has not only itemized the main points on which he was morally bound to take action at this session, but he also outlined intended action in several other matters which might well have been postponed for the future without giving justification for this cry of bad faith.
The whole country, regardless of party preference, should be delighted to see this proof that the old party of Sir John A. Macdonald has thus demonstrated that its official title of "Progressive" Conservatives has taken on new meaning for the whole Canadian nation.
Mr. Frank Bernard, a member of the Vancouver board of trade and, I suggest, a man who represents the feeling of most British Columbia businessmen, is delighted that the Prime Minister has seen fit to strike a royal commission to inquire into important industrial matters relating to power. The appointment of Mr. Leon Ladner of British Columbia, lawyer and industrialist, is most appropriate.
Senior citizens in my riding, like Mrs. Emilie Campbell, welcome the relief in higher old age pensions.
Citizens throughout my riding will be gratified that action is to be taken concerning power on the Columbia river.
The speech from the throne had hardly been concluded before the Prime Minister added two new planks to his sessional legislative program. One dealt with federal subsidies on shipments of maritime coal destined
The Address-Mr. Taylor for power generation on the east coast. The aim was cheaper power to attract industry to that area. The other was abolition of the debate-limiting Commons closure rule; and tomorrow the Prime Minister will add further planks to his program. As one rookie M. P. jokingly said to me: "Brother, watch John; you ain't seen nothin' yet!".
Many of the problems which exist in my constituency are common to all. Many of the hon. members who have spoken have made reference to them and I do not intend to repeat what they have said. However, I wish to add a comment about reforms in the immigration set-up. I feel that there is a need to review and amend the act, the regulations and the administration thereof. Time does not allow me to discuss all the suggestions I have in mind but may I suggest one. Immigration appeals should be heard by an immigration appeal board, and not by the minister. For a generation now persons having immigration problems have approached the immigration minister. Often these people are represented by members of this house, and far too often the cases in the past were disposed of after some informal and injudicious hearing, tinged often with partisan feelings.
If a proper administrative set-up is provided for the hearing of immigration cases, no member would again find himself importuned to interpose in administrative rulings. An applicant for admission should be able to test his admissibility under a proper administration set-up. If he does not qualify he is excluded; if he does qualify he is to be admitted. If then, there are persons who have been excluded but whose cases involve unusual and compelling circumstances a private bill should be applied for. In applying for a private bill all members of the house would know who was applying and what were the special circumstances. Open and fair hearings together with publication of immigration decisions would revolutionize the present set-up.
Before leaving this subject may I suggest that careful consideration be given to the many recommendations passed by the Canadian Bar Association dealing with immigration practices and procedures. Much praise is due to John McDonald, an Ottawa lawyer, who worked tirelessly to bring about these recommendations. He championed a cause which he conscientiously felt was right and it is to be hoped that it will not be long before the suggestions of his committee will be incorporated into the immigration laws of this country.
1194	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Taylor
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) is considering many problems relating to television. I feel that we have a unique situation in Vancouver; the government has granted one television outlet in this area of over one-half million people. If you do not want to watch this station, then the alternative stations are all United States stations. Within television range are five United States channels or stations which send out splendid programs to the large audience in my area. The learned Mr. Fowler felt that there was a danger of Canadians becoming engulfed by United States television. We in Vancouver were engulfed long ago and the situation at this time, I suggest, could hardly be worse. To partially correct the situation in my area I would suggest that additional Canadian private stations be permitted to operate at the earliest possible date.
The financial statement of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the year ending March 1957 is a story of deficit and debt. The fact that a government agency fails to show a profit should not evoke surprise; other government departments and agencies cost the public large sums of money. It costs money to run the armed forces, the police force, the customs and postal departments; the only difference is that these undertakings come under the heading of public utilities whereas broadcasting, like newspaper publishing, is quite able to subsist, and subsist usefully, under a system of private enterprise with no drain on the public treasury.
I suggest that wherever private enterprise can do the job and do it well the government should not be in that field. I personally like the C.B.C. station in Vancouver; there is much to commend it, but when I realize that under private enterprise I would get pretty well the same, if not better programs at no expense whatsoever, to me, then I have serious misgivings about the continuing interference of the government in this field.
I believe there is a useful function to be performed by a publicly-owned broadcasting system in assisting such things as educational programs. The government can also assist with respect to the broadcasting of serious music and the drama which has an appeal, admittedly, too limited to justify broadcasting commercially. However, none of these functions require the operation of a broadcasting machine running several radio and television networks, with 30 of its own stations, and employing 6,000 people at a cost to the country of nearly $40 million per year.
Then there is another matter which I would like to mention. The last links in the trans-Canada highway between Golden, British


Columbia and Banff are being built and the highway through the mountainous territory is expected to be completed next fall. I suggest that real assistance be given to the provinces in the establishment of all kinds of tourist facilities including outdoor camping grounds, certainly in this area, and probably coast to coast on the trans-Canada highway.
Investment by the senior government in this field is investment in something which is definitely Canadian. There is no danger of engulfment here as there is in television; there is no danger of competition. Investment here will, I suggest, bring far greater rewards than in the field of television. Investment in our parks, the finest in the world, will bring about lasting rewards. Public investment in television will, in my opinion, not attain that end.
Having referred to the national highways and to the question of tourists, may I suggest that the federal government give consideration to classifying the tourist trade as an industry so that operators may borrow from the industrial development bank. On the one hand the tourist trade is acknowledged as the third largest industry in Canada but, on the other hand, no adequate recognition is given so that resort operators can borrow from approved sources. Because the tourist dollar is so important to Canada all possible assistance should be given to the resort and hotel operators.
Now may I refer to one thing which has upset the friendliness and amiability of the house. I refer to the bitter address of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I was sorry to hear his speech about alleged racial and religious differences. He accused the party of Sir John A. Macdonald of all sorts of things. To a westerner this is upsetting and I feel that I can speak for all newcomers in the house in hoping that such bitterness will not be continued.
If I was disheartened by what the hon. member for Laurier said I was delighted by the activity of another French Canadian. A few Saturdays ago my wife and I went to Montreal where we saw the hockey game between Chicago and Montreal. We saw Maurice "the Rocket" Richard, score his 500th goal in a blaze of glory.


An hon. Member:: You were lucky.


John Russell Taylor: We rose with the 15,000 people, French and English Canadians, to cheer the wonderful Rocket. There was no disunity there. Nor was there throughout the sporting fraternity of the nation on that night.
Everyone loves to visit the grand province of Quebec; it has a charm all its own and the friendliness of its people adds a cubit to

Canada's stature. What French and English have in common as Canadians is far more than the differences which divide them. With so much to be done, let us get on with the job and forget our minor differences.
In conclusion I would like to remind hon. members that engraved in stone over the main door of this building are the words:
The wholesome sea is at her gates;
Her gates both east and west.
Keep your eyes, Mr. Speaker, on the western gates. There is in that area the fastest industrial growth in all Canada. In the past 15 years the population of British Columbia has grown 71 per cent, compared with a national average of 35 per cent and business has been keeping pace with that expansion.
Mr. Speaker, October and November of 1957 have been thrilling months for me. I saw Her Majesty open Canada's parliament for the first time; I made my first appearance in the Supreme Court of Canada, and I have made my first speech in the house. I will always be grateful to the people of Vancouver-Burrard for making all this possible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all very grateful to Her Majesty the Queen for having come to Canada to take part in the opening proceedings of this session of parliament by reading in person the address which is now under debate.
I should like, in accordance with custom and because of my long relationship with him, to extend to Mr. Speaker, as other hon. members have done, my sincere congratulations upon his having been selected by all hon. members of this house to act as their Speaker. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) proposed Mr. Speaker's name to hon. members he referred to the reply which the Times newspaper made to Lord Palmerston who had inquired what were the necessary qualities of a person who was to occupy the chair as Speaker at Westminster. The Times replied: "Imperturbability, good temper, tact, urbanity, and, if possible, a training in the law." I think we have all recognized after four weeks that the Speaker has other qualities, too, and that pre-eminent among these is the quality of fairness and impartiality.
I should like to offer my congratulations also to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) for his excellent maiden speech when he proposed the motion that is before us. Those of us who were members here at the same time as his father could not help but feel that he not only did honour to himself but to his father's name.
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin It must have been a matter of deep satisfaction to his mother who sat in the gallery that day to realize that her son had begun his public life, in this house, under such happy and successful circumstances.
(Translation):
To the hon. member for Bonaventure I also offer my sincere congratulations, not for what he said but rather for the ease with which he said it.
(Text):
Today I propose to deal with certain observations made last night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I will not attempt to cover all he said, because he did traverse quite a wide field. I want to deal mainly with that portion of his speech which took up least time to say but which, I should have thought, would have comprised the major portion of his contribution to our deliberations. I refer to the proposals made by the Prime Minister and those of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom in the matter of trading relations between these two nations. But the hon. gentleman in that careful, moderate manner of his, began by saying that the problems of the government were considerable, largely because of the inheritance from the administration directed by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition. And he listed these inheritances in detail.
I will simply say by way of reply that no government, certainly in this day of complex arrangements, can hope to be free of important problems of a domestic and international character covering all aspects of the life of the nation or of the world. No manipulation of words by the Minister of Finance can alter the fact that when the present government took office late in June it did so as the government of a country whose prosperity was never higher, whose prospects were never brighter, whose prestige was never so great among the nations of the world. And so, if in the meantime, certain economic disquietudes have arisen, no one with a sense of fairness will argue that this administration, in office for five months, is responsible for this particular uneasiness in its entirety. But I think we have the right, and indeed, the duty, just as did the Prime Minister when he sat on this side of the house, to charge the government in relation to the disturbing situation now confronting us. No amount of palliation will or can overlook the fact that at the present time whatever may be the cause there are disturbing economic factors-how fundamental I do not know-which affect the material well-being of many hundreds of thousands of people in our country.

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin
In agriculture, low prices; in our industrial life, much unemployment; these are factors which not only the government but all of us have to consider, and it is therefore of the greatest importance that we should give serious consideration to an analysis of the policies of the government in respect of a matter which fundamentally, has occasioned much uncertainty and which in the course of the next few months could have a definite bearing on the economic progress of Canada and a great effect on the level of employment in our country. So many people in their economic lives are affected by the policies of any government in the matter of its trading relations with other countries.
This government has made much of its trading policies. Indeed, during the course of the election and long before in this house the Minister of Finance in particular spoke of the desirability of promoting a greater measure of commonwealth trade as a means of stimulating the lifeblood of our economy. Last night, looking toward those of us who sit on your left, Mr. Speaker, he said: "The fact is that hon. gentlemen opposite do not like the commonwealth." I venture to suggest to my hon. friend, my classmate whom I have known longer perhaps than anyone in this house that a common appreciation of the great purposes of the commonwealth of nations is not promoted in this country by alternately blowing hot and cold in the matter of closer relations between this country and the commonwealth in the economic or other spheres. By its brusque and belittling reaction to a serious proposal put forward by the United Kingdom, this government I submit with respect, has done a grave injury to the commonwealth.
It has shown it is willing to exploit the kindly sentiments most Canadians feel for the United Kingdom and for other commonwealth countries like Ceylon, India and Pakistan, let alone the countries of Australasia but unwilling nevertheless to take the most elementary steps towards giving practical expression to those sentiments when an element of political risk to itself or financial injury to some of its supporters appears.
Now, the Prime Minister said during the recent election that one of his aims would be the holding of a commonwealth economic and trade conference. And because of arrangements made by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) the present Prime Minister shortly after the election with the good will of all Canadians went to Great Britain for the purpose of participating at his first conference of prime ministers of the commonwealth.
If we can gather an accurate impression from the press both in the United Kingdom


and Canada his presence and vigourous approach in this particular matter seems to have captivated public attention in the United Kingdom, but one of the most amazing things it seems to me is that a careful perusal of the communique issued after the prime ministers conference makes no reference whatsoever to a proposal by the Prime Minister of Canada for an economic and trade conference with the commonwealth countries. Could it be that the prime minister of Australia, the prime minister of Great Britain, the prime ministers of Ceylon and of Pakistan and India wanted to make sure what kind of conference it was going to be? Perhaps they bore in mind the words of Sir Robert Borden that there is nothing wrong with a conference except that conferences seldom produce good results unless the parties conferring each know what they want to achieve and there is some measure of agreement in advance on the objective. I think that is a very important consideration particularly for Canada at the present time.
What is the position of other countries visa-vis Canada? We were reminded the other day by Mr. Macmillan in the statement he made at the Guild Hall that what Britain wanted was capital assistance. Likewise those of us who have had any experience in government know-as I am sure is the case with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland (Mr. Browne) who has just returned from Asia- that the great need of the Asian members of the commonwealth is for capital assistance, capital aid in carrying out their projects. Are we going to be able to meet that objective when this conference takes place? Are we going to be able to offer to these countries the kind of assistance which in so far as they are concerned is the motive, the reason, the raison d'etre, for an economic trade conference with commonwealth countries?
We all remember there was another conference held in this very chamber in 1932, the imperial economic conference convened at the suggestion of the then prime minister of Canada, the late Lord Bennett. With regard to that particular conference it is debatable even now whether it contributed much to the unity of the commonwealth itself and there is little doubt as to whether it did not contribute to a deterioration in the relations between many nations of the world. But it can be said for the late Lord Bennett that when he invited other governments to a conference he had something for them to confer about.

It would be extremely interesting to know whether or not before he went to the prime ministers conference the Prime Minister of Canada had forewarned the commonwealth countries in the usual and customary diplomatic way of the kind of proposal which he intended to put forward at that conference. There could be no objection, indeed there is everything to be gained by commonwealth statesmen meeting from time to time to discuss common problems, political, economic and international, but a conference called for a special purpose, particularly an economic purpose, presupposes care in preparation and a serious amount of consideration as to the likely outcome unless danger and damage are to be caused instead of resulting in some constructive situation.
It is a simple fact that in our free economic system there are only a few things that governments can do to change the normal course of trade. One is to put up barriers against imports whether by means of tariffs or otherwise. Another is to take down such barriers as already exist. Mr. Bennett in 1932 had a definite plan and part of that plan was to put up barriers against imports from non-empire sources. That was a definite objective; but what is the objective of the present government in this particular?
The Prime Minister of Canada returned to this country after the prime ministers conference and the first thing he did was to go and meet the journalists and newspapermen who are in this building, serving this nation with distinction. During the course of his conference with them he said that he was prepared to make a proposal which would have a great bearing on our economic relationships both with the United States and with Great Britain. He would shift 15 per cent of Canadian purchases in the United States to the United Kingdom. We have since estimated, of course, that the total of this shift would come to at least $625 million but this was not indicated by the Prime Minister at that time. However, what I think is most amazing is that the proposal should have been made, not in the United Kingdom, not at the prime ministers conference where as far as our Prime Minister was concerned the dominant theme was commonwealth trade but outside of that conference in Canada immediately after his return from the United Kingdom.
That raises, I think, legitimate doubt as to the circumstances of the birth of that particular idea. Was it the result of careful planning and consideration? Was it the result of preparatory work that had been done by the Prime Minister's economic and trade advisors? Or was it just an idea that sud-96698-77J
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin denly came to him, one that had the quality of the spectacular, one that would fit in with his enthusiasm, understandable as it was, at the moment? Was it, as has been suggested, a reckless idea; or was it one that had been carefully considered?
One has reason to doubt whether the suggestion really deserves the designation of "proposal" for not once during the course of the present session of parliament has any hon. member sitting on the treasury benches made any reference to this proposal except that made last night by the Minister of Finance who simply said, ''Give us time".
He did not say how long. "Give us time and we will provide for a shift in Canadian purchases from the United States to Great Britain".
That was the only mention of this proposal made by any member of the treasury since this session began. We believe from the communique that flowed from the conference in Washington, when Canadian and United States ministers conferred, that the proposal, or the idea of a shift in Canadian purchases, was really something not to be taken too seriously; it was something in the very long term, in any event. Because of this assurance, apparently, United States cabinet ministers were able to say with satisfaction, understandable satisfaction, "Well, if this shift is not really going to take place for a long time we have no hesitation in giving you assurances on some points of concern to Canada".
But long before the Washington conference what had happened? Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom had taken this matter seriously. They knew that a proposal such as that which the Prime Minister had in mind was one that could not be implemented under the terms of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. And so the British government came forward with a formal proposal in Ottawa, through the chancellor of the exchequer, after the conference at Mont Tremblant.
We have the assurance of the Minister of Finance in that very exhaustive report he gave us two or three weeks ago about these various conferences, when he said that the first formal presentation of the British free trade proposal was given some time during the visit of the chancellor of the exchequer to Ottawa after the conference at Mont Tremblant; but he did not deny that on September 10 the minister of agriculture, Mr. Amory, had discussed the British proposal with him. We do know that Sir David Eccles, the president of the board of trade, was in Washington and had discussions with officials of the government of Canada about this very matter.

1198	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin
The Prime Minister has denied that when the president of the hoard of trade was at the United Nations, on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit, there was any discussion between them with regard to Britain's free trade proposal. Well, Mr. Speaker, one must accept and one readily accepts the word of the Prime Minister; but nevertheless no mem: ber of the government can seriously take the position that the first real intimation of this very important proposal, perhaps the most important proposal ever made by one commonwealth government to another in the matter of trade, had not been brought to the attention of this administration long before that eventful evening within the luxurious surroundings of Mont Tremblant.
Then we are told by the Minister of Finance in a speech he made in New York that the assurances which he had been given by his counterparts in the government of the United States were not fully satisfactory and so we have this change of position. At one moment they are satisfied with their talks at Washington and a few weeks later the expression in New York, with these ministers absent, by the Minister of Finance is that after all the assurances were not as satisfactory as he would have liked. Apparently our ministers were treated in Washington by the Americans seemingly just as my hon. friend had treated the British at Mont Tremblant, because, if this proposal had been brought to the attention of the administration on September 10, as he admits it was, it deserved serious study and consideration.
How was it treated? Well, we really do not know because the Minister of Finance is reported as merely having said that it was laden with difficulties; there was no sympathetic consideration even offered or suggested. We do not know yet, therefore, what this British proposal was in detail; but obviously the Minister of Finance himself does know because he spoke of it at least at Mont Tremblant. We do know what it was in broad outline. It was a proposal to lower the barriers of trade and, as 1 have said, there are only two ways in free countries to influence the course of trade. One is to lower barriers and the other is to raise them. As parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade both the British and ourselves are pretty well stopped from raising new barriers against non-commonwealth countries.
Now, surely, it was open to, and it was the duty of a government that speaks so feverishly of its love for the commonwealth to the point of trying to create division to see that that proposal, having in mind all of its implications, would receive friendly attention and not downright dismissal. It is certainly a

proposal that would have been accepted by Sir John A. Macdonald. It is a proposal that would give free entry to the British market of all products in Canada, including automobiles. It would have meant free entry on a preferred basis because British restrictions against the United States, our principal competitors, would remain unchanged. In the trading situation which is now developing it would have meant more; for Britain is about to obtain free entry to all the markets of western Europe, France, Germany, Italy, the low countries, Scandinavia. Our metals and forest products, our wheat, which is now going to Britain in substantial quantities, would be sold in larger quantities to their flour mills and their factories to increase their production in order to sell more of their products on the European market. It would mean that Canada would get entry into the European free-trade area. In any event, it is a proposal put forward by a friendly government, and it should have received the kind of treatment which it deserved, particularly having in mind the provocation for that proposal, namely the suggestion made by the Prime Minister of Canada in the press gallery to Canadian newspapermen after the prime ministers' conference.
I would like to make this observation in passing, Mr. Speaker. We asked the Minister of Finance to give us some details of the proposal of the Canadian Prime Minister with regard to this shifting of purchases from one friendly country to another. I asked him to table the proposal of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom and his reply was that no one should know better than the interrogator, myself, how improper it would be for a minister of the crown to table such a document. That recalls the words of the Minister of Finance when he sat on this side of the house. He criticized my leader, then the prime minister, about the kind of position we were going to take at a prime ministers' conference in London several years ago. Here is what the Minister of Finance said:
If parliamentary Institutions enjoyed here in Ottawa the health that they ought to enjoy, no Canadian prime minister would go to an important commonwealth conference without having first invited a discussion in parliament on the position that he was going to take on behalf of his country in the deliberations of that conference.
This is what he said on the eve of the Mont Tremblant conference:
For a number of reasons the arguments to be advanced by the Canadian government in favour of a commonwealth trade and economic conference were on the secret list and would remain so.
If my hon. friend's words had validity when he was in opposition, Mr. Speaker, surely those words afford justification for my asking him to give us more precise information about the proposal of his own

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin
Prime Minister as well as the proposal made by Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.
But what about this proposal of the Prime Minister? Is it a practical thing? Is it desirable? Is it not something that should be debated in the house? The Prime Minister is the author of it. He spoke early in this debate. He made no reference whatsoever to his proposal or, for that matter, to any aspect of our trading relations with any friendly or other country.
Let us examine this proposal to shift purchases from the United States to another friendly country, in this case the United Kingdom. We all respect the judgment of a former distinguished public servant of Canada, the former assistant deputy minister of finance, now head of the department of economics at the University of British Columbia. Here is what Professor John Deutsch had to say about this idea of shifting from one traditional or well-established trading channel to another:
We want prosperity but we fear the American trade on which it's based. We can't have it both ways. We can either develop our country ourselves and accept a lower rate of growth and prosperity or else we must do business with the United States.
This proposal for a shift means taking business away from our best customer. We do not want to take business away from our best customer. We want to increase trade with Great Britain. There is no one in the house or in the country who does not want to do that. Our objective should be to sell as much as we can to the United States in return for which there must be purchases and at the same time to build up our total volume of trade with all commonwealth and other countries.
But we talk about unemployment. I live in a city where there are now over 14,000 men out of work. English automobiles can come into Canada free of duty. Canadian automobiles cannot now enter Great Britain free of duty. I do not say that this is a fully acceptable proposal but I say it is one which on its very face deserves careful examination. I do not believe that we are contributing to the economic strength of this nation by disturbing, on the basis of ill-considered consideration, important trading relations that amount to almost $4 billion in their totality.
I do not believe that we should overlook the statement of the president of the board of trade made the other day in the United Kingdom that he had grave doubts that it would be possible in the foreseeable future for Great Britain, in the face of great demands made on her by European countries, to sell goods to Canada in the amount suggested by this 15 per cent shift. But let us look at
the future. We hope to build in this country a growing nation giving added economic strength and well-being to our people, and one of the ways by which we are going to do that is not only to improve the domestic but also to improve the external market. And the United States is a very important market, no matter what anyone, for sentimental or other reasons, may think, as was stated the other day by the chancellor of the exchequer himself.
In 1956 our exports of goods and services to the United States amounted to nearly two-thirds of our total exports. While there will be fluctuations from time to time, it seems probable that over the long pull the United States will continue to require increasing quantities of our principal exports to that country-newsprint, lumber, nickel, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, iron ore, asbestos, gypsum and in the future we hope large quantities of oil and gas. These are the materials in which the United States sooner or later will be deficient and which we will have in abundance.
It seems likely, therefore, that not only will our exports to the United States increase considerably in absolute terms but that such exports may account for as much as 70 per cent or three-quarters of the total exports of this country in the years to come. The probability that our exports to the United States will increase is one of the important reasons why we can be optimistic about our long-term future prospects. Our access to the United States market, even though it is largely restricted to the export of raw materials and semi-processed goods, is the envy, as Prime Minister Menzies said, of most nations in the world.
We should remember that the considerable volume of Canadian exports to the United States is one of the great strengths in the Canadian economy and an important reason for our optimism about the long-term future. It seems to me that we should do nothing that would disturb this. That objective is not inconsistent with the broad intentions apparently in the minds of those who are charged with responsibility at the present time in the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister is one of those who strongly supported my colleague, the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), in his efforts to incorporate into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization article II, by which we sought to supplement military cooperation by economic co-operation among those countries who were the original signatories to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization itself. It seems to me that the policy of the government revealed by its

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin negative attitude to the British proposal, by the reckless manner in which it has made its own proposals, indicates that the government is not acting in a manner consistent with the declared purposes of the Prime Minister several years ago as to the great value of economic as well as political co-operation among the free nations of the world who are members of the defensive alliance which was established as the result of an effort to try to resist aggression from any quarter.
If my hon. friends are sincere about commonwealth trade why did the Prime Minister of this country, when Mr. Macmillan came to Ottawa, not take advantage of that opportunity at least to outline to him for the first time the nature of his own proposal for a 15 per cent shift? I asked the Prime Minister on Friday, the day Prime Minister Macmillian arrived, whether he would take advantage of Mr. Macmillan's presence in Ottawa over Friday night and Saturday to discuss further the details about the United Kingdom proposal for free trade and his own proposal for a 15 per cent shift. This was the reply of the man who speaks feverishly and sometimes almost with excessive emotion about what he is going to do for the commonwealth: "I will if there is time."
On the Monday after this visit, when the Prime Minister had conferred with the British prime minister, discussing, I know, very important matters which arose out of the discussions between the President of the United States and the prime minister of Great Britain, I asked the Prime Minister if he had taken advantage of the opportunity of the visit in Ottawa of the British prime minister to discuss with the latter his important proposal of a 15 per cent shift and the proposal put forward by Her Majesty's chancellor of the exchequer for a free trade area between Canada and the United Kingdom. This Prime Minister who, as I say, regards himself as a champion of commonwealth unity and is regarded as such now by a great section of the press in the United Kingdom, made the categorical answer to me: no.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have to accept the observations made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) that there are reasons for believing that political considerations had something to do with the claims made by hon. gentlemen opposite during the election campaign and with the statements they are now making about ways and means of improving our trade position with the United Kingdom and with other commonwealth countries. Let no one say that from my remarks it can be construed that we are not desirous of seeing trade promoted between this country and other common-
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).l
wealth countries. We recognize the need for a political community of interest and in this very difficult period we must acknowledge the need for an economic community of interest. But it is one thing to make a boast of intention and it is something else to give proper indication as to how that intention best can be fulfilled. I submit that, good as it may be and enjoyable as I am sure it will be, the delegation of 50 Canadian businessmen headed by my genial friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not going to bring about a revolution in the trade between the United Kingdom and this country.
By the way, in passing I should like to inquire why the automobile industry, one of the important sections of the industrial life of this community, is not represented in that delegation. The minister may have a good reason and I hope that at some time before he leaves for the United Kingdom he will tell us about this. But the house will recall that I asked him on several occasions whether he was going to the United Kingdom with this delegation and, if he went, whether he would discuss trade matters with his opposite numbers. While I do not remember the exact words he used, Hansard will bear me out when I say that his reply was to this effect, "Well, that would depend upon instructions I receive from my Prime Minister". Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why this government is floundering is that it is a do-it-yourself government. It is a government made up of a group of well-meaning individuals headed by a Prime Minister whose confidence in himself is such that he believes that he alone can make government pronouncements and that he alone can bring this nation back to economic safety and normalcy.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that the hon. member who is speaking has used more than 40 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Learn your rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is only one Speaker in this house.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: If I have done so, the Speaker will call my attention to the matter.
My final observation is this. The Prime Minister will be leaving in a short time to take part in important deliberations at NATO when the heads of the governments of all the free countries of NATO will gather for the purpose of further collaboration. He will find there, as he now knows, that that organization, contributed to so largely by my leader and by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), is one that is playing a

major part in the easing of international tension and is providing the west with security against the soviet union. He will find there that if nothing else was ever done by the administration which he has opposed so vigorously, the contribution made by the present Leader of the Opposition in the suggestion, along with others, for the establishment of NATO represents a contribution which justifies every Canadian, regardless of party, in saying at this time that Canada, in the middle of the twentieth century, through its government of the day, made a vital contribution to the peace of the world.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and I listened the other day with equal interest to a speech of the same length delivered by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson). I take it that the speech in each case was at least to some extent a pitch or a bid for the leadership of the Liberal party at their coming national convention. I am sure that anyone who heard both speeches, and who knew nothing else about the two hon. gentlemen, would have the greatest difficulty in deciding which one to support. Anyone listening to those two speeches would have even greater difficulty I am sure, in attempting to ascertain the trade policy if any, of the Liberal party at this time. Both speeches dealt with trade. We heard from them for a total of 80 minutes. While they suggested that the government's trade policy was not what it should be and that the government at times had made statements that were rather reckless and inopportune, one certainly could not criticize them for having stuck their necks out or for having provided any leadership in the way of suggesting a trade policy.
Another thing which I think was notably absent from the speech of the hon. member for Essex East was any reference to the speech made this morning and the amendment moved by his colleague the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix). Speaking as he did as a prominent member of his party following the the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment this morning, I would have thought that he might have placed on the record the official position, if there is one, of the Liberal party on this extremely important amendment. As far as we in this group are concerned, over the years we have always supported the idea and the principle that the time would arrive when Canada should have a distinctive Canadian flag. When we first supported that idea as a political party I am sure that it did not have the same general support across this country as it
The Address-Mr. Argue now has. It would seem that in 1957 the people of this nation, in a spirit of great unity, have come to support the idea of a distinctive and truly Canadian flag.
Many speeches have been made on this subject in the past. I think it is fair to say that all political parties have given support to this idea in one form or another. The former leader of the opposition Hon. George Drew in 1953 I believe made a very eloquent speech supporting the principle of a distinctive Canadian flag. We know that as far back as 1946 a special committee of this house did a great deal of work on this subject and made a report-I think it was almost unanimous- supporting a distinctive Canadian flag and contributing a suggestion for such a flag. I am not going to say at this time-indeed I am not sure-what type of design I would support myself, whether it be the exact design presented by that parliamentary committee or some other design. However, it seems to me that at this session of parliament we should be able to give some consideration to making a step forward towards the day that we have in this country a distinctive Canadian flag.
Towards the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I expect to move an amendment to the present amendment that is before the house. I am not quarrelling with the principle of the amendment but there is one part of it, as it now stands, which I think could be changed. The present amendment reads as follows:
We respectfully urge, however, that Canada should have a distinctive national flag and, in the opinion of this house, your most gracious Majesty's advisers should consider at once the advisability of taking steps to give to this country a truly Canadian flag.
We suggest that this amendment is asking the government itself to take these steps to provide a truly Canadian flag. We do not feel that this should be the prerogative of the government to decide precisely how it might best adopt for this nation a truly Canadian flag.
We feel that the question of arriving at a flag of a distinctive nature for Canada is something that is not a government measure but is something which should be reached by the agreement of all the major political parties in this house. We suggest that the government itself should not be making the decision but should be providing the means by which parliament, representative as it is of the Canadian nation, can make the decision. The amendment I shall move at a later time is as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the words "taking steps" and by substituting therefor the following words:

The Address-Mr. Argue
"to make it possible for parliament to reach an early decision with respect to a truly Canadian flag."
I would ask that the government and the house leader give consideration to this suggestion: that the form of this motion with a subamendment added thereto should not be taken in the spirit of being a want of confidence motion. The government should not consider that its own life as a government should be at stake in the vote on this resolution.


Ernest George Hansell: May I ask a question of the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sure he is aware of this but I will ask this as a question: is he aware that in 1946, I believe it was although it may have been 1947, that very thing was done by parliament and a special committee of parliament made recommendations to the government at that time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe the hon. member must have come in late; I referred to that in my opening remarks. I do not think there is anything I might add in answer to his question.


Ernest George Hansell: I just meant that the hon. member's amendment calls for something which has already been done.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: My understanding is that this has not been done but if the hon. member for Macleod wishes to give his opinion of what is the exact position in the country at this time we shall of course listen to that [DOT]opinion.
A committee made a recommendation and there the recommendation has remained ever since, and parliament itself has not followed through by adopting a distinctive Canadian flag. I would suggest to the leader of the house that this motion should not be considered by the government as a want of confidence motion.
We already have an important precedent in this respect on December 5, 1951 when a member of the government party at that time, Mr. A. J. Bater, then the member for The Battlefords, moved a subamendment to the address on the speech from the throne in these words:
That all the words in the amendment after the word "regrets" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops, and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby, and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems."

When the vote was taken on this subamendment and the amendment they were both carried and this addition was made to the speech from the throne. I would therefore suggest to the government on this important national issue which I suggest is not a partisan issue or an issue between or among the political parties of this country, the government should "take off the whips"- to use a suitable phrase-and allow a free vote of members of this house on a very important national question.
Last night I listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if before the hon. gentleman leaves that subject he will permit me to ask one question for the purpose of clarification. Does he understand the word "distinctive" to mean not including the emblem of any other country?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have already said-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do not evade the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I already said in my opening remarks that I was not advocating a flag of any particular design but was merely supporting, and I am sure this group is supporting the same principle, that it is time Canada had a truly distinctive flag.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Evasion.


Hazen Robert Argue: I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made last night by the Minister of Finance and in many respects in the things he said he blew rather hot at times and rather cold at others. One thing he did not seem to be able to make up his mind about was whether the government had sufficient confidence of this house, whether it had too much or too little confidence. In his remarks he chastised a member of the official opposition for being so anxious to get up and support the government with might and main. Towards the end of his speech he said "Give us the confidence and we will do the job".
That last reference looked to me like an admission, in view of the things he had to say in the opening part of his speech, that the government was terrified most of all of this one thing: that in the various votes the government might keep the confidence of the house and therefore have to deal now with the great national issues which face this country because, as I see the things the government has done so far, and they have been good in the main, they have not dealt with the root of the basic problems which face our country.
I agree with those who have said that within the period of eight weeks or, if you wish to take the full term of office of this

government within the period of five months, more has been accomplished than in any similar period for some years in the history of Canada. I say the fact that something more has been accomplished is an indication that the present position, where the government has a minority in this house, is the best goad there is for government action and the best assurance to the public of this nation that democracy is functioning in our country. I think when the vote is taken on the subamendment to which I have referred we shall then see to what extent this government believes in full democracy in parliament because I do not think it is necessarily the best thing that these great national issues should be decided by one party in the traditional sense that the Prime Minister makes up his mind, then there is cabinet solidarity and therefore party solidarity and, no matter what the issue, something is rammed through parliament which in many instances people do not like.
I remember last year as a member of a standing committee on agriculture, taking part in the great debate on payments for sheep-as to whether it was overpaid or not. I also remember sitting on many committees in this house where a pattern has been followed and if there was a controversial issue referred to the committee, that committee was used by a government with a majority of the members of the committee to stifle discussion and to prevent full consideration of the report. We suspected in many instances the reports were written not really by the committee but initially in the office of the minister of the department concerned, and the report was then handed to the members of the government party, that is to say the Liberal party, and the great "whitewash" took place.


Mr. Gardiner:: On a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. member is not attempting to apply all the words he has now used to the committee on sheep payments which met last session. On that occasion the decision was not prepared in the minister's office; it was drafted by one of the members of the C.C.F. party who sat on the committee, and supported unanimously, too.


Hazen Robert Argue: I can appreciate that there may be exceptions, and if something different was done in that case, it was the exception which proves the rule, because I have sat in so many of these committee meetings-committees of which the former minister has been a member, or whose proceedings he has watched from the bleachers because he was very much affected by the discussions-when a rubber-stamp report was made, a report which was not supported by anybody except members of the government.
The Address-Mr. Argue
Mr. Speaker, measures have been passed this session providing for cash advances, increases in old age pensions, blind persons' pensions, disability pensions, war veterans' allowances and so on; they have all been passed through their various stages. It would seem to me that people in the country generally feel that something is being accomplished in the present session of parliament, and accomplished with reasonable despatch; and they will not look kindly on a government which wants to duck some of the most important issues which face the country, and escape them, possibly by calling an election which, according to this morning's press, would cost almost $7 million on the basis of the cost of the last election.
We have heard a good deal from the Minister of Finance both in the course of his speech last night and through the answers he has given to questions asked in the house, and one of the questions most often asked of the minister was whether there would be a budget. I suspect now that there will be no budget introduced this session. I have heard many speeches by many ministers of finance in the past, but I have never heard a speech which was quite so reckless and irresponsible or so verbose as the speech delivered last night by the present minister.
I think that speech contained many statements which cannot be substantiated on a basis of fact. The minister made a statement which I felt was rather reckless when he said the threat on inflation in Canada had now been checked. He took that position because the cost of living index has appeared to level off to some extent, although it is still going up. To my mind, the figures provide no such indication; rather, they are an indication of a further loss of revenue to primary producers and a further reflection of the deterioration of the position of agricultural producers in this country. The daily bulletin put out by the dominion bureau of statistics relating to this increase in the cost of living from 123.3 to 123.4 had this to say:
In the current month a decline in the food index from 121.9 to 121.7 was not quite sufficient to balance increases in the other four component groups. Substantially lower prices were reported for pork, with lesser declines for beef, most fresh and canned fruits and vegetables, margarine, coffee and eggs.
There it is, the check to inflation which the Minister of Finance was talking about last night. Any check there is has been brought about mainly because the prices of pork, beef, fresh and canned fruits, vegetables and eggs have fallen. I do not think that is a situation with regard to which the government should feel much satisfaction. With

The Address-Mr. Argue regard to this suggested arrest of the inflationary spiral, we in this group have been asking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) what he intends to do about setting an adequate floor price for hogs. Mr. Speaker, if one was sitting in this house and did not know what changes had taken place, and was relying merely on the answers given by the present Minister of Agriculture and by his predecessor in office there would be no means of telling which one of them was replying.
Somebody in the Department of Agriculture is evidently good at statistics. If they cannot go back one year to prove things are not so bad, they go back two years or ten years or twenty years. Thus we have the spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture getting up and saying: do not blame us for what has happened since we took office, just relate the situation today to what it was a year ago. Even on that basis there is not too much for the government to be satisfied with, because the price of cattle has been softening. Our complaint about the price of hogs is that almost ever since this government took office this price has been dropping at a very rapid rate.
On June 22 this year, the day after the government took office, the price of hogs at Toronto, grade B-l dressed, was $31.50. For the week ending November 2, 1957 the price was down to $26.25, a drop of more than $5 a hundred. The price a year ago was not much different, but the price in the same period a year ago had increased from $27.50 on June 22 to $29.50 in November. That is what happened in the period of the summer and fall months last year. Hog prices stayed relatively stable in this country. What has happened since June 21? Hog prices have been fluctuating, but the trend has been downward; there has been a very substantial drop, and one hopes that in these circumstances the government will come forward with proposals to place an adequate floor price on hogs, and that it will not stand up, as its representatives have done in this house, and say: the old floor price has not yet been reached, so what are you complaining about? If all this government can do by way of price support legislation is to repeat the type of legislation which the former administration placed on the statute books, I think their support in rural Canada will not be any greater than it was during the time of the former administration.
The case of oats and barley provides another instance in which prices paid for agricultural products have fallen. The sale price of these products today is very little


higher than the initial price, two cents a bushel in the case of No. 1 feed barley and about seven cents in the case of No. 1 feed oats. This means that at this moment the Canadian wheat board in its oats and barley operation is almost certainly suffering a net loss. That in turn will mean no further interim payments, no further final payment and, in fact, it represents such a low selling price as will require moneys to be paid into the wheat board account from the national treasury. Is this the way to check inflation? I think the truth of the matter is that the threat of inflation has not been checked.
I note that an application was before the board of transport commissioners some weeks ago asking for a further 10 per cent increase in freight rates in this country. Would the Minister of Finance or any member of the government say that there would not be an increase in freight rates? Does the government suggest that a substantial increase in freight rates is not an inflationary move? I think it is. There have been recent increases in prices of farm machinery and automobiles; are these increases not considered inflationary? I think the very announcement made by the Minister of Finance last night to the effect that the bank rediscount rate and interest rates generally would probably soften and that we are going to move away from the tight money policy of the former administration is in itself an indication that inflation has not been checked. I think the Minister of Finance will have to withdraw that statement as the months go by because, as we see it, inflation is certain to continue under the policies of this administration.
The Minister of Finance is satisfied that he has dealt with inflation. He is satisfied also that the government has dealt with the trade problem in spite of the two speeches to which I have referred. Indeed, he seems satisfied that everything is being done to increase markets for Canadian products. Moreover, he seems most satisfied that everything that conceivably could be done to increase our export markets for grain has been done. On November 14, as reported at page 1162 of Hansard of that date, the Minister of Finance said:
-the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) has thrown into sound disposal policies with respect to that wheat an energy which has not been exhibited in that respect for many and many a year.
A little later he went on to say:
-in the matter of our trade undertakings we have fulfilled our undertakings to the letter.
I thought one undertaking of this government was to recover the overseas markets for agricultural products that had been lost.

The Minister of Finance tells us the government has accomplished its undertakings, yet we see a substantial fall in exports for Canadian agricultural products since this government took office.
I am now going to compare the exports of wheat in July of this year as compared with July of last year, July being the first full month in which this government was in office. Wheat exports dropped from 28 million bushels in July 1956 to 22i million bushels in July 1957, a decrease of 5J million bushels. In August this year our exports of wheat dropped by 3 million bushels compared to last year. There was a further drop of 3J million bushels in September this year as compared to the same month a year ago. The figures covering our barley exports for the same period indicate that there was a drop of 2 million bushels in July 1957 as compared to last year, a drop of 6 million bushels in August and a drop of 3 million bushels in September compared to the figures for the same months a year ago.
The government has been in office since June-not long it is true; not long in which to redirect new export policies-but the Minister of Finance stands up in the house and says that the undertakings of the government have been accomplished as far as international trade is concerned, and with the accomplishment of the undertakings of the government referred to by the minister we have witnessed an extremely drastic drop in export markets for wheat and barley. Is that the satisfactory situation for which the government now wishes to claim so much credit? As far as inflation and trade are concerned I think the government has a long way to go to solve these pressing problems.
There is something else which the government has not yet tackled. We heard from members over the years when they were in opposition the constant cry that there should be set up a committee of this house to examine into the question of defence expenditures but now that the situation is reversed the new government does not seem anxious to have such a committee established. We are all aware of the new state of defence in the world and the new potential threat created by the existence of sputniks. I think every hon. member of this house fully supports international co-operation amongst friendly nations for the maximum amount of defence that can be provided for the free nations and I think we all support the NATO provisions for defence. I think one can judge from what one reads in the press, that the NATO shield, as it is being called, and the NATO forces are sufficient, if war occurred, to wipe out the soviet union, as a military force, yes almost as a nation. I do not think there is any one in this house who
The Address-Mr. Argue believes that if such a war came we would not be wiped out too; so where do we go from here when each camp apparently has weapons of a type and in such quantity as to completely destroy its possible opponent?
The battle for men's minds still continues. It is still most important that we do everything we can in a practical way to ensure the maintenance of freedom throughout the world in those countries that enjoy political freedom and work to extend it; but I think the time has long since passed when we can say to ourselves that an expenditure of almost $2 billion on our current type of national defence provides real defence. A man of such prominence as Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds, the former chief of the general staff, has said that 80 per cent of our defence forces are obsolete. He said that the $200 million or $300 million that has been spent on the development of the CF-105 has been wasted, that the CF-105 is now a dead duck. What is this government doing? It says it is going to continue its development. When we asked to find out by way of a parliamentary committee whether a statement by a person of the prominence of Lieutenant-General Simonds is correct or not the government would not provide us with such a committee. We had hoped that this government would see the folly in putting all of our defence projects, or almost all of such eggs, in a military basket.
I had hoped the government would see the immediate necessity of making substantial increases in economic assistance to friendly nations, expanding the assistance given by Canada under the Colombo plan, not in a small meagre or mediocre way but under a great plan whereby Canada could lead the world in relation to its resources in the provision of economic and technical assistance to people in free nations. The government increased Canada's contribution under the Colombo plan; indeed the announcement was made the other day. It is no longer going to make the small contribution of $34,400,000; rather it is increasing its contribution to $35 million, less than a 2 per cent increase. The Colombo plan is designed to help lend economic assistance and technical development to the commonwealth countries and southeast Asia and I suggest it is there where the future course of democracy in the world will be decided in terms of whether it increases in strength or decreases.
My study of the program of the Nehru government suggests to me that India today is in a deep financial crisis. Earl Atlee, according to this morning's press, said that India has decided to use almost all of its sterling reserves in meeting the great economic crisis which faces that country. Are we going to do something now in a spectacular, dynamic

The Address-Mr. Green way to show the world that we mean business in economic assistance and in helping our fellow men?
The idea that I am about to present is not new; I presented it in the house on April 13, 1954. I said at that time I felt that the time had arrived when we should take $500 million out of our defence budget, being spent on armaments, and use it for economic assistance.
I believe my time is about up, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the words "taking steps" and by substituting therefor the following words:
"to make it possible for parliament to reach an early decision with respect to a truly Canadian flag".
I would go further, Mr. Speaker, and say that the Canadian people are prepared to provide economic assistance to underdeveloped countries not just by transferring the amount of money they have in a defence program now to some other program, but I believe the Canadian people are willing to pay the price and to pay the cost of providing our share of the economic assistance that may be necessary to see that friendly nations are able to maintain democracy in their countries.
I have been informed that recently the British labour party announced that if they are returned to power in the next election they would be prepared to take three per cent of the gross national product of Great Britain and use it for economic assistance to underdeveloped nations. I suggest that Canada should do the same thing; that $1 billion as a long-term investment program from Canada in a planned way is not too much to suggest as our share of the price that must be paid to see that democracy is retained in those parts of the world that now enjoy it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon it is my privilege to say a few words on behalf of the government in closing this throne speech debate. In the first place, may I say that we appreciate the suggestions and the criticisms-although they are a little harder to appreciate,-which have come our way in the course of this debate. After all, in a debate of this kind we have the democratic system at its best, and the debate has been an excellent one. We are particularly proud of the part which has been taken by the new members of our own party of whom we elected so many. We are fortunate in having, I think, a larger proportion of new members in the present house than any government has


had for some time. Without exception these young men have shown-I am sure everyone in the house will admit this-that they are deeply and genuinely interested in the welfare of the country and are not hesitant about making suggestions to their own ministers. That, of course, is as it should be.
We have before us at the moment an amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) which would add to the address the following words:
We respectfully urge, however, that Canada should have a distinctive national flag and, in the opinion of this house, your most gracious Majesty's advisers should consider at once the advisability of taking steps to give to this country a truly Canadian flag.
To that amendment the hon. member for Assiniboia has moved a subamendment this afternoon which deletes the words:
to give to this country a truly Canadian flagand substitutes:
to make it possible for parliament to reach an early decision with respect to a truly Canadian flag.
In moving this subamendment the hon. member directed some honeyed words to the government. He said: After all, this may be a vote of no confidence but, nevertheless, let us not treat it as such; let us just be on a friendly basis and forget all about this being a vote of no confidence. Well, he is a very experienced politician. He has been here for a long time and he knows just as well as I do, and as all the other members of the house do, that this amendment and the subamendment which have been moved today, if they were approved by the house would constitute a vote of no confidence, and for that reason they cannot be accepted by the government.
I agree that this flag question is a very important one; but I point out that the manner in which the issue has been brought before the house today is really ridiculous, It should never have been tossed into a debate of this kind. Other steps might have been taken by way of a motion, or something of that kind, so that the question could have been considered in the manner which it merits. It does merit the most careful consideration and that is absolutely impossible under the conditions in which this amendment has been moved today.
I should like to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He is a great admirer of minority government and why would he not be? Where the government of the country does not have a majority the members of his party believe that that gives them a chance to hold a gun at the head of the

government and say, "Here, you do what we want or we will pull the trigger". Now, this is just a splendid illustration of the futility of a four-party system in a democratic country. Our whole system of government is based on the government of the day having the responsibility of giving leadership to the Canadian people.


Mr. Ellis:: Let us have it.


Howard Charles Green: That responsibility can only be assumed where the government has a majority. If we are to have in Canada perpetually a system under which two small parties are able to hold up the government of the day, then government in this country will have reached a sad state.


An hon. Member:: Who is holding you up?


Howard Charles Green: Like everyone else in the present house, the members of the government are making the best of a situation which is really not in the best interests of democracy in Canada. I am afraid we cannot agree with the proposal that for all time the government of Canada should be in a minority. Then he rather amused me by the vehemence with which he attacked the Liberals for their criticism of us for being so slow in doing the things the Liberals thought should be done. The Liberals were unreasonable. The Conservative government had worked faster than any other government for years and deserved great credit. Why were they being criticized by these wicked Liberals?
But when he came to the latter part of his speech and the subjects in which he was interested, the government had been terribly slow, they had dragged back, they were not doing this, that and the other thing. Why did they not hurry up? Everything was wrong. Now, he cannot have it both ways.


An hon. Member:: You don't know them.


Howard Charles Green: Either what he said first is right, that we are getting along fairly well and are meeting these problems fairly promptly or else we are not getting along at all. I think that in his less forensic moments he will agree that his first statement was the more accurate one and that the present Conservative government actually has moved and is moving to settle the problems facing this country more rapidly than any government of Canada has done for many a long year.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is impossible to go as slow as the Liberals.


Howard Charles Green: I urge him to show a little patience. We will get around to all the problems that deserve to be settled in anything like the way he suggests. Do not be in too big a hurry.
The Address-Mr. Green
Then, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all find it very difficult to know just what value to place on the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) at this session of parliament. One minute I think, well now, he really means that, he is really advocating that policy, and then the next minute I think, now he is imagining he is standing up in the coliseum in Ottawa on January 16 and pleading for votes for Martin. It is very hard to divide these two attitudes. I really do not think they can be divided. I think they are all mixed up and that for the remainder of the session we will just have to take his remarks with a grain of salt and wish him good luck in this great competition.
He waxed eloquent on quite a number of different subjects. One was unemployment. He almost got around to criticizing the tight money policy which his own government adopted but he did not quite get that far. You know, Mr. Speaker, he reminded me of the slogan which was painted on billboards all over the country, "Vote for Canada, vote Liberal"-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: -as if the Liberal party were the only party that could govern Canada. What a myth that was!


John Whitney Pickersgill: Wait and see.


Howard Charles Green: And yet he is still labouring under the delusions which he had before June 10. The Canadian people took a part in these questions, you know-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Most of them voted for us.


Howard Charles Green: -just a few short months ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Most of them voted for us.


Howard Charles Green: Now the hon. member and his fellow Liberals are sitting to His Honour's left. They have lost half of their leaders. Half of their cabinet is gone. These are things which happened in Canada this summer but I do not believe the hon. member for Essex East has awakened to that fact yet. He said today that the prestige of Canada has fallen since the Liberal government went out of office. The only thing that has fallen since the Liberal government went out of office is the Liberal party, and it has fallen with a real thud. But the fact is that the prestige of Canada never stood higher in the world than it does today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what he said.

The Address-Mr. Green


Howard Charles Green: That is not a matter of parties, and it is very unfair and unwise for an experienced member of the house-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question of privilege. No hon. member has the right to say of another that he took a particular position if that hon. member denies it. I did not say that at the present time Canada's prestige was not high. I said Canada's prestige at the present time was high because of the government headed by the right hon. gentleman who is the Leader of the Opposition.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is saying what I indicated in slightly different words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh no, not at all. The usual distortion.


Howard Charles Green: I repeat that the fact is that the prestige of Canada has never been higher.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: To turn to the question of the commonwealth, the hon. member for Essex East ridiculed the part taken by the present government in the commonwealth conference. I have sat in the house for 22 years and have watched the reaction of leaders of the Liberal party to commonwealth matters. On every occasion they have gone to commonwealth conferences determined that they would not give any leadership at those conferences. They would attend all right but they were oh so careful never to put themselves in a position of giving any leadership.
In 1957 the new Prime Minister went to the United Kingdom just two days after his government had been sworn in and he gave leadership at that conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What leadership?


Howard Charles Green: He gave that leadership because his thoughts and his heart were in that direction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Mr. Hodgson:: Oh, sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman suggest on what particular subject the Prime Minister gave leadership at London, because the communique indicated that he did not talk about trade?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there is another example-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Answer the question.


Howard Charles Green: -of the same kind of attitude taken by the hon. member for Essex East. What the Prime Minister did was to go to London determined to give leadership to the commonwealth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What kind of leadership?


Howard Charles Green: There was such a difference shown in the attitude of the man who attended this conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read us the Globe and Mail on Thorneycroft.


Howard Charles Green: I will come to trade in a minute. I do not believe any fair-minded Canadian would deny that the attendance of Canada's Prime Minister at this conference in 1957 has been one of the greatest contributions to commonwealth unity that has ever been made by any Canadian.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about Mr. Thorney-croft's visit to Ottawa?


Howard Charles Green: You see the splendid results in so many directions.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Where?


Howard Charles Green: You would not be able to see it if I told you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not tell us and find
out?


Howard Charles Green: Then the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) ridiculed the efforts of the present government to increase trade with the other commonwealth countries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We merely asked questions.


Howard Charles Green: Of course they were never interested in commonwealth trade. Year in and year out we have pleaded in this house for Canada to take some steps to promote greater commonwealth trade but never was a move made in that direction. The hon. member for Essex East forgot all about that this afternoon when he soared in those flights of oratory of his. That has been the attitude taken by the Liberal government here for many long years. After all, this trade conference has not yet been held. To hear the hon. member for Essex East one would think that the trade conference had already been held and that it was a great failure,-something which pleased him very much-and that the responsibility for that failure rested entirely on the present Canadian Prime Minister. What are the facts?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; what are the facts?


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister of Canada was able to arrange for the calling of a preliminary conference to plan for a full-scale trade conference which is to take place

next year. That was a worth-while accomplishment. Many people were convinced that it could not be done. Nobody was more hopeful that it could not be done than were the senior Liberals sitting across from me today.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: May I ask the
minister a question?


Howard Charles Green: Surely.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I wonder whether my hon. friend, who is in such a delightfully happy and friendly mood today, could give us the agenda of the proposed commonwealth conference which is to be held?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, did you ever hear a more foolish question? Now I know he will never win that leadership. This economic and trade conference is to take place next year. I suggest to these Jeremiahs across the way that they forget trying to wish it into failure and that they do what they can to make it a great success. If they believe in promoting commonwealth trade half as much as the hon. member for Essex East tried to tell us today, I am sure they will all accept my suggestion.
Then he complained at considerable length about an attempt being made to shift Canada's purchases from the United States. He tried to strengthen his argument on that point by dealing with exports from Canada to the United States and in so doing I thought he was drawing a rather long bow. The actual fact is-and the hon. member for Essex East knows it very well-that last year the adverse trade balance against Canada in her trade with the United States was over $1,200 million or over $100 million a month. But the Liberal government, before the election, was not a bit interested in that matter. Right Hon. C. D. Howe said it was a good thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So it was.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian people decided that question, just as they decided several other questions, on June 10. I am really amazed that the hon. member for Essex East would rise in his place today and make a speech in which he criticized the present government for trying to get that adverse trade balance reduced. It is things of this sort that make one place little value on his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste all of my time on those two hon. members.


James Sinclair: You have so far.


Mr. Mclvor:: Are you wasting it?


Mr. Stick:: You waste time on more than that.
The Address-Mr. Green


Howard Charles Green: After all, the main subject for debate should be the speech from the throne. I am going to presume on the good nature of the house by reading again just one paragraph from an article written for the Vancouver Sun by our old friend Elmore Philpott who sat here during the last parliament and who is now with us in the press gallery. Mr. Philpott never made any attempt to hide the fact that he is an ardent Liberal. In this report written to his paper after the commencement of the present session, he had this to say under the heading "Keeping Faith":
Ottawa-The 1957 speech from the throne is an historic document for several reasons. But the one which means most to the people of Canada is that the Conservatives have spectacularly kept their main election promises.
And may I say that every word of this is true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: The article continues:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has not only itemized the main points on which he was morally bound to take action at this session, but he has also outlined intended action on several other matters which he might well have postponed for the future without giving justification for the cry of bad faith.
The whole country, regardless of party preference, should be delighted to see this proof that the old party of Sir John A. Macdonald has thus demonstrated that its official title of "Progressive Conservatives'' has taken on new meaning for the whole Canadian nation.
How could the present government have a finer endorsation than the one I have just read?
I need only remind hon. members that the house has already enacted legislation to provide for cash advances on farm-stored grain, has already increased the payments under the Old Age Security Act, has made possible increased payments under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act an the Disabled Persons Act, and has increased the benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act. These are all bills which have already been passed by this house, and some of them have received royal assent.
Other measures on the order paper are the bill to provide annual vacations with pay for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses; a bill to amend the Pension Act which has already passed the resolution stage; a resolution preceding a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities; and a resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the construction of a branch line for the Canadian National Railways. These are measures actually passed or in the process of being passed by this

The Address-Mr. Green house, in most cases implementing the campaign promises made by the Conservative party.
Yesterday announcement was made of a policy which will implement the paragraph in the speech from the throne dealing with power in the Atlantic provinces.
We have acted in other fields as well.
When we came into office we found that as a result of deliberate policy pursued by the former government the construction of homes in Canada had dropped off to an alarming degree. That was a tragedy, not only for the young people and other Canadians who needed homes of their own or needed homes to rent but for the building industry of Canada and other connected industries such as the suppliers of furniture and all the articles that go with the building of a home. In that particular field, when we took over, there was rapidly developing a spirit of defeatism which might very well have cast a great shadow over the national economy in the months that lay ahead. Fortunately it was not necessary for us to have legislation in order to do something to meet that situation and we decided that $150 million should be made available for the construction of lower priced homes in Canada. That was being done by means of what are known as agency loans where the government puts up the money and the loans are made through the banks and other lending institutions.
We were not absolutely sure that such a plan would be successful but we have been very gratified by the results. I have before me the figures up to November 8 last, which was only nine weeks after the plan really came into effect, and at that time loans had been approved to the amount of $93,309,331 for a total number of units of 9,995. In addition to those loans which had been approved there were in process of approval loans amounting to another $35,710,000 making a total of $129,019,331. That means that the money is rapidly being used up and I may say that if there is a need for an additional amount under the scheme the government will be taking steps to meet that situation. There has been some holding back and there have been some difficulties with respect to the Atlantic provinces. In that area, as of the end of last week, there had been only 201 units covered by loan but that figure did not include applications which had not yet been approved. The money committed to these loans in the Atlantic provinces totalled $1,712,232.66. There had also been some delay in the province of British Columbia, but in that province the situation is much better than formerly and the figures for British

Columbia as of the end of last week were 466 units for a total value of $3,988,089.11.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Pretty good Liberal
legislation.


Howard Charles Green: No; it may have been good Liberal legislation but the former government did not do anything about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How ridiculous can you get?


Howard Charles Green: The former government was deliberately-I repeat, deliberately-holding back construction of homes in Canada at the time it went out of office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Utter nonsense.


Howard Charles Green: And if it had been re-elected on June 10 this housing situation in Canada today would have been-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Much better.


Howard Charles Green: -very very bad. This is only one example of the way in which the present government is trying to meet the conditions which face the Canadian people. There are various problems coming up from time to time, problems which are under consideration every day. However we are trying to deal with them as they arise. I suppose it is too much to expect that we would get much credit for these things from any of the opposition parties in the house. Perhaps it would be expecting too much of human nature.
In closing I would like to point out this fact: this government has been in office less than five months. I think we have already shown we are endeavouring to give leadership to the Canadian people and I believe the Canadian people are fair enough and reasonable enough to realize that fact, no matter how much abuse we might get from the other side of the house.
We have listened for years to the talks from your right, Mr. Speaker, in earlier parliaments that no one could run the country but the Liberal party since they were the only truly national party.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear. That is right.


Howard Charles Green: How hard it would be for them to explain that statement today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: We will explain it.


Howard Charles Green: Theirs was the only truly national party; there were no men or women anywhere else in Canada who could run this country; just those people sitting to your right.


An hon. Member:: That is being proven every day.


Howard Charles Green: It was the same story in the press. I think they almost had the press gallery convinced that it would be disastrous if Canada were ever to do away with the Liberal government. It looked at times as if they were here for a thousand years; I must admit I sometimes felt that myself. But what happened when the electorate of Canada decided it was time for a change? A change was made. Of necessity new men and women had to take on the responsibility of leadership and the members of the present government have done that. None of the members of the present government had ever been in a cabinet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not correct; how about the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne)?


Howard Charles Green: Oh yes of course. After we had been sworn in at Government House, an announcement was made by the clerk of the privy council as follows: "Now gentlemen there will be a meeting of the cabinet at 2.30 this afternoon", and one of the new ministers remarked, very wisely so, "and will you please tell us how to get there?"


George Carlyle Marler: Is this a cabinet secret the hon. member is divulging?


Howard Charles Green: However, we found out
the extent of the services which were available to cabinet ministers, how they could press a button and have a prepared speech on any subject on their desks in half an hour. We realized just what a lot of nonsense this story was that members of the former cabinet were supermen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman tell us who prepared this one?


Howard Charles Green: Really, Mr. Speaker, all the
members of the former cabinet had to do- and the same applies to members of this cabinet if they wish to follow the practice- was to get up and read something on a sheet of paper. This practice was followed quite frequently by former ministers and, in fact, we had quite a bit of it from the hon. member for Essex East this afternoon, but no doubt he got into that bad habit while he was a member of the government.
I should like to say this before I close: We have had the finest assistance from the members of the Canadian civil service. I know the former ministers will agree with these comments. These men and women are in the civil service as a career; it is their life. They have been supported for many years now by leaders of all the parties; all the leaders of all the parties since Sir Robert Borden introduced the merit system about the time of the first world war. They have stood firmly behind that system. Today Canada has reaped her
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent reward from that policy. Here we had these senior civil servants-I do not suppose one of them had ever been in a senior position except under a Liberal minister-and yet these men and women have served us devotedly. They really have rendered a great service for Canada. I hope-I am sure-that it will always be possible for Canada to keep a civil service of that type.
Mr. Speaker, the time has practically gone and we must vote on these amendments. I repeat once again, for the benefit of those who were not here when I began my remarks, that this amendment and the subamendment would, if endorsed, mean that this house is voting no confidence in the present government. No matter what attempt may be made to picture them as something else, that is what they actually are. If one of them were to be adopted by this house, that vote would constitute a vote of non-confidence in the present administration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think there are still two minutes before the time at which you will be required by the rules of the house to put the question. We have heard a speech, very amusing in parts, from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), but there are realities which we have to face and which, I am sure, he and his colleagues are prepared to continue to face as a result of June 10.
The hon. gentleman has said that it is not very comfortable to be a member of a government which does not have a majority in the House of Commons. But that is the situation which arose as a consequence of the election of June 10, and it was under those conditions that the former government resigned and the hon. gentleman's leader accepted the responsibility of forming a cabinet. It is that situation which we have faced since parliament met on October 14.
We declared that we would not obstruct the government in its efforts to implement the promises it had made during the election campaign, and I declared in my first remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne that it was not our intention this session to move an amendment to the motion for an address, and that having come to that conclusion it was not our intention to support amendments made from any other quarter of the house, because there could be only one of two consequences; if the amendment carried the government would be defeated and would be prevented from putting before parliament the legislation
1212	HOUSE OF
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent required to implement its election promises, and we did not feel that was what the Canadian public wished to have done at this time.
That situation still persists, and we are not disposed to support these amendments which would in constitutional practice amount to a no-confidence motion. We will, following their rejection, as I expect they will be rejected, not oppose the main motion to express thanks to our gracious sovereign for having opened this session of parliament. But our concurrence in that address will not mean more than our undertaking to give serious consideration to all the measures which the government will bring before parliament under the terms of the speech with which Her Gracious Majesty opened the present session.


Harold Edward Winch: Just what are you applauding, may I ask?


Mr. Speaker:: It being 5.30 o'clock p.m. it is my duty pursuant to section 4 of Standing Order 38 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: That the said address be engrossed and forwarded to Her Majesty the Queen.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General praying that His Excellency will be pleased to transmit to Her Majesty the Queen an engrossed address which the Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, adopted in reply to Her Majesty's speech at the opening of the first session of the twenty-third parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: That the address to His Excellency the Governor General, adopted this day, be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention next week to have a supply motion and then we should like to have estimates on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. In order to do that it will be necessary to get unanimous consent to drop the first Thursday which is allotted for private members, and I would ask leave of the house to revert to motions.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question first? Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the motion to go into supply on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. I would ask leave of the house to revert to motions in order to move a motion by unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTION TO SUSPEND STANDING ORDER 15 (3) FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21

Howard Charles Green: By unanimous consent I move:
That, on Thursday next, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 15 (3), government orders shall have precedence over all other business, except the ordinary daily routine of business.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder whether the house leader would indicate what departments will be opened at the conclusion of the supply motion that will be presented on Monday? Would he also indicate what departments it would be proposed to discuss in committee of supply on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week? Perhaps while I am on my feet I might ask whether he could give any further indication as to the plans for a day's debate on external affairs.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we are in the course of discussions between the parties in the hope that it will not be necessary to have six supply motions. If an agreement can be reached to that effect, we would ask to have more than six departments put in on Monday or Tuesday, whenever the motion to go into supply happens to be adopted. At the present time I cannot say with certainty that there would be no changes in this plan. The present intention is to call the department of the Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough) which I think will be discussed first. As hon. members know, the Secretary of State
is a lady and we thought that the lady should be first. Then it is the intention to call fisheries, mines and technical surveys, justice, veterans affairs and external affairs, but not necessarily in that order, apart from the first department I mentioned. Possibly the week after next we can arrange for a one-day debate on external affairs in order that those estimates may be sent to the standing committee on external affairs.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask the house leader a further question on the business. Could the house leader say whether it is the intention of the government fairly soon to move the resolution dealing with price support legislation for agricultural products? I thought that this was one of the pieces of legislation that was considered to be of an emergency character and that it would be brought forward soon.


Howard Charles Green: I think so, Mr. Speaker; but I am really not in a position this afternoon to say just when that would be done.


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

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

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What is the total amount spent to date by the national defence department for the construction and operation of Camp Gagetown?
2.	What is the total amount spent by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide accommodation for personnel, etc., at Camp Gagetown or at Oromocto, New Brunswick?
3.	How many men were trained at Camp Gagetown during the 1957 season?
4.	How many are expected to be training at Camp Gagetown during 1958 according to the program actually laid out by the national defence department?
5.	How many civilians are presently employed in connection with the maintenance of Camp Gagetown?
[For amended answer see pages 1318-19.]
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
(Insofar as D.N.D. is concerned):
1.	Total amount spent by D.N.D. for construction and maintenance of Camp Gagetown-$91,221,143.
2.	To be answered elsewhere (Department of Public Works).
3.	Approximately 10,400.
4.	It is estimated that 4,400 regular army personnel will undergo training at Camp Gagetown during 1958. An additional 2,500 vacancies will be allotted to militiamen for an attachment of one week's training with the regular army.
5.	As of 31 October, 1957-149.


NO. 5 R.C.A.F. DEPOT, MONCTON
Mr. Murphy (Westmorland): 1.	How many civilians are presently employed at No. 5 R.C.A.F. depot, Moncton, New Brunswick?
2.	How many were employed as of November 1, 1956?
3.	Has there been any reduction in staff since July 1, 1956?
4.	Is there a proposed reduction in staff planned in the near future?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	521.
2.	545.
3.	Yes.
4.	The number of civilians employed at national defence establishments is adjusted as required to meet changes in workload.
Questions


FRUIT AND VEGETABLE GROWERS, OKANAGAN VALLEY
Mr. Christian: 

ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA


Mr. Fisher: 1.	What companies supplied engineering services to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, during the fiscal years ending March, 1956, and March, 1957?
2.	What was the amount, by company, of these services?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1 and 2:
LISTING OF COMPANIES SUPPLYING "ENGINEERING SERVICES" TO ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED DURING THE TWO YEARS ENDED 31ST MARCH, 1957, TOGETHER WITH AMOUNTS PAID FOR THESE SERVICES * Those marked with an asterisk include cost of manufacturing as well. No breakdown of these accounts to determine the engineering services component is possible.
Company
Aeroprojects Incorporated	
Aluminium Laboratories Limited	
Aluminium Company of Canada Limited	
American Machine and Foundry Company...
Atlas Steels Limited	
Branson Instruments Inc	
C. D. Howe Company Limited	
Canadair Limited	
Canadian Aero Service Limited	
Canadian General Electric Co. Limited...
Canadian Hanson and Van Winkle	
Canadian Westinghouse Company Limited...
Computing Devices of Canada Limited	
Dobush and Stewart-	
E. B. Allen Inspection Limited	
Ecole Polytechnique	
Electronic Associates Limited	
Ferranti Electric Limited	
Giffels and Vallet	
High Voltage Engineering Corporation	
J. L. de Stein-J. O. McCutcheon, Consulting
Engineers	
John Inglis Company Limited	
M. H. Dineen and Associates Limited	
Montreal Engineering Company Limited	
National Carbon Company	
National Research Council	
Nuclear Metals Inc	
Ontario Research Foundation	
Permutit Company of Canada Limited	
Quann, Carruthers, King and Quan	
Racey, MacCallum and Associates Ltd	
Sorel Industries Limited	
Standard-Modern Tool Company Limited.... The Shawinigan Engineering Co. Ltd	
Description of work
Ultrasonic welding of flux detectors	
Work on special aluminum alloys	
Engineering development of extrusion cladding	
Developing, designing and manufacturing of shut off rod control mechanism.
Rolling tests on zircaloy 2 metal	
Thickness survey	
Design and supervision of construction of NRU reactor as per contract dated
1st January, 1951	; [DOT]
Design and fabrication of pool test reactor and of Beta Ray spectrometer coils;
design of vacuum chamber, etc	
Aerial land survey	;	: [DOT]
Design of nuclear pow'er demonstration reactor and engineering services dealing
with pressure tube insulation	
Electroplating uranium flats	
Design and development work on loops for NRU reactor and research and
development on beryllium	
Development of 100 channel kicksorter	
Design of plant cafeteria and of decontamination building	
Inspection of certain development contracts	
Elastic stress tests on calandria model	
Development of halogen tubes	
Design and development of control equipment for NRU reactor and study of
address selection for kicksorter system	
Design of pool test reactor building, plutonium alloy fuel fabrication facilities, dissolver for radioactive materials, fuel element storage and handling
facilities	
Design and fabrication of tandem van de Graaff accelerator	
Analysis of structural capacity of shielded rooms	
Design and development of control rods for NRU reactor	
Survey of water and sewage systems	
Services relating to nuclear power plant feasibility study	
Supply and machining of graphite	
Design of control gear and test on Calandria Model	
Development of enriched fuel elements by co-extrusion	
Water lubrication tests	
Water treatment	
Study of the ventilation of Chemical Engineering Building	
Inspection and quality control of components for NRU Reactor	
Design and development connected with control rods for NRU Reactor	
Design bar feed mechanism	
Canada-India Reactor Project	
Amounts paid
Year ended 31st March, 1956
Year ended 31st March, 1957
Total
for
2 years
16,816
45,580
32,009
340
1,184,007
89,371
2,304
86,608
3,512
4,325
3,068
1,962
98,875
18,802
15,000
277,213
1,911
2,841
4,925
54,605
7,438
14,510
2,768
556,557
13,278
132,743
2,672,577
47,484
11,940
1,108,497
303,656
445,874
3,665
431,643
41,825
31,545
314,259
65,703
267,330
63,897
2,940
77,061
18,950
458,574
551,728
4,247,111
540 16,816 93,064 43,949 130 340
2,292,504
393,027
2,304
445,874
3,665
518,251
41,825
35,057
4,325
3,068
1,962
413,134
84,505
282,330
341,110
4,851
2,841
81,986
54,605
18,950
7,438
14,510
2,768
1,015,131
13,278
684,471
6,919,688
1216	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Inquiries of the Ministry



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
1.	Emergency hospitalization or medical and 4. Medical-welfare agreements.
dental care.	The federal government has concluded
This assistance may be granted to immi- medical-welfare agreements with the prov-grants while en route to their destination if, inces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskat-of course, they are without sufficient funds chewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Newfound-and lack the necessary assets to cover the land, and also the Northwest Territories. The cost involved. The Department of National agreements provide for welfare assistance in Health and Welfare assumes the responsibility varying degrees, as well as hospital expenses, for the payment of the accounts of emergency for a period of 12 months, to immigrants hospitalization and for emergency medical and rendered indigent through accident or illness dental care. Hospital authorities, doctors and during their first year in Canada. The federal dentists submit their accounts to the authoriz- government has also concluded an agreement ing immigration officer who certifies accounts with the government of Nova Scotia which and transmits to national health and welfare covers hospitalization and expenses incidental for payment.	thereto. The federal government and the pro-
2.	Emergency transportation assistance.	yincial government concerned share equally. .	.	the cost of assistance granted under the termsThis assistance is given as a means to of the agreements. The provincial health or ensure that immigrants are placed in gainful welfare authorities are responsible for deemployment as quickly as possible following termining eligibility for assistance of any eir arrival. It is extended to those who immigrant claiming aid under the agreements, do not have sufficient funds to pay their Federal responsibility for the administration transportation expenses to a suitable locale of the agreements is vested in the Department of employment. Emergency transportation of citizenship and Immigration, and the pro-assis ance is requested on form Imm. 397 vincia2 governments submit their claims for which indicates the transportation required 0ne-half the expenses incurred to this and is presented to the transportation com- department, pany. On receipt of the transportation com-	.pany's invoice it is certified by the district 5' 7fami y assistancesuperintendent or officer in charge and sub- Family assistance is a grant, on behalf of mitted to the chief treasury officer for children (immigrants' or settlers'), and pay-payment to the transportation company. a^e to	Parents' designed to assist the
family in becoming established during the
3.	Emergency food and shelter.	first year after their admission or return to
The department has authority to provide Canada for permanent residence when they
food and shelter for immigrants who, through are not normally eligible for family allow-no fault of their own, require such assistance ances. It is payable on behalf of children of during their first year in Canada. After the immigrants and settlers (settlers include first year immigrants are normally eligible Canadian citizens and returning residents), for provincial or municipal welfare assist- legally admitted to Canada for permanent ance. Emergency food and shelter assistance residence, provided they are not eligible for is authorized in the form of a voucher on family allowances, and in the case of Cana-Imm. 428 and presented to the landlord or dian citizens and returning residents they store by the immigrant. The landlord or store have not previously received family assist-owner concerned certifies that the goods or ance in respect of the child/children being services have been provided and returns the applied for. It is payable at the end of each Imm. 428 together with the supporting quarter, at the rate of $5 per month for vouchers to the immigration officer, where it each eligible child from April 1, 1956, or from is checked and certified and returned to the the date of admission or return whichever is chief treasury officer for payment by cheque, the later date, until a period of 12 months
1218	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry has elapsed from the date of admission or return. Eligibility for payment lapses unless application for family assistance is submitted prior to the termination of one year's residence in Canada. It is not payable during residence outside of Canada. Application forms are available at immigration offices throughout Canada and are given to new arrivals at ports of entry. Family assistance cheques payable to the mother or guardian are issued by the chief treasury officer in quarterly payments.
6.	Assisted passage.
The purpose of the assisted passage loan scheme is to assist suitable immigrants in financing the cost of their transportation to Canada. The loans are interest-free and are available to cover the cost of transportation for dependants as well as for the working
[Stage Direction]
head of the family in cases where this financial assistance is necessary, and also to residents of Canada who are anxious to bring their dependants, i.e. wives and unmarried minor children, to this country but do not have sufficient funds to cover the passage cost. Residents of Canada may apply at the nearest immigration office. Application may be made overseas at the Canadian immigration office in the country of the prospective immigrant's residence. Assisted passage loans are issued in the form of a transportation warrant Imm. 500 which are exchanged by the transportation company for steamship or air passage tickets which include inland transportation. The transportation company forwards to the chief treasury officer an invoice accompanied by the original Imm. 500 and is reimbursed by the chief treasury officer.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 18, 1957